2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Cave Protection Act, 2010

S. Fraser

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Shades of Fun Day and eye health awareness

D. Black

Riverside College in Mission

M. Dalton

Role of honeybees in agriculture

L. Popham

Indo-Canadian Business Association student achievement awards

D. Hayer

Role of forest industry in Fraser-Nicola area

H. Lali

Technology industry in Okanagan area

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Harmonized sales tax and initiative petition

B. Ralston

Hon. G. Campbell

D. Black

Impact of harmonized sales tax on smoking cessation products

J. Brar

Hon. C. Hansen

A. Dix

Government response to oil leak at Chevron refinery in Burnaby

R. Fleming

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Simpson

Importation of bees and beekeeping equipment to Vancouver Island

L. Popham

Hon. S. Thomson

Government action on forest fire preparedness

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

Forest fire planning for First Nations communities

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment, annual service plan report, 2009

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Finance and Government Services Committee

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010 (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act (continued)

Hon. J. Yap

N. Macdonald

Hon. R. Hawes

M. Karagianis

Hon. P. Bell

G. Gentner

J. Rustad

D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Black

V. Huntington

N. Macdonald

M. Mungall

S. Fraser

[ Page 5877 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Yap: I have two sets of introductions to make. First of all, visiting from White Rock and still very active in the Richmond community, longtime residents of Richmond, dear old friends Wally and Kay Philips.

Wally is well known in Richmond for his volunteer work previously, as president of the chamber of commerce, president of Rotary Club and active with Gideons International as well as other great causes. Would the House please join me in welcoming Wally and Kay Philips.

I also would like to introduce 35 students who are grade 11 students from my favourite school, Robert A. McMath Secondary School, the school which my two children graduated from recently. They're here today, these grade 11 students and five adults, with teacher Angela Sommerfeld to observe firsthand how Westminster-style parliamentary democracy works and to be here for question period. So would the House please offer another warm welcome to these great students.

L. Popham: When I'm out meeting new people and telling them a little bit about myself, I often mention that I have a still in my back yard, and more times than you would guess, people lower their voices, and they say: "Oh, I know. So do I."

But I'd like to introduce Bryan Murray, the owner of Victoria Spirits, a company that makes its home in my back yard. Victoria Spirits is renowned for its sophisticated products, including the much-sought-after Victoria Gin, a gin that has been referenced as a scotch-lover's gin because you can enjoy it neat.

Speaking of scotch, Bryan Murray has a few kegs of whiskey on the go and has also recently introduced the new hemp vodka into the mix. But Bryan Murray and Victoria Spirits have another product in their lineup that I think the members on the other side of the House will appreciate. Victoria Spirits is also making bitters.

Hon. G. Campbell: Now let me tell you about Diet Coke. [Laughter.]

I am very pleased today that we have, joining us in the House, members of the Four Host Nations and the Four Host Nations executive for the Four Host Nations group that actually did such an exceptional job of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games here. For the first time in Olympic history, an aboriginal nation was part of hosting an Olympics.

Tewanee Joseph, the chief executive officer of the Four Host Nations; his wife, Rianne Joseph; Squamish Nation Chief and exceptional leader Gibby Jacob; Squamish Nation Chief Ian Campbell; Squamish Nation Chief Bill Williams; Squamish Nation Coun. Julie Baker; and Bruce Dumont, the president of the Métis Nation of British Columbia join us today.

I know that Chief Leonard Andrew of the Lil'wat was not able to attend, Justin George was not able to attend from the Tsleil-Waututh, and Ernie Campbell was not able to attend from the Musqueam.

Hon. Speaker, I hope we will make all of these exceptional aboriginal leaders welcome to the Legislature and the House with a big thank-you for all they did for the province of British Columbia and Canada.

S. Fraser: Joining us in the gallery today is Paul Griffiths. Paul is a cave and karst scientist and resource management specialist of many years with extensive worldwide experience. Paul started documenting caves and cave systems in B.C. back in the '60s. He also served as president of the B.C. Speleological Federation and its predecessor group from 1970 to 1998, nearly three decades underground. Paul is here to witness and put his support to a private member's bill I'll be introducing today. Would you please all make him feel very, very welcome.

D. McRae: I have three guests in the Legislature today. I have James Youngren, Jim Malick and Brian McMahon visiting us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: I see that we have in the gallery today a good friend of mine, Temmo Sokinan. He and his wife Cathy Sainty are over. Cathy is working for a few days, and Temmo is enjoying himself. I hope the House will make him feel very welcome.

[1340]

L. Reid: In concert with my dear colleagues from Richmond Centre and Richmond-Steveston, we are hosting today the trustees of the board of education of Richmond. We have Linda McPhail as the board chair, Debbie Tablotney, Carol Day and Donna Sargent. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

S. Simpson: Please make welcome today in the gallery a local community activist here in the Victoria area and a cancer survivor, Val John. Val grew up on Saltspring Island, where she learned the values that she's now teaching to her eight-year-old son. Val stays very active in the community and is currently living in the constituency of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, where she's working hard on the HST initiative. Please make her welcome.

[ Page 5878 ]

M. Dalton: In the gallery today we have Fraser and Lynn Cocks. They're good friends of mine from Maple Ridge. They're attending the CRAC conference in Victoria. That's an interesting acronym for the Crane Rental Association of Canada. Fraser has spearheaded the apprenticeship and credentialing program for British Columbia's 15,000 crane operators with the B.C. Association for Crane Safety and WorkSafe B.C. He's worked tirelessly on this program. Would the Legislature please make them feel welcome.

J. Brar: I am pleased to welcome Sharon Sall. She's a school counsellor. She has a master's in leadership and clinical counselling. She has been in the education system for 12 years teaching ESL and learning assistance and, for the last four years, has been counselling in a secondary school. Sharon has two young elementary school children. She is here today to meet with the MLAs. I request the members from both sides to please make her welcome.

S. Cadieux: The cameras in Chilliwack will being flashing brightly this weekend. I'd like to announce the arrival of a new constituent for the Minister of Environment. Gabrielle Hope Kehler has arrived, my new niece.

B. Ralston: I'd like the House to welcome Ren Morley. He's worked as a teacher in both the secondary system and the elementary system since 1982, 16 years as a classroom teacher, and for the last 11 years has worked as a counsellor in Surrey for children in kindergarten to grade 7. He completed a master's degree in counselling psychology at UBC in 1998. He's here to talk to members of the Legislature about the importance of counselling at the elementary school and secondary school level.

Hon. M. de Jong: The office of the Sergeant-at-Arms does many things beyond simply guarding the mace. One of those individuals, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Insp. Randy Ennis, has quite a storied past. He was a member of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, which of course meant he voluntarily jumped out of airplanes that were in good working order.

He's a former military policeman, a Canadian peacekeeper. He saw duty in Bosnia, Cyprus and Haiti. He is the recipient of the Order of Military Merit.

He is licking his wounds this week after seeing the departure of his beloved Montreal Canadiens from the playoffs, but these days he primarily devotes himself to ensuring the security of these precincts and those who work and occupy them.

Most importantly, today he reaches a half-century on this planet. He is 50 years of age, and we all want to wish Insp. Randy Ennis a happy 50th birthday.

D. Donaldson: Joining us today in the gallery as an official guest are legislative intern Lindsay Walton and her partner Pete Crockford. I wanted to say thank you to Lindsay for coming to Stikine as part of her constituency experience. I hope she had a good time, and I'd like the House to welcome them to the gallery today.

[1345]

D. Hayer: I am pleased to introduce four very special guests and friends who are in the House today, actually right now: my constituents Gary Brar, a student from Simon Fraser University; his sister Sunny Brar, a student from Fraser Heights Secondary School; and their mom Khushwinder Kaur Brar, who is the wife of my good friend Surjit Jim Brar.

They are joined by very a special guest from India, Mrs. Daljit Kaur Sidhu, who is the wife of Ruby Sidhu, DSP, deputy superintendent of Punjab police in India. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: I have a couple of introductions today. First, part of the delegation that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley and Fleetwood introduced earlier. Judy Jardine is a school counsellor in the elementary schools in Surrey school district 36. She has also worked as a high school teacher, a family therapist with ACT II and is a private therapist as an associate with a local psychologist. They are here to educate us about the need for the counsellors, the cutbacks in that area in the school district and the effect on our children. Please help me welcome Judy here.

I also realize, and I was advised last night, that the member for Fraser-Nicola is the longest-serving Indo-Canadian member in this House as of today. He just passed, by one day, the previous record held by our beloved Moe Sihota. I personally think it is a good thing, but every member can make their own judgment about this one.

J. Horgan: If there's one person with a larger smile on their face than the member for Fraser-Nicola these days, it's our own Legislative Assembly training officer, Noel Stone, who has the good fortune to be here in the Legislature today with his son Adam, who just recently returned from Kandahar where he was, at 19 years of age, the youngest serving member of the Canadian Scottish Regiment reservists. His family are delighted that he's back. I would welcome the members of the Legislature to welcome Adam Stone back from Afghanistan safe and sound.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Cave Protection act, 2010

S. Fraser presented a bill intituled Cave Protection Act, 2010.

[ Page 5879 ]

S. Fraser: I move introduction of the Cave Protection Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

S. Fraser: British Columbia is one of the most ecologically diverse regions of Canada. An important contributor to this diversity is its well over 1,000 documented caves. The caves of B.C. have been recognized worldwide for their pristine character and wealth of natural and cultural resource values. There are probably more caves documented in British Columbia than in any other Canadian province or territory, and many more will likely be documented in the coming years.

Caves are universally recognized as being amongst the most fragile and vulnerable of our ecosystems. They can be subject to human-caused disturbances occurring directly above them or sometimes taking place a considerable distance away from them. Numerous caves in B.C. have already been damaged through ill-planned land use and resource development. Because they often lack the types of natural restorative processes that occur on the surface, cave environments can easily be overwhelmed by human-caused disturbances.

Given B.C.'s rich and valuable cave heritage, one might expect that B.C. would protect caves at all levels of government. The truth is that except for caves in parks and ecological reserves and in a few other specifically designated land areas, B.C. has no real means to protect caves on Crown lands or private property.

B.C. currently offers far less comprehensive protection than is available for caves in many other jurisdictions. It is time for British Columbia to follow international example, and this bill is being introduced as a non-partisan means to do just that.

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

[1350]

Bill M206, Cave Protection Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SHADES OF FUN DAY AND

EYE HEALTH AWARENESS

D. Black: I rise today to remind the members in this House and British Columbians that today has been designated the first ever Shades of Fun Day by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The purpose of Shades of Fun Day is to remind everyone to wear sunglasses and to take a vision risk assessment test.

We may not think of wearing sunglasses given the dreary weather we're currently experiencing, but it's important to remember year-round that UV rays from the sun can harm our eyes. Sun damage is a proven risk factor for cataracts and for age-related macular degeneration, which is the leading cause of vision loss in Canada. Over one million people in Canada are currently diagnosed with AMD.

Wearing sunglasses with UV protection can significantly reduce the risk of cataracts and of age-related macular degeneration. May is Vision Health Month, and the CNIB has been working hard to educate Canadians on how to look after our eyes. The statistics are quite frightening. Every 12 minutes someone in Canada begins to lose their vision — news that not only turns their life upside down but also affects their family and their friends.

More than 110,000 people in British Columbia live with significant vision loss. That figure is expected to double in the next 20 years. I hope everyone in this House will assist the CNIB by spreading their important message and by urging their constituents to have regular, thorough eye examinations.

So let's all slip on our shades. We'll not only look cool, but we'll be helping to protect our precious eyesight.

RIVERSIDE COLLEGE IN MISSION

M. Dalton: The member for Abbotsford-Mission and I recently had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of the Riverside College's new campus in Mission. The college provides alternative programs for students in grades 10 to 12 and is also a site for adult graduation. Many at-risk students have been afforded a way for educational success in a school that is flexible, individualized and structured to give students skills that can lead directly to employment.

Some $7.2 million was put towards this college that can serve up to 350 students. The school provides a combination of entry-level trades or technical training specific to students' interests. Typically, most of the training costs are covered by the Ministry of Education in order that students can avoid the expenses associated with post-secondary training.

Community support worker, professional cook, automotive technician, warehouse person, business support specialist and plumber are just a few of the programs offered at Riverside College. Mike Pesek and Dave McDonald head up a project-based program called Eco Crew. This is where high school subjects are integrated, and the students get involved in fieldwork such as bridge-building, riparian planting and minnow-trapping. The goal is to give exposure to every resource industry, including forestry, agriculture and fishing.

Peter Neufeld and Brian Phillips are a couple of other dedicated teachers. Brian told me that they try to ensure

[ Page 5880 ]

that students get what they need in a way they can handle and still meet curriculum requirements. Riverside College is another demonstration of successful educational innovations coming out of school district 75, Mission, the district where StrongStart began.

Congratulations to school board superintendent Frank Dunham, principal Sharon Kindree and all the teachers and students at this great new college.

ROLE OF HONEYBEES IN AGRICULTURE

L. Popham: May 29 has been proclaimed the Day of the Honeybee in British Columbia. Honeybees are a big part of our pollinator population and play a critical role in the production of many B.C. crops. In fact, much of B.C.'s agricultural production is dependent on honeybee pollination. Without them our food systems will fail.

Our proclamation was signed recently, and within our proclamation, the virtues of B.C. bees as well as the threats they face were brought to light:

[1355]

"Whereas the honeybee has, through its role as pollinator, been an important part of agricultural efforts since ancient times; and

whereas the honeybee plays an essential role in the success of agricultural enterprises in British Columbia; and

whereas the honeybee has been under serious threat due to disease and environmental conditions that ultimately threaten the future of agriculture in our province; and

whereas the government of British Columbia has worked with the agriculture industry to improve production and stabilize the industry; and

whereas it is in the interest of furthering that goal to raise awareness of the role of the honeybee and the plight it faces…."

In early May a 22-year-old policy restricting the importation of bees to Vancouver Island was lifted. This significant decision is of grave concern to the Vancouver Island beekeeping sector. Beekeepers are especially concerned because last winter on Vancouver Island almost 90 percent of honeybees died, largely because of the varroa mite which was introduced to Island hives when an individual contravened our Island quarantine.

I am wondering, given recent decisions, if the Day of the Honeybee will become a day of memorial for honeybees on Vancouver Island in our near future.

INDO-CANADIAN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

D. Hayer: I rise today to recognize all members of the Indo-Canadian Business Association. Along with Jolly Dhaliwal, David and Avtar Johl, Paul Lail, Rajinder Duhra, Avtar Badesha, M.S. Dhaliwal and others, I was a founding member of this organization in 1992. In 1996 the organization began recognizing our future generations by beginning the annual student achievement awards. I had the honour of attending the 14th annual 2010 award evening, in which 15 very commendable grade 12 students from high schools across Surrey were recognized for their achievements.

Today's Indo-Canadian Business Association is led by president Jolly Dhaliwal, VP Jas Janda-Wiseman, VP and past president Sonia Virk, secretary Lucky Toor, treasurer and chair of achievement awards Hardeep Gill, past president and director Terry Johal, and other directors: Harp Dhillon, Kan Sandhu, Kamini Prasad, Don Dhanoa, Rick Dhaliwal and Peter Bola.

It was an impressive evening. I know, as a former member and a former vice-chairman, that all the Indo-Canadian Business Association directors would like to thank all the award night sponsors: TD Bank Canada Trust, Royal Properties Ltd., A-Class Auto Body and Paint, Advanced Pallet and Crate, Allied Insurance, Made in India, Bride and Groom Shop, Columbia Collision Repairs, Fruiticana, G&F Financial Group, Indo-Canadian Times newspaper, Mainland Developments Ltd., World Financial Group, TD Canada Trust mobile mortgage specialists, and T&L Group Chartered Accountants LLP.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in congratulating all the student achievement award–winning youth; all the volunteers, members and directors of the Indo-Canadian Business Association; and all the sponsors for all the hard work they do to make sure our community is safe and secure and to foster and promote business progress and the economy in the province of British Columbia.

ROLE OF FOREST INDUSTRY IN

FRASER-NICOLA AREA

Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola.

[Applause.]

H. Lali: Thank you. I hope the clock is starting right now, not 15 seconds ago.

Interjections.

H. Lali: Okay, okay. Enough.

Forestry is very important to British Columbia, to Fraser-Nicola and to my….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Okay, let me start all over again.

Mr. Speaker: About half your time is gone, Member. [Laughter.]

H. Lali: Okay, the media party is over. Let's try this again, a third time.

Forestry is very important to British Columbia, to Fraser-Nicola, and to my hometown of Merritt. I came from a family, a town and a constituency all of whom are

[ Page 5881 ]

very proud of forestry heritage. I worked 11 summers in sawmills and in plywood plants and on weekends during high school to finance my education.

Every male on my side of the family and also every male on my wife's side of the family for four generations have all, at one time or another, worked in or are still working in a sawmill, planer mill, plywood plant, pulp and paper mill or out in the bush.

[1400]

My father first started working in the forest industry in Kamloops in 1957 when he first came to Canada, and then in Merritt in 1958. My dad and his brothers, their sons and my son, all my cousins' sons and all the male members on my wife's side — including her great-uncle, a relative of former NDP cabinet minister Moe Sihota — and my father and I all worked in B.C.'s forest industry.

Like dozens of other forestry workers, my brothers display signs in their front windows stating: "This family proudly supported by timber dollars." Be it a bucker, a faller, a forklift driver, a chipper man, an edger man, a planer man, a charge hand, a green-chain puller or a night watchman looking out for fires and prowlers, we've all been there and proudly done that.

The Lalis and my in-laws, the Sihotas, are all very proud of our little forestry town of Merritt and of our roots in our forest industry, for it is forestry dollars that fed us, clothed us, housed us, educated us and sent us off on the odd vacation or two. Merritt, Princeton, Nicola, Lytton, Lillooet, Ashcroft, Boston Bar, Hope and Yale are or have been at one time or another dependent on forestry jobs for their very existence.

The last ten years have not been very kind to the forestry workers in B.C., including those in Fraser-Nicola where several sawmills have closed.

In closing, I ask all members of this House to support our number one industry, forestry, and also forestry workers and forestry communities.

TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN

OKANAGAN AREA

N. Letnick: It's indeed an honour to follow someone who has such a long service to this province. Anybody who has served, I think, 15 years in this Legislature or more, I find great respect for, on either side of the House. Congratulations to the member.

I'd like to take this time today to share with you the exciting, expanding horizons of the Okanagan technology industry. The central Okanagan is the third-largest technology zone in British Columbia after Vancouver and Victoria. Now more than ever, tech-savvy companies are calling the Okanagan home. I am proud to live in what is becoming our very own silicon vineyard that draws outstanding talent from our major education facilities, like UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College.

Because of the renewed investment and support, businesses have a chance to grow with an open access to skilled labour, capital and countless other resources, not to mention the allure of the Okanagan's attractive climate and lifestyle.

I'm sure many people here have heard about RF Find and Club Penguin. Another less known example is Kronos Systems, Inc. It is one of the largest providers of scheduling time and attendant solutions in health care across America. Their new location is a vital part of their company and employs 35 individuals in my constituency of Kelowna–Lake Country.

In 2005 Kronos acquired a Kelowna-based software company originally established for developing Canadian health care workforce management solutions. Now Kronos Canada is leveraging this expertise by establishing the Kelowna office as a centre of excellence for Canadian health care. Every day 70,000 nurses and health care workers in B.C. are scheduled using Kronos workforce management solutions.

It's companies like Kronos who continue to invest in our beautiful part of British Columbia because of the exciting and welcoming opportunities of growth, expansion, and success. These businesses grow because of the expertise they can find in our own back yard. The horizons are bright, and I look forward to the impressive future of the Okanagan technology industry here for today and tomorrow.

Oral Questions

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

AND INITIATIVE PETITION

B. Ralston: As public opposition mounts, the B.C. Liberals become more and more desperate to find a way out of the HST mess that they've created, and it appears they think that they've found one. "The committee could look at that initiative and say that it's invalid." Those are the words of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, the prospective Chair of the committee that would consider the HST petition if it passed.

My question is to the Premier. Is this the B.C. Liberal strategy to try and make their HST betrayal disappear?

[1405]

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to respond to the member's question. I think I tried to be very clear at the beginning of this week, and I will be clear again. The law is explicit, and it is clear. The committee has two options. The select standing committee of the Legislature has two options. One is to submit a bill to the Legislature, and the other is to refer the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer to proceed to a referendum.

Those are the two options that the select standing committee has. It is an all-party committee. They will

[ Page 5882 ]

make their recommendation. We will follow the law, as I'm sure everyone in this Legislature will follow the law.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, that is the Premier's view here, but that's clearly not the view of the prospective Chair of the committee. Will the Premier assure the public that the law in this case will be followed and that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will follow the law, as well as the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't be more explicit, and I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson or the member for Surrey-Whalley or the member for any other constituency in this House would have no other position than that they will follow the law.

I will follow the law. The government will follow the law. I expect the House to follow the law, and certainly I would expect and the public would expect the select standing committee to follow the law.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Clearly, the statement of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson speaks volumes, if not now that it's been repudiated, about the sentiment of the B.C. Liberal caucus. They want to frustrate the will of the public.

Why doesn't the Premier simply recognize the will of the public that's been expressed in the petition and scrap the HST right now?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me just reiterate that the select standing committee will receive the initiative petition, should it be successful, after review by the Chief Electoral Officer. The select standing committee will follow the law, and I can guarantee the member opposite — he may not be able to say that for his caucus; I can say it for mine — we follow the law.

D. Black: Well, the quote is: "I'm not a big fan of direct democracy." These are troubling words from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and he's also the prospective Chair of the committee charged with deciding the fate of the HST initiative.

I want to ask the Premier: does he agree with the member and his comments, or is he prepared to actually honour the citizens' initiative, if passed, and put the issue to a vote either here in this House or by referendum?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be clear for the member opposite. This is challenging, I know, but she should read the bill. The bill is very straightforward. "The select standing committee must…(

a) table a report recommending that the draft Bill be introduced at the earliest practicable opportunity, or (

b) refer the initiative petition and draft Bill to the chief electoral officer."

There are two choices. The committee must make their own decisions and deliberations should the initiative be successful. Again, let me reiterate: this government will follow the law.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Black: In spite of the patronizing comments by the Premier, the remarks that were made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson show just how far this government intends to go or thinks it can go to try to contain the mess they created for themselves with the HST. But the public has spoken. They don't want the HST, and they expect this government to honour that and to honour the signatures that have been made to that petition.

So will the Premier commit today to honour the will of the people and, if this initiative passes, put a question to a vote either in the House or by referendum?

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, there is a select standing committee of this Legislature which will review the initiative, should it be successful. The members of the select standing committee of the Legislature include the convener, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. It includes the House Leader for the opposition, and it includes two other MLAs from the opposition.

They obviously don't agree with the position that the government has taken to strengthen the economy, to encourage literally tens of thousands of jobs, to encourage billions of dollars of investment. That's their choice. But it's part of an all-party committee. It's part of a legislative committee. They have responsibilities. I expect the legislative committee to meet their responsibilities and follow the law. I can guarantee the members opposite that government will follow the law.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON SMOKING CESSATION PRODUCTS

J. Brar: According to the B.C. Cancer Society, British Columbia will not follow the lead of other provinces by subsidizing nicotine replacement products to help people quit smoking.

Even worse, here in B.C. nicotine replacement products are about to become more expensive on July 1 when

[ Page 5883 ]

B.C. Liberals impose the HST. So my question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Why is her government making it harder for British Columbians to stop smoking by adding the HST onto nicotine replacement products?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it's, first of all, important to point out that in British Columbia, we have the best cancer outcomes of just about anywhere in North America. But we've made it quite clear that on July 1 when we get rid of the PST and we adopt the harmonized sales tax, it is going to be a change. I can assure the member that all of the basic health care needs of British Columbia are exempt from the GST today, and they will be exempt from the HST after July 1.

There are some things that British Columbians use in terms of vitamins and other supplements that may be affected. That's exactly why we've put in place two measures — an HST credit for 1.1 million British Columbians to get a cheque in the mail to offset some of those increased costs. The other thing we've done is put in place an increase in the basic personal exemption so that it means that all British Columbians who pay provincial income tax will have more money in their pockets that will help to offset some of those increased costs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: This is about helping the people of British Columbia to quit smoking and making B.C. more healthy. Nearly 9,500 British Columbians will die from cancer this year, lung cancer being the biggest cancer killer. My question is again to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Will she intervene and tell the Minister of Finance to scrap the HST because the HST is bad for B.C.'s health?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the opposite is true. I can tell the member that the adoption of the harmonized sales tax is going to be very good for B.C.'s economic health going forward.

The B.C. Cancer Society reported just last week that B.C. has the best cancer outcomes in all of Canada. One of the things that the B.C. Cancer Society has said to me is that the price of cigarettes….

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: The price of cigarettes is one of the most important things in driving down the usage. One of the reasons why British Columbia has the lowest use of tobacco of any province in Canada and the best health outcomes is because we have made sure that the pricing is important. As a result of the imposition of the harmonized sales tax, I can tell the member that the price of cigarettes is going up by 7 percent on July 1.

A. Dix: This represents a shameful flip-flop on the part of the government. This was exempted. Nicotine replacement products were exempted from the PST. That was a direct policy of government, one of a series of measures that's helped make us the jurisdiction with the lowest rates of smoking in the country.

The minister's new policy…. The old policy was zero; the new policy is 12. That's not acceptable.

Will the minister…? We've had the GST on it, but he's exempted the PST in the past. Now we have a 12 percent tax on nicotine replacement products. Why is he making it harder for people in British Columbia to quit smoking?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, the member is wrong. When he says it's currently zero and it will be 12, that is factually incorrect. It is currently 5 because the 5 percent GST applies to it. The tax on those products, as of July 1, will be increased by 7 percent, which is the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax. I think that it is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what is important is: what are the results that we are achieving in British Columbia? The data shows that the results of the pricing of cigarettes, as a result of the cessation programs that we've had in place in British Columbia and — probably most importantly — because of the social pressures that exist, particularly on young people, not to smoke cigarettes, we've had tremendous success at driving down usage in British Columbia. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The reason why we had a zero percent PST on these products is that we wanted people who smoked to use them and to get off tobacco. That's the reason. We wanted to make that easier.

What the minister has done by introducing the HST is made it harder. We can all agree with that. He's made it harder.

Will he reconsider this ill-thought-out venture, this ill-thought-out scheme which is by their own acknowledgment damaging the health care of British Columbians, and ensure that people don't have to pay an extra 7 percent for their smoking cessation products?

[ Page 5884 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you that all British Columbians actually have more money in their pockets today because of the tax changes this government has brought in. That means that those individuals in British Columbia who want to kick the habit of smoking are in a better position to afford those products today than they would have been ten years ago, given the income tax rates they would have been paying under an NDP government.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, don't comment with people's names in the House, please.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO OIL LEAK

AT CHEVRON REFINERY IN BURNABY

R. Fleming: This morning it was revealed that the Chevron oil refinery in Burnaby has been leaking oil into Burrard Inlet for more than a month.

My question is to the Premier. Chevron alerted his government immediately after the leak was detected on April 21. Now, more than a month later, Chevron has failed to identify the source of the leak, failed to quantify the amount of oil leaked, failed to stop the leak, and now the oil is on the beach in Burrard Inlet.

To the Premier: why did his government never tell the public about this ongoing incident?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: The Environment Minister is not here today, but I'll share with the House what we do know about the issue that the member has raised here today.

It was on April 21 during a routine inspection that Chevron detected what they described as an indeterminate amount of liquid hydrocarbon material somewhere beyond the refinery — a combination of gas, diesel and some crude oil.

The magnitude is important, and I hope all members will appreciate this. The best information we have at this point is that it represents something less than half a barrel. Not insignificant, but I do think it's important to recognize the magnitude.

The source of…. I'm not sure we can use the word "leak" because the evidence seems to suggest that it may be the result of seepage. But the company did notify the federal government and the provincial government; they notified the community advisory committee. Officials are on site attempting to both contain and ascertain the specific cause of what's taking place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I don't know what the point is of the Solicitor General starting to take a question on notice and then putting an incorrect fact out there…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …speculating that half a barrel of oil, perhaps, is all that is involved in this incident. Even Chevron hasn't said that. They've been very careful to say they don't know how much has been spilled. They don't know what the source of the oil is, and that's what the concern is, because it is ongoing.

There's a sheen on the water today. It is on the beach. There are hydrocarbons all over the site at the refinery. The minister knew this. This minister knew this — the Solicitor General — or he ought to have known it. The provincial emergency preparedness program was also alerted, besides the Ministry of Environment.

The question to him again is: why did he never share this information with the public? Why did they have to learn about it through the media today? When is he going to tell the public the truth about this incident and get staff on the ground to contain it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually thought it was appropriate for the member to ask the question. I'm sorry he was offended that I tried to convey some information to him. I can assure the member and all members of the House that the government and the officials take the situation very seriously.

It is incorrect to suggest that people haven't been made aware. In fact, I think the note that the member is probably referring to is one that was sent to the community advisory panel, a group of citizens that was made aware of what was taking place. Officials are trying to ascertain the cause. The member says the day. It was May 18.

I mean, it's a serious matter. Keeping a sense of what the magnitude is, officials are trying to ascertain the cause and, obviously, contain it. There was a sheen on the water, something akin to what you might see at a marina.

I can assure the members of the House and British Columbians that everything will be done to both contain and ascertain the cause of what has taken place.

S. Simpson: This incident was discovered by Chevron on the 21st of April. On May 18 they informed the advisory panel. But as they note here, they informed the provincial government through the Ministry of Environment and through the provincial emergency program in the Solicitor General's office immediately after they discovered this on the 21st of April.

The issue here is both dealing with the incident…. But we also know that when you talk about dealing with

[ Page 5885 ]

these kinds of issues, the public wants to know. They expect transparency; they expect information.

[1425]

The question to the Solicitor General is: why is it that the government chose not to inform British Columbians when they found out after April 21, and we had to wait until now before this information was released?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the reasons, I'm going to suggest to the hon. member and other members of the House, that you appoint a community-based advisory group is so that you have an ability to convey relevant information to the people who will be most concerned about it.

That is what has taken place. Officials from within the Ministry of Environment — within, initially at least, the provincial emergency program — have been involved and have been working to ascertain the cause — whether it's seepage or a specific leak. The amount, while not insignificant, is important to note.

Again, I can assure the member that everything that can be done, in concert with both the company and the officials within the departments of government, will be done to ensure that the damage is contained and limited and that the cause is appropriately identified.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The public found out from a community advisory panel because the government didn't do its job and tell British Columbians about this problem.

The question is this. The ministry found out, the Solicitor General found out and the Minister of Environment found out sometime shortly after April 21. So when did they tell the Premier, and more importantly, why didn't they tell the public right away when they found out?

Hon. M. de Jong: I probably need to remind the member that one of the reasons protocols are established is so that in a case where something like this happens, officials know precisely what to do. They begin the process of investigating. They begin the process of containment. They begin the process of working with all of the involved parties. All of the information I have today, which I have endeavoured to share as openly as I can with members of the House, is that all of those protocols have been followed.

The work continues. Everyone is working in the best interests of preserving the environment and the interests of British Columbians, and that will continue to occur.

IMPORTATION OF BEES AND BEEKEEPING

EQUIPMENT TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

L. Popham: Beekeepers on Vancouver Island are reeling from a recent decision to change the policy around the import of bees to Vancouver Island from the mainland, a policy that has been in place for 22 years. This was done without consultation, and the results may be devastating to our bee industry. The test results, which were the basis for the government to lift the quarantine, are not being made public.

Will the Minister of Agriculture commit today to listen to all Island beekeepers and ensure that there will be no honeycomb and no used equipment brought onto the Island from the Lower Mainland?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is aware that we've equalized the restriction for imported bees onto Vancouver Island with federal standards. Vancouver Island beekeepers were able to import bees from Australia and from Chile before. We've equalized those standards with federal standards so that they can import bees from the Lower Mainland, providing those opportunities for the Vancouver Island bee producers.

I'm fully aware of the concerns of Vancouver Island. The member opposite knows that I've met with the presidents of the associations. For bees to come onto Vancouver Island, they require inspection. They require a permit. We've committed to continue to work with the associations to make sure that the inspection protocols are in place so that we can protect the health of the Vancouver Island bee population.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: I understand that the minister has met with the local Island bee clubs, and so have I. It's not the bees that are a problem and that they're worried about. They're worried about the honeycomb and the used equipment.

The minister has been claiming that there is science to back up the decision that was made. If he believes this is true, then there should be nothing to hide. Will he commit today to release the provincial test results to the Island beekeepers?

[1430]

Hon. S. Thomson: I have met with the presidents of the associations, and I've committed to continue to meet with them. As I said, it requires inspection. It requires permit for bees to come onto Vancouver Island. We're going to continue to work with the associations around the inspection protocols to make sure that we protect the health of the Vancouver Island bee population.

Coming from the agriculture industry, I understand the importance of the bee industry to both the agriculture industry and to value-added production for small-scale farms on Vancouver Island and in British Columbia. We'll continue to work with the association to make sure that those inspection protocols and those permits are in place to protect the health of the Vancouver Island bee population.

[ Page 5886 ]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST FIRE PREPAREDNESS

N. Macdonald: The threat of another devastating wildfire season sits ahead of us. After the 2003 wildfire season a report was compiled by former Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon. Among the recommendations that this government accepted was that communities threatened by wildfires develop community wildfire plans and do fuel management work.

It is now seven years later, and we're headed into another fire season with only 5 percent of the area identified actually treated. That is 5 percent that was identified by the Forest Practices Board. The province was supposed to take the lead to make sure that this work was done. The question for the minister is: why has it not been done?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite knows that this government committed in excess of $37 million through the Union of B.C. Municipalities for specific treatment plans. In addition, there have been significant funds expended through the job opportunities program to protect communities. In fact, this last fall we designated 16 full-time staff to go around and work with individual communities to make sure they have fire preparedness plans in place.

But I think, really, all one has to do is look at the results. In 2009, one of the toughest fire seasons we've ever experienced — the driest conditions, most challenging times — we lost a total of seven structures across the province. In 2003 that number was 350 structures. The Filmon report has been a useful tool, and we continue to implement it.

FOREST FIRE PLANNING FOR

FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests has repeatedly admitted that we are going to face more aggressive fire seasons. Yet this government has actually abandoned the most vulnerable communities in the fire interface, and that's First Nations communities. There are 203 First Nations communities in the province. Of that number, 103 are within the mountain pine beetle epidemic zone — the most vulnerable. Of the entire 203, only 39 communities have even a wildfire plan.

The First Nations leadership, the First Nations Forestry Council have been calling on the government repeatedly to fund interface fire work within First Nations communities, and the main funding source for that has now been cut off. The First Nations council has indicated that all work is now stalled.

My question to the Minister of Forests is simple and straightforward. Will the minister commit today to make sure that every First Nations community has a wildfire plan as fast as possible and has adequate resources to do the work they need to do to protect their communities from this and other fire seasons?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be awfully tempted to start reading out each and every one of the 178 communities across this province that has wildfire plans in place, but that would clearly take the rest of the day.

The member opposite should be ashamed of that question. The record speaks for itself. This government has been committed to ongoing work on the Filmon report. We've delivered. There have been literally tens of millions of dollars expended on preparing community wildfire plans, on protecting communities, and the results speak for themselves. For the toughest wildfire season ever, we lost a total of seven structures; in 2003, 350. I'll compare my results to theirs any day of the week.

[1435]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Bennett: I have the honour to present the 2009 annual service plan report for B.C. Assessment. After today it will be available on their website.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE

AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, I move the motion that creates and empowers the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to conduct their budget consultations.

I'm going to ask the Opposition House Leader…. I believe he has reviewed a copy of the motion. It's the one that we table each year. I believe it's in order, and with leave, I would move the House adopt it.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

a. Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

b. Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2010 on the results of those consultations; and

2. a. To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

i. Auditor General

ii. Chief Electoral Officer

[ Page 5887 ]

iii. Conflict of Interest Commissioner

iv. Information and Privacy Commissioner

v. Merit Commissioner

vi. Ombudsperson

vii. Police Complaint Commissioner

viii. Representative for Children and Youth; and,

b. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2(

a) above.

3. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services shall be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

a. to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b. to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d. to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Health — and, in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 20.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to thank…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …all of the members who participated in the debate around Bill 20. I'm obliged to them for their thoughts with respect to various sections. I know that we'll have a more detailed examination.

There was one part of the bill that didn't attract attention from everyone, but it drew attention from enough members that I just thought I'd take a moment to make this observation. It's the one that the member for Nanaimo focused in on with respect to sections 42, 43, 44, around schools and the possibility of surveillance cameras being placed there.

The only point I would make to the House is this, and I know it will be explored further. I get the argument and the need to ensure that there is a balance between an overly invasive state and the right we all have, including students, to privacy and to be free from that type of interventionist activity.

But the sections are permissive to this extent. It is parents who will ultimately provide the means by which this happens. So it is incorrect, in my respectful submission, to have this characterized as a desire or a purposeful move by the provincial government to install surveillance cameras in schools across the province.

What we did hear from parents is that they would like the option, if they believe that in their schools it would add to the safety of their children. I know that will be explored further at the committee stage, but I did want, in thanking members for their participation in the debate, to make that point. I won't go through the

section in detail. What I will do is move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 17.

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

(continued)

Hon. J. Yap: It's an honour and my pleasure to resume my place in second reading debate on this most historic and important piece of legislation: Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

For the benefit of those who are watching on Hansard television and our guests in the public gallery — including students, who I'm sure are following with great interest the way that legislation is prepared — second reading is the time when members of the Legislature

[ Page 5888 ]

have an opportunity to debate the principles surrounding legislation.

[1440]

This piece of legislation, if I may say so, is probably one of the most historic pieces of legislation that our Legislature, that members, will have the opportunity to deal with in this session and perhaps for many sessions to come.

I mentioned in my earlier remarks yesterday, before we adjourned, that British Columbia is blessed with many natural resources. One of them is the geography, the topography, the hydrology to create clean, renewable energy, and that is one of the keys to our economic progress, our prosperity over these last several generations.

Many years before the students in the gallery were even contemplated to be brought into this world, perhaps even before their parents were contemplated to be brought into this world, in the 1950s and '60s previous governments, the visionary government of then Premier W.A.C. Bennett, launched B.C. on a path to clean, renewable energy — the hydroelectric power that has provided a base for our industry and for our economy to grow, to have grown these last several generations.

This piece of legislation is no less visionary. In fact, this will set British Columbia on course into the future for the next several generations. This piece of legislation, the Clean Energy Act, will help us achieve, help British Columbians achieve, our goals in dealing with climate change. This is a key part of our climate action plan: the opportunity to develop our clean, renewable energy resources to build on an industry that is already quite possibly the third-largest cluster of clean technology industry participants anywhere in the world.

Here in British Columbia we already have a clean technology industry that is vibrant, that is creating investment, that is creating jobs. With this clean energy bill and the vision to bring to British Columbia even more of an economic opportunity to position British Columbia to become a clean energy powerhouse…. I'm delighted to speak in favour of the clean energy bill, No. 17.

I talked yesterday about the heritage assets and the opportunity to build one more large-scale hydroelectric dam and power generation in the Peace River region. With this bill, Site C, which will provide us with that opportunity, will go into the next phase of development and will allow us to add to our heritage assets. These are the reliable forms of renewable energy — the large-scale hydroelectric power.

Madam Speaker, I refer to this as large-scale, but thanks to technology, thanks to construction improvements and better understanding of how to build efficient and highly effective generation assets, this Site C, which is part of this bill, will in fact be very efficient.

Site C will generate 30 percent of the electricity produced in the existing W.A.C. Bennett dam with only 5 percent of the reservoir area. I'll repeat that: 30 percent of the electricity that is already produced by our largest hydroelectric generating asset, the W.A.C. Bennett dam, with only 5 percent of the reservoir area.

It's important to keep that in mind, because I know that we will hear from our critics, including members of the NDP opposition, that this is just not on. We're going to be flooding a huge, huge amount of land, and yes, there will be some impact on the Peace River.

But this is an opportunity for British Columbians, for our generation and the ones to come, to build on our heritage assets. This project alone will provide enough power — 900 megawatts capacity of power generation, or 4,600 gigawatt hours of electricity each year — to power over 400,000 homes every year with clean, renewable energy.

[1445]

With this investment in Site C, we also will be seeing the generation of economic activity, investment and jobs. Site C will provide over 7,500 direct construction jobs over the next number of years and up to 35,000 direct and indirect jobs through all stages of the project. This will be a great addition to our power generation capacity, as will the other projects in heritage asset additions: the investment in Waneta, the investment in Mica and the investment in the Revelstoke dam.

I would just like to share with members of the House. I had the opportunity as Minister of State for Climate Action to visit the Peace region, and I was struck by the resilience of the people who are there, who care about the Peace River region, who are very proud of their contribution to the development, the economy of British Columbia. I had the opportunity to visit the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

I would like to go on the record as saying that every British Columbian at one time in their life should try to visit the Peace River region. It is quite simply magnificent. The whole region is magnificent, a magnificent part of our great province. When you see the assets there that are driving, that are providing the strong basis for our economy — clean, renewable energy — it really makes you proud to be a British Columbian.

I had the opportunity to visit the Gordon Shrum generating station, which is about 100 metres below the dam surface. It's quite awesome to see the generation of hydroelectric power, the scale of it. With this bill, with the Site C project, we will add to our capacity as a province to create clean, renewable hydroelectric power.

I mentioned the clean tech sector; the clean, renewable energy; the low-carbon economy that we're in now and that we're moving ever forward to develop in British Columbia and around the world.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the GLOBE 2010 conference. This is a conference that happens every two years, held right in Vancouver, and is the largest single gathering of clean technology–green economy

[ Page 5889 ]

businesses and governments and business associations, who come to Vancouver every two years. This was the most successful gathering of GLOBE 2010.

I had the opportunity to meet with business leaders, investors and participants, people working on projects from all around the world in the clean tech sector. GLOBE 2010 really opened my eyes to the fact that this clean energy, green economy that we hear about, that we talk about, is not only here but is happening robustly all around the world.

We have the great opportunity here in British Columbia to build on our strong presence, to be not only a participant but a leader in the low-carbon, green economy that the world is increasingly turning to.

I don't have to state the obvious. That is that with the events happening in the Gulf of Mexico — with that terrible tragedy, loss of life and also the environmental disaster going on with the oil that is being spewed into the Gulf — it has really turned a lot of minds to wanting to look at alternate forms of energy, to look at renewable sources of energy. I know that British Columbia has the people, the resources and the opportunity to develop further our green economy.

I am enthusiastically in favour of the Clean Energy Act and all of the promise that it holds for British Columbians. I know that what will come from this bill will be the opportunity for British Columbians to see a couple of things.

[1450]

One is to maintain our strategic advantage, our competitive advantage, by having among the lowest electricity rates in the continent for British Columbians. That will be maintained with the Clean Energy Act. We will also have the opportunity to not only become self-sufficient as a province but also to export our electricity. Right now, for the information of our guests in the gallery, British Columbia is a net importer of electricity. We import electricity from other jurisdictions, where the power generation may not be clean and renewable.

What we want to achieve is to have a framework so that we can encourage the development — through the large projects, through clean, renewable independent power production — of electricity that has a lower carbon footprint, that is clean and renewable and that would allow us to become self-sufficient. We have a goal to be self-sufficient by 2016 and, as well, to develop the opportunity for export of energy to other jurisdictions, perhaps to customers south of us and also east of us here in Canada.

I hear members of the opposition chirping there. I understand that it's a sensitive issue, because yesterday the member for Juan de Fuca, the Energy critic, cast aspersions on the hard-working men and women who work in the independent power, clean energy, renewable energy sector, calling it junk — calling the sector junk, calling what they do junk.

I find that very interesting, because we hear the NDP talk a lot about caring about the economy and wanting more opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition recently held a conference with business leaders. We look forward to some real ideas from the other side coming out of that conference, because we haven't heard what came out of that conference.

Here's what the member for Juan de Fuca was saying. He cast aspersions on the clean, renewable energy sector.

Here's what that sector is worth. Maybe the economic brain trust of the opposition have other ways of generating this kind of economic wealth, but here's what PricewaterhouseCoopers reported in February of this year. They reported that based on their analysis, the independent power sector could grow B.C.'s economy — get this — by as much as $9 billion by 2020.

Construction of all of these projects proposed by this sector — 87,000 person-years of employment for British Columbians over the next decade and more than 9,000 full-time jobs for operations and maintenance throughout the province. If I may say so, many of these will be in communities that desperately need some economic opportunity and hope to develop their communities and their economy — First Nations communities, for example, who have embraced partnership with the independent power producers.

I'll just state, with the last couple of minutes I have, because it's very important to delineate the difference, that this side of the House is in favour of jobs and investment and a great clean energy, low-carbon future for British Columbia. The Clean Energy Act, Bill 17, will allow us to do that.

That side of the House is not interested. They're only interested in no change and no investment in the kinds of clean energy development that will power British Columbia into the future as the clean energy capital of North America, if not the world.

With that, I enthusiastically support Bill 17 and urge all members, as well, to come on board and support Bill 17.

N. Macdonald: The minister knows the tremendous respect that I have for him and for the work he does, but there will be really very few areas here where we agree in terms of this bill. The energy bill is one that I think, when we look at these….

There's one thing I guess I would agree with the previous speaker on. This is a bill that will have profound impacts. Where we would categorically disagree is on the nature of those impacts.

[1455]

To me, when we look at a bill like this, we have to look at it through a lens. The three things that I'll be using in the 30 minutes I have…. The lens that I will look at this through is around these issues — around the idea of

[ Page 5890 ]

democracy and due process. Does this bill meet a standard of democracy and due process that is supportable? I would say that it's not the case.

We need to look at whether this bill helps us build a society that's truly equitable and whether it provides those opportunities, and third, does it meet the test in terms of the responsibility that we have here as legislators to protect the commons? In that term, I would include B.C. Hydro, which is commonly held, when it was nationalized by W.A.C. Bennett and those assets were put together and brought collectively under the control of the public.

Does it protect the commonly held land that we have, which represents, uniquely amongst jurisdictions in the world…? Ninety-five percent of the land is public. Incredibly precious, as well, is the protection of our rivers and our streams. When we look at this bill, we have to use those measures to see whether it's a supportable bill.

Now, there will be many speakers, but I would say there are a few areas where people in the province are uniquely suited to understanding the issues of energy that we're talking about. Certainly, the minister represents one of those communities.

People in his community will be very knowledgable not only about hydro but about fossil fuels and about wind power. The minister himself will be very knowledgable. But the other part of the province where there is tremendous expertise and tremendous understanding of power is the area that I represent, Columbia River–Revelstoke.

We have in that one constituency the facilities that produce enough power for two million households every day and an incredible amount of wealth for British Columbians. The facilities that are there are significant.

Aberfeldie, which is receiving upgrades in recent years. We have another small facility at Spillimacheen. But we have two massive facilities — one at Mica, which creates a reservoir that is huge, and also Revelstoke dam. Revelstoke is also impacted not only by having a massive dam above it, but people work and recreate beside the Arrow reservoirs.

So there are few areas that have a better understanding of power development, the impact of hydro on the community. Few understand better than this area. They know there are jobs. They know that if you have good public policy, there can be some benefits.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

One of the good public policy pieces that I hope the minister will be able to take the opportunity to replicate is the Columbia Basin Trust. The Columbia Basin Trust did provide some benefits for the community that have allowed literacy programs, child care programs, building of housing. There have been benefits that people in the area know and understand. But people also understand the fact that there are tremendous challenges to the regions of the province where we build these facilities.

There are challenges related to living by reservoirs. There are economic opportunities that are taken away. They impact on forestry. They impact on a whole range of opportunities that people in the area would have had but no longer have.

It's one thing when a community is consulted. It's one thing when the sacrifices for a region of the province are for the benefit of the wider public. But it is a completely different thing when the people impacted are not consulted in a meaningful way, and it's a completely different thing when the benefits go to private individuals.

[1500]

With this bill…. Let's be clear. It is the continuation of a policy that takes public wealth and transfers it into private hands. In my area the river diversion projects are up to 23. There are 23 proposed river diversion projects.

Now, the member who spoke before me, glowingly, of these projects represents Richmond. How many are going to be in the area that he represents? Is the Fraser ever going to be dammed or impacted? Absolutely not.

We are talking about only select parts of the province that are going to be impacted by developments, and when you are talking about developments — as you are here, where, essentially, it is going to be private developments — and diversions of rivers for private wealth with no public gain, well, that's a problem. That's a serious problem. On top of that, you have a deliberate attempt to consistently remove the ability of people that live in those areas, who fully understand what's going on, to have any say.

It happened first with Bill 30. It continues with this bill. Not only do locals not have any say, people who understand what's going on and understand the balancing act that needs to take place here…. Not only is that removed, but now with this bill, the independence of the B.C. Utilities Commission is removed as well.

So you have all of the decision-making put into the secrecy of cabinet, and the opportunity for exploiting that secrecy is huge. It is poor public policy, and they do it without a mandate. The last election was one in which the people in my area spent a great deal of that election period talking about river diversion projects, talking about the principles around how B.C. Hydro is going to be run and who benefits from the resources that are there on Crown land.

What the majority of people understood and would very clearly tell those that don't live in the area is that you have an energy plan put forward by the B.C. Liberals that continues that transfer of vast amounts of public funds to private hands. In my area, as I say, there are 23 rivers and streams that are going to be impacted, including….

[ Page 5891 ]

People have rights on rivers as iconic as the Kicking Horse, as the Illecillewaet, rivers that go straight through the larger communities, and a whole host of rivers up and down the valleys of the Columbia River system — a massive impact if they were to go ahead. And the economics of what is going on, as people in my area understand, make no sense.

So let's break this into a few areas. First, there is the democracy piece. Why are people that are going to be impacted purposefully removed from any decision-making on whether these projects make sense or not?

Secondly, there is the environmental impact, which will be profound. If the minister that spoke before me does not understand that, he does not understand the magnitude of what is being talked about with some of these projects.

And third, there's the economics of this. Earlier on I said that this was a transfer of public wealth into private hands, and it works very much like this. In very simple terms, you have had sites that were identified with public money. They were taken at a time when the wider public did not know that rivers were up for grabs.

It would be a surprise to most people that live in my area that there was an opportunity, for between $5,000 and $10,000, to grab sites on these rivers. They didn't know, but certain people did, and people did grab them. So publicly identified sites by B.C. Hydro grabbed at $5,000 to $10,000 — not put up for auction for the highest bidder, not even that. And that would have been questionable. They were grabbed for as little as $5,000 to $10,000.

[1505]

Then you have the public lands that are given for roads, for transmission lines. And then you have B.C. Hydro, through all of the policy pieces that you see again in this legislation, forcing B.C. Hydro into agreements that make absolutely no economic sense. The energy purchase agreements that B.C. Hydro is forced by government policy to enter into are so lucrative that ratepayers are basically paying the capital costs of these new power projects.

Let's just recap. We give away a river for a pittance. We give our land for transmission lines and for roads. We then essentially pay the cost for these private river diversions to take place, and we pay that over a 40-year period. You wonder: what's the purpose? What's the public good? It's almost impossible to identify it. No assets at the end for us and, also, no guarantees that the energy won't be exported. In fact, despite what the government said during the election about this not being for export and….

In fact, you had the government propaganda service at full bore. Whenever this was discussed in local newspapers in Golden or Revelstoke or in Invermere, we would get a letter from a minister or get a letter from the supposedly…. What do they call themselves? The citizens for green power. It is a group that is financed by the private river diversion group. They would write and talk about this all being for domestic use. "Believe us, believe us, believe us."

Well, the fact of the matter is that it was never intended for us in British Columbia. It's intended for export. At the end of the 40 years we pay for these projects. We give them our rivers, we give them our land, and a private individual walks away with that. If that was all, they'd be doing incredibly well. But beyond that, they own the asset, and we have no ability to pull that power back if we were to need it.

Now, in Revelstoke, in Golden, in Invermere, in Kimberley, communities where people understand electricity and understand the balance between using a resource and the need to properly look after it, people rejected that plan comprehensively.

Deliberately, what this government did was try to make sure that those people that understand what's going on are removed from the process that would allow them to say yes or no. If people who understand what's going on here had that right, they would say no.

Continuing with this piece of legislation, now that group of experts, the B.C. Utilities Commission…. Even though they have been put on the board by this government, there's an expertise there, because they will say no, and they have said no, to a plan that doesn't make sense. Now they're removed from the process, and it sits entirely in this tight little group that is the B.C. Liberal cabinet.

They are free to pass out benefits to private individuals as freely as they like, and I ask you: is that not a system designed for abuse? It is exactly designed for abuse. Is it not a system that is deliberately set up to compromise the public interest? It is designed, with Bill 17, to compromise the public interest.

What was said again and again by people in my communities…. We made the invitation ourselves. We said that if this makes sense, if any of these projects made sense, then come to communities where people understand this issue and make the case. If you cannot come into Revelstoke or Golden or Invermere or Kimberley and make the case in front of a group of citizens there that this is in the public interest, then you do not deserve to proceed with it.

But what this government decides instead to do is to hide from any sort of discussion like that and change the rules here so that nobody in those communities has any say on what happens in their back yard, and there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

[1510]

Last election there was an invitation. In fact, the candidate I was running against stood up and quite naively thought that a B.C. Liberal minister would actually come in and have that discussion. He stood up and promised. He said: "You'll get the Minister of Environment. You'll

[ Page 5892 ]

get the Minister of Energy coming here. We'll have that discussion." It never happened. They would not come close to that place because they could not win the argument around policy like this with people who know and understand what's going on.

You have questions that citizens have raised around things that they feel strongly about — not only the land, not only the idea of owning and controlling a public asset. You have concerns about what the government is saying are the benefits of these private power diversion projects, these private energy companies.

You know, people get it. The government will stand up and say that the advantage of privatization is that the risk is taken by private individuals. Yet they see what happens.

We have an example where a private company, I believe in the minister's own riding, entered into an energy purchase agreement. It looked like they'd miscalculated and weren't going to make money. Did they take on that risk? Was part of the risk: oh well, then you'll lose money? No, the government just bailed them out. They went back, renegotiated and got a deal that worked. So the idea that these take on any risk is ridiculous.

There are, I think, legitimate concerns about the loss of sovereignty over our public power utility. You have NAFTA. You have provisions in there that guarantee the other members of NAFTA certain rights to power. As we enter into these programs, they're going to be very difficult for us to reverse when we need power.

Now, the points that the government members make are so predictable. They have been laid out very deliberately by the government propaganda service again and again, and yet there are inaccuracies in what they are saying.

Members know very well and certainly the minister knows that there is trading that goes on with electricity. The previous minister, the minister for climate change, again stood up and talked about a deficiency in power. We have power needs that we need to understand, but to suggest that we are in a power crisis is inaccurate. We trade power.

In Revelstoke, if you're there at a certain time of day — Revelstoke sits directly beneath Revelstoke dam — or if you are there at maybe 11 o'clock at night, late in the evening, or maybe a better description would be five in the morning, the Columbia River runs very lightly. There is very little coming out of Revelstoke dam into the Arrow Lakes reservoirs below.

It's at that time that B.C. Hydro takes advantage of the opportunities given to us by our dams to go and buy power that is available in Alberta or at certain times of the year available in Washington — power that's very, very cheap.

If you were in Revelstoke at around four or five in the afternoon when it is prime time for electricity and the price of that electricity is high, then that river is flowing. It's flowing significantly higher than any other time of the day because we are producing power at that time to take advantage of the markets that are available at that time.

I went with the member for Juan de Fuca to tour through Revelstoke, and he's been there many times. You go through, and there on the grid, in the dam itself, they have the prices. They will go by the minute changing the flow to get the best price possible. Regardless of what this government says about self-sufficiency, that is a trade that is worth millions and millions of dollars, and it's going to continue.

[1515]

To suggest that we would not trade and take in power in the way that we do now just makes absolutely no economic sense. So it will continue.

You have with this plan only certain individuals that are going to be impacted negatively. As always with this government, you're going to have rural B.C. hit hard. We are the ones who are going to pay the price on this. We are the ones that are going to have the places that we hunt and fish in, the rivers that we go to camp near — the rivers that might provide opportunities for other economic activities — compromised.

That is going to happen in rural B.C. It's not going to happen in Richmond; it's not going to happen in Maple Ridge; it's not going to happen in downtown Vancouver. But time and time again, rural British Columbia is going to be impacted negatively by this government.

Secondly, you are going to have ordinary ratepayers impacted tremendously. We already have raises of — what? — 29 percent over the past number of years. It's far more than that. Who's protected from that? Well, big industry is protected each and every time from those raises. You have special deals for companies like Rio Tinto. There are special deals to make sure they're not going to complain.

Then you have the heritage rates. I'm not sure if the ministers or the members are completely familiar. Certainly, the Minister of Energy is completely familiar with the 1821 rate. That is a rate for about one-third of the electricity, and it means that very little is paid by major users. Like I say, it's about one-third of the energy we produce, and it's for mines and for pulp and paper.

Originally, to make sure that they wouldn't complain, they were given ten years of these heritage rates. It was promised to them so that big industry wouldn't complain about what was going to happen to B.C. Hydro. Ratepayers aren't protected, and we will pay more, but big industry was protected. In 2007 that was extended indefinitely, so they will always be protected from the rate increases that are absolutely inevitable with this plan.

In my area we have areas that people feel passionately about. The minister will know, and certainly the Minister of the Environment will know, the strong reaction of the

[ Page 5893 ]

community to certain projects. In particular, we had the Glacier-Howser project. If people were familiar with the area and the project that was proposed, this was a project that did not make sense, clearly. From the size of the project to the transmission line configuration, it did not make sense.

In the end, the federal environmental standards put a halt at least temporarily, and I hope permanently, to that project. If it had been a proper process and people in the area had been consulted, they would have said that it made no sense and it shouldn't go ahead.

There's a project proposed for up near Wood River. It's on a historical site. It's a magnificent area. It's an area that the forest company in Revelstoke has agreed not to go and log in. The snowmobile clubs in our areas agree not to go up there. Heli-ski companies don't go in that area. There are caribou issues. It's historical. It's an area we can all agree, if you live in the area and understand it…. It's a place; let's leave it alone.

If we're going to do industrial activity, let's do it in some other place. Yet people who know the area best have no ability or opportunity to fully participate in whether that project makes sense or not. We know it doesn't make sense from an environmental point of view. We know it doesn't make sense from an economic point of view. But there's still a chance that it could be rammed through and that we would be left out of that decision. The people that I represent would be left out.

There's something fundamentally wrong about that. As you go through project after project, people in the area that I represent understand the trade-offs. They ask: "What's the advantage? What's the public good? What are the other things that need to be considered?" Now, does that stop every single project? No. Projects continue.

[1520]

At this time, are there projects going on in the area I represent that the public supports? Well, Aberfeldie has been approved. We are getting additional power turbines at Revelstoke. We're getting them at Mica.

Are there things that need to be talked about and thought about with the community in terms of housing issues and all of those other issues? Yes, there does have to be that public consultation. Will there be public support if the project makes sense? Yes, there will be.

Are there existing IPPs near Revelstoke? There are, but they went through a process of discussion with the community, and the balance was figured out by the community.

But what you see with this bill and what you see with bills that preceded this is consistently that the ability of the public to have a say on what is good public policy is being removed. In this case, we've already lost our ability — taken away from us by the B.C. Liberals — to have a say as a community in what goes on, what's best. Now the B.C. Utilities Commission is being removed.

Fundamentally, the philosophical difference that members often talk about is really…. I see it differently. I think that what this government represents — and, certainly, the group that controls this government — is an elite that's distant from the vast majority of British Columbians. What has confirmed that is the HST.

Those that are sitting with people and believe that the people can understand issues around taxation and around power have confidence that the wisdom sits within our communities. I know that's what I believe, and when I sit and talk to my colleagues over here, I know that's what they believe — that you have to have confidence in people and communities to understand issues, understand what is in the community interest and allow them to have their ideas flow up and become public policy.

Those seem to me to be the fundamentals of democracy, yet with this bill, those principles are being thrown aside. Instead, power is being centralized — as it has with bill after bill, with initiative after initiative — into the hands of a small group that the wider public seems to have no ability to change.

Are we going to know what goes on in cabinet? Well, maybe Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has the ability to put up a good fight and get in there and get a bit of information. And bless her, by the way. I didn't have a chance to say that, but "Well done" — to somebody who gets in there and scraps. But the vast majority of British Columbians aren't.

What this bill means is that you are going to see people in my area do what they always do. They are going to fight this. For people who would rather meet in a community hall and have a discussion about what is right for the area that they feel proudly and strongly about, you're going to force them onto the roads. You're going to force them into blockades. You're going to force them into direct action against projects that make no sense.

That is, in essence, what the government is doing. When they take a system that should work in a democratic way and they take away people's rights, they certainly cannot expect people in the Kootenay to simply sit down and accept that. We never have; we never will. We know what's right. We understand power better than other parts of this province because we have lived it. When people tell me about what is right or wrong in power issues, I know that they speak from experience and they speak with passion.

This is a bill that needs to be withdrawn. It needs to be defeated, and I certainly look forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that this bill is defeated and stops here.

Hon. R. Hawes: I rise today to support this bill, obviously. I have a few brief comments, but I want to start first, before I make any…. I want to make some comments on mining.

[1525]

[ Page 5894 ]

Before I go there, I just want to remark on today's headlines, I think, in the Vancouver Sun. It does say that by the year 2036 — I think it's 2036 — they expect that seven million people will reside in British Columbia. That is a huge, huge population growth.

I guess, from what I'm hearing from the members opposite, that the 3½ million or close to three million new people that will come to British Columbia won't be using power. You know, first and foremost, if we have…. And we have imported power, by the way, most years over the last decade. But as we move forward with population growth, new power sources don't just arrive like that. They take a long time and lots of planning.

The people won't just suddenly arrive in 2036. That growth will be fairly steady throughout the next 25 years, and so our need for more power will continue to increase in British Columbia.

This bill does ensure…. We have said for quite some time that our aim is to be energy self-sufficient by 2016. We continue to work at that regardless of the fact that the members opposite seem to think that we're there now, that we don't need to do anything more; we don't need any more power. I really don't ever want to see us getting into the rolling brownouts that California has, but that's what would happen, given the choices of those members opposite, from what I'm hearing.

Now, before I speak about what I really want to speak about…. I've heard now two members on the opposite side speak, and I want to go back to what the Energy critic, the member for Juan de Fuca, said yesterday — just a few of his comments.

First and foremost, one of the things that guided this piece of legislation was the work done by the Green Energy Task Force. That was a task force made up of quite a number of fairly prominent people in British Columbia from every spectrum politically — from the environmental community, from the business community — I think quite a collection of well-respected people.

Yesterday the Energy critic said that the act was guided by the work of the Green Energy Task Force: "Now, this…group of mostly friends of the government, but some thoughtful people as well…."

I just wanted to talk about that. That's one piece that he said. Now, I can't think of anything much more insulting than that, and I think that he owes all of the members of the Green Energy Task Force an apology. I think that that's a terrible thing to be saying — to start saying that those who are friends of the Liberal government aren't thoughtful people. But I suppose the ones that are friends of the opposition are thoughtful people.

That was the inference, and I just think that that's sort of shameful. This is a group of people who worked hard on a project, who volunteered to work on a project, and I think that we owe some respect to those who do that kind of work for government.

He spoke quite a bit — and I've heard from both members so far on the opposite side that spoke — about BCUC, the B.C. Utilities Commission, and the fact that some of the oversight of the BCUC is now being removed, and they are going to be looking at and continuing to look at all rates for domestic consumption of electricity, just as I think it was intended to be.

However, I note, you know, just the hypocrisy of all the things that are being said. In the 1990s, when the NDP were in power, the BCUC was disbanded, and there was no use of them. Rates were set in the Premier's office. In fact, a rate freeze was put in place that lasted for a number of years that caused Hydro to not be able to have the funds to do the maintenance work on things like its transmission lines, which fell way behind, and there's a huge amount of catch-up to be done.

I've talked to a number of people who work at Hydro, from different levels of employment in Hydro, who complained bitterly about what was going on through the 1990s and the way that the operation of B.C. Hydro was totally politicized.

Yet the member opposite, the critic, says the "rate freeze was a darn good idea." Well, you know, as time goes on and costs rise and as things like maintenance need to happen, you have to have rate increases in anything that you look at. You just can't freeze rates, but it was done to try to winnow up some votes.

[1530]

I notice that the member, I think, also mentioned in his comments, for some reason, ICBC. You know, I notice that there was a rate freeze also in the '90s. The political interference continued there, as well, where there were cheques sent out before an election — $100 cheques sent out to every insurance payer in British Columbia, which was meant to winnow up some votes. It was just totally politicized.

Now they talk about BCUC as somehow being politicized, gutted of its responsibility, etc. Nothing of the sort is happening. Domestic rates will continue to be reviewed by BCUC. If there is any rate increase sought by Hydro on the domestic side, they have to go in front of the BCUC and make their full justification. It's a fully public process, and unlike the NDP of the 1990s, this is not going to move to the Premier's office to have a political setting of rates for British Columbians.

You know, I think it's kind of shameful. It's highly hypocritical of the NDP to talk about the way that rates now should be totally controlled under the BCUC, the very body that they scoffed at and abandoned in the 1990s. Funny how things change, isn't it?

The member opposite, the critic, was on the radio today, and I just noticed a couple of things that he said there. He talked about the decision made last year by the BCUC, when the BCUC did not want to see some private power, IPP production or contracts signed.

[ Page 5895 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Hawes: They had said we didn't need the contracts. One of the things that they stated, as stated by the member here, was the underemphasized use of Burrard Thermal.

I live in the Fraser Valley, the most challenged airshed in British Columbia. I can tell you that we in the Fraser Valley do not want Burrard Thermal burning. We have never wanted it burning.

In fact, in the 1990s when Burrard Thermal was reconstructed with the provincial government bypassing the environmental review process under Mr. Sihota….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Hawes: When Moe Sihota was the Environment Minister…. The current ….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, one moment.

Members, you either have had the opportunity to take

part in this debate or will have the opportunity to take

part in the debate. Please allow the minister to continue.

Hon. R. Hawes: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In the '90s when Moe Sihota bypassed the environmental review process to rebuild Burrard Thermal against the wishes of all the cities in the Fraser Valley, who objected strenuously to that, the NDP just went ahead, totally disregarding what the local community said. And now we'll get a lecture from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke about what communities want.

What about in the 1990s when the NDP couldn't care less about what communities said, when the NDP stripped communities of the grants that they had enjoyed for a long time? What happened when the Premier of the day said that this is the last cut to grants — "I promise we will never see another cut" — and the next year they were totally taken away? What about those promises? But we don't want to talk about that era, do we?

We don't want to talk about the disregard for the wishes of communities that happened in the 1990s. We don't want to talk about how communities don't want Burrard Thermal, an antiquated plant that had a minor rebuild. Someone in Hydro described it to me like putting a catalytic converter on a 1956 Cadillac, and that's about what it is. We don't want Burrard Thermal burning.

In order to make sure it doesn't burn, it's being phased out. As a phase-out of Burrard Thermal, it will be used only if there's a complete emergency.

But for BCUC to have said that it could produce — and I can't remember how many megawatts of power they had talked about — 6,000 megawatts or something is completely ridiculous and not possible. However, I noticed the member mentioned that today.

Then he talked a little bit about Highway 37 and the electrification of Highway 37, which is one of the places that I really want to talk about. Why are we talking about electrifying Highway 37?

[1535]

One of the things I really want to do is mention a former member of this House, Dennis MacKay, who some years ago — I remember, about 2002 — had everyone wearing badges saying "Electrify 37." He fought so hard to make that happen because Dennis MacKay understood the value to the economy and to the people of the northwest portion of our province. He understood the value of electrifying Highway 37. The critic for Energy, the member for Juan de Fuca, says: "Well, why are we doing this?"

One of the reasons, of course — and this is to quote him from Hansard yesterday — is "to encourage mining developments in the region, and there are many proposals — the Red Chris proposal near Iskut." Great proposal. Great mine, going to employ a lot of people. The Galore Creek proposal is another one. Shaft Creek. "There are half a dozen copper, gold and other metal mines that are on the verge of going forward providing they get access to clean — not necessarily clean, but electricity."

Well, I'll tell you what. Right now in that portion of the province any mining activity would run on diesel. In fact, people are powering their houses with diesel. So of course it's clean power by comparison to what's there. I can't think of anything that is more clean and green than running electricity up Highway 37.

But the member opposite partly got it when he started to talk about the number of prospective mines. Now, I don't know why the critic for Energy and Mines wouldn't understand the value of opening big mines, the kinds of revenues that come into the province from royalties and taxes, plus the employment. The average wage in mining today in British Columbia is $112,000 a year. That's the highest-paid of all of the heavy industries.

Can you tell me, Madam Speaker, in a time when we've got parts of the province devastated by the pine beetle, when we've got people who are unemployed in British Columbia, how many of them would like a job in a mine earning $112,000 a year? I suspect there's a lineup, and should be.

What I'm hearing from that member is that it's not about those jobs, because he says there aren't enough people who live in that part of the province. He spoke about: "There are 2,500 people living along Highway 37.

[ Page 5896 ]

Why would we run a $400 million power line for 2,500 people? You could find other ways to provide electricity to those people." Maybe he was talking about an IPP. I'm not sure.

The bottom line, as he says, is: "Who is going to pay for that? The man on the moon? The kids from Brennan Creek Elementary will be paying for it. Their parents will be paying for it. Electricity users, ratepayers, B.C. Hydro customers will be paying for that."

Well, I'll tell you who is going to pay for it. The mines that are opening on Highway 37 and the development that's going to take place along Highway 37 are going to pay such huge dividends to British Columbia that it will be paid for over and over, many times over.

It is exactly the right thing to do, and I was just absolutely dumbfounded when that member seemed to pooh-pooh the thought of putting electrification up Highway 37. Nobody in their right mind could look at that proposal and say that it's a bad deal for British Columbia.

We're talking here about mines like Red Chris, one of the biggest copper finds in the province. It's going to employ probably 700 or 800 people through construction. It's going to be about a billion dollars to build that mine. It will employ people for years and years.

In their initial exploration they found enough of a deposit to justify opening a mine like that, but while they were waiting for the very extensive environmental review process that all mines in British Columbia that have any significance go through…. While they were waiting for that to happen, they did further exploration, and in fact, they have a much bigger deposit than they originally thought. So this mine alone is going to repay the cost of that power line over time.

It's a great investment, and that's what we're talking about here. I think, after listening to the two members on the NDP side that have talked on this bill so far, that investment isn't something they seem to understand. They seem to talk in terms of: what about next year? They don't talk in terms of five years, ten years or 20 years out. They talk in terms of next year.

[1540]

As I say, seven million people in British Columbia by the mid-2030s. Maybe we should start planning some stuff today. "But that's 25 years out. Who cares about that?" According to what I've heard from the members on that side, we don't have to care about what's going to happen in the future. Let's just care about what's going to happen in 2013 in an election. Let's go out and make up a whole lot of stuff — right? — to try to winnow up some support.

I know that most of the members on the opposite side look at the HST, and they secretly admire that tax. I know that's true. Anyone who has…. Well, I shouldn't say that. Anyone with any business sense understands what the impact of the HST is going to be. The HST is going to have such a positive impact on the economy that…. Well, let's go to the other side. If we don't have the HST, we are looking at big problems with the loss of competition.

Now, the mining industry is a highly risky industry. When you're beginning to put a mine together, when you're talking about trying to raise investment capital of $500 million, $600 million, $800 million and more and you're not really sure whether or not that mine is going to pay off — you're taking a chance on the market, on prices for the minerals that you're developing from the mine — it's highly risky. Every bit of risk that can be taken off the mine is more certainty that the mine is going to continue with the investment.

I wonder if the members opposite think that we should be engaged in mining in British Columbia. Perhaps they think that we should turn the whole province into a park. That would be perhaps what their thinking is. I don't hear support on that side for mining. What I hear on that side is a lot of rhetoric about big corporations.

Well, I have to think that mines, the bigger mines, would be fitting the definition they have for big corporations. When you have a billion-dollar investment or you have companies that would have passed the threshold for the corporate capital tax the NDP put in place, taxing assets of corporations — regardless of whether they were making money, just tax their assets….

I know what's coming should, God forbid, the people of this province ever make a horrible mistake and let those folks back into power. If that ever happened, we know what's coming by listening to the rhetoric. You can read between the lines here.

Big corporations. I don't know what the definition of a big corporation is. Perhaps my friends down here or over here know what a big corporation is, or perhaps the members opposite, who won't define what that is. Perhaps they'd like to tell us what a big corporation is. Has it got 20 employees, 40 employees? Is it a company that you don't want to invest in British Columbia? You speak of companies that employ people, lots of people, as though they're somehow the enemy. There's something bad and sinister about a company that makes profit and employs a lot of people.

Well, along Highway 37, as it electrifies, I would expect that there will be four, five or six mines open. I would expect that they will all be big corporations. They will employ hundreds and hundreds of people at very high wages. They will support families marvellously, but somehow the members opposite think there's something wrong with that.

I'm having a little difficulty understanding how, particularly from the critic, the member for Juan de Fuca could speak against mining. Here's a man who has tried to approach the mining industry, who tries to pretend he understands the needs and the wants and is sympa-

[ Page 5897 ]

thetic. Yet he stands in this House and speaks against things like the electrification of Highway 37. He has said in this House that there should never be more than two mines, in his opinion, along that corridor. I have some difficulty with that as well.

Now, I have talked to the Chief of the Tahltan. I know what their concerns are up there in that

section of the province. They are very concerned that there would be a number of mines and that there would not be enough people to staff those mines, so there would be transient workers.

[1545]

For me the solution to that — because those mines won't open tomorrow — is that we work with the Tahltan today, and we start building community there so that at least there's a place for families there.

The northwest is going to open up with the electrification of Highway 37. That means there will be infrastructure in place. There will be new housing. There will be places to go shopping. There will be whatever people want. But we need to work today, I think, with the Tahltan to plan out how to build community in that area. I think we can do that.

But I do know that the revenues that will come back to government from the electrification of Highway 37 are far more than the $400 million investment that would be required to put that in place.

I listened to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and his…. I can only call it a diatribe. My goodness, he even brought up the old bogeyman, NAFTA. Wow. I thought the discussion about NAFTA and the great socialist fear of NAFTA had disappeared years ago, but there it was again — NAFTA. I'm surprised he didn't bring up TILMA and every other objection to trade that the NDP always seems to put forward.

The NDP seem to be very afraid of anything that would open up this province. I think there's an inferiority complex. The NDP seem to think that British Columbians can't compete with the outside world, so we should build a big fence around British Columbia and not allow anyone to come in here that might want to compete with the rest of our businesses here. We should just look after everything here ourselves.

Nothing could be worse for our economy. We need to open ourselves up to the world. We are opening up to Asia. We're building a great relationship now with China and with Japan, and we are the Pacific gateway. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that things like the electrification of Highway 37 will bring investment, will spur more development in the Port of Prince Rupert, in the Port of Stewart. They're both going to expand.

They're going to need to expand, because this province…. I know the CEO of MABC, the Mining Association of British Columbia, Pierre Gratton, has described it as a renaissance in British Columbia in mining. I believe we are in a renaissance in British Columbia in mining. We are going to see many new mines open in this province, and they need electricity.

When we talk about green and the greening of mining, I can tell you there's nothing green about diesel power when you're running a mine. You need to have electricity to run the big shovels. When you electrify a mine, the carbon footprint decreases dramatically. So putting electricity up Highway 37, contrary to what the critic for Energy says when he said there was nothing green…. "Nothing green about the Highway 37 electrification," he said. I don't understand why he would say that. I don't know where he would get that idea. It just seems so counterintuitive.

The other one that I want to mention about the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, too, is that he talked about how this bill takes public wealth and transfers it to private hands. Well, I'm not sure which public wealth he's talking about. We happen to believe that the IPPs in this province actually are an asset to British Columbia. The investment that the independent power producers have made in British Columbia has created jobs — lots of investment in our province — and has assisted us in ensuring that we meet our 2016 target of energy self-sufficiency.

However, as I say, with the latest statistics, the seven-million-person projection from Stats Canada — a population of seven million — clearly we need a lot more power. That to me says that we need to be looking at things like Site C. That's what we're doing.

Now, Site C is not an approved project, and I heard the member opposite talk about the letter from the aboriginal community — the 47 signatures in the letter, etc. — and I think there's a big misunderstanding here. The big misunderstanding here, we have said from the start — and someone isn't hearing this — is that this project goes ahead if it goes through the full environmental review process, which I should remind members opposite is first and foremost an independent process. The environmental review process in British Columbia is fully independent, and the members opposite should probably, if they don't think that's true….

[1550]

I would really recommend that they all gather together and get their party president in, Moe Sihota, who less than a month ago publicly said that we should all trust the B.C. environmental review process. He is a supporter of that. He understands how it works, and he knows it's fully independent. It's highly comprehensive, and it's the most robust environmental review process probably in North America. So we've said that Site C will have to go through that process, the full aboriginal consultation and accommodation process.

There's no skirting around the aboriginal consultation or responsibility. In fact, we are the government who has said we recognize that for 200 years, the aboriginal community has not benefited from things like new mines or

[ Page 5898 ]

from many of the developments that have taken place across British Columbia. The aboriginal community, shamefully, has been left behind. We recognize that, and we are working hard to assist the aboriginal community to catch up and assume their rightful place and their rightful share in the bounty that this great province offers.

That's why we've entered into revenue-sharing on new mines, which is another reason why we should be looking at electrifying Highway 37. It brings wealth to the aboriginal communities — who, by the way, don't share for the most part any of the opposition's viewpoint on independent power production. Many of the independent power projects in British Columbia are joint ventures with the aboriginal community, and they bring wealth to the aboriginal communities that they haven't enjoyed before.

So shame on members opposite who would pooh-pooh the thought of providing that kind of financial assistance, that kind of partnership opportunity to the aboriginal communities of British Columbia.

I didn't want to go into a lot more here other than to make sure that, first, it's understood that when you have an IPP, an independent power production project that's put forward, it does go through an environmental review process. There is public consultation and public input on those projects. So to say that these are all secret and done in a back room somewhere is absolute poppycock. That's false.

Independent power production — the projects are subject to full public scrutiny. They are subject to the full environmental review process. They are a maximum 40-year lease. At the end of 40 years the leases are renewable at the option of the government, not the proponent or the operator of the system. At that point, actually, the Crown would become the owner of the system at the end of 40 years if the lease isn't renewed. To say that this is somehow some giveaway is absolute nonsense.

I support this bill. I support the production of independent power in this province. I support moving on Site C to take a really good look. Hopefully, if it passes all of the hurdles, it will provide the kind of power that we are going to need into the future.

I really don't understand, given the history of building dams in this province, why the members opposite would have any problem at all saying: "Look, we need to take a farsighted look at this."

Let's look at Site C now so that if it goes ahead, it's ready for the generations that are going to follow us, the seven million people who will live in British Columbia by the mid-2030s.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand and take my place in this debate on the green energy act. I have to first say that I'm very disappointed that government members who are getting up to speak to this are, in fact, not defending the bill. The argument once again seems to have degenerated to a lot of insults being swapped back and forth on previous members' criticisms of this bill. The reality is that this should be about cogent debate and cogent criticism of this act and of this bill.

[1555]

It's unfortunate that I have had no confidence whatsoever listening to the members' remarks to this point. I've heard myths. I've heard all kinds of rhetoric that's couched in being not rhetoric. I'm just disappointed generally in the level of debate.

I listened with great interest to all of the remarks made by the minister responsible when the bill was introduced, and I read through these to see exactly what it was that the government is saying here. I'd like to base my remarks on what I see as the details within the bill and try to step away from this need to somehow attack personal members on the remarks that they have said as a way of debating here.

But I will say that I don't have a lot of confidence in this bill, because I think there are far too many contradictions in it. I think there have been a number of public criticisms levied at this act, and I've heard no defence of them yet that in any way supports the government's position and claims on this bill. I do not feel that this presents a fiscally sound opportunity for British Columbians because there are far too many, I think, specious arguments being put forward here.

I noted with great interest that the introductory comments here relied very heavily on the traditional and historic position around B.C. Hydro's contribution to the economy of British Columbia, and I think that is a really good place to start.

I was very fascinated, though, by the fact that as much as the government relies very strongly on the history of having produced clean, reliable energy here in the province at very low rates that have benefited the economy of British Columbia and made it very possible for us to keep good hydro rates that have allowed business to thrive over many, many years….

The government has certainly based this bill on that historic backbone. The government talks about how the energy from British Columbia, from the Peace and the Columbia rivers, has helped our province and helped B.C. families. Again, it seems to be such a contradiction in terms that, in fact, this bill is about to rip apart that very successful system. So the backbone on which the government has built this Clean Energy Act seems to in fact be the very thing that they are going to undermine and take apart piece by piece in enacting this bill.

I would say that we've recently seen a very interesting trend by this government of having to go back and reverse some of the actions that took place under the same government only a few years ago. I refer very specifically to B.C. Ferries. You know, it was only a few years ago that this government put forward an argument that B.C.

[ Page 5899 ]

Ferries had to be quasi-privatized. They laid out a whole series of issues that they had with the way B.C. Ferries was operated and all the reasons why it had to be run as an arm's-length organization. It became a huge political debate that in fact changed the course of political history here in the province of British Columbia.

Yet here we are in the year 2010, and the government is having to go back and audit and revisit all of its very own decisions. All of the decisions that it made in quasi-privatizing B.C. Ferries are now being revisited and audited. The government has now embarked on a debate with the CEO that they put in place and instructed on the running of B.C. Ferries, and yet we see this huge clash. We see a CEO running out of control and now fighting with the minister. Today we have this clash arriving on the front pages of the newspaper.

I am very concerned that the government has shown itself to have had to reverse some of the major decisions it's made in the past on resources and assets here in the province of British Columbia. Are we embarking once again, in this Clean Energy Act, on doing something very similar and perhaps much more damaging? In some ways, some of the decisions that are being made here will be irreversible.

[1600]

I would say, as well, that in reading through the Clean Energy Act and the remarks put forward by the minister in introducing this, some of the very clear consultation process that British Columbians deserve when any tampering is being done with public assets that have belonged to the people of British Columbia for the history of this province…. When those kinds of significant and unalterable changes occur, I believe there should be consultation with British Columbians on that, and I see that the government has, in fact, failed to do that.

First Nations communities are speaking out right now around their concerns for this. I'm surprised that the government is prepared to continue to steamroll ahead on this, given the fact that so many First Nations organizations and leaders are calling on the province to delay the bill and to go into a consultation process with them.

It would seem to me that if the governme