2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Flooding in Nass Valley and role of

provincial emergency program

B. Belsey

Houston sawmill

D. MacKay

Political leadership

R. Masi

Oral Questions

Privatization and viability of B.C.

Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

B.C. Rail services

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

Dispute resolution for strata

councils and property owners

T. Bhullar

Hon. G.

Collins

Skilled trades training

W. McMahon

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

J. MacPhail

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills

B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House

Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) (continued)

Mayencourt

Hon. G. Hogg

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)

Third Reading of Bills

Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)

Second Reading of Bills

BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and

Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

P. Nettleton

B. Kerr

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Bond

Mayencourt

J. Bray

K. Stewart

D. MacKay

R. Hawes

R. Sultan

W. Cobb

Visser

Suffredine

B. Lekstrom

V. Roddick

M. Hunter

Hon. R.

Thorpe

R. Harris

B. Belsey

P. Bell

[ Page 7809 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hamilton: Entertained for lunch today from the navy were Commodore Roger

Girouard, Lt. Commander Scott McVicar, Hon. Captain Cedric Steele, retired

Commander Lloyd Barnes and Lt. Paul Lehay. Joining us for question period are

the Hon. Captain Cedric Steele and retired Commander Lloyd Barnes. Would the

House please join me in making them welcome.

[1405]

MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today

people from Prince George: Councillor Dan Rogers; and people who work in Prince

George for B.C. Rail, Kevin Anderson, Lance Yearley, Bob Sharp and Erik Lonne.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I had a great discussion this morning with a grade 9 student from

Prince of Wales Secondary School, which is located in my riding. We had a great

chat about some of the great programs that are offered at that school. I hope

the House will join me in welcoming Bryan Wong to the Legislature today.

Mayencourt: I note that the former member of the Legislature for

Vancouver-Burrard is here in the chamber with us. I'd ask the House to please

make Councillor Tim Stevenson welcome.

P. Bell:

Along with Councillor Dan Rogers, who is here to watch question period today, is

another friend and colleague from Prince George: Kevin Brown. I would ask that

the House please make him very welcome as well.

MacPhail: I join the current member for Vancouver-Burrard in welcoming the

former member for Vancouver-Burrard sitting behind us. My colleague and I

welcome him. I would also just note, Mr. Speaker, that he was a former Deputy

Speaker as well, which is a very highfalutin position, as I understand it.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25

public servants seated in the west gallery, who are participating in a full-day

parliamentary procedures workshop. This workshop, offered by the Legislative

Assembly, provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a

greater understanding of the relationship between the work of the ministries and

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

FLOODING IN NASS VALLEY AND ROLE OF

PROVINCIAL EMERGENCY PROGRAM

Belsey: Recently two communities in my riding, Kincolith and Greenville,

were cut off from the rest of the Nass Valley when flooding washed out a bridge.

Heavy rains — the Pineapple Express, as we often refer to it — left the

Pemberton area and moved north to the Nass Valley. These rains caused a rapid

swelling of creeks and rivers — in particular, the Nass and the Kalum Rivers.

The men and women of the provincial emergency program were called upon, once

again, to serve the public.

Coming out

of an emergency like this are stories of bravery and determination and heroism.

More often they include the heroics of the front-line workers, those in the

trenches — rightfully so. They often risk life and limb. However, there's

another group that works tirelessly behind the scenes. They are the men and

women that work for the provincial emergency program. They're not the ones that

we see standing in the middle of the flooded fields with water running over the

tops of their boots, trying to fill dam bags. No, Mr. Speaker. They're the ones

that are calling in the extra help, finding the dam bags, looking for the fill

for the bags, searching for pumps and ultimately faced with the logistics of

moving men and material and emergency equipment to where it's needed. They are

often called upon to make the decisions that have profound effects on people's

lives. These decisions are sometimes made with limited information and often

after long hours of work.

I have

nothing but praise for these men and women of PEP. They, too, are heroes. I

would just like to point out that PEP has a website, and I encourage people to

take a look at it: www.pep.bc.ca. You can find information on everything from

emergency management to disaster financial assistance and from hazard

preparedness to information and volunteering. So I encourage you. Give that

website an opportunity; have a look at it: www.pep.bc.ca.

HOUSTON SAWMILL

MacKay: This is going to be a two-minute quiz. I'm going to talk about the

world's largest sawmill — the world's largest sawmill under one roof and with

the largest milling capacity. I wonder how many members in this chamber or how

many people in the province of British Columbia know where this facility is

located. The fact that I am the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and that I

am speaking to this issue should be the first clue.

[1410]

A sawmill

that presently consumes 1.55 million cubic metres of wood and will consume 2.54

million cubic metres of wood when it is finished with the upgrade. This facility

will be producing 13.3 million

[ Page 7810 ]

board feet per day when completed. That's a 30 percent increase from today's

production. This capital upgrade will also benefit the community with additional

value-added facilities. As well, the increase in the logging industry needed to

deliver wood to the mill will increase by approximately 30 percent.

During the

capital expansion, estimated at $34 million, 175 tradespeople per weekend will

live and spend money in this community. This will have a positive direct impact

on hotels and restaurants.

There is so

much good news, but I'm limited by time.

The final

clue to this quiz is that the community is the forest capital of British

Columbia in 2003.

I would

like to close by telling you that this sawmill is located in the community of

Houston, British Columbia. For those who don't know, Houston is a vibrant,

forest-dependent community on Highway 16. The sawmill is owned by Canadian

Forest Products.

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

R. Masi:

I would like to make a few comments on technology as political leadership.

British Columbia's success will be measured by a gradual amelioration of a wide

variety of political, economic, strategic and social problems. We must be

careful to distinguish between what we must do, what we would like to do and

what is beyond our capacities.

The

startling advance of communications technology suggests that our age is at the

beginning of intellectual and political transformations likely to prove more

sweeping than those produced by the invention of printing and certain to evolve

more rapidly. However, there is a significant and fundamental difference between

information and knowledge. While the processing of information has undergone

extraordinary advancement, the successful conduct of government requires the

intuition and the ability to sense the future and thereby master it. Leadership

is the art of bridging the gap between experience and vision.

While a

computer does an excellent job of storing information and data, at the same time

it encourages a shrinking perspective, especially in dealing with future policy.

The study of history and philosophy, the disciplines most important to the art

of political leadership, are unfortunately neglected. Today most political

leaders gain prominence by exploiting and manipulating the mood of the moment.

Focus groups have replaced the following of one's own perceptions and intuition.

Many leaders view the future as simply a projection of the status quo.

Understandably, choices are not simplistic. Excessive realism can produce

stagnation, while excessive idealism can cause disillusionment.

In British

Columbia during the last decade, we experienced roughly five years of excessive

idealism followed by, unfortunately, five years of distorted realism. Now as we

seek to build a new future, a new era of politics in British Columbia, we must

build a future based not only upon an economic philosophy but also upon social

and humanitarian values.

It is with

great confidence that we look forward to a continuing era of enlightened

leadership — leadership based on our unique historical and social values —

as well as a full awareness of how to build a dynamic and prosperous economic

future.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: I think the sound effects signal the end of members' statements.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: It seems that every day the government changes its story about why

it's breaking the new-era promise on B.C. Rail. When we brought to light

internal government documents showing that B.C. Rail is one of the most

profitable rail companies in North America, the minister responsible said yes,

but the debt is too high.

To the

minister responsible for selling B.C. Rail: can she tell the House how B.C.

Rail's debt compares to CN Rail and CP Rail, the leading candidates to take over

the line?

[1415]

Hon. J.

Reid: B.C. Rail is vital to the transportation links across British Columbia

and in the north. B.C. Rail needs to be a business that grows and that is able

to meet the needs of the industries in the future.

This member

still doesn't seem to grasp what is going on in the lumber industry in the north

and the productivity that is coming out of that industry at this time in a

response to softwood lumber. That is creating an unusual situation in the

marketplace that is leading to increased traffic on B.C. Rail. That is not

sustainable in the long term; that is not sustainable in the long-term

forecasts. We have to make sure that B.C. Rail is there for the long term for

the people, for the communities and for the industries of this province. For

that reason, we're taking on an operating partner.

MacPhail: I really can't believe what I just heard the minister say. She

said we're expecting the forest industry to get a lot worse, and therefore we

need to sell B.C. Rail. What a backer of a strong economy. The forest industry

is going to go down, so we need to sell off B.C. Rail.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, order. Hon. members, let us hear the question.

MacPhail: That's just more evasion. It's all evasion in an attempt to sell

B.C. Rail through misinformation.

The

opposition has obtained the B.C. Rail senior management team monthly report for

September 2003,

[ Page 7811 ]

and that paints a very clear picture about B.C. Rail in comparison to these

other companies that this government wants to sell the rail line to. Remember,

Mr. Speaker, this is all about price competitiveness for their customers. Here's

what the report showed: the debt-to-equity ratio for B.C. Rail, as reported to

management, is at 1.2. That compares absolutely favourably to CN, and it's

exactly the same as CP's debt ratio. If B.C. Rail's debt ratio is out of

control, as the minister maintains in this House, why is she being contradicted

by internal documents prepared by B.C. Rail's top management?

Hon. J.

Reid: It is so important, with this integral piece of transportation

infrastructure, that we look at the longer picture, the history and the future.

Again, this member wants to take out a small piece of the business case instead

of looking at the larger picture and being willing to invest in B.C.'s future

and being willing to invest in an ongoing, sustainable rail network.

We listened

to the communities. We listened to the industry that said the status quo was not

acceptable. In pursuing that — in looking for a way of improving service to

the industries to make sure the investment was going to be there for the long

term — we've taken the advice of communities, and we are proceeding in finding

a rail operating partner for the freight rail division.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, we once again have a new message box — what is it,

Wednesday? — the third message box this week, and that is that the forest

industry is going into the tank. Isn't that good news for the north?

This is

about doing what's right for the customers of B.C. Rail, and this minister is

trying to say that B.C. Rail can't serve the customers best. The truth is that

the debt load at B.C. Rail is not out of control. It's exactly the same as that

of the major companies bidding to take over the service. Yet the minister and

government don't want to hear that because it destroys the rationale for

breaking their new-era promise.

The

internal document from B.C. Rail also confirms that the B.C. Rail profit was $72

million last year, and it's going to make even more this year. We have a

profitable company, manageable debt, reliable service and competitive prices.

I should

also point out that the members from Prince George are on notice…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …that they have an opportunity to vote with their city council

and against the sale on the 17th, when my bill comes up for debate.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the member now please put her question.

MacPhail: I want them to know they can vote in favour of their community on

the 17th.

Mr.

Speaker: Please put your question.

MacPhail: Can the minister explain again why she's sacrificing the political

futures of her northern colleagues to break the Premier's promise to not sell

B.C. Rail?

[1420]

Hon. J.

Reid: It's unfortunate that this member doesn't keep up to date with the

information that's available and then takes it out of context. In fact, in

working with the communities, who know the north and whose industries are

located there, last September — a year ago this past September, September of

2002 — there were 27 communities that got together and five regional districts

that presented a symposium that put together….

The

recommendation that they passed to me was this: "A balanced solution to

B.C. Rail's financial difficulties could be a public-private partnership, with

the provincial government as a partner. This would resolve some of B.C. Rail's

financial challenges and provide necessary infrastructure investment while

preserving the regional integrity of the railway." That was the advice of

27 communities. That is what I've been working on to deliver, because those

communities know what they need.

B.C. RAIL SERVICES

J. Kwan:

B.C. Rail's financial difficulty that she talks about means that B.C. Rail is

profitable, that they're competitive and that they have a debt ratio that's

manageable.

Here's

another area that perhaps the minister should turn her attention to. The

opposition has obtained B.C. Rail's internal customer survey, the survey results

from May of this year. Let me quote from the survey. Here's what Janet Mitchell

of Slocan Forest Products had to say: "I'm in an area where B.C. Rail is

the only rail service, so I'm solely dependent upon them. I would have to say

that B.C. Rail is very important to our community's economy and

livelihood." Can the minister responsible for B.C. Rail tell Ms.

Mitchell…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjection.

[ Page 7812 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question, please.

J. Kwan:

Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the

floor.

J. Kwan:

If the members from the government side know that B.C. Rail is actually doing a

great service for the community, then can the minister responsible for B.C. Rail

tell Ms. Mitchell and British Columbians why she is breaking her party's promise

to not sell a profitable company that provides a valuable service for her

community?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm not sure if these members actually talk to shippers at all, but I

have been talking to shippers. For the last two years I've been talking to the

customers that are dependent on B.C. Rail, which are dependent because

transportation is their highest cost after raw materials. It is absolutely

integral to them that they have a sustainable rail network. They are shipping

product by road that they'd prefer to ship by rail if the cars were available,

if the rates were competitive, if the service was available. That's what needs

to be there for the shippers. It is the shippers that we've been working with

for the last year on a shippers council, and they have been saying that these

are the improvements they need to keep their industries competitive.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

If the minister doesn't want to listen to what Slocan is telling B.C. Rail,

maybe she'll listen to…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…Perry Pellerin of Louis Dreyfus Canada, a major customer of B.C. Rail. Asked

for one recommendation Louis Dreyfus would make to B.C. Rail, Mr. Pellerin said:

"Remain on present course. B.C. Rail is becoming a force in price, service

and overall reliability." Terry Lynchfield from Nexen, a global energy

company says: "Avoid letting CN buy you." These are the comments of

B.C. Rail customers.

We have a

profitable company with a manageable debt load getting good reviews from its

customers. Why will the minister not listen to the customers? Why won't the

minister just admit that the only reason she's selling B.C. Rail and breaking

her party's promise is to help get the Minister of Finance out of the fiscal jam

he has put himself into?

[1425]

Hon. J.

Reid: It's unfortunate….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. J.

Reid: It's unfortunate these members are not remembering their own actions

from the past, the actions that created a greater debt load for B.C. Rail —

that took on other aspects of business that had been bringing B.C. Rail down.

It's over

this last year that we have focused the business of B.C. Rail on the freight

side, that we have been focusing the attention on delivering the freight service

with the understanding and the knowledge that the customers needed improved

service. If the member actually wanted a quote from that survey, the vast

majority of respondents said they wanted improved service in a number of areas.

They needed the competitive rates; they needed more cars; they need better

response time. That is, indeed, what we believe needs to be delivered.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR STRATA

COUNCILS AND PROPERTY OWNERS

Bhullar: My question is to the minister responsible for residential strata

councils. While in the private practice of law, I had several individuals who

were strata owners meet with me regarding disputes with their strata councils.

In fact, one is a member of this House. I'm not, because of client

confidentiality, going to reveal that it was the Minister for Deregulation.

Recently I

had two separate constituents approach my office over similar disputes. Strata

councils can be overbearing and vexing at times. The only remedy now in the

legislation is to appeal to the superior courts of the province, an expensive

route. Has the minister given any thought to creating a quasi-judicial body to

deal with the disputes between strata owners and strata councils?

Hon. G.

Collins: As part of the ministry's deregulation initiative, as well as just

updating our legislation, we have a workplan in the ministry to review virtually

all the legislation that the ministry is responsible for. We've completed a

certain amount of that. One of the pieces of legislation that is on the workplan

to be reviewed is the Strata Property Act. We will be reviewing that in the not

too distant future.

I've

received lots of written submissions, generally from constituents right across

the province, with regard to positive but mostly negative implications of their

experiences with the Strata Property Act and in some cases their strata

councils. If the member has any ideas or input on how we might improve the

legislation and how that works for people, we'd be glad to hear it, as we are

glad to hear it from anyone who wants to contribute to that effort.

[ Page 7813 ]

SKILLED TRADES TRAINING

McMahon: My question today is to the Minister of Advanced Education. With

the looming skills shortage in B.C. trades and an increasing demand for skilled

workers, we are faced with the difficult task of bridging this gap. Students who

would like to become certified in a trade are having to wait too long to receive

the appropriate trades training. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell

trade workers and prospective students in my constituency what she's doing to

address this issue?

Hon. S.

Bond: We certainly recognize that there is a challenge as we provide enough

skilled and trained workers in the province. We have an aggressive strategy in

place which recently saw the passing of the Industry Training Authority Act and

the creation of the Industry Training Authority, where nine very skilled people

from across the province will look at a 30 percent increase in training skilled

workers in the province over the next three years.

preparation for looking at a new system, we've just started a series of pilot

projects around the province. That includes one in the Kootenay region, with

centres in Cranbrook, Kimberley and Creston. In this very exciting and

innovative program, we're going to look at an opportunity for students to look

at training in two skill areas: mechanics and carpentry. They'll be able to gain

dual credit both for secondary school and for college credits as well.

It's a

great way to look at new training models, and we're awaiting the results as we

create a new training system in British Columbia.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I don't think you're big enough. I'm just kidding. Come on.

[Laughter.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

MacPhail: I don't want you to hurt yourself — fall on your head or

anything.

I rise to

table a petition by over 32,000 British Columbians. It's entitled Stop the

sale of B.C. Rail! It's addressed to the hon. Members of the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia. The petitioners note that B.C. Rail is a

profitable business, vital to the future economic prosperity of

resource-dependent communities.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

MacPhail: One prominent business person, and a signatory, says: "A lie

is a lie is a lie."

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much.

Reports from Committees

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

I move that

the report be read and received.

Motion

approved.

Law

Clerk:

"November

5, 2003:

"Your

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that the

preamble to

Bill Pr409, intituled Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, has

been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second

reading.

"All

of which is respectfully submitted.

Lekstrom, Chair."

Lekstrom: By leave, I move that the report be adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Bill Pr409

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 63.

Committee of the Whole House

YOUTH JUSTICE ACT

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 63; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

section

32 (continued) .

Mayencourt:

Section 32(1) allows the minister to enter into an agreement

with the municipalities — like Surrey or Vancouver or what have you — for

detention in a youth custody centre, and that detention is "chargeable to

the municipality, on terms for reimbursement of expenses as may be mutually

agreeable."

Can the

minister please inform me about that?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This is a matter of when youths are picked up — late at night

perhaps or at any point in

[ Page 7814 ]

time — and for some reason the police believe they have to be held or

retained in custody. This

section refers to the Vancouver and Victoria areas,

where we have facilities to hold those youths overnight. It is a municipal

responsibility; however, the province provides the service and does not charge

back to municipalities in those instances to do that.

So in

Victoria, where we have a youth detention centre, we can actually hold the

predetention. This is prior to the charge being laid but before being heard. The

same applies to Vancouver, where we are able to provide pretrial detention for

youths and on behalf of the municipalities in those areas.

Mayencourt: That's one of the concerns that would come up for the city of

Vancouver with respect to who's going to pay the bill on this one, so I thank

you very much for your answer.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

section 32, I have one last question for the minister, and that is with

regard to the detention agreements with municipalities. Is there any requirement

under this act that these municipality centres, the lockups, be exclusively for

youth?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'm assuming that's subsection (2). We just dealt with subsection (1).

In subsection (2), where they're being held in local or municipal lockups, is

there any requirement in this legislation that they be kept distinct and

separate? That does not exist in this legislation, but that is part of the

federal legislation, so it is covered within the federal legislation requiring

the separation of youth from adults.

Section 32

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Will the municipal detention centres be expected, under

section 32, to provide

addiction services? I know we're debating 33, and 33 establishes that it is an

offence to possess contraband in a custody centre. With municipal centres, would

they be expected to provide addiction services for youth that are detained

there?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This, again, is a municipal responsibility. The amount of time they're

held in local lockup is usually six or eight or maybe ten hours — so it's

very, very brief — before they go before a court and then are remanded. This

is all pretrial detention, so this is detention prior to them proceeding with

this. Once they've been to court and remanded, then they go into a provincial

facility, which would be for a longer period of time. These would be very brief

periods of time.

J. Kwan:

If a drug-addicted youth who's been ordered by the courts to go through

treatment is brought to the centre…. In that instance, even for that brief

period of time, would that youth be brought into the municipal detention

centres, or would the youth be brought into provincial custody centres and go

through the treatment available to the individual?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The only time I could envision them being held in that local lockup

after appearing before the courts would be while they await pickup from the

sheriffs to be moved to a youth facility. That again would be a very brief

period of time, a matter of a few hours. Once they move to the provincial

facility, if they're on remand and coming back before the courts quite

regularly, they'd probably be involved in a general program of some sort.

It's once

they get sentenced that the state has authority and responsibility for

developing programs for them. Prior to them being found guilty, on a remand

status, it would primarily be voluntary programs that they chose to be a part

of, because they're assumed to be innocent at that point.

Section 33

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 34 deals with the powers of seizure and disposition of things seized.

Are these broader powers or narrower powers or the same as under the previous

provincial statutes?

[1445]

Hon. G.

Hogg: Previously the powers of seizure were contained in regulation rather

than in statute, so we've actually just taken exactly the same provisions which

were in the statute and moved them into the legislation so they're more

explicit.

J. Kwan:

Section 34(7) indicates that if the material seized is actually legal

outside the centre, the director may keep it in a secure place to be returned

upon release or may allow for the youth to make arrangements for disposal or

safekeeping. The material envisioned would be, perhaps, things like cigarettes

or liquor, for example. Could the minister please advise what other options

exist for the staff to do with this material?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I understand the question to be: what other options does a staff

member have if they have an object or item which may be legal? Rather than

returning it to the individual or an accomplice or a friend of the individual,

what other options do they have? Am I correct in interpreting the question?

Well, any

items such as that would have to be covered by policy of the institution. An

example of that may be a knife. The policy might dictate that rather than

returning the knife to the individual, after consultation with the individual's

probation officer or social worker, there would be a determination that it would

not be returned. It may be returned to the social worker or probation officer to

make some provisions for that to occur in the future.

J. Kwan:

What about things like cigarettes or liquor, as an example? What would

happen to items like that?

[ Page 7815 ]

Hon. G.

Hogg: As a matter of course, cigarettes are returned, but liquor would be

unlawful, as these individuals are under the age of 19 — so not legal to

drink.

J. Kwan:

When the term "legal" is used, we're not necessarily talking about

illegal substances. We're just talking about any item the individual may have

that might be deemed to be not legal, such as liquor, because of the age

parameter. Those items would be seized. Am I correct?

Hon. G.

Hogg: That is correct.

Section

34 approved.

section 35.

J. Kwan:

Section 35 deals with the reintegration of leave and day absences. This is, as I

understand, a reworked version of the language from

section 30 of the Correction

Act. Am I correct in understanding that? If so, is there anything substantive in

terms of changes in comparison to the Correction Act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There are no substantive changes to the wording.

Section

35 approved.

section 36.

J. Kwan:

Section 36 deals with the wages for employment. This

section establishes how a

youth's wages are to be managed. There are similar provisions under the

Correction Act. Can the minister outline if there are any changes in this bill

with respect to this provision?

[1450]

Hon. G.

Hogg: There are only minor changes here — a change in reference from

minister to provincial director, changes in decision-making authority that are

consistent with other decision-making authorities which are under the act. They

are inconsequential changes.

Section 36

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 37 deals with the inspection of youth custody centres. This

section

appears to be expanded from the Correction Act provisions. What changes will

there be from the manner in which inspections are currently carried out under

Bill 63?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The inspections of youth custody centres now are carried out under the

Ministry of Solicitor General. When the last government transferred youth

custody and created the Ministry for Children and Families, they left the

inspection division for youth custody facilities with the Solicitor General's

ministry. This will now be moving it into the Ministry of Children and Family

Development so that it can have a consistent, coordinated, integrated focus on

the best interests of children. That will also allow us to move into

accreditation processes. It is our intent to have our youth custody facilities

accredited by international accrediting agencies. In fact, we will be the first

youth custody centres in North America to go through this process of

accreditation.

By having

the inspection of standards division as part of the ministry, we're able to have

them focus specifically on the differences that exist between a youth facility

and an adult facility, and be cognizant of and sensitive to those appropriate

differences in the operation of a facility.

J. Kwan:

The key change, it would appear to me, would involve the people who carry

out the inspections. Yet the procedures and the manner in which the inspections

are conducted…. Is it safe to assume that the procedures would remain the

same? Could the minister please advise.

Hon. G.

Hogg: They'll be very similar but not exactly the same. We'll also be moving

some focus to key outcome measures so we can start looking at outcomes as youths

move out of the facilities. Those are not part of the criteria that are

generally looked at currently in the model handled under the Solicitor General's

ministry. We think there are some different foci that should exist with youth.

The inspection or the technical part of that will remain largely the same.

However, we'll also be adding to that and augmenting it with such things as

outcomes for youth.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister give some examples of what key outcome measures might

involve?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Some examples would be the injuries that occur within the facility,

safety of youth, safety of staff, WCB claims and those types of initiatives that

are collected now but not included in an inspection part. Those are things we

would include in part of the inspections and standards responsibilities so that

we would be able to get a broader picture of what measures there are that look

at the outcomes of the safety of staff and residents within these facilities.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

So these outcome measures centre on safety issues for staff and for the youth

who are staying at the centre. Am I correct in understanding that, then, or are

there other areas these outcome measures would include?

Hon. G.

Hogg: They would also include the safety of the public, so one of the

outcome measures would be escapes. We would be looking at the residents, the

staff and the public — our community at large.

Section 37

approved.

[ Page 7816 ]

section

J. Kwan:

section 38, which deals with investigations, what about the way in which

investigations are carried out? Do they differ under this act versus what was in

place previously?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, they're essentially the same. There's a little more flexibility

that exists in that, but the structure and format is basically the same.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says there is a little more flexibility, could he explain

flexibility in that context?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Currently the investigation, inspection and standards office does

those investigations. The flexibility is now that under these provisions, the

minister can ask anyone to do that investigation. You can have an independent

person come in. It gives us that type of flexibility in terms of contracting for

an investigation.

J. Kwan:

But the premise for conducting the investigation in terms of protections of

rights, etc., will remain in place, and those remain unchanged.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, that's correct.

Section 38

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 39, "Offence of obstructing inspections and investigations"

— is this a new offence?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, it is.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister explain how this new offence came about? Were there concrete

examples where there were concerns raised — therefore the creation of this new

offence?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This is based on legal advice. As an example, if there was a staff

member in a facility, an inspection were to take place and the employee was

found to be at fault in some measure, then as the employer we could take action

against that employee through the processes of progressive discipline. However,

if we have a contractor coming into the facility, we don't have the same

flexibility. This

section gives us an opportunity to actually do investigations

of a contractor who will be providing services within a facility and to take

some actions with respect to that.

[1500]

It in fact

also relates back to the previous question the member asked around if we were to

contract with an inspector to come in, if the inspector had done under contract

something that was inappropriate in the institution, we need to have the ability

to follow up and hold them accountable for their actions within the institution.

J. Kwan:

I thought I heard earlier that the inspections would be done by the Ministry of

Children and Family Development staff. I don't think I heard the minister say

that the inspections would be done by contracted agencies. Am I wrong in

understanding that? Would the minister clarify?

Hon. G.

Hogg: These apply to investigations rather than specifically to inspections,

but they may also apply to community facilities and community services as well.

It's not necessarily limited to just institutional inspections. We also review

and look at standards as they apply to community-based services.

J. Kwan:

Have there been problems before? The question is: have there been problems

before with respect to employees conducting their work and perhaps violating or

misconducting themselves in some way that would therefore require a look at

imposing a measure of an offence or disciplinary actions? Have there been

problems before?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We do not know of any specific example where a person has obstructed,

impeded or refused to participate in that. It is simply a safeguard and a

measure which has been recommended to us by legal counsel as we've reviewed

this.

Section 39

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 40 deals with when a person is at large without lawful excuse. Could the

minister please advise on the language for this

section — where the language

came from and, in comparison to current practices, if there are any changes in

terms of that comparison.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The changes are substantially the same. The

section adds a provision

to clarify the authority to apprehend without warrant a youth who escapes from a

youth custody centre. The amendment reinforces that police have the authority to

apprehend a youth who escapes from a centre. It's substantially the same as it

exists today. It's minor.

J. Kwan:

So the provision to apprehend without a warrant has always been in place?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, in these instances, it has.

Sections 40

to 56 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 57 repeals the provisions from the Correction Act concerning contraband

and trespassing. Could the minister please advise: what is the reason for these

changes, and what are the effects?

[1505]

Hon. G.

Hogg: The sections of the Correction Act that were repealed are substituted

by a

section that

[ Page 7817 ]

clarifies the provisions by relating to the possession of contraband and

transmitting contraband in a correctional centre. It also is designed to

clarify, and it makes the possession, delivery or receipt of contraband — as

well as trespass on the grounds of a correctional centre — offences. This also

clarifies and includes similar provisions found in

section 18 of Correctional

Centre Rules and Regulations . This, again, came as legal advice that this

appear in this form.

Sections 57

to 77 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 78 references the Parental Responsibility Act. Could the minister please

advise: how will Bill 63 affect that legislation?

Hon. G.

Hogg: It has no substantive change at all. It is simply changing the wording

to be consistent with the Parental Responsibility Act.

Sections 78

to 84 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 85 deals with the Victims of Crime Act, which changes the definition of

justice personnel in the Victims of Crime Act to "persons working in

positions designated by the Attorney General…." Could the minister please

advise: why is the language so broad in this section?

[1510]

Hon. G.

Hogg: As the member points out, the

section reads: "… striking out

'and personnel in the Court Services Branch, Criminal Justice Branch and

Corrections Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.'" Therefore, we are

not currently, under the current legislation, including those youth justice

workers who work within the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

So by

adding: "…and substituting 'and persons working in positions designated

by the Attorney General,'" we're able to have, through the Attorney

General's designation, the appropriate appointment for those staff members who

are within this ministry. So the creation of this ministry was not…. When it

was created, they didn't have the appropriate pieces of legislation in place to

support the staff working within these facilities. This corrects that.

Sections 85

and 86 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 87 deals with the Wildlife Act. Could the minister please advise how

Bill 63 affects the Wildlife Act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This does not change any of the substantive activities or actions

which were previously contained. It's simply an updating of the wording to make

sure that the words now reflect the changes in the federal and the provincial

legislation.

J. Kwan:

Are there implications in this

section that impact aboriginal youth, as an

example? The reason why I ask specifically about aboriginal youth…. As the

minister knows, Mr. Chair, many of the aboriginal youth would have wildlife

hunting licences, etc. What are the implications there?

[1515]

Hon. G.

Hogg: This also applies to the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions with

respect to the Métis people. Subsection (13), which makes reference to a person

who "does not hold a licence or limited entry hunting authorization or is

exempted from holding one." So the same applications that would apply to

adults, and the exemptions which were seen and granted under the Supreme Court

of Canada decisions, apply in these as well. So youth are exempted just as

adults would be in terms of the need for licences or any other provisions which

adult aboriginal people would receive. It also flows to youth.

J. Kwan:

In the case where there's a dispute…. Let me first ask this question: does the

minister anticipate situations arising where there would be a dispute on the

authority for the youth to continue his or her activities under the provisions

of the Wildlife Act? Has the minister seen situations or does he foresee

situations where there might be a conflict with respect to the allowance for

that youth to continue to participate in their activities under the Wildlife

Act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, we're not aware of any situations of conflict that have arisen or

that we're anticipating.

J. Kwan:

In the event that there is, is there an appeal mechanism to resolve that

conflict? What is the process?

Hon. G.

Hogg: A possible scenario, I think, would be if an aboriginal youth charged

under this

section claimed to have the rights for exemption, yet there was a

conflict because the arresting or enforcement officer said: "You do not

have rights and have not established the aboriginal rights." The youth

would then appear before a youth court, be represented by legal counsel in the

youth court, would put that position forward to the youth court judge and would

have all the rights that exist within due process of law to appeal that up the

appellant process. They would have the jurisdiction and protection of the court

system and representation for that at that point in time.

Sections 87

to 89 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

[ Page 7818 ]

Hon. G.

Hogg: I move that the committee rise and report conclusion of Bill 63 with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:20 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 63,

Youth Justice Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. J.

Murray: With leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill 63,

Youth Justice Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J.

Murray: I call second reading of Bill 85.

Second Reading of Bills

BC HYDRO PUBLIC POWER LEGACY

AND HERITAGE CONTRACT ACT

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The purpose

of this enabling legislation is to create the regulatory framework for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish the heritage contract. Government's

new energy plan promised a heritage contract to lock in the value of B.C.

Hydro's existing generation assets for an extended period. The heritage contract

will ensure that B.C. residents continue to enjoy among the lowest electricity

rates in North America, which are regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission and

are cost-based.

The BC

Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act also strengthens and secures

continued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and

distribution assets. The act also has provisions to allow B.C. Hydro to carry on

normal business in a lawful fashion. The government is committed to protecting

the core assets of B.C. Hydro.

The desire

of British Columbians to continue to benefit from the historic investments they

have made in B.C. Hydro's core assets is enshrined in this legislation. B.C. has

one of the lowest electricity rates in North America, and we consider that to be

one of our economic advantages in attracting businesses and residents. This act

enables government to establish through regulation a new structure for the cost

of heritage electricity that recognizes the value of B.C. Hydro's existing

assets.

December, B.C. Hydro is expected to submit a rate application to the B.C.

Utilities Commission. The heritage contract will form part of an integral part

of the application to keep the rates as low as possible. The independent B.C.

Utilities Commission will review B.C. Hydro's application and set electricity

rates.

Included in

Bill 85 is the repeal of the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, which

dates from the mid-1980s. Some history is in order here. The act, with its

restrictions, was imposed on B.C. Terasen arising from the sale in the 1980s of

B.C. Hydro's lower mainland gas division to Inland Gas — then B.C. Gas and now

Terasen. When B.C. Gas, now known as Terasen, was created in the 1980s, the

government of the day designated the utility a special company under the Hydro

and Power Authority Privatization Act,

part 2.

[1525]

Under the

act, a special company is subject to restrictions on certain corporate matters,

including share ownership, composition of the board of directors and reporting

requirements.

Terasen

Inc. is the only B.C. company subject to these outdated restrictions. The

original purpose of the designation was to ensure that ownership of the then

newly created B.C. Gas utility was widely held and that it was not taken over by

another company soon after it was created.

Fifteen

years have passed. This is 2003, and none of those issues is of particular

concern. Today, Terasen is fully established and a very successful company. The

repeal will increase Terasen's access to investment dollars. All potential

transactions of share ownership of more than 20 percent will remain subject to

B.C. Utilities Commission approval. The change encourages utility investment

through enhanced private sector participation in the energy sector. It supports

government's ongoing commitment to streamlining regulations and cutting red

tape. The repeal results in the elimination of 134 unnecessary regulatory

requirements.

A point I

want to stress is that the repeal in no way weakens government's commitment to

continued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and

distribution assets. The purpose of the new BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and

Heritage Contract Act is to further strengthen and secure continued public

ownership of B.C. Hydro's core assets.

This

government has explicitly repeated its commitment to protect the core assets of

B.C. Hydro. This was a new-era promise, and we have followed through on our

commitment. From before the election through the development of B.C.'s energy

plan and including recent legislation, we have taken extraordinary steps to

protect the assets that with Bill 85 continue — and I stress continue — to

be owned by British Columbians. I look forward to passing this legislation and

demonstrating our government's firm commitment to continued public ownership of

B.C. Hydro's core assets and a legacy of low-cost electricity.

I can only

stress too much that this government, under the leadership of our Premier, has

said from

[ Page 7819 ]

long before the election and through the election…. I travelled this

province when I released the energy plan in November 2002 to just about every

community that asked me to come to their community and talk to them about it.

We've written letters to almost every community. Every community in the province

had the opportunity for input into the energy plan, and that input was respected

and used. We had hundreds of people put into the energy plan their views on how

B.C. Hydro should be understood in the province. We have done that.

I want to

stress again that there are those out there who for their own frivolous reasons,

their own political reasons and their own reasons to make people uneasy in

British Columbia…. I find it rather reprehensible, actually, that people would

go out there and say things like we're selling B.C. Hydro when we have — in

every act that we've passed in this House since we came into office — put into

place that the core assets remain with the public, with the people of B.C.

We want to

maintain the lowest rates possible that we can in all of North America. Today we

enjoy some of the lowest, and we want to continue that process. This act is to

enable us to continue with the process of setting up this heritage act, which

will protect those assets that B.C. Hydro has today, that we'll have in the

future and that we'll have forever, as far as this government is concerned.

[1530]

For the

life of me, Mr. Speaker, and for you also…. I'm sure you wonder some days,

after sitting in this House and listening to how many times we've said we would

protect the core assets of B.C. Hydro, how many times we put it in legislation,

how many times we've said it time and time again…. But there are those that

want to fearmonger. There are those that want to misrepresent. There are those

that want to dream in Technicolor. There are those that are so far out there

it's unbelievable. There are those out there with a pedigree who are very much

attached to the NDP, called Citizens for Public Power, that actually want to

destroy British Columbia, I assume. That's shameful.

This

government, I'm going to stress again, wants to maintain the lowest possible

energy costs for every British Columbian. I can't say it strongly enough. How we

do that is: we maintain the core assets of B.C. Hydro in public ownership. That

means Fred and Martha in British Columbia own B.C. Hydro lock, stock and barrel.

They will continue to own B.C. Hydro lock, stock and barrel as we move into the

future.

B.C. Hydro

also has to be allowed to do the business that a corporation its size should be

able to do. The largest business in British Columbia by revenue, the

third-largest utility in all of Canada has to be able to carry on its business

in a businesslike fashion. This bill allows B.C. Hydro to carry on that

business. We have made steps to ensure that we can continue trade into the

Pacific Northwest so that $150 million to $200 million every year, which comes

in from that lucrative trade, actually goes to the bottom line and actually

keeps rates low in the province — contrary to what some people might want to

say.

It will be

interesting to listen — and I intend to listen intently — to what's said

today and possibly tomorrow by members of this House about how they feel about

the largest utility in British Columbia that's publicly owned and will continue

to be publicly owned for the benefit of all British Columbians as we move

forward. I will listen intently to what people have to say, and I'm going to

criticize those that are way out in left field when they stand up and talk about

B.C. Hydro.

Nettleton: Thanks for this opportunity to respond to Bill 85 in second

reading.

I would

really like to believe him when the Minister of Energy says the government is

not privatizing B.C. Hydro. I hate to be the bogeyman or the scaremonger, as the

minister refers to me. After all, I don't want to be going after something

that's not there if what he says is true. I truly want to believe him. Perhaps

the Minister of Energy and I got off on the wrong foot at the beginning of this

issue. I wouldn't mind starting all over again.

I want to

begin by assuring the minister that my bark is worse than my bite. I say: let

bygones be bygones, and let's start afresh. In the words of the immortal Joan

Rivers, I ask: "Can we talk?" Now that I've got that off my chest,

where do we begin? It takes two to tango, but we seem to be dancing around each

other. One of us appears to be doing the waltz. Can we talk?

This is the

way I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong. In question period I ask the minister a

question. He invariably responds with an evasive and unrelated answer. I always

keep my question straightforward and relatively simple, so what is the problem

here? It is either (

a) that the minister is being evasive, or (

b) I'm not making

myself clear. I tossed a coin, and lo and behold, the answer is (a) — heads.

It is the minister who is being evasive — no surprise.

In the face

of such scientific evidence I am left with no other option except to ask myself:

why is he being so evasive? Is everyone following this train of thought, or

should I speak slower? Good, I'll continue. The minister being evasive can only

mean one thing. What do you think that can be, boys or girls? By George, you've

got it. The minister has something to hide. Perish the thought that he doesn't

know the answer — that he's merely the messenger.

[1535]

Now that

we've established that the minister has something to hide on Hydro, what could

that something be? The minister could stop all this speculation by offering up

the evidence that will put the lie to the innuendo that there is a secret plot

afoot to privatize B.C. Hydro. Know the truth and the truth shall set you free,

Mr. Minister. Say the truth. Blurt it out, and it will be good for your soul.

The same goes for me. A good heart-to-heart talk is what we need. That's all

we've been asking — honest communication, for me and four million other

British Columbians.

But the

minister keeps us guessing, and I'm guessing that there is more to Bill 85 than

meets the eye. But

[ Page 7820 ]

are you going to tell us? No. So we have to figure that everything is the

opposite of what you say. Is that fair? No, it's not fair. Is that right? You

bet it's right. Convince me otherwise by telling me why Bill 85 repeals the

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. Could it be that the privatization

act did not go far enough? It was too restrictive for this government's plans in

some areas, so they decided the least controversial way to change it was to

repeal it altogether. Also, could it be that by adding the following proviso to

Bill 85 — that the generation, storage, transmission and distribution assets

of B.C. Hydro are not to be sold or disposed of unless — and I repeat this

proviso: unless…? Those assets are no longer fit for purpose, are no longer

used or useful, or are to be replaced with assets that fulfil a similar

function…? That's a strange new twist.

The

minister, when asked, "What is the intention of this proviso?" glibly

answered that the exceptions had been included to ensure that Hydro can sell off

outdated equipment. Since when, in the history of our province, has a clause

been deemed necessary to enable the government to sell off B.C. Hydro core

generation, storage, transmission and distribution assets? This government

thinks it needs it, I guess.

What else

did the minister tell us about this proviso, this clause? Well, he repeated his

timeworn mantra that core assets can't be sold. All the dams and generation

facilities will be listed, and they will not be sold. That would be encouraging

if that weren't just half of the sentence in Bill 85.

The

minister continues his answer as if the clause is separate from the list of

now-endangered core assets. That other clause, he says, is only for Hydro to be

able to carry on the business. Yes, Mr. Minister, someone is giving British

Columbians the business. Excuse me; I digress. Back to the minister's answer.

That other clause is only for Hydro to be able to carry on the business. If we

don't do that, he continued, they — that is, Hydro — would be stuck with a

2003 truck forever and would have to come back to cabinet for approval to sell

it. That's all the clause is there for. Wow. We wouldn't want cabinet to have to

handle that. They are not used car salesmen, for gosh sakes.

Mr.

Minister, since when has Hydro operated grid capacity power generation, storage

transmission and distribution out of the back of a truck, even a 2003 model?

Ever? Never? Since we are on the subject of giving the people of B.C. the

business, I note that the Minister of Energy states in Monday's news release

that under this contract, Bill 85, British Columbians will continue to enjoy

electricity rates that are the lowest in North America.

I'm glad he

acknowledges that the rates were low — past tense — but we are all unsure

about the future, especially since new Hydro CEO Bob Elton and former CEO Larry

Bell have already announced rate increases of up to 21 percent over four years

or 65 percent over ten years, and that doesn't factor in the prospect of

unforeseen circumstances or the looming precipice of the government's present

action to officially join the western U.S. electric grid through RTO West and

become a part of the American deregulated system.

[1540]

Correct me

if I'm wrong, but could it be that much of what is in Bill 85 greases the wheels

in British Columbia for a smoother deregulated slide into RTO West?

There I go

again, supplying possible answers for the secretive minister — or rather, the

skulking and secretive government. The minister's news release on Bill 85

further states that this legislation before us also removes outdated

restrictions that have acted as a deterrent to investment in Terasen Inc. and Terasen Gas Inc.

Such

all-encompassing and unexplained phrases as "outdated restrictions"

are very problematic to fly-on-the-wall fearmongers and whistle-blowers such as

myself. I'm not proud of the fact that some call me a whistle-blower, but this

government has had a

part in making me what I am. I guess it's that old

nature-or-nurture thing.

Back to the

topic at hand: is the government privatizing B.C. Hydro or not? And if so, is

Bill 85 part of that ongoing process or not? I strongly believe it is on both

counts, but I do invite the Minister of Energy or the Premier to prove me wrong,

if they have real evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to hear what they have

to say, but it has to correspond to the questions asked as well as make sense to

the average British Columbian. Until that time, I will continue on in my role as

the official bogeymen on the B.C. Hydro privatization issue.

In closing,

I want to say boo, but I will resist the urge.

B. Kerr:

I'm going to rise in the House to support this bill. I'm not going to speak too

long, because I know there are a number of people that also want to support it.

I can tell

you that if I had a dollar for every e-mail I got from people telling me to not

privatize B.C. Hydro, I could retire from politics a wealthy person. It's sad

that this group, concerned citizens for public hydro, the proxy of the NDP, are

putting this scaremongering tactic out there. We have said on numerous occasions

that we're not going to privatize B.C. Hydro. We have it in our New Era

document. The minister said it over and over and over again, and I don't know

how many times we have to stress that we are not selling B.C. Hydro.

The member

for Prince George–Omineca mentioned: why would we put a

section in the act

that says we may have to sell some of the assets? Probably we have to do that

— and again, I'm speculating — just to overcome the arguments they're

placing that we are going to sell the assets. We have to have something in

there, because people are coming at us and saying: "You can't sell a truck;

you can't sell this asset; you can't sell that asset." Assets do

depreciate, and sometimes they serve no useful purpose. Common business sense

says that we have to get rid of those assets and replace them with newer assets.

I suspect the minister put it in there to avoid any confusion, and maybe that

can be

[ Page 7821 ]

brought up at committee stage. Certainly, I agree with it being in there, and

certainly I agree with the fact about not privatizing B.C. Hydro.

I'd like to

just discuss the heritage aspect of this act, which is really what it's all

about. It's about protecting the hydro resources we have right now, which are at

a very low rate because we're using hydroelectricity from dams. Any new

generation is going to cost more money to develop. Clearly, it's going to cost a

lot more dollars to develop generation now than what it cost in the 1950s and

1960s when these dams were built, and we have to take that into consideration.

What I

really like about this is the fact that we're blending the low costs with the

higher costs of producing electricity, so we come up with a blended cost at a

lower rate. This is unusual, from a business perspective. As a retailer, I can

tell you what we do in the retail business — or what anybody in the retail

business does when they have a price change because they bring in their new

stock and the costs come in higher. They have a computer program, and they

change their pricing, because everything is scanned. All the inventory, whether

it's inventory that cost them less in the past, is now bumped up to the newer

price.

I have to

admit that some of my constituents were concerned about that. They were saying,

"We understand that bringing on new energy" — I won't call it hydro,

because they're not all hydro energy sources — "is going to cost more

money, but are you going to charge us at the higher rate or the lower

rate?" I'm glad to see we're going to blend those payments and come in at

the lowest possible rate, so Hydro can still bring in its efficient funds to

regenerate itself and replace its assets and give us the best possible

electricity we need.

[1545]

Also, the

importance with hydro here, by coming on with new generating capacity, is the

fact that they're going to have green…. A good portion of the energy will be

green energy, and I think that's a good thing for British Columbia, and it's

certainly a good thing for the Island.

In this act

they have a provision for Terasen, which is a new name for B.C. Gas. I can tell

you a funny story there. I had a constituent phone me up, of course, criticizing

us for selling off B.C. Hydro, which we weren't going to do. She also criticized

us because we were going to sell off B.C. Gas, which is a very good company. I

answer all my e-mails, so I e-mailed her back, telling her we're not going to

sell B.C. Hydro, that it will still stay in public hands — that all the core

assets will stay in public hands. I had to inform her that, in fact, B.C. Gas is

a separate, private company right now, and if she did want to continue to own

it, she could go on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I gave her the symbol and said

it was $33, and she could go and buy it. I only wish I had followed my own

advice. I looked today, and I see it's trading at $46 on the Toronto Stock

Exchange, but it was $33 when I told her about that. Had she followed my advice,

she would have done quite well. But, you know, that's what happens on the stock

exchange.

We are

getting a heritage price, which I think is an excellent idea. We're not

privatizing B.C. Hydro. We've set it up there, and we're setting off and setting

free B.C. Gas now where they can act like a regular company to enhance the value

to shareholders and continue to provide good service.

I should

say that, again, the member for Prince George–Omineca was throwing out these

scare tactics: there's going to be a 65 percent increase in rates and a 21

percent increase in rates. Well, we don't know what the increase in rates will

be. There will probably be an increase in rates because it costs more money to

bring energy to serve four million people in British Columbia instead of three

million people or two million people that were here 15 years ago. But whatever

the increase in rate is, if there is one, it will have to be done in an open,

transparent and accountable manner through the B.C. Utilities Commission. It

won't be done in the secrecy of cabinet. The public will have an opportunity to

discuss this in the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. Whatever happens, it

will be done in an open and transparent manner, and I think that's excellent as

opposed to the past when things were done in secret and you could get into a

Raiwind situation, which was a company set up by B.C. Hydro for its own insiders

and turned out to be about a $100 million debacle.

To allay

the fears of the people, we are not deregulating B.C. Hydro; we're, in fact,

regulating B.C. Hydro. It is now going to have to go through the B.C. Utilities

Commission for any change in rates. I think that's an excellent idea. All in

all, what we're doing with B.C. Hydro is a good-news story for British Columbia,

and it's going to help British Columbia.

There's one

item here…. I have to say that I do have one concern on this bill. Maybe it

isn't in this bill; maybe it should be in another bill. I guess I'm concerned

about the protection of the rates for Vancouver Island, which is where my riding

is. I'll talk in terms of postage-stamping. I wish there was something we could

do with regard to postage-stamping so we knew there would be one rate for all of

British Columbia. We'd take that blended rate, and everybody would have the same

rate so it wouldn't cost you more, depending on what large centre you lived in.

That would protect Vancouver Island's rates. As you know, the power now has to

be brought across from the mainland, or it will have to be through new

generation on the Island.

Having said

that, I'm happy to stand to support this bill, and I'll be voting in favour of

this bill when the time comes.

[1550]

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to my colleagues for

their allowing me to speak at this moment. I am going to talk to Bill 85, the BC

Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

I just want

to outline a bit of a history here about why we are where we are. It was almost

one year ago that the Minister of Energy and Mines and petroleum resources

[ Page 7822 ]

went public with his National Public Relations–scripted energy plan for

B.C. The number one policy action in that report was: "A legislated

heritage contract to preserve the benefits of B.C. Hydro's existing

generation." Then, when the minister introduced this bill on Monday, he

made specific note of this also, when he said: "The energy plan's first

policy action is a legislative heritage contract to preserve B.C.'s low-cost

energy advantage." He then went on to call this bill "enabling

legislation to create the regulatory framework to establish the heritage

contract."

In his

press release issued on Monday, the minister notes that the B.C. Utilities

Commission report is now in the hands of cabinet, where it's being reviewed, and

it's quite a report. The title alone is cause to pause. Here's the title: In

the Matter of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and an Inquiry into a

Heritage Contract for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's Existing

Generation Resources and Regarding Stepped Rates and Transmission Access —

Report and Recommendations. Phew, a full page just for the title.

For

ease, I'm just going to call it the report. Recommendation 1 in the report is

"that the heritage contract attached as appendix B be legislated as

contemplated in the energy plan…." But of course even though the

government says it's legislating the heritage contract, and even though the

report of the B.C. Utilities Commission says that they should legislate the

contract, and even though the energy plan said that it should legislate a

heritage contract, that's really not what we're doing today at all. In fact,

we're not legislating a heritage contract at all. We don't have that before us.

What we do have, as is typical with this government, is legislation that enables

the cabinet to establish the heritage contract by regulation, just as we see

everything being done by this government. They try to tell people they're

legislating out front in an open and accountable way, but really they're doing

it behind closed doors.

Now, some

— in fact, I would suspect every single Liberal MLA — will see this as

pettiness and a minor point, and they'll stand up and berate alternatively the

Leader of the Opposition or the member for Vancouver-Hastings. They'll spend all

their time berating me making this silly little point, as they would call it.

But actually that point is emblematic of how this government really does not

want the light shone on any of its activities.

Yesterday

it was the Columbia Basin Trust being completely appointed by order-in-council

from Victoria. Today it's the heritage contract being done not in legislation,

as was promised and as was demanded, but in regulation. The promise of openness

and transparency becomes more closed and more clouded with each passing day of

this government.

There is

nothing wrong, actually, with the concept of a heritage contract, although it is

somewhat superfluous, and for a government bent on cutting red tape and

redundancy, it really is more of an opportunity for speech-making than

continuing to provide the lowest electricity rates in the country. With or

without this contract, the low cost of Hydro's generation facilities would have

to be used to offset the higher cost of all new generation that this government

has decided must come from the private sector. So it is window dressing. It

would have occurred anyway.

The B.C.

Utilities Commission would have had to take the cheaper power into account in

establishing its rates. The B.C. Utilities Commission would have it no other

way. It is the B.C. Utilities Commission that regulates B.C. Hydro. So this is

fluff, and in fact it's clouding fluff. It's fluff that clouds the fact that the

government is reneging on its own energy plan report that calls for a legislated

heritage contract that could be debated in this Legislature, and they'll do it

behind closed doors.

[1555]

In a sense,

the minister with his enabling legislation is in fact doing what he condemned

the previous government for. He used to stand up every day — actually, he

still does it — and condemn the previous government for not listening to the

B.C. Utilities Commission and for doing things by regulation, by cabinet. In

fact, that's exactly what he's legislating today — exactly the same thing.

I know it's

a new standard that this government likes to set. It's their only defence:

"Hey, we're no worse than the NDP." I love it. That's their new

defence for everything, and today is a perfect example of this. What this

minister used to accuse the previous administration of doing, he is now doing

himself. He is institutionalizing by legislation the role of cabinet to make the

determination of electricity rates. It is like this government wants to take

credit for what nature has endowed this province with — thousands of rivers,

steep canyons and plenty of precipitation — because that is what the heritage

contract is all about.

The B.C.

Utilities Commission report was the result of a thorough process. It contains 26

recommendations. If this government were truly committed to the independence and

expertise of the B.C. Utilities Commission, it would adopt all of them and would

start with recommendation No. 1 and bring in a legislated heritage contract. I

guess the B.C. Utilities Commission actually thought the minister was speaking

his mind when he said they weren't going to do anything behind closed doors in

cabinet, but it turns out that what the minister's doing is now legislating, for

the first time ever, his right and his government's right to do everything

behind closed doors and to do nothing out in the open.

It would be

of interest to see what the cabinet is going to do with the other two dozen or

more recommendations of the B.C. Utilities Commission report. We will no doubt

hear a great deal this afternoon about how this government is not privatizing

the core assets of B.C. Hydro. Unfortunately, like B.C. Rail, it will sound a

lot like the backbench doth protest too much. What little credibility this

government has on the issue of privatization will again be put to the test. That

credibility is not helped by the comments of the Minister of Energy on that

section of this bill that deals with what assets can and cannot be sold by

Hydro.

[ Page 7823 ]

To suggest

that Hydro ever needed the approval of cabinet to sell off its used vehicles is

to pander to ignorance and substitute hyperbole for reasoned explanation. That

minister knows full well that was never the situation — ever. He uses

hyperbole and misleads on using examples such as that. We actually don't know

what he means when he talks about the change in this legislation, because he was

using an erroneous, false example from the past that never existed to justify

the change he's bringing in. We have no idea what exactly is the intent of this

legislation. In fact, that kind of silliness does not bolster the minister's

case. In fact, I would assert it makes his assurances that Hydro is not for sale

even less believable.

B.C. Hydro

and Power Authority is an important part of our heritage. The low electricity

rates we have enjoyed for two generations have helped build this province. That

great natural heritage remains the backbone of our economic future. It has

performed that role as a Crown corporation owned by all British Columbians for

the benefit of all British Columbians. If British Columbians are going to

continue to have faith in that corporation and in the government that directs

it, the minister must step out from behind his rhetoric, ditch the National

Public Relations script and demonstrate a real commitment to keeping Hydro in

public hands. Maybe he should use facts to justify these changes and not false,

misleading examples that never existed. Maybe then he could lay some claim to

having ensured B.C. Hydro's legacy.

[1600]

Hon. S.

Bond: I am pleased today to stand in the House and speak to Bill 85, the BC

Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

You know,

it never fails to amaze me how we can stand and read a piece of legislation, and

yet in this House we continue to have those people who would have us believe

that what we read on the paper and what we continue to say and what the Minister

of Energy and Mines continues to say in the province is somehow not accurate.

It's absolutely incredible to me.

The BC

Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act fulfils our commitment to

secure — let's repeat that: to secure — public ownership of B.C. Hydro's

historic low-cost electrical generation assets. This contract will essentially

make sure electricity rates are kept as low as possible for British Columbians.

We've heard

a lot of comment in the last hour or so about our energy plan. I want to be able

to tell you some of the good news that's happening as a result of a progressive,

exciting energy plan that was created by this government to ensure that we will

maintain low electricity rates, public ownership of B.C. Hydro, a secure supply

of energy and — imagine that — increased public opportunities and private

opportunities. You know, there has been no significant new generation

established in British Columbia for almost 25 years. We need to bring new power

into the system to meet growing demand.

I want you

to know, Mr. Speaker, that I come from a constituency that produces power.

Alternative energy potential is all around us in Prince George–Mount Robson.

We have the ideal conditions to produce electricity in a clean and green manner.

Just recently my colleague from Prince George North and I were delighted to

celebrate an announcement between Power Smart and Canfor. Through an amazing

Power Smart partnership, Canfor will save enough electricity — hear this —

to power 39,000 homes in our province. Now, I think that's the direct result of

an energy policy that addresses the kinds of issues we need to be addressing in

this province.

It is time

we stood up and put to rest the nonsense that's being contributed by several

members of this House. It's simply not true; it is simply not accurate. It's

time we celebrated an energy policy that reflects the needs of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I want very briefly to introduce you to some of the people in my

constituency who are going to take advantage of an energy policy that respects

and celebrates independent power production in this province. I want to

introduce you to Duke Peterson, because Mr. Peterson is on the leading edge of

providing alternative power in this province. Eleven years ago he started

selling electricity to B.C. Hydro from his run-of-the-river turbine on East Twin

Creek in the Robson Valley.

definition, a run-of-the-river hydro project effectively borrows water from a

fast-flowing, steep portion of a stream and carries it in a pipe to a powerhouse

downstream, where it is used to propel turbines, creating electricity. The water

is then returned to its normal flow in the creek.

Since that

time, he has added Hystad Creek. He is a veteran of eco-energy. Peterson's two

power sites sell electricity directly onto the B.C. Hydro grid, supplying as

much as eight megawatts between them during peak flows.

Green hydro

projects, those projects that we are encouraging and endorsing and celebrating

as a government, provide a sustainable energy source with minimal impact on the

environment. In order to qualify as a green hydro project, the project must meet

stringent guidelines laid out by both government and B.C. Hydro. These strict

guidelines ensure that environmental and social issues are addressed and public

resources are used in a responsible manner.

I want you

to know that our energy policy and our support of independent power producers

are having an incredible impact in my constituency. Just recently I was pleased

to be able to bring the Minister of Energy and Mines to Prince George to meet

with a number of independent power producers from the Robson Valley for a series

of meetings that my colleague the member for Prince George North and I knew was

important for the constituents we serve. In that meeting we talked about the

kinds of potential we have in Prince George–Mount Robson. We talked about ways

of continuing to streamline and use our resources efficiently.

All of

those discussions and the support for independent power production are reflected

in our energy

[ Page 7824 ]

policy. We think that's absolutely great news in Prince George–Mount

Robson, and it's certainly great news for British Columbia.

[1605]

I want to

say today that as we look at the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage

Contract Act, we are securing continued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's

generation, transmission and distribution assets. We remain committed to

protecting the investments of British Columbia that we have made in B.C. Hydro's

generation, transmission and distribution assets. I will be supporting this

bill.

Mayencourt: It's a great privilege for me to be able to stand here and speak

in favour of Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract

Act. I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago. We

don't often agree on things, but I'll tell you, there's one thing I kind of

agree with her on: that's a heck of a title for a bill.

With the

introduction of Bill 85, our government has brought forward enabling legislation

that will create the regulatory framework needed to establish the BC Hydro

Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. This heritage contract was

promised in our policy action No. 1 of the energy plan to secure public

ownership of B.C. Hydro's historic low-cost generation assets. The heritage

contract will essentially lock in the value of existing low-cost generation

assets for British Columbia for an extended period of time.

This is

good and important information, but more than this, B.C. Hydro is a part of our

heritage. It holds deep emotional meaning for many people who live in British

Columbia, because B.C. Hydro was a foundational piece of B.C.'s initial growth

and development.

My family

moved to British Columbia in 1956; I was just a small child at that point. I can

remember growing up in British Columbia with my father always talking with great

pride about this province, always talking about what a great place it was to

live. They'd moved from Manitoba, which is also a nice province, but this was

different. This was a province that was blessed with natural resources. This was

a province that had a can-do kind of attitude. This was a province that was

building and growing under the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett.

I'm sure my

colleagues in the House are well aware of B.C. Hydro's history, but let me take

this opportunity to put some highlights on the record. In 1860 the founding of

the Victoria Gas Co. started the B.C. Hydro legacy. Almost 25 years later,

Robert McMicking turned on the very first commercial lights in this country

right here in Victoria. McMicking and a group of local investors then

incorporated the Victoria Electric Illuminating Co., and that was the dawn of

the electric age in British Columbia. The coast's very first hydroelectric plant

was built near Victoria in 1898.

fast-forward to 1945, when the provincial government created the B.C. Power

Commission. This public sector entity sought to acquire small utilities,

extending electrical service in rural and isolated areas throughout beautiful

British Columbia. Over the years existing generation plants and transmission

facilities were modernized and new systems were built. By 1961, a company known

as B.C. Electric served well over 200 communities.

The late

fifties and early sixties saw an era of unprecedented growth in our province. To

power the needs of this growth and enable the development of the Peace River and

Columbia River hydroelectric generation projects, the provincial government —

under the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett — bought B.C. Electric. Around a year

later, the provincial government created a new Crown corporation when they

merged the Power Commission and B.C. Electric to create the entity British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Everybody in this House and most people in

this province know that entity as B.C. Hydro.

[1610]

This was a

visionary move. It brought together the determination of our people from every

part of this province. It brought together all of our political leaders to bring

about great change in British Columbia, to facilitate the great growth and

development that have made this province so strong. Many members in this House

will remember the glory days of the sixties and seventies, which would see B.C.

Hydro pursue some of the most ambitious hydroelectric projects in the world. In

the eighties B.C. Hydro, consistent with industry trends and best practices,

shifted its focus from the creation of new generation facilities to maximizing

existing ones. In 1989 B.C. Hydro introduced a very successful and very high

profile energy consumption reduction plan known as Power Smart, which was

introduced to British Columbia in that year.

I just want

to reflect for a moment on the Power Smart program, because there are some

important things that have come as a result of the work of those good,

hard-working people at B.C. Hydro. Do you know that a compact fluorescent bulb

uses approximately 75 percent less energy and lasts eight times as long as a

conventional bulb? A water-saving shower head can save up to 15 percent of a

home's hot water consumption. Lowering the temperature on your thermostat just a

couple of degrees overnight or when you're not at home can save up to 5 or 10

percent of your average energy bill. Those are savings that save us money, but

they also allow us to make wise use of what power we have in British Columbia.

But I digress.

B.C. Hydro

continues to provide high value. It continues to provide reliable power that

fuels our homes, our businesses. More importantly, it fuels economic growth in

this province. In fact, B.C. Hydro is one of the largest electric utilities in

Canada. It serves 1.6 million residences in British Columbia.

Our very

own B.C. Hydro endeavours to provide energy solutions in environmentally and

socially responsible ways by balancing our province's energy needs with

environmental concerns. Some of our most successful new projects are ones that

are providing citizens with environmentally sound alternatives to energy

production, like the Holberg wind energy pro-

[ Page 7825 ]

ject and the Forrest Kerr run-of-river hydroelectric project.

The

Minister of Advanced Education just a few minutes ago explained what

run-of-river means, the way you take the downward slope of a stream or river and

use it to maximize hydroelectric power generation out of that. The Forrest Kerr

run-of-river hydroelectric project is also important because it does something

really great. It opens up the northern part of our province.

You know,

when we were talking a little earlier…. I was talking to the member for

Bulkley Valley–Stikine. This particular power project is just north of

Stewart. If you look at the map of British Columbia, Stewart is up in the top

left-hand corner, if you will, just alongside Alaska. It's the site of a couple

of mines: the Kemess mine and the Eskay mine, which is a copper and gold mine.

You know, that area of the province is known by miners as the golden triangle.

Mining

needs a couple of really good things to make mining work. It needs power; it

needs electricity. By opening up the opportunity for the Forrest Kerr

run-of-river hydroelectric project, we're actually generating power just north

of Stewart. We have the potential to feed the mines that are up there and,

potentially, other mines. Now, the other portion that mines need in order to be

effective and useful is transportation. That's another thing our government has

really put its mind to. We've really got very aggressive and responsible plans

to expand the transportation corridors in British Columbia. Opening up the

golden triangle right now with this hydroelectric plant is very, very important

to that part of the province.

[1615]

B.C. Hydro

has constructed a world-class integrated hydroelectric system. It's capable of

generating almost 12,000 megawatts of electricity. Almost 90 percent of the

electricity in this province is created from hydroelectric dams and generating

stations. This electricity is delivered safely and reliably to customers across

British Columbia and through some 72,000 kilometres of publicly owned

transmission lines.

Because of

B.C. Hydro's world-class employees and an efficient and reliable system, British

Columbians continue to enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates anywhere in

the world. British Columbia continues to enjoy the lowest electricity rates of

nearly anywhere else in the world, just like it did in 1956 when my dad and my

mom came to British Columbia, and just like it did in 1960 when B.C. Hydro was

formed. You know, building on past successes, B.C. Hydro is now positioning

itself to continue to deliver this same value to the ratepayer and the

shareholders of B.C. Hydro.

Who are the

shareholders of B.C. Hydro? Well, as the Minister of Energy and Mines stated,

they are the Freds and Marthas of the world. They are, in my case, the Wilmas

and the Marcels; they are, in the case of other members, their moms and their

dads. These people own B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro has an obligation to make

money for those people so that it can provide economical power to them as well

as to the industries we have in this province.

Now B.C.

Hydro is positioning itself to continue to deliver that value to all British

Columbians under a variety of economic and market and restructuring scenarios.

This heritage contract, Bill 85, shows that this government is committed to

maintaining low electricity rates; public ownership of B.C. Hydro; a secure,

reliable supply of energy; more private sector opportunities, environmental

responsibilities and accountability; and a guarantee of no — no — nuclear

generation in British Columbia.

We listened

to the opposition. We listened to the member for Prince George–Omineca go on

about how this is about privatizing and about fearmongering and how much he

wished he wasn't doing it. Well, I wish he would stop. I wish he would stop and

reflect on this.

You know,

just a few minutes ago we had a stunning statement from the Leader of the

Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings. It was a stunning one because,

once again, the member was admitting that she and her colleagues have no idea

what this legislation is about. She said it right in this House. I don't

understand that, because this is a very simple act to read. It's three pages;

it's pretty simple. It tells people that we're preserving B.C. Hydro, that we're

protecting its core assets. We are ensuring that people in British Columbia have

low-cost power.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has made an art form of her Chicken Little

routine. She's running around claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

As usual, and as in all previous instances when Chicken Little ran out into the

hallways to scare British Columbians, that member was wrong.

This topic

has been of great concern to people across this province. It's a very emotional

subject for most British Columbians. It's an emotional subject for me. It's an

emotional subject for my constituents. It's an emotional subject for the members

of this Legislature on both sides of this House. It's important, in all of that

emotion, to look at the facts.

It's

important to understand, for all British Columbians, that this is not about

privatization. This is about ensuring that the people of British Columbia will

retain the B.C. Hydro that has been so important in their lives. You know, my

father, God rest his soul, would turn in his grave if we sold B.C. Hydro. He

would. I know that the Premier's mother would not feel good if we were doing

that. We all have family members that have been involved in some way in the

building of this province, and we all have this deep and abiding connection to

B.C. Hydro. It is one of the main issues I receive mail on. It's something

people really care about. They see it as theirs. They want to retain it. They

want to ensure they have excellent service through B.C. Hydro.

[1620]

I am proud,

because with this act, it is stated that B.C. Hydro is and will remain publicly

owned. The new BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act

strengthens public ownership of B.C. Hydro by specifying that B.C. Hydro's

electrical division assets cannot be sold. Now, there has been some talk

[ Page 7826 ]

about

section 2, which allows B.C. Hydro to be able to sell assets under

certain circumstances as part of conducting day-to-day business. In fact, the

cost of the heritage power we have right now in British Columbia, as defined by

this act, is cheaper than the power that is going to be created through these

projects. That means B.C. Hydro can consider disposing of some assets, such as

vehicles that are worn out or office equipment that is no longer required, when

they're no longer useful or cost-effective.

This is

good business. I can't imagine what it would be like to come to work dragging

all the cars I've had in my life. I can't imagine what it would be like to have

my computers from over many years stacking up in some closet somewhere. You

know, there are lots of reasons why B.C. Hydro should unload some of that junk,

and this bill will allow them to do those sorts of things as part of their

day-to-day business. As a fail-safe, the independent regulator, the B.C.

Utilities Commission, will decide whether or not facilities can be disposed of

or decommissioned — not B.C. Hydro, not this government, not the next

government, but the B.C. Utilities Commission.

This House

will recall that the B.C. Utilities Commission's mandate is to ensure that

electricity rates are fair and reasonable and are in the best interests of all

British Columbians. This government is keeping our commitment in the New Era

document to maintain the core assets in public hands. The new act fulfils our

energy plan promise to put in place a heritage contract to preserve the value of

B.C.'s flexible, low-cost hydroelectric resources for the benefit of all British

Columbians.

While

programs like Power Smart have been very successful in reducing our dependence

on electricity and our consumption levels, the fact remains that this province

is open for business; and when you're open for business, business shows up, as

it has in droves in the last year and a half. As our province grows, we have new

needs for power to be delivered to more places in our province, like Stewart and

others, and that's what we're trying to do by using independent power producers.

The cost of

new generation facilities. I think it's really important that we recognize it

has been 25 years, almost since the end of W.A.C. Bennett's term, since we've

built new generation facilities. That's 25 years, and British Columbia has been

growing. At the time, we were probably one million residents. No, sorry. We

would have been about 2½ million at that point, and now we sit at four million.

Of course, I read just recently there's a projection that the city of Vancouver

will double in size in the next 12 years. There's lots of growth, and there's

lots of need for power.

The cost of

these new generation facilities will be higher than the cost of previous

facilities. It will cost a lot of money, and we don't really have all the money

to do it. What's more, business in British Columbia, like the folks up in

Stewart who are going to employ British Columbians in the creation of a

run-of-the-river dam, like the people who are working to take the gases that

come out of the garbage dump in Delta…. Those people are creating jobs.

They also

want to invest in this province, and we are allowing them to do that. We're

giving them access to the power grid so that they can sell that power and so

that we can continue to build up the number and volume of megawatts and what

have you to ensure that we power British Columbia. In fact, the cost of the

heritage power we have right now in British Columbia, as defined by this act, is

cheaper than the power that's going to be created through these projects.

[1625]

Right now

the cost of the heritage power is 2.5 cents per megawatt. The cost for these new

projects is going to be 5.5 cents. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot of money

to people, but maybe they should take a look at it in terms of their hydro

bills. What we're doing with this act is blending the cost of the heritage power

with the cost of newly developed power so that we can ensure British Columbians

receive the cheapest power and so that they can balance the price of the new

power with the heritage power to keep rates as low as possible.

I stand in

support of Bill 85. It's a bill that's here for the people of British Columbia.

I remember a few years ago seeing an ad somewhere, relating to B.C. Hydro, and

that ad said: "The power is yours." With this bill, we are ensuring

that promise, that statement, that ideal, is met in British Columbia so that

every British Columbian will know that the power is theirs.

J. Bray:

I, too, am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public

Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. You know, it's interesting. I have a lot

to say on this particular bill, but I was listening with interest to what the

Leader of the Opposition would say and also to what the member for Prince

George–Omineca would say. I have to sum it up that they didn't really have

much to say, and I think there are several reasons for that. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard referred to the Chicken Little scenario, and I think that to

some extent, that's correct.

One of the

things that acts do is they have titles, and the concept of the title is to give

a general perception of what the bill is attempting to accomplish. BC Hydro

Public Power Legacy — right there, the act clearly goes counter to the

messages that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Prince George–Omineca

have been trumpeting for the last two years. It's a bit difficult for them, I

think, to come into this House and debate this bill when, in the clearest legal

language imaginable, it completely takes their argument and their point away.

Instead of the two hours the Leader of the Opposition had available to debate

this bill, it was a matter of minutes, and I find that very telling. I'm also

curious, given what this bill accomplishes, why the Citizens for Public Power

aren't here in the gallery to see the debate that confirms their goals as well,

but I'll talk about them in a minute.

Now, there

is no question that the NDP and their public lobby group, the Citizens for

Public Power, have

[ Page 7827 ]

generated a lot of issues around B.C. Hydro, and there's no question that in

my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, correspondence relating to B.C. Hydro

and public ownership of B.C. Hydro has probably been the single biggest issue

I've dealt with over the last two years. I am so pleased today that the Minister

of Energy and Mines has brought forward Bill 85, because there's no better way

to discount the arguments of the opposition and their public advocacy groups

than by actually bringing in this legislation. This legislation, I hope for my

constituents, will provide them the comfort they've been looking for from us

with respect to B.C. Hydro and the commitments we've made.

It's

interesting that we made a couple of significant commitments during the election

with respect to power. We had lots. We had 230-plus commitments, and we had a

couple on energy that were important. One was that we said we would protect B.C.

Hydro and all its core assets, including dams, reservoirs and power lines under

public ownership. The energy plan that was released last year made that very

clear.

Today that

commitment is in law. Bill 85 confirms it. It's there in black and white, and I

expected that the member for Prince George–Omineca and the Leader of the

Opposition would have stood up in this House, acknowledged it and stopped the

Chicken Little activity. Unfortunately, they've decided not to do that, and

that's a problem.

[1630]

We made

commitments during the election, and in legislation we are bringing those

commitments forward. I look forward to meeting with my constituents, showing

them this piece of legislation and showing how all of these issues we've dealt

with in energy have connected.

One of the

issues that we found when we formed government in May of 2001 — and I've

referred to it before — was the policy by press release and policy by panic

that the former NDP administration operated this government on for ten years. I

worked in the civil service, and I saw it to some extent. But when we became

elected, when we actually came into government and had to deal with all the

range of public policy issues that you deal with as government, that lack of

planning, that complete lack of vision, became evident.

Now, the

NDP and the member for Prince George–Omineca and Citizens for Public Power all

stand up and say how important energy is and how critical it is to our economy,

to our communities, to our public institutions and to our futures. I don't think

there's a member in this House that would disagree with that. But you would have

thought that with the NDP saying how important power was, they actually would

have had a plan, any plan — a vision, any vision. The fact is that they had

none.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

In fact,

this province never really had an energy policy, an energy plan, or anything

that industry, consumers, investors, bureaucrats — anybody — could actually

hold and see that this is the direction the province is going in, in this

incredibly important sector.

One of the

first things that we did as a government and the Minister of Energy and Mines

took up was actually develop an energy plan. Why? Well, because as the NDP

pointed out, energy is very important. The difference between the NDP and us is

that we recognize the importance and we actually do things like plans —

three-year service plans, energy plans, fiscal plans, infrastructure plans —

because the only way you can deliver on those important public policy issues is

actually to have a plan, a direction, a strategy, and then to execute that

strategy.

For ten

years the NDP had B.C. Hydro. They did things like deregulating it, taking

control away from the public, away from the B.C. Utilities Commission, and

putting it into the cabinet room. Then when they came up to their budget

troubles every year, guess what they did. They dipped into B.C. Hydro, and they

took funds out of B.C. Hydro — not the traditional dividends that a Crown corp

would provide. They went and dipped in to help with their own bottom line every

year. What did that do? That starved the Crown corporation of its ability to

manage its affairs and invest in its own infrastructure, invest in its own

generation, the maintenance of its transmission lines — all of the functions

that it should be able to do — because it actually took public power out of

the hands of the public.

inherited these types of situations. I don't mean to harp on the past forever,

but that was the reality. Bill 85 is critical to the type of planning we have

done in this province in the last two years to ensure that our energy policy

carries us forward for the next 100 years.

I want to

go through some of that energy plan because I think it's critical —

unfortunately, unlike the NDP , who got all of their public policy issues down

on a one-page press release — that when you actually plan properly in the

public domain, you can't do it in a one-page press release. You actually have to

have a document and a structure to support that document. The reality is that we

can't communicate our energy plan in fancy little slogans like the NDP used to

do, but we do have an energy plan that is comprehensive, covers all sectors and

has led to investment.

Maybe this

is a good time to just highlight one of the things that our energy plan has

done. Most of my constituents and most people in this House and most British

Columbians who are watching now probably heard about the one-day lease auction

for drilling rights in the northeast sector of this province — the investment

that was going to come in for people who wanted to bid on the opportunity to

explore for natural gas up in the northeast. It brought, in one day, $418

million into British Columbia.

[1635]

Now, that

wasn't to pay for the oil. That wasn't the cost of them doing business. That was

simply for the opportunity to explore. That $418 million will translate into $4

billion to $6 billion worth of economic activity, investment, jobs and taxes.

And who benefits from

[ Page 7828 ]

that? The 4.1 million British Columbians. And why did that happen? Why did

that sale occur, which broke the previous record for years and actually made

Alberta stand up and take notice? It's because industry saw that we had an

energy plan. Industry saw that we understood that energy is not a one-page press

release, and that energy needs a comprehensive plan and a government that

supports that plan, a government that executes that plan.

That was

just a recent example of what an energy plan can do. Let me look at some of the

actions that were listed in the energy plan of this government and the Ministry

of Energy and Mines. I'm looking on page 7.

The No. 1

action: "A legislated heritage contract will preserve the benefits of B.C.

Hydro's existing generation." Well, my goodness. No wonder the NDP didn't

have much to say in debate. They looked at the energy policy and said: "My

goodness, they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do. They're

actually executing their plan. How can we argue against that?" Bill 85, BC

Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act — we fulfilled that.

Second

action plan: "B.C. Hydro ratepayers will continue to benefit from

electricity trade." We've just heard Powerex has been cleared of being

involved in some of the issues that other companies down in the U.S. were

involved with during California's power difficulties in the 2001-02 year. That's

because, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, B.C. Hydro and Powerex

have incredibly good public servants who serve all British Columbians well. We

benefit from that activity; we benefit from the skill of employees of Powerex.

That benefits British Columbia. That benefits our competitiveness in North

America.

No. 5.

"The B.C. Utilities Commission will once again regulate B.C. Hydro

rates." Now, this is critical, I think, with respect to Bill 85 and what

we've done in the last two years. You know, the Leader of the Opposition talks

about secret cabinet dealings in her sort of conspiracy theory that I guess

she's borrowed from the member for Prince George–Omineca for lack of any other

material. Yet what did they do? What did those energy experts of the NDP do?

They actually said: "B.C. Utilities Commission, you're the experts. You

hold public hearings. You look at a whole bunch of factors in dealing with

rates. You actually aren't qualified to do that. But we are in cabinet, so we're

going to strip you of that responsibility, take the public oversight of

rate-setting, and we're actually going to do it at the cabinet table."

That would

be the same cabinet table that came up with fast ferries. That was the same

cabinet table that developed the ten-year economic disaster that was the NDP

government. That cabinet table decided they best knew how to set rates. Then

they said: "Well, maybe we shouldn't set rates, because, jeez, that

actually is kind of complicated. Let's just — I don't know — freeze

them." So they froze the rates.

They didn't

go back to B.C. Hydro and ask: "How can you operate with your increased

costs? How can you invest in new generation or maximize your existing generation

if we actually choke off the one source of direct revenue you have, which is

rates?" They didn't do that. They just said: "Looks good on paper. We

can fit it on a one-page press release." They froze rates, and they said:

"We've done our job."

B.C. Hydro

was left hanging. Oh, they still reached in and took out excess dividends to

cover their own financial difficulties, but they didn't let B.C. Hydro operate.

We said that we would bring B.C. Hydro back under the auspices of the place it

belongs, and that's the B.C. Utilities Commission. Why? Because we don't want to

be involved in political decisions on something that has nothing to do with

politics. We want to ensure that B.C. Hydro, a public company, can operate to

its maximum potential and that British Columbians now and into the future will

have the best power access in the world and that the rates will be set by the

people who understand it, under the full guise of the public process that is

B.C. Utilities Commission, and we have done that.

[1640]

No. 13 on

this list: "The private sector will develop new electricity generation,

with B.C. Hydro restricted to improvements at existing plants." Now, the

NDP makes some comment — and I remember in debates on other bills in this

House — that somehow suggested that was actually a problem and that it was

sending down the path to privatization. They can't really say that now because,

of course, we've got Bill 85. But what they fail to understand is that the way

they dealt with B.C. Hydro for a decade meant that for the improvements, the

excess ability to generate that they currently have, there was no investment.

They weren't given the opportunity. They weren't given the ability to control

their affairs enough. There is the ability for B.C. Hydro to actually increase

its generation through existing infrastructure — different turbines, more

turbines in some capacity.

They now

actually have the opportunity to focus on that, but they can't possibly do that

and turn around and build brand-new projects. They just can't do it all. Yet our

needs for energy are increasing. By allowing B.C. Hydro to look at its core

assets, which are publicly owned, to maximize the generation from that

infrastructure, it allows new investors, new employers and new companies to come

in and help us meet that energy demand.

In fact,

contrary to what the NDP and others would say, we have actually had independent

power production here for years. B.C. Hydro is not the sole producer of

electricity that we use to light the Legislature and our homes and our laptops

and everything else. Yet until we had a structure that actually rewarded that

investment and made it viable, it wasn't going to happen.

The energy

plan set out the structure. It set out that there would be a separate

transmission corporation, still publicly owned, but then it would mean that

independent power producers who want to invest, who want to employ people and

who want to help us meet our energy needs know they don't have to compete

[ Page 7829 ]

with the great big B.C. Hydro in order to hope they get some access onto the

grid to actually transmit that power. Conversely, a large industrial consumer

now who might want to do some of their own generation, knowing if they have

excess capacity in their own generation, can get that onto the grid and sell it

to whomever — B.C. Hydro or anybody else.

By bringing

in B.C. Transmission Corporation, we now put in place the ability for

independent power production to occur. That's an incredibly important part of

our energy plan. The energy plan is not even two years old, and we're already

seeing the benefits, but the benefits weren't just new generation. We said we

wanted a commitment that of all new generation, 50 percent would be green

generation. Vancouver Island is developing — and I'm going to read some of the

projects in a minute — the reputation for being the green energy capital of

North America. That is something I'm very proud of, and that's something that is

very important to my constituents.

constituents are very much concerned about the environment here in Victoria and

also how we deal with the environment throughout the province and, in fact,

throughout the world. Setting in our energy plan that not only do we want new

investment in this province and new jobs to help us meet our energy demands, but

we want 50 percent of that to be green energy, is incredibly important to my

constituents. At the time we produced the energy plan, that was still just

something on paper.

Just like

the oilfield leases of $418 million in September that were a direct result of

this energy plan, I want to talk about another result of that energy plan. That

was that we had 16 new green energy plants, $800 million worth of projects,

approved by B.C. Hydro that are green energy — $800 million. That's an

absolutely astounding amount. Now, you didn't hear that from the NDP during

their time. Oh, they did build generation. We shouldn't forget that. They had a

very successful project. Unfortunately, it was in Pakistan and wasn't here in

British Columbia.

[1645]

We've been

here two years, and we have had an incredible boom in the northeast, and now we

have 16 green energy projects here in British Columbia. We have the Ashlu Creek

hydroelectric project that's being built by Ledcor Power near Squamish, 42

megawatts. It will generate approximately 200 gigawatt-hours of electricity per

year. The Bear hydro project, a 16-megawatt facility that will generate

approximately 77 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, is being built by

Regional Power Inc. near Sechelt. There's Berkley Creek hydroelectric generation

project by Princeton Energy near Hope. The Brilliant expansion project near

Castlegar will be built by Brilliant Expansion Power Corp. China Creek hydro

project is a 5.6-megawatt project to be built near Port Alberni here on

Vancouver Island by a first nations group. We have Cypress Creek hydroelectric

project by Synex Energy near Gold River, Forrest Kerr run-of-the-river

hydroelectric project near Stewart by Coast Mountain Hydro Corp, and Holberg

wind energy project built by Stothert Power Corp. and Global Renewable Energy

Partners Inc. near Holberg.

By the way,

Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that Holberg is a small community on the

west coast of Vancouver Island that has been devastated by downturns in forestry

prices and commodities, and it is an isolated community. I can tell you that

this kind of project in a community like Holberg, which is up in the member for

North Island's riding, is huge. It is huge, and it happened because we had an

energy plan.

We have

Hunter Creek hydroelectric generation by Princeton Energy, again near Hope;

Maxim landfill gas cogeneration project near Delta built by Maxim Power; the

Mkw'alts Creek hydro project near Mount Currie by Cloudworks Energy; Pierce

Creek hydroelectric generation project near Chilliwack to be built by Larson

Farms Inc.; South Cranberry Creek power project to be built by Advanced Energy

Systems 1 Limited Partnership near Revelstoke; Spuzzum Creek power project to be

built by Interpac Resources near Boston Bar; Ucona River hydro project near Gold

River, built by Ucona River Joint Venture; and Zeballos Lake hydro project, a

21.85-megawatt facility built by Pacific Rim Power Corp. near Zeballos, which

will generate approximately 93 gigawatts of electricity per year.

The NDP had

ten years to generate one gigawatt, and outside of this building, they didn't do

it. Our energy plan has brought in new generation. What's critical is that this

is new generation where the private sector is using their capital, employing

British Columbians and British Columbia know-how to meet British Columbia's

needs. On Vancouver Island this is particularly important, and the projects I

listed on Vancouver Island are particularly important, because Vancouver Island

— in particular, here on the south Island — is the number two growth centre

and the number two centre for high technology in British Columbia.

There are

two things the high-tech sector tell us when we meet with them. Unlike the NDP,

we meet with them regularly, because they're important and they employ people.

They say: "The first thing we need is access to skilled people. We need to

know that as we expand" — and high-tech companies can sometimes expand

very quickly — "we will be able to recruit locally for skilled

people." Because we have three world-class post-secondary universities and

institutes here on the south Island, we meet that demand.

The second

thing, they tell us, is a reliable energy source. They want a source they know

is not dependent on old cables that come across or on the willingness of another

part of the province to have another valley dammed so that generation can occur

and hope it continues to come down the line and across the strait to here. They

want to know this is a place that is prepared to invest in its own generation of

secure, stable power now and into future. As they build their companies, as they

build their infrastructure, as they build manufacturing, they can't afford

brownouts. They can't afford power outages. They can't afford rationing.

When they

see we actually have five of these projects occurring here on Vancouver Island,

that sends a

[ Page 7830 ]

strong signal to the high-tech community that Vancouver Island is going to be

the kind of place that will provide them with strong energy and secure energy

into the future and that we will meet their educational needs as well.

There's

another important aspect to what we've done with energy that I want to revisit

with respect to Vancouver Island. I mentioned earlier the fact that we've put

B.C. Hydro back under the auspices of the B.C. Utilities Commission. I talked

about the review of rates, but that's only one aspect the BCUC actually e