2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 9

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Claude Richmond

T. Lake

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rick Dowling

R. Chouhan

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Filipino community in B.C.

M. Elmore

Bombing of Air India flight

D. Hayer

PoCoMo Youth Services Society

D. Thorne

History of Strathcona Provincial Park

D. McRae

Windermere school organic garden and cosmetic pesticide petition

A. Dix

Tabor Home Society

J. van Dongen

Oral Questions

Implementation of harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

D. Black

M. Farnworth

South Fraser perimeter road project

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Bond

Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Cosmetic use of pesticides

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Penner

Petitions

A. Dix

S. Fraser

D. Routley

J. Kwan

Statements

Portuguese Heritage Month

D. Hayer

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

A. Dix

T. Lake

B. Simpson

Hon. R. Hawes

J. Horgan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Reporting of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Supply Act, 2010-2011

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Supply Act, 2010-2011

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Supply Act, 2010-2011

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Supply Act, 2010-2011

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

Bill 7 — Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 8 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act

Bill 13 — Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act

Bill 19 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2010

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010

Bill 21 — Forestry Service Providers Protection Act

Bill Pr401 — Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

Bill Pr402 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 22 — Supply Act, 2010-2011

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

L. Krog

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Karagianis

K. Corrigan

[ Page 6217 ]

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: I'd like to welcome to the House Stewart Finney and Jean Cumberback, who are good personal friends. They've never been to the Legislature before, and they live right here in Oak Bay. So please welcome to the House Stewart and Jean.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce two important guests here, Dr. Julio Montaner and Irene Day, two former colleagues, and that's not what makes them outstanding. Dr. Julio Montaner, as many of you know, is the centre director for the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, and Irene Day is the chief of operations there.

[1335]

Many of you know the centre and Dr. Montaner for his internationally renowned research on HIV/AIDS, most recently his work on treatment as prevention, which has been supported by this government and is being adopted internationally. So will the House please make them welcome.

N. Macdonald: A few weeks ago, in preparation for their trip here, I was a guest at Columbia Park Elementary School in the beautiful city of Revelstoke. We talked about what takes place in the Legislature here, and I found that they already had a very good knowledge of what took place. They're certainly wonderful representatives of their school and community.

I would like to introduce to the House 36 students from Columbia Park, as well as seven parents and teachers, including educators Shan Jorgenson-Adam, Patti Matsushita as well as Catherine Lavelle. Will members join me in making them welcome to the House.

R. Cantelon: If you will indulge me, Mr. Speaker, with the House, I have a couple of introductions to make. Firstly, the CEO and directors of Nanaimo Airport are here, Cassidy Airport: Mike Hooper, the CEO; Dixon Kenny, a board member; and Al Tully, a director.

Since the expansion of the runway and the installation of new electronic equipment there hasn't been a single loss to weather, which is a notable thing for Nanaimo, since February of this year. It's an outstanding achievement, and they're building a new airport. Please make them welcome.

If I may make a second and then, perhaps, even a third introduction, we have children from Aspengrove School here with one of the directors and founders of the school, Drew Digney. Please make them welcome. They're here to observe us today.

Then lastly, and I won't do it by name, the very able and competent legislative assistants to the Liberal caucus are watching us in the gallery to cheer us on during question period, and I'm sure they'll be heartily entertained.

D. Black: I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce a very good friend of mine from New Westminster. Her name is Mary Ross. She's very active in our community in Century House. She is also on the New Westminster heritage committee and is a great example of active senior life for all British Columbians.

With her today is her son, Andy Ross, who is the president of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, and also her daughter, Sue, who is travelling here from Tasmania, Australia, and searching out educational opportunities for her son in British Columbia. So I would ask everyone in the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: A couple of days ago I had the pleasure of dining with this year's group of legislative interns. They are an outstanding group of young people, and they have, as my colleague said, been serving this Legislature very ably now for a few months. It is, I think, a very good time to acknowledge them.

I had the pleasure of dining with them because I think they were curious to see what they might look like 35 years after they were legislative interns.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yeah, they'll look way better; that's for sure.

The program has been in existence now for 35 years. I had the honour of being part of the inaugural group of legislative interns. We were, of course, primary school students at that point in time. The age of the interns has gotten older over the years.

I want to introduce them, because they very ably serve both sides of the House. They include Ron Ahluwalia, Kristopher Henderson, Mark Hosak, Caitlin O'Brien Meggs, Kate McBride, Rahim Mohamed, Whitney Punchak, Angie Riano and Lindsay Walton.

They have done a great job, but I think one of the reasons why the legislative internship program has been such a success for such a long period of time is that we have very capable program direction through Karen Aitken, currently, and the academic director, my old friend Paddy Smith from Simon Fraser University.

They've all done a great job, and I want to again reiterate the comments of our caucus chair and say thank you very much to all of the legislative interns for a terrific job in 2010. Thank you very much.

[1340]

[ Page 6218 ]

J. Horgan: I want to echo the comments of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, particularly with respect to Dr. Paddy Smith and Karen Aitken, who do a spectacular job.

But I want to draw a little bit of attention to the five interns that were serving the opposition caucus over the past number of months, primarily because when you come to this place…. Those in the gallery can see it right here — the splendour and the grandeur of the Legislature.

I'm certain that when the interns signed on, they anticipated reasonable office space, up-to-date equipment, access to the corridors of power. Regrettably, the five interns that we've had on the opposition side have been in the dungeon. They've been in the basement experiencing Dickensian-like working conditions.

I want to highlight for members present that two members, Mark Hosak and Kate McBride, have had an office of reasonable proportions — very close to the food, which is important to Kate. Caitlin O'Brien Meggs has been in a corridor in the communication shop, so she's seen the whirling and the dervishes that fly through there, but alas, Lindsay Walton and Angie Riano are not even in a closet. They're in what used to be the photocopy room beside the power box. Despite these onerous conditions, all five of them have done a spectacular job.

I want to just point out for all members present that part of the intern experience involves visiting a member's constituency for a period of time. I believe that Kate McBride set a record by getting more media attention when she visited Prince Rupert than the member himself — large, full-page spread on the front demonstrating her media prowess.

Would the House, particularly our opposition caucus, please congratulate the five interns for the work they've done.

Tributes

CLAUDE RICHMOND

T. Lake: I'd like to take an opportunity to acknowledge someone very well known to this House and, in fact, very well know to your chair, Mr. Speaker: Claude Richmond, who today received an honorary doctorate from Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.

The honorary doctorate is the highest form of recognition offered by TRU and is awarded for demonstrated excellence in the fields of public affairs, the sciences, arts, humanities, business and philanthropy. Claude Richmond has demonstrated excellence throughout his storied career. His contributions to the community have left a lasting legacy.

Whether through his work as a radio personality, his public service in municipal and provincial politics and government or as head of the world-famous Kamloops Rube Band, Claude has worked to make a contribution to his community and indeed to all of British Columbia. I'd like to ask the House to please join me in congratulating a 20-year veteran of this House, Dr. Claude Richmond.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: It's my great privilege and pleasure to welcome to the precinct here today a number of members and leaders from the Filipino community. We had the great honour of hosting a reception to mark the 112th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day and the first such recognition here in the House.

It's my great honour to welcome and introduce my partner, Angelina Cantada, from Curly Tail Pictures. She's also the recent recipient of the Omnidiversity Award. We'll both be on the red carpet for the LEE Awards on Saturday.

As well, I'd like to welcome Alden Habacon from CBC television; the producer and writer of Eschema magazine, Anicia Miles, the organizer for the New West Philippine Independence Day events and also president of the Royal Sister City Society; and the Philippine labour attaché from the consul general, Bernardino Julve.

As well, from the Philippines we have joining us Bonifacio Ilagan, the scriptwriter for an award-winning film that's on a cross-Canada tour, Dukot . He's also with the First Quarter Store movement. As well, Dennis Evangelista, the film producer for Dukot . We also have joining us Jane Ordinario from Migrante B.C. and Francisco Jojo Quimpo from the Aklanon Santo Nino Association in B.C.

We're about to enjoy, on August 14, the first Pinoy Festival, the first parade in Vancouver hosted by the Filipino community. As well, we have Jay Catalan with the Network Hub — great young activists and communicators; Kei Baritugo from Bold Love Communications; and the editor and producer of Planet Philippines , Pocholo Insua . I please ask the House to make them very welcome, also in the spirit of celebrating Philippine Independence Day.

[1345]

D. McRae: Today I would like to say thank you and bid farewell to my legislative assistant Matt Pitcairn. He has helped this rookie MLA learn the ropes, organize my days, and he makes sure I show up on time. He even helped me find a giant Mukmukdoll when none could be found. He's leaving the caucus to return to Richmond to pursue new opportunities. Matt, you are an asset to the Liberal caucus, and you will be missed. Good luck in your future.

C. James: All of us as members come into this Legislature with a variety of experiences in our lives, and

[ Page 6219 ]

I have to say one of the most rewarding, sometimes challenging but always joyful, experiences in my life is being a parent. I have two extraordinary children, Alison and Evan.

I have my daughter here visiting me today. Much to her mother's relief, she has come back from overseas after six years, and she brought with her, her new husband, now a year and a half — I guess he's not new anymore — our extraordinary son-in-law. I'd like to the House to please make welcome Alison and Chris Lomax.

Hon. P. Bell: On behalf of myself and the member for Prince George–Valemount, I, too, would like to welcome Kris Henderson. I understand he was not able to be joined by his wife today. Kris lived in Prince George for most of his life and has been one of our legislative interns. He graduated from UNBC with a major in political science and economics, and he's pursuing a noble career — well, a career — in either the field of law, politics or public service. Two of the three, at least, are noble, Mr. Speaker. I'll leave the third up to you. Please welcome Kris to the gallery.

M. Farnworth: I have a couple of introductions to make today. In the gallery from Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities, here to celebrate Philippine Independence Day are Ezna Hans Pasqual and Maria Annavera Pasqual, and I'd ask the House to make them most welcome.

The second introduction is someone whom I have known for a very long time and haven't seen for many years — in fact, probably not since, I think, 1988 when I graduated from Simon Fraser University — and who is a dear friend of mine. His name is Don Jarvis. He is a veteran, and he is here visiting the Legislature. He dropped by for the first time to see how we all do our things here in the House. I would ask you to make him most welcome. But most of all, it's his birthday, hon. Speaker.

J. Slater: Today I'd like to congratulate three people who helped me immensely: Razi Ardakani, who is leaving the Legislature; Matt Pitcairn; and Alesha Hayes. Again, as a first-year rookie in this Legislature, these three people have helped me immensely. I congratulate them. No, I wish them well on their future endeavours. Thank you very much for all the work that you've done for me.

Tributes

RICK DOWLING

R. Chouhan: I'm sad to announce that the business manager of IBEW Local 213, Mr. Rick Dowling, passed away suddenly on May 31. Rick immigrated to Canada from Scotland in 1967. He joined Local 213 in 1968. He was appointed assistant business manager in 1973 and in 2002 was appointed business manager. Since then he was acclaimed three times to the same position. He also served as vice-president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Under his leadership, the union was able to expand its membership beyond its traditional base.

He was a mentor and a great friend to many of us. It's with heavy hearts that we say goodbye to brother Dowling and thank him for his many years of dedication to all workers of this province. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, the memorial service for Rick will be held Friday, June 11, at 2 p. m. at the Operating Engineers Auditorium in Burnaby.

[1350]

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I would also like to welcome guests that are visiting us for the celebration of Philippine Independence Day. I have Katrina Laquian from UVic, Noel Feli from the University of Victoria as well; Petra Angpao-Durrance from the Victoria Philippine Solidarity Group, Ron Jeffries from the Victoria Philippine Solidarity Group, Chandu Claver from the Bayanihan Centre. Please make them welcome.

D. Thorne: Well, I've almost forgotten who I have to introduce. But, because I have the pleasure today of introducing some members of my family, really, I'm just joking. I can remember. I would like to introduce my husband, Neil Edmondson, who is returning to the Legislature. He's been here a couple of times, but my oldest son, Jay, and his family, Tina and Nathan, are coming here for the first time, and for an unusual way to spend a birthday. It was Jay's birthday yesterday, and he decided to come to the Legislature and spend the day here with us today. I think that's very special and really deserves a hand.

M. Karagianis: I would like to acknowledge a very extraordinary constituent of mine. Faith Reimer enrolled in Vic High School in 1938. She then went to high school at Vic High. Then she became a teacher at Vic High, and went on to become the archivist. Two days ago the Victoria High School and Vic High Alumni Association recognized her exceptional service by naming the Vic High archives in her honour. I would like to offer their congratulations to Faith Reimer.

L. Krog: In the gallery today is one of my constituents. She is a leader and a strong force in the Philippine community. She is, in some sense, their godmother. She just celebrated her 75th birthday and attracted no less than three MLAs and other politicians to it. I'd ask the House to welcome Dina Haaland

[ Page 6220 ]

A. Dix: It is my honour to introduce today four visitors from Vancouver who are here to celebrate Philippine Independence Day: Alfred Tensuan, Carmelita Salonga Tapia, Laarni Liwanag and Michael Calingo. I ask everyone to make them welcome.

R. Fleming: Earlier today an astute group of grade 5 students from my constituency asked me the question that the member for Juan de Fuca posed earlier, which is: does this building having a dungeon? I assumed the posture of, perhaps, a government MLA and did not answer the question directly.

In the precinct today are 26 grade 5 students from Ecole Doncaster. They are with their teacher, Miss Caroline Chu, and guardian and parents are with them. I would urge the House to make them all feel welcome here today.

S. Hammell: I would also like to introduce members from the Filipino community, in particular those members who are visiting us from Surrey. I would like to introduce Coramae Atencio from Park Place Seniors Living; Jay Razon, a good friend of mine from the Multicultural Sports Development Society — founder and president of that group — Jeffree Melixi from the Multicultural Sports Development Society; and Joel and Narima dela Cruz, both from the Surrey Philippine Independence Day Society.

Joel, it needs to be mentioned, is also the recent recipient of the Top in Technology Award from the applied science and technology society. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

G. Gentner: In the gallery today representing the Filipino community here on Philippine Independence Day is a constituent of mine, Mr. Peter Tambogon. He is also a director and represents the B.C. Multicultural Sports Development Society. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1355]

D. Routley: Also joining us on this very important day for the Filipino community in our province, the 112th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day, from Nanaimo are: Ferdinand Gonzales, Miriam Amar from the Vancouver Island Visayan Association; Teresita Fumerton from the First Filipino Canadian Cultural Society of Nanaimo; Beth Watson from Elite Premier Production, and Dina Haaland. Could the House please make them welcome on this very important day for all Filipinos.

K. Corrigan: I also would like to introduce members of the Filipino community that are here today celebrating their independence day, three constituents of mine: Maita Santiago, who is also the constituency assistant of Mable Elmore, MLA; Paul Clemente and Tony Santiago. Will you all please make them very welcome.

D. Hayer: I also have the pleasure of meeting with the Filipino community at the Surrey Filipino church on Sunday where they thanked and recognized a Surrey firefighter and celebrated Philippine Independence Day. I would like, on this side of the House and all the MLAs, to say congratulations on independence day to all the Filipino members who are here, or ones who are in British Columbia, Canada who were not here today.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join with my colleagues who joined with the members of the Filipino community today at the reception supporting and celebrating Philippine Independence Day. I'd like to introduce some of our guests here: Mr. and Mrs. Florencio Gatchulian, Mars de la Cruz, from the Vancouver Times , and Jane Ordinario from Migrante, B.C., who's also one of my constituents. Please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to welcome another guest to the celebration of Philippine Independence Day hosted by the member for Vancouver-Kensington. Randall Garrison is a councillor with the corporation of the township of Esquimalt. He was recently in the Philippines as an international observer of their elections.

H. Bloy: I, too, would like to thank a constituency assistant of mine, an LA, who is up in the gallery today: Ryan Pineo, who started as an ALA and now is being promoted, and I would like to thank Ryan Shotton, who has worked with me for the past year, who is now being promoted into another area.

While we're at it, I would also like to thank the Filipino community and all the ethnic communities that bring so much to British Columbia, that make us so multicultural, that make us the best place on earth to live.

J. Brar: I would also like to welcome three very important members of the Filipino community today who are with us, and from one Watko family. They are Rocky Watko, Linda Watko and Rocky Watko Jr.. They are here to celebrate the Filipino Independence Day. I think it's important today to say thanks to the people of British Columbia for electing the first Filipino MLA in the province of British Columbia. So with that, I will ask the member to please make them feel welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, rise in support and in celebration of Philippine Independence Day. I would like to acknowledge Ryan Ferrer, with Times Telecom; Sammie Jo Rumbaua — sorry for the mispronunciation — with the Inspire Foundation; also Tony Somera, with FDD Financial Group; and Mr. and Mrs. Virgilio Amba.

[ Page 6221 ]

In another announcement, I would like to congratulate the new members of the B.C. Entertainment Hall of Fame, celebrating people with great contributions in radio, theatre, film, TV and music. Please join me in celebrating Jon Washburn, Dave Abbott, Bruce Greenwood, Susan Jacks, Bruce Kellett — a constituent of mine — Bruce Pullan and my mother, Donna Spencer, who are going to be added to the B.C. Walk of Fame.

L. Reid: I want the House to join me in bidding a fond farewell to Razi Ardakani, who is leaving us — a reputed scholar — to do some work at the University of British Columbia. We wish him well in all future endeavours.

I would also take a moment to thank Cameron Ehl and Kevin Dixon, who do a magical job of orchestrating fine things in the Whip's office in British Columbia.

[1400]

J. McIntyre: You can see this is obviously the last day of session with all the thank-yous, so I won't repeat some. But I do see also Evan Southern up in the gallery, who has had a promotion to be a legislative assistant up on the second floor of the east annex. I would like to acknowledge his presence here today and congratulate him. Thank you very much.

S. Fraser: I would like to introduce Janice Lozano. She is from Pinoy Buzz, Vancouver , and Philippine Asian Chronicle . Would everyone here please make her feel very welcome.

D. Routley: In the spirit of extending this moment for further enjoyment, I've often joked that my 14-year-old daughter Madeleine would call me, as a school trustee, and interrupt meetings, so I would tell her: "If you're going to call me, you'd better be broken, bleeding or burning."

The other day during question period I got a call, which I ignored, but she had finally met that threshold. Madeleine took a head-first spill off the bleachers in her school and gave herself a very severe concussion, lost a tooth, fractured her upper jaw — a number of injuries. I'm sure she's at home riveted to this telecast. So I'd ask all the members to wish Madeleine a speedy recovery.

R. Cantelon: In the spirit of shortening the debate time this afternoon, the students from Aspengrove School, who I previously introduced, have now arrived and I welcome them to the chamber.

B. Routley: I think I've got some kind of historic record today. I got to be first and last at something, and that's the introductions of today. It has been a very long session, and I thank everyone in the gallery for their patience.

We have with us fine guests from the Cowichan Intercultural Society who are here to celebrate and acknowledge Philippine Independence Day. I would like to join with my colleagues in thanking the member from Vancouver-Kensington for hosting the lunch today, and I would like to introduce Demy McEvoy and Melba Carlson.

Because this is the last day, I would like to extend a welcome to anybody else who is here who we didn't name. You're all welcome.

R. Lee: I would like to invite the whole House, the members, to the Hats Off Day in Burnaby North this Saturday, which is the best Burnaby festival, between Boundary Road and Gamma Street on Hastings Street, at nine o'clock. You are all welcome. This is the best festival in Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker: Are we sure there are no other introductions? I think we set a record today for the longest introductions.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FILIPINO COMMUNITY IN B.C.

M. Elmore: I rise today to celebrate gains of the Filipino community on the occasion of the 112th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day, which will be commemorated on June 12.

In 1964 there were only 770 Filipinos living in Canada. Now there are over 100,000 in B.C., comprising the province's third-largest immigrant group. They can be found in interior communities from Kamloops to Cranbook, in coastal municipalities like Prince Rupert and, of course, most have settled in the Lower Mainland, especially in my diverse riding of Vancouver-Kensington.

They are nurses who care for our sick and the caregivers who dote on our children. They are professionals and workers who help fuel our economy, and more recently, the temporary foreign workers who fill in much-needed labour shortages.

Over the years, many able Filipino community leaders, businesses and organizations have established and contributed much to the various communities they reside and work in. Indeed, the Filipino community is a dynamic community that has much to offer, especially when it unites on important issues, such as the protection of the rights and welfare of migrant workers to the recognition of foreign credentials. This is the second-highest educated immigrant group, yet their earnings do not reflect their educational attainment.

[1405]

Many in this community are also impacted by what is happening in the Philippines. As such, I know that many closely follow social, political and economic developments there because of the strong ties they maintain

[ Page 6222 ]

with friends, relatives and the country as a whole. The human rights situation is one issue that draws a lot of interest and support.

The Filipino community is well known for its bayanihan spirit — our spirit of hospitality and cooperation. As such, I invite everyone here and across the province to join me and my community in the many Philippine Independence Day celebrations happening in Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver, Coquitlam, New Westminster, the Tri-Cities, North Shore, Victoria and across the province.

In closing, I take this opportunity to, again, pay tribute to our vibrant Filipino community. I am certain that since this is an emerging community full of many promises, we will continue to hear stories of its successes in the House and across the province.

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

D. Hayer: On June 23, 1985, the worst mass murder in Canadian history occurred: the bombing of Air India flight 182 by terrorists. It is quite clear that most of these terrorists were from British Columbia. According to many investigations, the bomb used was developed right here on Vancouver Island, and there is no doubt that it was loaded on an aircraft in Vancouver.

On that fateful day, June 23, 1985, at 31,000 feet above the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland, the Boeing 747 — with 329 men, women and children on board; mostly Canadian citizens — was blown out of the skies. On the other side of the globe, almost at the same time, at the Narita airport in Japan, two baggage handlers were blown up by a similar bomb, also loaded on a plane in Vancouver.

This dark day in Canada's history will be forever remembered. The victims of this terror were not simply the 331 persons murdered but thousands of family members who still grieve. They have not yet found closure or justice for the loss of their loved ones.

I speak of this from my personal viewpoint. My father was also a victim — a victim after the fact but a victim nonetheless. It is clear that he was murdered to ensure his silence. The rights to justice have not been fulfilled. We ask all the members and all the levels of government to work hard and pass laws that protect the rights of victims.

On June 23 I ask all members of this House and all Canadians across this land to remember for a moment the terrible act of terrorism and all those innocent victims who have not seen justice for 25 years, and also to work to make sure the rights of victims and the innocent in society are more important and protected than the rights of criminals.

POCOMO YOUTH SERVICES SOCIETY

D. Thorne: In 1992 I founded the PoCoMo Youth Services Society, a non-profit that supports vulnerable and at-risk youth in the Tri-Cities. During the last 18 years PoCoMo has delivered several different programs, moving from the initial teen drop-in centres to the current award-winning Project Reach Out, a mobile outreach bus that goes to where the youth are, instead of trying to get youth to come to us.

I'm proud to say that Project Reach Out, the first of its kind in Canada, recently won the provincial Solicitor General award and the federal government crime prevention award. PoCoMo has maintained a consistent presence, positively impacting thousands of young lives and their families. They offer a safe place where youth are listened to and often given hope.

The youth workers who staff the two outreach buses have been directly instrumental in saving over a dozen young lives, according to officials in our community. They have provided approximately $700,000 worth of services and another $300,000 in saved vandalism costs during the past five years alone.

Unfortunately, PoCoMo has never managed to get ongoing operation funding for its programs and has had to rely on donations and grants from foundations, the city of Coquitlam and individuals.

PoCoMo is currently in a financial crisis, and I am hoping today to raise their profile, as they need all the financial help they can get. Without a new source of ongoing funding, Tri-City youth and, in fact, the whole community will lose the only after-hours outreach program and also five popular school programs that they run.

[1410]

PoCoMo is appealing to governments at all levels. They have served over 9,000 youth in the last two years alone, and the ripple effect of that is far-reaching. Can we please give them all of our support?

HISTORY OF

STRATHCONA PROVINCIAL PARK

D. McRae: B.C. parks are one of this province's most defining features. Today a total of 14.26 percent of B.C. is protected, and this is more than any other province in Canada. To put it in perspective, this is an area equal in size to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined.

The protection of parkland all started 100 years ago. In 1910 the Strathcona discovery expedition, led by B.C.'s chief commissioner of lands, the hon. Price Ellison, set out on a journey to explore the centre of Vancouver Island, resulting in the legally defining of Strathcona Provincial Park, which also had the distinction of becoming B.C.'s first provincial park.

Every year thousands of people visit Strathcona Park to enjoy its amazing recreation opportunities. Whether they camp in the B.C. Parks campgrounds on the shores of Buttle Lake; trek inland to visit Della Falls, which is

[ Page 6223 ]

one of the highest waterfalls in Canada; climb the Golden Hinde, which is Vancouver Island's highest peak; take a day hike in Paradise Meadows; or just enjoy the scenic drive through the park, Strathcona Park offers activities for everyone.

As a high school teacher and a lifelong resident of B.C., I think it's important to celebrate our province's rich history. In recognition of the creation of Strathcona Provincial Park and the 100 years of park history across this great province, the Strathcona Centennial Expedition plans to follow in the footsteps of the original party and re-enact Ellison's journey 100 years ago. The trek will start in Victoria, travel by boat to Campbell River, begin an overland trek from there to Buttle Lake in the middle of Strathcona Park and then head south to Great Central Lake, then travel by canoe to Port Alberni.

I want to thank B.C. Parks staff and Philip Stone, who is the head of the Strathcona Centennial Expedition, for all their hard work and organization to allow this re-enactment to occur. Please join me in wishing all participants in this journey a safe and prosperous time.

WINDERMERE SCHOOL ORGANIC GARDEN

AND COSMETIC PESTICIDE PETITION

A. Dix: The Windermere organic garden is a student-driven initiative that includes 14 raised beds, a large greenhouse, a schoolwide compost system and an aquaponic system. The garden supplies food to the school cafeteria during the school year and is maintained over the summer by students. Additional food is sold at farmers markets as well as donated to the Collingwood Neighbourhood House Morning Star food program for low-income people.

Windermere Secondary School has been recognized by organizations such as the city of Vancouver, the Environmental Youth Alliance, B.C. Hydro, the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, the Evergreen Health Centre, Youth Ventures and many more for its ability to engage youth in meaningful ways.

The students involved with the gardens strive to educate their school community about social and environmental issues that impact our lives. For example, the team understands the importance of using natural pesticides to control weeds and unwanted bugs. As they learn more about the toxic chemicals that are used in cosmetic pesticides, they felt strongly that risking the health of the community was not worth having perfect green lawns.

With support for a provincial cosmetic pesticide ban growing, it was the right time for these students to collect signatures to show their decision-makers that youth are aware and care about the health of their communities. With little time and a lot of motivation, they've managed to collect over 200 signatures, hon. Speaker. I will be tabling their petition after question period.

I would like to recognize and thank the students who have worked so hard to make this campaign successful: Cassandra Ly, Brendan Chan, Kevin Liu, Henry Lau, Kaitlyn Fung, Angela Ho and Chanel Ly.

TABOR HOME SOCIETY

J. van Dongen: For the past 50 years Tabor Village has been providing care from the heart for the elderly in Abbotsford. Spurred on by the vision of Jacob J. Klassen, Jacob P. Martens and Abram J. Friesen, the Tabor Home Society was founded in 1959 by members of Mennonite Brethren churches in Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Yarrow.

With provincial government support, a 39-bed personal care home was built. July 18, 1960, marked the occasion of the sod-turning celebration for Tabor Home. Abram Friesen was appointed as the first house father. Katie, his wife, supervised the work of the staff and helped out in the laundry. Abe was responsible for the business and daily management and was the chaplain, counsellor and male nurse as required.

In the last 50 years Tabor Home has experienced several expansions of its facilities. In 1989 an independent living facility was completed and named Tabor Manor. In 2007 Tabor Court, a new 104-unit assisted-living facility, was also added. The full campus of care now serves over 240 seniors.

[1415]

Tabor Village has always paid attention to nurturing the spiritual health of residents and tenants. Tabor Village believes that the values and virtues promoted by the Christian faith greatly enhance the quality of care that can be provided.

The Tabor Home Society now has 3,000 members from nine Mennonite churches in the Abbotsford and Chilliwack area. I look forward to celebrating 50 years of providing care from the heart with the entire community on Saturday, June 19. Please join me in congratulating Tabor Village on a half-century of enriching the lives of seniors in the Fraser Valley.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: The number one issue on the minds of British Columbians, the number one issue we've dealt with in the spring session of the Legislature is the HST — a $1.8 billion tax shift onto families and small businesses. The public has spoken out in unprecedented numbers against the HST. More than a half-million people have signed the petition since April.

I'd like to extend an invitation to the Finance Minister on behalf of the B.C. Liberals. This is his last chance here

[ Page 6224 ]

in the Legislature during this sitting to actually stand up, show that he's listened to the people and say no to the HST today.

Hon. C. Hansen: There have been two big tax shifts that have taken place in British Columbia in the last two decades. The first big tax shift happened in the 1990s, after a party that ran in the 1991 election on a promise that they would not raise taxes increased taxes in British Columbia by billions of dollars. The second-biggest tax shift that has taken place in the history of British Columbia has happened in the last nine years, when we have seen the taxes for average families in British Columbia come down to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The B.C. Liberals have absolutely no credibility on the HST — none whatsoever. Before the election what did we hear from the B.C. Liberals? Before the election they were against it. After the election they were for it. Before the election they said it wasn't on their radar screen. Three days after the election they started negotiations with Ottawa. So will the Finance Minister stand up today, apologize to the people of British Columbia and get rid of the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: In 1991 the leader of the NDP did not say….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: In 1991 the leader of the NDP did not actually go out to the public of British Columbia and say that he was not contemplating increases in taxes. He said there would be no increases in taxes. What happened? They went up by billions of dollars.

[1420]

In 2009 the Leader of the Opposition did not go out to the public in British Columbia and say that she was not contemplating the removal of a carbon tax. She said there would be no carbon tax. What did we find out afterwards? Oops, they did a direct flip-flop on stuff that was explicitly in their platform.

Given the record of the NDP when it comes to tax changes in British Columbia, they have no credibility. We are the party that has brought down taxes for British Columbia families. The official opposition voted against every single one of those tax reductions.

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

C. James: The more this minister talks and the more the government talks about the HST, the more signatures that are collected across this province. The B.C. Liberals promised not to bring in the HST, and they turned around and brought it in. The B.C. Liberals have shown absolutely no remorse for their actions. They're pushing ahead. In fact, they're actually looking at using taxpayer dollars to try and promote the HST.

Again, to the Finance Minister: stop the waste of tax dollars. Stop pushing forward and say no to the HST.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: We ran on a platform that was one of supporting families in British Columbia. We ran on that platform to support families, and that's exactly what we're delivering on. We ran on a platform that said we were going to support small businesses, and that's exactly what we we're delivering on. We also ran on a platform that said we would create jobs in British Columbia and that British Columbia would come out of this economic downturn stronger, and that's exactly what we are delivering on.

B. Ralston: The part of the platform that the Finance Minister doesn't seem to want to talk about is the part where they promised not to bring in an HST. The more the B.C. Liberals fight the will of the public on the HST, the more public money they plan to spend. The Premier, when he was asked if there would be an advertising campaign to promote the HST, said: "We're not planning to do that." But the Finance Minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: The Finance Minister has confirmed that the government is launching a pro-HST flyer to go out on the day after July 6, the last day of the initiative. The B.C. Liberals haven't ruled out an expensive television campaign. Will the minister simply save that public money and confirm today that he's cancelling the HST?

[1425]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the Finance critic knows that he is misrepresenting a platform of the B.C. Liberal Party.

Interjections.

[ Page 6225 ]

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is the last day of the spring sitting of the B.C. Legislature, and quite frankly, the Finance critic and his colleagues in the official opposition have a chance now to actually go out to British Columbians and do something that they have not done during this legislative session.

They can do something that they have not done during this legislative session, and that is to actually tell British Columbians what they would do, tell British Columbians how they would build the economy. Go out and tell the small business community in British Columbia that you actually support policies that will reduce their costs and that you will actually apologize for voting against the very tax measures that British Columbia families and small businesses are benefiting from today.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It's clear that the Finance Minister won't deny that he's planning to spend public money on a flyer delivered to every house in the province. He won't deny that he's planning to spend public money on an expensive television ad campaign. Why doesn't he just do the right thing and drop the HST right now?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the NDP have been trying to recultivate their very strained and troubled relationship with the business community in British Columbia. They had a forum not too long ago. The Leader of the Opposition actually was trying to pretend that she was listening to the job generators in British Columbia.

What is obvious from everything the NDP have done is that their ears are plugged to the job generators of British Columbia. Even if you go to their very own website, you will find the links in their website that tell readers of the website where they should go to find more information about the B.C. economy. Where those links will take you…. Half of them will take you to organizations that are 100 percent in favour of the harmonized sales tax.

They also recommend that British Columbians actually go to another website to find more information about how to grow the B.C. economy, and that's the website of the B.C. Progress Board. What will they find there? They'll find this quote: "Harmonization of the PST with the GST due to its effect on investment and hence productivity was the main recommendation in the board's 2008 Investment in B.C.: Current Realities and the Way Forward report." Mr. Speaker, that is the way forward, not the NDP plan on their website.

D. Black: Another day and another piece of information on just how much more the HST is going to cost British Columbians. The city of New Westminster's parks and rec department has announced that all children over the age of 15 who use their drop-in services, take out a membership, rent equipment, register for a sports program will have to pay HST on all those programs after July 1.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why is it that the B.C. Liberals want to make it more difficult for the people of British Columbia to be healthy and active?

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to share with the member some numbers I shared earlier, and that is if you look at the total taxes paid by a B.C. family of four earning $60,000 a year as family income, the total amount that that family would pay today compared to 2001 is literally in the thousands of dollars less. Let me actually give you the number here. That family would be paying about $3½ thousand less in total taxes today than they would have in 2001.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Black: Well, nothing that the minister has said in this House from the time this controversy started can take away the fact that during the election campaign the B.C. Liberals put in writing that they would not be implementing an HST, and only three days later they were into negotiations on how to foist this onto the B.C. people.

This is the last day of this sitting of the Legislature. I ask the Minister of Finance to stand up in this House, come clean, make a commitment to the people of British Columbia and withdraw the HST.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that member knows that what she just phrased in that question is not factual.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we on this side of the House will commit to B.C. families is that this is a government that's going to continue to generate jobs. This is a government that's going to continue to make sure that the taxes those families pay will be among the lowest in all of North America and in Canada. What we will commit to is economic policies that are going to ensure that we have job creation so that the families in British Columbia have good, family-supporting jobs that are going to ensure that they can enjoy a quality of life in British Columbia like never before.

[ Page 6226 ]

M. Farnworth: I'll tell the minister what's factual. In 85 ridings across this province tens of thousands of British Columbians have signed a successful initiative petition — in every riding across this province. And millions of British Columbians have made a commitment to keep signing that petition until this government unplugs its ears and gets the message to scrap the HST.

My question to the minister is this. This government has dismissed the public's efforts around the initiative. This government has dismissed their concerns. Will he for once listen to the public, accept that they're right and cancel the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, what's interesting is that this member, the opposition House Leader, was actually a member of this Legislative Assembly in the early 1990s when the Recall and Initiative Act was first passed.

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: That member was a member of this chamber when his government actually brought in the recall and initiative legislation. We didn't write that legislation; they did. Yet we are the ones on this side of the House that are saying that we're actually going to follow the letter of the law in the Recall and Initiative Act. What we're hearing from the other side of the House is that they think we should actually ignore that and do some other process.

We will follow the process set out in that legislation. We will respect the law, and I expect that the opposition should as well.

SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD PROJECT

V. Huntington: In a rather bizarre press release entitled "South Fraser Perimeter Road Moves Forward," the government announced a delay in the Delta portion of the project. I think we can all rejoice in that the government has finally admitted that in moving forward, it's going backward.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

V. Huntington: Official explanations that the environmental assessment and Land Commission decisions took too long are ridiculous, and I ask: why the delay? Is the preload proving unstable? Has the tendering process run into trouble? Has the consortium run out of money? Has the government run out of money? I wonder if the Minister of Transportation could tell us the real reasons for the delay.

Hon. S. Bond: We're absolutely delighted to talk about a transportation plan that's actually transforming British Columbia. Today of all days we are delighted to talk about projects that this government's been a part of, including projects like the Canada Line which are seeing numbers that are absolutely exceptional in this province.

The member opposite is well aware that this project has undergone the most stringent environmental assessment plan in the history of projects in British Columbia. It is proceeding, and it will make a difference to the residents of that area of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I would dearly love to sit down with the minister and take her through the failings of that environmental assessment.

I suggested in estimates that the scope of this project was rumoured to have changed. Now, the minister said that wasn't the case, and I certainly accept that. But something, obviously, has changed. Has the ministry finally recognized the alternatives, such as using the existing road and distribution system for 18 hours a day instead of eight? Has it calculated that the widened Panama Canal may reroute container traffic to the east coast ports? Or has the development of terminal 2 been delayed, and without it, a four-lane divided highway on agricultural land is simply unjustified?

Given the alternatives available for the movement of cargo, could the minister tell us why we need the SFPR, especially in its existing configuration, at all?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, one of the primary considerations of the South Fraser perimeter road is to take busy commercial traffic off residential streets and ensure that we have safe communities.

The other thing is that this government has had a significant priority in ensuring….

[1440]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is absolutely essential, as we continue to work on an Asia-Pacific strategy that requires that we have efficient trade corridors. These projects are essential. We're going to continue to move forward.

The member opposite knows that my staff and I have spent considerable time discussing this issue with her. In fact, we recognize that it needs to be done appropriately

[ Page 6227 ]

and sensitively, but we're going to move forward. It is under construction, and it will make a difference and ensure our Asia-Pacific strategy has a trade corridor that is efficient.

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

G. Coons: This past weekend over 500 northern B.C. residents gathered in Kitamaat village to oppose Enbridge's plan to open B.C.'s northern coast to tar sands supertankers. Mr. Speaker, 28 B.C. First Nations are opposed to this proposal, including every First Nation on the north and central coast, as well as 80 percent of British Columbians.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. His job is to represent the province. Will he tell the Prime Minister to just say no to supertankers on our sensitive northern coast?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As the member, I think, well knows, this project is before the full Canadian environmental assessment that has to take place. That's an opportunity for First Nations, for individuals, for communities, for affected parties to actually go forward, express their views and put their wishes forward. At that time, we've said from the beginning that we're going to respect the wishes of the environmental assessment process. We're going to let them do their job.

I don't want to miss the opportunity to put something on the record here, and I'm going to read a quote. It says: "We should trust the environmental assessment process." Moe Sihota, who is the president of the NDP party, said that. I'm sure most of the members on that side voted for Moe.

COSMETIC USE OF PESTICIDES

R. Fleming: Throne speeches outline a government's legislative agenda, and based on the throne speech last August, British Columbians expected the Minister of Environment to ban cosmetic pesticides provincewide to protect human health and the environment. These are protections from toxic exposure that almost 22 million Canadians have today, but four million British Columbians do not have.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why is he still permitting the widespread use of these harmful chemicals in our playgrounds and neighbourhoods?

Hon. B. Penner: We're ending the session the way we began, with the NDP Environment critic being absolutely wrong. The throne speech commitment from August 2009 — and I'll read it into the record, since apparently he didn't have time himself to do his own research….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Minister, take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: Since it's apparent that the Environment critic couldn't find the time to do his own research and actually read what the throne speech commitment was, I'll read it into the record for all members. "British Columbians will be consulted on new statutory protections to further safeguard our environment from cosmetic chemical pesticides."

Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what has taken place. More than 8,000 submissions have been received from British Columbians across the province. Our ministry is busy reviewing those suggestions, those comments. I've asked ministry staff to develop a number of proposals.

But all British Columbians should know that no substance is allowed to be sold in British Columbia unless it's first approved by experts at Health Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Maybe the minister, if he wouldn't like to take my word for it, would like to listen to the Canadian Cancer Society, because they have said very clearly that the B.C. Liberals are not moving on consultations that were completed months ago.

This government hasn't presented legislation to this House based on the advice that it received from countless experts. It continues to ignore the efforts of local government. It continues to ignore the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which speaks for all local governments in British Columbia.

[1445]

It ignores warnings from the World Health Organization. It ignores the opinion of 80 percent of British Columbians who want legislation like this.

My question is to the Minister of Environment again. Why is he breaking his pledge to ban cosmetic pesticide use in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've already indicated, we have met the commitment to consult with British Columbians, and we've in fact posted the results of that consultation on the ministry website. Now again, I wouldn't expect the member to have taken the time to actually do his own research and read the document. But if you review that document, you'll see that we got a wide range of suggestions from all British Columbians across the province.

But let me be very clear about something here, and I'll be a little bit personal. No one takes the issue of cancer more seriously than I do. I've personally been diagnosed with cancer. It's obviously something that all people in this House take seriously, and that's why we have to be thoughtful about how we approach this issue.

Everyone is concerned about cancer, but we also want to make sure that we have the best available science, and

[ Page 6228 ]

I can assure British Columbians right now that no substance is allowed to be sold unless it's first reviewed and approved for sale by Health Canada. They have literally hundreds of scientists and specialists that are engaged in this activity, and British Columbians have the right to know that.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Dix: I wish to present two petitions today. The first is a petition from 600 members in my community of Vancouver-Kingsway in support of rebuilding and fixing the Carleton School kindergarten.

The second is from 200 students of Windermere Secondary School who support a ban on cosmetic pesticides.

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Fraser: I have a petition from over 1,200 British Columbians urging the government to move forward with legislation to ban poisonous antifreeze.

D. Routley: I present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Routley: Chronic pain currently affects one in five residents on Vancouver Island. There are 480 signatures of Nanaimo and Ladysmith area residents seeking funding for the part-time position of a clinical psychologist as well as funding one extra day of operations for the interdisciplinary interventional pain management program at the Nanaimo Regional Hospital — people who need the help of this House.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. I have a petition here from a local gym, Curves, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Its membership has signed the petition against the HST.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make a recognition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Statements

Portuguese Heritage Month

D. Hayer: This is Portuguese Heritage Month, and June 10 is Portugal Day. I ask all the House members to recognize Portuguese Heritage Month. To all the Portuguese-descended British Columbians and Canadians, I thank them for everything they've done to build British Columbia and Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have two matters of business that may be of interest to members of the House. The first is truly housekeeping, and that's a reminder from our very able staff as we move towards the ending of proceedings for the spring session to clean up personal matters out of desks and take those matters with you, or they will disappear.

The second relates to the work of the committee of selection charged with the task of recommending the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer. Members will know that that work has not been completed thus far, and there is no recommendation from that committee. Pending the completion of that work, it will be necessary to ensure that an acting Chief Electoral Officer is in place to oversee the important responsibilities of that office.

[1450]

I wanted to take the opportunity to advise the members here before we depart that the Clerk of Committees, Mr. Craig James, has agreed on a temporary basis to serve as acting Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia. He has agreed to serve in an acting capacity until such time as a permanent Chief Electoral Officer has been appointed. He will not be applying for the position of Chief Electoral Officer, and at the conclusion of his time as acting CEO, he will be returning to the Clerk's table, where he has served this Legislature with distinction for almost 25 years.

I thought members would like to know that, and we are grateful to Mr. James for fulfilling that function on a temporary basis.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — the continuing estimates of the Attorney General Ministry and of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 17.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on the hoist motion.

A. Dix: The referral.

[ Page 6229 ]

Mr. Speaker: On the referral motion, sorry.

On the amendment (continued) .

A. Dix: I think it's useful at this point in my presentation to review the motion that we will be discussing this afternoon — and, it's my fervent hope, that we'll be passing this afternoon.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The motion contains three important elements, I think, all of which we ask members of the House to consider and to support. The first element, of course, is that "the Clean Energy Act not be read a second time now" — I will get into some discussion of that question — but that instead "the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations" and, further, that "the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

As we noted before the lunch adjournment, I think this particular piece of legislation requires more consideration than a second reading debate, no committee stage debate and closure in this Legislature. It is in fact a very significant piece of legislation that does three sets of things that make it particularly important that it receive a second thought and a second consideration.

The first, of course, is the import of what's being discussed here — the amount of money and the fact that the current regulatory process is essentially being end-run by the government with the legislation. There are huge stakes for taxpayers and ratepayers. The taxpayers and ratepayers are going to be forced to pay more as a result of this legislation, and the government has refused or failed to provide evidence of the need for the legislation.

An example of that is the specific commitment by the Minister of Energy to provide a business plan with respect to the smart meter question and then subsequently reneging on that commitment — a commitment made not just to the opposition but to the public. The issues involved — a billion dollars for smart meters, $10 billion for projects, a huge potential rate increase for ratepayers and a dramatic shift in the government's policy — require us to review this matter in committee. That's the first set of things.

The second set of things, it seems to me, is the fact that the legislation itself represents a significant flip-flop on the part of the government on some critical issues.

Before lunch we reviewed some of the many comments of the Premier of British Columbia, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who repeatedly and incessantly said he would never do what he is precisely doing with this legislation. He would never use his legislative majority to override the B.C. Utilities Commission. He was going to be a defender of the B.C. Utilities Commission. He repeatedly said that, up to and including election day and in the period subsequent to election day.

[1455]

In other words, we have a piece of legislation that directly contradicts the longstanding view of the government on a key and fundamental question — the right of the B.C. Utilities Commission to oversee these projects.

At the same time as it's engaging in a reckless plan that puts public dollars at stake, public dollars that might well be used better for other things, the government is also removing the regulatory oversight for that plan. It is refusing to provide basic details about what it plans to do to the BCUC. It fails to allow cross-examination on specific questions that it committed to — to the public, at length — as recently as a few months ago.

I think that when a government flip-flops on such a question so dramatically and then passes legislation using closure at the end of the session, that is not good, to say the least, for our democratic system. The government holds and must fulfil its obligation to answer questions and to be heard. They have consistently failed to do that. We have a piece of legislation here that overturns that longstanding commitment. I think that adds and strengthens the case.

It's one thing for the Premier to say that he used to support the BCUC and that now he wants to gut its role. That's one thing. But it's another thing for him to say that before and after an election, and it's another thing for him to say that without adequate debate or allowing for the information that justifies that decision to come forward to the public.

The second change, of course, is around the B.C. Transmission Corporation, which the government set up, which wasted tens of millions of dollars on administrative costs, paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers — $2 million in board costs alone, for board stipends alone. The government came to this House and drove that legislation through in 2003. The members of the government party said it was the answer.

Now, without discussion, they are flip-flopping on that question. I think it is important that people involved in that discussion come to that committee and explain what happened — to answer, as I asked earlier, whether the government was incompetent then, is incompetent now or has been incompetent both then and now on this question, on the export question, because they have changed the terms of the debate.

They now want us to subsidize exports to the American market. This is a change in policy for us — to put all of those resources that the people of British Columbia hold and use them to subsidize their political friends but also exports to the American market. That is the essence of their plan.

They can make the argument, the economic business case, for that plan if they like. It is a complete change in

[ Page 6230 ]

position. It is a change in the historic position of this government and of previous governments dating back for 50 years. But that's okay. They can hold that position if they so desire, but they shouldn't be allowed to hold it while hiding from the people of British Columbia the very information they require.

The third flip-flop, if you will, is that the government and B.C. Hydro said, at the time that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned their scheme and said no to their scheme, not because they were opposed to the government's positions on these questions — they actually couldn't take that position — but because the government hadn't fulfilled its commitment to provide and B.C. Hydro hadn't fulfilled its obligations….

So here we have a government that goes before the Utilities Commission and fails and then decides to cheat. It's like if the Chicago Blackhawks got in touch with Gary Bettman and asked for him to overturn the results of game 3 because they didn't like being scored on in overtime. They thought only one team should be allowed to score in overtime. That's what the government has done here.

They went to the Utilities Commission. They said they'd respect the Utilities Commission. The Utilities Commission sent them packing, and rather than fulfil their legal obligations, they decided to cheat, to come into this House and introduce a scheme to avoid just that very regulation, to avoid public scrutiny, to avoid explaining why and how they were…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would caution on the use of language.

A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair.

…going to spend billions of dollars in public funds.

The government went to the Utilities Commission, lost at the Utilities Commission. Like other groups, other people who have stood up to the government in the past, not because they want to stand up to the government, not because they're opposed to the B.C. Liberal Party — they're actually appointed by the B.C. Liberal Party government — but because they had a legal obligation to apply the law, and the government hadn't met the test….

[1500]

Instead of meeting the test or changing their initiative, the government decided to change the rules, to change the rules of the game. I think that decision and its effect of overturning an existing process before the B.C. Utilities Commission requires the government to come somewhere — anywhere — to justify this dramatic flip-flop in policy. They need to do that, and they have not done it.

On the so-called issue of self-sufficiency, the government needs to explain why they have stacked the deck on this question, to drive exports, subsidize exports to the American market; why they expect ratepayers in British Columbia to subsidize, to take risks that the private sector will not take themselves; why they want to subsidize and pay the difference between the costs they're paying for energy and the significantly lower costs they may well pay for energy in the United States market.

They have an obligation to British Columbia. This is an obligation they have. They don't want to do it before the B.C. Utilities Commission. They need to provide that information somewhere, somehow, some way. One of the places to do that, it seems to me, would be before the Committee on Crown Corporations and the discussion of this legislation, to give members on all sides of the House, including Liberal members, the opportunity to defend and explain.

That's clearly why Bill 17 should not be read a second time now, because the plan of the government — having run roughshod over the B.C. Utilities Commission, having flip-flopped on these fundamental issues, having put billions of dollars at risk — now is to drive through this legislation without committee stage debate, and that is not nearly good enough. It's not nearly good enough, I think. That's the reason why the subject matter should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, because this is exactly the purpose of a legislative review by such a committee.

We — as you know, hon. Speaker — will be coming back here, because I know how much the government respects the legislative calendar. We'll be coming back here in the first week of October, and maybe at that point the government will have an agenda, but let's have a discussion of this. Let's give the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations the opportunity to review this bill.

Those are the two paths: to use closure today to drive through a bill that itself is a closure on public process, on the one hand; or, on the other hand, support this motion, which will allow for a review over the summer by members of the Legislature doing their job. Then the government — which, of course, intends to return at the beginning of October for the fall sitting, with hopefully some sort of agenda…. They've decided to go without one in the spring session, but in the fall session I'm sure they'll come forward with some sort of agenda. They would do that then.

Those are the two paths, and clearly, the desirable path for the public is the path of reviewing, of straightforwardness, of transparency, of providing business plans that the government long promised to provide.

The second, final part of the motion that I think is strongly worthy of support by members of the House is the need on this question to have witnesses, because it seems to me that we've been seeing, over the last little while, some change in views from some people, some deals cut in back rooms, presumably around who will pay what to whom in the future. I think it's legitimate

[ Page 6231 ]

to ask interested parties to come and give their views in this Legislature and to a legislative committee.

I think that that is, in fact, the right approach from here. We should hear from people on all sides of the debate, not just those that agree with us and express concerns about the risk. Perhaps the government can find someone out there who wants to get rid of the BCUC. I'm sure there's someone out there outside of the IPP industry. There's someone out there who would like to do that, and we should have them.

David Austin, perhaps, could come and provide evidence. The Business Council, the same Business Council that said that the public shouldn't be forced to pick up the risk inherent in these power projects…. Perhaps the Business Council can come and express its views. Experts such as Marvin Shaffer could come and express their very strong convictions that this is the wrong path for British Columbia.

Members of the government, if they are not afraid of having that debate, and I would hope that they would not be, on the committee…. I'm sure members on the committee would take that opportunity on.

[1505]

They could discuss with Dr. Shaffer his concerns about a piece of legislation — and I'm just going to quote from him:

"That is remarkable in the power it is putting in cabinet and the cost it's imposing on B.C. Hydro. It's the government's response to its concerns that it won't be able to convince the BCUC of the merits of IPP purchases, transmission extensions, smart meters and other measures it wants B.C. Hydro to undertake, and its concern that even B.C. Hydro might not eagerly go along with its plans."

Dr. Shaffer adds:

"The absence of any independent oversight of almost all of what is required under this act is bad public policy. It is bad legislation. It has to be a forerunner for the worst legislation of the decade."

I'm sure government members might, in fact, be able to offer other pieces of government legislation that were even worse than that in their own defence. It would be interesting to have that debate, not just to hear, in fact, from Dr. Shaffer but from other experts and other involved parties.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, of course, disputes — the typical kind of McCarthyist attack on anyone that you don't agree with. That's the usual path.

What I would say is let's have him…. Let's have Mr. Kariya of the IPP Association come and speak to the committee. Let's have him, the Business Council, the mining association, Mr. Austin — a whole range of people. Let's have that involvement, and by members of the public, in the debate, because the issues here are fundamental.

The problem with this bill and the reason why it requires referral to committee is exactly the problem raised by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. The BCUC did something they didn't like, so they're getting rid of the BCUC's role, and that, I think, is profoundly the wrong path.

Set aside the fact that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and all of his colleagues campaigned on the opposite position. Let's set that aside for a minute. There's lots of precedence for that recently. The issues, and the scope of the issues, are so significant to British Columbia. I think the most important evidence will surely have to be given by B.C. Hydro and by the Minister of Energy.

The Minister of Energy surely would have to come to that committee and provide the very business cases that he has consistently refused to provide. I think if you're going to spend $10 billion and more on projects using public funds that appear to favour some people and disfavour other people, that you have an obligation to show where you see the public interest is. You have an obligation to provide the facts to the public.

There has been a tradition in this province of parties of all political stripes doing that, and there's good reason for that. It's one of the reasons why B.C. Hydro and its energy plans over the years have received such overwhelming public support, even though there has been lots of controversy at different times about their initiatives.

I wish that the government would simply listen to the voice of reason, would choose the path of allowing some transparency on this process, the path of providing the evidence that supports its initiative to the public, the path of having public hearings, of listening to the people of British Columbia. That is the path that will lead us to better legislation in the future.

What won't do it, though, is a decision to proceed down the road we're on today: second reading imposed by closure; committee stage imposed by closure, without occurring; third reading imposed by closure; and then legislation brought into effect where the only place these questions will be discussed and answered — if, in fact, discussions ever take place in the cabinet room — will be in the cabinet room in British Columbia.

I think this is a good path. It's a gift to the government. It's a lifeline to the government not to make the terrible mistake they are making in ramming through this legislation.

I ask all members of the House to support the amendment I have proposed to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.

[1510]

T. Lake: I rise to speak against the referral motion. The Clean Energy Act, Bill 17, is an opportunity to move forward as a province. In British Columbia we have a remarkable opportunity to meet the energy demands, our growing energy demands, in this province as well as provide solutions to the real challenge of

[ Page 6232 ]

combatting climate change and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't think that we need to send this bill to a committee. This debate has been going on for a very long time. It was one year ago — just over one year ago — during the election when I heard repeatedly from the NDP that B.C. Hydro was a very important Crown corporation, that we should invest in B.C. Hydro. They accused us of wanting to sell off B.C. Hydro.

Here we have a bill that says we recognize the importance of B.C. Hydro. We recognize the public investment that the people of British Columbia have made in that Crown corporation, and we recognize that when it comes to creating clean, green energy, no one does it better than B.C. Hydro. In fact, this bill says that B.C. Hydro is going to invest $1.8 billion in green energy this year and another $2 billion in the year after that. With Site C we can expect up to — well, approximately $8 billion more of investment on the part of B.C. Hydro.

This debate has gone on for a very long time. When I listen to the debate from the NDP on this Clean Energy Act, I'm increasingly confused over their position about B.C. Hydro and their position on clean, green energy. Sending it to an all-party committee of the Legislature I don't think will provide any clarity, because we haven't seen any clarity from the NDP on where they stand as regards to B.C. Hydro, Site C or the formation of clean, green energy to help not only British Columbia but, in fact, other people with whom we share this planet combat greenhouse gas emissions.

It's clear that we need more energy. B.C. is expected to increase its demand by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years, and that could even go higher. A recent Statistics Canada report showed that British Columbia would be the fastest-growing province in Canada, and that in fact, by the year 2035 we may reach a population of seven million people. That's an increase of more than 50 percent over today's figure.

In fact, the 40 percent growth in our electricity demands may be quite conservative. We may actually have to produce or at least expect the demand to grow by more than 40 percent. We need to make decisions in anticipation of those growing energy demands, not sit back and wait until there's a crisis in the supply of energy. We need to make sure we move forward now with decisions that will ensure that our children and our grandchildren have an ample and clean supply of energy in British Columbia.

The NDP would prefer that we rely on less-than-clean energy that we currently import from other jurisdictions. We on this side of the House, on the government side of the House, are not content with the status quo. We are not content with firing up an old natural gas–using energy facility. We would rather go forward with clean, green energy — and a lot of that energy, the vast majority of that energy supplied by B.C. Hydro using the natural resources that British Columbia is renowned for.

I also am sometimes very confused by the attitude of the opposition when it comes to what has made this province such an economic powerhouse, such a wonderful place to live and to work. Of course, much of that strength, that prosperity comes from exporting.

[1515]

We don't live in isolation. We rely on exports. We rely on oil and gas exports. We certainly don't use all the oil and gas that we produce. We rely on the export of those commodities to produce wealth in this province, to produce jobs in this province, to provide a standard of living that we've grown accustomed to in this province.

The minerals that come out of our ground — we rely on exporting these minerals around the world. I was heartened to hear the member for Cariboo North talk about the disconnect that sometimes occurs between people in urban areas and people in the rural areas when it comes to the extraction of minerals.

I'm glad to hear that he was standing up for rural British Columbia, reminding those of us that live in urban areas that we depend on those natural resources that come from our rural areas when he was talking to a Vancouver audience recently about all the benefits of the Prosperity mine in the Cariboo.

The wood that we harvest that has been a mainstay of our economy for over a hundred years — that wood doesn't stay in British Columbia. Most of that wood is exported, and that generates a tremendous number of jobs, a tremendous amount of prosperity. That is what makes British Columbia a wonderful place to live and work.

Another export we have that can compete with any around the world is our education system. We have an international educational opportunity. It's essentially an export. We are exporting the advanced education and, growingly, the K-to-12 education system because we know that there are people around the world who want their children to have the same high standard of education that we have here in British Columbia.

We're not shy about exporting those commodities. We know that these commodities are well known around the world, and British Columbia can supply the world and create wealth here at home. So we have an enormous opportunity with green, clean energy to add to our suite of exporting commodities.

Any of the members of the opposition, I'm sure, will be familiar with Thomas Friedman, the author of Hot, Flat and Crowded and other publications that seek to address the enormous challenge of energy production in a world that has challenges with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Mr. Friedman says this is an opportunity. It's an opportunity when the market dictates an opportunity. That opportunity will be filled.

[ Page 6233 ]

Well, I say that here in British Columbia we can fill that opportunity. We can create clean, green energy for export that will allow people in California, people in Oregon, people all over the United States to meet their need for energy in a clean, environmentally sustainable way.

I don't think that's anything we should apologize for. I think we should be proud that British Columbia can offer the technology and the resources to offer the opportunity for business to look at ways and means of combatting the very real concern we have for climate change and the need for clean, green energy. I have absolutely no idea why members of the NDP think that is a bad thing or that we should somehow be ashamed of being global citizens and providing an entrepreneurial opportunity to meet the demands that we know are in front of us in places like California.

While we're doing that, this Clean Energy Act will protect the heritage assets that we all appreciate and know will be there for us in British Columbia. I mentioned the tremendous investments — $1.8 billion this year on the part of B.C. Hydro, $2 billion next year. That includes new turbines at Mica and Revelstoke.

We know that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is opposed to this bill, this bill that will create wonderful job opportunities to keep young people at home in Revelstoke, to provide a great opportunity for families to succeed and bring their families up in that wonderful environment that we know exists in the community of Revelstoke.

Site C, which will have to pass through a full.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might invite you back to the debate of the motion.

T. Lake: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The motion is to refer this Clean Energy Act to a committee. The reason that I am enunciating all the benefits of this Clean Energy Act is because this is, in fact, where debate occurs.

[1520]

The debate occurs on an everyday basis in the public. The debate certainly occurred in the election over one year ago, when the NDP told people that we were going to sell B.C. Hydro. Why will we have the debate again in committee when we've already had the debate out in public?

Now the NDP seems to have changed their mind. Now the NDP seems to think that B.C. Hydro somehow shouldn't be investing billions of dollars in our public power that will keep our rates among the lowest in the western world.

I think that the opportunity to debate occurs right here in this House. We've been debating it over the last several weeks. We've been debating it in our ridings, and we certainly debated it in the election one year ago.

In that election debate — and I'm sure the same debate would occur if we referred this motion to a committee — was the protection of our ratepayers in British Columbia and the ability to make sure that those rates remain among the lowest in North America. In fact, the B.C. Utilities Commission will remain to regulate B.C. Hydro's domestic supply and those rates. That is in this bill. That is what the NDP said they wanted, and it is in the bill.

So I fail to see the need to refer this bill to a committee when, in fact, it meets many of the demands made by the opposition during the election campaign over one year ago. Not only will this act protect those low rates, but in fact, it legislates that those low rates will be there, monitored by the B.C. Utilities Commission and not used to subsidize exports that we know are a potential to help areas like California deal with their energy needs.

In the election a year ago, when this was debated, the NDP talked about the wise use of energy. Anyone who has read books by Thomas Friedman, for instance, knows that things like smart meters are, in fact, a way of increasing awareness of energy use.

To send this bill to an all-party committee to debate how we can increase the awareness of people's energy use…. I fail to see the need to do that when it is really part of our everyday knowledge that metering, using metrics to monitor usage, certainly affects people's behaviour. If you're looking for conservation, we know that by using metrics we can monitor people's use and increase and promote energy conservation.

We know that that works for water. In my community of Kamloops there is going to be a water-metering process in place because they know that that is the way we can conserve water. We can conserve capital expenditures that would be necessary if the amount of water kept increasing.

We do not need a committee to tell us that smart meters increase people's awareness and will help B.C. Hydro and British Columbia meet our energy conservation needs. Some 66 percent of the needs will be met through conservation with this clean energy bill.

What would we learn if we sent this bill to an all-party committee? Well, I guess what we might learn is why the NDP are opposed to clean, green power — or, as they like to call it, junk power. The wonderful wind farm in Dawson Creek…. Everyone that's involved in alternative energy, that is a proponent of alternative energy, talks about wind power. We have one of the first large wind farms in British Columbia operating in Dawson Creek, and that's referred to by the NDP as junk power.

I fail to see why the NDP has such a problem with clean, green power. If we sent this to an all-party committee, I suppose we might finally shed a little bit of light on why the party that professes to be concerned about the environment is dead set against clean, green power.

[ Page 6234 ]

We know that other environmentalists know that this is the way to go. I can quote Tzeporah Berman.

[1525]

I know that she's not the favourite of the NDP ever since she chastised them for going against the carbon tax, which anyone who deals with energy and greenhouse gases knows is the fundamental tool to alter behaviour and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Tzeporah Berman says she's impressed with "the breadth and commitment" to green energy development. Notably, she says: "It's about creating clean energy and new jobs for British Columbians and addressing climate change."

I would like to know — maybe the committee is the place to find out — why the NDP is against clean energy and new jobs and addressing climate change. That's the only reason I can think that we should send this bill to committee. Most everyone else that is concerned about the environment already knows that clean, green energy is one of the alternatives, along with conservation, that we have to have in order to meet our energy needs.

We might also find out, if we referred this bill to a committee, why the NDP opposes independent power projects like the bioenergy project at Domtar in my hometown of Kamloops — why they would be opposed to a project that sees $65 million of investment, that employs 435 people and provides excellent paying jobs to support families in my community. Maybe we could find out why they're opposed to bioenergy projects like the one at Domtar.

Here is an operation that can not only produce wealth by creating pulp and exporting it. Oh, there's that word again — export. Yeah, that's what we do here in British Columbia. But they can also use the excess fibre, the residuals, to create clean, green energy, some of which could be exported to help our American neighbours meet their energy demands.

Not only can they, perhaps, produce clean, green energy to help our friends in California, but that bioenergy project will keep other mills in my region of the province viable, because the residuals that they take to burn for bioenergy keep those mills in business. Without those residuals going to Domtar, many of those mills would be threatened with closure. Apparently, the NDP thinks that's okay.

Another benefit of a bioenergy project like the one at Domtar is the fact that through this process they have been able to close three beehive burners in the valleys around Kamloops, not only creating clean, green energy but increasing the quality of the air in our airshed as well. But apparently, the opposition is opposed to that as well.

I know that one of my colleagues would like to make an introduction, so I will take a recess from my comments.

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. McIntyre: We have grade 5 students here from Myrtle Philip Community School in Whistler. I had the great opportunity of meeting them on their tour just after question period. I wanted the House to make them feel very welcome.

I told them that I thought we would be debating our green energy bill this afternoon. Whistler is one of the most sustainable communities. They won a Green City Award at UBCM a couple of years ago.

So I'm absolutely delighted (

a) to have you here and to welcome you here, and (

b) that you could hear the green energy debate. Welcome aboard, and I hope my colleagues will make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

T. Lake: I, too, would like to welcome the students from Whistler today to listen to our debate over clean, green energy and the motion before us, which is to refer this clean energy bill to a committee for further debate. I think the students will be interested, because the debate is actually what we're having here. All members of the House get to tell publicly, on television, for the members of the gallery what they think are the attributes of the bill and, in the case of the opposition, why they think this bill is a bad idea.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I think it's an opportunity to see the stark differences between the government side and the opposition side. So I'm glad you're here today, and I hope you will enjoy the session.

[1530]

The referral motion doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because so many of the elements of this bill have been debated and, in fact, have been advocated by the New Democratic Party opposition for a very long time. It includes a First Nations clean energy business fund of $20 million to partner with First Nations and those companies interested in producing clean, green energy.

I again find it difficult to believe that the opposition is opposed to providing opportunities to First Nations to produce clean energy. I certainly know that in my region of the province, the Kamloops Indian band, Simpcw First Nation and Whispering Pines are all involved in such partnerships. This bill seeks to make sure there are resources available for First Nations groups to move forward on those partnerships.

The opposition has said that we should consider cumulative environmental effects. This bill specifically provides for amendments to the Environmental

[ Page 6235 ]

Assessment Act to contemplate the assessment of cumulative environmental effects. So to send this bill back to a committee to basically be told what the NDP have already told us — that they want First Nations involvement, that they want the cumulative effects on the environment considered…. That's in there already.

There are certainly many, many benefits to this bill that I'm sure an all-party committee would say: "You know, that makes a lot of sense. We want to help rural British Columbia." We've heard that from the opposition. We certainly believe that on the government side of the House — that rural British Columbia should be rewarded for the resources they provide that allow us to live the kind of lifestyle we do.

This bill provides for B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation that the opposition during the election said that we were going to sell…. Now when we try to strengthen an increased investment of B.C. Hydro, they oppose that B.C. Hydro will be moving forward with the northwest transmission line to open up that part of the province, to electrify the Highway 97 corridor so that clean, green energy can be produced in that area of the province and used in the aggregation of energy by B.C. Hydro.

Mining opportunities. There are a number of opportunities for mining in that part of the province, which will benefit from the electrification of that area of the province, creating many, many high-paying jobs. The average job in the mining sector is over $100,000. I'd like to know what the NDP has against high-paying mining jobs for the northwest part of this province.

I know that area of the province is excited about looking forward to the economic opportunities that will be opened up by this clean energy bill. The northwest transmission line will provide opportunities for the 11 proposed projects in that region, with about $15 billion in potential investment and up to 10,000 jobs with $300 million in annual tax revenue.

That doesn't sound like a sell-off to me. That sounds like an investment, an opportunity, something that British Columbians have been doing for well over a hundred years, something that I don't think we should apologize for in any way.

The opposition has had a bit of a dilemma on their hands when it comes to the clean energy bill, because a big element of the clean energy bill is to move forward with Site C — a clean energy project subject, of course, to a strict environmental assessment process and First Nations consultation.

This does provide a dilemma for the opposition members because I certainly know that some of them are actually in favour of Site C, but there's a deafening silence when it comes to speaking out about this project as to whether they support or oppose it.

I know that former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey is in favour of this. He thinks it's the right thing to do, and he's said that this will prove to be a dilemma for the NDP opposition as they wrangle with this question about building a dam that not only will create thousands of jobs and provide economic opportunities to that part of the province but will provide firm, clean, green energy for our children and our grandchildren and build on the legacy that British Columbia has been known for from the W.A.C. Bennett days.

[1535]

Site C is currently in the third stage of a five-stage process. It's the regulatory review stage, which includes an independent environmental assessment.

I guess sending this bill to committee might finally help us discover if the NDP is for or against this clean, green energy project at Site C. We'd like to know where they stand on this nearly $8 billion project that will provide tremendous salaries to the construction phase and tremendous power that will allow our children and grandchildren to have the same economic opportunities that we've enjoyed for so many years.

While I think that sending this is one way to find out what the real position of the NDP is on clean, green energy and wealth creation — that may be one reason to send this bill to an all-party committee — it is clear that we want to move forward for the good of this province, to make decisions today that will make sure our children and grandchildren have the same opportunities we've enjoyed for so many years here in British Columbia.

For some reason, the NDP seem to think that we can build a wall around the province, that the people of British Columbia are somehow disconnected from the rest of the world, that we don't have to export anything or import anything, that we can just live in this wonderful world that's insulated from everything else.

They don't like the fact that we're exporting wood to China. They think, "Oh, it's not worthwhile opening up new markets for wood in China," and it's been so enormously successful. We have mills that are being reconfigured specifically to cater to that market.

Those are the ways that we create jobs and economic opportunity in this province. We've been exporting wood. We've been exporting oil and gas. We've been exporting minerals, and much to the surprise of the Agriculture critic for the NDP, we've been exporting our agricultural products. What a shock. If it wasn't for the exportation of our agricultural products, we wouldn't have an agricultural community in this province. But somehow the opposition members think we can build a wall around British Columbia and turn back the clock to about 1952.

I think that the creation of clean, green energy that we can export and create opportunities, that can help other jurisdictions meet their energy demands in a way that will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, that will allow new technologies to develop….

We have enormous opportunities in this province. Geothermal opportunities exist throughout the north-

[ Page 6236 ]

ern part of my riding, which this clean, green energy act will allow to be opened up and provide opportunities for rural British Columbia.

I don't think we should apologize for exporting what we do so well in this province, but apparently the Agriculture critic thinks we can build a wall around the province and not let any cows or calves go out of this province. Well, if she wants to tell 80 percent of the ranchers in this province that they can give up their ranches, then she just better keep going with that kind of philosophy.

In closing, I'd like to say that Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, should be debated here in this House, not referred. It's a historic piece of legislation for B.C. It enshrines our heritage assets and also builds on our tradition of low electric rates. It preserves and strengthens a Crown corporation that the NDP and everyone in this province hold up as a model. It provides a firm power capacity to meet our growing needs while providing opportunities for economic development in all areas of the province.

What's so wrong about that, NDP? I do not understand what the NDP has against creating economic opportunities in this province. It offers B.C. solutions for clean, green energy that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because our atmosphere is shared. We don't yet have those big walls around British Columbia.

[1540]

It's a platform for economic prosperity, for environmental responsibility, and demonstrates that here in British Columbia we can do the right thing for the province and also for the planet.

With that, I will take my seat.

H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: We have in the House my good friend Sucha Dhillon, and his wife is here, Baljinder Kaur Dhillon. Also with them are Onkar Singh Mann and his wife, Jasvir Kaur Mann, who have travelled all the way from New Delhi to attend a wedding that their family and I attended. They are here to see what we do in this House and are visiting Victoria. So please help me make them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: I rise to speak in favour of the referral motion. I think all the proof we need that in order to have reasoned debate, we should take this back to the public, was given to us in the previous speech we just had.

The electioneering that takes place in here, which has become an insipid part of what constitutes debates in here, is not what our democracy was supposed to be about. Our democracy is supposed to be about governance, where every four years we have a 28-day election. Then you can start, if that's the way you want to run elections, throwing the mud around and talking about ideologies and about the history of the various parties.

In this House we are supposed to be talking about the governance of the province, and what we are saying is that the bill before us, the so-called Clean Energy Act, does not meet the test of good legislation. But again, because of this government's failure to bring forward a concerted agenda — one that is reasonable, one that makes sense to us in terms of governing this province — we are now having a situation where we have a massive bill that has huge implications for the future of this province. On the last day of the Legislature we are still only in second reading, the speechifying stage.

We have not been able to get to committee. We have not been able to get to the clause-by-clause. We haven't been able to put forward reasoned amendments, and as a consequence we just simply do not believe that is sufficient to put in place a law that is this far-reaching, that is this broad and that is, quite frankly, this undemocratic. That's why we're saying that the people of British Columbia deserve the opportunity to go and look at this and decide for themselves whether this is supportable or not.

We tend to get locked in debates in this House that, quite frankly, are shocking. I mean, today the debate was all about W.A.C. Bennett, who's been long in his grave. I think we should respect what he did as a Premier, but the circumstances that exist today — with global climate change, with peak oil, issues of food security, issues of the urban-rural divide — did not exist in Mr. Bennett's day when he could go and develop a province in the way that he did.

Therefore, our development challenges are fundamentally different than what occurred then. They are fundamentally different than what occurred in the 1990s. You hear the government side saying: "Oh, IPPs and aquaculture all started in the 1990s." Sure they did. The science was different then. Our understanding of ecological systems was different then. The world market and climate change were different then.

This is now. This is the 21st century, one decade into it, that has different circumstances and different constraints on us. Therefore, we must put it through that lens, not fight the battles that have already been fought, the elections that have already been decided, but do the right thing for the governance of the province today and for future generations. On balance, our assessment of the Clean Energy Act is that it doesn't meet that test.

[1545]

[ Page 6237 ]

It begs more questions about what the government's intent is. In particular, it begs the question of why out of the blue, with no input from anybody, this government wants to take all of the major projects, tens of billions of dollars of project work, out of the hands of the B.C. Utilities Commission, the only real oversight that exists in the case of First Nations. That's why Site C has not proceeded, and the First Nations will attest to that. It wants to take that oversight and put it in cabinet — quite frankly, again, a further level of eroding our democracy. It wants to put it behind the secrecy of cabinet so that we can't even understand how the decisions are made.

That's how governments are beginning to operate. It becomes a dictatorship of the few or a dictatorship of the Premier or the Prime Minister's Office and not a democracy. I think the people of British Columbia have a right to have a say in whether they want major project decisions to go beyond the pale of cabinet, beyond the pale of the public purview, and to be made in ways that are subject to potential lobbying and influence-peddling and all of the things that erode a democracy even further.

I think this referral motion is a reasoned motion. It comes at an appropriate time. We don't have the opportunity to go through this bill. It is far-reaching, and as a consequence, it should be taken to the public.

There's another reason it should be taken to the public. There's a need right now to engage the public in their democracy in more meaningful ways. Year after year, election after election we see the public disengaging from the democratic process, because all they get to say…. It's their impression of politics that they get their say at the ballot box.

They get to see their politicians when they want their vote. They don't get the opportunity to see them in between elections in meaningful ways, where they are engaged in public dialogue about issues that matter to them.

Referring this bill to committee gives us the opportunity to take what is a substantive change in public policy and a substantive opportunity, with all of the associated risks, and say to the public: "How do you want British Columbia to position itself?"

J. Rustad: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: It's not often I get a chance to be able to introduce visitors from one of my communities. Today we have a group from Houston Christian School that has come down. They've been down for a number of days. They're here visiting the Legislature, exploring a little bit about what we do in here, seeing a little bit of the building and learning a little bit of the history. With us we have 19 from the school group, 14 students and five parents, and I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: One of the things we need to do in order to revitalize our democracy is engage people in meaningful debate. Referral to committee in this case is one of the ways we can do that.

I find it interesting that we did this, as well, with HST. When the PST repeal bill was in this House, we put a motion to refer as well. We asked the government to do the same thing.

We are seeing a significant public backlash to the HST. We're seeing the signatures on petitions the likes of which I don't think anybody, quite frankly, expected. There's still a month to go, so it'll be interesting to see how high the level of participation is there.

There was an alternate course of action for the government to go back to the public and say, "Okay, we hear loud and clear. This is a democratic society we live in. We hear loud and clear that there are fundamental questions," and go out in the form of a committee and ask those questions, clarify, retool the bill if necessary, bring it back in or, if they heard clearly from the public a lack of readiness, then address that issue.

That was not the case. What the government is going to do instead — and they've made it a matter of the public record — is that after July 6, after the initiative is completed, they're then going to go and educate the public about what's going on.

That's not sufficient. I don't think it will meet the public's test of validity, and it won't address the issues that they have. The bill is already passed.

[1550]

We have an opportunity in this case, because I think the public backlash against this…. I'm going to speak to one sector of this very shortly that has given a strong message to the government not to pass the bill in this session, and that's the First Nations community. But we have an opportunity in this bill to refer and to have that debate and not have to go and educate the public after the fact.

The other interesting one is the government passed a bill in here — zero net deforestation. We asked questions about that bill in this House, and after the bill passes, the government is now out with a discussion paper trying to inform the public about what it's all about because they've had such a backlash from all of these different sectors — that while the government is actually not taking care of the public forests, the large public forests, they want to do these minuscule bits and pieces of planting in order to achieve so-called net deforestation. So they come in, they pass a bill, and then

[ Page 6238 ]

they go out and try and let the public know what it is that they're doing.

I raised in the House some questions around the Haida reconciliation act. One of the things that bothered me in that act as a brand-new piece of legislation — not the act itself, not the intent of the act…. But in the final statement of the

preamble of that act, it said that the act was constructed by the advice and consent of the Legislature of British Columbia. We were seeing it when it was completed, when it was a done deal, when it was put in front of this House for basically assent by the majority government vote.

Advice and consent of this House requires more work than that. Advice and consent of the people of British Columbia, the citizens of this province that will be impacted by the rate changes, impacted by the private sector development, impacted by the secrecy with which major projects will now be undertaken and approved and signed off on by the cabinet….

The advice and consent of British Columbians is critical, and I think the government is afraid to actually take this bill out and hear that the people of British Columbia are not interested in those things. But it should go, and the government should have the courage to take it out and the courage to change the act and the courage to stand up for the democratic principles that underline our society, and make the adjustments necessary in their own agenda as a result.

Now, there's an interesting flip side of that, and that's the Water Act. The government indicated that they need to change the Water Act. That's a huge act that has significant implications for the entire province. They haven't ramrodded that in here. They're going out and doing significant consultation processes around the province. They are engaging the people of British Columbia. Why? Because they understand they must deal with water in the world of climate change.

They understand they must deal with water in the world of competing interests, where you have independent hydro power projects looking at going into watersheds that are used by ranchers, that are used by First Nations, that are used by fishing interests, that are used by wildlife and are part of ecological systems that impact wild salmon stocks. The government appears to understand that that's a complicated issue that requires the input, and significant input, from the people of British Columbia before they even begin to craft the legislation and bring it into the House.

On this bill they did not go through that process. What process did they go through? That would be the defence of the government that I would put up — not what the previous member put up about NDP and export and walls around British Columbia. Quite frankly, I don't understand what his point was. What I would put up as a defence is that they put together what they called the clean energy or the green energy task force so that there can be an argument made that some consultation was done.

So here we have a bill that the government has indicated is going to change the face of energy in the province of British Columbia, and in order to put a smokescreen up in front of the lack of public consultation, they put together the green energy task force. That green energy task force was put together in November of last year. It had to work through the Christmas period in order to deliver their recommendations in advance of this bill coming in.

But everybody knows that legislation is not put together overnight. It has a very significant approval process to go through. It has to go through the legal beagles who look at it and make sure that it meets those tests. So this legislation actually had to be put together simultaneously with the so-called task force doing its work and putting its recommendations forward. That's why, no surprise, the legislation does not even meet the test of the recommendations in the task force. There are bits and pieces, but on balance it does not meet the test of those recommendations.

[1555]

Those recommendations are interesting in and of themselves. I've talked to task force members who said that they were given a very difficult task, a very complicated task, and a short time to try and figure it out. In doing that, there were a lot of compromises. There was a lot of work done to try and find the middle ground between development interests, the public interests, private interests and private access to development, resources and the whole works. But they ended up with a document that they were reasonably pleased with, although some of them said it ended up significantly watered down.

That green energy task force was put forward over Christmas. It came forward to us, and it became a public document, unlike the climate change document where we still haven't seen any of the public debate about climate change. It was put beyond the pale, again, of the public domain, put behind cabinet secrecy. We still can't get access to any of those documents, and I still don't understand why you make climate change a secret enterprise. So kudos to the government. At least this one was made public at the end of the deliberations.

In particular, what I wish to speak to is the First Nations community. I am now the Aboriginal Relations critic for the NDP, and I am learning that file. I was just in estimates debate with the minister and raised this very issue and this very resolution that I'll speak to momentarily.

There were two First Nations involved in the Green Energy Advisory Task Force, and those representatives did tell us that the work they did — and they admit in the report — was extremely complicated work. They had a very difficult time trying to deal with it. Directly quot-

[ Page 6239 ]

ing from the report, they indicated that the task force members struggled with the complexity of these issues.

"The task of creating an environment that fosters certainty while addressing First Nations rights and title was particularly difficult, sensitive and time-consuming. These are issues that have been grappled with for a decade…. For First Nations, the intent of the recommendations is…to address their constitutional rights and attempt to build capacity in communities so that economic and social opportunities can be leveraged."

So they were given a gargantuan task. They were given a complex task. It was a task that they engaged in and attempted to put forward recommendations to government. The recommendations are far-reaching. In fact, what's fascinating in looking at this is that they made recommendations for broader community involvement. The First Nations said it's more than just First Nations communities; it's all communities in British Columbia. And the communities must have some kind of primacy of place in taking advantage of these development opportunities.

The argument they made is that this is a whole new venture, a whole new enterprise that we're going to engage in, and how we frame it could actually resolve longstanding disputes and longstanding issues about how rural communities can benefit as well as First Nations communities can benefit. Failure to seize those opportunities, the First Nations say, is also a failure to achieve this because it will be exactly like the quagmire that the mining industry finds itself in where they're going to have to fight through the court system to get access to the resources to do what they want to do.

They came forward with recommendations. The recommendations were broad-reaching and were not adhered to. So on May 21 of this year the All Chiefs Task Force was interrupted by the First Nations energy council, whose CEO was on the Green Energy Advisory Task Force. They sent a letter to government with a resolution, and I want to just read that resolution into the record.

The letter states: "First Nations leaders have significant concerns regarding the B.C. Clean Energy Act and earlier this week issued the attached joint statement on the proposed legislation." And here's the statement.

"Whereas aboriginal title and aboriginal and treaty rights continue to exist in British Columbia;

whereas the First Nations of British Columbia never surrendered jurisdiction over our lands and resources;

whereas the 2005 new relationship statement agrees to establish processes and institutions for shared decision-making about the land and resources for revenue- and benefit-sharing;

whereas the B.C. government has recently held first reading of the Clean Energy Act, this act represents the future direction for green energy production and exports.

[1600]

"This act was constructed without First Nations involvement, and there was no consultation prior to the introduction of the act.

"We are told the act was guided by a Green Energy Task Force. However, upon review of the legislation, it is clear that the majority of the First Nations recommendations were ignored.

"Whereas the Clean Energy Act exempts significant major hydro and transmission projects from oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission; and

whereas the provincial Crown has unilaterally implemented these sweeping changes, ignoring the court-recognized legal obligations for me