2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 31, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Deaths in Ahousat floatplane accident

Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, interim report for fiscal period 2009-2010

Elections B.C. Service Plan 2010/11– 2012/13

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Species at Risk Protection Act, 2010

R. Fleming

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

World No Tobacco Day

N. Letnick

Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness

C. James

Services for children and families

L. Reid

Bike to Work Week

L. Popham

Michael Stevenson

H. Bloy

Cross-country biking fundraiser in support of smoking reduction

J. Brar

Oral Questions

Implementation of harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

B. Ralston

N. Macdonald

M. Farnworth

Harmonized sales tax on bicycles

L. Popham

Hon. G. Campbell

Government response to oil leak at Chevron refinery in Burnaby

R. Fleming

Hon. G. Campbell

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Petitions

A. Dix

N. Simons

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, report for the second session of the 39th parliament

R. Cantelon

D. Routley

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Sather

Hon. B. Stewart

N. Simons

D. McRae

G. Coons

R. Howard

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. N. Yamamoto

G. Gentner

B. Simpson

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. G. Abbott

B. Simpson

J. Horgan

[ Page 5959 ]

MONDAY, MAY 31, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have two special guests in the House today. These two people are invaluable to the office of Saanich South. Please welcome Samuel Godfrey and Linda Carter.

R. Lee: I would like to introduce some guests of mine who are in the gallery with us today: Ken Law, president of the B.C. Wushu Association; Lizen Liu, vice-chairman of the Global Women Federation of Commerce of Canada; Yi Xin, member of the Shandong Natives Association of B.C.; Songlin Zhang, deputy director general, administration of sports, Shandong, China; Jie Hu, president, Shandong Province Wushu Association; Renjun Xu, deputy dean, Zhe Jiang College of Sports in China.

Also with them are Fei Wang, Peiyuan Sun, Guangiang Du, Wei Li, Junfeng Sun, Jianjun Shen, Te Yu, Di Wang, Zhuqian Ye, Dandan Dai and David He. Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

[1335]

G. Coons: On behalf of my colleague from Stikine, I would like to acknowledge a group of students who were visiting the precinct this morning from Dease Lake. Yes, that's right, Dease Lake — 1,774 kilometres away from the capital and not only one of the best schools in the province but one of the furthest away from the capital.

I met with them this morning. There were 21 students, grades 4, 5 and 6, from Dease Lake School. They are on a ten-day fantasy trip throughout the province with seven chaperones and their two teachers, Amanda Bartle and Kristen Johnston. They had to fundraise $30,000 from their population of 350, an amazing feat. So please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature this morning and wishing them well on their educational journey throughout British Columbia.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce guests with and affiliated with the Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation, Murray Goldberg and Jim McEwen from the B.C. chapter. They're here today with nominees and their spouses for the Ernest C. Manning Awards.

This foundation is a national body that celebrates and awards Canadian innovation in any human endeavour. It is an award program established almost 30 years ago and modelled after the Nobel Foundation and its prizes. It awards a $100,000 principal award, a $25,000 award of distinction and two $10,000 innovation awards based on intellectual achievement, uniqueness, originality and level of benefit to Canadians.

I would like to introduce the nominees and their spouses: Bob de Wit, Christopher Ryan and his wife Catherine Ryan, Rob Wilkins, Don Mavinic, Dick Gangnon and his wife Christine, Carolyn Cross, Jack Pacey, Vickie Cammack, James Olson and Gayle Birkeland. May the House please make them welcome.

A. Dix: It's my honour to introduce Ron Winter. Mr. Winter is visiting us from the United States, and he presented this week in Victoria and Vancouver on his latest book, Granny Snatching: How a 92-Year-Old Widow Fought the Courts and Her Family to Win Freedom . This is a timely topic, as June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Mr. Winter is an author, public relations executive, college professor and award-winning journalist.

He's joined by Lyne England, a family council member from Saanich Peninsula Hospital, and Lois Sampson from Greater Victoria Seniors. I ask the House to make all of them very welcome.

T. Lake: It's a great pleasure for me today to introduce my constituency assistant, who has been in the office since February. Kirsty Morris is visiting the Legislature for the first time today. Of course, as we all know, our constituency assistants help us each and every day and make the difficult job of being an MLA that much better. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Kirsty to the House.

J. Horgan: In the press gallery today we have a birthday, the hardest-working woman in television — assigned here by A Channel, in any event. Shachi Kurl has a birthday today, as well as the august member from Nanaimo. Would the House please wish them both a very happy, happy birthday.

N. Letnick: A few weeks ago I extolled the virtues of motherhood, just in advance of Mother's Day. I actually believe my mother is watching this today, but more importantly…. Not more importantly — sorry, Mom. Oops, as I put the other foot in my mouth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my mother-in-law, who is here, Theresa Liberte. She's here with my wife, Helene Letnick, and my daughter Melanie Letnick, and together we're celebrating her 85th birthday.

N. Simons: It is a pleasure today to introduce two guests from the beautiful district of Sechelt. I have Sherryl Latimer and her daughter Madeleine, who are visiting. It's Madeleine's first time here, so would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

[ Page 5960 ]

L. Reid: I would like to join my colleagues in talking about imagination and stamina today. They are found in the body of Dr. Jim McEwen, president of Western Clinical Engineering, adjunct professor in the department of orthopedics at the faculty of medicine and adjunct professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering in the faculty of applied sciences at the University of British Columbia. He typifies the imagination to take the idea to the marketplace and the stamina that's required to do that. I would ask the House to please make him very, very welcome.

N. Simons: I just wanted to wish a happy birthday to a constituent of mine. I went to her birthday party on Thursday. Mrs. Mary Moroze turned 108, so would the House please wish her all the best. It was a wonderful party. The staff there was friendly, and it was a most welcoming event. Happy birthday to Mary Moroze on 108.

Hon. S. Bond: Today I would like to make an introduction on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. This guest is actually a virtual visitor to the Legislature. Apparently, he tunes into question period almost every day.

His name is Dave Griffith. Dave is actually a deck officer for B.C. Ferries. I know that he's met a number of MLAs on the course of their travels back and forth, and at a very recent visit a number of his colleagues came up and said: "Dave is the best deck officer we've ever had." He's been a deck officer for 40 years. He tunes in to question period. He says that he does it for information but, most importantly, for entertainment.

Dave, today's QP is dedicated to you. We hope you enjoy it, and thanks for a great service to B.C. Ferries.

P. Pimm: In the precinct today I have a group of grade 11 students from North Peace senior high school in Fort St. John. They're here with their teacher, Miss Tracey Hoff. I would like the Legislature to give them a warm welcome, please.

G. Hogg: The city of White Rock, like so many communities in this province, is honoured and blessed to have many volunteers and ambassadors. Today we are joined in the Legislature by the ambassadors for White Rock. They are Robin Freiheit, Christine Johnson, Lydia Waiz, Michelle Flandin, Debby Chen, Shandis Harrison, Sarah Li, Megan Ferguson, Wendy Mo and Grace Lee.

They are accompanied by two volunteers who do an enormous amount of work in our community and are their adult leaders: Debbie Ward and Donna Beaudry. The member for Surrey-Panorama and I had the privilege of having lunch with them today and hearing their enthusiasm and excitement for their community, for our province and for our country. Would the Legislature please make them feel most welcome.

Statements

DEATHS IN AHOUSAT

FLOATPLANE ACCIDENT

Hon. G. Abbott: On a sadder note, I think all members of the House would be aware that on the weekend there was a tragic crash at Ahousat in which four people lost their lives, a pilot and three members of the Ahousaht First Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we all want to join with the member for North Island in passing our condolences and concern along to the Ahousaht First Nation, knowing that they are going through a remarkably difficult time.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following: an interim report of the Merit Commissioner for the fiscal period 2009-2010 and Elections B.C. Service Plan 2010/11– 2012/13 .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Species at Risk

Protection Act, 2010

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Species at Risk Protection Act, 2010.

R. Fleming: I move first reading of the Species at Risk Protection Act.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables British Columbia to join with eight provinces in Canada that currently have stand-alone legislation protecting critical habitat for endangered species at risk of extinction. B.C. has long been recognized as Canada's most biodiverse province, but our province is also noted for lacking an explicit legislative framework that ensures B.C.'s unique and rich habitat is not lost forever from human impacts that can be better managed.

[1345]

Research supported by the Law Foundation of B.C. established that B.C. is host to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent of its freshwater fish species and 60 percent of its conifer species, yet only 4 percent of B.C.'s 600 species at risk are listed under existing provincial laws.

The provincial government is aware of recent reports about the levels of endangerment of wildlife, including our iconic orca whales. It's growing more severe each

[ Page 5961 ]

year of each decade. To quote that report: "Without immediate action, British Columbia's biodiversity is vulnerable to rapid deterioration, especially in light of climate change."

The bill will greatly expand upon the narrow jurisdictional protection offered by the federal Species at Risk Act. The bill will enable independent scientists from respected bodies like the Royal Society of Canada to identify species and ecosystems under threat and create recovery plans.

In determining and implementing necessary actions, government will benefit from the best scientific knowledge available as well as aboriginal knowledge and will be able to balance long-term protective measures with economic and social considerations.

To create a sustainable B.C., this legislation intends to strengthen conservation agreements our province already has in place to help our province's biodiversity adapt to climate change and recover and restore the health of species and ecosystem from decline and disappearance.

Eight years ago the United Nations declared 2010 the Year of Biodiversity, with the intent of achieving significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity lost at the global, regional and national level.

B.C. ecosystems we all recognize — including coastal Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and grasslands — are part of the land base regarded as critically imperilled or vulnerable. We need legislative tools to guide our action. This bill offers our province a means to protect species at risk and the rich biodiversity of our province for future generations to come.

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

Bill M207, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WORLD NO TOBACCO DAy

N. Letnick: Imagine a world where people focus on health and not addiction and where people don't have to worry about secondhand smoke exposure. We can start now, because today, May 31, is World No Tobacco Day.

World No Tobacco Day was created in '87 to encourage a 24-hour period of abstinence from all forms of tobacco consumption. According to the World Health Organization, tobacco use is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced. Tobacco is a risk factor for six of the leading causes of death in the world, including cardiovascular disease, lung disease and several types of cancer.

The WHO attributes one in ten deaths worldwide to tobacco use, which equates to 5.4 million annually. By 2030 they estimate that the number of tobacco-related deaths each year will have risen to eight million people.

This year the WHO theme is gender and tobacco, with an emphasis on marketing to women. It includes an ad campaign focused on women with the theme "Smoking is ugly."

In British Columbia fewer women smoke than men, with approximately 12.5 percent of women and 17 percent of men. B.C. continues to support British Columbians in quitting smoking with tobacco-free incentives, initiatives and cessation programs like the B.C. Lung Association's QuitNow services, which can help.

Since 2001 we have mostly seen a decrease in our provincial smoking rate, which is more than 5 percent lower than it was ten years ago and is the lowest smoking rate in Canada — 14.7 percent, or approximately 540,000 smokers.

Eliminating tobacco use is one way we can lead a healthier lifestyle, and we all need to play a role in creating a healthier British Columbia by supporting our friends, our family and stopping smoking.

GREATER VICTORIA COALITION

TO END HOMELESSNESs

C. James: Today I rise to recognize the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness. It's estimated that there are 1,500 people in the capital region without homes. Unless action is taken, that number is expected to quadruple in the next five years. The coalition was established in response to the 2007 Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness . The committee has been hard at work ever since.

Last November they announced their Street to Home initiative, based on a similar program in Toronto. This project begins with the belief that everyone has the right to a home. Their support-based approach draws from clear evidence that people who move from the streets directly into homes will cost the system less and will need fewer health care and law enforcement services in the long run.

[1350]

With funding from the United Way of Victoria, the city of Victoria and B.C. Housing, this initiative brings together not-for-profit agencies, outreach workers and landlords to help secure rental housing, help clients get the proper access as well as provide the follow-up support so that they can stay housed.

I'd also like to welcome a new individual to the coalition team. Debbie Thompson brings a wealth of knowledge, commitment and passion to her new position as executive director.

Homelessness is everyone's responsibility. I congratulate the coalition and their partners for stepping up to

[ Page 5962 ]

the plate on behalf of our community to tackle one of the biggest challenges we're facing today. I would urge everyone, including all levels of government, to provide their support to this critical work.

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

L. Reid: It was in the late 1970s that I first taught children with a diagnosis of autism. These youngsters were part of a provincial program called Laurel House in Vancouver, and I was then exploring a variety of treatment options. My passion for children and their families experiencing a diagnosis of autism propelled me into further study, and I continued to do graduate work with this population.

I spent eight years as minister, co-locating and integrating services for young children, so imagine my delight when I was invited to tour Monarch House in Burnaby. Monarch House is a calm oasis of innovative, competent individuals serving countless British Columbia families and their children with autism.

I continue to seek out the best science and the best interventions. Without a doubt, we all want the best outcomes. I'm in awe of parents who experience the diagnosis of autism with respect to their child. Parenting is challenging; parenting a child with special needs, extraordinary. I respect the choices parents make, and I know there are many talented, dedicated professionals supporting these families today. I salute them all.

Ucluelet on the west coast of Vancouver Island is home to an array of co-located, integrated services. The brand-new Ucluelet community building is home to the council chambers, the public library, the theatre school and stage, the dance studios and, best of all, an amazing child care centre.

To Abby Fortune and her team, congratulations. After all, it is about the babies.

Speaking of the babies, many of you will know that Atira Women's Resource Society is committed to the care of women and their children. In 2005 Atira and the Maxxine Wright Place Project for high-risk pregnant and early-parenting women opened its doors, with health care and with housing. In the next few weeks they will open the doors on a brand-new child care centre I had the privilege of visiting — another amazing example of co-located, integrated services for families. My heartfelt thanks to Janice Abbott and her team.

British Columbia is better for the excellence of all three of these fabulous service providers. My thanks to them all.

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

L. Popham: Today marks the first day of the 16th annual Bike to Work Week here in Victoria. The rain came down this morning, but that didn't stop all the cyclists, new and seasoned, from making their way to work and participating in one of the most successful events in Canada that transitions people from automobiles to bikes.

The smiles and chatter that were evident at the Selkirk Trestle celebration station almost made you think it was sunny out. Getting soaked and having messy hair didn't stop these happy cyclists. In fact, messy hair is so not a problem. I've seen messier hair at 2:30 in the morning in this chamber than I've ever seen at Bike to Work Week.

Last year Bike to Work Week in Victoria attracted 7,000 riders on nearly 700 teams. About 40 percent of them were women, which is double the national average. Over 1,000 of those riders were cycling to work for the very first time. It's an incredibly supportive environment, much like getting a pat on the back for a job well done.

One thing that motivates riders to keep commuting is the fitness gain from 30 to 60 minutes a day of cardio respiratory exercise. They begin to lose weight, and they gain muscle tone. People who cycle daily are more likely to enjoy good health and get sick less often. This reduces the strain on our health care system.

One of the most exciting events this week will be the commuter challenge, a friendly car-versus-bike battle. Teams consist of a driver and a cyclist starting together from a point of their choosing and then racing, following the rules of the road, to View and Broad streets. Last year more than 50 percent of cyclists beat their car-driving counterparts. For the teams whose car beat the bike, the car arrived only four to five minutes faster, but the cyclists were inevitably happier.

As Bike to Work Week wraps up at the end of this week, the society will be laying off employees, and they will be struggling to find funding for next year's event. Let's hope that common sense prevails and that they get the support they need.

MICHAEL STEVENSON

H. Bloy: This summer classes will wrap up for many post-secondary students at Simon Fraser University, but this summer is a little different. The president of SFU, Dr. Michael Stevenson, will be wrapping up his esteemed career with the university.

[1355]

For the past ten years Dr. Stevenson has served SFU as president and vice-chancellor, helping to bring much acclaim to the university. The school has become the top-ranked university in Canada, and the people of Burnaby and British Columbia have Dr. Stevenson to thank for this.

I have seen this progress taking place over the past decade, and I am amazed at how the students of SFU from all over the province and worldwide have such pride in their school and the reputation it holds as the premier school learning institution in Canada.

[ Page 5963 ]

Simon Fraser University has expanded under the leadership of Dr. Michael Stevenson. A new campus in Surrey is now busting at the seams for more expansion. The joint effort with BCIT, UBC and Emily Carr, led by Simon Fraser University in the design digital media for interactive arts and technology. The new SFU location at Woodward's centre. The school for contemporary arts.

In ten short years Dr. Stevens has extended SFU from the Lower Mainland to all reaches of the province. He has led the expansion of SFU to an international level, with courses and partnerships offered all over the world. Dr. Stevenson is recognized as the leading educator in the province, if not all of Canada, for his amazing success. He will be missed not only for his leadership in academia but for his wit and charm and his true love for Simon Fraser University. I want to wish my friends Michael and Jan all the best in the future.

CROSS-COUNTRY BIKING FUNDRAISER

IN SUPPORT OF SMOKING REDUCTION

J. Brar: Just a few hours ago and a few kilometres from here, in Beacon Hill Park, Mr. Errol Povah, one of my constituents, and his volunteer team with Airspace Action on Smoking and Health embarked on a five- to seven-month, 6,300-kilometre journey for a tobacco-free world. The journey will raise funds for their work and for the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation; Variety, The Children's Charity; and Toronto's SickKids Foundation.

The journey is an immense undertaking, and like the start of Terry Fox's run across Canada, it is starting out modestly and needs our support to grow. When it comes to combating tobacco, a great deal of wonderful work has been completed over the last half-century, yet it continues to be the leading cause for disease, disability, premature death in this province, in this country and indeed in the rest of the developed nations.

In B.C. nearly 9,500 British Columbians will die from cancer this year, lung cancer being the biggest cancer killer. Mr. Povah feels that the governments of the world — in particular, those in developed nations — must start tackling the tobacco pandemic much more aggressively. Mr. Povah has been working on this issue for the last 30 years, and his organization, Airspace B.C., was instrumental in fighting for the development and enforcement of WorkSafe B.C.'s no-smoking regulations.

I urge all members from both sides of this House to join me in endorsing Mr. Povah's journey from Victoria to Montreal. I invite the citizens of B.C. to support his efforts to improve the health of British Columbians and all Canadians in tackling tobacco.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: During the election campaign the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association issued a questionnaire inviting all parties to share their position on the HST. The official B.C. Liberal response was: "A harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform." That's an answer that can only be interpreted as against the HST.

The government response again today is: "Many say the B.C. Liberals promised there would be no HST. Such a promise was never made." So my question is to the Premier. Who does he think he's fooling?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the questionnaire pointed out, it was not contemplated in our platform, as we mentioned on a number of occasions.

[1400]

We did not start to even consider the HST till following the election. When we did consider the HST, the potential for a harmonized sales tax, we were motivated by two things: (1) driving jobs in British Columbia — helping forestry, mining, energy, agriculture, small business in this province; and (2) being able to live up to our major commitment in the campaign — that we'd be stronger coming out of the economic downturn than we were going in. And that's exactly what is happening in British Columbia.

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

C. James: The B.C. Liberal position on the HST was clear before the election. They told the voters they didn't bring in the HST. They weren't going to bring it in. After the election they turned around and betrayed the voters and the public in British Columbia.

The homebuilders association president Peter Simpson said: "The Liberals indicated they did not support harmonization." The homebuilders took the B.C. Liberals at their word. But like all British Columbians, they were betrayed when only three days after the election, B.C. officials entered into talks with Ottawa on the HST.

So again, my question is to the Premier. How does he expect anyone to believe his spin when it's so clear that the B.C. Liberals betrayed their HST promise to the voters?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important for us to think about how we build the economy in British Columbia, in every single region of this province. There is no one that will benefit more from a strong economy than homebuilders in British Columbia.

[ Page 5964 ]

But let's get the facts straight. Not one existing home in British Columbia will be touched by the HST. In fact, in working with the homebuilders, what we did was that we raised the rebate level up to $525,000 for a new home so that we will continue to have a strong home-building industry. More importantly, we will have people in jobs who can afford to buy homes in British Columbia.

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

C. James: British Columbians know the truth. They know that the B.C. Liberals betrayed the voters on the HST in this province. That's what the voters know. This government's attempt to twist their way out of this promise is just an attempt to duck accountability. It's an absolute insult to the public in British Columbia, and it will only further inflame the public anger that's out there.

So today I'd like to ask the Premier: will he stand up in this House, will he apologize to the public, and will he get rid of the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: What this government has done has eliminated the PST, which was called for, for year after year after year from small businesses across the province of British Columbia — a saving of $150 million across British Columbia to small businesses.

We said that we would come out of the economic downturn stronger, and we are coming out of the economic downturn stronger, according to the chamber of commerce; the Council of Forest Industries; the Retail Council of Canada; the Mining Association of B.C.; the B.C. Lumber Trade Council; the Business Council of British Columbia; the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association; West Fraser Timber; Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; the B.C. Road Builders Association; the New Car Dealers of B.C.; the B.C.

Agriculture Council; Telus, British Columbia; the Motion Picture Production Association of British Columbia; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; and the B.C. Construction Association. [Applause.]

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Member.

B. Ralston: Well, from the sound of the applause, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has succeeded in convincing at least half his caucus to support him on this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Finance Minister has tried to disown B.C. Liberal answers to the homebuilders' questionnaire. He attributed those answers to individuals working out of the party headquarters, but Mr. Simpson, the CEO of the homebuilders association, rightly points out that those answers were printed on official B.C. Liberal letterhead with the B.C. Liberal logo at the bottom of the page. He rightly concludes: "To me, that indicates an official party line."

Is it any wonder that no one in British Columbia accepts the explanation that the Premier is advancing yet again today? Why doesn't the Premier just admit that B.C. Liberals broke their word to the people of B.C. on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let's go back to last year, when in fact what we said was that we were going to make sure that we kept British Columbia strong, and we were stronger coming out of the downturn than we were going into it.

Let me be very clear. I do not hesitate to take accountability for the decisions that have been made by this government. They've been made in the best interests of the forest industry, the mining industry, the energy industry, the agriculture industry, the retail industry and small businesses across this province. They've been made in the interests of workers across this province so that, we're told, there will be tens of thousands of additional jobs, 113,000 jobs, and $11 billion in additional investments. And that means good news for British Columbians and their families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Premier's answers and his wriggling are really quite lame. I think everyone in the province agrees with that. In fact, the refusal to confront the issue is almost Clintonesque. When will the Premier admit that his government betrayed the public of British Columbia by breaking its promise on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: What we have always committed to British Columbians is that we will work hard to make the economy stronger, to encourage investments and to encourage job creation. That's why we ran on a campaign that said, "Keep B.C. strong," and the opposition ran on a campaign that said: "Take B.C. back." The opposition ran a campaign that said: "Take us back to a have-not status." We said we're going to keep forward and build British Columbia's economy and strengthen Canada.

The opposition has voted against every single move meant to put more money in British Columbians' pockets, which is why across the board in B.C., the average taxpayer is paying 37 percent less in provincial income tax, and that means one thing, hon. Speaker. That means

[ Page 5965 ]

jobs for British Columbians, 400,000-plus new jobs since 2001.

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The people of British Columbia remember the last election. What were they promised? They were promised there would not be a degradation of education and health — strike 1. They were promised that the deficit would be $495 million, guaranteed — strike 2. They were promised the HST would not be introduced — strike 3. Here we have….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Is the Premier seriously standing in this House and suggesting that, in the future, when B.C. Liberals are asked specific questions and answer unequivocally in writing on official letterhead, it means absolutely nothing?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I didn't hear a question there, but I'm glad to provide an answer that I'm sure the member, who is the Forests critic, would like to hear.

Every single major association in forestry says adopting of the HST is important. Every trade organization says adopting the HST is important because it makes our forest industry more competitive.

That critic opposite should understand this. Because they don't get the forest industry. The forest industry is all in favour of what this HST will do for them and for jobs in Canfor and West Fraser — the small producers across the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The Premier shows how completely out of touch he is with rural B.C. when he goes, as a defence, to B.C. Liberal forest policy, with 30,000 jobs gone and 71 mills shut on his watch. That's his defence. The Premier stands here and trivializes the commitment that the B.C. Liberals made. How could it have possibly been a clearer commitment?

There were direct questions. There were written answers with reasons on official B.C. Liberal letterhead. Even former B.C. Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor recognizes the public's repugnance of this government's double-cross on the HST.

The HST is a betrayal, pure and simple. When will this government do the right thing, accept the truth and scrap the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, in terms of the forest industry in British Columbia, I think if the critic took time to talk to the Coast Forest Products Association or took time to talk to the B.C. Lumber Trade Council or took time to talk to West Fraser Timber or took time to talk to the B.C. Pulp and Paper Steering Committee or took time to talk to the Council of Forest Industries or took time to talk to the Truck Loggers Association, what he would discover is….

To an organization, they would tell him that the adoption of the HST and the elimination of the PST is the single most important thing we can do to make them more competitive in this international marketplace. That creates investment, and that creates jobs in every region of this province.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: Before the election the homebuilders association had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth. Clearly, they hadn't. Before the election the B.C. Restaurant Association had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth. Clearly, they hadn't. Most importantly, millions of British Columbian families across this province had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth about the HST, and clearly, they didn't.

The Premier can stand and list off all the names he wants, but I can tell you that millions of families have done the math across this province, and they know that the HST hurts them every single day, whether it's a restaurant meal, a haircut or buying a house in the Lower Mainland. So why doesn't the Premier recognize that they didn't tell the truth to the public and scrap the HST?

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

Member, I want to remind you that, in the last part of your statement, you do not direct questions to a specific person.

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important to note that a number of steps have been taken not just to strengthen our economy but to strengthen job opportunities for families across the province and, in fact, to cushion any of the negative challenges that may come from the adoption of an HST.

The reason that we increased personal deductibility by $1,600 was so that we could help cushion families from any negative impacts. The reason there is $230, at least, going to an individual who may be on low in-

[ Page 5966 ]

come, which represents literally over a million British Columbians, is to cushion the impacts of HST.

Most important, what we said to families is that we would do everything we could to make our economy stronger and to move us forward in British Columbia. That is exactly what this government will do, and it's exactly what this government stands for.

HARMONIZED SALES TAX ON BICYCLES

L. Popham: This week is Bike to Work Week. Thousands of people around the province have been tuning up their bikes and even buying new ones to prepare for this important event. The whole purpose of Bike to Work Week is to motivate people to make healthy, green choices about how they get to work.

However, repairing bikes and buying new ones are going to cost more once the HST is implemented. To the Premier: why is he making it harder for people to make green, healthy choices by imposing the HST on bicycles and repairs?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no government that has done more to improve bicycling infrastructure in the province of British Columbia than this government. We have committed tens of millions of dollars to improving bicycling infrastructure in community after community after community and in working with all retailers in British Columbia.

The reason the Retail Council of British Columbia believes in this HST is because there will be savings of $150 million in compliance costs across the economy in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Our health care system is stretched, our climate is changing, and this government continues to pretend to support cycling. Instead of creating an incentive to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, this government is doing the opposite by implementing the HST on bikes and repairs.

Will the Premier admit the HST is bad for our health and bad for the environment and scrap the HST?

[1420]

Hon. G. Campbell: I always like it when the opposition pretends they care about the environment, having voted against every single initiative to protect the environment and deal with greenhouse gases.

More important, on this specific issue of providing safe, secure bicycle networks in community after community, where we've been able to invest in bicycling networks in over 50 communities in the province — investing $128 million in bicycling networks — they have voted against every single action.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO OIL LEAK

AT CHEVRON REFINERY IN BURNABY

R. Fleming: I always love it when the Premier pretends that he cares about the environment too. Here's the Premier, in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, who's the only leader in the Pacific Northwest who still supports offshore drilling on our coast. This is the Premier who wants to break a 40-year moratorium against supertankers on our coast. That's the kind of environmentalist he is.

Last week we learned that oil from a Chevron refinery has been leaking into Burrard Inlet for more than a month. Not only did he hide this from the public, but now, instead of playing any role in stopping the leak, they're leaving Chevron in charge.

My question is to the Premier. Is it the government's policy to let companies that pollute our waterways self-monitor their own reporting on the extent of the damage? Is that the state of environmental regulation and enforcement in British Columbia today?

Hon. G. Campbell: For this member, who voted against a cap-and-trade system, for this member, who voted against the carbon tax, for that opposition, who voted against the carbon tax day in, day out, month in, month out…. They said no to reducing greenhouse gases. They say no to the Clean Energy Act. They say no to independent power. This is an opposition that couldn't care less about the environment unless it meets their expedient political agenda.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I would almost forget that this is the Premier who led the only province in Canada to see greenhouse gas emissions actually increase last year. It's Premier Tar Sands.

My supplemental question is this. This government is responsible for ensuring that companies follow the law, but right now Chevron is continuing business as usual while oil leaks into the Burrard Inlet. As of today, it wasn't the Ministry of Environment that was on site at the refinery taking samples and looking at the damage. It was a group of concerned environmentalists and concerned scientists that were there on the ground.

My question is to the Premier, again. Where is the Ministry of Environment in all of this? If the source and extent of Chevron's oil leak can't be responded to properly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you say the environment can be protected from bigger spills?

[ Page 5967 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite should know, because the Solicitor General actually pointed it out to him last week, that from the day that we discovered this situation, we used our information to go out to find out exactly what was taking place. That remains the case.

The Environment Ministry, as well as the emergency preparedness group, are out there working on this. It will be cleaned up. Chevron will be held to account, and we will continue to make sure we monitor their progress as they go through.

[1425]

S. Simpson: This is the Premier who presided over the slashing of the Environment Ministry's budget, slashing it to the point now where across British Columbia environmentalists, wildlife federation leaders and retired employees of the minister are questioning whether this ministry still has the capacity to do its job to protect our environment. This is reflected in the government's inability to deal with this leak and the Chevron situation.

British Columbians expect leadership from this Premier. They expect the government to be on the ground on this site. Will the Premier tell us how many Ministry of Environment staff are on the ground dealing with the Chevron site — on site?

Hon. B. Penner: The NDP references Burrard Inlet. It's the first time they've spoken about it, really, since they came out in favour of ramping up power production from Burrard Thermal — totally in keeping with being opposed to the carbon tax and cap-and-trade, voting against low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. Then they turned around and came out in favour of ramping up Burrard Thermal while opposing clean energy production. It's a little bit hard to take from this NDP opposition.

In terms of what's happening at the Chevron site, I can advise members that ministry staff…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: …have been to the site, and they'll continue to monitor what Chevron's doing. Chevron will have to comply with our environmental regulations, and under our laws they will be accountable for paying the costs of all cleanup.

I can confirm for the House that the Ministry of Environment has 15 emergency spill response officers that are specifically trained to this, as well as 30 other experts in the ministry that provide support.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This is a government that has abandoned its responsibility and leadership on issue after issue in this province. Clearly, this minister has abandoned leadership on this issue and handed it over to Chevron and to volunteers.

My question is to the person who's supposed to be in charge of this government. My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us how many people are on the ground from the ministry doing the job, and if the minister won't do it, will he direct the minister to do his job?

Hon. B. Penner: It's becoming obvious why the NDP is so slow at learning. It's because they don't listen. I just provided the answer to that question in my previous answer. It's because they don't listen that they oppose the carbon tax, that they voted against cap-and-trade legislation, that they voted again low-carbon fuels, and that they're now voting against the Clean Energy Act in British Columbia, of all things. This is an NDP party that's opposed to even looking at Site C and pursuing more renewable energy production in British Columbia.

Our side of the House is clear. We're going to hold Chevron accountable. They have to follow our regulations. Ministry of Environment staff are going to be there to monitor what Chevron is doing. At the end of the day, taxpayers will be protected because Chevron is fully responsible under the law for the cost of fully remediating that site.

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

J. Horgan: My question is also for the Premier. In light of the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf, and in light of the spill in Burrard Inlet that can't be contained by the Ministry of Environment, will the Premier today advise the federal government that the province of British Columbia is no longer interested in lifting the moratorium? Will he do that today? Tell the Prime Minister we want it left in place.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've canvassed this question numerous times in this House. We have said that we are obviously all watching this environmental disaster unfold in the Gulf of Mexico with grave concern. I know the federal government is as well.

We have no offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. We have said, when we were looking at this and when we would want to pursue it: only if it could be done in a scientifically sound and environmentally safe manner.

[1430]

I think it's quite safe to say that with what we're watching happen in the Gulf of Mexico today, that brings into question the ability to do it in the manner of which we

[ Page 5968 ]

would only extract resources in British Columbia, if that could be followed.

We're going to continue to follow that. The federal government has a moratorium in place, and the federal government, I know, is watching this disaster, as well, to make sure that whatever is learned from this can be adapted throughout the world.

[End of question period.]

A. Dix: I wish to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

A. Dix: It's a petition from 309 British Columbians to restore bariatric bypass surgery funding to British Columbia.

N. Simons: I'm presenting a petition from approximately 250 people in Gibsons who are asking that a particular road be paved.

L. Krog: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: He's probably the person least likely to appreciate being introduced in this chamber — he's a modest man — but he served the province of British Columbia well for many years as the member for Nelson-Creston. I'd like the House to welcome Corky Evans.

Reports from Committees

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the second session of the 39th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make a few comments.

Certainly, it's a challenge in the apparent dichotomy in the title of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It certainly was a challenge to the committee members. I would like to say that the committee members faced that challenge well, on both sides, and in basically and generally a very non-partisan way put their talents and analyses to the various submissions.

I want to compliment the public. We received 22 presentations personally as well as 118 written submissions. I would say that the personal submissions were very moving in terms of how misuse of information or privacy can affect a person's livelihood or well-being. So we were very alert to that and very cognizant of that as we moved forward with our recommendations.

I think one of the most important things that all parties, through the committee, recognized was that it's important to make information available as soon as possible, using the electronic media. We're all familiar with Google and Facebook and many electronic ways, and it would be of great benefit to the public that routine information that is not really subject to any privacy concerns be made available as quickly and openly as possible. So we urge the government once again to consider that.

I'd like to particularly thank Josie Schofield and Kathryn Butler, who served this committee so well in analyzing our machinations and putting them to paper in this very good report.

I therefore move the adoption of this report.

D. Routley: I enjoyed the privilege of sitting on the committee as vice-Chair, and I would also like to thank all the committee members for their input into the process. The stakeholder groups who presented to us were so well prepared and well versed in the dynamics and nuances of the bill we were confronting that we were given great assistance by their input. But most of all, of course, we need to thank the citizens of British Columbia who took the time to participate in democracy by attending and addressing our committee meetings.

The opposition members of the committee do have concerns about the report. We witnessed a 2004 review committee report that made strong and bold recommendations for the advancement of the purposes of freedom of information and privacy protection in B.C., but we've seen little action over the years in addressing the recommendations of that committee, so we have grave concerns about the prospects of the committee recommendations here being adopted.

[1435]

It's true that we endorse most of the recommendations that the committee has made, but there are some substantive disagreements that were expressed at the table that I'd like to briefly cover now. Our submissions to the committee covered the range from exorbitant cost of freedom-of-information requests to extensive delay in those fulfilments.

We heard of a sophisticated culture of evasion from providing freedom of information from one particular group

[ Page 5969 ]

that presented. So we on this side of the committee support a move to routine disclosure. It will greatly reduce the number of requests. It will greatly reduce the cost of freedom-of-information requests to government.

We support the recommendations bringing the corporations owned by public bodies under the scrutiny of the act. We believe that a public dollar is a public dollar, so organizations which are contracted to perform services for government need to be under the scrutiny of the act.

We believe in the principle of anonymity, that who requests information shouldn't matter to the outcome of the request. We agree that there needs to be a stronger definition of "public interest" in the override clause of the act, and we agree that privacy impact assessments need to be more routine and structured at the beginning of data-sharing initiatives.

But we do not agree that consent from an individual should allow the public bodies to share their personal information. There is a power imbalance in the relationship between the person being asked to consent and the person asking for that consent, and that is not fair to the person who is asked to give consent for their information to be shared. You cannot unring a bell once that bell has been rung.

We would like to see

section 13, "Cabinet advice," extensively modified so that the exemptions that have been claimed by government in this area can be reduced. We would like to see the Document Disposal Act under the purview of the commissioner, and we would like to see a duty to document.

Our former commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, was a very brave and courageous officer of this Legislature. He said that the record of the government when it comes to freedom of information and sharing information with the public put the historical record at risk. We hope that the new commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, will reflect the courage that Mr. Loukidelis showed, and I have every reason to believe that she will.

The fourth president of the United States, Mr. James Madison, widely considered to be the author of the U.S. constitution, said that a popular government without popular information or the means of accessing it is but a prelude to farce or tragedy or both.

Mr. Speaker, we endorse the report. We have significant objections to portions of it, but we do know that this province needs to move on with a process of open governance and functional democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Parksville-Qualicum closes debate.

R. Cantelon: Yes, it's quite clear — nor did we expect there to be unanimity on all the issues — but as the member opposite observed, we did collectively, unanimously support the report without consent.

I'd like to make a couple of comments. Firstly, we did not come to this committee as parliamentary representatives of the government side of the caucus. We had an initial orientation meeting to basically describe the task before us, but as true parliamentarians in a non-partisan environment. I encouraged people to bring their own thoughts, their own analysis and their own courage to speak, on behalf of their constituents, their minds with respect to the issues before us.

Indeed they did, and I respect that, by and large — not by and large, but entirely — the members opposite engaged in a conversation in a constructive manner. There was not agreement on all issues, but the tone of the debate was, I think, very useful to achieving advancements for the good of all of the people of British Columbia.

With consent. Yes, the majority held that consent was essential to forward the social problems to enable citizens to receive better access in an integrated way with various ministries of the government. They should be able, as they can in the personal information privacy, to give consent for programs that are for their benefit.

Once again, I would like to thank everybody who participated, the staff who so ably formed this report, all the presenters and both sides of the House in moving this report forward.

[1440]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, and in Committee A, the estimates of Intergovernmental Relations followed by Aboriginal Relations.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — CLEAN ENERGY ACT

(continued)

C. Trevena: I am very pleased to stand here this afternoon to take my place in the debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act. I've got to say that I think my first question…. I know it comes…. When we get to committee stage, it's always the last question — whether the title is going to be accepted. I think that for many people, the whole concept of a clean energy act is the idea that there will be some teeth behind it.

I've got to say that the naming of this act is very troubling, because while there is obviously a reference to clean energy, what it simply forgets is that B.C. has been blessed with clean energy for many, many years.

[ Page 5970 ]

I grew up in a community where we had coal-fired power. That was not clean. I lived for a number of years in Kosovo, where the coal-fired plant power was so filthy that you got a film of oil on absolutely everything all the time. It was extremely bad for the health. That is not healthy. That is not clean energy. You need to have clean energy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When I came to Canada, I was very pleased, having, as I say, grown up in communities where we had coal-fired power and in other areas where there was nuclear power. I first moved to Ontario, and there was Ontario Hydro. I thought: "This is fantastic. We actually have hydro, and hydro is good because hydro is water-powered electricity." I felt very comforted by that, until one of my friends told me that I should watch out for the nuclear power stations on the golden horseshoe and that much of the power in Ontario was not hydro power.

But in B.C. we have had clean power for many years. I represent the north Island, and at the moment B.C. Hydro is involved in a massive seismic upgrading and restoration of the John Hart facility, the Strathcona dam. These were built in the late '40s, early '50s and actually provide approximately 11 percent of Vancouver Island's power. Obviously, with 11 percent you've still got to find another 89 percent, but 11 percent is created locally through a clean system, through a system of dams that is there, that is effective and that is clean. That is clean energy.

One of the aspects of the dam system that we have in Campbell River, and I know my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about it previously, is that it gives you the capacity to store water. You can see the levels of the lakes going up and down. If you're driving past it, you can see the levels of the Upper Campbell Lake and the Campbell Lake system change.

Storage is vital to the system of clean energy, and I repeat: it's the system of very clean energy that we have now. That idea of storage and the concept of storage is really what differentiates what we have here in B.C. and what's been very effective in B.C. from almost every other type of electricity generation. That's what's gives us the advantage in B.C. of really having very cheap, very clean power. We can store power — store the water, store the power and use it when we need it.

You don't get that with wind generation. You don't get that with the new river generation, which is euphemistically called run of the river. I think I'll take challenge to that, because run of the river is an industrialization of our rivers.

So when I see the title of this bill, Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, I guess what is being talked about isn't clean energy, because we have clean energy. We have hydro. We have a good system of hydro that has powered B.C. for a long while. So what I would say that this act is about is a different renewable energy.

[1445]

I would also say and have been saying to people who ask me about it that it's the energy-for-export act. That's what I would call it. I wouldn't call it the Clean Energy Act. It's definitely an energy-for-export act.

I'm going to, in a few minutes…. I just want to talk a little bit more about the concept of renewable energy, because we're not opposed to renewable energy. I think it's very important and that it's safe. Hydro has been a good source of clean energy and renewable energy. Let's be straight about this. Renewable energy is very important.

We've seen the crisis — the absolute, terrifying crisis — of our dependence on fossil fuels with what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico at the moment. The fact that we're having thousands and thousands of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf, causing massive degradation because we have this lust after this fossil fuel…. Yes, we need to have renewable energies. We need to find new sources of generating power or else we have no future. I think we've all got to be honest about that.

But this specific bill isn't going to wean us off fossil fuels. What it is going to do is make some people very rich, and it is going to mean that many people in B.C. are going to be a lot poorer because of not just the fact that their hydro is going to cost more but the essence of what they have had as a heritage. Part of their commons is the access to our rivers, to our Crown lands. That is going to go under this energy-for-export act.

So as I say, I'm going to go back to that point in a moment. I just wanted to talk briefly about renewables. This act doesn't really talk about it. Essentially, on renewables, we're talking about solar, and I noticed that we have new solar communities. Campbell River has been noted as a solar community. That's really important. It's important to be able to take in solar energy. I'm pleased to see that as part of the grid.

In Germany every piece of new construction has to have solar panels on it. That feeds into the grid. It feeds into heating systems. That is because Germany has, actually, an energy plan that is really effective, unlike B.C., which is doing energy for export and energy for people's independent wealth, I believe.

I think the fact that places such as Campbell River…. I know that one or two other places, Invermere and others, have been noted as solar communities. You don't need constant sunshine to have good solar power. I remember being in Israel a number of years ago — far too many years ago, actually; I had just left high school — and couldn't understand solar power because I had cold showers the whole time. All the water was heated by solar, and it was just cold the whole time.

Nowadays solar panels are very highly developed. They work very effectively and can be built in, for individuals

[ Page 5971 ]

who want to start generating a bit of their own electricity to be able to put some back into the grid in some fashion. That's renewable. That's great. It's not here in the Clean Energy Act. There's no way that that could happen.

Tidal — another great renewable. Where is the research going into tidal power? Where is the support going into tidal power? Again, in the Campbell River area we've got the Canoe Pass tidal energy project. Fantastic. We have some of the strongest tides and some of the strongest currents that go through between Campbell River and Quadra Island and all around the Discovery Islands.

There is a huge amount of energy there. If we were enhancing that for local use, Vancouver Island would be pretty well self-sufficient. Again, I'm going to come back to this concept of self-sufficiency, but that's renewable. That's clean energy. It's renewable. It's different from what we're talking about in this bill.

Again, wind. I know that people have different views of wind energy and were very concerned about wind turbines a few years ago. There was a plan for a project off the south end of my constituency, just off the south end of Quadra Island, which would have involved wind turbines. People were very concerned about the impact that that was going to have. I personally think wind turbines are quite beautiful. You see them in Spain, along the ridges. You see fields of them in Denmark. You can even see them in Alberta, the home of dirty energy. You see wind turbines.

We've got to be able to look at renewables because, as I say, unless we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we have a crisis of monumental proportions. If we depend completely on…. Whether it's the tar sands or the Gulf of Mexico, we really have a huge crisis on our hands. So yes, we have to be looking at new ways of doing things. We have to be looking at ways that we are developing energy that come back to our communities — that have community control. That isn't in this bill.

[1450]

If this was a bill that was looking at the bigger picture of where we need to go, of how we can really take control of our energy — where communities can be involved in power generation and where it can be feeding back into the grid to support community power…. That is very different from what we are seeing and what is really envisaged in this bill, which is really the industrial projects — the industrial projects on our rivers and the industrializations of our rivers.

Near my constituency — it's just across the way — and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. We have three major projects, two of which are planned and one of which is on hold at the moment. Those are the Toba Montrose project, the East Toba project, and the Bute Inlet power project, all of which are run by Plutonic and General Electric.

Now, the Toba Montrose and East Toba are going ahead at full steam. Luckily, the Bute one is on hold at the moment. But this is the massive industrialization of our rivers for profit, for export. That's what's very clear in this act — that this is happening. Our rivers are being literally sold, industrialized in a way…. That is being done without consultation, without public involvement, for private profit.

It's very interesting. One of the government members — when we were talking about big companies and big corporations and how this side of the House has the big bogeyman of the big corporation being involved in our energy production — asked: "What are these big corporations?"

Well, one of the big corporations is General Electric. I think that is a big bogeyman to have looking after our rivers, running our power for the export market, because General Electric is, under everybody's terms, a big corporation. General Electric is the fifth-biggest corporation in the world.

Energy production and distribution is fundamental for any economy and fundamental for any society. I think it's a recognition of that. It's a recognition of some progress — that we as a society…. If we want to live in a place where everybody has some equality of opportunity…. It's equality of access to electricity. That was agreed many years ago. The electrification of rural B.C. made a huge difference.

Electrification in Third World countries. As soon as you get electrification, you get better health. You get better health outcomes. People can go to school; people can study.

It's not strictly stuck by that kerosene light that could have harmful environmental and health aspects. As soon as you start electrifying, you get better outcomes for everybody in your community. It is essential to be looking at electricity — electricity production, electricity generation and electricity distribution — for the good of a society as a whole, not for the good of those companies that are going to effectively be making profits from it.

It's one of these things that is taking it really into the realm of good governance. It's like saying: "We want people to have equality of education. We want people to have equality of health care." Well, we also need to make sure that we are looking after our public utilities and that public distribution, public generation of hydro, is part of that. The profit motive, which this bill allows for, isn't the essential part of an electricity plan. It shouldn't be an essential part of an electricity plan. It shouldn't be the central

part in an energy policy.

It's fundamental that we look at energy for the public good, and Bill 17 certainly does not look at either the generation or the distribution of energy for the public good. Bill 17 looks at the generation and distribution of electricity for profit, and I think that that really is a very concerning aspect.

I have community meetings around my constituency. Every time we have a break week or when we get

[ Page 5972 ]

to go back next week, I'll be going back into the community. I have community meetings — sit down, town hall meetings. Anybody can come along and ask whatever they want, and I talk a bit about what's happening in the Legislature. I was talking, in my last round of town hall meetings, about the HST. I know that this is something that has really engaged a lot of people in my community.

[1455]

But when I started talking about Bill 17, people got really terrified, and I'm not overstating it. They were terrified. The conspiracy theorists among them — and I'm not sure, really, whether that is fair, because I actually have some credence to this — asked whether the HST was being brought in to cover for this bill, that so much concern among people would be raised about the fact the HST was being brought in that nobody would notice that this bill was being brought in.

As soon as I started to explain what this bill was about — that it was about the export of our energy, about the loss of oversight for the B.C. Utilities Commission, about the fact that we lose the public control not just of our energy production and distribution, but we lose the public control of our rivers and our lands — people rightly got very, very worried.

I know that my colleague from Juan de Fuca, the Energy critic, mentioned right at the beginning that this whole concept of the privatization of energy and the concept of what's happening in our rivers — I've cited a few — were really central during the last election campaign. It was. I have one of the constituencies where this was, no question, a vote-determining matter.

It has got people so outraged that their rights to the commons are being undermined in this way, that private companies are going to be allowed to take control of the generation and the export of our electricity. It was the number one issue.

Again, people in argument and in discussion, — because it came up in doorstep discussion, came up in the all-candidates debate — would say: "Well, it's okay, because the government has told us this is for self-sufficiency. We are going to be self-sufficient in electricity. We need that."

Well, I live on an island. It's an island off an island. There's a real sense of the need for self-sufficiency. We've got concerns about food security, and we cannot be dependent on big oil anymore — that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that we have to be doing this. We have to be looking at self-sufficiency — creating power that we can use.

As I say, this is an opportunity to really have a look at how we create power and how we feed power into the system in our communities and different ways of doing it. Instead, people have been lulled into the sense of self-sufficiency. What we get here is, instead of being told that yes, we're going to be creating power for self-sufficiency…. We get very clearly that this is a bill for export.

I mean, one of the things when the bill was first being introduced, the Minister for Energy and Mines said: "Export." This is not self-sufficiency. This is for export.

I've got to say that it's really, really very troubling that under this act, B.C. Hydro is being forced, effectively, to buy power from private producers for the export market. It's extremely troubling that whether or not we need this power — and we don't — that power that is fundamental to our ability to be a province with its own control is going to be lost, because there is going to be this real rush for privatization.

What happens? We have the concept of self-sufficiency. At the window, we are very aware that this is power for export. Who's going to be exporting it? What's going to be happening?

Just for the people who may be new to this whole debate and may live in downtown Vancouver and not be aware of it, what is happening is that B.C. Hydro has the dam system. The system has been working very well and producing very good energy for a long while. Now we have the opportunity for, effectively, friends of the governing party, the friends of the B.C. Liberals, to get very sweet deals to export our power.

I say this without any sense of concern, because it's very well known that the companies that have been involved in this…. Plutonic Power was mentioned earlier today. As I mentioned, Plutonic Power is the company that's dealing with Toba Montrose — and particularly, for my constituency, Bute Inlet — and has been a big donor to the B.C. Liberals.

During the campaign my Liberal opponent did say, "What do you expect? They're going to be giving it to you?" which was fair enough. Basically, friends of the B.C. Liberals are coming in, getting very sweet deals to take over our rivers for 40-plus years — to industrialize them, to allow for every environmental degradation there — and to sell the power that comes off them so that Californians can keep their air conditioners running in the summer and help them in their golf clubs and keep their courses green.

[1500]

I think that that alone is terrifying — that we have here a system that can allow for the privatization and, as I say, the industrialization of something that we can't get back. When you have a dam built, we have the whole question of damming and what's going to be happening.

When somebody comes in to create power, it makes an impact. There is an environmental footprint. None of us are fools. We all know there is an environmental footprint. I mean, I talk about Strathcona dam and the dams on the Campbell system. We have dams there. We have changes to river patterns. We have lakes where the height of the lake goes up and down. There is an environmental impact.

[ Page 5973 ]

What we're going to be seeing with the increased industrialization of our rivers — I cannot use the term that is coined by the companies; I'd call them ruins of the rivers and the industrialization of our rivers — are the massive industrial works along many areas, which may or may not be wilderness areas but have for many years been left untouched. There has been logging there, but what we're going to see at Bute Inlet are up to 17 dams, river diversions. These aren't small streams; these are big rivers.

This is being done for the companies that have donated to the governing party, the B.C. Liberal Party. Plutonic Power, as I say, is a major donor. General Electric, the other company involved in that, is the fifth-largest company in the world. This, we're being told, is being done for the public good.

Madam Speaker, I simply cannot accept that. We, as representatives of the people, are the voice of our constituents here. It's our duty to stand up and talk on behalf of our constituents about these issues, and it's vital to stand up and talk on behalf of our constituents about these issues because our constituents aren't being consulted.

We, as individuals, may go around and have town hall meetings or discussions with groups who are interested, but if the Minister of Energy and Mines came into my constituency, sat down at a public meeting and started to talk about this plan, he would hear very clearly the anger and the concern about the loss of our heritage, the loss of our environment and the loss of our rivers.

So the government decides not to consult the general public. The government says: "Well, it's okay." In the election campaign it's, "We're going to go for self-sufficiency," and then when the election's over: "It's going to go for export."

The government does have a legal requirement to consult with First Nations. I'm sure that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations have seen the letter from the cross-section of First Nations who want to delay this bill until there has been adequate consultation, adequate accommodation.

Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has actually warned that this could cause conflict if the government doesn't delay on this. He is accusing the government, saying that it's bogus, absolutely bogus, that any consultation took place. He says the government is "riding roughshod over the legal duty to consult with us."

From my own community there were a number of signatures to that letter, including Dan Smith, on behalf of the First Nations Summit. Dan Smith is very well respected, from the Campbell River band. From the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs there's Robert Chamberlin, who represents First Nations up from Gilford Island — again, a highly respected chief. On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations there's Jody Wilson-Raybould, from Cape Mudge.

All of them are, as I say, highly respected First Nations representatives from First Nations in my community. They are all calling for this bill to be delayed until there is adequate consultation and accommodation. I think that's really important, and I'm very pleased that they are doing this.

[1505]

It would be very nice if the government respected everybody and would give everybody the right for consultation on this. As I say, that's why I'm standing up here — because people in my constituency don't feel that they have been consulted on it.

As people see their power and their commons being sold for many years and the ability to have any control over hydro disappear, the public control over hydro disappear in this energy-for-export bill, there is the added, I think, level of concern. The public watchdog, the B.C. Utilities Commission, is really having its teeth pulled, its nails declawed.

The B.C. Utilities Commission didn't like what the government was doing. It didn't like the fact that the energy plan was going ahead without any input. It didn't like the way that we were getting to see these big private power projects go ahead because of whoever was donating to the government side.

What happens instead of the B.C. Utilities Commission being listened to is that the government basically takes control, removes all oversight possibilities from it and puts the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission into the hands of cabinet and into the minister's own office. The B.C. Utilities Commission cannot comment on projects and really can only oversee rates.

It's estimated that by removing this oversight from the B.C. Utilities Commission, it's actually going to cost. Not only are we going to have the loss of oversight and the loss of control and of the important role that the BCUC has had, but it's also going to cost people of B.C. approximately $9 billion by excluding these from a number of projects, including the northwest transmission line, if that goes ahead; Site C, if that goes ahead; Mica, in Revelstoke. If those go ahead, it's going to effectively cost $9 billion. I mean, where is the sense in this?

I've got to say that this act is one where I shake my head. Where is the sense in it? We've been talking for a number of years about energy production, energy distribution, and I think that we are all aware that we need to do things differently, that we need to be saving energy, conserving energy. Of course we need to be producing energy. Nobody accepts that you can have a very complex society without producing energy. But where's the plan, and where is the sense of the public good?

This is one of the really troubling things. It's the role of a government to look after not just the dollars and cents, not just look after the economic bottom line, not just look after social bottom line — I would hope that

[ Page 5974 ]

the government also looks after the environmental bottom line — but it's also the role of a government to look after the public good.

What is needed for us as a society, not just today and not just three years or five years down the road but in the longer term, is to look out for what is going to happen in 40 to 50 years when we're not around. How is the public good going to be protected then? I think that we have a duty to be very cautious about how we look after that trust and ensure that we are thinking with foresight.

This bill which allows our energy to be exported, allows private companies — not just small-scale private companies that are going to do nice little projects in nice communities and little rivers around places but large companies, these large corporations such as General Electric…. It allows General Electric to come in and take over our rivers and our inlets so that they can make massive profits for their shareholders and provide energy for California and for Nevada or wherever it is where they're selling energy. That is wrong. That is what is so dangerous about this bill.

[1510]

I would hope…. The government does have an opportunity. We're at the end of our session. After today we have three more days. We're only in second-stage reading. The government has an opportunity to stop and to think, to stop and to listen.

If they won't listen to the opposition, and I have every expectation that they won't listen to the opposition…. If they won't listen to the people from my constituency and other constituencies who, in the last election, said, "We don't like your plans," or from those people who are now finding out about the plans — that it isn't just for self-sufficiency, and they're worried about that…. If they won't listen to that, they have a call from First Nations to hold off until there's been full consultation.

The government has an opportunity now with just three days left, when we're still so early in the bill, to say: "Okay, we're not going to move forward on it. We are going to take the public interest into account. We're going to stop, we're going to think, and we're going to make sure that B.C. Hydro remains in the hands of the B.C. public."

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a great pleasure for me to rise and to join the debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act. I certainly want to say at the outset that I unreservedly support this piece of legislation. I think this is a piece of legislation that will go far to define our very bright future in the province of British Columbia. I am very, very pleased to be able to rise and support it.

It is also a bill, I think, that tells us a lot about the government and the opposition and what they're thinking. I think it's particularly fascinating, because we don't always have that many opportunities to look into the world of NDP thinking in these matters, and this is one of those debates that helps to define the parties and helps us to understand what's going on in the minds and the thinking of the NDP. So that's really useful. We don't hear that much policy from them typically. It's in debates like this where often, in the process of critiquing the legislation, we actually learn a little bit about the character of the NDP mind.

There have been a number of themes that have been repeatedly articulated by the NDP side in this debate. I think it's worth reviewing them, because it does tell us something about the future. There is a possibility, I understand, that the NDP may be elected as government in 2013. That's not something we like to think about a lot, and it's certainly not something that I'm sure the great majority of the public would ever want.

But it's good that we should be thinking. We should be trying to understand what it is the NDP would mean to British Columbia. What's the kind of rhetoric that one might hear in an NDP province? I think we know that from the themes that have been articulated in this debate.

We know, for example, that big corporations are really bad, and they should give me a hand for that. Big corporations are really bad. The NDP aren't clapping for that. Why is that, when over and over and over in this debate we have been hearing from the NDP…?

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, no. Now the members are trying to…. Imagine this, Madam Speaker. The NDP don't even like now to hear their own words back to them about big corporations because, "Oh, that comes way too close to a policy position, that we might not like big corporations. Let's deny that," even though the rhetoric they have used in speech after speech after speech in this Legislature was condemning the big corporations and all of the bad things that are implied in big corporations. So it's interesting.

I found the last speaker, for example, talked repeatedly of General Electric, that apparently the prospect of General Electric investing in this province…. That would be a terrible thing if a big corporation like General Electric were to invest in this province.

[1515]

Oh, now we're getting them excited on that side. They're now getting very excited that a big corporation like General Electric might have the audacity to create jobs, to make an investment, to pay taxes in the province of British Columbia. But big corporations are really, really bad, apparently.

So it's good. We learned that from the NDP over and over in this debate. Big corporations are bad. I know we can start there — except, apparently, a big public corporation might not be quite as bad.

[ Page 5975 ]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: There, we've got them fired up again. The member for Yale-Lillooet or Yale-Nicola or whatever it is now is very excited, because apparently, a big corporation, when it's public, is not entirely bad.

Theoretically at least, from the NDP perspective, B.C. Hydro could be a good thing, although apparently they oppose the reunification of B.C. Transmission and B.C. Hydro. It's never been clear why in this debate they would be opposed to that. Perhaps it's because it would make it a bigger corporation. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is explaining some of the finer details. They're back and forth on it. They're saying that it may be okay, but it's something to talk about in a speech over 30 minutes.

It's interesting, as well, I think, that a big corporation can be okay as long as it's a public corporation, and that's good. I am always delighted when I hear of anything that the NDP can support. I often feel during the debates in this House that there is no single form of human enterprise that the NDP can endorse. Sometimes I feel like there's nothing they can endorse. So if they can endorse B.C. Hydro as a big public corporation, that's a small step forward at least — that there is one form of enterprise that might be supportable.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now I've prompted all manner of debate in this House, I think, in an extracurricular way here.

They are opposed to the privatization of energy. I'm not quite sure what they mean by the privatization of energy, but it would be a fascinating thing to explore, no doubt — the privatization of energy. Apparently, anyone undertaking an energy project in the province, except that big public corporation we call B.C. Hydro, is a very bad thing. That, in the NDP world, is privatization of energy, and any work undertaken by an organization other than B.C. Hydro would be, by definition, a bad thing, because it is undertaken by a big corporation. That is interesting.

Interesting, though, as well, is that it seems that pretty much anything the big corporation we call B.C. Hydro would undertake is a bad thing. The member has just said that she's opposed to the northwest transmission line. Wow. Why would anyone oppose the northwest transmission line? The northwest transmission line is going to be important not only for itself but I think way more important as an opportunity for subsidiary economic activity all up and down the corridor that will be served by the northwest transmission line.

It is difficult for me to understand why the opposition would oppose northwest transmission, but I think they oppose that. That's certainly one of the major undertakings of B.C. Hydro.

I understand that they oppose Site C, although I look forward to clarification on that point from subsequent speakers. The member from Revelstoke said that they're maybe here or maybe there on that one. They'll hedge their bets a little bit around Site C. It's certainly not something we hear a lot of, but I'm sure the NDP speaker following me will be all fired up about this and will tell us just exactly what their position is on Site C. I'll look forward to that, and I'll listen for that as we move ahead.

I know one thing that is very clear from the comments of the NDP members in this House is that they are opposed to independent power projects. They have made that clear in a hundred ways. It's not just that it's part of the privatization of power by the big corporations. They are opposed to independent power projects. In fact, the Energy critic, the member for Juan de Fuca, characterized independent power as junk power.

[1520]

Now, can you imagine, Madam Speaker, this pretend, would-be government across the way…? Could you send a more powerful message to the world about what kind of government you're going to operate and what kind of investment climate you're going to create than to characterize independent power projects as junk power? There could not be a more destructive way of characterizing it, I would suggest to the opposition.

Again, it's important that the public understand what might be part of the NDP's emerging ideology with respect to power production. Apparently, IPPs have no part of it. The member is confirming what I'm saying — that IPPs are terrible, that IPPs are junk power. They don't care if anyone invests in British Columbia. They're not concerned about what's going to provide the schools, the hospitals in our province. Apparently, they are self-sustaining in an NDP world. It's fascinating to know that.

Junk power — I can't imagine what was in the member's mind as he articulated that position. Was he deliberately trying to undermine the world's confidence in British Columbia as a destination for investment? If he was, he couldn't have done a better job of it by taking such an unfortunate characterization of what is an entirely legitimate and welcome enterprise in the province of British Columbia.

I also heard from the last member. It's an enduring theme among the New Democrat contributions here. I heard persistently an opposition to power exports in the province. Again, if the NDP speaker following me takes exception to this characterization by me, I'd love to hear it, because I am fascinated by where they're going on this from a policy perspective. I understand entirely, from her comments and from previous comments, that the NDP is opposed to power exports. "Only create power for self-sufficiency," appeared to be what the NDP speakers were saying. Again, I'd love to hear it if there's something other than that.

[ Page 5976 ]

On the balance of things, one is either a power importer or a power exporter. On the balance of things, why wouldn't we want to export power? I'm fascinated to know why we wouldn't embrace the export of power — just as we embrace the export of forest products, we embrace the export of minerals and we welcome the export of technology. Why wouldn't we want to see the export of surplus power?

I am fascinated to know why we would oppose that. Again, perhaps the answer to the question is that you have to create a facility to generate power in order to export it. Again, we go back to, I suppose, all those residual themes about big corporations and the evil character of those big corporations and why we should minimize the power production in British Columbia so that, I guess, we manage to find that magical point where we are hovering between exporting and importing power. It's a fascinating proposition.

What I also have been hearing from the NDP — and this is a good thing, so I want to give the NDP credit for this — is that retroactively, they appear to be saying that they can now embrace existing dams: "That's okay. That brings us power when we turn our light switch on in the morning." They're prepared to do that.

But no new power projects. Apparently not from B.C. Hydro. Apparently not from independent power projects — or big corporations, as we like to say in NDP world. But it's curious, again, that they would really oppose all of the infrastructure, the electrical power infrastructure that, I think, can make British Columbia an even better, more dynamic society, economically and socially, for decades to come.

I want to say a few words about that, because one can get incredibly depressed, as well as well-informed, by listening to too many NDP speeches on this subject.

[1525]

I think the Clean Energy Act is a very positive thing. It is

an act which will help British Columbia become an energy powerhouse in the 21st century. I think that's a great thing. There is nobody in this nation or on this continent who believes that there will be any diminution of the demand for power in coming decades, and British Columbia can be a leader in that area. British Columbia can benefit by being a powerhouse and serving the needs of British Columbia, Canada and other customers in the decades ahead.

I think that's an exciting thing. I don't think it's a negative thing. The NDP can articulate that position if they want, and I hope they remember it when they're fighting the next election. We'll certainly be reminding the voters of the junk power thesis that we heard from the opposition, and I know people will listen.

This is

an act that adds tools to expand and diversify both the production of energy and the distribution of energy in this province. It is enormously important that we do precisely that — expand and diversify.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

British Columbia is a jurisdiction which even today is the envy of the world. We have been blessed by more resources than, I think, any other jurisdiction on the face of the earth. When you look at our strategic location vis-à-vis the Asia-Pacific, the United States, we have a great opportunity going forward in the 21st century, and we have the resources to match our location.

We have boundless forests. We're seeing some recovery in the forest industry, and we'll see the forest industry back operating on all cylinders again in just, I'm sure, a year or two. We have great mineral wealth, and we've barely scratched the surface in terms of the opportunities we have around building mineral wealth in this province. We have oil and gas, particularly in the northeast of British Columbia but elsewhere in the province as well. That can be a powerful resource for us in the future, and currently keeps many of our schools and hospitals open in British Columbia — the oil and gas industry.

We have fabulous landscapes right across this province that can make us a mecca for tourism for, again, decades to come, particularly as we see the emerging Chinese market for tourism.

We have this remarkable asset in our clean energy, which the Clean Energy Act, Bill 17, is aimed at increasing and, hopefully, maximizing in the years ahead. Not only is that clean energy something that will help meet the ever-growing domestic demands that we have in British Columbia, but I think it also will allow us, through appropriate management, to be a net exporter rather than be a net importer of power in British Columbia. I think that is an exciting thing, something we should embrace.

Why should we welcome new investment in clean energy power production in the province of British Columbia, whether it's the independent power projects — which have been so repeatedly criticized, disparaged, by the opposition — or even the major public sector power project, the Site C, the next major project, along with the northwest transmission line, of the B.C. Hydro corporation?

Well, I think there are a number of reasons why we should welcome incremental power production, which is going to be supported by all of the elements in this bill. Among them, it's an opportunity to create jobs. Again, any time we have an opportunity to expand and diversify our economy in British Columbia, it's an opportunity to add jobs.

It means that for young people in Sicamous or Smithers or Fort St. John or any other corner of British Columbia, they have an opportunity to work near their home where they grew up, rather than being forced to go to another corner of British Columbia to secure employment.

[ Page 5977 ]

It expands and diversifies the province. Expanding our power production, as well — and I've mentioned this specifically in relation to the northwest transmission line — gives us an opportunity in British Columbia to build a whole lot of subsidiary jobs. Having power production can mean that mills can produce more lumber products.

[1530]

I was up in Williams Lake last weekend and met with the Chief of the Ulkatcho band. He talked to me about how important it was that they build some power production in their community so that the mill that they and three other bands around Williams Lake own would be able to get away from diesel in the manufacture of wood products.

Diesel makes them uncompetitive. Independent power would make them competitive, would get their folks back to work more quickly, would get them producing jobs and revenue and wealth for their First Nations communities. It's hugely important from a job creation perspective.

Secondly, it ensures that we will have power when we turn on the switch. Again, we have this wonderful legacy of W.A.C. Bennett from 50 or 60 years ago. When we turn on a power switch in British Columbia, the power always comes on; the lightbulb always comes on. That's not something that every jurisdiction in the world enjoys.

In fact, power is very precarious in many locations, but in British Columbia we can create power. We can be the powerhouse, and we need to be that powerhouse and ensure that we have the power we need not only for our domestic home purposes but for our construction jobs, for manufacturing, for all of those parts of our economy — our growing economy — that need to have power to make them work.

Expanding green energy also allows us to diversify the economy. If there is a lesson that we should learn from the last couple of years of recession and a lesson we should learn from the last 50 years of economic history in British Columbia and Canada, it's that we're always better off if we have a diversified economy.

If we have a downturn in the forest sector, we can hope that oil and gas or mines or green energy continue to have strong production and strong export values so that, again, British Columbia's quality of life will not be diminished at a time when one of the sectors in the economy is in downturn. I think it always makes sense to diversify the economy.

I think, as well, it is important to acknowledge that tax revenues are important. Again, there has been no end of talk about big corporations and how bad they are in British Columbia. Apparently, we don't welcome them anymore in the province, and that's unfortunate, because they produce wealth and produce tax revenue. They provide us with the tax revenues that allow us to have the best health care system and the best health care facilities in the entire nation of Canada and, indeed, some of the best health care programs and facilities on the face of the earth.

We also are able through those tax revenues to have some of the best schools in Canada and on the face of the earth, as well, and social services that everyone expects and demands in this province. I know the member from Powell River wants to get up and actually support what I'm saying, and it's unfortunate he's locked into that other side of the House where he….

N. Simons: I'll be up in half an hour.

Hon. G. Abbott: You'll be up in half an hour. There's a note for our viewers on Hansard television. The member from Powell River is going to be up soon.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: There. He's going to clap for himself already. You should clap retroactively rather than prospectively, but….

I know the member agrees with me. I'm sure he's not going to say anything about big corporations when he speaks, because he must be on the moderate wing of the party and, hopefully, won't beat the anti-capitalist drum as so many of his colleagues have.

Tax revenues are vital for all of those — health, education, social services. They are vital. Whether they come from big corporations or others in the province of British Columbia, we need them, and we need more economic development that feeds those additional taxes to our government in the province.

A final point, and I think this is hugely important. The Clean Energy Act will also provide new opportunities for First Nations in the province of British Columbia. Bill 17 does two things — at least two things — that have never been done before in respect of First Nations, and they're very important.

[1535]

One is the First Nations business equity fund. That is hugely important. We are building a fund that will allow First Nations to take an equity stake, an ownership stake, in power projects in the province of British Columbia. That is hugely important and something which I hope even the opposition might welcome, although they've not said, I don't think, whether they do or not.

Second, it also contemplates revenue-sharing on water and land rental revenues to First Nations. Again, I think this is a great step forward that we would share government revenues with the First Nation on incremental power production. Again, I don't know what the NDP's view is on that.

Perhaps it might be simply said that if there's no new incremental development, there is nothing to share in the

[ Page 5978 ]

way of incremental resource revenue. I suppose that's the logical extension of opposing all of the new power production — to also not have to worry too much about how to share the revenues, because there won't be any revenues to share if the NDP vision here was embraced.

These very important provisions in the Clean Energy Act will help us to build on some of the extraordinarily promising partnerships that already exist between independent power projects and First Nations in British Columbia. I'll give you a very good example of one, and I hope the NDP will listen to this. It's important that they appreciate that just because a big corporation is involved, it ain't necessarily bad.

Now, that's a dramatic, powerful statement that that could be so, and I know I've got the members' attention. They're all watching me with rapt fascination now. To think that a corporation, a big corporation, could be involved in the construction of a win-win between a First Nation and industry…. Here's an example. Plutonic Power, which I think has some relationship to General Electric, so I'm sure are inherently bad from the opposition's perspective…. Junk power, as the Energy critic would say.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, he's clapping for his "junk power" comment, which is fascinating in itself.

I'll bet there were a couple of discussions about that characterization among your colleagues. Or maybe it was a perfect expression of the NDP's contempt for private investment, and if it was, then they should all have clapped for you rather than just yourself. But I wouldn't want to be driving any wedges among you and your colleagues.

Let me say this. The Klahoose partnership with Plutonic involves employment. It involves contracting opportunities on roadbuilding, on land clearing, on the operation of the entire worksite at Toba Inlet. It also involves some skills training in a partnership with North Island College.

How was it that a big corporation like Plutonic Power was to enter into what appears to be such a beneficial partnership with the Klahoose First Nation? The answer is that, in fact, it is a beneficial partnership. It is only when we take very artificial constructs, like big, evil corporations, and apply them to an area of economic endeavour that one reaches entirely irrational conclusions — like the NDP do — about the partnerships with First Nations. The Klahoose-Plutonic partnership is a good one, but it is one that we can build on, and we will see.

Let me just say in conclusion, because I see the green light is on…. Time flies. It's amazing how quickly it flies. It certainly does. We have many challenges ahead, but we need jobs, we need investment, and we need tax revenue. We need new opportunities, and we particularly need new opportunities for First Nations and for new Canadians, and green energy is one of the ways to build that.

[1540]

We have an unparalleled, unprecedented opportunity in British Columbia in 2010 to extend an opportunity for equality of opportunity that we have never seen in any jurisdiction anyplace in the world before. We have that in British Columbia. We've been richly blessed. Now is the time for us to build the partnerships. Now is the time for us to undertake the bold investments that can make the 21st century British Columbia's century.

British Columbia is a great province. With the Clean Energy Act, with the very appropriate, exciting, bold investments that will follow from Bill 17, we will make British Columbia the greatest jurisdiction on the face of the earth.

M. Sather: It's indeed my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 17, the so-called Clean Energy Act.

You know, it's always fun to follow the member for Shuswap. Hey, it's a beautiful place that I had the opportunity of visiting recently. The flowers are looking great there in Salmon Arm. I didn't happen to see the minister around. I didn't see the member around, though, and I guess B.C. Liberals aren't going out in public that much these days.

I mean, obviously the member might have had the chance, if he dared to go out today amongst the people, to talk to them about the HST, or he might even want to talk to them about the Clean Energy Act, because there are a lot of fishermen in his area. I've talked to a lot of fishermen. They're not happy with the arrangement that this government has with the private power producers.

They're not happy about what's going to happen and what is happening to their access to their fishing spots. They're not happy about the loss of sovereignty — that's what it amounts to — over our rivers and streams.

I don't know if he wants to talk to them about big corporations. He can do that too, I guess, but the main thing is he ought to go out and talk to them about how they feel about what this government is doing around the private power producer act, which is essentially what this is.

It's the consummation of a long relationship between this government and the private power producers. They have been in bed for a long time. The money keeps rolling in; it keeps rolling in. That makes them happy, as long as those donations to the B.C. Liberals are coming in, and they must be, because it seems that the minister is very pleased. And so it goes on and on.

But knowledgable observers have called this the worst legislation in the last decade, and I think they're absolutely right. It's simply a giveaway to private power producers being disguised as a clean energy bill. It's anything but a clean energy bill.

[ Page 5979 ]

Speaking of large corporations, the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, which represents all of B.C. Hydro's largest customers, had the opportunity to make a submission to the government's Green Energy Advisory Task Force. They calculated that the export plans — yes, this is all about export, and we'll talk about that a little bit more, I'm sure — are going to cost British Columbians $450 million per year in money-losing sales transactions.

Now, the previous speaker talked about, "Well, you wouldn't want the NDP in, spoiling relationships with corporations" — making the case, I guess, in a roundabout way that they're good managers of the resource. But how can they say that when they have put out a bill that the largest customers of B.C. Hydro say will commit B.C. Hydro — force B.C. Hydro, under this bill — to pay private power producers twice what their power would fetch on the open market?

Now, there's a good deal. There's a really good deal. It's a good deal if you're a private power producer, for sure. But what does it do for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[1545]

It sticks them to it — 120 bucks per megawatt hour to buy and about $60…. That's what the people that are the biggest customers of B.C. Hydro say they'll get — probably about 60 bucks, for 20 years. Over 20 years, at $450 million, that rounds out to about $9 billion. That's a lot of money that this government is giving away to their friends in the private power industry at the cost of taxpayers. It's really quite shameful.

I do hope that the member for Shuswap, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, does go out and talk to his constituents and to all British Columbians about this bill. I know we did — a lot — during the last election, and as my colleague said, people are not happy with what this government is doing. They certainly won't be happy with this bill and aren't happy with this bill, even though they are perhaps more focused right now on another bit of legislation that was just recently passed by this government.

You know, the Energy Minister said: "Well, we have the right to pursue our agenda." I think that says it all. This government feels that they have the divine right to pursue their agenda, whether or not it's in the best interests of British Columbians, our environment or our energy supply. They have a divine right to pursue their energy. That's what the minister said, and they did that.

Obviously, we know they did that with the HST — the same. There was the divine right, and they continue. The Premier was up earlier today pursuing that agenda, albeit futilely. Nonetheless that's his right to do that.

I want to talk a little bit about B.C. Hydro because this act, Bill 17, forces B.C. Hydro to buy power for export and seek out new export opportunities. Why, in fact, would the government have to have a directive towards B.C. Hydro? It seems that they don't trust B.C. Hydro that much either. We know that recalcitrant group from the B.C. Utilities Commission kind of stepped out of line a little while ago, and so they got whacked good.

I think the government is sending this hard message to their "partners" B.C. Hydro: "Don't you dare get independent. Don't you dare have any thoughts on your own, or at least if you have them, don't express them."

Who is doing the directing here? What we're seeing is the cabinet taking over the role that the B.C. Utilities Commission used to have, that B.C. Hydro used to have. But then I guess the brain trust — the Premier and his cohorts — know more about electricity than B.C. Hydro, and they should just go out and tell them how to run the business.

That's what they're doing through Bill 17. They're absolutely centralizing control of our energy future in the cabinet. Given the lack of confidence that right now, at least, is being expressed by the people of British Columbia about not only the cabinet but the whole government, I don't know if that's a very good idea.

This export plan by private power producers. Yes, we have had export before, but this one is lined up, albeit with very poor financial reckoning behind it, very nicely for the private power producers. California is obviously one of the destinations, one would think, for the power. They're not particularly receptive. In fact, they're not receptive at all to power from projects that are larger than 30 megawatts, and most of them or a lot of them out there…. That's just what they are. They're much larger than that.

Again, how is the government going to sell this power that we the taxpayers are going to have to pay for? I wonder.

[1550]

Another one that's really interesting, which Bill 17 brings in, directs B.C. Hydro to shape and store power. This is what opponents of the private power movement aided and abetted by this government have been saying for several years was going to happen. Now they're out in the open about it.

What they're going to do is use the heritage assets — the dams that we've had for years like at Revelstoke, like on the Peace River — for the benefit of their friends in the private power industry.

There's a government backgrounder out there that says that any expenditures associated with exports are not included in domestic rates. The minister referred to that in his opening speech, but that's quite frankly baloney. This is a subsidy for private power producers.

These heritage dams that the citizens of British Columbia own could be producing relatively cheap power for domestic use, but instead they're going to be holding back their water and their power to allow private power producers to export more power. That's what this shape-and-store is all about. That's what it's all about, and it's totally unnecessary.

[ Page 5980 ]

If the projects they were doing could stand on their own…. But they can't. Thus they're getting these massive subsidies from this government. I don't know what B.C. Hydro is going to do if they don't have much capacity in their dams for this shape-and-store movement. If the dams are almost full, I guess they're just going to let the water run by the generators so that those who are friends of the government and support them financially and otherwise can have free rein with our power. Certainly, there's no B.C.-first policy in this province — not at all.

The private power producers will be using B.C. Hydro staff and expertise to get this work done, and they've already been doing that for a long time, actually. A lot of the run-of-river euphemism…. It's not run of river. It's dam and divert rivers and streams in British Columbia.

A lot of that work of finding those places in this province was already done by B.C. Hydro before the opportunistic folks from the private power industry came on the scene. So they've had lots of subsidy, and they're going to have more subsidy while they have B.C. Hydro as their agent doing shape-and-store and then being out there finding the market for them and delivering it to them. It's all one big happy ball for the private power industry and this completely complicit government.

We're already paying. Our hydro rates have gone up 18 percent since 2005. Lots more much worse news to come. They're going to go up 9 percent more this year and 29 percent compounded over the next three years. Somebody has to pay. Just like the HST, it's the regular taxpayers that will be paying for this misadventure with the private power producers of British Columbia.

The government talks a fair bit — or they did, and they still are, interestingly enough — about self-sufficiency. In fact, that's all we heard for a long time: "Oh, we've got to have more private power for self-sufficiency." Of course, at that time they were still in the closet, and they weren't talking about private power for export. But now at least, they're right out there about it. This bill brings them right out there about it, and shamefully so.

But when the government…. They spun this web of us being dependent on imports for power, and the whole thing is…. I don't know what other word to use in a sham. It's a sham. They don't talk about the power that's produced by Alcan or Teck Cominco or Fortis power. They provide 20 percent of our power needs in this province, but those bits of power don't get to be part of the equation of whether or not we're importers or exporters. Remember, the government has had that long discussion over the past few years before they came right out with it, to develop this bill for their friends.

[1555]

Then there's the Columbia River treaty, where we provide the capacity for the folks south of the border to produce power, or we can — in which, of course, we get paid for what we do for them…. On the other hand, we have the capacity through the agreement to take that power and use that power ourselves, but we don't do that. That's not considered, either, in the whole miscalculation about self-sufficiency that's been going on with this government.

The Columbia River treaty downstream benefits, if realized, would provide over 10 percent of our current need. We would be, if we did that, in a 5.1 percent surplus position rather than a 1.5 deficit regarding electricity in this province.

The fact is that over the last 32 years, there have only been five years in which B.C. actually brought more power into the province than we sent outside the province. But the government has been carrying on this…. They like to talk about misinformation with the HST, but they've been carrying on this misinformation for a long time, and it's an inconvenient truth — the reality of it.

I think it was the Environment Minister who earlier today talked a little bit about Burrard Thermal. B.C. Hydro has to assume that Burrard Thermal really doesn't exist, even in extreme low-water years. On the other hand, it has to be maintained, because all of that private power that they're trying to get out there just might not be out there fast enough to provide for the needs they have at the time.

You know how the government is always berating Burrard Thermal? It's not like it's running on dirty coal. It's actually running on natural gas. The government in some respects is very fond of natural gas, but not in the case of Burrard Thermal, which produced in 2008 less than 1 percent of B.C. Hydro's power.

The minister, the previous speaker, wanted me, wanted us to talk about Site C, and I'm glad to indulge him on that. Site C — now, there's an interesting example of, again, a miscast group, including the Premier, that went traipsing by airplane up to Hudson's Hope recently to basically announce that they were fully embracing Site C, that it was the best thing since sliced bread, and on and on. "So what if we haven't done any environmental assessment yet. So what if we don't have any consultations done yet with First Nations. Nonetheless, we're foursquare behind it." So they want to talk a lot about that.

Again, they don't need this energy for so-called self-sufficiency. They want it for export. It's interesting where some of that export would go. There is in the works now a pipeline to the northeast shale gas deposits in this province.

The final destination for a lot of that gas out of the shale gas deposits is going to be the tar sands in Alberta. Talk about clean energy. There's no clean energy coming out of the tar sands. That's the dirtiest energy you can get on the planet, and yet it's being sold as clean energy. So there's no way that we can take seriously much about Site C.

Speaking of natural gas, the government recently approved of the massive Cabin gas plant in the Fort Nelson

[ Page 5981 ]

area. That one is to process the very gas that comes from the shale gas deposits, but the company has said, "You know what? We can't really do the carbon capture-and-storage process up there" — EnCana, to wit. And this is going to be a major polluter, actually one of the major polluters. In fact, by the time all is said and done, the gas plants up there are going to be producing more pollution than any other source in British Columbia.

[1600]

Yet the Premier runs around talking about how green he is, and he has a green energy plan and a bill that's supposed to be green. It's anything but green.

There are actually other facilities up there. Spectra gas is actually going to employ that technology, and they have been working for the past 20 years on reducing their emissions. But that doesn't count for EnCana, I guess. The Premier said with regard to that particular bit…. They talked about contributing to a net overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on a continental scale.

Well, it's interesting how interested the government now seems to be in what's going on in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but not very much interested, clearly, in terms of their action and what's going on with greenhouse gases in our country.

B.C. Transmission Corporation. Bill 17 shelves — essentially guts — B.C. Transmission Corporation to pave the way for B.C. Hydro to be the complete service agent for the private power producers. That's what it does. It's shameful, but those are the facts. They don't really need the power they're calling for. It's up to 8,000 gigawatts per year. There was a cost too, which actually Will McMartin mentioned in an

article about closing down B.C. Transmission Corporation, at $65 million, but that's chump change for a government that says they're so efficient and they're looking out for the best interests of British Columbians.

Well, the B.C. Transmission Corporation, according to the minister, still has power. Hey, they can set domestic rates, but they can't oversee the price of private power if they did. In fact, they did do that, an