H0403am 06

H0403am 06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, April 3, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 29, Number 6 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, April 3, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Point of Privilege (continued) ............................................................................................................................... ................. 10855 Hon. R. Thorpe Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10855 Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 15) (continued) C. Trevena G. Gentner H. Lali N. Simons D. Routley B.

Lekstrom Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10869 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued) G. Coons R. Fleming Hon. K. Falcon D. Cubberley

10855 THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Point of Privilege (continued) Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise to respond to a point of privilege made by the member for Cariboo South in this House on April 1, 2008. Let me say without reservation that the statements by the member for Cariboo South are without question wrong, and his allegations unfounded. First of all, the member states that his allegations are the result of the estimates debate of March 11, 2008. The member wrongly suggests that I knowingly misled the House.

Shortly after 10:10 a.m. on March 11, 2008, the member for Cariboo South began asking me questions related to the B.C. Assessment office in Williams Lake. With each question asked, I conferred with the chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment and, with advice, provided an answer to the member's questions to the best of my ability. At no time did I, nor did staff, ever attempt to knowingly mislead the member. In addition to the vari ous questions asked, the member and I had further exchanges.

In the review of Hansard of March 11, 2008, the record clearly shows that just before 10:20 a.m. on the 11th, the member for Cariboo South made the following statement: "Is the minister willing to review the situation in the Williams Lake office?" At approximately 10:20 a.m. I replied to the member with the following statement: "I would be pleased to re ceive details from the mem- ber so that I have greater clarification of what his concern is. I have been advised by the chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment that there is no staff reduction in the Williams Lake office.

If the member has other information on that, and if he would be pleased…. He hasn't provided that to me so far. If he provided that detail to me in writing, I'd be pleased to look into that matter on behalf of him and his constituents." Mr. Speaker, I believe that the above clearly dem- onstrates my commitment to work with the member and not to knowingly mislead anyone in the House. I further offer you a quote from the member for Cariboo South, made right after my statement noted above: "I appreciate that commitment from the minister to do such.

I will provide the information that I have been provided, and I will be seeking that clarification through the minister. Upon assuming confirmation of this infor- mation, I would be looking for the minister's support for the return, retention — whatever the correct word would be — for the Williams Lake office. "With that, I thank the minister for his attention. We will pursue the item later." [1005] Mr. Speaker, I ask: does that statement from the member for Cariboo South sound like he has been knowingly misled? I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, and this House that I have not misled and will not knowingly mislead this House, and I believe my comments and those from the member for Cariboo South clearly dem- onstrate that the member was not knowingly misled and that his allegations are clearly unfounded. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I'll take it under advisement. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

Second Reading of Bills UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) C. Trevena: I would like to continue with my remarks on Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, which I was quite vociferously opposing yesterday afternoon at the end of the session which we have and would like to continue to vociferously oppose. One of the issues that I was wanting to move on to when we called adjournment of the debate was that of the concept of smart meters. While smart meters are obviously…. It's useful to have meters for electricity. We all have meters for electricity.

As my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca mentioned here, we have them outside the house, and we can watch them go around very fast sometimes and slow other times. To have smart meters put inside every house at a cost of almost $1 billion doesn't really seem to be very smart to me when we are talking about energy conser- vation. We are urging people to conserve energy. Surely a billion dollars would be better spent looking at retrofitting of people's homes, looking at ways of making sure that people were not expending energy and were able to save energy.

If we're talking about smar t meters, it's not so long ago that we had the coin-in-the-slot meters. When I had an apartment — what would be called a bachelor, a bedsit, in England — when I first started out, you would put your coin in the meter, and you knew how much electricity you were using because the lights would go out when you ran out of money. I don't think anybody wants to go back to that. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] Instead of installing new meters, instead of going to everybody's home and installing new meters and urging people to look at the energy that they conserve in that way, maybe that billion dollars would be better spent on grants, on assistance and on enabling people to

10856 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 make sure that they could save energy rather than watch how much energy they're using and panic about how much energy they're using. That would be a much better use, I believe, of our taxpayers' money. I really wanted to go back to this whole idea of energy security and the environment —

part 3 of the bill — which, as I was talking about yesterday, I am concerned about. The whole idea that the government is using about sustainability…. The Ministry of Environment was talking about this. The Ministry of Environment was talking about the need for change and the fact that this was really going to be a great way to go forward for the people of B.C. and a really good environmental initiative.

Sadly, this use of inde pendent power producers is really not going to be sustainable for the production of electricity, at least the way members on this side of the House believe that sustainability should be addressed. I mean, our definition of sustainability is much more global, I believe, than the members opposite. The gov- ernment side's view of sustainability comes down very much to dollars and cents. It comes down to economic terms. We come down to how much money we can save. Our definition of sustainability is much broader. It looks at environmental sustainability, social sustainability.

It looks at the commons, looks at making sure that we have a fair transition. The government's view of sustainability is one that is sustainable for profits. [1010] What we're seeing here, when we look at energy security in the environment, really doesn't address some very basic issues that we as a province need to be looking at — that we as a society need to be looking at when we are talking about environmental change, when we're talking about climate change. When we are looking forward — as the Minister of Environment said, he wants to look forward — we've got to be much wider.

We've got to be looking at protecting the ecosystem. We've got to be looking at protecting the commons. We've got to be looking at making s u r e t h a t t h i s i s f a i r a n d just. This bill does not do any of that. It does not reflect the true essence of what sustainability is about. Instead, it goes to basic fear instincts. That's one of the other aspects that troubles me about this bill. The linking A to B to C is that we have energy security. We have the environment. We have the fear that if we don't go through this path, we are not going to be able to produce enough energy.

According to this logic, if we don't go through this path and have independent power producers producing energy instead of B.C. Hydro producing energy, we're not going to have enough energy. The government is creating a sense of fear around the energy self-sufficiency argument. It is not dealing with the issues of environmental concerns. It is just flagging environmental concerns — but without addressing the real issues of the desire fo r change. It is again looking at the issues of environmen tal concerns and giving the solution that: "Well, we will do it through independent power producers.

We will make sure that our independent power producers have a greenwashed effect, and everything's going to be fine." The dots just don't connect. They don't really make sense in the greater whole of what we really need. I find that, when we ar e talking about something that is as essential for us as our power and our electricity, our utilities, to base arguments on fear and on specious facts, exploiting people's want for change and saying that what is really happening here is going to be good for the environment, when it is essentially good for certain companies' pocketbooks, is really being… N.

Macdonald: …disingenuous. C. Trevena: Thank you. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke gave me the word. It is being disin- genuous. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Order. Order. C. Trevena: We have here a bill that doesn't address the issues that really need addressing, and that's one of the troubles. It is a bill that could be directive. We now have it as legislation. We have a bill that the govern- ment side is arguing is part of a greater climate change initiative, which it isn't, and we have a bill that is going to be taking away, piece by piece, our B.C.

Hydro from us, from all the people of B.C., now and in the future. That is why I'm opposing Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, and will continue to oppose it, and I'm very pleased that colleagues on this side of the House will vociferously oppose this bill. G. Gentner: Looking up at the gallery, particularly with the sun that has arisen this morning…. It's beautiful outside. I look across. There are members donning a daffodil this morning, indicating the need to acknowledge Cancer Awareness Month, to understand what's happening with major epidemic proportions in our province.

I bring it to your attention because it is utilities like B.C. Hydro, with surpluses and money that's able to find its way to general revenue and filter its way to benefiting British Columbians with medical expertise and research…. This is a utility that has been a major asset to the province of British Columbia, and we have to acknowledge that here today. This bill in particular, I believe, is part and parcel of the dismantling of this major, important utility. [1015] What this bill….When you read between the lines, this is piracy.

This is part and parcel of the lack of regulatory authority to sell out our rive rs, sell out our water, our power and our resources. I've said it before. We have become the hollow province, a hollow government that believes in P3s as a sure thing to all our…. A solution, outsourcing. It's hollow because the Liberal government has privatized to the point that there will be no tangible content left in this province. The French are free enterp rise, but they would call this savage capitalism. There' s no end to this. It's just privatize, privatize, privatize.

The Utilities Commission Amendment Act allows that even further.

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10857 When you look at the bill and you look at the notion of the sweeping powers now — the Minister of Energy and Mines and cabinet will be able to oversee the regu- latory authority of Hydro and other utilities; it's inferred — I think we are in jeopardy here with transparency and accountability — all those wonderful things that the Utilities Commission provides the citizens of British Columbia. This is a means to an end. This is a means to a long- term project of this government, to incrementally privatize everything it possibly can, from resources to water.

If it could, it would privatize the air we breathe. Interjection. G. Gentner: The member opposite can laugh and sneer. She's donning a daffodil, commemorating the need to look at the important acknowledgment of cancer. But when you look at th e cumulative airshed, the air quality up in the Fraser Valley that is part of the respiratory diseases, etc., and you look at how this Utilities Commission will be allowed sweeping powers to administer, to actually increase or decrease the ambient air quality in the airshed…. It will be done with such things as cogeneration. I'll talk about it in a few minutes.

These are the little things in this bill, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, that we have got to raise to the attention of all British Columbians, for it's their health that could be impacted. We seem to forget that there is a connection between the environment, energy, ec onomy and our health. It's all interconnected. This has health implications. When we talk about the need or the reason of this bill…. It's one of a long series of trends we've seen from this government. We've seen how they've attempted to deregulate or dismantle B.C. Rail and the scandal that's happening because of that.

We're now seeing the incremental destruction and decapitation of B.C. Hydro. They've done it with removal of the transmission systems — namely, that of B.C. Transmission lines — and that was an attempt to eventually separate the marketing procedures, therefore, from the transmission and the power through grids down to the States. We've seen the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project — another Crown corporation that this government has woefully managed. We've seen, of course, roof collapse — another Crown corporation. Now we're talking here about our Utilities Commission, which is a Crown agency. B.C.

Place had a roof collapse. You've seen the ICBC scandal erupting once again. Here's another Crown corporation. There is a classic example of why we have a B.C. Utilities Commission which looks at some of the rates of ICBC. It's doing so because of the privatization of ICBC — namely, that of the premium rates that private insurers now can involve itself in, in the marketplace. Of course, we've seen another Crown corporation, the B.C. Lottery Corporation — major scandal with the retailers, fraud, etc….

The members opposite couldn't even run a peanut stand. [1020] When you look at the ex amples of how they've run our Crown corporations into the ground…. B.C. Hydro is one, and the mechanism to regulate it, the Utilities Commission…. We are in dear trouble in this province. Now, we see a need here to change the B.C. Utilities Commission. The importance of the Utilities Commission is, basically, to regulate hydroelectricity, the gas and other utilities, and its ability to look at the costs and benefits to British Columbians. That is the purpose and the mandate of the BCUC.

Unfortunately, with the sweeping powers that are going to be afforded to the minister now, we are going to be denied a full inquiry as to the costs and benefits. I've been involved in some of the long, enduring and sometimes, I admit, boring hearings of the B.C. Utilities Commission, but it is probably a stellar example of why we have a consultative approach in this province, why we have to have public hearings and why we have to listen to everybody, whet her it's an intervener or whether it's a common citizen. I'll give you an example.

I've spent many a time listening to the concerns of Delta residents — that of the overhead transmission lines running through an area of Tsawwassen. It was an incredible process to actually listen to it and to have the Utilities Commission listen to all those facts and to register it. It was also interesting th at the Minister of Energy and Mines, before the last election, promised the people of Delta that there would be no such increase in the voltage going through their neighbourhoods.

It's also interesting that, no matter, a few months after the election the BCTC was back at it again to bulldoze and continue their mandate — what they believe was a beneficial mandate — to increase the tran smission lines through residential areas. There is a difference that separates us from those on the other side, which is that this is the government's amendment to the Utilities Commission. On this side, we presented — yours truly presented — a private member's bill. It was an amendment to the Utilities Commission. It was a matter of opening up the process.

What this government's doing is it's skewing and taking away transparencies from the Utilities Commission. We introduced a bill whereby we would open it up even further. We came forward with a bill that would look seriously at the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle was that before a transmission line, for example, would go through a playground or a school or residential area, we would e r r o n t h e s i d e o f c a u t i o n b e f o r e w e w o u l d t a k e t h a t next step. It would be an even more stringent evaluation of those impacts to the residents and people and the environment.

It would be somewhat rigorous. But on the precautionary principle, we had other options we could have looked at. There are your other rights-of-way through Delta that wouldn't have impacted residential areas, but the government has refused to go along in that direction. We on this side are on record as having an open, transparent process. We would certainly welcome the government to about-face its particular direction here

10858 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 and seriously consider our private member's bill that was introduced last session. The curious thing about all this is that we have a bill that's introduced by the Minister of Energy and Mines, and yet this jurisdiction, the Utilities Commission, falls under, I believe, the Attorney General. Again, why is it that the Attorney General hasn't stood up here and introduced this bill? Why is that? Hon. R. Neufeld: Because you're lucky. G. Gentner: Yeah. Maybe we are lucky. Maybe we are tired of stonewalling. We're tired of being denied. Maybe we are lucky.

Maybe we're going to get some real answers from the minister opposite. Maybe that's why it's all it is. But I don't think that's the reason. [1025] I think it's because the Utilities Commission has been politicized. It is now in the hands of the Attorney General. That jurisprudence, that quasi-judicial influence and tradition of the Utilities Commission, I think, is a thing of the past. So I think that when you look at how it works and what has been happening here, the B.C.

Utilities Commission is going down the way of the dodo bird, just like all the other Crown corporations and all the other Crown agencies we've seen put forward by this government. We need more power. We believe in power for the people, but this government believes in power for the powerful. It believes in po wer to the power-producing powerful people, power to the money-grabbing power producers themselves. It's power for profit before people. Let's quickly look at the Utilities Commission.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the needs of hydro and what the Minister of Energy is proposing, but let's really take a closer look at the Utilities Commission because, after all, that's what this is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about the am endment to the Utilities Commission. I have to ask the question right away: where is the regulatory authority of the independent power producers within the B.C. Utilities Commission? When you look at the act itself and its

definitions, a public utility means: "a person or person's lessee…who owns or operates in British Columbia, equipment or facilities for (

a) the production, generation, stor age, transmission, sale, delivery or provision of electricity, natural gas, steam or any other agent for the production of light, heat, cold or power to or for the public or a corporation for compensation…." That is the definition. You look at the utilities commissions in the States. They do have to, indeed, in volve themselves with the private corporations, because they are the utilities that provide it. But where in this bill do we provide strong regulatory authorities over independent power producers in the Utilities Commissions Amendment Act? This is not here.

It's not here for a reason. It's not here because that's not the intent. This government believes in deregulation. It doesn't believe in regulating corporations who have a run of the river. It's a gold mine. Instead they'd rather try and overregulate B.C. Hydro, put a damper on its activities, take away its resource and development and make sure it doesn't expand and deliver goods for the people of British Columbia. Now, I want to talk about…. British Columbia Utili- ties Commission is an independent regulatory agency of the provincial government that operates and ministers the Utilities Commission Act.

Yet the government created a whole ministry, when it was first elected, on deregu- lation. We had these core reviews. It totally went against the grain of independent regulatory agencies. It completely decided to go in a different vein, and here we are today. It's continuing along with that line. The commission's primary responsibility is the regulation of energy utilities under its jurisdiction to en sure that the rates charged for energy are fair. It regulates ICBC and gas but doesn't regulate IPPs. Interesting. We're slowly moving away to private utilities.

We can talk about utilities in the past being a monopoly owned by the province, but we're seeing oligopolies now run…. That's what they're going to be. We know what General Electric has bought in here, for good reason. Didn't W.A.C. Bennett nationalize a private energy corporation — B.C. Electric? Oh, sure, he did that because he saw there were some problems here. He nationalized it. He was a socialist. W.A.C. Bennett was a socialist. He was nationalizing our energy supply in this province because he was worried. The free enterprise system was not working. It was gouging people. He used forethought.

He was a creative thinker. But this government wants to dismantle it. [1030] The commission's responsibility is to regulate energy. It's also there to provide safe, adequate and secure service to their customers. Now, wh ere are the IPPs in this one? Why aren't they regula ted? They're not regulated through this at all anymore. I'll talk about why that is in a few seconds. The commission's regulatory jurisdiction is defined in the utilities act and in

part 7 of the Pipeline Act. The commission regulates electric utilities, gas utilities, steam heat and intraprovincial pipelines in British Columbia. I'm just wondering. Are th e IPPs safe? I don't believe they provide adequate service to the people of British Columbia. To make sure of that, they should be regulated accordingly under the Utilities Commission Act. But not according to this government. Let's look at some of the other major functions that we take for granted that the Utilities Commission does. It provides, among many things, a historical legacy of documents that are also available on line.

It's a wealth of information, of precedents, on how things are regulated, rates and how projects are derived. Unfortunately, if the minister is going to gain this whole new authority to interfere — because that's what it's going to be now — how much legitimate documentation will be available? How far and how thorough will the jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission go today after this bill is created? Hopefully, there will be some answers available to that when we get to committee stage,

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10859 because those are answers th at the people of British Columbia need. The information is on line, but it also creates prece- dents that are available to all. The commission generally receives many kinds of complaints. These are complaints filed against regulated utilities by other utilities, individuals or groups. So this is the power of the utilities corpo- ration. I have to ask, though: isn't it interesting that we don't regulate independent power producers but they are interveners under the Utilities Commission?

Just like municipal governments, th ey are interveners. Isn't that a flip? Isn't that intere sting? Private profit-makers, who are slowly grabbing control of the electrical grid of British Columbia and the power production of British Columbia, are the interveners in the Utilities Commission. They're not regulated, but they can certainly intervene. This is the direction we are going. The commission receives complaints from utility customers who are unable to resolve disputes with their respective utilities without assistance. There's no resolve here, and none when it comes down to the IPPs.

It deals with complaints. It looks at the practices and the procedure. It looks at power line extensions. It looks at easements, right-of-way maintenance, meter readings and estimates. The question is: how much of this is applicable now to the IPPs? We're going to see that the minister is going to have the ability to interfere with the information that is going to be produced to the apparently quasi-judicial Utilities Commission. But w h e n i t c o m e s d o w n t o t h e I P P s … . M a n y d o h a v e easements; they do have right-of-ways. Where are we heading with this?

It's an incremental, deregulated, profit-making scheme for independent power producers. It's not here to serve the people of British Columbia. The Utilities Commission also maintains a database of interested individuals and organizations who have asked to receive information from the commission. The database contains names, telephone numbers, fax numbers and addresses. It indicates the types of….

Everything you would ever want to know about what's actually happening with your electrical power grid system. [1035] That data now — if I have it correct, and I believe the minister has these sweeping powers — could be intervened. It doesn't have to. It could be a project that could be halted and stopped. The environmental groups, independent power producers, are among the group of general regulators, and there are a few dedicated individuals who regularly intervene as active participants or observers.

How much will that be interfered with now — the ability to make a legitima te argument before the commission and actually maybe even defend B.C. Hydro? Those questions have got to be answered. As a consumer of electricity or natural gas, you may have concerns about the rates that you pay for these commodities, the reliability of utility services or the efficiency with which the energy is supplied to consume. You may feel strongly enough that you want to get involved in the regulatory proceedings for the purpose of expressing your concerns. That transparency is in jeopardy.

That transparency, that opportunity, is going to be amended through this act by a careless government that's going to give draconian powers to the Minister of Energy and Mines. There are many reasons wh y energy, electricity and natural gas should be regulated. There's a component, namely that of vertical integration, that is a simple firm responsible for several aspects of the industry, from generation to customer billing, but that's now all going to change.

We're going from public agency regulation to private ownership, and there's no regulation, no strong regulation on the influence of how once publicly owned electricity utilities are going to be controlled by a few privately owned, oligolopic power producers. I talked at the beginning, relative to our rivers, on the impacts, the rates regulated. They're not necessarily going to be regulated for or by our ratepayers. They're going to be regulated for IPPs. Again, there's nothing in this Utilities Commission Amendment Act that will regulate the functions of IPPs. I have to repeat it.

They are interveners under the utilities act. They're not regulated, not the same way we would try and regulate B.C. Hydro. Or now B.C. Hydro is going to be dismantled. Also, we've had a look at the function of what they, the government, have done with Hydro, with its assets. One third, almost one-half of all the employees have been privatized through Accenture. That was an inter- esting function that was cr eated by the government in its drive to privatize.

When you go for rate increases and you ask the Utilities Commission for a certain rate, they can put everything into a parcel and analyze it and say that those rates are artificially or legitimately justified. It could be seen that some of the privatization and the Accenture profit-making could drive those rates, and it could be that the Utilities Commission could ferret that out. But with these amendments and the sweeping powers that the minister is going to derive, it's now very much questionable. In other states south of the line, their utilities com- missions really opened up the debate on the Accenture deal.

But it was also, interestingly enough, utilities commissions that opened the whole debate on the Enron scandal. This transparency, and it came forward like never before…. We can see the same thing here, relative to what happened with Alcan. This was a backroom deal held in secrecy. There was a competitive action. There is a competitive advantage with Alcan. The plan was exposed, in part, through the proceedings of the B.C. Utilities Commission. At the time, the Premier's rationale to give our power and streams away to Alcan was really a 1,400 percent profit for Alcan. It was top secret. But in order to allow….

Of course, it was the Utilities Commission that basically put an end to this. [1040]

10860 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 I think this Utilities Co mmission Amendment Act is a gag order to disconnect that information, to do the rational thinking of where those rates shall be, the rational evaluation of the projects and to hold whether or not there's some truth. That side didn't like what the Utilities Commission said. B.C. Hydro doesn't need Al can, and it was reiterated through the BCUC. It explained it. You know, B.C.

Hydro would be stunningly self-sufficient into the far future if it were put back together again, not privatized — allowed reasonable development and given the chance to involve new ideas. Hydro appears to have fallen into mistakes that made it look as if the deal might not have been so bad after all, but the mistakes were easy to spot. It was the B.C. Utilities Commission that spotted them. How did the mistakes come to happen? Did B.C. Hydro expect the commission to rubber-stamp it?

The government thought the Utilities Commission was going to rubber-stamp this deal, but the Utilities Commission — this quasi-judicial system that we have set up in this province — ferreted it out. B.C. Hydro was tired of having its throat cut on behalf of the Premier's corporate friends. But could it be that the people of B.C. Hydro knew all along? The BCUC will not rubber-stamp, and that is why there are amendments to this act. We know that there's a minister who will rubber-stamp. We look at the controversial $2 billion sweetheart deal between B.C. Hydro and Alcan, and it was quashed.

It was quashed by the Utilities Commission, which ruled it too expensive for the 1.6 million hydro customers who would have paid for it. The commission said that Hydro should have agreed to an electricity sales contract paying Alcan with its 50- year Kemano hydro station near Kitimat — the same rate offered to new power developers. It said no. As a utility commission, it still has some shred of integrity to expose fraud, to expose inaccuracies to rates — that rates are derived by private profit-makers. But this notion of deregulation — this disease — has now found its way into the Utilities Commission.

You look at different commissions Stateside. You know, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is not always my best friend, but they were the ones that released two Enron memorandums describing company plans to inflate energy pr ices during the California energy crisis of 2000. The practices were considered so outrageous that an attorney with the California Public Utilities Commission dubbed them a smoking-gun memo. The whole Enron business was let out of the bag because they had a utility commission that had the ability to do so. You know, it's unfortunate that the Minister of Small Business has left….

No, he hasn't left; he's still there somewhere. The role of that ministry years ago was to deregulate under the core reviews — deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. Many of those people who were involved in that process of deregulation have slowly found their way into the IPPs. They have found a way in order to use the system to get the water licences. And where did they go? Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. G. Gentner: Time is up? Deputy Speaker: Yes. G. Gentner: I have the red light. I thank you, hon. Speaker.

I see there is a red light, and I see that the electricity of British Columbia is still effective enough to turn me off. Deputy Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet. [Applause.] [1045] H. Lali: I see that for the first time, I have created unanimity in this House. Me mbers on both sides of the House missed my absence in the last few days. And who said I didn't have friends on both sides of the House? That's great. It's great to be missed and to be applauded upon my return. In any case…. Interjections. H.

Lali: I think the members opposite and the Deputy Premier are correct in statin g that the enthusiasm for my coming back is going to be short-lived, because they know exactly what I'm going to do. It's a great beginning, a rebeginning. I'm glad to take my place in this debate taking place in this great assembly of the people of British Columbia. I stand here to oppose Bill 15, the B.C. Utilities Commission Amendment Act. I'll outline my reasons why I'm standing here opposing that. This is all about B.C. Hydro. It's all about the future of B.C.

Hydro and what this bill actually intends to do under the guise of putting something forward under the B.C. Utilities Commission Amendment Act. I want to begin by talking about B.C. Hydro, the generation of electricity in this province and what it has meant historically in this province. During the old days of the Social Credit…. I see there are actually three members of the old Social Credit Party that are still represented in this House, and one of them is the minister. Hon. R. Neufeld: Thank goodness. H.

Lali: "Thank goodness," says the former member of the Social Credit, who started out as a Social Crediter and jumped ship to become a Reformer. When he saw his political future going up in flames, he jumped ship over to the Liberals. And he says: "Thank goodness." But there are two other of his colleagues. I recall those days after 1991 when that member across the way, the minister responsible for energy, used to stand up in this House and speak of how proud he was of Social Credit and the traditions of the Social Credit.

Now, I may have differed — and I know other members of my party in the past may have differed —

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10861 with the Social Credit on a number of policy issues, but I can honestly tell you one thing. Whether we as New Democrats differed from the Social Credit in terms of some of the policies that were put forward or how they were going to go about doing the business in the province…. I can tell you this thing: both the New Democrats and the Social Credit were always on the same page when it came to looking after the public interest and the good of British Columbians, especially those people who live in rural British Columbia.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about this lot on the other side of the House that formed government. They don't care about the public interest or the interests of people in rural British Columbia and those people who are best served where the hydroelectricity generation takes place, which is up in the mountains of British Columbia, which are located in rural B.C.

That member across the way, who is the Minister of Energy now, once used to stand on this side of the House when he was in opposition and sing the tunes of Social Credit and how proud he was of the traditions of that Social Credit Party and on all of those items that were put forward on behalf of the public interest, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, by W.A.C. Bennett in those days, in the '50s and the '60s.

But the same cannot be said about that party there — the Liberal party, the governing party — and the positions that same hon. me mber is taking now, which are totally contrary to the positions of his once proud Social Credit Party. It just isn't the same. You will recall, hon. Speaker, that it was the Social Credit Party under W.A.C. Bennett which actually nationalized the generation of electricity in this province and the distribution of that power. It wasn't a New Democratic Party that did that. It was the Social Credit. It was W.A.C. Bennett who did that.

Why? [1050] He did that because he knew that the public interest would be best served if the generation and distribution of electrical power in this province were under the purview of the public, which would be the government of British Columbia, who would own those facilities on behalf of the people of British Columbia. That was their tradition. That was the history, and it has served this province for almost five generations, five decades. It has served very, very well. When you also look at what has happened historically also….

Because it was public power, generated by the public, our rates have historically been amongst the lowest in North America in terms of consumers. If you look at the 1990s, we were able to capitalize on that to make sure that our rates were kept historically low, the lowest in Canada, and have a hydro rate freeze for a number of years. Actually, a rebate was given back to the people of British Columbia as a dividend because that power generation and the distribution was owned publicly. It was owned by the people of British Columbia. What we've seen now, also historically, is that at certain times of the day B.C.

Hydro buys power from neighbouring provinces, and in other parts of the day it sells power to those same provinces and also to the United States. It all depends on the usage. The people in particular jurisdictions who are using higher amounts of electricity — at a certain part of the day we sell it to them. And at certain parts of the day we in British Columbia do, so we buy power. We have never had an energy shortage — and I'll get to that — in the last number of years. We don't. But I want to talk about this so-called Liberal en- ergy plan.

In 2002 the Environmental Assessment Act was actually amended by the Liberal government to make it easier for private power developers to have their projects approved quickly. There was no environmental reason to change the act. There was no outcry — hue and cry — from the people of British Columbia that they wanted to have the Environmental Assessment Act watered down or that it wasn't working. There was no other reason than to get government out of the way of private power developers so that they could have a near unfettered access to our resource in this province.

But it was done under the guise of trying to stream- line and to also get rid of red tape and hurdles out of the way of business and to improve the environment, so to speak. Those were all guises that were put forward by this government. The real reason was to make it easier and quicker for private powe r developers to get access to our resource in this province so that they didn't have to be held accountable to the people of British Columbia. Also since 2002, what this Liberal Premier and what this Liberal government have done…. They have taken B.C.

Hydro, one of the finest examples of a public corporation anywhere in North America…. What this government has done since 2002 has transformed B.C. Hydro from a net generator of power to a net purchaser of power — a deliberate policy on the part of this govern- ment to do that. Deliberate — there was no need, no necessity. They did it specifically and deliberately to serve a political purpose of their own, and I'll get to that in a minute as well. The real purpose is the privatization of B.C. Hydro. They want to cut it up and sell it up to the private entities in its member parts. That's what they want to do.

They also want to make it easier for private power production in this province to come in — which they already are — and then actually sell the contracts to them on a long-term basis. What you've got in this province right now — I've got a bit of an older figure; it's actually more than the figure than I'm going to give you — are 495 private power applications that are on the table or in the process or on the ground in some form or another since this government decided that they were going to privatize British Columbia hydroelectrical power in this province.

You know, they talk about how we're going to have a net energy shortage or that there's a crisis looming. That's the guise that they're trying to go under. [1055] The minister talks about an impending energy crisis. There is no impending energy crisis. If there is a crisis, it's purely manufactured by this Liberal government to serve a political purpose. They want B.C. Hydro out of the business of hydro generation in this province.

10862 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 Ever since the days of W.A.C. Bennett, B.C. Hydro has been able to plan, desi gn, engineer, finance, build and own and operate hydroelectricity-generating facilities in this province for almost five decades, until this Liberal g o v e r n m e n t c a m e a l o n g . T h e y w e r e a b l e t o d o i t a t a lesser cost than the private entities in this province would have been able to. They were able to do it in a financially responsible manner.

T h e y w e r e a l s o a b l e t o d o i t b y k e e p i n g r a t e s f o r British Columbians historically low and way below the average in North America, because we, the people of British Columbia, not only owned B.C. Hydro but also the ability to actually generate the electricity that we consume in this province. It has been well managed for all of those years. Former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm is totally against what this particular Liberal Premier is doing to B.C. Hydro in this province. He's not a New Democrat. He's not a social democrat.

He's a free- enterpriser, and he is totally against what this government is doing in terms of disman tling and privatizing B.C. Hydro in this province. What you've got…. You know, it's the old theory in this province, and this is what the Liberals believe in: if there isn't a crisis, then crea te one. Once you've created the crisis, then put forwar d your own solution. It's happened with B.C. Ferries, which were privatized. What have we seen since it went privatized? Our rates have gone up. Our rates have gone up under this Liberal government with what they've done with B.C. Ferries.

Same thing they're doing with B.C. Hydro. Our rates have been increasing since this Liberal government took office seven years ago. For seven years in a row, we've seen hydro rates increase with what this Liberal government is doing. Now, with all these IPPs, or in- dependent power production facilities — they're actually private power production facilities that are coming on board — our debt is increasing. B.C. Hydro traditionally ha s had a great credit rating. They were able to actually borrow money at lower rates and keep the cost of constr uction down and, hence, keep our rates down for th e future.

But these private entities — they're much smaller than B.C. Hydro are — when they individually go out to borrow money, they b o r r o w i t a t a m u c h h i g h e r c o s t , o n l y t o t h e n t u r n around and have this Liberal government buy power back from these private producers at double the rate of what B.C. Hydro was able to produce. That's what's happening, and that's why our rates are going up. It's all because the Liberals are trying to serve their own political needs. You can see it's like…. Vultures can smell death for miles and miles and miles away.

You could live in a locality and never see a vul- ture your entire life, but as soon as they smell death, you see them circling up there. That's what's happening with this Liberal government as they are killing B.C. Hydro little by little by little, dismantling B.C. Hydro. You get all these private entities lining up at the Liberal doors, at the Liberal coffers, to go in there to eat up the spoils, hon. Speaker. That is what is happening. What they're doing is…. The Liberals are rewarding their friends. This isn't about good public policy.

This is all about election financing for the Liberal Party, for the Liberal Premier, the Liberal Energy Minister and the Liberal MLAs sitting acro ss the way. It's all about election financing. It has nothing to do with public policy. It's got nothing to do with actually managing the purse on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's all about managing their personal, political futures so they can get those private power pr oduction entities paying for their election bills, as they have done. [1100] It's payback time. They've paid for their elections in 2001.

Those private entities, those private production facilities, they paid for their elections in 2005. It's pay- back time, and they're getting it by the bucketfuls. Who's paying for all of this? It's the people of British Columbia, as their rates are going up, as they no longer will be owning their own hydroelectricity dams and power- generating facilities. It'll be the private entities, those people who put the Liberals in office by paying for their election bills. It's payback time, and nothing less than that. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] Really, when it comes down to it, does the Premier care about the people of British Columbia? He doesn't, just like everything else. He said he's caring for the heartlands. It's the "hurtlands," hon. Speaker. He's pulling the guts out of rural British Columbia. Forestry is dying because of this deliberate dismantling of forest policy by this government and not putting anything in place. It's the people of rural B.C. who are suffering. The same thing is happening with hy droelectricity generation. The same thing is happening because they're deliberately dismantling it. They don't care.

They think they can win an election in urban and suburban British Columbia alone. You know, to heck with the people of rural B.C. They don't have to serve their interests, because if they did, that Energy Minister from a seat in rural British Columbia would actually show some compassion to the people of British Columbia, would actually turn around and stand up for his own constituents and say: "No, we're not going to privatize B.C. Hydro." But he's not going to do that, because he wants to serve his own political interests for the future.

He doesn't want to leave cabinet and say to the Premier: "I'm not going to go along with your privatization plan. I'm going to stand up for the people who put me into t h i s p l a c e a s a n M L A . " H e d o e s n ' t w a n t t o d o t h a t , because he doesn't want to be shifted out of cabinet. In order to go against the Premier, he would have to resign from cabinet. He's not going to do that, because he's putting his political future before that of the public interest in this province and standing up for British Columbia and B.C. Hydro. He's not going to do that. Why?

Because he doesn't care, just like the Liberal Premier and the Liberal cabinet and the MLAs across the way on the other side of the bench. They don't care. They just don't care.

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10863 Interjections. H. Lali: You can hear the heckling coming from across the way. You can hear the heckling. They don't like it. Why? Because the truth hurts, and they know it. These contracts, these 3Ps, are so expensive, these long-term contracts. The other thing about these contracts is the way they've got them set up. Once those contracts are over, those private power production facilities do not have to sell the power to B.C. Hydro anymore.

They can turn around and sell it to Alberta or to the United States all they want, and that's when we'll have an energy crisis. We will have an energy cris is in 25 to 30 to 40 years down the road, when those energy contracts are going to end. That Minister of Energy across the way is amongst the people sitting there who are directly responsible for that sellout of British Columbia. Interjection. H. Lali: I will go out those doors any day and say the same things, hon.

Member, as I'm saying here, because I am not afraid to stand up on behalf of the people of British Columbia, unlike the cowardice that is shown by that side of the House. Any time of the day that you want to debate me, I am ready, hon. Member. I am ready to do it, because I am not afraid to stand up on behalf of the people who put me in this place — unlike you. You don't care about the people of Peace River North. You don't have the guts enough to tell the Premier: "I am not going to implement that plan." That's what's going on. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, take your seat, please. Members. I remind the speaker about parliamentary decorum. Please continue. [1105] H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, you know, the truth really does hurt, because if the Liberal Party and the Liberal Premier and this Liberal Energy Minister actually cared about British Columbians and the future of power in this province, they should actually be standing up and solidifying and backing up and making B.C. Hydro stronger than it is rather than weakening it, dismantling it, cutting it up and selling it off to their friends and insiders — if they actually really cared.

If they actually cared about energy generation in this province, what they ought to be doing is they should be saying: "We're going to do what W.A.C. Bennett did." That former So cial Credit MLA who sits as a Liberal Energy Minister now, if he really cared and was proud of his past and was proud of the Social C r e d i t P a r t y , h e w o u l d l i s t e n t o t h e w o r d s o f W . A . C . Bennett. It was W.A.C.

Bennett, a right-wing free- enterpriser, who said: "It will be the public who will plan, design, engineer, fina nce, build and operate the hydroelectricity-generating fac ilities in this province." H e d i d i t b e c a u s e h e k n e w w h a t w a s r i g h t . H e d i d i t because he cared about the people of British Columbia. He cared about the residents of Peace River South and Peace River North. He cared about the people who lived in the hinterlands, and that's why he did it.

What we have seen under this Liberal government, whether you look at any particular sector that is related not only to all of the British Columbia but, specifically, to rural British Columbia, is that this government has not only systematically di smantled everything that was there, but they're doing it in a way that they are systematically abandoning the people of rural British Columbia.

Whether they live up in the north in the Peace River country or out on the north coast country, or whether they live in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, or in my neck of the woods in the Thompson-Okanagan and the Nicola, they're systematically aban doning the hopes and the desires of the people of rural British Columbia. B.C. Hydro is an icon in the way the public actually looks after not only the financing of it but in how a corporation ought to be run — that is, under the purview of the public purse.

All Bill 15 does is make it even easier for the friends of the Premier, who financed the election campaigns of Liberal MLAs across the way, to get access to our resources in this provin ce. It is that transparent. All you have to do to get favours out of this Liberal government is to finance their election campaigns. That's exactly what has been happening. I proudly stand on this side of the House to vote against Bill 15 and to vote against the privatization of B.C. Hydro. N.

Simons: My apologies to those in the gallery who will not be treated to the wonderful and powerful and passionate words of my colleague, although I will do my best to convey the same feelings I have about this bill and what it does to the British Columbian public and the public interest. What essentially this bill does is it allows the B.C. energy plan, as flawed as it is, to become more rooted in the public policy of British Columbia.

What I worry about with that prospect is that in the past we have relied on and we have been proud to have in our possession, as stewards of this provin ce, the control and the own- ership over our waterways — over our streams and over our rivers. We have used that wealth and what was naturally here in British Columbia to the benefit of British Columbians.

That is something where we have not only managed the resource; we have also benefited greatly from the resource — not just from the power that it generates but also from the wealth that we create here so that we can provide people in our communities, wherever they

10864 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 a r e , w i t h t h e k i n d s o f s e r v i c e s t h a t w e a s B r i t i s h Columbians expect. We expect to be able to look after the children. We expect to be able to look after the seniors. We expect to look after the environment in a way that is sustainable for future generations. [1110] Unfortunately, what Bill 15 does is it takes another chip out of that structure, another wedge between the wealth of British Columbians and their ability to keep that wealth in the future.

So what we have is private interests taking over what has been publicly managed resources, private interests whose benefit is en tirely in the profits that they generate, where British Columbians will fail to generate that same kind of revenue. We will not have the same ability to provide th e services that we expect in this province. Unfortunately, that is the end result of this privatization scheme. Whether or not it will be felt b y u s i s n o t t h e i s s u e . W e k n o w t h a t i t w i l l b e f e l t b y our children and our children's children.

I consider this legislation and this whole ideology of privatization of the public wealth as dangerous policy. It's not benign, and it's sold in a way that's supposed to make us feel good, but it is exactly contrary to how it is being sold. It is about giving away what we have — for decades, and in some places generations — looked to for the future benefit. We ha ve to consider ourselves as temporary occupiers of this place. We need to look for the benefit of the generations to come. What this does is it eliminates our ability to say that this is our wealth and that this is how we share our wealth.

When it's all in private ha nds, we see the deals that are made around this province — the deals between those with very deep pocket s and very strong interests in taking the most value ou t of our land. The private industry that does that does not invest back into our communities in the same way that we as the public are able to do, as we are expected to do in this House. We were elected to do that in this House. The 79 of us, Members of the Legislative Assembly, are supposed to be in this House to think for the future, not for the next election cycle.

What is clear to so many British Columbians is that there is a direct relationship between this government's public policy and where they get their ability to run the party. I find that troubling. I find that problematic. I find that it does make government shortsighted in its approach if it's, in fact, inte rested in only the election cycle and not in the future ability of this province to sustain the quality of life and our ability to help others sustain a quality of life that we have in the past. This is not a personal battle; this is an ideological issue.

Simply put, it's a debate between whether or not British Columbians should have ownership and stew- ardship responsibilities over our natural resources or if we are willing to say to whoever the highest bidder is: "You come and manage it, and we're going to become less and less involved in how you do that.

We'll have less and less authority and power in how you operate, and in 30 short years — in some cases a shorter period of time and in some cases longer — we will be required to purchase what you have borrowed from British Columbians at a price set on the world market." Now, we have ways of balancing our interests and the interests of others and finding ways that our policy meets the needs of British Columbians. The short-term gains that communities are receiving for short-term projects and short-term jobs need to be seen as that.

There may be situations wh ere there is a desperate need that has been created by successive governments in not addressing issues of the past, which put people in positions of being acceptin g of changes that occur in their communities. We know that we need to be forward-thinking and progressive in our energy policy. Yet at the same time, we also need to be able to manage that energy policy. Bills like Bill 15 just chip, erode and melt away those structures and those firm foundations that we've put into legislation for decades.

The people that were here before enshrined certain regulations and regimes that we have seen to work for the needs of the people then and the needs of the people now. [1115] This is, I think, a sad commentary, that it is not understood by as many people as it needs to be, unfor- tunately. I think that the interest and knowledge is growing with the Pitt River controversy. Suddenly people were looking around and saying: "What's going on there?

What was going on there?" We were about to agree to something that would have been contrary to what we believe in British Columbia as the more important value — the values of the natural resource protection in that place. We put covenants on our land to protect it, not to be overturned a few years later by private interests with a lot of money. That's not why we protect parks. We protect parks for the futu re, not just temporarily so that the next person who wants to get a lot of money out of it can come along and do so from scratch. That's not why we protect parks.

We protect parks, and we need to be more conscious of doing that kind of thing. Now, I'm a bit troubled by the fact that so much interest was generated at the Pitt River situation, because there are hundreds of those all across the province that need public scrutiny. The particular example that recently occurred was a wonderful expression of public will. I would like to do my part as a member of the Legislative Assembly to inform the public that this is also something that is happening in various degrees, in various stages, all throughout the province.

Private industry is going to be taking over the stewardship, ownership and use of our water for their benefit, at our cost, in the future — not just now but in the future as well. It's a complicated subject. I understand that. What makes it even more complicated is that it's been done in increments. It's been do ne in such a way that we haven't realized the impact of it until maybe it's too late. But if I'm standing here, I have to say it's not too late for me to say that I believe this is wrong-headed policy. I believe that it keeps us going down in the wrong direction because of people who believe so

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10865 strongly that the unfettered free market will always do right. In this case we have known as British Columbians, as Canadians, that this is green energy. Make it Canadian green energy. Make it British Columbian green energy, not foreign corporations' or private interests' green. It should be the green of our province. I don't quite know how it is that representatives…. All 79 members of the Legislative Assembly should be hearing from our communities or representing what we know to be the interest of British Columbians.

We don't need to hear from every single constituent, because there's a certain trust put in us that we will guard their public interest. There's some cynicism. It's not all cynicism. There are a lot of people who vote and say: "I put my trust in your judgment to consider the policies that are put before you in the Legislative Assembly. Use your judgment." My judgment is on behalf of them, whether they're paying attention right now or not.

They paid attention in the Pitt River scandal, and they are going to have to pay attention and help me along the way as we try and maintain the ownership that we have had for generations over our resources so that we can steward them, so that we can benefit from them and so that we can set a public policy agenda that meets our values as British Columbians, as Canadians. This is something that all British Columbians, I believe, are going to feel with passion when they realize that, in fact, it is what we own that is being sold to private interests.

So not just for now but for the future, I think this kind of policy that chips away at our ability to benefit is just bad legislation. It should not be proceeding down that ill-advised path. I think that what British Columbians will recognize, I hope, from this debate is that public policy is set here. Public policy is sometimes set in regulations, sometimes in legislation, and sometimes the two go together.

In this particular case the public policy was set by government using illusory concepts to make it sound good in a way described yesterday as somewhat Orwellian — that good was bad, and war was peace. [1120] I think we need to recognize that we all want to make sure that we have a sustainable plan. When it's not a sustainable plan but ca lled a sustainable plan, we all suffer. With respect to the need to maintain our authority, our control over our own rivers, I find that there's a contradiction between the public interest and the public policy that's being put before us.

When I think about the first nations and the Sunshine Coast and Powell River area, there are hundreds of applications for private diversion river plans. They are in positions where they are going to have to assess each one of those applications without having been provided with the necessary re- sources to be able to do the job even sometimes to their own satisfaction. They understand that there are cumulative impacts of these projects. Who is looking carefully at the cumulative impact that these independent power companies have? We have each project asse ssed individually. What we don't want to try and picture….

I've heard a chief of a first nation say, "We expect spiderwebs over our territory" — the transmission lines that aren't being contemplated, the hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines that need to be built. The cumulative impact of this policy is not being considered and can't be considered by this government under these regulations, under this legislation. When that's not even considered or factored in, I think the public interest is not being properly served.

We need to make sure that the decisions that are made in our communities and in our regions are not made out of desperation or out of a need to deal with current crises that this government is not able to deal with now. If you contemplate the fact that we get revenue from our previous policies that kept British Columbia, throu gh B.C . Hy dro, as owners…. If y ou were able to generate revenue from that, you can provide services to our communities that allow our communities to function and allow our communities and our infra- structure to be maintained — our hospitals. That is how we do this.

When we reduce our ability to benefit as British Columbians…. It's not just the fact that we shouldn't be selling our rivers. It's the fact that we should be benefiting from them when they are used as power-generating facilities or have power-generation capacity. We should be using that for our own benefit. We should be using that to make up for the gaps that have been created due to restrictions that government has placed on spending for social services and for programs that are needed in our community. We see the need. There's no denial that we have a crisis in homelessness.

We're the worst in the country when it comes to child poverty. We need to make sure that if we have the capacity as British Columbians to generate revenue in a way that is sustainable to pay for those programs, one would think that that would be the way to do it. It's not going to happen, simply because we're giving away rights to rivers to pr ivate companies. G.E. is a major shareholder. Their public interest does not include towns and communities and villages and cities across British Columbia. Their interest is simply in profit.

What we benefit from when we have the interest in that particular resource is that we have our own interests. We can protect our own interests. We can support and strengthen and shore up the services which we have been promoting and providing for our communities for generation after generation. [1125] That is essentially what is at stake here with Bill 15. Bill 15 is just another way of shoring up their flawed energy plan. Unfortunately, it takes away the breadth of decision-making ability from the Utilities Commission. That's supposed to be an independent body.

When you reduce the rules that they operate under, it loses its independence. It's not about whether they can make a decision on their own. Yeah, they can make decisions,

10866 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 but you just take away their options, and suddenly, there's a little bit of external interference that, I would say, brings into question how much authority they really would have. So that's an issue that, I think, we need to discuss at some point. Perhaps we'll have that opportunity in greater length. I hope, at that point, that the minister responsible will be able to address those issues.

I'm not so confident that he's going to be able to address the overall ill-advised plans that really just allow British Columbians to lose all ownership and jurisdiction over our own resources. I mean, you see patterns emerging here with our giveaway of forest lands, and this is another example of that. It reduces our ability to provide services to our communities. It reduces our ability to say that we can steward the land according to our own standards. We'll be left to the unfortunate whims of those wh o don't have an interest in our concerns. So I find that troubling. I find that problematic.

I think the legislation is yet another stealthy way of promoting the privatizatio n of agenda, and I don't know how anyone can see it in another way. Some people say, though, that in a way it's a good thing, and I strongly disagree. I think it's a bad idea for British Columbians, and I think that anyone who understands the values of Canadians and British Columbians knows that we do try to steward our wealth in a way that we can benefit and that we can be in a good position to help others benefit. I think that's sometimes lost in this whole thing.

It's like it's about being the best place on earth but not at the exclusion of trying to help others. I think that the arrogance that's often shown by this government — this cabinet, in particular — that promotes this idea of it's all for us, and when it's us, it's them…. I'm not part of that us. I think most British Columbia ns will feel that they're not going to benefit when they know that their own resource is going to the friends of government.

I don't think that they're going to lo ok at their leadership and say: "Well, why did you sell our rivers when we could have kept them and paid for our own services?" They'll say: "Because our friends helped us get elected, and we can sit back in our chairs in the Legislature and yawn and pretend to be disinterested." That will be our legacy for British Columbians. People who are unable to see beyond the election cycle will do what they can to make sure that British Columbians are separated from their wealth.

It does nobody any good to try and belittle this debate or demean it as something less important than it really is. It is a debate about how much we're allowing our future to be rented out now, just to be sold a few years down the line. You know, we're renting it now. We still own it now, but we're renting it now. But in 30 years, we won't. It's rent to own. They've got their hands in, and they're going to get their hands in deeper. It's like, when thei r hands are in, there's no room for ours. And when th ere's no more room for ours, we've got no control. I find that troubling.

I find that troubling because it doesn't reflect the values of the people that I represent, in large part. It doesn't represent the interests of our future generations, who I al so represent. I think, on that basis alone, we should say that this government's plan should fail. D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 15 and in opposi- tion to its passing. I note the title, Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act. I think that it would be more properly intituled: Bill 15, the B.C. Liberal private river diversion act, because that's exactly what this is. It's continuing a campaign of the B.C.

Liberal privatization of the commonwealth of British Columbia. [1130] This act removes the ability of B.C. Hydro to generate new power. This act is built on the B.C. Liberal myth that self-sufficiency cannot be attained through B.C. Hydro. This act is built on the myth and the ignorance of the fact that our B.C. Hydro, as it stands today, is a great source of wealth in revenue to this province and a great source of sovereignty determination. It's ours. My daughter, only 20 years old, will vote for less.

She comes to voting age at a time when her vote has been fractioned, diminished and reduced by the campaign of privatization of this B.C. Liberal government. We have a great system with B.C. Hydro, or at least we had. I don't know if the viewers out there, the audience, the people of B.C. realize it, but what we do in B.C. is let the lakes, the reservoirs behind those da ms, fill up, fill up all night long, when power is at its lowest price. During that time, yes, we import power at a very low price.

Then after those rese rvoirs have filled up all night long or during the rainy season, we open up those dams and we generate more electricity when power is at its peak price. That is a good use of market forces in the interests of British Columbians. This bill is an intervention into that free market mechanism that has benefited British Columbians for generations. Every year this province makes a half- billion-dollar profit selling power at its highest price and buying power at its lowest price. That is a good deal for the people of British Columbia. But this gov- ernment, the B.C.

Liberal government, steps in and changes all that in the in terests of those who have backed them. They create, through public policy, an artificial gold rush on our rivers. They intervene in a marketplace in a desperate attempt to prop up a phony gold rush on our rivers. The myth is built on more than just this self- sufficiency piece. It's built on this supposed green run- of-the-river presumption. All German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds.

It may very well be that there are benign and beneficial run-of-the-river projects that could be brought forward to the benefit of British Columbians — and would be much more to their benefi t should they be brought forward by B.C. Hydro in the public interest. But instead, all is good in the B.C. Liberal universe. All is good; it's okay. Everyone is green; ever yone is good. Just pick one. It's an auction. Stake a claim.

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10867 All you have to do is click your way through an Internet site and you can own a river in B.C. Is that the legacy we've been sent here to steward and marshal and defend? Is that the legacy that my daughter of 20 should inherit — with her first vote so liquidated and so fractioned by these measures: the loss of B.C. Rail, the privatization of B.C. Hydro and the loss of public control over our forests? It's a pattern, and this is another piece of that pattern. This is another piece of a pattern that sees the B.C.

Liberal government in the most arrogant way, in the most conceited way, appoint themselves the generation which will oversee the liquidation of the common wealth of British Columbia built up over generations. Those rivers that have flowed for millions of years now will be diverted through pipes into turbines. If the B.C. Liberals have their way, there will be transmission lines running through sensitive areas an d access roads punched through parks. That's the future. What we have is a former Socred member now sitting as the B.C. Liberal Minister of Energy — the member for Peace River North.

And the green paint flakes off his government and him in the heat of the exposure to the truth of this matter. [1135] The B.C. Liberal history of denial of these issues shows through that flaking green paint. We remember that they were the ones who abolished the Environment M i n i s t r y w h e n t h e y c a m e t o p o w e r . W e r e m e m b e r them denying climate chan ge. We remember them abusing the forests of this province by reducing standards to points that haven't been seen in my life- time. That's the legacy of this government to the people of B.C. and my daughter. It is one of dilution.

It is one of dissolved futures, dissolved value, liquidated assets. It's a Ritchie Bros. auctioneering paradise, this B.C. Liberal approach to British Columbia's management. They have abused the birthright of this province. They have broken the social contract between us and our resources, and they have embarked on an auction of that value with their friends getting first viewing and first dibs. Why would the B.C. Liberals…? Interjection. D. Routley: Oh, yes. "Socialism," the member for Peace River North, the former Socred, says, "is…." The definition of that, for these members, is public interest.

Things like public education, public health, public oversight over tree farm licences, public ownership of rivers, public ownership of Crown lands and Crown forests. That's all somehow to this government a little too Red for them. But the B.C. Liberals have to be asked a question. Why would the B.C. Liberals sell our rivers? Why would the B.C. Liberals give away our jobs in the form of raw logs, exacting the fewest jobs per cubic metre of any developed nation? Why would that be done? Why would they break promises and sell B.C. Rail? Why would they sell our B.C. Ferry Corp. and see our rates…?

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I remind you that the topic of this bill is the B.C. Utilities Commission. Please stay on track. D. Routley: Madam Speaker, it's one more piece in the pattern of the questions that I'm asking. Why would they let our ferry fares soar over 100 percent in a privatizatio n scheme? Why would they break our forest industry? Because they have opened the door of the common wealth treasury to their friends and supporters. This bill represents anot her piece in the big B.C. Liberal giveaway, and this is the big B.C. Liberal payoff to those who have backed them. This is payback time.

It represents the conceit of public policy directed against the people. We come here, and we possess the trust of the people to use the tools of democracy to defend their interests and to defend the public interests of British Columbia. But instead, this B.C. Liberal government has system- atically and in a patterned way turned the tools of government and public policy against the people of B.C. You can use a hammer to build a house or you can use a hammer to tear it down. The B.C.

Liberals, by privatizing the common wealth of this province, are using that hammer to tear down that house that was built over generations in British Columbia which stands on a foundation of common wealth. What about the concept of public wealth? What a notion — that public services and institutions represent a wealth that we all possess, that this House belongs to my constituents and that this House should have a role in determining the future of British Columbia. What about this notion of public wealth?

What about the notion that these rivers should remain public, should remain in public service, not serving the profit-making interests of corporations that paid for the election of the B.C. Liberal party? What about that? It's a very sad day, because the B.C. Liberals are building debt as they sell off our assets. The B.C.

Liberals are transferring that common wealth at the same time that they take on debt in the name of my daughter. [1140] It's unfortunate that the government that had the two record deficits in the history of this province and that continues to build the debt at a rate of 5.2 percent — more than double the rate of inflation — can do nothing but further auction off the wealth of this province, selling off the stock of the store to pay the rent. You're not doing anything for the future. You're running on the credit card of my daughter. This government is liquidating her future.

I guess I grew up with a fa irly naive notion that the wealth of this province and the resources of this province would serve us. I sort of believe, as many of my con- stituents believe, that in fact the splendour and wealth of B.C. and its resources would serve us. But this government, through their policies like this one — privatizing rivers, giving away resources, giving away raw logs and our jobs…. It's a pattern, and it adds up to loss for British Columbians. It adds up to a

10868 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 loss of future wealth, and it adds up to a loss of future choice and determination. There is a conflict between the word and deed of the B.C. Liberals. There is an arrogance to their action and a conceit to their policy. It's an auctioning of the future, and it's a dilution of common wealth. We see all around us those things that were supported by that wealth — our schools and our hospitals — being closed, downgraded and diluted, because these former Socreds have abandoned the no tion that B.C. ought to work for us.

They've signed on to agreem ents that have guaranteed that things like our value-added industries in the forest industry are given away as well — just like this — so that, in the future when we ask the question, "Why Ikea? Why not 'BCea'?" there won't be an answer, because the resources won't be ours anymore. We won't be able to make the choices. Instead, we see this liquidation. Instead, we see a government prepare to give up…. Instead, we see a government prepared to secure its own future by trading off the future of British Columbia. This bill removes the power, the option of B.C. Hydro generating new power.

This bill moves our public utility to being a private purchaser of power. This bill guarantees that we will be obligated to buy power for 30 years at many times the market rate. It is a market intervention. It is a market intervention meant to prop up a false gold rush planted in the rivers of British Columbia by this government. Go ahead. People of B.C., go ahead. Go to their website. Click your way through. Buy a river. Bu y the rights to the water. Buy the future of British Columbia. These guys, these people — the B.C. Liberal gov- ernment — will guarantee your profit.

These free mar- keteers will guarantee the profit of their supporters. That is what this bill empowers. It empowers the scheme to liquidate public control over our rivers. If there are green run of th e river…. Just as I said: all German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds. This government just opened the map wide open, and we see the result. What will it take if you're wrong, Minister? What would it take for us to backtrack once these steps are taken — if they're wrong? [1145] Ideology of no sort should be applied as purely and as determinedly as this government has done.

They have insisted, whether it make s sense or not, that there will be privatization. It makes great sense to buy your car yourself, but it doesn't make much sense to buy the road yourself. This province has always benefited by a balance between public and private, but this government doesn't like that. They've pu t their thumb on the scale of that balance. They've said : "No, public is bad. There should be no public wealth." Public wealth is a concept that is toxic to the B.C. Liberal government.

Instead, that notion of public w e a l t h m u s t be s t a m p e d o u t , m u s t b e l i q u i d a t e d , a n d that liquidation must benefit their supporters. It's clear. Go look at the list of their supporters. Go look at the list. The largest donors benefit from their privatization of TFL controls. Their biggest donors benefit from this bill. Those are the people being paid off. Those are the people this government is working for — not for the people of B.C., not for my daughter, not for the future that would include her and would give her a say over the management of these resources.

That is alien to the ideology of the B.C. Liberals, so it will be stopped. Again, the green paint flakes off in the heat of exposure to the truth, when we look at the history and the pattern. We look at the promises: "We won't privatize B.C. Rail." What did they do? They privatized B.C. Rail and now our rivers. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Can anyone in B.C. imagin e a deeper attack on that common wealth? Can anyone imagine a deeper and more significant attack on the self-determination and the future benefit of British Columbians?

I hope not, because this government would definitely employ whatever idea would take them further down that path. We have already seen the loss of so much that is supported by the resources that this government is giving away, from rivers to forests to water. We see the loss of our schools. We see the privatization of public property throughout this pr ovince. We see the sale of the future. We see the sale of the future in misguided public policy, and all of thos e elements that used to be supported by these services and these resources are going. We are losing our schools; we are losing our hospitals.

Our highways are in disrepair. Why? Because a priority of this government — as they reward oil companies and gas companies and claim to be green — is to sell off our resources, auction off our rivers and reward their friends. More and more of the future of British Columbia is liquidated. Caught in that conflict between word and deed, of B.C.

Liberal promise versus action, British Columbians can only wonder what it will take to bring sense to this g o v e r n m e n t a n d h a v e t h e m s t e p b a c k f r o m t h i s p l a n , which would see us auction off our choice and would see my daughter and future generations of British Columbians lose their oversight, lose the power of their vote and lose their input into the management of the resources of this great province. It's an outcome that none of us should be able to live with. We have seen the true colour as that green paint is flaked off.

We have been reminded of the denial of climate change by policies like this. We have been reminded of the abolition of the Environment Ministry, one of the first acts of this B.C. Liberal government. [1150] Now with an environmental label applied over the bumper of the same old Socred car, we see the further dilution and auctioning of our province. It doesn't matter at what cost.

We'll pay many times the market rate for electricity in order to achieve this goal, in order to seed this artificial gold rush, in order to seed the mine for their friends who need to do nothing more than jump onto a website and click their way through to guaranteed

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10869 profits off the backs of my daughter and future generations and through the abuse and sa le of our rivers and our choice. When this bill further guar antees the implementation o f p o l i c i e s t h a t h a v e c o n sistently shown a pattern of being against the public interest, then British Columbians shake their heads in wonderment at how a government that claims this green exterior can have such an unfor- tunate interior that is in complete contradiction to all of the words, all of the lofty words. You can't just say it in a throne speech.

You have to do it. You have to show through public policy that these things matter. You can't, on the one hand, claim to be environmental and then engineer this gold rush on B.C.'s resources. You can't do that any more than you can claim to be a carbon-cutting government that cuts neighbourhood schools and forces us to drive our children to schools outside their neighbourhoods at the same time you cut their transportation. Somehow, words need to equal actions. Somehow, words need to equal deeds. Somehow, we need to be accountable to the people of B.C.

The vacant words ring hollow to the people of the Pitt River area. They saw the truth that indeed not all dogs are German shepherd s, and they stopped the government's plans. There is a way to stop these plans. It's called political action, and it works. W e o n t h i s s i d e o p p o s e t h i s b i l l . W e o p p o s e t h e run-of-the-river gold rush engineered by B.C. Liberal policy. We beg the government to finally see the light, that there is value in defending the common wealth for all of us, and that there is value in restoring the power of my daughter's vote.

If they did see that, they would withdraw this bill and retreat from this plan to privatize the resources of this province to guarantee th e profit to their friends. They would return some choice and power to my daughter and future generati ons by reinvesting in the common wealth. Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, and noting the time. B. Lekstrom: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 15. I take a great deal of pride in making sure that I go through each and every piece of legislation that is presented in this House, and I listen with great interest to both sides.

I listened to the opposition speak about this bill, and I thought I'd actually read the wrong bill, so I had to double-check. I kept hearing about IPPs, a bill that wasn't in the public interest, and that the world was possibly going to come to an end should this go through. But I want to point out something. This bill, I heard, was against the public interest. I do note the hour, Mr. Speaker. This bill, if you think it is against the public interest…. The opposition is saying that they are against…. I w a n t t o r e a d j u s t a c o u p l e o f l i n e s h e r e .

T h e " ' g o v e r n - ment's energy objectives' means the following objec- tives of the government" — and, really, what that is, is for British Columbia: "(

a) to encourage public utilities to reduce green- house gas emissions" — you're opposed to that — "(

b) to encourage public utilities to take demand-side measures" — a pretty good thing — "(

c) to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources." Those are good things. If that is against the public interest, I would be somewhat scared to see what was in the public interest, in their eyes. [1155] "…(

e) to encourage public utilities to use innovative energy technologies (

i) that facilitate electricity self- sufficiency, or the fulfillment of their long-term transmission requirements" — another good one; also — " or (ii) that support energy conservation or efficiency or the use of clean or renewable sources of energy." That's what this bill is ab out. It's about the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, not about the B.C. Hydro Act, not about the independent power producer's act, but the Utilities Commission Act. I do have much more to say, but noting the hour, I would like to reserve my right to continue to speak and move adjournment of debate. B.

Lekstrom moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 43: ministry operations, $970,553,000 (continued). G.

Coons: Just to confirm what's going on today, we brought in some people to answer some questions

10870 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 from a few members, and then we're going to work with ferries for the morning and probably go till about four to 4:30. Then that should be it — okay? R. Fleming: I just want to say welcome to the staff from B.C. Transit who have b een able to join us this morning.

I wanted to focus some questions to the minister on the proposed Douglas St reet busway corridor, the RapidBus project that was a component of the provincial transit plan announcement in January and has a history, I think, a little longer than that in the community in Victoria, at least in a draft stage. [1010] I guess just to begin some of the questions this morning, I wanted to ask the minister about the feasibility study that was conducted for this project and whether, in addition to the technical feasibility study, there has b e e n a b u s i n e s s c a s e a l s o d o n e f o r t h i s p r o j e c t .

C o u l d the minister describe whether the busway was consid- ered in comparative terms to other transit options along that corridor. Hon. K. Falcon: Member, just before I get to the answer, I want to have an opportunity to introduce the staff that joined me today. My assistant deputy minis- ter, Sheila Taylor, and my deputy minister, John Dyble, are joining me today. I've also got several repr esentatives from B.C. Tran- sit joining me here today. I want to first of all take this opportunity, for the first time, to introduce the new CEO of B.C. Transit, Manuel Achadinha.

And of course, the two very hard-working VPs of B.C. Transit, who have been workhorses in getting some exceptional work done at B.C. Transit, Ron Drolet and Tony Sharp, are also with me, for the benefit of the member oppo- site. The member is talking about the Douglas corridor, the three-kilometre

section where the Victoria transit commission is working in cooperation with the city of Victoria and B.C. Transit to create a busway through that corridor. As I said to the member, we're in the early stages of working with them in this project. There will be a business case developed for the en- tire RapidBus proposal that was announced by the Premier and myself two months ago.

Of course, that was only two months ago, but what it did do was set out a budget of $1.2 billion for nine RapidBus routes, one of which will of course be the Victoria RapidBus, which, for the benefit of th e viewers out there, will connect the regions of the Western Communities into the downtown core, right into the peninsula, with a line also going out to the University of Victoria. [1015] Now, the city of Victoria deserves an enormous amount of credit, and so do es the CRD, because they have been working for quite some time on a transit strategy.

As the member opposite would know, the CRD has a regional transportation strategy for the region. The city of Victoria has been working on their own to make sure that they do their bit to create a busway through the three-kilometre

section of the Douglas corridor, and of course, B.C. Transit has been working actively with them. I want to take my hat off and recognize the work that's been done by the tr ansit commission and by the city of Victoria. They are showing great leadership in this regard, and I want to recognize and applaud the efforts. They have also, in cooper ation with B.C.

Transit, invested significant dollars, about $3 million, to make sure that they've got the signalization along that corridor which will work and allow the RapidBus to proceed — the kind of signalization platform that will allow the buses, of course, to change the lights as they're going through, etc. So there's b een a tremendous amount of leadership by the city of Victoria, and we think that that is very important to recognize. Although we're in the very early stages of working on the business case, because of course the entire route is 57 kilometres…. This is a three-kilometre section.

Fortunately, the city, throug h their own leadership, in cooperation with the transit commission, has been making a lot of efforts to start to lay out what it will look like through the downtown core, how this rapid busway will work through the downtown core. One thing I can tell the member — and for the benefit of some of the folks out there, particularly small business that may have some legitimate concerns — is that anytime you talk about change, there's going to be uncertainty around that.

One thing I can really, I think, say to the folks out there that will give some comfort is that this is not a new experiment. There are dozens of examples of RapidBus corri- dors and busway corridors through cities throughout the world, and the evidence in any of those communities t h a t y o u w a n t t o l o o k a t t h a t h a v e g o n e t h i s r o u t e i s that they have been very favourably received and have had favourable results for the commercial interests along those street busways. So I guess the answer is that this is an initiative that the city of Victoria has led.

They deserve a lot of credit for that. We are working with them on that, and we will be doing more work as we develop a business case for the entire RapidBus corridor — the 57 kilometres from the Western Communities righ t down to the peninsula and, of course, out to the university. R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the business case for the commitment he just outlined, the plan as he just outlined and the parameters. There has been a lot of discussion in the Greater Victoria community before pursuing this project, which….

The city engineering depart ments of the various mu- nicipalities — Victoria, Saanich and others that would potentially be in the plan — have not contemplated where it applies to them. But before they would commit to this option, the question and the discussion in this community has been around looking at other options, whether it's more conventional HOV lanes along the Douglas corridor and other places that would be bus priority lanes and that would be in connection with the queue jumpers

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10871 that have been installed along the Douglas corridor, or whether it's a rail-based system in Victoria. The minister's response through the media and other sources, through letters to the Capital Region, has b e e n t o i n s i s t a t a l l t i m e s t h a t h e ' s o p e n t o L R T a n d other options, but that in advance of serious consideration, he would need to see a business case developed. I think that has been put to the CRD and other bodies to develop that. That's fair enough.

But what I want to understand is whether the same business case has been insisted upon and, indeed, conducted for the RapidBus system that is proposed on the Douglas corridor today. [1020] Hon. K. Falcon: As I said to the member, it was just over two months ago that the Premier and I announced the $14 billion provincial transit plan, the most ambitious transit expansion ever in the history of the province of British Columbia by a long shot. As part of that plan we put asid

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0403am 06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0403am 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	382f0efe1ba9da62dd944cd79481b3c996be2c23

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