2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Coastal Health Care Committee

Fraser

Autism

Rustad

Kicking Horse Culture

Macdonald

Parkinson's disease

Nuraney

Kesha Neal

C. Wyse

Community market in Steveston

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Investigation into ICBC vehicle

sales

C. James

Hon. J.

van Dongen

H. Bains

Ralston

Hon. W.

Oppal

Gentner

Fleming

ICBC performance bonuses

to Paul Taylor

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Protection of information in

CORNET database

L. Krog

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Great Bear conservancy and

Nascall River power project

G. Coons

Hon. B.

Penner

Petitions

R. Fleming

Second Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 15)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Horgan

Macdonald

Austin

Simpson

Hammell

Ralston

Hon. B.

Penner

C. Evans

Puchmayr

Sather

Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Karagianis

Sather

Robertson

Routley

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

N. Simons

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Routley

Hon. K.

Falcon

Fleming

Cubberley

G. Coons

[ Page 10785 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to say that in

the precinct today we have Evalina Puddifoot, who is a grade 5 student from

Queen Mary Elementary School. I'm sure you remember that yesterday we had the

people from Queen Mary Elementary School. Evalina had so much fun that she

decided to come back with her mother today. I think she may actually be one of

our future Premiers, so I hope we'll all make her welcome.

M. Polak: Today in the gallery we're joined by my daughter

Miriam Polak and her friend Dani Boon. I hope the House will make them welcome.

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I have an introduction, in fact,

on behalf of you.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public

servants seated in the gallery. They are participating in a full-day

parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The

workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a

greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries

and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[1335]

Hon. W. Oppal: In the House this afternoon is Judge Herb

Weitzel, a well-known judge of the Provincial Court who has been on the court

for many, many years. He's served the public of this province in a yeoman

manner. I would ask that the House make him welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) COASTAL HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE

S. Fraser: Community members and health care workers in the

west health area have a strong desire to be involved in planning future health

delivery in the region. The Coastal Health Care Committee was formed in 2006 in

response to local concerns about the state of the health services, including

shortages of physicians and nurses in the area served by Tofino General

Hospital. This area includes not just residents of Tofino and Ucluelet but all

of the Nuu-chah-nulth communities of Clayoquot Sound and, for many parts of the

year, thousands and thousands of visitors also.

Since the dissolution of the hospital boards, concerns have been

voiced that community involvement in health care planning on the west health

area have dwindled. Physicians, nurses and other health care staff have been

dealing with mounting demands and shrinking service support — a dangerous

combination in a region that has a peak seasonal population that exceeds 25,000

and that is geographically challenged and isolated.

So the west coast health committee took the bull by the horns and,

in partnership with the Tofino Hospital Foundation, hired a facilitator to

solicit and summarize local community and health care providers' input regarding

local health services. These are the people that really know.

The recommendations are thoughtful and essential, and they need to

be implemented. They include replacing the hospital. It has served the community

well for many years. It includes addressing urgent medical and nursing staff

recruitment issues, providing housing for locums, encouraging nursing programs

to train nurses in rural health care, building a residential care facility,

increasing support services to help seniors, and helping communities develop

assisted-living options. And there are many more.

I applaud the work and the dedication of all involved with

planning for sustainable rural health care delivery on the west coast. The

Coastal Health Care Committee sets an example that should be considered and

supported by health authorities across the province, where community members and

local health care deliverers work together to solve local challenges. Please

join me in applauding their work.

AUTISM

J. Rustad: I rise today to speak in recognition of the

first annual World Autism Awareness Day. The pins many of us are wearing today

represent the missing piece of a puzzle that is autism. Autism may be just a

word to you or me, but to millions of children and youth throughout the world

and their families it can mean many things including daily therapy sessions,

social impairment and, for some parents, never being able to hear their child

say the words "I love you."

It's also associated with rigid routines and repetitive behaviours

such as obsessively arranging objects, flapping hands, walking on tippytoes or

endlessly repeating lines from a movie or book. It can mean never wavering from

a very specific routine such as taking the same street to school, putting on the

same shoes or eating the same meal over and over again. Symptoms of children on

the autism spectrum can range from mild to severe.

Today one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism spectrum

disorder. Autism doesn't discriminate. It knows no geographical or socioeconomic

boundaries. It occurs in all racial, ethnic and social groups and is four times

more likely to strike boys than girls.

Here in B.C. we currently serve over 5,000 children and youth with

autism spectrum disorder. I'm proud to say that since 2001 our budget for

treatment and funding for programs has increased to $43 million annually. We're

also playing a strong role in supporting autism

[ Page 10786 ]

research through ongoing studies at UBC and the recent announcement of a $1

million investment to create an autism research chair at SFU, which was also

matched by the federal government.

It's only through understanding and compassion that we will all

learn to appreciate the unique abilities of children and adults with autism and

gain a better understanding of how they view the world around us.

[1340]

KICKING HORSE CULTURE

N. Macdonald: Kicking Horse Culture is one of a great many

arts councils around this province. Each arts council is unique to their

particular community. The last time I talked about arts councils, I talked about

funding. Funding is really important to allow what is fundamentally a volunteer

effort.

The opportunities that arts councils provide to people to express

themselves creatively, to enjoy high-quality performances and exhibitions and to

have communities come together are critically important.

The Community Arts Advisory Committee, which is a provincial body,

recently commended Kicking Horse Culture for its range of arts practices and for

its culturally diverse offerings. To give members here an idea of that range,

you had our winter festival this year in Golden. It was the Snow King Goes

Bollywood , which showcased the great Indian cinema music tradition. There

was a production of a book of salvaged photos from Golden's past, called

Adventurers and Settlers. That was put together from an exhibition in

Golden's new art gallery, which Kicking Horse Culture also runs.

The community was able to see choirs from Nelson, Irish musicians,

Ballet Kelowna as well as winning movies from the Banff Mountain Film Festival,

called the Best from the Fest. Kicking Horse Culture also brings together local

talent. Poet Caleb Moss with his students, singer Jane Fearing, musician Carl

Trinkwon, local sculptors, painters and many other exceptional talents are given

a venue to share their skills and inspire others to give it a try.

I have to mention Bill Usher, who is the executive director. His

wife was a music teacher at my elementary school. Bill would come and drum with

the students. I was telling the students about the famous musicians that Bill

had played with and the musicians he had produced back in Toronto. The only

thing that impressed them was that he had sung a song with Big Bird on Sesame

Street , which impressed me as well.

Within all of our communities, there are special talents. Kicking

Horse Culture and arts councils across the province let us share people's

talents. I ask the Legislature to join me in showing that we appreciate and

salute their efforts.

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

J. Nuraney: The month of April is Parkinson's Awareness

Month. Parkinson's disease belongs to a group of conditions called motor system

disorders. Four primary symptoms are tremor or trembling of hands, arms, legs,

jaw and face; rigidity or stiffness of limbs and trunk; slowness of movement;

and impaired balance and coordination.

It usually affects people over 50. There are approximately 100,000

people in Canada and 7,000 in British Columbia who suffer from this disease. At

present there is no cure for this disease.

A very famous Burnaby resident, Michael J. Fox, was affected by

this disease some years ago. I have been witnessing the gradual deterioration of

his condition over the years. I have the opportunity to see him every year. Even

though his mental faculties are intact, his physical motor systems are evidently

getting worse.

Our government has invested $25 million, as announced in our

throne speech, in building a centre for brain health at UBC. Diseases involving

the brain affect a growing number of the British Columbia population. Close to

50 percent of British Columbians are affected by a brain disease like stroke,

multiple sclerosis or neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and

Parkinson's. This centre will help identify the causes and hopefully treatment

for this debilitating disease.

I would like to ask the members of our Legislature to bring this

message of awareness of Parkinson's disease to their constituents.

KESHA NEAL

C. Wyse: Every day brings a challenge to every person on

this planet. These challenges vary from person to person or from day to day for

individuals.

In my constituency, a young woman meets her challenges in a way

that makes many of our problems insignificant. Kesha Neal is a young woman who

has faced challenges her entire life. She has cerebral palsy, a condition that

limits her physical abilities while leaving her cognitive abilities intact.

[1345]

Miss Neal lived at home with the support of her family while

growing up. Since her graduation from high school in Williams Lake, Miss Neal

has worked as a volunteer and as a paid employee with the Central Interior

Community Service Cooperative.

When she lived at home, she had home support twice a week. Her

mother provided care at night and on weekends. Like all young people, however,

Miss Neal looked forward to the independence that comes from living on her own.

As a young person in her early 20s, she longed for a place to live separate from

but near her family.

In Williams Lake that independence was partially realized when she

moved into the seniors village, the only facility that could provide the care

she requires. While Miss Neal appreciates the physical care she receives, she

longs to have the intellectual stimulation of interacting with other people her

own age. She would like to live with peers who, like her, may be physically

limited but function well intellectually.

Miss Neal would like to live in a facility that allows her to be

independent, allows her to continue to work

[ Page 10787 ]

and allows her to realize her potential as a contributing member of society.

Miss Neal is a role model for other young, able and disabled citizens. Please

join me in acknowledging Miss Neal's efforts to make her world and ours a better

place.

COMMUNITY MARKET IN STEVESTON

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about something new coming

soon to Richmond-Steveston. The Steveston Community Society and the city of

Richmond will be hosting a weekly farmers' and artisans' market in Steveston.

This market will showcase some of the community's finest local

flavours. Local produce, fresh seafood, arts, crafts and entertainment will fill

the compound of the Gulf of Georgia Cannery every Sunday starting May 4 to

September 28.

This market will give Richmond farmers and others from across

British Columbia an opportunity to showcase their best for locals and tourists

alike. The market will serve as a focal point where people can come to shop and

socialize in their own community. Visitors to the market will experience all the

amenities and activities that the area has to offer in an open, safe and scenic

location in the heart of historic Steveston village. Visitors will also be able

to experience fresh seafood sold from fishermen's boats at the nearby docks.

After many years of trying to organize a farmers' market, small

domestic farmers will now be able to sell their products locally. The market

will bring about agricultural awareness and reflect the importance of supporting

local businesses and farming. Vendors will benefit from the supportive marketing

team, wider exposure and the opportunity to serve a growing residential

community as well as tourists who come to Steveston.

Our community is fortunate to have this market to enjoy for the

coming summer months. I'd like to thank all those involved in planning this

market — in particular Leisa Yee, Loren Slye and Jim Kojima — and recognize

their efforts towards promoting a greener community. Thanks to them and support

from the city of Richmond, Steveston will join the growing number of communities

in B.C. with farmers' markets.

I invite one and all to check out this new market when it starts

May 4 and on any given Sunday until September 28 when the last market will

happen, coincidentally, on the day that we celebrate the conclusion of BC150's

Rivermania celebration in — where else? — Steveston.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO ICBC

VEHICLE SALES

C. James: Yesterday, just before question period, the

Premier appointed a new Solicitor General. He's now had 24 hours to be briefed

and to take action.

Will the Solicitor General today release ICBC's internal

investigation so that British Columbians really can see how deep this scandal

goes?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the Leader of the Opposition

for the question. I want to begin by confirming that the issues that have arisen

at the research facility in Burnaby, operated by ICBC, are unacceptable. They're

unacceptable to our government. They're unacceptable to me as the minister

responsible. They're unacceptable to the board and management of ICBC.

[1350]

As minister responsible, on behalf of the government, on behalf of

the board and management of ICBC, and on behalf of all of the employees of ICBC

who were not involved in this activity, I want to apologize, first of all, to

the purchasers of vehicles that may have been deficient or where there was

improper disclosure. I want to apologize to all the people of British Columbia,

who have a right to expect integrity within the operations of their Crown

corporations.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Now we've heard the head of ICBC say he's sorry.

Now we've heard the Solicitor General say he's sorry. What's missing is the

government coming clean and telling the public what really went on. That's

what's needed.

Quite frankly, British Columbians don't trust ICBC to come clean.

It was ICBC management that actually ran the scam, and now it's ICBC management

that's saying to British Columbians: "Don't worry; everything has been cleaned

up." Well, this scandal isn't going to go away. It can't be pushed under the

rug. There are too many unanswered questions.

So my question again to the Solicitor General: will he finally

come clean? Will he tell us who was involved in the scam, will he tell us who's

been fired, and will he tell us…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue.

C. James: Will the Solicitor General tell us who's been let

go, who was fired and who got a pay package as they walked out the door?

Hon. J. van Dongen: All of the information I have received

in the last 24 hours confirms that the board of directors and senior management

of ICBC acted immediately when they became aware that there were improprieties

at the research centre in Burnaby.

They immediately launched an internal investigation and,

concurrent with that, engaged the services of PricewaterhouseCoopers, an

independent external firm that will review all of the issues and all of the

actions by ICBC. That report will be made public when it is complete.

The findings of the internal review confirm that since 1998, there

were 98 vehicles that had been sold

[ Page 10788 ]

from that centre without proper disclosure, without proper designation, and

that 22 of those were purchased by employees. As a result, ICBC has attempted to

contact all of the purchasers of those vehicles and ensure that the necessary

repairs or inspections were done.

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

supplemental.

C. James: Without that internal report being made public,

the public in fact doesn't know whether what the minister is telling us is

accurate. We have no idea whether ICBC acted immediately, because we haven't

seen that internal report. So the question remains about whether that report is

going to be made public.

Quite frankly, this scam has continued to grow. The information

has continued to trickle out. The information wasn't disclosed fully.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just sit down for a second.

Would other members care to listen to the question and the answer?

Continue.

C. James: This scam continues to grow. Mr. Speaker, you'll

remember that this scandal started off with write-offs being sold to the

unsuspecting public. Now we know that ICBC management actually used an auction

scam to be able to get those cars. They knew what the bids would be. They were

able to outbid, and they were able to get those vehicles. So this is anything

but clean. This is anything but full disclosure.

[1355]

Again to the Solicitor General: will he tell this House today who

set up the scam and who is going to be held accountable? Will he release that

internal investigation, because the public has a right to know?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I repeat. The Insurance Corporation

immediately launched an internal investigation. They immediately turned over

relevant information to the RCMP and have committed to the RCMP their full

cooperation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the issues are

serious, and all of the due diligence that is required from the board of

directors and the senior management of ICBC will be expected of them.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report is an external independent

review of all of the issues and will be made public in due course. That

commitment was made by ICBC. I should also advise the member that on March 19

the CEO of ICBC disclosed all of the information to the public in terms of the

investigation that was done.

H. Bains: What is at the core of this issue is the

integrity and the public trust in that Crown corporation. Obviously, this

government and this minister have no understanding of that concept, coming from

those answers, which are the only things you can judge from.

ICBC spokesman Doug McClelland has told the media that more

write-offs than initially thought were bought in rigged auctions, but he refused

to disclose how many. ICBC deals with 42,000 write-offs per year, but we don't

know how many of those were later bought by ICBC officials as part of their own

auction scam.

To the Solicitor General: how many officials were involved, how

many cars were bought in this scam, and when will he make this internal report

open?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is a fact that the reputation and

the integrity of the organization are at stake, and that's why the situation and

the conduct at the research facility are unacceptable. That's why our government

has confirmed that it is unacceptable.

As minister responsible, I expect the board of directors and the

senior management of ICBC to conduct the full degree of internal investigation

as the responsible managers of the organization. I expect PricewaterhouseCoopers

to report fully on the full extent of the relevant issues with respect to this

matter. So if there are more details that need to come out, then I expect the

board and the management of ICBC to identify those issues and deal with them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: If the minister was serious about what he's

saying, then he would stand up today and say that that internal report will be

made public today. In the view that it is clear that upper management at ICBC

knew what the auction scam was, because they set it up, they participated in it.

British Columbians have the right, especially the consumers of

ICBC, to know how far this fraud reached into ICBC. Will the Solicitor General

name the managers and the vice-presidents involved in this scam? And how much

severance pay are they going to receive as they walk out the door?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to begin my response to that

question by reminding the member that the employer is ICBC. As the employer,

they have certain legal requirements, legal obligations and legal duties that

they have to meet in the conduct of the business of ICBC. They are bound by the

law; they are bound by personal privacy responsibilities.

[1400]

Within the context of those obligations, I expect the board of

ICBC and the senior management to deal appropriately with any identified

misconduct of employees.

[ Page 10789 ]

Beyond that, I reiterate that if there is any possible criminal

activity, it is up to the RCMP. The information is available to them. ICBC has

committed to ongoing cooperation with them on matters that may be of interest to

the RCMP.

B. Ralston: On Saturday, March 29, the Premier said, in

connection with the resignation of the previous Solicitor General, the

following: "The appointment of a special prosecutor is a very low threshold to

make sure people don't say and can't say there's any political interference."

Given the potentially politically sensitive nature of these

matters, is the Attorney General able to advise whether or not Mr. Gillen has

appointed a special prosecutor to assist any investigation that may be ongoing?

Hon. W. Oppal: That member is a member of the bar. I'm sure

he knows the law. The matter of whether or not a special prosecutor is appointed

is a matter entirely for the jurisdiction and the authority of the criminal

justice branch. The assistant deputy minister would make that decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the Attorney General misunderstood my

question. I'm well aware that it's Mr. Gillen who would make the decision, but

apparently only by way of asking a public question does the Attorney General

then announce it to the public.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Has Mr. Gillen

appointed a special prosecutor to assist the investigation in this matter?

Hon. W. Oppal: The decision as to whether a special

prosecutor will or will not be appointed is entirely within the jurisdiction of

the criminal justice branch and the assistant deputy minister. They will decide,

in their wisdom, in their authority, whether or not to make that announcement of

the appointment public.

G. Gentner: To the Solicitor General, a quick question:

will the terms of reference of the Pricewaterhouse report be released to the

public, and when?

Hon. J. van Dongen: All of the relevant issues to this

event — the conduct of activities at the research centre — will be reviewed by

Pricewaterhouse and will be disclosed to the public, including the terms of

reference. I have not at this time had the opportunity to review the terms of

reference.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: You know, the opposite side has had lots of

experience in investigations. We saw a lot of it, of course, done with the B.C.

Lottery Corporation. We're seeing things happening with B.C. Rail, etc. Why will

the minister not release it today — those terms of reference?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Once the complete investigation by

PricewaterhouseCoopers is complete, then the terms of reference will be released

as part of the report.

I want to reiterate…

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: …that my expectation of the board of

directors and then management of ICBC will be to do all of the due diligence

necessary in terms of their management responsibilities and to ensure that all

of the appropriate issues that need to be dealt with, including some of the

questions raised by the members, will be covered by the Pricewaterhouse report

which, as I said, will be independent and outside the organization.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that the Solicitor General is

confident that the terms of reference of this internal investigation are

adequate, although he just admitted he hasn't read them yet. Pending receipt of

the report, the issue of public confidence here is such that they want to know

that the internal investigation goes far enough, goes deep enough and will

restore confidence in this Crown corporation. We don't need to receive the

entire report before the public is allowed to know whether the scope of that

audit investigation is thorough enough.

My question to the Solicitor General is…. Get briefed now on what

those terms of reference are. When you do, will you come back and will you table

in this House what those terms of reference are?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to caution the members that

there are thousands of employees at the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia who are ethical. They're doing their jobs every day on behalf of the

people of British Columbia.

I want to reiterate that the board and management have acted

immediately. They have disclosed the results of their own investigation. They

have fully shared that information with the RCMP. They have committed to full

cooperation with the RCMP. Within the constraints of the law and the privacy

legislation, all of the investigation and recommendations of

PricewaterhouseCoopers will be released to the public.

R. Fleming: The importance to the thousands of employees at

ICBC who do their jobs well every day for the public…. They have the same

interests as the public in this matter. They want to see corruption

[ Page 10790 ]

rooted out, thoroughly investigated and consequences to follow, where

appropriate. What the public needs right now is to know that this government,

because their record on this is pretty bad in other instances, is thoroughly

investigating this matter.

So I ask the Solicitor General again: will he release the terms of

reference of the PricewaterhouseCoopers internal investigation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The terms of reference of the report

will form part of the report which will be released to the public, as I said,

subject to legal restraints and particularly freedom-of-information

requirements.

ICBC PERFORMANCE BONUSES

TO PAUL TAYLOR

M. Farnworth: The answer, then, to this scandal, the latest

scandal, is that the public will find out once the report is done what the terms

of references are. So there's no opportunity to see whether the terms of

references are indeed adequate or cover the full scope that needs to be

investigated.

Perhaps there's a question, then, that the minister can answer. We

know that the vast majority of the employees of ICBC are doing a terrific job,

but ICBC has felt confident enough that they can name and make statements that

vice-presidents have gone and that managers have been fired.

We've got a new minister in place who is supposed to be

accountable here in this House. We've got a chair who's also supposed to be

accountable and a president who is supposed to be accountable. Can he tell us

whether Mr. Paul Taylor will be paying back some of his considerable performance

bonuses in light of this terrific lacklustre performance by ICBC?

[1410]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The outcome of the investigation

conducted by ICBC senior management, in cooperation with PricewaterhouseCoopers,

confirmed that these sales of these 98 vehicles go back to 1998. I think that is

an important finding. ICBC, through senior management, continues to confirm….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the review that I have done to this

point, I continue to have confidence in the board of directors of ICBC. They are

directors that have been identified for their skills and experience in board

governance. The CEO of ICBC that reports to that board of directors, who is

hired by them and whose performance is appraised by them, is a longstanding

public servant in our province as a deputy minister of Treasury Board and a

Deputy Minister of Finance, and has a long career in the public service in

Alberta.

I confirm that based on the information to date, I have confidence

in the board and management of ICBC, and I think we need to continue to support

employees that do a good job every day on behalf of the public in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, at some point the buck has got to stop

somewhere on that side of the House — if not on the minister's desk, then on the

Premier's desk. My question to the minister responsible today is: will he

recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the performance bonuses for Mr. Taylor

at ICBC be paid back?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is my expectation, as minister

responsible, that all of the relevant issues be identified and investigated by

PricewaterhouseCoopers and that all of the findings in terms of the issues, all

of the actions by ICBC and the findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers, be part of

the report that is provided to the public. It has been committed by ICBC, and

that is subject to legal requirements — all of the legal constraints that they

operate in.

PROTECTION OF INFORMATION

IN CORNET DATABASE

L. Krog: The Auditor General's recent audit made it clear

that the government did not take steps to protect its CORNET database, which

contains highly sensitive data on both adult and youth offenders. It wasn't

until a damning audit by the Auditor General that the government took steps to

protect this highly sensitive information.

Can the Solicitor General explain to this House how that database

was made so vulnerable?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Given my level of activity on the major

issue of the day in the last 24 hours, I appreciate the member's question. I

will take it on notice.

GREAT BEAR CONSERVANCY

AND NASCALL RIVER POWER PROJECT

G. Coons: The Nascall private power project in the Great

Bear rain forest will destroy one of the most spectacular lake systems on our

coast. Two years ago the Premier said he would protect this area, but the

legislation to do so has stalled.

[1415]

The proponents of the project say that the representatives for the

Ministry of Environment "have indicated the conservancy designation will not be

going ahead until there is an agreement with first nations and independent power

producers in the area."

My question to the Minister of Environment: is the minister

delaying legislation on the Great Bear rain

[ Page 10791 ]

forest conservancy until first nations bow to the pressure and accept private

power projects?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to finally get a question. It's

the first question I've had in this session, and I think it's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. B. Penner: It appears that their lack of interest in

the environment continues, because the question is not even posed by the

Environment critic. Nevertheless, our government is proud of our record. In

fact, we've already established in law 65 conservancies on the north coast.

As a result of the historic land use agreement that was reached in

discussions with all sorts of different parties including first nations,

environmental groups, local governments and the province of British Columbia, we

will be bringing forward legislation later in this session to establish even

more conservancies on the north coast of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I can see the minister…. With all the scandals on

that side of the House, it's hard to get questions over there.

Now, both the Heiltsuk and the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

G. Coons: Both the Heiltsuk and the Nuxalk, whose

traditional territory the private power project crosses, oppose this project.

First nations are concerned that the government is stalling on protecting the

Great Bear due to their desire to see the Nascall River project proceed. So much

for the new relationship.

Will the minister confirm that the Great Bear conservancy is on

hold until the first nations agree to let the Nascall private power project go

ahead?

Hon. B. Penner: Just before I give my more fulsome answer,

I'll note that the Environment critic has seen fit to get on his feet and ask

ten questions this session, but I'm still waiting for my first question from

him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased that the member for North Coast

has seen fit to ask me a question.

There are a number of first nations in British Columbia….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just wait for a second.

Continue.

Hon. B. Penner: There are a number of first nations in

British Columbia who are partnering with independent power producers in

developing clean and green renewable energy for British Columbia, and the NDP

has been opposed to every single first nation that's doing that and to those

projects.

We are committed to creating new sources of electricity. They left

us with an electricity deficit, making us reliant on imported power. We're

serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that does not mean that

every single power proposal will get approved. We demonstrated that last week

with the Upper Pitt proposal, and we'll continue to follow through with our

environmental commitments, unlike that side of the House.

[End of question period.]

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1420]

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today are a number of

students and faculty representatives. From the University of British Columbia we

have Kate Skinner and Aman Bains. From the University of Victoria, Edward

Pullman is here, as well as Caitlin Meggs and Tracy Ho. From the University of

British Columbia, Stephanie Ratchin. From the Simon Fraser Student Society their

chairperson, Mr. Derek Harder, is with us, as well as Kaitlin Burnett and Robin

Stidell.

I'd also like to introduce, from the Confederation of University

Faculty Associations of British Columbia, the president, Mr. Chris Petter, who

joins us today, and the executive director, Mr. Robert Clift. Will the House

please make them feel welcome.

I would like to present a petition.

[ Page 10792 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Fleming: I have to hand in to the House nearly 2,000

names on a petition of Coalition Against Funding Cuts at Campuses gathered by

students at Simon Fraser, UBC and the University of Victoria. The 2,000 names

were gathered in the last 48 hours. They ask the government to reverse its year

2 funding cuts that were brought down on March 12.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading of

Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, and in Committee A, Committee

of Supply — for the information of members, ongoing estimates for the Ministry

of Transportation.

Second Reading of Bills

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the Utilities Commission

Amendment Act, 2008, be now introduced and read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Utilities

Commission Act is consistent with the B.C. energy plan and that our energy

security and conservation goals are met.

On February 27, '07, the government's new energy plan was

released. The B.C. energy plan places the province at the forefront of

environmental and economic leadership. Our government's vision is for a thriving

province with a globally competitive economy built on strong environmental

management and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendments that we are proposing today align the act with the

B.C. energy plan objectives and will encourage public utilities to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, pursue energy conservation and efficiency, produce and

obtain electricity from clean or renewable sources, develop energy transmission

infrastructure and capacity to meet customers' needs, and leverage innovative

energy technologies.

These goals will be considered as part of the British Columbia

Utilities Commission's public interest test when it makes decisions about

utility plans, projects and supply contracts. They will help B.C. Hydro and

other utilities reach their conservation targets and combat climate change.

The amendments will also include new provisions for electricity

self-sufficiency, generation of electricity from clean and renewable resources,

installation of smart meters, B.C. Hydro's standing offer for clean energy

projects of ten megawatts or less, and a new process for the BCUC to ensure that

the province remains consistent with North American reliability standards and

ensures that standards are in British Columbia's interests.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Additional amendments create a new process for provincewide

transmission planning and development to support economic growth and future

electricity needs.

We are also enhancing the utilities long-term planning process to

increase emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency. We are also taking

action to reduce the rate increase burden on B.C. Hydro's residential customers

by ensuring that the commission's 2007 rate-rebalancing decisions will not be

implemented on top of other rate increases. As well, there are provisions to

ensure the competitiveness of rates.

It is the commission's role to regulate on a cost basis.

Government utilities, or the B.C. Utilities Commission, can take action to

ensure that our rates remain among the lowest in North America. These amendments

also include provisions that the commission can use to help streamline its

processes.

[1425]

As stewards of this province, we have the responsibility to manage

our natural resources and develop innovative and sustainable energy solutions.

Our goal is to ensure a secure, reliable, clean and affordable energy supply for

all British Columbians for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to move second reading.

J. Horgan: I want to commend the Minister of Energy for his

B.C. Hydro commercial there. In all seriousness, I want to thank him for

offering me a full briefing on this bill tomorrow. I know that it wasn't his

intention. I do want to give the minister credit for offering me that, and I

know that he was genuine.

Unfortunately, the House Leader isn't able to manage this place

with the same level of cooperation that the minister and I have on these

matters. So thank you again to the minister for providing the opportunity to get

briefed tomorrow, and shame on the House Leader for not being able to manage

this place in the interests of good public policy.

I have a number of remarks to make. I'm delighted that the

minister from the debt collector is here to keep me on my toes for an hour or

two.

I'll advise you, hon. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker on

this bill.

I hope everyone settles in for a good long chat about the lunacy

of self-sufficiency in an integrated electricity market. That's what I would

like to….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I'll speak directly to you, hon. Speaker, in the

hope that the braying hounds on the other side will stifle long enough for me to

put forward some remarks, albeit restricted because of the lack of debate or —

pardon me — the lack of briefing from the officials in the minister's

department.

[ Page 10793 ]

I call it the lunacy of self-sufficiency because this is a classic

example of what George Lakoff, the great linguist from the University of

California, has characterized as the right wing taking language that used to

mean something and twisting it to their own purposes and their own devices.

The notion of self-sufficiency is an important one for families.

It's an important one for communities. It's an important one for the province,

but not when it comes to a commodity which we have an abundance of and which we

trade with our trading partners to our advantage — not just to our economic

advantage but, I would argue, to our social and our environmental advantage.

The notion of the energy plan, which states that by policy we must

be self-sufficient by a certain date into the future, makes no economic sense at

all. It's quite surprising to me and to those on this side of the House and to

those I talk to in the business community that a government that professes to be

a free market government is dictating to one sector of the economy what they

must do by a certain date.

I know that the member from West Vancouver, in his days at

Harvard, would have just been shocked and appalled by that. I talked in this

place last year about regulating the gasoline sector so that consumers could be

protected from gouging by large multinational oil and gas companies. The member

from West Vancouver got up and shook and thundered at me that this was absolute

lunacy and that the free market should be able to take care of itself. Why in

goodness' name wouldn't we want to do that in an area where we have a

comparative advantage with respect to our trading partners? Why wouldn't we want

to take the advantage we have with our regulated utility, B.C. Hydro, and trade

on the market to our advantage?

The minister and his acolytes take great delight in saying that we

were net importers in three of the past seven years. I have the data here from

Stats Canada, and the minister is correct. When it was advantageous for us to do

so, we imported power. We imported fish-flush power from Bonneville Power

Administration in the United States, the minister will know.

Those who have taken the time to educate themselves on these

issues — maybe one or two on that side — will know that in the United States,

under federal law, the Bonneville Power Administration is required to flush, at

certain times of the year, water through turbines to protect fish stocks. That's

good public policy. It means, however, that power — clean, green hydroelectric

power — is on the marketplace at a bargain basement price.

What do we do here in British Columbia? What have we done

historically here in British Columbia? We've purchased that power. We've

imported that fish-flush power — not dirty coal, as the independent power

producers would have you believe, but clean, green fish-flush power from the

United States.

[1430]

It's advantageous to do so. Our trading partners are grateful.

They're not just spilling the water. They're not just wasting this resource.

They're generating electricity, but because of the glut of electricity on the

west coast of the United States and here in British Columbia and in Alberta,

because the cost of a megawatt hour on the spot market is about, when I checked

this morning, $45, it's advantageous for us to purchase that power.

That's what we've done in the past. That's what we should be doing

in the future. What this legislation does is it takes a misguided B.C. Liberal

policy and goes to the Utilities Commission with the mother of all special

directions.

I was a staff person in this place of public servants, and I

remember my colleague opposite, the member for Peace River North, the now Energy

Minister, railing against previous Energy Ministers for using special directions

when there was a public policy initiative that the government of the day felt

was important. Whether it was a social policy, an economic policy or an

environmental policy, a special direction was created, and it was submitted to

the Utilities Commission.

Interveners would howl, as they should. Others would howl, as they

should. The opposition howled at that time. The minister himself was on his feet

claiming that we were deregulating the sector and providing direction from the

Premier's office.

What this bill does, Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, is…. It's the mother of all special directions. It says to the commission:

"Thou shalt approve all projects in the interests of meeting self-sufficiency by

2016." Anybody who comes to the commission with a half-baked idea, with the

standing offer proposal of ten megawatts or less — no regulation at all. You got

nine megawatts? You want to sell it? Done deal. Let's have it, because we have

to meet our target of self-sufficiency.

I will go into some detail in debate at third reading on just what

this self-sufficiency means in terms of total power consumed in one fiscal year,

one calendar year. But the important thing for the public to remember, those who

are watching at home, is that we use power at different times of the day. We

have an abundance of power at different times of the year.

Now, the independent power producers will argue that they are the

only ones in the universe that provide clean, green power in the province of

British Columbia. We all know that our reservoir system, our two-river policy,

the Peace and the Columbia River policies of the '60s and '70s, have put us in a

positive position with respect to our clean, green generation.

What the minister fails to recognize, and what his allies in the

Independent Power Producers Association fail to recognize, is that there's only

one place in Canada west of Saskatchewan where you can buy wind-generated

electricity. Any guesses from the other side? Alberta. Alberta has wind farms.

They're generating electricity using wind.

But when the independent power producers came to the Finance

Committee — my colleague from Cariboo North and I were on the committee — the

independent power producers came and said: "If only we had run-of-the-river

projects all over British Columbia, we wouldn't have to buy that dirty power

from Alberta or that dirty power from Washington

[ Page 10794 ]

State." Wind power. Wind power from Alberta. We can buy it. We do buy it.

It's advantageous for us to do so, and we do.

The notion that the only power that's available on the spot market

is either coal- or gas-fired generation is patently false. The minister knows

that. The government should know that. I think it would be incumbent upon the

Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy to put their heads together

on this issue and be honest with the public of British Columbia. Be forthright.

Tell us the truth for a change. Tell us exactly what the notion of….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you will withdraw.

J. Horgan: I'll withdraw that, hon. Speaker. My concern,

however, was that our

interpretation of reality and the

interpretation of the

other side is at odds. We have a difference of opinion on the facts. I don't

mean to malign my colleague at all, but we do have a difference of opinion on

the facts.

The minister and his colleagues are of the view that we need to be

self-sufficient, not just self-sufficient in terms of total megawatts consumed

annually, but the minister is proposing that we have an insurance policy. Is it

5,000 or 6,000 gigawatt hours of insurance policy? That makes the policy even

more absurd.

[1435]

Not only are we going to go about signing contracts, long-term

power purchase agreements with micro-hydro companies that are head-officed in

New York or Vancouver or who knows where…. Independent private power companies

selling power to B.C. Hydro, not necessarily when we want it, not necessarily

when we need it, but when they have the product.

When do you think most of these small micro-hydro projects are

generating electricity? Well, they're generating electricity at the very time

that we don't need it — when the snowcap is melting and our reservoirs are

rising, and the price of the product is dropping like a stone. What this

government is doing, by policy and now by law, by amending the Utilities

Commission Act, is they're saying to B.C. Hydro: "You must buy power from one

source and one source only, regardless of what the price is, regardless of the

common economic sense of the idea, of the initiative, go forth and buy power

from our friends." That's what they're advocating, not just by policy, but now

by law.

The challenge we have on this side of the House, and all British

Columbians in fact…. When we listen to the minister, whether it be the Minister

of Energy or the Premier, talk about the importance of addressing our climate

change challenges here and internationally, we are uniformly in favour of that.

There's not a soul that I know in this place…. Well, there may be one or two on

the government side that sit on this side of the House that might feel

differently, but by and large, most of the people that reside in this

Legislature are uniformly supportive of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

That's done. We voted on that. We had a bill come through this

place last fall. We all stood in our places, and we supported it.

It's not a question of "You don't like green power," as the

Minister of Environment will often say. This is the man who today, in question

period, thought it was okay to put 35 kilometres of transmission line through

Tweedsmuir Park. That's okay, because it's not near the Lower Mainland. It's not

near his constituency like the Upper Pitt is. Tweedsmuir Park — who cares about

that? We'll put 35 kilometres of transmission line through there. I don't know

what's green about that.

I don't know what's green about putting a small micro-hydro

project in a place where there's no demand, putting in a transmission line so

you can bring it to the Lower Mainland and use it when you don't need it. Buying

it at $88 a megawatt hour, $90 a megawatt hour…. Projections are that the next

call, the call in 2008, will see upwards to $110 a megawatt hour for independent

power — $110 a megawatt hour. We can buy it on the spot market for 45 bucks.

That's a windfall profit. For who? Is that money coming back to

the Crown in form of a dividend from B.C. Hydro? Absolutely not. In fact, we had

a debate in this place yesterday on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation

Act, where the debt cap for B.C. Hydro has been eliminated. Now they're just

going to keep going through the roof in terms of their capital costs, whether it

be to build transmission lines to small, isolated IPPs up and down the coast, to

send 10, 20, 15, 25 megawatts of power to the Lower Mainland at a time when we

don't need it, at a cost that we shouldn't be paying. That's B.C. Liberal

policy.

It's bad enough that it's B.C. Liberal policy. With Bill 15, it

becomes B.C. Liberal law. I know we'll get into greater detail after I've had

the benefit of the briefing from the minister's very capable staff. We'll have a

better understanding of

part 3, the "Energy Security and the Environment"

section, but as I look at it now, it says that by 2016 calendar year we must

achieve electricity self-sufficiency according to a prescribed criteria. Well,

I'm very anxious to hear what that prescribed criteria is.

If it means economic common sense, I might support that. If it

means that there is no other way, no other mechanism, for us to reduce our

greenhouse gas emissions by electricity generation, by all means, I will support

that. But today 90 percent of the electricity we use in British Columbia is

generated from hydroelectric power — 90 percent. They're prescribing that in law

now.

It's been policy. It's been covenant. It's been convention in B.C.

since the 1960s, but we have it now in law. That may well be a good thing,

because future governments, like this government, may well sign power purchase

agreements with coal companies.

That's what this government did. They directed B.C. Hydro, through

a call for proposals, to listen to the private sector, to hear from the private

sector on how best to generate electricity in the 21st century. Two projects

came back, were signed and approved to burn

[ Page 10795 ]

coal in British Columbia — one in Princeton and another one up in the Peace,

in the member for Peace River South's constituency. Not so clean, not so green.

So we've amended the B.C. energy policy. We've amended it now so

those projects are not likely to proceed, but in estimates I'll have a

delightful time, I'm sure, talking to legal counsel at B.C. Hydro about just

what that's going to cost the ratepayers. How much is it going to cost us to get

out of the coal contracts that were signed by this government, not one year ago

but two years ago?

[1440]

What's that going to cost us? Any ideas, hon. Member? I have no

clue, but I'm sure that there will be capable staff from B.C. Hydro there to

explain it to me.

The other issue that troubles me about this mother of all special

directions is the smart meter section. Now, for those at home and those in this

Legislature that aren't aware of what a smart meter is, this is a gimmick or a

theory that is a time-of-use meter so that residents, users of electricity, will

be able to look at a meter on their wall, as you would a thermostat in anyone's

home, and measure, at a particular time of the day, how much electricity you're

using. In principle that sounds like a pretty good idea.

An Hon. Member: For grow ops.

J. Horgan: For grow ops. Yeah, well if you're using a lot

of electricity, you're going to want to know at what time of day you're using it

most. That could well be true, hon. Member.

In principle, in theory, as we talk about this over a cup of

coffee or at a bar or wherever we might gather to talk about important issues of

the economy and the environment, it makes a little bit of sense. It makes sense

to talk about smart meters.

But let's probe down a little bit. Let's go a little bit deeper on

the notion of testing how much electricity we use at any given point during the

day. Smart meters, by B.C. Hydro's reckoning, will cost $900 million to install

in residences across British Columbia where B.C. Hydro is providing electricity

— a $900 million expenditure by the Crown corporation, with no regulatory

oversight.

The B.C. Utilities Commission requested that a business plan be

put before that body so they could determine, through rigorous debate,

interveners coming and presenting their case for and against smart meters — a

business case, which this government often lauded as the most important part of

their agenda as government…. "We'll have a business case for everything we do."

Well, here we go — $900 million, a little tiny thing on your wall at home

telling you how much electricity you're using.

Think about that: four million people in British Columbia, all

those households having little smart meters, $900 million to put those into

everybody's house. Is that a prudent investment in a time when we're trying to

constrain our carbon dioxide emissions, when we're trying to constrain

greenhouse gas emissions? Is it prudent to spend $900 million so that we know

we're using electricity?

I don't know about you, hon. Speaker — I'm the Energy critic. I've

been doing this job for a couple years. I used to be involved in the power

sector in the past. I know a little bit about it, but I go and look at my meter

outside my house, and I can't tell you what's going on there. I haven't got a

clue. There's a thing spinning around really, really fast when I'm doing my

laundry, not so fast when I'm not doing my laundry.

Most people like to think of their electricity coming out of the

wall when they need it and going off when they flick the switch. I don't think

it's appropriate for us to say to most British Columbians that they need to have

a PhD in thermal mechanics to deal with their electricity use. We haven't done

that in the past; I don't think we should do it now. So the notion of smart

meters…. Although it sounds like a good idea, is that the best way to spend $900

million? It might be. It might be.

The beauty of the Utilities Commission, unfettered by the firm

hand of a government that has an ideological bent…. The advantage of the

Utilities Commission is that we could have that debate. Reasonable, thoughtful,

articulate people debate this — people understanding thermodynamics, economics

and regulatory processes. We have hearings. Briefs are submitted, and thoughtful

people look over those briefs. Informed individuals rule and deliberate on

evidence, and they pass judgment.

That has served us very well. It certainly served the people of

Kitimat very well last year when the Utilities Commission rejected a power

purchase agreement — a power sales deal, a gimmick, a scam — between Alcan, the

government of British Columbia and B.C. Hydro. Nobody complained about that.

Certainly, there was rejoicing in Kitimat. There was an independent body charged

with deliberating on the facts, charged with listening to both sides of an

argument and telling the public what was in the best interest of ratepayers —

those who are dependent on electricity for heat, for light and so on.

This bill removes that oversight and imposes — in fact, hands over

to the minister — extraordinary powers of regulation unseen in our history. This

government is always happy to say it never happened in the history of B.C. Well,

it's happening again today, but it's the wrong kind of history we're making

today. This bill gives the Minister of Energy more power than he should have. If

he thought about it, he'd probably reject it. If he were sitting on this side of

the House, he certainly would.

[1445]

If our positions were changed…. When I'm doing my due diligence as

a critic, I like to think: "What would I do if I were sitting in the minister's

chair?" I think that's a reasonable thing for us on this side of the House to

do. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a responsibility to look at every issue

with an eye to what's wrong with it. In this case, nothing could be simpler.

With respect to this bill, there's no easier job than to say: "Minister, you're

on the wrong track." I'm quite happy to stand here in this place to do it, and I

[ Page 10796 ]

have a number of my colleagues who will be joining me in that today.

Smart meters, 900 million bucks. No oversight. No business plan.

That's going to hit the bottom line for all of us in this place, for everyone in

our constituency who depends on electricity, and I don't think there are too

many who don't. There are certain parts of the province that aren't serviced by

B.C. Hydro, but by and large, those that are dependent on our public utility

will be paying more as a result of this legislation, and I think that's wrong.

The notion that we have theories that we want to test in the

public domain — I think that's reasonable. I think that a corporation the size

of B.C. Hydro that's providing such an important service to all of us here,

whether we be in industry, whether we have a commercial venture, whether we have

a residence that requires heat through electricity or, certainly, for light…. We

need to test our theories. What's the best way to go?

An Hon. Member: Guinea pigs.

J. Horgan: Guinea pigs. Well, should we be deciding those

issues in this place? Should we be deciding what's in the best interest of

ratepayers here? I don't know about that.

I think certainly I have — and I'm going to probably be chastised

for this — some confidence in the Minister of Energy. He has been doing the job

for seven years. You've got to pick something up over that period of time. I

think he's doing the best that he can, but I think he has forgotten, with the

trappings of office, the importance of testing your theories.

The value of the Utilities Commission to all British Columbians is

that thoughtful interveners bring forward arguments against positions that are

wrong-headed, or they bring forward positions in support of initiatives that

will preserve and protect this natural resource. A body of impartial individuals

deliberate on that, render their judgment, and we proceed.

It served us very well, and I don't know why in the world we'd

want to change it now, unless we were driven by politics and ideology — and no

one better than the Minister of Environment to be driven by politics and

ideology on these matters. He talks about clean, green energy. He talks about

dirty power exported from other locations. Dirty power — bad thing. Net

importers, net exporters.

I want to put that myth to bed, because what the government has

done is create a myth that we're starving for energy. If we're not careful, at

six o'clock tonight we're not going to have enough power to turn on the lights.

Heaven help us in British Columbia. The envy of North America, with our

hydroelectric abundance, is somehow on the precipice of falling into a dark

grotto, never to return again unless we have independent power producers

generating little tiny chunks of power at a time when we don't want it, at a

price that we shouldn't pay. But that's the ideology that drives these people.

They've created a myth that we have a problem, and then they

fabricated the least attractive option to solve that problem. If we are short of

energy, why wouldn't we be coming up with more creative ways than just saying to

a bunch of speculators from Howe Street: "Hey, have you bought up your water

licences yet? Because we need a couple of megawatts here and a couple of

megawatts there"?

Run-of-the-river in and of itself in certain locations is not a

bad thing. I know the Minister of Environment will quote that back to me, I'm

hopeful, because I think that's true. The notion that we create small pockets of

energy where we don't currently create it to provide a market that's close to

that source makes a lot of sense.

People talk often about the northwest. I know my colleague from

Skeena will have some comments on that, and my colleague from North Coast.

People talk about displacing diesel generation in the northwest, and that's a

laudable goal. There are some opportunities for run-of-the-river in the

northwest that make sense because you're not building a lot of infrastructure to

get that power to where the demand is. So run-of-the-river can be a useful tool

in the arsenal of opportunities available to B.C. Hydro to provide electricity

to ratepayers in British Columbia. I certainly will support that initiative, and

many of my colleagues will support it as well.

Where we run off the rails is the mantra and the mythology that

this is the only solution. By saying that a project of 150 megawatts halfway up

the coast with massive transmission infrastructure to bring it down to the load

centre is somehow good electricity policy is just false. It's just false, and

the minister knows that.

[1450]

There are opportunities for micro-hydro that make good economic

sense, good environmental sense, but every single initiative that comes forward

is not always a good initiative. That's why the commission's there, and that's

why we need it to be independent, at arm's length and unobstructed by policy

directions such as are outlined in this piece of legislation.

The other challenge that I think the minister will have in selling

this to the public…. Again, as I commented on his introductory remarks for

second reading, it was right out of a B.C. Hydro commercial. I think that the

one thing that can be said for the B.C. Liberals is that they've got the

messaging down to a science. I guess if you can hire some of your friends in the

best advertising firms in North America to come and sell your product, it's not

a surprise.

They stick with the message. They're iron on the message. No

matter what the facts are, no matter what the arguments might be, the message is

the message. "Independent power is the way to go. Run-of-the-river is clean and

green. Not a millimole of greenhouse gases will be emitted by any of these

projects" — which is also patently false.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: A millimole is a very small amount. You'll

recall that the Premier said that a molecule of

[ Page 10797 ]

greenhouse gas was too much, in the throne speech. Actually, it was the Hon.

Steven Point who said it at the behest of the Premier. But if we're worrying

about molecules, I think we should worry about millimoles as well.

The notion that somehow these so-called clean, green, independent

power producers up and down the coast and in the Interior are not generating

environmental havoc is also patently false.

Road construction. Road construction requires you to cut down

trees, requires you to use the large equipment which is usually run, at least

where I always worked, by machinery that's driven by gasoline, by diesel, by

carbon-based fuels that are emitting GHGs into the environment. You're making a

road. You're creating a footprint. You're emitting greenhouse gases.

Transmission lines. What do you need to do that? Well, you've got

to cut down some more trees. You're reducing your carbon sink. You're not able

to sequester the carbon in your forest base because you're cutting it down to

put a transmission corridor, and you're going to require greenhouse gases to be

emitted from the equipment that's needed to string the wires, to fabricate the

metal, to put in the giants that will storm down the coastline to provide

electricity to small hamlets up and down the coast.

If it were only for the small hamlets, it would make some sense,

but to generate electricity so far away from the load centre and then transmit

it at a time when you don't need it, at a price that you shouldn't be paying, is

folly. I wish that the minister and his government would admit to that now so

that we could have a vigorous and constructive debate on the energy future of

British Columbia.

We've talked in this place about a number of options available to

us. We've heard about biomass, and I certainly am excited about exploring that

opportunity. Again, my colleague from Cariboo North knows a good deal about that

in the forest sector and how that's going to help stabilize our energy needs now

and into the future. We've talked about micro-hydro.

We've talked about wind power generated in Alberta but not

generated here in British Columbia. Again, an opportunity that I think we should

explore. Should there be private sector involvement in that? Absolutely. Who

should control the power at the end of the day? The people of British Columbia.

Where should the dividend from generating electricity and selling it on the open

market, whether it's transmitting it to the south…? Where should that benefit

come? Back to the people of British Columbia.

If the government wants to walk its walk instead of just talking

the talk, it should today recall the downstream benefits. They should do that

today. Some 1,100 to 1,400 megawatts of clean, green electricity being generated

in turbines on rivers in Washington State that belong to the people of British

Columbia as a result of the Columbia River Treaty — 1,400 megawatts, just like

that. Bring it back.

If we have a problem, if we're in deficit now and we need the

power, what could be better than that premium product that we get sweet

dollars…. Not B.C. Hydro but the province of B.C. gets very, very good money. I

think that in the budget documents it said $350 million. Let's forego that

revenue and bring back that green power. That's a solution right here, right

now.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, you've got to make choices, Minister. You

think smart meters could go to health care? What about the $900 million to

impose those? Can't have it both ways.

[1455]

If our net import situation is troubling to the minister, if the

Premier feels that we can no longer countenance this, stop selling electricity

to the United States. Don't let a gigawatt leave the place. Put the walls up

around the border. Nothing comes in; nothing comes out.

That's not the plan. It would be insane to do that.

Integrated economy. Integrated marketplace. We are the top dog

when it comes to electricity generation on the west coast of North America. Why

would we encumber ourselves? Why would we say to B.C. Hydro: "Don't do it this

way. Do it that way because we know better"?

An Hon. Member: It's a sellout.

J. Horgan: It's a sellout. That's exactly what it is. What

they couldn't privatize in the front door, they're doing by stealth.

As we restrict the ability of B.C. Hydro to generate their own

sources of new energy supply and rely exclusively on small projects that are

inefficient, uneconomic and not generating electricity when we need it, we're

crippling a Crown corporation that should be driving our economy, should be

driving our quest for greenhouse gas reductions. The minister and I agree on

that. B.C. Hydro should be at the vanguard of our initiatives to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

So why wouldn't you let the managers manage? Why wouldn't you let

the experts do their jobs once they've tested their theories at the Utilities

Commission? Why wouldn't you say to them: "Go to the commission, as you've done

in the past, and make your case"? If it's a sound economic case, if it's a sound

case for a generation of electricity at the lowest cost and in the best interest

of ratepayers, it will fly through.

Why do we have to put, in policy and then in law, a requirement

that they must only buy from one source by a date certain in the future? It

makes no sense at all. If the people on that side of House shook their heads

just for one minute, they'd come to that conclusion as well. Isn't that right?

G. Gentner: Too many millimoles over there.

J. Horgan: I think millimoles might be unparliamentary. We

might have to get that checked by the Clerks' table. I don't know if the Clerk

wants to look into that or not. Millimole.

[ Page 10798 ]

G. Gentner: How about a crock of millimoles?

J. Horgan: A crock of millimoles, yeah. That's a lot of

millimoles. You can fit a lot of millimoles in a crock.

We're not prepared to stop exporting electricity to the United

States, but we are saying to B.C. Hydro: "Don't buy it from the United States.

We want you to keep selling it at a premium profit, but we certainly don't want

you to be buying any of that stuff." None of that fish-flush power. None of that

wind power from Alberta.

I'm making an extreme argument here, and that's the nature of this

place. I do fully appreciate — and both ministers will tell me — that we do buy

power that's generated from coal-fired plants. We do buy power that's generated

from natural gas plants on the west coast of the United States.

However, if that's such a big problem, will the minister stand

here today and say that we're not going to sell them any more natural gas? Where

are they getting the gas that they're burning in these combined cycle plants?

They're buying it from us. We're pumping it out of the Peace country as fast as

we can drill the holes, and the minister knows that. I support that, because

that's paying for health care and education in British Columbia.

So we're saying that it's okay to drill a hole in the ground,

bring it up and pipe it to United States, but woe betide if you're going to buy

any electricity that might generate from the source. I don't know. I don't know

what David Suzuki would say about that. He doesn't talk to me, and that's

actually quite all right with me. I don't know if he's on the mailing list of

the Minister of Energy. I don't think he is either.

If we're going to sell the stuff, if we're going to drill it up,

put it in pipes and sell it to the Americans, why wouldn't we want to buy the

end product? We dig up coal in the northeast. We dig it up in the southeast. We

send it over to Asia — to Korea, Japan and China. They use it to fabricate steel

that comes back and drives our economy in the Lower Mainland. That's a good

thing. It's all good.

But there are greenhouse gas effects from that — a huge

responsibility there. If we're going to be serious about climate change, maybe

we might want to contemplate — perish the thought — restricting our exports of

natural products that generate greenhouse gases. I don't see that in the plan.

Maybe it shouldn't be.

The minister and I will probably have a discussion about that off

line, but that's certainly not what we're advocating on this side of the House.

But if we're taking arguments to the extreme, which we are doing with respect to

self-sufficiency in electricity, then maybe we ought to contemplate these other

issues as well.

I would argue that the net effect of our exports of natural gas

and our exports of coal has a far greater impact on climate change than any of

the power that we might produce in off-peak times from the United States or from

Alberta.

[1500]

If we're going to take a firm stand on these issues, let's be

honest about it. Let's be upfront with the public. I think they expect nothing

less from us. I certainly think that I was sent here to be honest with the

people in my community, and I call a spade a spade. I'm okay with that. My

colleagues seem to be okay with that. My constituents, so far, seem to be okay

with that.

So if we're going to be real about these issues, let's be real

about it. Let's not pretend that amending the Utilities Commission Act to ensure

that our friends in the independent power-producer sector will get a free ride.

The standing offer provisions, for example…. The minister will maybe have an

answer to that at committee stage. We'll have to see.

But as I read this act, without the benefit of a briefing from his

staff, the standing offer provisions mean that any power producer under ten

megawatts can just approach B.C. Hydro and say: "I've got some power to sell. Do

you want to buy it?" And they say: "What's the price?" "This is the price."

"Deal." No regulatory oversight; no assessment of the impact of the environment.

Independent power projects today, if they're under 49 megawatts,

don't have to go through the environmental assessment office. Why are we not

changing the Environmental Assessment Act to capture micro-hydro projects under

49 megawatts? If you're going to walk the walk, walk the walk. Don't say: "We're

the greenest people on the planet." Premier Green Jeans stands up and says:

"I've got all the solutions right here. I'm going to be self-sufficient. I'm

going to buy from my friends. I'm not going to buy dirty power. I'm just going

to export it all to my trading partners in the Far East, in the American

southwest."

Hypocrisy. Call it what it is. If you're going to do the deal, if

you're serious, if you're really committed to greening up, green up. Don't

pretend you're doing it. Don't impose restraints on the Utilities Commission so

that they can't adequately regulate an industry that has been, by and large,

regulated in the interest of ratepayers — in the interests of British Columbia.

A $900 million expenditure for smart meters — no oversight; no

business plan. It's the minister's pet project, perhaps. It's the CEO at B.C.

Hydro's pet project, perhaps. Now it's just going to go running through, because

it's in legislation — codified for all time right here in Bill 15.

G. Gentner: Are they digital?

J. Horgan: Are they digital? I don't know. I assume they

are digital. At that price, you'd like to think that you're getting the best

technology possible. They may work.

I don't want to belittle the technology, although my colleague

from Delta North makes a good point. I don't want to belittle the technology,

but let's test it. I'm not an expert. I know the member from Penticton over

there is not an expert.

But I know where experts reside. They reside at the Utilities

Commission. The interveners that go time after time, hearing after hearing,

defending the public interest know what they're talking about. They have access

to professionals and individuals who know this stuff.

[ Page 10799 ]

Why wouldn't we want to avail ourselves of that in the interest of good

public policy?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It's a Blu-ray. We're going to get a Blu-ray

smart meter instead of a DVD smart meter. That's going to be the solution.

I'm nearing the end. I know that will sadden members on the other

side. I just wish.…

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I've just been encouraged. I'll carry on. With

respect to the standing offer provisions….

It's been so long since I've seen the member for Yale-Lillooet

that I'm surprised he doesn't want me to talk a little bit longer.

When the minister talks about being a net importer, he fails to do

the math. Again, I won't trouble the House with the matrices here. But when we

talk about megawatts in and megawatts out, that's an apples and apples

comparison. We're buying apples when they're really, really cheap, and we're

selling apples when they're really, really expensive.

We're not at a net export deficiency when it comes to dollars and

cents, and that's something that I know all constituents of mine understand,

because those on that side of the House keep taking dollars out of their

pockets, whether for ferry rate increases, B.C. Hydro increases, ICBC increases,

MSP premium increases. You can't go camping without paying more money now. Our

friend Randy Ranger from Chilliwack there has just bumped up the cost of renting

a tent pad in parks across British Columbia.

[1505]

People understand dollars and cents. We're selling electricity,

making lots of money. We're buying it and not spending it too much. What could

be wrong with that? Free enterprisers on the other side, unite. Join with me.

Capitalism rules here. We're doing pretty well by this game. The private sector

is serving our energy component very, very well, and the beauty of it is, it's a

publicly owned utility — has been for 40 years. Social Credit preserved that

right. The NDP preserved….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah. Hear, hear — from my brother from

Kamloops.

My friend from Nelson-Creston pines for the old days when Social

Credit — and Reform, I guess, to a certain extent; the minister may correct me

on that — would protect these public assets because they were beneficial to all

of us. The commons — it was beneficial to all of us.

The B.C. Liberal approach — the more corporate approach, the Howe

Street approach — doesn't see it that way. It's all about stock options. It's

all about bonuses for CEOs. Quarterly profits rule the day. How did we do last

quarter? That's what's important to B.C. Liberals.

People in my constituency want to know what they're going to do

tomorrow. What are they going to do tomorrow?

Quarterly profits do not make good public policy. What makes good

public policy is planning to ensure that we have what we need now and into the

future. The premise, the theory of self sufficiency, as put forward by the

minister and in the glossy ads from B.C. Hydro, resonates with people, and it

should. It should resonate with people. It's important.

I know that my mom brought me up to take care of myself. Make sure

you can take care of yourself and your family. Everyone in this place

understands that. My constituents understand that, but what's happened is that

we've co-opted that language, that value that drives most people in British

Columbia, and we've said that we have to be self-sufficient in electricity. It's

the most asinine thing I can possibly imagine.

Sell the apples when they're really expensive; buy them when

they're really cheap. That's farmer logic. My colleague from Prince George North

will understand that. That makes good sense. The farm gate is doing well if

you're selling high and buying low. Life is good. What could possibly be wrong

with that?

My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke is going to join us in

this debate. He feels exactly the same way.

I think that as much as I've enjoyed myself…. I'd like to keep on

talking just so those on the other side would have a better understanding of

what a free market economy should look like. Intervention by the state, the

heavy hand of the minister imposing regulation on the free market — it's an

outrage.

My friend from West Vancouver can't contain himself. He's on my

side. He's with me on this.

The free market in electrons. That's what we need.

Let B.C. Hydro be B.C. Hydro. Let them go forth and do what

they've done for generations — provide clean, green, cost-effective power to our

economy, to our citizens and to the province of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak about Bill 15, the Utilities

Commission Amendment Act. Essentially, what this does is it gives a regulatory

framework to the B.C. energy plans that we've seen. The position I would put

forward is that those B.C. energy plans are some of the most disastrous ideas

that have been put forward in the history of this province. It's not only me who

says that. Many, as they come to look at this issue, would recognize that that

is the case.

This government came into power with a promise by the Premier that

he would not undermine B.C. Hydro, and it made sense to British Columbians that

you would not do that. B.C. Hydro has provided British Columbians with a

consistent, cheap source of power for a long, long time, and British Columbians

have come to appreciate that service.

When this B.C. energy plan was put forward, it was framed very

carefully by the minister and by the proponents of these ideas. The language

that was chosen was chosen very carefully. The language does not

[ Page 10800 ]

match the reality and tends to push people to a false perception of what the

government is actually doing.

What people need to do is take the time for any issues that have

come before this House. This is one that people should take the time to fully

understand because it will impact them in a very fundamental way. It will cost

them more. It will jeopardize our energy security.

[1510]

The government, when they put they put this forward, talked about

things that I believe in, things that I think are important. They talked about

clean green power. That's appealing. That's something that New Democrats would

find appealing and, if it was the case, would support. They talked about

sustainability. They talked about self-sufficiency.

When this first came forward…. Coming as a former mayor of Golden,

there are — the minister and I have talked about it — transmission issues. We're

at the end of a line. Even though we come from an area that has produced a

tremendous amount of power, we have breaks in power.

For my daughter's graduation they went up to the ski hill, got the

music started. The power was off. We had the 50th anniversary and had all sorts

of people in town. The power was off. It happens on occasion. B.C. Hydro does

the best that it can, but we're at the end of a transmission line. Despite the

fact that we have repeatedly talked to B.C. Hydro about changing that, it's not

likely to change. That's a discussion that has gone on not only with this

government but with previous governments, and on and on.

When the idea of having some small private power facilities was

going around, it was not as unappealing as the reality has turned out to be.

When I first heard about it, I thought that there were elements of that that

could be good. Part of why this whole policy frustrates me so much is because it

has so deliberately been put forward in a way that contrasts with the reality we

actually have when we look at the policy.

The B.C. energy plan is intended, in my view and in the view of

many British Columbians, to serve private interests. Many of those private

interests are very, very close to the B.C. Liberals. It does not serve the

public interest. In fact, it compromises the public interest. That is the

fundamental problem with this policy and with this bill that will provide a

regulatory framework for the B.C. energy plans. Consistently this government

looks after the corporate interest, and they put that first. For ordinary

people, we pay the price. In this policy that is absolutely the case.

I would invite people to read Liquid Gold ; it's by Dr. John

Calvert. It is a book that takes some time to get through. Mark Hume from the

Globe and Mail read the book, reviewed it. His conclusion was that this

policy is the worst piece of public policy in the history of British Columbia.

That was his conclusion.

At no time has the minister attempted to go and challenge any of

the assertions that Dr. Calvert makes. He has not because he cannot. Those

assertions are either fact, or else the minister can contest them. But he has

not contested them. The conclusion not only of me but of others…. Anyone who

reads the book, who takes the time to fully understand what's going on, would

agree with Mark Hume that it is the worst piece of public policy in the history

of this province.

You can look at Dr. Shaffer. He writes Lost in Transmission .

Again, it's an excellent document. It's informative. If there was ever a time

that people would take to go through and understand energy policy, this is the

time. That document is there. It's on line. People should read it. There's other

information on the Internet that you can search through. You can see movies. You

can understand what exactly is going on here.

What has the government done? Step 1, they created a sense of

crisis. I think the member that spoke before me, the critic, explained very well

just how false that sense of crisis was. There are and always will be energy

pressures. There are things that we need to think through and move through in an

informed way.

[1515]

To be informed, we have to get information that is accurate and

that properly lays the decisions in front of the public. What has consciously

been done is that the public has been pushed in a direction so that it cannot

make informed choices. The government has done that, the government-controlled

board of B.C. Hydro has done that, and the Independent Power Producers of B.C.

has consciously done that.

We've heard a lot about scandal, but that is one of the biggest

scandals that is in front of this House right now. The public has not been given

accurate information so that they can fully understand what is going on.

You create this crisis atmosphere. You talk about a power

shortage. You talk about the need to be self-sufficient. In my area we have some

of the biggest dams. We provide power for two million British Columbians from

the region that I represent each and every day. It is a significant series of

projects. We've lived with the implications of those projects, and we have

benefited, like all British Columbians, from the wealth that those projects

created.

The advantage that we have in British Columbia is that we have

dams which can hold water and that we can produce electricity when we need it.

In Alberta they have many forms of power production, but almost all of them are

going to be dependent on certain conditions. They have wind power; it's true.

But they depend a great deal on power produced by fossil fuels, and that's true.

Now, these plants have to produce to meet the peaks. In Alberta

they have to provide the energy that's needed for the course of the day. As you

know, there are times during the day when there is a lot of energy used. In the

mornings and when people are having dinner, lots of power is used. Alberta has

capacity for that time, but they cannot really ratchet it down in any way. So in

the middle of the night they will have all sorts of power that they're producing

that they have no need for and that they want to sell. And they will sell it

very, very cheap.

What happens is B.C. Hydro will store their water, and they will

buy cheap Alberta power, or they will

[ Page 10801 ]

buy cheap power from other jurisdictions that have to produce it in that way.

It makes complete sense to do it that way. Then when there is high demand in

western North America, they open up the gates, and they produce lots of power.

B.C. Hydro sells that for top dollar. That is not about necessity; that is just

about doing something that is smart. It provides money for the province of

British Columbia. It's just good common sense to do it that way.

When I'm in Revelstoke, at five o'clock the river is flowing

beneath the Revelstoke dam, and they're producing power. In the middle of the

night they cut it right back, and they save up that power.

That's the advantage that we have with the dam system that was

produced with, in retrospect, a tremendous amount of vision by people going back

to W.A.C. Bennett. Throughout time we have worked with that system. It is a

great system, and it gives us a great advantage.

So you create, using numbers, this impression that we have an

energy problem. We have challenges that need to be thought through, but it is

not a crisis. Yet the government creates the idea that there is a crisis.

Step 2 is that you prevent B.C. Hydro from building new

facilities. Now, they are able to improve existing ones. They are putting a

generator in, in Revelstoke — good idea. But they cannot participate in the

run-of-the-river projects. They cannot participate in building wind power.

To do that makes no sense at all. This is a company that is a

Crown corporation and that has proven itself very effective at managing

projects, has made tremendous amounts of money for the province and has served

ratepayers very, very well. But the government steps in and dictates that that

is what is going to happen, and you say: "Well, that does not make sense."

[1520]

It only does not make sense if you think that it's being done for

the public interest. It does serve certain private interests very, very well.

That's a problem with this policy, and it's why people need to understand what's

going on here.

Step 3. You take sites that B.C. Hydro ratepayers identified, and

they identified sites on rivers all over British Columbia. We paid for that as

ratepayers. We identified the sites. Then those sites were given to people for

between $5,000 and $10,000. There wasn't a bidding system. I think most British

Columbians didn't know they were up for bid. There were a group of people that

were able to go in there and grab them, and they're gone.

Then you take those sites that ratepayers identified and go to

step 4. B.C. Hydro is forced to go into energy purchase agreements with

individuals that want to build private power plants on our rivers on sites that

we identified. They are given such a lucrative contract that, in essence, we pay

for the construction of those sites.

So we pay. We pay to find them. We pay because it is our land, our

river, and we give such good rates from B.C. Hydro that essentially we have paid

to build these sites. They get a contract between 15 and 40 years.

Step 6 is that when the 15 to 40 years are up, these producers are

able to sell onto the North American grid, the western North American grid. So

when the minister says that this is about sustainable supply, he is absolutely

and completely wrong in saying that.

We will have to bid for that power against California, against

other jurisdictions. So we have no control over that power in the long term. I

mean, you just have to review what is going on here. We identify the sites; we

pay to build something. We have no control when the contract period is over. We

essentially give away the power, the right to that power.

Does any of this make sense? It does not. It does not make sense

at any level if this is about the public interest. My argument is that the

private interest of certain powerful individuals has trumped the public good in

this case.

The other impact will not only be on the pocketbook, and we're

feeling the pocketbook impacts almost right away. The other impact will be

environmental. The environmental impacts need to be considered cumulatively.

This is not just one project. These are projects littering the province.

There is no consideration for the cumulative impact not only of

the projects themselves but also of the roads that will go to these sites and

the transmission lines that will go from the sites. These are isolated sites.

Let's remember who's paying for the transmission lines. We are — $600 million in

the next short period of time. We are paying to connect to these private sites.

Do people in rural areas have a say about whether these should go

ahead? Is there any consideration for locals in rural areas as to whether this

is something that makes sense? It doesn't.

The minister signed an agreement with the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities saying they would keep local government involved, but

after that ceremony was over, he chose to come in here with Bill 30,

section 56

— tore it up.

Now we have a case where local government is completely removed

from zoning decisions on whether these projects should go ahead or not. So that

is taken out.

What I put to you is that it's a disastrous piece of legislation.

If people want to understand it, they should take the time to read Dr. Calvert's

book Liquid Gold . It should be a must-read for people. Read from Dr.

Shaffer. All of the assertions that are made in those books have not been

challenged by the government — the core assertions.

[1525]

When I wrote in my MLA report, I wrote a number of things that the

minister, in fact, responded to. These are the assertions I made.

I said that the Liberal government was consistently working to

undermine B.C. Hydro. The minister wrote back. With all the resources that his

ministry has, he did not challenge that assertion. He called me a socialist, but

he didn't challenge that assertion. He had the opportunity to, and when he

speaks, he can say that again.

The Liberal government does not care about the cost to either

British Columbians or the environment.

[ Page 10802 ]

He didn't contest that. Public funds were used to identify sites. The

minister didn't contest that fact.

B.C. Hydro is prohibited from developing new sites for generation.

He didn't contest that fact. He did say that they're looking at Site C. Okay,

they're considering it. He did say that there was a new generator going in, in

an existing dam. That's true.

B.C. sites were purchased for as little as $5,000. That's true.

The minister did say about that: "Well, independent power producers had to apply

for water licences." So what is the process? What was the process for that? You

had to really know what was going on. There wasn't bidding to get these sites.

They just ended up in certain people's hands.

I asserted that there were certain costs that we're paying right

now — $5.98 per megawatt hour. I realize that a lot of that is because of work

that was done in the past, but that we would now be paying as much as possibly

110 megawatts per hour is needlessly expensive. I made that assertion. The

minister didn't contest it.

I made the assertion that the Liberal government is manipulating a

situation that will ensure massive profits for certain individuals, and the

minister did not contest that fact. I said that public money was being used to

pay for transmission lines to these sites. The minister did not choose to

contest that. I said that at the end of these contracts, there was no obligation

to provide power to B.C., and the minister did not contest that fact.

I said that we're giving away our rivers. The minister did contest

that. He said that's not true, and that we still own the rivers. But you can't

kayak in them. You are limited in your access. The value from those rivers is

truly, in my view, given away.

If that's the case — and the minister does not contest that — then

I would say with confidence that this is the worst piece of public policy in the

history of this province. It is disastrous. People will be paying more. We will

be dealing with environmental issues in a way that is not thought through.

I'll give you an example of what should be taking place. If we do

decide that we want to go ahead with projects, then we should truly inform the

public. We should put all the facts on the table, and we should make sure that

those facts are uncontestable. That has not happened. It needs to happen,

because there will be tough decisions.

If you're going to go ahead with any project, there are

trade-offs. The suggestion that is made, and it's a good suggestion, is that if

you're going to move ahead with a project on a river or a wind project, that you

need to consider a number of things. Certainly, I would say that there are three

things that should be considered. These aren't my ideas. They're ideas that I've

heard others speak about, but I think they're reasonable.

You would make sure that the projects, as a whole, in a region are

environmentally responsible. I think that that needs to take place.

If you're going to move with these projects and have them, you

need to make sure that the region that they are going to be placed in has a say,

that there is a mechanism. Now, this government removed the mechanism that local

government already had in place to make zoning decisions. But there has to be a

regional planning component to what's going on and some regional input into

decisions that are being made that impact people.

There has to be public ownership. There has to be a public good.

That can take many different forms. It could be B.C. Hydro, in my view. The

Columbia Basin Trust — that might make sense. It might also make sense that you

have first nations that would control a particular project.

So the projects on their own are not necessarily bad, but each one

of them needs to be considered and fully understood.

[1530]

In my area, the project that will most immediately become

contentious will be the Glacier-Howser project. Glacier-Howser is a wilderness

area. It sits in the West Kootenay. It will have 80 percent of its water flow

removed and put through a tunnel. That water will never return to those river

systems. It will end up in the Duncan reservoir. That river will be changed in a

dramatic way.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Now, as a sidebar to that, if they were to take 90 percent of the

water…. The province seems to have nothing in place for checking on that. We

simply don't have environmental people to go and check, and we don't have any

penalties in place if they do. So there's further weakness with it.

Secondly, we're going to give them the land for the roads. Then

we're going to have a transmission line that will move over the Purcells and

connect in Invermere, all at our cost. So very little of that project seems to

take place.

One of the heartening things is that the Minister of Environment

seems to have put a roadblock in front of one of these projects. It certainly

doesn't seem to have public support, and I think that for many, many people in

the Kootenays there is the opportunity to have the same success with projects

that don't make sense.

The standard that seems to have been set by the government is that

if you have strong enough opposition, there is the possibility of changing these

plans. But the real weakness is not to be dealt with one plan, one project at a

time. The overall weakness with the B.C. energy plan and with this legislation

that's intended to enable it is with the plan itself. It is fundamentally

flawed.

It is going to cost each and every British Columbian ratepayer

far, far more. It is an energy plan that removes rural people, local people,

from any of the planning process. It fails to take into consideration the

cumulative effect of these projects, and it is designed to lessen our energy

security rather than enhance it. At every level the public interest is served

poorly. All that is served is the private interests of certain individuals, and

that is what is scandalous about this policy.

In the weeks and months ahead we will see efforts — and certainly

in my area there will be efforts — to

[ Page 10803 ]

make sure that the people have the information they need to understand this

policy.

What you will see in the Kootenays, I am sure, is that as people

come to fully understand that what is going on — what this minister is

proposing, what this minister has been working on for his time here in

government — is as deeply flawed as Dr. Calvert says it is, as deeply flawed as

Dr. Shaffer says it is, as deeply flawed as columnists who read the book and

understand the issue conclude it is — and that it is being put forward for all

of the wrong reasons and that proper energy policy is critical to their

self-interest.

It's critically important to the interest of this province. It is

important economically. It is important environmentally, and it's important

socially. We depend a great deal on the funds that B.C. Hydro has raised and has

given to the people of British Columbia. They've been very helpful in funding

programs. They've been very helpful in moving the province forward.

I'm going to give my colleague an opportunity to speak. I

certainly look forward to the minister's response to some of the things I've

said here. I did give him an opportunity to respond in writing publicly. As I

say, the assertions that I put forward were not challenged. If those assertions

are the case, then the conclusion is absolutely clear that this is the worst

piece of public policy in the history of this province — to add a Liberal phrase

— bar none.

[1535]

R. Austin: I rise today to make some remarks in second

reading of Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008. This bill is

simply another step in the B.C. Liberals' plan to enforce their energy plan that

they brought out a couple of years ago, to essentially take away the advantage

that so many British Columbians have had from having cheap energy in this

province for decades.

When I moved to this country 28 years ago, one of the things that

struck me as incredible was the difference in price in electricity here in

British Columbia as opposed to where I had lived in Europe. It was just

unbelievable — several times cheaper here than in England.

Of course, I soon found out that the reason for that was that this

province is blessed and has been blessed by people who had vision years and

years ago — 40 years ago, 50 years ago — to create the system of dams that were

publicly owned and nationalized at the time to create this common good for all

British Columbians.

It's not just on the residential level, for people at home who

could take advantage of having cheap electricity, but perhaps more importantly

for the fact that this province was able to use that electricity — that cheap

power — to generate all kinds of industrial activities that gave this province a

huge competitive advantage over almost every other jurisdiction in North

America.

What we are seeing here with the Liberal energy plan and now with

this Bill 15 is the government moving to force the B.C. Utilities Commission to

look at every new energy supply contract in a light that allows them to choose

from only one source of power. The only choice given is to buy power from

private power producers.

You might wonder why that policy would change when the previous

policy for 40 years, of having a public utility that generated power, had worked

so well for British Columbians. I have to conclude, in examining this whole

issue, that what we are seeing here is simply a transfer of wealth from the

public good to the private sector.

The rivers and the waterways that run through these turbines are

all public resources, and for 40 years they have generated cheap electricity for

all British Columbians. What we are seeing with this Liberal energy plan is a

directive to say: "Listen, B.C. Hydro, I realize this has worked really well for

the last 40 years, and you've been able to generate electricity at an incredibly

competitive price. But now we would like only private power producers to be able

to use that public resource to generate new electricity."

If the new electricity was coming on stream at market prices, that

wouldn't be so bad. But oh no. They're coming on stream and being bought by B.C.

Hydro at prices that are substantially higher than the current market price —

much, much higher. And who's paying for that? British Columbian citizens are

paying for that, and so are British Columbian industrial users paying for that.

What we have seen in the last few years, as a result of this move

to independent power producers or private power, is a huge number of companies

and individuals glom on to the idea of grabbing or tendering for a piece of a

river. They know that once they have a piece of a river and once they can go to

the bank with a contract from B.C. Hydro to buy that power for 20 or 30 years at

a price substantially higher than today's market value, they literally have got

a licence to print money. That's what they have.

[1540]

So when the government turns around and says: "This is all green

power. That's the reason why we're doing this. It is all green power…." It is

green. It's the same colour as the millions of $20 bills that are going to go

into that bank account. That's the only thing that's really green about this.

Let's examine some of the things that have happened as a result of

this move to private power. I live in a part of the province that has one of the

largest privately owned generating dams in the province — namely, the Nechako or

perhaps better known as the Alcan power plant in Kemano. For approximately 50

years that power — generated at $5 a megawatt and currently with a $5-a-megawatt

water rental, for the total cost of $10 a megawatt — was used to generate jobs

and create an industrial economy in the northwest, one that we need very

desperately now that we have seen our forestry sector go so far down.

As soon as the B.C. Liberal energy plan came up, Alcan, of course,

looked at that and said: "Well, why would we want to be using this power now,

which for 50 years we used to generate jobs and industrial activity, to make

aluminum when the margins selling

[ Page 10804 ]

electricity back to B.C. Hydro could make it much more profitable?" And

that's what has happened.

We have seen the industrialization act of B.C. essentially

stripped and changed by this government. We have seen a big corporation look

after its own interests, naturally — its shareholders' interests. They are

mandated by law to maximize their profit. What they have done is simply gone

ahead and said, "Okay, we will now submit ourselves as an independent or private

power producer. We will look to see how much money we can make from selling

power to B.C. Hydro rather than generating aluminum and thus generating jobs" —

in my part of British Columbia.

They have been successful in this, I think, in large part because

they were probably one of the people lobbying hardest and strongest behind the

scenes with this Liberal government…

An Hon. Member: Who lobbied?

R. Austin: …to get this B.C. energy plan going.

My colleague asks: "Who lobbied?" I don't know. I don't know who

lobbied. One can only suggest that there may have been some interest from Alcan

— you know, the Pat Kinsellas of this world. I don't know, but certainly there

was lobbying that went on behind the scenes. Alcan, or Rio Tinto Alcan as it is

today and may be BHP Rio Tinto tomorrow…. We don't know yet. But companies like

that are the ones who are profiting from this new B.C. energy plan.

It's really, really sad to think that British Columbians, who for

45 years have taken advantage of cheap electricity, are now losing that benefit.

They'll only see price increases incrementally to begin with. Okay. It will

still look fairly good relative to other jurisdictions.

My point is this. If B.C. Hydro was able to actually be involved

in generating new electricity through small hydro projects as well as through

big projects, we would continue to have that competitive advantage for the next

50 to 100 years. Under this B.C. Liberal energy plan, we are going to gradually

lose that competitive advantage.

Who's going to benefit? Who's going to be taking these public

resources and turning them into gold or into green — into green $20 bills? The

people who are going to be benefiting from that are, of course, all the friends

of the B.C. Liberal Party who have lobbied so hard and given so many dollars to

this government to make sure that their interests are taken care of.

What we are seeing with Bill 15 is a B.C. Utilities Commission

that will no longer be allowed to do its jobs in the interest of ratepayers and

ordinary British Columbians. This bill is essentially tying the hands of the

B.C. Utilities Commission and forcing them to work in the interests of the

private power producers rather than in the interests of ordinary ratepayers.

That is the tragedy because up until recently, most British

Columbians have not really been aware of what is going on with the B.C. Liberal

energy plan. They've listened to all the talk, as some of my colleagues have

mentioned. Beautifully messaged, it's all about green power. It's all around

sustainability. It's all around getting over the crisis of there being a

shortage of electricity.

[1545]

There is no shortage of electricity in British Columbia. We import

electricity every single day through B.C. Hydro. We should do that because we

make money selling it at other times of the day when the prices are much higher.

That brings another huge benefit to British Columbians, and it's one of the

great advantages of having our system of dams that was created by the Socreds

many, many years ago.

That is all going to be taken away, gradually removed. But

fortunately, we are finally now having these debates — not only here, but more

importantly, we are having these debates out in the public. We saw a thousand

people a week ago pack a hall to comment on what they thought about the Upper

Pitt River private power project.

I have to say that in listening to most of the arguments there,

they were mostly environmental. And why not? That was an area of extreme

importance for wild salmon habitat and for grizzly bears, in my understanding.

People there said they didn't want it.

But even though it was a great victory, lost in that debate was

the fundamental economic argument about private power, which is simply this. If

the government can borrow money cheaper than anybody else and can hire a private

contractor to come and build a new electricity project, whether it be a small

micro-hydro project or a large-scale dam, once that loan is repaid and once that

capital has been paid for, British Columbians then benefit on an ongoing basis —

long term, for generations, forever and ever, because this water runs forever —

with cheap electricity.

If a private power producer does that…. They go and borrow the

money with no risk. Let's remember here. There is no risk to them, because they

got the river. They got a contract from B.C. Hydro to buy the power at some

exorbitant price. Where's the risk? There is none. They get to benefit from this

huge windfall of profit, and once it's paid for, they then derive the benefit of

continuing to send huge bills to B.C. Hydro.

All in all, as my colleagues have alluded to, this is a dreadful

piece of legislation — the energy plan. Bill 15 is just an important part of

bringing in that dreadful piece of legislation or policy, and I look forward in

the next stage of debate to asking further questions, once we have a more

fulsome discussion of this bill.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand

and speak to Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. Regardless of

comments from the minister and others, I think the first thing we need to

understand about this particular piece of legislation is that it really has

nothing to do with enhancing or improving the sustainability of energy in

British Columbia. It has nothing to do with that at all.

It clearly has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the public

interest in British Columbia. That's more than evident when you look at this

particular piece of

[ Page 10805 ]

legislation and link it to the energy plans that it advances and to the

government's assault on B.C. Hydro.

What it has is everything to do with advancing the private

interests of the friends of the B.C. Liberal Party and of this government. It

has everything to do with creating circumstances and a situation where they in

fact get to benefit even more from our public resources, without having to pay

for them, than they do today.

That's the problem with this piece of legislation. One of the

problems with this piece of legislation is that it in fact challenges our energy

strategy in British Columbia, which has been long held — back since the days of

W.A.C. Bennett when he first put the strategy and the plan in place, which has

been largely and in great part followed by subsequent governments after W.A.C.

Bennett.

[1550]

That was a strategy that looked at the value of B.C. Hydro. It put

B.C. Hydro in place and looked at what B.C. Hydro does for British Columbians.

What we know that B.C. Hydro has done for British Columbians over the past many

years and decades is that it has provided very cost-efficient power for us —

some of the cheapest energy and electricity in the world, as people are often

saying on both sides of the House.

It did that by being able to be strategic; by being able to lay

out and plan for energy in British Columbia; by being able to use its ability to

reservoir energy and to save energy; by being able to advance a strategy where

it would buy energy when prices are low, sell energy when prices are high, and

out of that, create a significant dividend for British Columbians — a dividend

that, in fact, pays for health care, pays for education, pays for many of the

programs that we have in our province and that we value.

B.C. Hydro very much was a key player in that. B.C. Hydro also has

been a very key player in dealing with supporting economic development

strategies in the province. It has a long history of supporting economic

development, which has been important and essential for many of our communities

around this province.

Now what we have is a government and a minister who has decided

that it's more important to fill the bank accounts of his friends than it is to

protect the public interest. So what do they do?

What they do is they develop an energy plan that says: "We will

tether B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro will no longer be the utility that it has been for

all these decades. It will simply be a tool to buy at inflated prices the energy

that our friends in the private sector will produce. With a couple of minor

exceptions, we won't allow it to look at the question of developing energy for

itself. Instead, we'll fill the pockets of our friends, and I'm sure we'll get

good campaign donations for that at the end of the day, come next year." That's

what the government is saying.

So what they've done is they've essentially pulled back and

removed the ability of B.C. Hydro to do the job that it was always intended to

do, to do the job that made it arguably the most important Crown corporation in

this province in terms of benefit to British Columbians. They have removed that

now through the proposals and the plans that they adopted in 2003.

What we have now, of course, is that they've advanced that plan

even further. They've done that by bringing forward and promoting this scheme

around private power and by advancing a scheme around private power. For those

who may be paying attention to this debate, it's important that they understand

how this works.

Essentially, B.C. Hydro is directed and goes out and does an

assessment of the rivers in this province — determines their energy value in

terms of energy they can produce, in the case of run of the river — and posts

that up so that these companies don't have to do their own analysis of that.

Just make it available on their website so that these companies can just come

along and check off the ones that they want to apply for water licences on, and

they do that.

Then they get these water licences that they buy for $5,000, maybe

$10,000, depending on the capacity of the river. They essentially own a river.

That's the reality. The government will tell us that they don't, but they

essentially have bought themselves a river.

What they've done then is said to B.C. Hydro: "You have to buy

this power." They haven't given them real options. They've said: "You've got to

buy this power from these companies, and you've got to buy it and pay for it,

even if you don't need it."

So the companies then come forward and get a power purchase

agreement from B.C. Hydro, paying in the $90 range a megawatt hour for energy

for which, I would note, the benefit that we get for that is something in the $5

range. But we're going to pay $90 for it. So that's what happens