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

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Open Government Act, 2010

D. Routley

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Beef Day and ranching industry

T. Lake

Strathcona Provincial Park centennial

C. Trevena

Dorel Industries expansion in Burnaby

H. Bloy

New Westminster Salmonbellies

D. Black

Canada Line

R. Howard

Vancouver Island Water Watch Coalition conference

S. Fraser

Oral Questions

B.C. Hydro energy purchase agreement with Forrest Kerr project

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

B. Ralston

Impact of harmonized sales tax on used clothing costs

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. C. Hansen

Wedding costs and implementation of harmonized sales tax

D. Black

Hon. C. Hansen

H. Lali

Availability of meat-processing licences

J. Brar

Hon. I. Chong

Acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital

S. Fraser

Hon. K. Falcon

Petitions

D. McRae

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 17

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

J. Horgan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 401 — Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010

G. Hogg

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 402 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010

Committee of the Whole House

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

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

V. Huntington

Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. B. Lekstrom

J. Horgan

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act (continued)

B. Routley

V. Huntington

P. Pimm

M. Mungall

R. Cantelon

D. Routley

Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

B. Simpson

S. Fraser

Hon. G. Abbott

S. Simpson

M. Karagianis

Appendix

[ Page 6113 ]

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It's family

day at the Legislature for me today. My husband, Jon, is here; my mother-in-law,

Joan; my mom, Lorna; and my sister-in-law Kath are here. It's the first time for

my husband to watch question period. So everyone be nice.

[1335]

R. Cantelon: In the gallery

today are at least 40 grade 10 students from — well, if I seem a little biased —

one of the best high schools in British Columbia, the Kwalikum Secondary School.

They're brought here by their teacher Mr. Jaret Abel. Please make them feel welcome

as they observe the democratic processes in action.

H. Bains: It is my great

pleasure to introduce my good friend who is the president of the Khalsa Diwan Society

in Vancouver and also a long-term activist in the IWA and Steelworkers now. He is

here with his uncle and auntie from England, who are visiting him. Please help me

welcome them here to this great place of democracy.

R. Howard: It's a great

pleasure to introduce five visitors from my city of Richmond. We have four directors

and the executive director of the Richmond Chinese community services society. They

do great work. They're celebrating their 21st anniversary this year. The city benefits

greatly from all their volunteer efforts. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I would like

the House to help me make welcome, from the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group, Mr. Robert

Morales and his assistant Roseanne Daniels. Robert is a real leader in our communities,

not just in the First Nations community but a leader for all of us in the newcomer

communities of the mid-Island as we consider the complicated issues that confront

us all when it comes to reconciliation.

D. Hayer: It is also my

pleasure and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview's Liberal riding president…. We

had a lunch with three very special guests. One is Major Sanghera and Mr. Baldish

Sanghera, who are from London, England, visiting here with their nephew, Kashmir

Dhaliwal, who is a long-time community activist and president of the Khalsa Diwan

Society of Vancouver, which is also called Ross Street, one of the oldest Sikh temples

in North America.

This is the Sikh temple that fought for the rights for

all the people from Southeast Asia to get them rights. Also, anybody who ever needs

any help, that's the temple that goes and helps them. Would the House make all three

guests very welcome to this House today.

J. Horgan: Joining us

from the aging, decrepit and nearly-falling-down Belmont Secondary School in my

constituency are three young grade 11 students who had sent some positive vibes

to the Minister of Education in the hopes of a new school. They are Grant McLachlan,

Kelsea Bendell and Kira Chow. Would the House please make these three students very,

very welcome.

D. McRae: I have four

guests visiting me in the Legislature today. They are registered nurses from the

Cowichan Valley, Parksville and the Comox Valley. Would the House make Brenda Hill,

Genoa Daniel, Betty Fitzsimmons and Mary Wilton welcome.

S. Fraser: I would like

to join my colleague across the way from Parksville-Qualicum in recognizing Jaret

Abel's class from KSS, Kwalikum Secondary School. My daughter graduated from there

two years ago. I just want to add one thing to the member for Parksville-Qualicum's

welcoming, and that is that KSS rocks.

M. Dalton: Visiting us

today in the gallery are three special and very important people in my life. First

of all, my lovely wife and personal angel, Marlene. Also for the first time is my

father, Peter Dalton, and his bride of three years, Cleo Jones Dalton.

Cleo is a wonderful and brave woman. When she married,

she adopted six families, including 19 grandchildren at last count. She helped run

a family logging business for many years in the Enderby area.

Dad is a man who I've always had tremendous respect

for. He was in the Canadian military for 36 years, going up through the ranks to

become a captain. His service included a stint with the United Nations peacekeeping

force in Egypt.

Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

D. Routley: I have another

guest that I'd like the House to make especially welcome. Young Tali Campbell, who

is sitting up in the press gallery, is a student reporter. He started the first

student newspaper at John Barsby secondary school in Nanaimo.

[1340]

I'm very pleased to have a young person who is concerned

with the affairs of the community and with what happens in this House, because it's

so important to us,

[ Page 6114 ]

our future and to his life and those he will be reporting to. So welcome Tali Campbell.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's

family day in the Legislature, but it's also Beef Day in British Columbia. In the

gallery today we have many representatives of the ranching industry from British

Columbia, from across the province. We're very pleased that they were able to join

us today for an event at the Legislature celebrating B.C. Beef Day.

In the gallery — and I'd like the House to make them

welcome — are Roland Baumann, the past president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association;

Judy Guichon from Merritt, the newly elected president of the Cattlemen's Association

— just elected on Saturday as the new president of the association; Bill Freding,

the president of the B.C. Cattle Feeders Association; Kevin Boon, the executive

director of the association; Karen and John Kochel with the B.C. breeders association;

Chief Harold Aljam from the Coldwater band, who is also the president of the First

Nations Agricultural Association; Mark Grafton from Prince George, a director of

the association; Ted Haney from the Canada Beef Export Federation; and Janet Canters

from the Beef Information Centre.

They're all here today to help us celebrate Beef Day

in B.C., so I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Just to make it official, I'd like to read the proclamation

proclaiming Beef Day in British Columbia.

"To all to whom these presents shall come: greeting.

"Whereas B.C.'s grasslands produce some of the world's

highest-quality cattle; and

whereas B.C. beef producers are renowned for the way

in which their cattle are raised in a healthy environment and ecologically sustainable

manner; and

whereas B.C. cattle are part of an integrated Canadian beef production

system that is the third-largest exporter of beef worldwide and well respected for

having a high-quality finished product; and

whereas ranching in B.C. has the advantage

of proximity to markets and the drive to move ahead in a competitive world; and

whereas the ranching industry supports B.C.'s economy through more than $250 million

in cattle sales and more than 8,700 jobs; and

whereas the Ranching Task Force has

a goal to increase the profile of ranching in British Columbia to the public and

the government; and

whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and

consent of the executive council, has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903

on October 11, 2002.

"Know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and

declare that June 2, 2010, shall be known as Beef Day in the province of British

Columbia."

Hon. J. Yap: Further to

the introduction by the member for Richmond Centre, I'd also like to add my greetings

to our visitors, great community leaders from the Richmond Chinese Community Society

who are here with us. They are Clara Chow, president; Norman Sung, vice-president;

Evelyn Lau, past president; Teresina Lau, director; and their executive director,

Henry Beh. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

B. Routley: I would like

to join the member for Comox Valley in welcoming Brenda Hill. She's a registered

nurse and one of the many nurses that deals with difficult circumstances on a daily

basis and does so with a smile. Please join me in welcoming her to this precinct.

D. Hayer: I have eight

more special guests here. Six are our six Global INK students from India's IT school

who are studying at UVic right now. These are top students from India who were offered

to attend the graduate schools at Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and other

universities. These special guests include Chinmay Misra; Nivedita Patnaik; Avirishu

Verma; Pranav Sakulkar; Saurabh Goyal; Vidhoon Viswanathan; Sean Cunnin, from UVic;

and Jason Lesage, a stakeholder relationship coordinator from MITACS Inc. at UBC.

Would this House please make them very welcome.

[1345]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — Open Government Act, 2010

D. Routley presented a bill intituled Open Government Act,

D. Routley: It gives me

pleasure to rise to introduce the private members' bill, Open Government Act, 2010,

for first reading.

Motion approved.

D. Routley: At a time

when voter turnout and faith in government is at unseen lows, it is incumbent on

us as leaders to move to restore that faith. The fourth President of the United

States, James Madison, said that a popular government without popular information

or the means to acquire it is but a prelude to farce, tragedy or both. James Madison

paints for us a picture timely in today's democracy.

This act takes advantage of changes in electronic technology

to promote routine disclosure and decrease overall government costs of disclosing

information while expanding general public access to information.

This act also recognizes the role of reasonable data-sharing

of personal information while safeguarding an individual's right to privacy by adding

a requirement that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provide

for privacy impact assessments, to be completed in a timely way so that they may

guide all future electronic records projects.

These amendments restore government accountability by

creating a duty to document decision-making, giving the commissioner power to oversee

the Document Disposal Act and increasing the scope of the act to include information

from quasi-public bodies and alternative service providers, ensuring public access

to information concerning

[ Page 6115 ]

bodies that are paid public dollars for performing government functions.

Finally, this act increases the transparency of government

with regards to information available to the public. By expanding the scope of the

Freedom of Information Act, enhancing the public interest paramount principle and

limiting exceptions under

section 13, it restores a high standard for public access

to information. Coupled with improvements in the time and cost involved, this act

improves government accountability, transparency and openness.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M211, Open Government 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)

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

T. Lake: Today is the

first annual B.C. Beef Day in British Columbia, and today we celebrate the men and

women who raise the high-quality beef that many of us enjoy on a regular basis.

For well over a hundred years British Columbians have

been ranching on the high-quality ranges that cover much of our province, particularly

in the Interior, where western ranching traditions are part of the fabric of most

communities. Over 4,000 ranches operate in the province, from small hobby operators

to the 20,000-head Douglas Lake Ranch.

Ranching is one of the few enterprises that uses a completely

renewable resource: grass, known in the Cariboo as green gold. Cows and their calves

turn B.C. sunshine into protein, utilizing our high-quality grasslands, and help

us feed us here at home and many around the world.

Not only does B.C. beef taste good; it's good for you.

Research at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops and the University of Alberta

in Edmonton indicates that a conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid found naturally

in all dairy and beef products, may have considerable benefits for human health,

including the prevention and reduction of several chronic diseases.

B.C. ranchers are also among the best stewards of the

environment, as they understand that the two critical inputs, grass and water, are

precious resources that need to be protected for future generations of ranchers.

Many ranches have carried out environmental farm plans that guide their operations

and have won national awards for their sustainable management.

[1350]

The ranching industry has faced tough times — drought,

BSE, the high Canadian dollar — but we know that the men and women of the range

are resilient. Working with the Ranching Task Force, the industry is committed to

finding new markets both at home and abroad, conducting research into new management

and marketing techniques and ensuring that ranching remains not just a historic

B.C. industry but one with a very bright future.

In closing, I want to remind the House that wood is

good, but beef is better.

STRATHCONA PROVINCIAL PARK

CENTENNIAL

C. Trevena: Tens of thousands

of people hike, bike, canoe and camp through B.C.'s oldest provincial park every

year. This year one camping trip in Strathcona Provincial Park is going to be a

little bit different. The Strathcona Centennial Expedition is marking the 100th

anniversary of B.C.'s first and, I'd argue, still perhaps B.C.'s foremost park by

recreating the expedition which originally explored the area on central Vancouver

Island.

The land had already been determined to be a park when

the Minister of Lands, Price Ellison, and a party of 23 left Campbell River in July

1910 to assess the territory. Setting off along the Campbell River lake chain and

then on foot, it took the group three weeks to reach the summit of Crown Mountain

and from there a view of the magnificent swath of countryside which was to become

the park.

It continued on via Buttle Lake, eventually reaching

Port Alberni. This July the Strathcona Centennial Expedition will set off from Campbell

River to recreate Ellison's route — canoeing the Campbell lakes, Buttle Lake and

Great Central Lake, hiking the mountains and the passes. Recreating the trek was

the dream of island mountaineer and publisher Philip Stone from Quadra Island. It

has been years in the inception, and with the execution coming soon, the final details

are being worked out, including where and when people can join in.

Philip isn't doing it just because he can. He loves

the area and wants to raise awareness of the beauty and the history of Strathcona

Provincial Park. But it is also an effort, in times of receding government dollars,

to start the Strathcona centennial legacy fund, which will enhance stewardship and

rehabilitation within the provincial park.

People hold Strathcona Provincial Park very dear to

them. There were massive protests when a mine was approved at Myra Falls. People

are concerned about horse trails being allowed in the Bedwell Valley, and the Friends

of Strathcona Park are working on trails and upkeep. The centennial expedition will

show the world what we already know: it is a jewel to be protected.

[ Page 6116 ]

DOREL INDUSTRIES EXPANSION

IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: Recently a business

made a decision to expand into my riding of Burnaby-Lougheed. This company is Dorel

Industries, a major world supplier of sporting goods and equipment. I was present

to open Dorel's new 100,000-square-foot apparel and footwear complex, which will

develop cycling and running gear.

This company was started by three brothers from Montreal

— Alan, Jeffrey and Martin Schwartz. Dorel is commonly known for their production

of high-performance bicycles. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Schwinn bicycles,

just one of the many brands that Dorel produces.

They will hire more than 225 people in the new facility,

and that's excellent news for my riding. You know, Dorel has been a special company.

They have recreational facilities located on their premises to encourage employees

to maintain physical activity. They have recreational rooms with ping-pong, weight-training

rooms and even a rock band room.

Another thing that Dorel does is rent lockers at the

production Skytrain station, 12 lockers, complete with bicycles for their employees

to ride back and forth from work and to help out on the carbon footprint.

You know, Dorel is one of the world leaders in production.

They have over ten million square feet of production facilities around the world,

and I believe it's nearly one million square feet in Canada now. Dorel has situated

their central call system worldwide in Burnaby, hiring additional people and keeping

this call centre open from five to ten each day.

James Bottoms is the heart and soul of the company and

the person who has really worked with all the employees to make it the place to

be. Dorel is a proud Canadian company, and I am proud that Dorel has chosen my community

in which to locate their newest plant.

NEW WESTMINSTER SALMONBELLIES

D. Black: In April the

member for Juan de Fuca enthusiastically promoted his hometown lacrosse team, the

Victoria Shamrocks, and predicted that the New Westminster Salmonbellies would "get

a kicking" in their first match of the season in Victoria. Had the member looked

at the record book, he would have known that the Salmonbellies have won 24 Canadian

championship Mann Cups, compared to only eight for the Shamrocks.

[1355]

So the member should not have been surprised when New

West defeated Victoria 8 to 4 that night before a dejected crowd of 2,500 Shamrocks

faithful. He concluded his remarks by calling the Salmonbellies pathetic and sad

sack. There's more from the record book on the legendary Salmonbellies to educate

my friend.

The 'Bellies represented Canada at the 1928 Olympic

Games in Amsterdam as a demonstration sport and were gold-medal winners. They certainly

deserved this honour, because they worked their way across Canada playing exhibition

games in order to pay for the voyage and then played numerous games in Britain and

Europe to pay their expenses and worked their way home across Canada to pay for

the train.

This was a truly determined effort of amateur athletes,

as opposed to the U.S. team that year, which was hand-picked by an American soldier,

better known as General Douglas MacArthur, U.S. Olympic president that year. In

'54 the Shamrocks imported the famous Jack Bionda from Ontario. He quickly tired

of Island life and moved to the Salmonbellies.

Clearly, in spite of the rhetorical flourish of the

member, the luck of the Irish is neither with him nor with the Shamrocks. When New

Westminster once again wins the league trophy, I challenge the member to wear this

glorious team jersey at the opening game of the playoffs.

Mr. Speaker: Did the

member wish to continue with some more? [Laughter.]

canada line

R. Howard: There were

those who said it couldn't be done, there were those who said it shouldn't be done,

and there were those who said it must be done. This was a project that I had the

pleasure of being with from start to finish as a city councillor. I'm speaking,

of course, about the Canada Line. I'm congratulating all those people who believed

in this project and brought it to such a successful conclusion.

The Canada Line links downtown Vancouver to Richmond

and the airport. During the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games the true value of

the Canada Line was demonstrated daily. Hundreds of thousands of passengers, tourists,

residents, volunteers and commuters shared the experience of riding this most amazing

part of a great transit system.

Hearing spontaneous bouts of O

Canada being sung by Olympic fans on the Canada Line is a memory I will cherish.

The experience that we all had with the Canada Line during the Olympics translated

into increased ridership overall, and it's continuing to grow today. Right now almost

100,000 passengers per day take the Canada Line, which is three years ahead of

schedule

of TransLink's target.

The Canada Line is taking cars off our roads and taking

carbon dioxide out of the air. The Canada Line is keeping congestion off our highways

and leaving more money in pockets of consumers. The Canada Line is supporting the

growth of Richmond and is making the connection to YVR easier than ever.

To those who said it couldn't be done and shouldn't

be done, I say enjoy your meal of crow. To those who

[ Page 6117 ]

got it done, on behalf of the people of Richmond I say thank you. The Canada Line

is a legacy for the province of British Columbia.

vancouver island

water watch coalition conference

S. Fraser: The member

for Nanaimo and I had the honour of attending a major conference last Sunday. We

were in good company. Some 500 concerned citizens joined us in Nanaimo at Beban

Park for Your Water, Your Future. The theme of the Vancouver Island Water Watch

Coalition's forum was an important one — in essence, our survival on this planet.

Water is key.

The goal was to inform citizens of the dangers of privatization

of water and watersheds that sustain our communities. The premise is that a well-informed

public will make the right choices for themselves, for the communities they live

in and for generations to follow.

Vancouver Island Water Watch is a non-partisan, multicommunity

organization that has expanded to include groups in every region of Vancouver Island.

These regional groups are composed of individuals, ecumenical organizations, environmental

organizations, businesses, social justice activists and organizations, anti-poverty

organizations, unions, retired workers and others.

[1400]

They coordinate activities with independent local and

regional coalitions who actively promote the protection of community water and watershed

systems, community watersheds and the environment and the precious resource that

water is in our communities.

Talk about a great lineup of speakers. Maude Barlow

is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and senior adviser on water

to the United Nations. I've seen Maude speak before, and she is brilliant. Her analysis

of the dangers we all face from the commercialization, commodification and privatization

of water is riveting, compelling and inspiring.

Following Maude Barlow, we heard no less compelling

presentations from a star-studded cast, including two former members of this House,

Rafe Mair and Corky Evans. Other very informative presenters included Arthur Caldicott,

Ingmar Lee, Robin Mathews, Trevor Wicks and Andrew Gage.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO ENERGY PURCHASE

AGREEMENT WITH FORREST KERR project

J. Horgan: Last week the

government and B.C. Hydro quietly announced that they had signed an electricity

purchase agreement with the AltaGas Income Trust for the Forrest Kerr run-of-river

project in northwestern British Columbia. The interesting thing about this announcement

is that it is a 60-year term with the consumer price index indexed over the course

of that period of time. Unfortunately, Forrest Kerr only has a 40-year water licence.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. How is it

that the government of British Columbia will allow a 60-year contract on a 40-year

licence? How do you do that?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As the

member stated, last Friday was a great day — a great day for the people of the northwest

of this province, a great day for the Tahltan Nation, good news for the ratepayers

of British Columbia and something I'm very proud of. As with all projects, the proponent

must obtain all of the environmental and regulatory requirements to meet the needs

of that. They will be looking at a 40-year water licence. They will have to apply

for a renewal of 20 years, and at that time the determination will be made.

But Member, I do want to say…. I know you seem to think

that Friday was somewhat to be hidden, in the implication of your question. I can

tell you we're very proud of this and what's taken place, and let me tell you, the

Tahltan are as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member

has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: You can always

tell how proud a government is by how late on a Friday afternoon they issue the

press release. Now, this one did come out before five o'clock, so I guess there

is a modest amount of pride in that.

But I have another question for the minister. If he

doesn't want to talk about the term, let's talk about how much it's going to cost

British Columbians for this fixed-term, 60-year indexed contract.

The minister has said he will not buy power that he

can't sell on the open market. Will the minister today tell us the megawatt cost

of this project? How much is it going to cost for one megawatt hour of electricity

from the Forrest Kerr run-of-river project?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With

all due respect, it clearly shows with those comments that he doesn't understand

how the markets work or how business works or how you actually have to make these.

Let me tell you. Let me leave no….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister,

just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: If there's

any question of how proud we are, I'll reiterate it. I'm extremely proud of a situation

where we can actually benefit the people of

[ Page 6118 ]

northwest British Columbia, we can benefit the Tahltan First Nation, and we can

actually have a company that's going to invest and create jobs.

[1405]

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. What I find

very interesting from the member is that until 2003, when our government made the

change, there was no expiration date on the water licences issued by the NDP during

the 1990s. I want to take the opportunity to read into the record the Boston Bar–Scuzzy

Creek generating station — no expiration date on the water licence. Soo River plant

— no expiration date on the water licence; they're in perpetuity.

The list is long, Member. So to question a project of

this magnitude, one that benefits not only the people of the northwest, not only

the Tahltan Nation, but all British Columbians, I have to question your business

sense, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member

has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: I could feel

the pride when the minister said that he was going to be buying low and selling

high. But he didn't get that out.

Let me help the minister out a little bit. The average

price of the private power that the government has been signing up for is $88 to

$120 a megawatt hour. Now, the minister will know that the five-year average for

electricity on the commodity market is $54 a megawatt hour. So we're buying at $120

and selling at $54.

I want all members of the House to take some comfort.

Over the past 18 months, the government has had one day — one day in 18 months —

where they were able to make some money off this private power.

So again to the minister: will he tell the people of

British Columbia what the cost is for this 60-year indexed agreement for an income

trust from Alberta?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think

the member implied that I said we would buy high and sell low. I've said nothing

of the sort.

But the member seems to have a problem with investment.

What I will tell the member is that we're in favour of investment in British Columbia.

We're in favour of generating clean, green, renewable electricity. We're going to

continue to do that, but if the member is implying that because there's a company

from Alberta that actually is going to reap a benefit, I encourage the member to

go back, to look at the numbers, to look at the contracts that you entered into,

Member, when the opposition was in government — Alberta companies, Ontario companies.

You know what? I'm proud that people want to invest

in British Columbia. I'll tell you another thing. We're going to continue in the

direction to create jobs in British Columbia and create clean, green, renewable

electricity, and we're going to do it on our terms.

B. Ralston: British Columbians

themselves have long been the main beneficiaries of British Columbia's hydroelectric

resources, but that's clearly changing. This is a very long-term energy purchase

deal; 60 years is unheard of. Roberto Luongo's contract with the Canucks looks like

an overnight fix compared to this.

The company is bearing no risk at all because B.C. Hydro

has guaranteed to buy all the power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Either the

minister doesn't know the answer or he just won't share it with the public. How

much is he paying Forrest Kerr for the power from this contract?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think

the member knows — we've canvassed this numerous times — that due to confidentiality

we don't put out specific prices, but if the member and the opposition want to listen,

the range of prices that is paid for clean energy in British Columbia will be made

available. We do that. We've made that commitment.

But the other one is…. I can tell you the big difference.

We don't support being a net importer of electricity. We're committed to becoming

electricity self-sufficient in British Columbia again. We're going to continue to

do that.

Interjections.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Just take

your seat for a second, Member.

Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, a direct

award of the contract, no public oversight. Is it any wonder the public is suspicious

of these kinds of deals? Why doesn't the minister just answer the question: how

much is the public paying for power from Forrest Kerr?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The

member can ask the same question a hundred times. He'll get the same answer. Member,

I've actually done that. Let me tell you, what we are….

What the member is saying is that the opposition is

in favour of importing dirty energy regardless of whether it's cheaper. We're in

favour of generating clean, green renewable energy in British Columbia that creates

job, Member.

There's also, I want to point out, a significant benefit.

We committed to building the northwest transmission line. We have an agreement with

the federal government. We now have a $180 million contribution towards this line

that's going to help the people of the northwest. It's

[ Page 6119 ]

going to help the Tahltan Nation, and it's going to help the ratepayers of British

Columbia.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON USED CLOTHING COSTS

S. Chandra Herbert: From

restaurant meals to the tourism sector, the HST betrayal will hurt British Columbians

every step of the way. Now we learn even used clothing is going to become more expensive

under the HST. Starting July 1, stores like Value Village, stores like Salvation

Army will be forced to charge their customers an additional 7 percent.

To the Finance Minister: why are B.C. Liberals making

it more difficult for B.C. families to purchase affordable reused clothes?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I outlined

yesterday, B.C. families that are low- and modest-income families are going to receive

the benefit of the HST credit, a cheque in the mail every three months, to help

offset some of those things that will cost a little bit more.

Yesterday I also shared with the House some comparisons

as to what a family would pay in personal income tax today compared to what they

would have paid on the same amount of income in 2001. It's interesting that one

of the opposition members asked me where my….

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: One of

the members asked where the facts came from and questioned the facts. Actually,

the facts for what that person would pay in 2001 came out of a budget document that

has Joy MacPhail's picture on page 3.

Let me just share for the House another example that

comes, again, out of that same budget document with Joy MacPhail's picture on it

from 2001. This is about the total taxes that a family of four would pay in British

Columbia — all the taxes — income tax, including the sales tax and the harmonized

sales tax, as it will be.

A two-income family of four earning $60,000 a year,

according to Joy MacPhail in 2001, would pay a total of $14,478 in taxes to the

provincial government. On Budget 2010 it's got the apples and apples comparison.

That exact same family today would pay only $11,031.

Mr. Speaker: The member

has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well,

I asked about old clothes, not old lines, not used lines that the minister tries

to apply to this issue.

In my riding the West End Seniors Network runs a popular

used clothing store and has a very loyal client base. They've told me they don't

want to charge their customers more — many of whom are living on fixed incomes —

and they also want to support reusing clothes because it's good for the environment.

But starting July 1, the B.C. Liberals are forcing them to charge more.

[1415]

People of B.C. have been loud and clear about this government's

HST betrayal. Will the minister stop defending the indefensible and scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm glad

the member brought up the example of seniors, because I can give you, again, some

actual facts from Joy MacPhail's budget of 2001 and what a senior couple, with $30,000

of pension income, would have paid in their total provincial taxes under Joy MacPhail's

budget. It would have been a total of $5,103.

Under a B.C. Liberal budget from 2010, including the

harmonized sales tax and the benefit of the HST credit that comes off, that same

senior couple will be paying $2,500 less.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

WEDDING COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION

OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

D. Black: This government's

flimsy defence of the HST is simply infuriating the public. With the wedding season

just around the corner, B.C.'s brides and grooms, who've been planning their big

day for months, are now being forced to pay much more with the HST. Venue rentals,

catering, wedding planners, air travel, tailoring — all of them will cost more under

the HST, and the list goes on and on.

Brides and grooms are just one group who will be hurt

by this betrayal, but they are part of the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians

who've said no to the HST.

So my question is to the Premier. Will he finally do

the right thing, just say, "I do," and scrap the HST now?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we

saw in the 1990s, actually, was young married couples who had no job opportunities

in British Columbia. That's why in the late 1990s we saw 50,000 young British Columbians

leave this province in search of job opportunities elsewhere.

What we actually see today, because of the tax changes

that this government has made, is more job opportunities for young families in British

Columbia so that they can actually have more money in their pockets and they can

build a future in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member

has a supplemental.

[ Page 6120 ]

D. Black: Well, clearly

British Columbians can see now what the Liberal election vows are worth — nothing.

The B.C. Liberal HST was concocted in the middle of

summer only days after the provincial election, when they promised not to implement

the HST. As soon as the election was over, it was sprung on the people of British

Columbia without any warning or any consultation.

Now it's clear that the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal will

spare no one, not even the couples who are preparing for their weddings, not even

their families who are supporting them in one of the most exciting but expensive

undertakings of their lives.

Again to the Premier. Across B.C. hundreds of thousands

of people have rejected the HST. Will he finally do the right thing, stand up in

the House today and say: "No, cancel the HST"?

[1420]

Hon. C. Hansen: This is

coming from a member of a political party that actually taxed young families out

of this province in the 1990s.

As opposed to the NDP, which actually turned British

Columbia into a have-not province, we have made British Columbia into a have province.

We have made sure that tax rates have come down for those young families. Every

young married couple in British Columbia today is paying thousands of dollars less

in taxes than they would have in 2001 under the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: You've all seen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

I remind members that we want to listen to the question

and listen to the answer. The member for Fraser-Nicola has the floor.

H. Lali: You've all seen

the commercial on television with the bankers with their hands in your back pocket.

They follow you around. We know that the Minister of Finance is going to tax you

from birth until death. Just imagine the shock of British Columbians, obviously,

when they found out that weddings were also on the list.

Maybe the Minister of Health cheated. He avoided paying

the HST. He got married and had a kid just in the last year alone. Maybe it should

be insider trading taking place here.

Weddings are a special time for families, for friends,

for food and music, song, love and romance. You get the picture. Then all of a sudden,

the Minister of Finance, uninvited, shows up with his hands in the back pockets

of the bride and groom just before they're about to say their "I do's."

My question is this. The people of British Columbia

did not get a chance to vote on the Liberal double-cross that took place. Will the

Minister of Finance please do the right thing today: scrap the HST and leave wedding

couples alone so that they can go off and enjoy their honeymoons without the minister's

hands in their back pockets?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think

the only time that British Columbia couples felt the government had their hand in

their pocket taking out all their spare change was when the NDP were in power. I

can tell you that if that young married couple each had an annual income of $50,000,

they would each be paying 50 percent less in personal income tax than they would

have under the NDP. That would only be because what was happening in the 1990s was

that most young couples, when they headed off on their honeymoon, were heading to

Alberta on a one-way trip. That's where the jobs were.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: The minister's

answer is about as lame as his excuse that they weren't going to do the HST in the

middle of the election. Hon. Speaker, there's a lot of diligent planning that wedding

couples do before they're about to get married.

[1425]

There are a whole lot of items like photography; the

cake; planning for the band; the deejay; dry cleaning; hairstyling — and the Minister

of Finance ought to know a thing about hair styles; catering; refreshments; decorations;

and the list just goes on. Now they find out their weddings are going to cost them

12 percent more because of the tax grab. Last summer….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your

seat.

Continue, Member.

H. Lali: Last summer the

B.C. Liberals broke their promise about the HST. This year couples find out they're

actually going to be paying more for their weddings.

So to the Minister of Finance again: will he actually

respect the will of the people of British Columbia, abandon his hated HST plan that

he's got right now, disinvite himself from people's weddings and keep his sticky

fingers out of the back pockets of wedding couples who are about to go off on their

honeymoons?

[ Page 6121 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think

what we just heard from the member for Fraser-Nicola is actually sad, because what

he said was that weddings would cost 12 percent more. That is absolutely false.

That is absolute nonsense, and it's an example of the kind of misrepresentation

and misinformation that is being spread by members of the opposition and members

of some of the campaigners on the anti-HST campaign.

I know that the NDP have had to go outside and get on

the bandwagon with Mr. Vander Zalm. I think it's a classic example of how the NDP

have become a net importer of political power.

AVAILABILITY OF

MEAT-PROCESSING LICENCES

J. Brar: The people of

British Columbia know very well that it was this minister and this Premier who misinformed

people of British Columbia about the HST.

This government recently introduced a new meat-processing

licence called a class D licence, which will allow farmers to process their animals

on site, sell their meat from the farm gate and directly sell to stores and restaurants.

However, D licences are available in Powell River but not right across the water

in Campbell River.

My question to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport

is very simple. Why is this government making D licences available to some communities

in the province but not to others?

Hon. I. Chong: One of

the reasons why we introduced our meat inspection regulations for the province was

because we want to ensure the safety of food for the public. What we know is that

when we introduced this in 2004, there would be some challenges, and we allowed

for a number of transitions to take place. We provided $11.9 million to help those

food processors put in those plans that would allow for the safe slaughter of meat

so that the public would have that safety of their food.

We also know that in some of our more rural-remote areas

there were still some challenges. That is one of the reasons we were pleased to

work with the B.C. Food Processors and farmers in these rural-remote areas to introduce

two new classes of licences that will allow for further safety of food that we deliver

to people who want to buy them at the farm gate.

[1430]

ACUTE CARE BEDS AT

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

S. Fraser: The member

for Comox Valley will be presenting petitions today with over 8,000 signatures demanding

a halt to the ministry's dangerous plan to cut acute care beds and staffing at St.

Joseph's Hospital in Comox. The rubber hits the road today.

Will the minister agree today to halt cuts to St. Joseph's

Hospital, provide adequate funding for residential care and stand up for the medical

staff, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and the entire staff who make

the hospital function?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've

canvassed this in the House before. As I pointed out at that time, and I would emphasize

again, I think it's important that the member not misrepresent what's actually happening.

The fact of the matter is that the only cuts to acute care beds that ever took place

at St. Joseph's took place in the 1990s — the 13 percent reduction.

What is happening now, and the member should know this….

I've actually worked very closely with the MLA for Comox Valley. What is happening

in this hospital and other hospitals is that you have a number of patients in the

hospital who are often seniors, though not exclusively, that have had their acute

care needs looked after and are now waiting to transition to either residential

care or back to the community.

But until they are able to do so, it is entirely appropriate

— in fact, a practice used increasingly around the world — that you congregate those

beds into one part of the hospital and provide the appropriate level of care. That's

exactly what's happening at St. Joseph's.

I can tell you this, as a final point. One thing I know

for sure is that the MLA for Comox Valley is also working on another important initiative,

and that is to ensure a new hospital in the Comox Valley to build on the other investments

we made in capital projects on Vancouver Island. That's what we're doing on this

side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. McRae: Well, believe

or not, I have a petition from approximately 8,400 residents. I thought it was going

to be a surprise, but you never know. I have a petition from approximately 8,400

residents from the Comox Valley and the north Island who want to see the current

level of service, professional care and acute care beds maintained at St. Joseph's

Hospital.

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 17

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise

to advise the House that as we draw near to the conclusion of this session — whilst

the vast majority of the work has been completed, and there is a

schedule in place

for most of the remaining work — the government and the opposition have been unable

to reach an agreement under the provisions of the standing orders with respect to

Bill 17.

[ Page 6122 ]

Therefore, I move the following motion:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining stages of

Bill (No. 17) intituled Clean Energy Act shall be completed

and disposed of on or before 5:30 p.m., Thursday, June 3 rd .

At 5 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the

Whole will forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining

stages of the said bill without amendment or debate and divisions called on sections

of Bill (No. 17) shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Any divisions called on the second or third reading of such bill may be taken in

accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be covered by Practice

Recommendation No. 1. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the

provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to

times and days of the sittings of the House.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee

A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of

the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations — and, in this chamber, I'll first call Bill

Pr401.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — Horizons Unbound

Rehabilitation and Training Society

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

J. Horgan: I move that

the bill be read a second time now.

Bill Pr401 standing in my name, the Horizons Unbound

Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporation Restoration) Act, 2010, was brought

to my attention by Dr. Philip Ney, a constituent of mine who has operated programs

for youth at risk in and around the Sooke region for many, many years.

Over time the registration with the registrar of companies

lapsed for this organization. Mr. Ney approached me. He has attended a committee

of this Legislature to put forward his case to have that corporate restoration restored.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: By leave, I

move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010, read a second time and ordered to proceed to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P r 401 — Horizons Unbound

Rehabilitation and Training Society

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401;

L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

J. Horgan: I move we report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — horizons unbound

rehabilitation and training society

(corporate restoration) act, 2010

Bill Pr401, Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Vancouver

Foundation

Amendment Act, 2010

G. Hogg: This bill, the

Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010, modernizes the language and provides greater

flexibility to the Vancouver Foundation, similar to

an act previously passed by

this House with respect to the Victoria Foundation.

The bill modernizes the wording; adds greater flexibility

to the Vancouver Foundation; allows donations that are given for specific purposes,

which may be outside of the province of British Columbia, to be so placed. It gives

greater flexibility to the board to ensure that nominees

[ Page 6123 ]

have the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to sit on the board. It allows

greater flexibility in investments as well as the placement and granting of funds.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

G. Hogg: By leave, I move

the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010, read

a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 402 — VAncouver

foundation

amendment act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402;

L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

G. Hogg: I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — vancouver

foundation

amendment act, 2010

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee

stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 20 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 3), 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave

to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I have the

pleasure this afternoon of introducing a group of 24 grades 10 and 11 students,

and they have come all the way from Prince George today, actually, to visit here.

We're absolutely delighted to see them in the gallery today. They are from Westside

Academy in Prince George. They are accompanied by a number of adults, including

Rob Tower.

This group is the first of two. I hope to be able to

introduce the second group later in the afternoon, but they are touring the Legislature.

They go to a wonderful school in Prince George. They do a great job of providing

a Christian education in Prince George, and I want to ask my colleagues in the House

to make these students and the staff and parents that are accompanying them very

welcome here in the precinct today.

Debate Continued

section 217.

G. Coons: For people that

are joining us, here is a

section dealing with amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act.

I have a few questions about this section. It deals with adding that information

is going to be sent to the authority and to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

It talks about reservation fees and some methodology and public comment. I'm just

wondering, in

section 217(a), why the minister included this information being given

to her.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

the reason we included it is that it is helpful to us. There is a potential for

it to impact the ferry services contract. So it's important information, and we

ask that it help inform our processes.

G. Coons: I find this

a fairly significant addition to the Coastal Ferry Act, where information is actually

coming to the minister or to the minister's staff. What type of information is going

to be coming to the minister and the staff?

[ Page 6124 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I think

it is important to clarify that we're not asking for anything that is exceptional.

In fact, the information will also be published on the website. So we're asking

for it to be given directly to us. The information would include the tariffs for

the core ferry services. It would also include expenses that the ferry operator

has incurred — very basic information but certainly not provided exclusively to

the ministry. In fact, it will also be published on the website.

G. Coons: And with this

information, will the minister be getting information about fuel surcharges or information

regarding the finances of the ferry operator?

Hon. S. Bond: Whatever

the ferries commissioner requests in terms of information, the scope that he or

she requests would be the same information that we would receive.

G. Coons: Again, since

this is one of the first times that information is directly going to the minister….

Over the last seven years there's sort of been a "hands-off" or "keep your distance"

from the workings and functionings of the ferry corporation or ferry operator. I'm

just wondering. In the past, what information did the minister receive from the

ferry operator?

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want,

from the beginning, to make it very clear that the operating model for B.C. Ferries

is not changing. In fact, the comptroller general made it very clear that operationally,

B.C. Ferries is incredibly successful. Previous to this, we would have received

our information the same way the public would have, and that would have been by

looking on the website. We're simply adding another step which would have that information

shared directly with the ministry as well as being posted on the website.

G. Coons: So this new

information that the minister is finally getting, she is saying, has always been

available on the website, but now you're just going to get it handed to you.

I think, if I remember correctly, the Auditor General

in 2006 had concerns about the amounts of information out there and no consolidation

of it. One of the recommendations from the Auditor General was for the minister

to do a comprehensive

summary report in the service plan on B.C. Ferries.

I'm just wondering if the minister will incorporate

this new information that is now being legislated to come to the Minister of Transportation

and Infrastructure and if she will use that information to do a comprehensive

summary

report in the service plan.

Hon. S. Bond: I think

we need to be clear that the Ferry Services model is not changing dramatically as

a result of the comptroller general's recommendations. Really what is changing is

that previous to this, we were able to access the information at the same time as

the general public. All we're actually creating in this bill is the opportunity

for us to receive the information perhaps a day or two before it's posted on a public

website. Really, it's a change in timing more than a change in content.

Additionally, we're not intending to change the way

that we report on B.C. Ferries. We actually feel that the method we have in place

now is appropriate.

G. Coons: When I look

section 217, I'd like to go to subsection (

c) where it talks about "the portion

of the expenses applicable to the terminals serving the applicable designated ferry

route that the ferry operator has reasonably allocated to the designated ferry route,

and the methodology by which those amounts have been allocated among its routes."

I'm just wondering what the minister means by "the methodology."

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

this is a direct response to a recommendation by the comptroller general. It's simply

asking for clarity — that the ferries commissioner have an explanation as to the

methodology that's used in determining costs. In fact, it's a very straightforward

requirement, and it is in response to the comptroller general.

[1455]

G. Coons: Yes, and the

minister talked about the kudos that the comptroller general gave to B.C. Ferry

Services, as it's currently operating, but obviously after seven years…. You know,

it was a scathing report, looking at the conflict of interest between the boards,

the outrageous executive compensations and director compensations and down the list

— concerns with freedom of information and alternate service providers, the reservations

and dealing with public complaints.

Also dealing with this methodology — I'm under the assumption,

and perhaps the minister could correct me…. She says this relates to one of the

comptroller's concerns, where the comptroller says: "It is essential that key information

received from B.C. Ferries be reliable because it is the basis for fares, and in

turn, fares directly affect B.C. Ferries bottom line and the level of service fees.

Therefore, the commission should apply an appropriate level of verification."

One of the recommendations, as the minister talked about….

And this is a recommendation from the comptroller — applying increased verification

procedures to the information provided the commissioner by B.C. Ferries to ensure

its validity.

When the minister gets hold of the information that's

given to the commissioner, will the minister ensure that

[ Page 6125 ]

it's valid information and reliable, so that when fares start to go up or fuel surcharges

are put on to ferry-dependent communities, this government can stand up and say

that they have been verified and they are reliable?

Hon. S. Bond: The point

of asking for the methodology is so that the independent ferries commissioner can

do exactly what the member opposite is asking about. He or she would have the opportunity

to test, by looking at the methodology, the accuracy of the information. That is

absolutely essential that an independent ferries commissioner do that job.

G. Coons: In this legislation,

is there a format or template for the ferries commissioner to use to ensure that

the methodology is reliable and verifies the information that it is given?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

the whole point of having an independent ferries commissioner, one that has professional

stature, is that it would be his or her responsibility to actually test the methodology.

So it's not about prescribing a methodology; it's about a professional, independent

ferries commissioner testing the methodology.

G. Coons: In

section (

d) just following that, it talks about: "Each ferry operator must provide to the commissioner,

with the information submitted under subsection (1), (

a) a plan as to how the ferry

operator intends to provide services more efficiently…." Has a plan ever been submitted

to the commissioner previous to this legislation before us?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: Previous

to this the commissioner would have set efficiency targets and the ferry services

would have had to report back about how they were able to actually meet or attempt

to meet those targets. What this legislation does is actually require that a plan

be put in place and presented to the commissioner.

G. Coons: I want to go

down to (

f) where we're talking about reviewing that "the information and plans

provided to the commissioner under this section, (a.1) make public a request for

public comment in relation to the following," and there's a list there. I'm just

wondering: how is this

section different than what's in the current Coastal Ferry

Act?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

previously the ferries commissioner would have responded to input. He or she will

actually now be required to solicit input.

G. Coons: When the minister

put together this part of Bill 20 — which is close to 250 sections — as far as the

ferry section, who did the minister consult as far as putting together the "public

comment" and "request for public comment" and methodology and everything that's

involved in this section? What was the consultation process?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in

fact the member opposite would well know that the reason we're in the Legislature

today is because I actually requested that the comptroller general review B.C. Ferries.

She did, I think, an excellent job of actually consulting, considering all of the

issues. She provided government with a report and a series of recommendations. The

vast majority of those recommendations have been responded to positively and are

incorporated in Bill 20.

G. Coons: Did the minister

personally meet and consult with the ferry advisory committee chairs?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously,

throughout the course of the work that I do, I've met with a number of individuals,

but related to the recommendations and the legislation that's here today, the comptroller

general actually did a significant degree of consultation and provided her report

to government. Our job was to review it, which we did, and it's her recommendations

that we're acting upon in this bill.

Section 217 approved.

section 218.

G. Coons: Just a couple

of questions about the reservation fees. Why did the minister include the reservation

fees in the price cap?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

what's critical when the ferries commissioner is trying to determine the price cap….

We believed that it was important that every source of revenue be considered before

the cap is set. We thought it was essential that this be included as well.

[1505]

G. Coons: If reservations

are going to be included as part of the price cap, I'm just wondering if the minister

knows what the revenue is from reservations for B.C. Ferries.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't

have that information.

G. Coons: Does the minister

have any idea of what the impact will be on setting fare caps when reservations

are included?

Hon. S. Bond: I can't,

and I am not going to, speculate about what impact it might have. I think the comptroller

general also believed that it was important that all

[ Page 6126 ]

sources of revenue be considered before the price cap is set. I think the bill reflects

that today.

G. Coons: I know the minister

understands that the commissioner, for four or five years, has expressed real concern

with the reservations being part of ancillary services, not being regulated. Basically,

somewhere it was referred to as a cash cow. And the Auditor General had concerns.

I guess there was no analysis done, but I think it's a good move to have this

section

in.

Section 218 approved.

section 219.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the

amendment to

section 219 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 219, as it enacts

section

45.1 of the Coastal Ferry Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 14, by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Regulation of unfair competitive advantage

45.1

(1) If a ferry operator is providing a competitive

service, the commissioner must determine whether the ferry operator

is pricing the service below the direct costs and an

appropriate proportion of the indirect costs associated with providing that ferry

transportation service, or has an unfair competitive advantage

in providing that ferry transportation service ,

including, without limitation, an advantage

as a result of resulting

from the ferry operator having been provided with

(

a) use of, access to or ownership of vessels or terminals

that are or had been owned by the government or a government body within the meaning

of the Financial Administration Act ,

(

b) any tax exemption, or

(

c) any subsidy.

(2) If the commissioner makes the determination referred

to in subsection (1), the commissioner must regulate the ferry transportation service

in one of the following ways:

(

a) make an order under

section 69 (1) and, after an

alternative service provider satisfactory to the commissioner has been located through

a competitive process established in a plan approved under

section 69 (4) (

a) or

created under

section 69 (4) (b) (i), order the ferry operator to arrange with that

alternative service provider, under contract, franchise agreement or otherwise,

for the alternative service provider to provide the ferry transportation service;

(

b) calculate the amount that the commissioner considers

would be charged as a tariff for that ferry transportation service

to recover the direct costs and an appropriate proportion

of the indirect costs attributable to providing the service were none of

the factors referred to in subsection (1) (a),

(

b) or (

c) of this

section present , and

order the ferry operator to charge at least that tariff when providing that ferry

transportation service.]

Amendment approved.

section 219 as amended.

G. Coons: I do have a

few questions here. When we look at the amendment the minister has put forward,

what was the minister contemplating? Why was this amendment put forward?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going

to ask the member opposite to clarify that because I think he referenced reservation

fees, and I think this is about drop trailer. I'm not quite certain what the question

was.

G. Coons: Yes. Going back

to the definition of "competitive service," a key component of that is a drop-trailer

service. I'm just wondering why this was brought to the minister's attention and

whether or not the minister or their staff consulted with anybody on this particular

issue and the concerns with unfair competitive advantage.

Hon. S. Bond: It was a

recommendation from the comptroller general that, in fact, we consider addressing

what might be perceived and, indeed, might be a real competitive advantage for B.C.

Ferry Services. Once again, we agreed with the comptroller general that this was

a prudent step to take in Bill 20.

G. Coons: In the

section

that we're looking at, it talks about an "appropriate proportion of the indirect

costs associated with providing that ferry…service." Now, what would be an appropriate

proportion?

Hon. S. Bond: That's obviously

one of the questions that the ferries commissioner will have to determine. That

would be within the professional judgment of the ferries commissioner.

[1510]

G. Coons: I'm looking

section 219, and they start talking about unfair competitive advantage as far

as use of or ownership of vessels and terminals, any tax exemptions and any subsidy.

What are the tax exemptions currently available to the current ferry operator?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

there could be implications in terms of property tax, in terms of income tax. There

are a number of areas that might be considered. Again, the ferries commissioner,

in the determination, would have a look at those very elements.

G. Coons: As far as tax

implications, what do B.C. Ferries currently get for tax exemptions as far as, say,

not property but other tax exemptions?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

it's fairly complex, and I don't have an exhaustive list. What's important is that

the ferries commissioner would consider this if it actually has an impact and creates

an unfair advantage.

So it's going to be important for the ferries commissioner

to do that work, and as I said earlier, some of the areas that might be contemplated

are property tax. Again,

[ Page 6127 ]

that's very complex. There are parts of it that the ferries commissioner may consider

applicable and others that he or she may not. I don't have an exhaustive list. But

again, it will be under the auspices of the ferries commissioner to consider that

matter.

G. Coons: Well, it's interesting

that we have legislation here to regulate unfair competitive advantage, and people

that have contacted members on this side wanted to get on record some of the answers

besides: "It's fairly complex."

When we start looking at some of the information that

we're putting forward, it seems the minister is lacking quite a bit. She doesn't

have the B.C. Ferry articles. She doesn't have information about some of the financial

implications. Again, some questioning about tax exemptions is fairly unclear.

I'm just wondering: when we look at competitive services,

are there any other competitive services that the minister foresees, other than

drop trailer, that B.C. Ferries has gotten into or possibly could get into?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first

of all, to the member opposite's first comments, we should be perfectly clear. This

legislation is before the House today because the comptroller general of British

Columbia looked at B.C. Ferry Services and said that there needed to be or could

well be some change considered.

But I would remind the member opposite that, in fact,

she said, generally speaking, B.C. Ferry Services is well run. So this legislation

is about principles. That's why we are not going to articulate a list here today.

It is about the principle of ensuring that there is not a competitive advantage

for B.C. Ferries.

That will be part of the job of the B.C. ferries commissioner

— to actually look at what might be considered a competitive advantage. We think

that is an important principle, and we agree with the comptroller general that the

ferries commissioner should undertake that work.

H. Bains: I seek leave

to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1515]

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the vicinity

we have a school from my constituency, Ecole Gabrielle-Roy. There are 45 students

of grade 10 here with their parents and teacher Samantha Marshall. Please help me

welcome them to this great place of democracy.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: When I look

at some of the competitive services that the minister specifically looked at or

mentioned, like drop-trailer…. There are other services that B.C. Ferries has gotten

into. The new tourism centre, a 2,700-square-foot tourism centre, is high-rent space

adjacent to the new convention centre. A few of the ferry advisory committee chairs

have a problem with this, and the Gabriola Island trustees have a concern that they're

a monopoly.

I'm wondering if the minister thinks that the subsidies

going to B.C. Ferries in an unfair-competitive-advantage scenario, where they get

tax exemptions and they get close to $200 million in subsidies from taxpayers —

that the tourism centre that they're running could possibly run in conflict with,

say, Tourism B.C. or Tourism Vancouver.

Hon. S. Bond: I actually

am not going to speculate about that particular piece of the B.C. Ferries organization.

This is a broad principle that would allow the ferries commissioner to look at areas

where there may be concern that there was a competitive advantage, but the primary

focus of the legislation is transportation services. It is a principle that says

— and we agree with the comptroller general — that B.C. Ferries should operate on

a level playing field, and that's really what this principle embraces.

G. Coons: I'm just wondering

if the minister has concerns, because under tourism and business opportunities,

in 2007, B.C. Ferries established Pacific Marine Ventures Inc., PMV, "as a wholly

owned subsidiary to pursue strategic business opportunities related to commercial

traffic, tourism and terminal management." I can see that the commercial traffic

is the drop-trailer component of the concern that the comptroller general had.

Due to the unfair, I would say, competitive advantage

as PMV, Pacific Marine Ventures, goes into tourism, terminal management or commercial

traffic, I'm wondering if the minister would agree that the PMV ventures would be

an unfair competitive advantage, as B.C. Ferries is getting the tax breaks and subsidies,

and whether or not this is something that the minister should encourage the commissioner

to investigate.

[1520]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not

in a position to make that determination because I'm not the ferries commissioner.

The ferries commissioner is an independent professional who will be given direction

only through legislation. I don't intend to direct the ferries commissioner.

What I do intend to do through Bill 20 is provide the

ferries commissioner with a principle that requires him or her to actually ensure

that B.C. Ferries is not operating with an unfair competitive advantage. That will

be up to the ferries commissioner to take the legislation and move forward using

that principle.

G. Coons: I want to get

into the drop-trailer situation and major concerns, as the minister probably heard

[ Page 6128 ]

through the comptroller general. When we look at the commissioner ensuring there's

fairness…. Washington Marine Group, Seaspan Coastal Intermodal and Van Isle Barge

Services Ltd. had concerns and alleged unfair competition and pricing due to the

subsidies and tax exemptions.

I'm just wondering. The minister has, through this legislation

I would say, downloaded the obligation onto the commissioner to ensure there's no

unfair competition, to ensure at least the competitive rate is charged. I'm saying:

what evidence will there be to ensure there will be a level playing field with those

in the drop-trailer business who are trying to compete with B.C. Ferries?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I

think that the member opposite should take a great deal of confidence in the fact

that when the comptroller general made the recommendation that we contemplate the

issue of a fair, competitive circumstance in British Columbia, we responded to that

with this legislation.

I have every confidence that an independent, professional

ferries commissioner will take very seriously the legislation that will be provided

to him or her. In fact, we have every confidence that that professional, independent

individual will ensure that we have a competitive environment for those services

in the province.

V. Huntington: The minister

will recall that during the fall estimates we had a rather extensive discussion

on the issue of the drop-trailer competitive advantage that B.C. Ferries, in my

opinion, had. At that time the minister was unable to provide for me the exact terms

of reference that she had provided to the comptroller general. But I simply want

to thank the minister and her staff for the thorough response that they have provided.

I think the entire business community, with responding

to what was in many of our minds a serious issue…. I think the speed and the thoroughness

with which the comptroller general provided a report to the ministry and your department

should be congratulated. I wanted to just put that on record.

G. Coons: I'm still trying

to grasp and trying to understand how the commissioner will determine what is fair

and what is unfair with no direction from the minister. When you look at the objectives

of the commissioner, number one still is to look after the financial sustainability

of the corporation.

I'm just wondering: will such things as infrastructure,

real estate, staff and vessel costs come into account? This is because those concerned

— as I said, Seaspan and Van Isle Barge Services — are looking to this legislation

and some sort of commitment from the minister that there will be fairness or a definition

or a determination from the minister on how it's going to be determined to be fair

or unfair versus sloughing it off to the commissioner.

Hon. S. Bond: First of

all, I want to just also respond to the member for Delta South. I really do appreciate

and wanted to convey to her how much I appreciate occasionally a member standing

up and recognizing that work has been done by staff and by the comptroller general

which I think is in the best interests of British Columbia. I think occasionally

those good things happen in this place, and I think it should not go without notice.

I appreciate that.

[1525]

The member brought us a series of concerns from her

constituents, and we listened very carefully, and I think the comptroller general

did as well. So I want to say that I appreciate the recognition for staff and for

the comptroller general.

To the member opposite, I would like to suggest that

we are hardly sloughing off this issue. We are bringing the most serious direction

that one can provide, and that is through the law in British Columbia. This legislation

will require the ferries commissioner to look at anything that might be perceived

or, in fact, in reality have the ability to give B.C. Ferry Services an unfair advantage.

In fact, the amendment that we've already passed made

sure that the scope was broad enough to cover whatever items might need to be considered

in this. So I have every confidence that whoever is the ferries commissioner of

the day will take the most serious guidance, which is the law.

Section 219 as amended approved.

Sections 220 to 223 inclusive approved.

section 224.

G. Coons: I want to look

section 224 — a few questions about alternate service providers. I do want to

look at the changes and acknowledge that since day one we've said this is not workable

— to try to find alternative service providers, as far as

section 69.

The minister, in her consultation and listening to the

comptroller general, and I'm sure talking with B.C. Ferries…. I'm wondering what

would be the cost per year of B.C. Ferries, the current operator, trying to put

in effect

section 69.

Hon. S. Bond: This

section

is really about looking at current practice. The comptroller general, at least,

outlined that this particular practice has not been overly successful, and so the

comptroller general actually recommended that we take away the mandatory requirement

to look for alternate or additional service providers.

I can only imagine that the ferries commissioner would

look at requiring this if it were to be a cost advantage. I'm told, at least — and

would find that very practical — that this

section actually might reduce costs.

We don't

[ Page 6129 ]

anticipate a large cost when we're removing a mandatory requirement — retaining

it as an option. I can't imagine that we would see additional costs as a result

of this section.

Sections 224 and 225 approved.

section 226.

G. Coons:

Section 226

is something…. The minister says it's not too often that a member stands up and

says that this is a good amendment and that the government has listened.

Since day one, back in April 2003, there have been concerns

about the exemption of B.C. Ferries from freedom of information.

[1530]

The Privacy Commissioner had major concerns and sent

a letter to the minister of the day, saying that they should not be exempt and that

he had problems with them. Again, seven years of a lot of people trying to get information,

whether it's people in the Legislature, MLAs, ferry users or the public.

I just have one question, and kudos for putting this

in there. We've called for it. We've put forth our Fair Ferries bill on this side

of the House, which included freedom of information. I'm just wondering: approximately,

what would be the date of commencement of

section 226 after this bill is passed?

Hon. S. Bond: I do want

to provide a bit of context for the freedom-of-information issue, because I know

the member has been very public with his concerns about this. In fact, you cannot….

Certainly, I think the comptroller general also made the point.

It is possible now for us to contemplate freedom of

information for B.C. Ferries because there is no longer, once this becomes law,

a requirement to look for alternative service provision. There was, and would have

continued to be, an issue of commerciality. Now that that no longer exists, we are

able to move B.C. Ferries under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy

process.

To that point, we have been clear that this will follow

the normal course of procedure in terms of moving B.C. Ferries, as other entities,

under freedom of information. There are a number of processes that have to be put

in place, but I can assure the member opposite that we will do it as expeditiously

as possible.

Sections 226 to 244 inclusive approved.

section 245.

G. Coons: There is an

amendment that I've had on the order paper dealing with 245, so I would like to

put forward the amendment.

[ In

Part 12 – Transportation

and Infrastructure Amendments, adding the following section:

SECTION 245.1,

Section 75 of

the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c. 14, is deleted. ]

On the amendment.

G. Coons: Just for the

minister and staff and people following along, in 2003 when the Coastal Ferry Act

came into effect,

section 75, under the Ombudsperson Act…. It says that the Ombudsperson

Act does not apply to the authority or to B.C. Ferry Corporation after its conversion.

The amendment would make the Ombudsperson Act apply.

Travellers, communities, businesses and taxpayers are

all affected by the decisions of the corporation, but at this point in time there's

no requirement to consider their impacts. There is a public input component in this

legislation, but there are concerns that people — whether they are in the tourism

sector, trucking, construction, commuters, seniors — need to be treated fairly in

the provision of all public services.

The Ombudsperson, as people know, is the independent

voice for fairness so that every person in British Columbia is treated fairly in

the provision of public services. There's quite a lot of information that the Ombudsman

does, and it promotes and fosters fairness in public administration.

[1535]

I believe that as we push forward to include B.C. Ferries

and the authority under freedom of information, it also should be included under

the Ombudsman Act.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 245 approved.

section 246.

G. Coons: Just a few questions

about

section 246. It talks about baseline remuneration of the directors of B.C.

Ferries. Just so I understand it and to make this clear, what concerns did the minister

have with remuneration of directors at B.C. Ferries?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly

before we draw to the end of our sections, I want to be sure to put on the record

my thanks to an incredible staff team that we have working not only on this but

on dozens of other initiatives at the same time.

Today I have been supported incredibly well by Peter

Milburn, Frank Blasetti and Nisha Bathe, and I appreciate the incredibly good job

they do on behalf of British Columbians. They represent a team of hundreds of people

in the Transportation Ministry, and it is an exceptional group of individuals. I

just wanted to make sure

[ Page 6130 ]

that they were given the appropriate thank-you for the work they do.

I think it's clear to the member opposite that, in fact,

we shared the belief and the recommendation that the comptroller general made. Considering

the nature of this organization — and despite the extremely good work that the comptroller

general agreed that they did very well, in her report as well — because of the nature

of the work that is done, it was important to look at compensation and remuneration

that was comparable to public sector organizations. So this legislation will require

that as we move forward, that principle will be applied to B.C. Ferries.

G. Coons: Yes, we had

that debate over the last year or so about the directors and their retainer fees.

I think this is a good move to compare them to public sector organizations.

Now, in

section 246(4)…. This is very interesting, and

I'm scratching my head trying to figure this one out. It says: "At the BCFS annual

general meeting on September 30, 2010, the Authority must replace the existing directors

by electing or appointing directors in accordance with

section 21.1 of the Coastal

Ferry Act." I'm assuming that's replacing the existing directors of B.C. Ferry Services.

Hon. S. Bond: It is the

transition date where we will actually be separating the two entities, as recommended

by the comptroller general and reflected in the changes in this bill. So that is

the transition date where that separation will take place.

G. Coons: Currently there

are 13 members on the B.C. Ferries board of directors. So in the next four months

there needs to be a process for gathering up the 13 directors of the board within

four months. What is that process?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact,

it will be a responsibility of the authority to identify and appoint those members,

and it will need to be done within the act, which looks at skills. There are also

restrictions as well. So it will be the responsibility of the authority within the

act that we are debating.

G. Coons: As far as within

the act, is there geographic representation? Would there be geographic representation

on the B.C. Ferries board of directors?

Hon. S. Bond: The authority

will retain its geographic differentiation, so there will continue to be geographic

representation on the authority. The authority will appoint the directors according

section 21.1, which means that they must select individuals in a way to ensure

that they are qualified, who hold all of the skills and experience needed to oversee

B.C. Ferries in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

I think, to sum it up, the assumption is and the expectation

would be that the authority finds the best people for the job, certainly the most

qualified.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister.

As I understand it, the authority is chosen by geographic regions, but B.C. Ferry

Services, for the 13 members…. Even though in the B.C. Ferry Services articles there

could be 20 that we don't have access to, and the minister hasn't seen, or they

don't have a copy of B.C. Ferry Services articles. There is still no geographic

representation on the board of B.C. Ferry Services. Just clarify that, please.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said

in my earlier answer, in fact, there are no geographic expectations when the authority

appoints the directors. There is absolutely a requirement that they be skill-based,

that it be a skilled-based appointment, so that we're finding the best individuals

possible to actually take on this role. That, of course, is written in

section 21.1,

and those are the guidelines that would be utilized.

I'd also like to offer the member opposite a copy of

the articles of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. I know that he has expressed

concern about not being able to get them for five years. In fact, it's a matter

of going to the corporate registry and asking for them. You pay a very nominal fee.

I'd be happy to share a copy of the articles with the member opposite.

[1545]

G. Coons: One last question.

When we started in

section 206 and we looked at qualified B.C. Ferry Services candidate,

we talked about whether or not there would be union representation. It is mandated

to have a union representation on the authority, so I'm wondering: will there be

union representation on the B.C. Ferry Services board?

Hon. S. Bond: As I mentioned

to the member opposite, there are clearly expectations that there be qualified candidates

based on skill and experience. The authority is more than welcome to consider representation

from any sector, and that's exactly what we would expect them to do.

There will not be a change in the provisions, as I indicated,

in terms of appointments by geography and by sector. In fact, the authority will

make the ultimate determination about the appointment of the directors based on

skill and their ability to function in the oversight role.

G. Coons: Again, I'm going

to have to check what was said, but I thought the minister said yesterday that the

representation would remain the same for B.C. Ferry Services when I had a concern

about the qualified B.C. Ferry Services candidate. It sounds like there is a possibility

that the B.C. Ferry Services board of directors will not have union representation

on it like it has had for the last seven years.

[ Page 6131 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I am certainly

hoping that I didn't need to clarify my comments from yesterday. I thought the member

opposite asked about the composition of the authority. The authority will retain

the positions that it has today. The designation of those seats will not change.

The reason that, in fact, there are members of….

The same composition today actually exists on both the

board and the authority. That was the problem that the comptroller general identified.

So when the two entities are separated in transition this September, the authority

will retain those designated positions that they have today.

The change will be that the authority will now appoint

another group of individuals or a group of individuals that will serve on the board.

There are not the same stipulations around the board because we're separating the

two entities as the comptroller general recommended we do.

Sections 246 and 247 approved.

section 248.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to

section 248, item 15, altering

the commencement provision.

[SECTION 248, by deleting item 15 of the table and substituting

the following as indicated:

Item

Column 1

Provision of Act

Column 2

Commencement

Sections 66 to 68

By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council]

Amendment approved.

Section 248 as amended approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: By agreement,

I wish to revisit

section 52 of the act. Thank you.

section 52.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would

move an amendment, which is in the hands of the Clerk, that is changing a word in

52. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That

change is under the formula and under "EER," which equals "energy efficiency ratio."

We are changing that to "energy effectiveness ratio." I would so move.

J. Horgan: It is with

consent. The minister and I discussed the elaborate and complicated formula, which

we canvassed thoroughly yesterday at committee stage. The minister was able to find

an error with his staff, and I'm pleased that he was able to bring it back to this

House and not complicate the passage of Bill 20 by having to explain it one more

time.

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam

Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010,

reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall

the bill be considered as read?

Hon. M. de Jong: With

leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: That

brings us to second reading on Bill 17, Clean Energy Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Clean Energy Act

(continued)

B. Routley: It is a privilege

to get up in this House and speak about such an important issue — an issue that's

going to make major changes to British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[ Page 6132 ]

I want to first comment that I think this act is really

misnamed. What it should be called is what it really is all about, and what it's

really all about is…. Here's a suggestion for you, hon. Speaker: "Clean out our

public rights act." How about that? Or the "Energy and profits for our friends and

insiders" act. That's a more appropriate name. Or the "Public assets dirty deal"

act — there's another one.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: Yes, hon.

Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I will

bring you back to consideration. The title of the bill: Clean Energy Act, Bill 17.

B. Routley: Exactly, hon.

Speaker, the Clean Energy Act. You know, when I think about this act, I think that

an appropriate name might be "A river runs through, but it's not for you" act. This

act clearly has nothing to do with clean energy. It's all about fouling up the B.C.

Utilities Commission oversight and empowering a handful of Liberals, if you can

imagine this.

Just imagine a bunch of cabinet ministers — and I understand

there are 25 of them; they're quite a bloated group — sitting around making these

backroom deals that we have no knowledge about until some announcement comes out

the other day — no transparency, no knowledge about exactly what's going on. And

then we hear today that we can't even talk about this bill….

Deputy Speaker: The member

will come to order.

B. Routley: Yes, hon.

Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: It would

not be appropriate to continue in that vein.

B. Routley: At the end

of the day, what we want is for British Columbians to have public oversight, and

this bill is taking away the rights of the public of British Columbia to know what's

going on, and that is a very serious issue indeed.

You have to look at our rivers and streams, and who

they should benefit, at the end of the day. Well, they should benefit all British

Columbians, I would submit, but that's not what's going to happen here. What's going

to happen here is that we're going to have major profits for shareholders — and

for friends and insiders, I might add.

Under Bill 17…. Our rivers don't belong in private hands.

Our rivers are spectacular places. Any of us can, I'm sure, envision a river. Imagine

standing by a place that you think is outstanding, and any one of British Columbia's

powerful and beautiful rivers can bring up emotions in how we feel about this place,

about British Columbia.

[1555]

So I have to ask, under Bill 17, when you think about

this: is that really what we're going to end up with under the so-called Clean Energy

Act — that at the end of the day it's just a whole bunch of backroom deals that

are done? Our rivers — our spectacular rivers — should be there for our children

and our children's children. They should be there for future generations.

I want to talk about all of these rivers. I really don't

know how this government comes to the conclusions they do on rivers. What do they

do? Do they sit in the cabinet office with a whole bunch of maps scrolled out, or

do they wait for the satellite to send down a bunch of pictures, and then they sit

around with a bunch of people dressed up in suits and talk about: "Well, you know,

here are some rivers available"?

Carving up British Columbia…. That's what this Bill

17 is going to do — carve up British Columbia. And it's going to take away our public

oversight. By doing away with the B.C. Utilities Commission, our public oversight

is gone.

You know, I come from the Cowichan Valley, a region

that's got a beautiful heritage river, and there are all kinds of tributaries that

come into that river. In Cowichan Lake, which feeds it, there are all kinds of tributaries.

I just want to mention that as part of this Bill 17, people are concerned: "What's

it going to mean? Could one of our rivers one day…? Do we suddenly wake up one morning…?

Does somebody throw a dart at a map on the wall and one of our rivers comes up?"

Well, that's unacceptable. I know that people…. I think

about up in Lake Cowichan, the Cowichan Lake Salmonid Enhancement Society. This

is the kind of concern that people have for rivers, and what Bill 17 is dealing

with is rivers. There are all kinds of people committed to ensuring our rivers are

looked after.

This group that I'm talking about — Cowichan Lake Salmonid

Enhancement Society in Lake Cowichan…. I was talking with Art Watson the other day,

and he was telling me, if you can imagine this…. Here it is a heritage river, and

hundreds, if not thousands, of people have come to the Cowichan Valley to visit

that heritage river and to fish on its banks and in its tributaries and even in

the lake.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

This Salmonid Enhancement Society in Lake Cowichan is

telling me that they're scrambling for cash. They've got, like, $3,500 donated to

them, and the funding has been cut off. They need only $12,000 to run the program.

Here under Bill 17…. I heard the member for Juan de

Fuca the other day talking about a billion dollars for smart meters. We're going

to have a billion dollars spent so that we can have some gadget on the wall and

we can tell what's happening with our power. We can

[ Page 6133 ]

tell that somebody has turned the lights on or the lights off. But we can't come

up with funding for little groups like that that are out there trying to rescue

our fish in our streams.

We've got a government bent on taking control of rivers

and streams all over the province, and I know the people that I've talked to don't

understand how this happens. People have said: "We haven't seen an ad in the paper

in Duncan or Lake Cowichan saying, you know, 'Get your rivers.'"

What is this? Like at the PNE — win a car, win a house?

Now you can come down to the cabinet and win a river apparently. That's the gimmick

that we got going on here, and this bill is going to allow that to happen. A bunch

of people sitting around in a room, and who knows how they come up with these harebrained

schemes on how they get their rivers?

[1600]

But I have to be concerned. I think it's an absolute

disgrace that our future power profits — in some cases, even the environment — are

being forfeited by a government that has no mandate from the people of B.C. to do

what they're doing, by eliminating the B.C. Utilities Commission. They didn't run

on that, hon. Speaker. They didn't say: "By the way, we're going to get rid of any

public oversight so that we can just have our way with rivers." It's just an absolute

disgrace.

I look now at what's going on. And who knows what's

going on behind closed doors? I get asked by constituents who say: "Well, how do

all these things work? How do they come up with the number — a 60-year or 30-year

contract? Apparently, they've got some kind of clauses in there to take into account

inflation. My, my, that's a pretty sweet deal. Who picks the bargaining strategy

that goes along with these rivers? You really have to be concerned about it.

You look at these independent power producers, and we

know that what's happening here with this bill is going to have far-reaching consequences

for all British Columbians for generations to come, just to provide some megaprofits

to private power companies and their shareholders. They're going to be making profits

that I believe belong to our province. It's absolutely scandalous that we're going

to have all kinds of backroom dealings going on. A lot of it is with big political

supporters and friends and insiders. That's an absolute sham.

This bill allows $10 billion in spending without appropriate

public oversight, just to start with. It's going to remove consumer protection from

unnecessary Hydro rate hikes and shift more of British Columbians' money into the

hands of private power companies, and the profits aren't even staying in British

Columbia.

Nearly 84 cents of every dollar paid to IPPs goes out

of the province to corporate parents in either foreign countries or other provinces.

Those are the reports that I've been reading. In 2008-2009 B.C. electricity consumers

spent $203 million. They sent it to foreign-based IPPs — $203 million — and $163

million was given to out-of-province Canadian IPPs. Just $70 million was spent here

by IPPs, independent power producers, owned and operated here in British Columbia.

Without the B.C. Utilities Commission oversight of major

projects and independent power producers, the risk for British Columbians is just

too great. The profits will be taken out of the province.

Let's contrast that a bit with some of the history.

When you look at Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, we had the spectacle of the Premier

going up and having his picture taken up there at the Bennett dam. I had the opportunity

to tour the Bennett dam within the last year and had a look around. It is quite

an amazing spectacle, as well, as you think of the history that went on there.

I was recently reading an article. You know, the Internet

is a wonderful thing. You can go on there and ask it questions, and it tells you.

There was an

article by Rafe Mair about W.A.C. Bennett and, if he were alive today,

what he would be thinking. He comments that he thinks W.A.C. Bennett would want

to support the NDP because…. And he makes some valid points. He says that back in

the 1960s one would have had to say either that W.A.C. Bennett was a "brash free

enterpriser" or that he was a "rampaging socialist," depending on one's viewpoint.

[1605]

But he understood that private business should not be

running B.C. Ferries. The issue here is about privatization versus the public having

control. Who's going to have control of the future destiny of this beautiful province?

Is it going to be put in private hands for the profits of a handful of individuals

and people to spend money outside of the province? Or is the money going to be here

and generated for the people of British Columbia?

That was old W.A.C. Bennett's vision, I would suggest.

He understood that private business should not be running things like the B.C. Ferries

or B.C. Hydro. He understood it, and certainly when you look at the history, it

wasn't just B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Ferries. In fact, I was just a kid riding on the

Black Ball ferry. I remember it well because I got lost, and they had to call over

the speaker system. Fortunately, my mom and dad came and found me, but I remember

being on that Black Ball ferry, and I remember where it docked up there in Nanaimo.

It's all gone. It's all history now, because the Premier

of the day recognized that our ferry ought to be part of our transportation and

highway system for British Columbia, that, again, it belongs to British Columbians,

that we here in this province ought to have the right. The public oversight and

control ought to be there of things like ferries, hydro and, certainly, our rivers

and streams.

I would say that W.A.C. was certainly a free-enterpriser

at one point, but he was a British Columbian first and foremost, and his ideals

fit with ours. Why? Because we

[ Page 6134 ]

care about the future generations, and we know that it ought to be in the hands

of the public.

B.C. Rail was another way. In terms of public policy,

when you contrast that with what's going on here with Bill 17, the contrast is absolutely

stark. Really, B.C. Rail — he looked at it. He took it over at a time that it was

certainly losing money, and as a stand-alone business, B.C. Rail wasn't always a

big moneymaker.

However, without it, we would not have been able to

develop many of the northern communities, and B.C. rural communities and businesses

all over the north benefited dramatically as a result of B.C. Rail, and now it's

gone. Now it's gone, all under a cloud of doubt about exactly what went on, and

the whole thing seems to be mired in the scandal. It's just a shame. It's sad. It's

sad, really. It should still be owned by B.C. to generate jobs in B.C.

I've heard people talking about supporting the forest

industry. You know, one of the things that would support the forest industry is

to have B.C. Rail so that we wouldn't have to depend, go cap in hand to this new

company. I understand from the forest industry that they're having to pay huge rates,

and they feel that their competitive advantage…. Certainly, their costs are going

through the roof.

So it's bad public policy, just as this Bill 17 is bad

public policy. It's bad public policy because it takes away our public oversight

and our future public energy and profits — some certainty for British Columbia.

British Columbians are losing so much with this bill. It's unbelievable.

Look at what writer Rafe Mair suggests. He was talking

about what old W.A.C. would have been suggesting, and he would have been thinking

that we shouldn't be doing this because we shouldn't be dependent upon foreign companies.

I absolutely agree with that — for our resources, our rivers.

[1610]

Is there no feeling for British Columbia when Liberals

on the other side stand on the banks of the rivers? Do they really look at those

rivers and think: "It's just okay. Give it all away. Give it to some foreign enterprise

to make money"?

Secondly, he made it clear that we needed to expand

the availability of electricity to wherever we thought we needed it best, and no

private company is going to expand into places that we may need to go as British

Columbians unless there's profit in it for them. That's just the facts.

Thirdly, we wanted the price of electricity to be an

incentive for the industry and business and fair to the public. For this to happen,

B.C. Hydro had to be the conduit, if you like, for that. When you look at it, the

rationale is very simple. The electorate, when it's under public control, can force

their wishes at the ballot box far more effectively than they can affect any decisions

in corporate boardrooms, particularly the corporate boardrooms of foreign companies.

You know, I want to pose…. With all of this change and

uncertainty that this act brings, I want to talk about the fact that we've heard

from some employees about the impacts of this. We know that this government is going

to bring closure at some point pretty quickly here. They're going to ram this through

against the wishes of many British Columbians. But the employees are very concerned

about what this means.

When I look at the employees that are affected by the

amalgamation of B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Transmission Corporation, there apparently

have been some….

Interjection.

B. Routley: No, it's about

introductions, but I'll get to that in a minute.

The employees are concerned about what's going to happen

after this bill goes in, and just for the record, I want to be certain that we are

concerned about the employees and the workers.

Certainly, this side of the House would want to make

sure there was a transition that took as much fear and concern out of the workers

as possible. I understand there were some communications that went out that said

things about reviewing any vacancies or potential impacts and minimizing the disruptions.

But there's still a concern that there may be some disruptions. So I just — into

the record — want to be sure that that's an issue.

With that, I want to pause long enough to allow someone

to make an introduction.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate

the opportunity, and I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you

to the member opposite for that. I very rarely get the opportunity to introduce

two classes in one day in the Legislature, especially when students have to travel

from as far away as they do from Prince George.

I'm very delighted today, on behalf of my colleague

the member from Prince George North as well, to introduce the second group of students

who are here from Westside Academy. They've had the opportunity to, I think, tour

the Legislature.

I'm so sorry I didn't get to join you. I was actually

busy doing my work here in the House, but I know that all of my colleagues would

be most appreciative of the fact that your teachers and a number of adults have

made it possible for you, with a lot of hard work, to actually travel here to the

precinct.

[ Page 6135 ]

We're very glad you came. We hope that you have an opportunity

to take back some really good information and a great experience here in the Legislature,

and I look forward to visiting your school very shortly.

Please, if the members would help me make welcome this

group of students from Westside Academy.

Debate Continued

B. Routley: Just to follow

up on the employees' concerns. I don't know whether these employees are from the

IBEW or the COPE Union, but I do know that they have concerns.

[1615]

They want to be assured that there will be as little

disruption as possible, so I would ask that the government communicate in any way

that they can to try and allay those fears and concerns of workers and ensure that

people feel that their jobs are secure and opportunities…. If there are going to

be any, disruptions will be minimal. So any information in that way would be appreciated.

Finishing up on W.A.C. Bennett and his adherence to

the principles of working for the common good of British Columbians, I would hope

that this Liberal government would listen and learn from the lessons that worked

so well in the past. However, I must say that I'm less than optimistic. It seems

the Liberal government is intent on continuing this death spiral, I would call it,

of telling the public that they have no concern for their public interest, whether

it comes to the HST or, certainly, on Bill 17.

As I say, it's a river runs through, but not for you.

That's sad. It breaks my heart to think that that's where we're going in the province.

It's certainly not visionary in any way for the province to just be giving away

the assets of our province to allow independent power producers to stuff their pockets

with cash from B.C. resources like our rivers.

I think it's worth mentioning, in terms of transparency,

and read into the public record…. I find it alarming when I read what was disclosed

to me on the donations from IPPs — donations to the Liberal Party. Starting in 2001,

they were somewhat modest. It was $32,240 that was donated that year. They ramped

up pretty quickly, though. By 2005 there was $200,663.50, and then by 2009 there

was $599,929.25 for a total since 2001 of — get this — $1,411,009.

This is the public oversight. Not only do we have the

public oversight, but we're….

Interjections.

B. Routley: It's interesting.

I hear some chirping from the other side about donations. You know, there's a big

difference between a government closing the door to the public utilities commission,

taking them out of the picture so that they no longer have any public oversight….

They're doing that at the same time as they're getting $1 million, $1.4 million.

The public have a right to be concerned.

Where is the public interest in that? I think anybody

on the street corner, anybody…. I ask any of these Liberals. You go down to the

street corner, and you say: "You know what? We took $1.4 million from a bunch of

people that we're doing backroom dealings with, carving out deals and writing up

paper — all kinds of documents."

Well, how come we don't even know? We have no idea whether

we're getting any profits for the people of British Columbia because it's a secret.

We heard that today in question period. It's unbelievable. We have no idea what's

going on, and all this cash….

How does one get one of these rivers? Like I said, I've

never seen it in the Lake Cowichan Gazette that you

could come on down and get one of these rivers. Come on down, eh? How does that

work?

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yeah, it's

not in any of the union newspapers. I haven't seen it in any union newspapers. I

haven't seen it in any public newspaper, because there's some kind of cozy club

going on here.

It's frightening to think $1.4 million…. I think that

with no public policy, I would view this Bill 17 as like a stickup in broad daylight

right here at the Legislature. That's what it is.

[1620]

I remember watching the movie The

Great Train Robbery . Well, that's chump change, at the end of the day, for

what's going on here. This bill — we're going to be robbing British Columbians now

and in the future. On this side of the House, we have a set of principles, and I'd

like to contrast those and talk about….

I'd like to quote from our Sustainable B.C. principles

— what we believe in. What we believe in is protection of the commons. The commons

must be held and managed in the public interest. That includes our rivers and streams,

our environment, the whole province. The commons must be managed in the public interest.

The shared public interests are water, air, fish, wildlife

and parks and our protected areas, cultural and intellectual assets and amenities

such as health care and education, public utilities and infrastructure. That is

the kind of government we would be — a government that cares about the people of

B.C. and is not running off doing deals behind closed doors that we can't even tell

the people of British Columbia about.

"Oh, we have privacy laws," apparently. "Oh, we've got

privacy laws, so we can't disclose what we're paying, what we're giving away to

these friends." Isn't that unbelievable? You know, the other day, the minister from

[ Page 6136 ]

Shuswap — well, I won't comment — was wondering about my feelings…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members,

order.

B. Routley: …on Bill 17,

on that debate. We were asked the question…. He named me specifically in his speech.

He talked about the member for Cowichan Valley in his debate on Bill 17, so I think

I have a right to respond. He asked the question. The question was: what do we feel

about corporations? I want to be clear that I think that they're very important

— in fact, needed — in a modern economy. And it may come as a surprise to the members

from the other side of the House.

The difference between us is that we believe B.C. politicians

and our government shouldn't be in bed with the big corporations. That's the difference.

We're supposed to be acting in the public interest. How can you tell the people

of B.C. you are acting in the public interest when you're afraid to tell the public

what's going on behind closed doors?

V. Huntington: It is so

hard to follow the hon. barnstorming member for Cowichan Valley, but I shall try

as I rise to speak to Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, which outlines the government's

plan for our province's energy future.

Let me say at the outset that the list of recommendations

from the Green Energy Advisory Task Force is a remarkable piece of work, given the

time frame allotted to the committee. As we so well know in this province, energy

plans seem to come and go with the speed of lightning.

The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum's

plan allowed "for the role of coal-fired generation in B.C.'s electricity future,"

a role that would "allow B.C. to compete for investment with neighbouring jurisdictions."

Perhaps there should be a prize for the speed with which government jumps on bandwagons.

The Green Energy Advisory Task Force has provided us

with a thoughtful and thorough approach to a modern power plan, one that could see

B.C.'s power needs secured for years to come. While I have some concerns with the

recommendations, in the main I feel the best interests of British Columbians were

served well. But how those recommendations unfolded once in the hands of government

is what we now face with Bill 17.

For myself and my constituents, I must look at how Bill

17 preserves and protects the environment, the power of independent oversight, the

ratepayer and the rights of individual landowners and communities who will be impacted

by power projects. On the face of it, no one can argue with the provincial mandate

to produce clean electricity, both for our province and for neighbouring jurisdictions.

And no one can argue with the wisdom of encouraging — even requiring — energy conservation.

[1625]

As energy analysts point out, the best source of new

electricity is conservation. Similarly, one can't argue with the idea of additional

turbines or bioenergy calls or contracts with pulp and paper customers to purchase

electricity. Who among us wants to disagree with the idea of reasonable and responsible

run-of-river projects that can feed power into our grid?

But as usual, the devil is in the details — the details

that disappear in a deceptive publicity that surrounds so much of what the government

tables in this House. Every jurisdiction on this continent is developing a modern

energy plan that will help it through the troubling years ahead.

I can't describe to members how much I wish I could

support the directions outlined in the Clean Energy Act, how much I wish I could

trust this legislation as the result of expert deliberation and honest appraisal.

That it is

an act that has the stamp of approval from experts in the energy field,

experts in the environment and experts on agriculture —

an act which is the result

of a public discussion regarding the massive shift in direction it represents.

But that isn't what happened. The government didn't

have time and didn't want to debate and didn't want to listen to the public or a

broader expert perspective. As is the case in so many areas, transparency was and

is nonexistent. The government knows best.

The Clean Energy Act is a political document that orders

the experts, B.C. Hydro, to develop an energy plan that already has its parameters

put in place by cabinet. To make sure the plan is just what cabinet wants, the Deputy

Minister of Energy becomes the vice-president of B.C. Hydro. In another one of those

devilish details, the former head of the environmental assessment office and the

Premier's deputy of