2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Surrey police officer award recipients

D. Hayer

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the hands of private members

Second Reading of Bills

Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

R. Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House

Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

Second Reading of Bills

The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

D. MacKay

Committee of the Whole House

The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Hon. W. Oppal

Hon. P. Bell

L. Krog

B. Ralston

M. Farnworth

H. Bains

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. Horgan

B. Simpson

[ Page 12469 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tributes

SURREY POLICE OFFICER

AWARD RECIPIENTS

D. Hayer: Last night in my constituency, the Surrey Board

of Trade, one of the largest boards of trade in B.C., held its 12th annual

Police Officer of the Year Awards ceremonies. These awards were started by my

team when I was the president of the Surrey Board of Trade in '96-97.

Last night there were 64 nominees and 25 finalists. The winners

were: for the Police Officer of the Year Awards named by the community, Const.

Anthony Muench; for the Police Officer of the Year named by their peers, Const.

Stephanie Rogers; for the auxiliary constable, Kimberly Enns; for the Arnold

Silzer Award, the child abuse and sexual offences unit; for the Police and

Business Partnership Award, Erin Barber of Options; top municipal employee,

Colleen Kerr; and volunteer of the year, Bill Brand.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in saluting and

congratulating all of these outstanding nominees, finalists and winners for

their outstanding contribution to make Surrey a safer and better place to live.

Speaker's Statement

RULES FOR PUBLIC BILLS

IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to

review Bill M208, Right to Know Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by

the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

[1005]

The bill would be requiring expenditure of public funds, contrary

to Standing Order 67, and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private

member and will not proceed to second reading.

Also, hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M209,

Toxics Reduction Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for

Vancouver-Fairview. The bill would require an expenditure of public funds,

contrary to Standing Order 67, and therefore is out of order in the hands of a

private member and will not be proceeding to second reading.

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

LUTHERAN CAMP CONCORDIA

(1992) SOCIETY (CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

R. Cantelon: I move that Bill Pr402 be now read a second

time.

This is a bill to reinstate the worthy organization, the Lutheran

Camp Concordia Society Corporation.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to

the Committee of the Whole to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

LUTHERAN CAMP CONCORDIA

(1992) SOCIETY (CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

R. Cantelon: I move that the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:09 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

LUTHERAN CAMP CONCORDIA

(1992) SOCIETY (CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill Pr403,

intituled The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2008.

[ Page 12470 ]

Second Reading of Bills

THE GRASSY PLAINS

COMMUNITY HALL ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

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

Motion approved.

D. MacKay: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to

the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

THE GRASSY PLAINS

COMMUNITY HALL ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr403; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

D. MacKay: I move that the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:11 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

THE GRASSY PLAINS

COMMUNITY HALL ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill 43,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008. And in Committee A, I call

estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2008

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2008, now be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 43 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to

the Employment Standards Act will support Canadian Forces reservists by ensuring

their jobs are protected when they are deployed for overseas duty or domestic

emergencies. Reservists will be entitled to leave without pay from their

civilian jobs while they are deployed with the Canadian Forces. This amendment

will apply to all employers covered by the Employment Standards Act.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Amendments to the Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act,

2007, are in addition to the treaty settlement legislation introduced last fall

and are necessary to give effect to the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final

agreements. Included are amendments to the land title provisions that relate to

treaty first nations to facilitate the transfer of lands on a treaty's effective

date and provisions that clarify how treaty lands are to be registered in the

land titles office.

As well, amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act will provide a

taxpayer with the right to appeal a decision of disentitlement directly to the

minister. Currently such appeals are heard by the homeowner grant administrator.

The amendment will enhance the fairness of the review process for taxpayers and

will bring the homeowner grant appeal process more in line with other taxation

statutes.

Amendments to the Local Government Act will modernize and clarify

how the province can implement local government restructures, as some of the

provisions in the legislation are nearly 100 years old. The amendments do not

change the basic principles for local government restructures, including the

incorporation of new municipalities, boundary extensions or changes to regional

districts or improvement districts.

[1015]

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will enhance the drivers'

licences available to Canadian citizens who live in B.C., allowing them to

enhance drivers' licences as identification and proof of their citizenship at

land and water border crossings to the United States.

Other amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow B.C. to join

the Canadian driver licence agreement, strengthening the overall security of

B.C. drivers' licences by requiring applicants to provide proof of their legal

presence in Canada and B.C. residency. It will also help to improve road safety

by holding drivers accountable for their driving offences in other Canadian

jurisdictions.

[ Page 12471 ]

Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will address issues

raised by two key court decisions, which held that the use of a compelled

statement against a driver in subsequent criminal proceedings would violate the

driver's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendment

will ensure that drivers must report accidents but to an agency to be identified

through regulations, rather than to the police.

Additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No.

3) will support the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region. Also,

amendments will allow the creation of one municipality for the town of Fort

Nelson and the regional district of Northern Rockies. Consultations with local

area first nations, a referendum of area electors and addressing effects for

industry will be concluded before considering changing the local governance

structures. The two entities already operate under an integrated and unique

governance arrangement.

Amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will support the

B.C. energy plan policy commitments by increasing the responsiveness of the

tenure process. These amendments add flexibility to the tenure process to

support B.C.'s commitment to environmentally and socially responsible

development.

The amendments reflect commitments to increase engagement with

communities and first nations, increased consideration of environmental values,

increased exploration of new basins and increased flexibility in tenuring

systems. The amendments will also support the B.C. energy plan commitment that

companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge water produced by coalbed gas

operations.

Hon. Speaker, changes to the Private Career Training Institutions

Act will enable the Private Career Training Institution Agency to set basic

education standards for all registered private career training schools. The

agency will be given authority to investigate if students complain that they

have been misled by their institution. If a complaint is substantiated, the

student will be able to receive tuition refunds from the student training

completion fund. The amendments to the act also ensure accountability of the

agency board by increasing the public representation.

Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Judicial

Compensation Act will fully implement the outcome of the 2007 judicial

compensation process for Provincial Court judges and judicial justices of the

peace. The Provincial Court Act amendments will also provide for the appointment

of judicial justices for a non-renewable ten-year term on a part-time or

full-time basis and will ensure that these appointments are consistent with the

principles of judicial independence.

Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Supreme Court Act

will increase the retirement age for all provincially appointed judicial

officers to 75 and enable the reappointment of retired judges to handle

backlogs.

Amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act will

allow the representative to publicly confirm, if asked, that a matter is before

her office. The representative will have the ability to disclose the information

only after determining that the public interest outweighs the privacy concerns

of the individual whose personal information is being disclosed.

[1020]

Further, consistent with the representative's role as recommended

by the Hughes review and other officers of the Legislature, the representative

will not be compelled to give evidence in court on matters commenced under the

Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Amendments to the Transportation Investment Act will address

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements respecting the

collection, use and disclosure of personal information arising from the toll

collection and enforcement function related to the province's Port Mann/Highway

1 project and will establish the legislative authority needed to enable the

collection of outstanding tolls from out-of-province commercial vehicles at

weigh scale stations.

The Treaty First Nation Taxation Act is amended to support the

implementation of the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final agreements. With these

amendments, a treaty first nation will be required to adjust taxes in response

to supplementary assessments and will be authorized to take into account for

taxation purposes the subdivision of land occurring partway through a taxation

year.

Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Vancouver Charter to

allow a member of the Vancouver city council who is not present at a public

hearing to receive an oral or written report enabling them to vote on the land

use bylaw that was the subject of the hearing. This will provide the city of

Vancouver with the same authority as other governments under the Local

Government Act.

Now I would defer to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and

Lands to speak specifically to

section 22 of the bill, which deals with the

amendment to the Law and Equity Act.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce and welcome to this House

50 grade 5 students from one of the best schools in the city of Surrey, named

Hyland Elementary School. They're also accompanied by parents and teachers.

Particularly, I would like to thank teacher Sonya Eusebio, who has organized

this group for the young people — a nice trip to this building and Victoria. I

would ask members from both sides of the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sure the member said the same thing about

another school in Surrey–Panorama Ridge — as being the best school there just a

week ago.

I'd like to take this opportunity to expand upon the purpose of

the Law and Equity Act amendment. This

[ Page 12472 ]

amendment was intended to allow government to clearly define a consistent

approach for compensation for Crown land interests. It does not in any way

affect private land holdings or discussions underway regarding compensation for

past takings. Existing compensation schemes are also not changed, and nothing in

this amendment prevents a member of the public from seeking redress in the

courts.

The intention of this amendment was to provide greater certainty

for tenure holders around their right to compensation and to protect the public

from unpredictable claims of compensation. This amendment ensures that the

Legislature is responsible for establishing a clear and fair framework for

predicting and managing compensation and thereby increasing investor confidence

in B.C.

However, since Bill 43 was introduced, we've heard numerous

concerns from British Columbians about the intent and application of this

amendment. In fact, many have expressed that it may have unintended

consequences. Therefore, government will not proceed with amending the Law and

Equity Act. It is the government's intention not to pass this portion of Bill 43

that is currently before the Legislature.

Government recognizes that a fair and consistent framework for

managing compensation that both ensures investor confidence and protects the

public purse will require input and experience from all tenure holders. To this

end, the government will be consulting tenure holders to ensure that the right

balance is struck in establishing a framework that is clear and allows all

parties to know their rights and liabilities.

Government will not be bringing forward further amendments to the

Law and Equity Act until this process is complete.

[1025]

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House and

speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It gives an opportunity for

almost every member of the Legislature to get a couple of digs in or a couple of

compliments, as the case may be, depending on the wide range of the particular

bill before us. This particular bill represents, firstly, from the opposition's

perspective, an acknowledgment of the good work of the opposition.

I would be remiss this morning if I didn't mention the member for

New Westminster, a member of the opposition, the Labour critic, who introduced a

private member's bill to amend the Employment Standards Act to do pretty much

exactly what the Attorney General in his wisdom this morning has brought forward

in terms of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and that is to make the

appropriate provision so that those men and women who make that brave choice to

serve as reservists may, in fact, take unpaid leave from their employment while

deployed to a Canadian Forces operation.

It's surprising that the government simply didn't accept the

wisdom of the member for New Westminster, pay him the personal tribute that he

deserved for raising this important issue in the Legislature and let that

private member's bill pass. Nevertheless, the government has chosen, as it has

in previous pieces of legislation this session, if you will, to subsume or

assume or take over or take credit for legislation that has, in fact, come to

this House firstly by way of private members' bills from the members of the

opposition.

It would have been nice, I think, for the Attorney General this

morning to have acknowledged the good work of the member for New Westminster.

I'm sure that at some point, perhaps during committee stage or during closing

debate on second reading, the Attorney General will do that gracious and right

thing, because he's a gracious and fine man, and I'm sure that that will form

part of his remarks in this Legislature.

He certainly would provide a fine example to the Minister of

Health in his remarks around the anti-smoking legislation preventing the smoking

of cigarettes in cars where children are present — another piece of legislation

first brought forward by the opposition which the government adopted as well. I

think the only act we haven't changed this year is the Adoption Act, because the

government seems to be adopting everything the opposition is putting forward.

I'm sure that the government is finally coming to its senses and

realizing that the opposition, actually, is full of very good ideas, many very

good ideas, and that they're finally coming to understand fully that in a

properly functioning democracy, the opposition plays a very important role, not

just in opposing what the government brings forward and criticizing it but in

also proposing ideas and bills that are important, that represent true reform

and that should and do, on occasion, receive public support.

The sad thing is that this government simply can't bring itself to

let a private member's bill pass through this Legislature unless it comes from

one of their own members. It's a bad habit. It's a bad practice. It doesn't

reflect well on the Legislature. It doesn't reflect well on parliamentary

democracy in British Columbia or how it's conducted.

The fact is that in more mature parliaments and legislatures — and

I'm thinking particularly of the British parliament — the role of opposition

members, of backbenchers, is given far more credit. That's certainly true of our

federal parliament. I would think that as this government seems to get into the

habit of, as I say, adopting more and more of what the opposition proposes,

perhaps they should actually step up to the plate and simply let these bills

pass when they're proposed by the opposition, and if they're not quite happy,

perhaps we can talk about friendly amendments.

But let us acknowledge that government, in our system, is not the

only source of thoughtful legislation. Let us finally acknowledge in this place,

notwithstanding its reputation as being one of the roughest legislatures in the

British Commonwealth, that, in fact, good things can come from both sides of the

House, that government should step forward and do it.

It was, after all, this government, when it came into office, that

promised a whole new British Columbia. We've had golden promises. We've had

golden decades. We've had all sorts of things that this government has

[ Page 12473 ]

suggested. I just think that around this particular aspect of this bill, it

demonstrates once again that the government's not quite ready to take that step

and acknowledge not only the right of the members on this side of the House to

be here but the fact that they represent their constituents and represent the

views of British Columbians who didn't happen to vote for the government.

[1030]

Having said that, this legislation — particularly, as I said,

around the issue of the changes in the Employment Standards Act — is very

important.

There is always controversy associated with military operations

throughout history — sometimes less, sometimes more. Even during the Second

World War, when it was clear that fascism had to be defeated, there were still

those who opposed the involvement of Canada's military. There has been a great

deal of controversy around the service of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and,

certainly, some controversy around the failure of the government to put troops

in situations where everyone agrees peacekeeping and defence, particularly in

Darfur, of those unable to defend themselves would be appropriate.

But having said that, there is one thing that all British

Columbians can surely agree upon, and that is that those who make that choice to

put themselves in harm's way, to take up positions as reservists and then to

serve this country, placing their lives at risk…. Surely, it is entirely

appropriate that they not suffer some further burden and be forced to give up

their employment should they make that decision to serve their country.

What is most surprising is that it has taken so long to do it.

When one considers the, some will say, somewhat diminished reputation of Canada

in terms of peacekeeping around the world…. Notwithstanding that, Canadians, I

think, enjoy a reputation abroad for doing the right thing — for defending the

weak and the helpless, for being brave and courageous when called upon. This

honours, in an appropriate way — these changes to the Employment Standards Act —

the dedicated service of Canadians abroad.

I think particularly of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin who has

so many servicemen and -women in her constituency and of the support that she's

certainly given to them on many occasions, and other Victoria members.

I think it is far beyond the time for this legislation to have

been introduced. So there is no question that the opposition will be supporting

those provisions of Bill 43 that in fact provide that if you make that

courageous choice, you're not going to suffer some further burden.

The other sections of the bill, particularly around judicial

compensation, raise a number of issues. The retirement age has now been bumped

from 70 to 75 under the terms of this legislation — or will be bumped, I should

say. One shouldn't anticipate, necessarily, that the government gets its way on

every bill. But let us just say that, based on numbers, that seems to be a fair

likelihood. That is a fairly significant change.

My understanding is that Supreme Court judges now, on average….

One of my friends, who is a retired Supreme Court judge, tells me that the

average length of time they collect their pension is something in the order of

three years. In my own home community we have just recently had a service, which

I mentioned in this House, for Justice Ralph Hutchinson — a most distinguished

jurist, lawyer, community activist and a gentleman of great renown — who didn't

collect his pension for very long. So one has to ask oneself: does it, in fact,

make sense to, if you will, almost encourage people to continue in judicial

function until a later and greater age?

It is a highly demanding position. It requires great skill. It's

an important position. It appears that, frankly, the particular stresses of that

job lead to a very early demise for most people. I appreciate, obviously, that

there are concerns around the issue of finding appropriate persons to do this,

but I think that's something the Attorney General needs to think about very

carefully.

[1035]

With respect to the amendment of "justice" to include a judicial

justice as well as a judge of the provincial court, this represents, if you

will, a bit of further government downloading, where government is trying to

save a few dollars, have what we used to call JPs in the colloquial language

take on responsibilities that were formerly held specifically by provincial

court judges.

This raises real issues. I need not mention at length in this

chamber the great concerns about the recent releases of individuals in the last

few months in British Columbia that are now the subject of a coroner's inquest —

the horrible tragedy in Oak Bay with the Lee murders, or what happened in

Merritt, which is, I think, on the minds of many British Columbians. The

functions of those who hear the initial applications to decide whether or not an

accused person remains in custody or is let out on bail are extremely, extremely

important functions.

On one hand, you have the importance of the right of every

individual to the presumption of innocence. It is the golden thread of our law,

if you actually want to phrase it that way: the right of an accused to their

liberty, to the presumption of innocence, unless they represent a significant

risk to either reoffend or harm the public.

Now, with respect to these individual cases, I'm not going to

comment on them in particular. But they represent examples where the public has

significant concern about what happened — whether the information was relayed,

how it was relayed, whether the process was appropriate, whether the interests

of public safety were paramount, whether they were in fact protected

appropriately.

What we do know is that certainly a JP, a judicial justice, has

the authority to hold someone over until they can appear in front of a

provincial court judge, at which time a better and larger hearing may be held.

But they are quite rightly, as I said, conscious of their responsibilities and

the rights of individuals to their liberty.

We certainly don't want to end up in a situation like our friends

to the south where such a horrendous portion of their population is

incarcerated. Those statistics refer, obviously, to situations where people have

been convicted, but I think it fair to say, also, that it represents a number

[ Page 12474 ]

of individuals who are held over pending trials and hearings to consider

guilt or innocence.

So I think it is important that the system by which we appoint

these individuals be a careful one, that we ensure — and I'm sure the Attorney

General will — that there be reasonable compensation for them. Certainly, the

dollars that Provincial Court judges receive seem pretty big to most British

Columbians. Indeed, they're more substantial than what we pay the Premier of the

province and what we pay cabinet ministers. But these individuals on a daily

basis deal with the rights of citizens, balancing the enormous power of the

state to charge, to prosecute and to hold in custody versus the rights of

individuals to their freedom and the presumption of innocence.

There is no question that public concerns around the release of

individuals pending trial is uppermost in many British Columbians' minds — as I

say, most recently because of the several tragic and horrific cases. One can

only imagine how family members of those who have fallen victim to horrendous

crimes of violence must feel knowing that these individuals were in fact at

liberty pending a determination of guilt or innocence.

It is important, I think, for the Attorney General while

considering this legislation to consider the whole issue of the training,

qualifications for, guidelines and process involving the release of individuals

pending trial.

[1040]

I do note with some interest that the provision allows the

reappointment of retired judges to handle case backlogs. That's probably a good

thing, notwithstanding that some judges may be elderly by the ordinary standards

of the public. Certainly, some of the judges I know have performed brilliantly

and ably and well, notwithstanding the attainment of significant age. There is,

after all, no mandatory retirement age for politicians, and some politicians

have continued to serve well into their 80s, including such historic figures as

Winston Churchill and John George Diefenbaker. So one mustn't be too stringent

about how we determine who gets to remain practising as a judge.

With respect to the Local Government Act, I notice that we have no

less than 35 sections — 35 sections that, supposedly, as the government press

release said about it, "will modernize and clarify how the province can

implement local government restructures, as some of the provisions in the

legislation are nearly 100 years old. These amendments do not change the basic

principles or approach for local government restructures, including the

incorporation of new municipalities or boundary extensions or changes to

regional districts or improvement districts."

One would have thought what would have, hopefully, been in here,

and there with as much enthusiasm as the government is pursuing Bill 42, the

Election Amendment Act, would have been some provisions around municipal

elections and the funding for them. On one hand, the government has brought in

legislation at one level that says that we want to severely limit public debate

for 120 days prior to the campaign and the rights of persons or organizations to

put forward their views on important issues, either to them or to the public

generally. Yet we have nothing in this bill — and it would have been an

opportune time to do so — that says we're going to do anything to control or

make more publicly accessible or bring in campaign spending limits or

contribution limits to municipal politicians.

One could arguably say that in terms of the possibilities of

corruption, the incentive at the local government level is highly significant.

The mere rezoning of a piece of land can take an asset that might be worth a

hundred thousand dollars and quintuple it in terms of its value. One would have

thought that if the government was so interested in ensuring the integrity of

the provincial elections, it might have brought in legislation around municipal

elections. After all, there are far more municipal politicians in this province

than there are provincial politicians.

The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act…. Before I pass on to

that, I should make a few remarks about amendments to the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act — 2007 and 2000. One

section —

section 72 — repeals a transitional

section of last year's Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which isn't even in

force yet.

Now, hon. Speaker, I don't wish to be overly critical of the

Attorney General or the ministry that brought this forward, but it's becoming

almost too regular an occurrence that we see legislation before this House that

amends acts that have been enacted or passed by the Legislature, properly

speaking, but not yet proclaimed and are not even in force.

Having been here once before, sitting on the government side of

things, I'm conscious of the often tortuous road by which legislation gets to

this chamber — back and forth, up and down, up to Legs and Regs, through

cabinet, back down again for revision, comment, public consultation. We're

talking about a process that is almost remarkable in its intensity, the time and

effort involved in it.

[1045]

Apart from issues of principle and politics — whether or not it

will pass muster in the public, whether or not it in fact remedies a mischief

that exists — and particularly around amendments like this that amend the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, one would have thought that by the time it gets

to this place, they would have had their act together and we wouldn't be here in

the spring of 2008 debating a bill which isn't yet in force but that was passed

in the spring of 2007.

It's no compliment to the government's ability to manage its

affairs that we are back here once again. Indeed, there are further sections

that I know the member for Surrey-Whalley wishes to speak to.

There are further sections in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), Bill 43, before us that, again, are dealing with the same kind of

problem. You've passed legislation. The Lieutenant-Governor has come in and

given it royal assent. It hasn't been proclaimed, and we're amending it. It's

very hard on the persons or corporations in British Columbia affected by this

legislation for them to know what's happening if the Legislature keeps passing

bills, failing to implement them and then amending them before they are

implemented and brought into force. It's really quite striking.

[ Page 12475 ]

I spoke only a couple of days ago to a constituent, not of mine

but of one of the government members, who was very concerned about amendments to

the Commercial Tenancy Act and was hoping for change and not knowing where it's

at. The act has been passed. The legislation passed but has never been

proclaimed.

It is a very poor practice on the part of government to

continuously bring in legislation and then not proclaim it. I appreciate that

there are occasions where there hasn't been enough public consultation prior to

it getting to this place. That's very obvious today.

Just a few moments ago in this chamber,

section 32 on page 10 of

this bill — the provision that amended the Law and Equity Act, or that proposed

to amend the Law and Equity Act — was pulled by the Minister of Agriculture.

Now, that's one thing. You acknowledge that you didn't consult. It's very much

another thing to pass the legislation and then discover you want to change it.

That represents part of the problem we face in this particular

session, where you have a number of bills that have been brought forward and on

which the government has already announced closure that won't get public

scrutiny, as they deserve. Public scrutiny, in my language, means that we in

this chamber, and particularly the members of the opposition, have an

opportunity to review and scrutinize and criticize and comment on bills. That's

not going to happen with a number of bills this session. The public knows it,

the press gallery knows it, and the government knows it. Yet they're still going

to jam it through.

Here today we have an example of where the government has listened

to the mining industry in particular — very substantial contributors to the

Liberal Party, I notice. The minister, in his remarks this morning around

withdrawal of this section, kept saying that it's really not that bad and that

it's innocuous and that it's nothing. Nevertheless, even though it's innocuous,

all it takes is a small protest from the mining corporations, for the major

contributors to the Liberal Party to raise a little squeak and a squawk, and

suddenly it's gone. It's just pulled. It disappears — nada, not going to happen.

You have to contrast that with the government's concerns about

third-party advertising in the elections act, where it appears to intend to

bring in closure on a bill like that, which would prohibit the rights of the

public to protest legislation, particularly during the 120 days prior to an

election when in fact the budget and the throne speech have all been introduced.

[1050]

The concept of money buying access to politicians is as old as

politics itself. It's a sad commentary, a very sad commentary, that people have

come almost to accept that it's just part of the process.

So my point around the withdrawal of

section 32 is that it would

appear — if I accept the words of the Minister of Agriculture here this morning,

and I do — that this

section is not the horrific

section that the mining

industry and others believe it is. If I accept the minister's words, then the

question arises: why is legislation pulled so easily and quickly before it even

gets debated at second reading in this chamber simply because the mining

industry raises a protest?

I note, hon. Speaker, that the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, I

believe, wishes to make an introduction, so I will cede the floor for a moment.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Again, I would like to welcome another wonderful

group of 50 grade 5 students from one of the best schools in Surrey. It's the

same school, named Hyland Elementary School, and these students are also

accompanied by parents and teachers. I would like to ask members from both sides

of this House to please make them feel very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: Again, my point is this. This is the place to

debate legislation. The public should have the right to lobby us around changes

that are made, and particularly when you see a substantive bill like Bill 43,

where you're running to literally 147 sections, the public needs an opportunity

to express its views.

Now, I appreciate that governments in the legislative calendar —

pressed for time, overworked, all those things — often find themselves in a

position where they don't have an opportunity — perhaps, in fairness to the

government — to get it into the legislative hopper as fast as they would like. I

accept that. I was on the government side once. I understand that.

But when you introduce substantive legislation close to the end of

a session, when you have a fixed sitting schedule, and then refuse, as this

government has in the past, to have a fall sitting at which that legislation

could be properly debated and considered, that is something the opposition

cannot accept.

So if the government wants to run the Legislature that way, it

does not enhance the reputation of politics in British Columbia. It means that

the kind of cynicism I talked about earlier around the power of money over

politics and the influence of money over politics — that that kind of cynicism

is simply increased. As I say, this morning

section 32 — gone. Not even a peep

from the opposition. Not even a chance to stand up and say: "Oh, we don't like

it." We didn't even have to go that far. A letter from Jock Finlayson — that's

all it talks about.

I note that Mr. Finlayson's letter was quite simple, and these are

wise words. Jock Finlayson will be shocked that I'm quoting him. "In general,

good public policy-making requires that government not seek to implement

far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the stakeholders who

are likely to be affected by such changes." And Mr. Finlayson goes on to say:

"Unfortunately, this kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this

bill."

[1055]

[ Page 12476 ]

So if we're going to have consultation around significant changes,

I'm going to have to ask the Attorney General what kind of consultation went on

around other aspects of this legislation. Does, in fact, the 147 sections

represent the end result of a great deal of consultation, or is

section 32 a

prime example of the government's failure?

That, I think, is a question that deserves asking. If we have time

to get to committee stage of this bill, I'll have that opportunity. But of

course, it's very clear now that with only eight sitting days left after today,

that opportunity may not in fact occur. This government has made a choice to

bring in significant pieces of legislation late in a legislative term with no

real promise of a fall sitting to debate these bills properly, and with the

promise — I would almost say the guarantee — of closure on particularly

contentious legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker on this — noting the red

light, much to the relief of the members who I know are anxious to hear a few

more words from me this morning, particularly on the government benches. I'm

always flattered by the enthusiasm with which they receive my remarks on any

particular piece of legislation.

But we're not going to get that time, and that's unfortunate. If

we did get that time — and I go back to

section 72, which repeals the transition

of last year's miscellaneous statutes amendment act…. Perhaps if the opposition

had more time to spend the appropriate amount of time examining these pieces of

legislation, we wouldn't be in the position that we're now in amending

an act

that isn't even in force. I mean, the fact is that you compound the problem.

My friend the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith often talks about the

domino effect. Well, hon. Speaker, this is what the domino effect is all about.

If you don't allow an appropriate time to debate legislation, you often end up

with bad legislation. It means you compound the problem because you're back in

some other session repealing, amending or doing something different with that

legislation. That is what the result of this government's practice is.

You know, hon. Speaker, a bill like this…. It's like Joseph's

coat. It's one of many colours. It covers a wide range of items, and one of them

in particular is very troubling. It's around the issue of changes to the Motor

Vehicle Act allowing for enhanced drivers' licences.

On one hand, you could argue that's a great thing. It will enable

British Columbians to go across the border from Canada to the U.S. with a single

piece of ID, and that may in fact have some merit. But there are many Canadians

who are very concerned about the issue of identity theft, around issues relating

to privacy, around the fact that we would even be required when we cross over

the longest undefended border in the world to provide some particular

identification — we who have been best friends of the Americans for literally

140 years since Confederation.

The other sections that give some pause for concern are also

around the changes in the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region.

Those were very controversial. The changes made were opposed by many people in

the Comox Valley. This, unfortunately, represents the nail in the coffin of

strongly held public views around what was imposed, if you will, on that

particular part of Vancouver Island.

When you get on to changes to the Private Career Training

Institutions Act, I think it's only fair to acknowledge the hard work of the

member for Victoria-Hillside, who has raised the issue around private

career-training institutions on many occasions in this Legislature. We know that

our reputation has been damaged by what's happened with a number of private

career-training institutions.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

These changes — the government released promises — will enable the

Private Career Training Institutions Agency to set basic education standards for

all registered private career-training schools and will give authority to

investigate if students complain they have been misled by their institutions. If

complaints are substantiated, students will be able to receive tuition refunds

from the student-training completion fund. These changes will ensure the PCTIA

board will have greater public representation.

[1100]

Hon. Speaker, the sad thing is that it's taken so long to get

here. Hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, foreign students in particular,

have been victimized by this government's failure to address this issue sooner.

It is a sad commentary at a time when we're trying to promote trade with other

parts of the world and become less dependent on our neighbours to the south

instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, realizing that we have to

significantly expand our trade opportunities with our friends and neighbours

around the globe.

It's particularly sad that it took so long to finally bring about

this change. Indeed, one would have hoped that the changes would have been far

more comprehensive. I think every British Columbian understands the importance

of ensuring that foreign students in particular, who come here to train and that

British Columbians who for whatever reason can't get into one of the public

colleges or training institutions have an opportunity to pursue their education.

One could argue that in this government's zeal to see so much

privatized, we have expanded private career training far too much in British

Columbia at the expense of students. The fact that this legislation is before

the House, I would submit, is clear evidence that this government acknowledges

that in fact it didn't put in place the kinds of controls that should have

existed in order to protect students.

What the public may not understand is that the tuition often paid

to these institutions is far, far higher than they would pay at a public

institution. Of course, the students who do this often end up taking out

significant student loans, end up without being able to complete their education

and then have the added burden of having to repay a student loan for something

they never received. They have been doubly victimized.

[ Page 12477 ]

There is, of course, another victim, other than the students or

their family or their supporters. The other victim is the reputation of British

Columbia. Surely, if we are to try and take some place on the world stage in

terms of attracting talent and people to British Columbia, we would want to do

everything we possibly could to ensure that those who came here would receive a

first-class education and be guaranteed that they would receive that first-class

education and that they not be victimized by having to pay for something they

didn't get.

There are other significant changes in the bill to the

Representative for Children and Youth Act. As a member who sits on the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I'm delighted to see the government

bringing those in. I say that unreservedly. These were changes requested by the

Children and Youth Representative, who — if I may say so on the floor of this

House — has proved to be an outstanding public servant who has, by her ability

and drive and energy and commitment and compassion, enhanced the respectability

of that office.

As we all know, the creation of that office helped pull this

government out of the political glue that it found itself in, having engaged in

the fiasco of abolishing the office previously, which led to incredible

tragedies in British Columbia for those children under care.

The fact is that the Legislature should do everything it can to

ensure that Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's office receives not only the funding but

of course the legislation needed to ensure that her office can carry out its

duties and do it in a way that will benefit and protect the children of British

Columbia — some of the most vulnerable amongst us.

I know the member for Surrey-Whalley is going to speak at some

length on the amendments to the Transportation Investment Act, but I can't pass

by them. We are amending amendments in Bill 14 of this session. The process of

discovering the mistakes of the government is speeded up. We can at least give

them a compliment for that. In their zeal to drive things through this

Legislature, they're now discovering the mistakes faster. One might argue that

that's a sign of competence — that they're discovering their incompetence much

sooner. That is probably the best thing I can say about that.

[1105]

I look forward to debate on committee stage of this bill with the

Attorney General. I know he certainly does as well. I know at that time he's

going to acknowledge the work, as I said, of the member for New Westminster, for

the changes that he's brought about — the member for Victoria-Hillside as well —

and that he will do the graceful thing in this. I look forward to that

opportunity.

B. Ralston: I rise to address specific sections of this

bill, sections 127 to 136, which deal with amendments to the Transportation

Investment Act.

Now, we've begun this session debating this bill with the rather

sorry spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands jamming on the brakes

and pulling one of these sections,

section 32, before it even got to this stage.

It's a result of, as my colleague from Nanaimo has pointed out, representations

from the mining industry and from Mr. Finlayson of the Business Council stating

the very obvious process that should be engaged in when introducing legislation

— consultation with those affected. That was pointed out, and the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands has fallen on his sword here this morning.

These sections, sections 127 to 136, illustrate even more

graphically the way in which this government is jamming legislation through the

Legislature. It's leading to all kinds of effects upon the process and all kinds

of errors and problems that result.

Bill 14 was introduced on March 13 of this year. I spoke to it on

April 17. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin spoke to it then. It received

second reading on April 28. It introduced amendments to the Transportation

Investment Act.

It made amendments to the Transportation Investment Act.

Principally, it introduced the ability of those people, rather than being

granted rights to build tolled highways or tolled bridges, to deal with the

government…. It created a corporation, the Transportation Investment

Corporation, which would be the agent of government, with the opportunity for

the Minister of Transportation to appoint another board of directors and put

some more bureaucracy and some more secrecy and some more lack of accountability

between the government and those who would operate the tolled highways and the

tolled bridges.

The spectacle that we are witnessing in this bill is the utter

incompetence of the minister, because what's being done here is that amendments

to Bill 14 are being introduced in this bill. The minister doesn't even have the

jam to come to the Legislature and introduce them as amendments to Bill 14.

They're bootlegged into this miscellaneous statutes amendment act which will be,

I suppose, unceremoniously run through the Legislature like gravel through a

sluice.

It's really rather unbecoming of the government, at the very

least, and speaks to the lack of scrutiny and the lack of legislative time

that's available to deal with these bills when a bill which is still before the

House at second reading, Bill 14, is now being amended by amendments proposed in

a separate bill.

Rather than amend the bill itself, step forward in the Legislature

and have the minister introduce those amendments and explain those amendments,

sections 127 to 136 — introduce amendments to a bill that's sitting at second

reading.

[1110]

Section 127 amends the Transportation Investment Act, the same act

that Bill 14 purports to amend.

Section 128 amends an amendment.

Section 128

refers to an amendment in Bill 14, and that is amended.

Section 129 amends an

amendment, amends a part of Bill 14 that's before the Legislature. Utter

incompetence by the minister.

One wonders why this bill is being amended in this way. I'd

suggest it's that in his haste to make political hay and give the Legislature

and the public some fictitious reasons as to why this bill was necessary and

purport to stamp it with some other kind of political stamp, it made its way to

the top of the pile in the legislative

[ Page 12478 ]

agenda but was done with such haste that these amendments are now required.

Section 131 amends an amendment.

Section 132 amends the same act,

the Transportation Investment Act. Sections 133, 134 and 135 amend the

Transportation Investment Act.

Section 136 amends an amendment.

Really, it's undignified, I would suggest. If I were the Attorney

General, I would be embarrassed as the government's chief law enforcement

officer to be putting forward in this unseemly way these kinds of amendments to

a bill that's already before the Legislature. Surely the minister has to be

embarrassed.

He has, as he knows, an independent jurisdiction. He's more than a

political member of the cabinet. He has a separate, independent jurisdiction to

give independent legal advice as guardian of the public interest. Why isn't he

doing that job? Why isn't he standing up to these ministers and advising them

that this legislation is not in order? These kinds of amendments shouldn't be

necessary.

I look forward to the Attorney General answering those questions

if and when this ever gets to committee stage. Given the state of the

legislative agenda, as we are pressed like cattle towards the slaughter here in

the remaining days of the legislative session, there will be very little time,

if any, to ask the kinds of detailed questions about these amendments to the

amendments.

One can only hope. I suppose we're now at a stage where there

won't be further amendments to the amendments to the amendments in this session

of the Legislature, but one never knows. There is the opportunity to introduce

further amendments by tabling them with the Clerk, so that may come about as

well.

Bill 14 was introduced with a lot of political fanfare, but it's

evident by these amendments to the amendments that that was a botched job by an

incompetent minister. He should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which

this bill is proceeding through the Legislature. I look forward at committee

stage, which I doubt will come about given the state of the legislative agenda,

to debating this more fully — why this tortuous process was necessary.

M. Farnworth: This particular piece of legislation is what

is described as a miscellaneous statute. Government usually introduces them as

housekeeping measures that really are…. When they're introduced, they amend a

whole series of different pieces of legislation individually.

Government likes to say to the opposition: "Oh, don't worry about

it. It's just housekeeping. Just let's debate this, and then let's get on to

other pieces of legislation that we know you're far more concerned about."

Well, I've served in this chamber since 1991. It doesn't matter

whether I'm in government or in opposition, whenever I hear the terms

"miscellaneous statutes bill" and "housekeeping," I know it needs to be

scrutinized very closely. More often than not, they're anything but

housekeeping, and they're anything but miscellaneous.

[1115]

In fact, their consequences can be far-reaching and often

unintended, because too often they are drafted in haste. Too often they are used

as a grab-bag to get things we'd like to do, but we don't necessarily want it to

be in a bill that has to face full public scrutiny. Unfortunately, that is the

case with this particular bill.

It's unfortunate that governments do this, because what it does is

try and circumvent this chamber and this House in doing the job which we are

supposed to do — from the government perspective, to bring forward good public

policy and, from the opposition, to be able to scrutinize it and ensure that

what's going ahead is good public policy.

This bill has too many questions that need to be asked for it to

be given any sort of speedy passage. That's why we on this side have made it

clear to the government that we are in no hurry to pass this particular piece of

legislation, that it was tabled late in the session and that it amends a number

of bills, many of them significantly.

I want to touch on a couple of those, because I think they point

out exactly what's wrong with this piece of legislation. They also make the case

for what the opposition has been saying about this government's attitude towards

this Legislature — that it's treated more as a plaything as opposed to a place

for serious debate and scrutiny of important public policy. It makes the case as

to why we need to have a fall session, why that calendar should be followed.

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the learned Finance critic, has

pointed out a number of sections in this bill that amend a bill that we are

currently debating in this chamber — a bill that has not passed second reading.

So not only is Bill 14 a bill which creates a Crown corporation to build a

bridge, which we have said is not necessary…. If you want to build a bridge,

build a bridge the way they've always been built in this province.

They want to bring in a piece of legislation to create a Crown

corporation. The public policy and the thought content that went into that piece

of legislation are so flawed that later in the session they have to, by way of a

miscellaneous statute, bring in amendments to amend a bill that should have had

the work done in the first place.

In their desire to try and create political mischief, they bring

in a flawed piece of legislation. So their priority clearly isn't good public

policy; it's to try some vain attempt to create political mischief.

Well, I understand how this place works, and political mischief is

part of the stuff that happens in this place. It's politics. But first and

foremost, our role here is good public policy, and it seems that the government

has forgotten that. That's our first duty — not quick political cheap points but

good public policy.

That means the work should be done on the bill before it gets

here. Clearly, that hasn't happened in Bill 14, because now in the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act we're having amendments to try and fix it.

There are very good questions as to why the government wouldn't

just come forward and say, "You know what? We've got to amend that bill," and

make

[ Page 12479 ]

that case during the debate. But no, they don't. Why? Because the work wasn't

done ahead of time.

There are some elements of this bill that are good, and we're

prepared to support them. But again, what happens with this type of legislation

is that government puts in clauses and sections that they know will be popular,

that they know there is public support for and that they know the opposition

will support. Then it's like: "Okay, if you want the good stuff, you've got to

take the bad stuff."

Well, that's just not on. The fact that this legislation is not

going to be passed quickly, the fact that this legislation is going to be

scrutinized, because it deserves to be scrutinized, and the government doesn't

like the pace of it….

[1120]

The government has only one person or individual group to blame —

and that is themselves — for failing to do the public policy work that should

have been done on Bill 14, the failure to do the public policy work that should

have been done on other sections of this particular bill.

I mean, one of the things about the legislative calendar is that

it has that break between June and September, and it gives an opportunity to go

out and consult. So if the government wanted to, they could have tabled this

bill and said: "You know what? This is an exposure bill. We want to get some

reaction. We want to get some input. We want to hear from the people, the

organizations, the businesses that this bill will impact on. We've got the

summer to do that. We'll come back in the fall, and we'll deal with it."

Unfortunately, that's not the case, and the reaction has been

predictable. It has been predictable in the utmost.

I'd like to quote from a letter that Jock Finlayson sent this

government. "In general, good public policy-making requires that government not

seek to implement far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the

stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such changes," wrote Jock

Finlayson, executive vice-president of the Business Council. Unfortunately, this

kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this bill.

The obvious question is: why not? Why not — on a piece of

legislation that impacts some of the most important industries in this province?

At a time when the government is saying, "You know what? We want to see resource

developments," and when we have a forest industry that's in crisis in this

province, legislation is brought forward that draws outright ire from the forest

industry and the mining industry. They lobby and voice their concern, and the

minister is in the humiliating position of standing up in this House today and

saying that we're not proceeding with this section.

In the government's desire to not be here, this humiliation of

ministers has become an all too common occurrence this session. We have seen the

Minister of Children and Families humiliated five minutes before a bill is to be

introduced, after they have flown aboriginal elders down to this chamber to

watch the introduction of a piece of legislation that has been a work in

progress for five years. They pull it at the last minute because it was flawed,

because they failed to consult. They don't want to be here. Again today we see a

minister have to stand up and say that this

section isn't going ahead, because

they failed to consult.

[1125]

Well, I've got to ask some questions about that. I'm being kind

here, I think. I'm in a good mood today. One minister may make a mistake — you

know, incompetence and whatever, that they failed to consult. But two ministers,

hon Speaker? In fact, technically it's three ministers, because besides the

minister who stood up and withdrew the section, the Minister of Agriculture and

Lands…. I mean, the Attorney General tabled this bill.

So I have to ask the question. I find it hard to believe that

three ministers of the Crown, including our learned Attorney General, would have

failed to want to consult. Or did it come from somewhere else? Did it come from

somewhere higher up the food chain — that there was no need to consult? "Let's

just do this."

When I see this, what I see is the hands of the Premier's office

over this. These humiliations of ministers are taking place because of the

command and control out of the Premier's office. Ministers are standing up and

doing their dutiful business of falling on their swords, taking the blame for

the consultation that should have been done by their ministries but wasn't done

by their ministries, because of the desire of a Premier's office to get through

a legislative agenda as quickly as possible and get out of this chamber as

quickly as possible, with as little scrutiny from the opposition as is humanly

possible.

I want to make it clear that from this side of the House, we will

not condone the actions of this government or be complicit in their incompetence

by rubber-stamping a piece of legislation that is flawed on so many accounts and

could have so easily been prevented.

This piece of legislation is going nowhere fast. We will be

speaking on it, and we will be scrutinizing it. The government can ram it

through by closure if it wants. But if it does, it sends a message that just

compounds what has already transpired — that they value political expediency

over good public policy, that arrogance trumps good public policy, and that

expedience and arrogance together trump good public policy.

At the end of the day, it is not the interests of the public that

they are interested in, but it is the interests of the B.C. Liberal Party and

their electoral fortunes and not wanting scrutiny that are first and foremost

the priority of this government.

I know there are other colleagues of mine who have points they

want to raise on this particular piece of legislation. But I think it's pretty

clear that what we are seeing is a trend in this government that is unacceptable

in this House, that is unacceptable to the public and that is increasingly

unacceptable to their friends and supporters. It is good public policy first and

foremost, not government arrogance.

H. Bains: I would also like to make a few comments on

sections 105 to 112, the amendments to the Private Career Training Institutions

Act. I think there are some serious issues, and I will be exploring those.

Hopefully,

[ Page 12480 ]

the Attorney General will be looking at those areas, and when we go to the

next stage of the debate, he will be able to answer some of those questions that

still exist in this amendment act and that went unanswered.

I want to start by saying that there was a report made by Mr. John

Watson to cover this area. He made about 13 recommendations. Many of them are

being incorporated, or they are trying to go partway in order to incorporate

some of those recommendations in this amendment act.

[1130]

But in my view, they don't go far enough in many areas. Those

areas that they're trying to cover are not sufficient. They will not protect the

students from corrupt, incompetent and unscrupulous private colleges and

institutions, and that is a serious concern.

Many times these are the students who are the most vulnerable in

our society. These are new students, new immigrants who come and try to upgrade

their skills, and they get lured in by the flashy advertisements in the

newspapers and by the use of other electronic media as well. Here are the

students who come here to get a better life. They want to upgrade their skills,

and they try to go into these colleges. And do you know what? The worst

part is

when they advertise that this college or institution is government-sanctioned.

When those folks come from those Third World countries and when

they see government's stamp of approval, they put all of their confidence and

trust in that institution. When they go there, there are times and cases where

they find that it's not exactly what they were told. They are not exactly

getting what they're paying for. So I think that

part is left uncovered. That is

a very, very serious concern.

I would ask the Attorney General to pay special attention to the

200 private institutions that exist out there to deal with ESL education. It is

about a $1½ billion industry with 100,000 students in it. This act does not

cover that part at all, as far as I could see. I hope that the Attorney General

will be looking into this area and will make sure that this area is covered,

because we are talking about here, as I said earlier, the most vulnerable

students who are new to the country.

Many of them are trying to become productive members of our

society. They want to make sure that their skills are used to the maximum of

their potential so that we, as a province and as a country, can benefit from

those skills as well. They are the ones who become victims of some unscrupulous

and corrupt institutions that exist out there.

No one on that side can stand up and say that it doesn't happen. I

have some examples. We have an institution in Surrey. Over 100 new students that

came to this country were taken for a ride. They were told that they could come

in, that they will qualify for government grants and that they will qualify for

government loans. The process is such that they will be going into that

institution knowing that this is a government-sanctioned institution.

They go in there. The first thing they sign on a dotted line is

that all of those grants and student loans will go to the college or

institution. After deducting their tuition fees, the remainder will be paid back

to the student by the institution.

This is what happened at Barkel College. Over 100 students found

out very, very quickly. They went through the process, and they put their trust

in the government, because it is a government-sanctioned college. When they went

into the college, they didn't see very much of education, according to these

students. Many of them left because they felt they were wasting their time. Many

of them instructed the college that they would not be coming back. They wanted

to withdraw.

Guess what. The ministry, after receiving complaints from the

students, did the audit. Good for the ministry. The audit recommended that this

file should be handed over to the RCMP. The minister advised this House last

year that the RCMP is investigating that college. The college is shut down.

Well, that's the job of the government. They can do whatever they

wish is the right thing to do between the ministry and the college. But my take

here is about the students. Now the students are getting letters and phone calls

from very aggressive collection agencies. They want those student loans and

grants to be paid back.

[1135]

Here is the situation. They didn't get the education that they

were promised, and it was a government-sanctioned college. Now they are left

holding the bag, and government is going after them that they should be paying

those student loans and student grants.

They didn't get the education, and the college ended up getting

the fee and the student loan and the grants. The college has folded by the

action of the ministry, but the students are asked to pay for those loans and

grants — the money that they never received, or very little that they received.

Students have said: "Look, we will pay back what we received, but go after the

college, which has your money."

But I want to say this. There is goodwill on the ministry side

here, and on the minister's side. I must say that. They understand that these

students were basically robbed, but they cannot do anything because their hands

are tied.

I would have hoped that this act would cover that part, and it

doesn't cover that part either. I think that is a serious problem. Even if you

look at the John Watson report, all this act does is keep the registration

mandatory in PCTIA, but the accreditation is still voluntary.

How does that protect the students from those corrupt,

unscrupulous institutions that I mentioned? There are many out there. I just

used one example. I'm not against those private institutions that are trying to

do a good job and trying to provide the service, which are honest. They're

trying to deliver the education that the act asked them to do. There are many

good ones out there.

But there are those that the students must be protected from, and

this act fails them again. I hope the Attorney General will be paying attention

to this and looking at that area. How do we protect the students from these

folks?

[ Page 12481 ]

It does talk about that a portion of the tuition fee can be

refunded by PCTIA if they were misled. You know, the example that I use is a lot

more than the tuition fee. It's the student loan and the grant that went

directly to the college, which the student never saw. So how do you protect

those students?

It is our duty, as the member before me said, as legislators in

this House, that we must protect the people who have elected us and put us in

these chairs — make sure we are governing for everyone, not just a few of our

friends who would be helping us during the election and who are in a position to

pay hundreds and thousands of dollars into the campaigns of the Liberal Party.

That's not what the purpose of this legislation is. Our job is to

protect everyone, especially those who are the most vulnerable in our society.

In this case we are talking about those students who are new to the country and

who are trying to upgrade their skills so that they can help us move our economy

in a new millennium. That's where the problem is.

The other

part I want to talk about is under 6a of John Watson's

report. The recommendation is that the government must consider student and

aboriginal student representation on that board. There's nothing of that sort

here either. The students and aboriginal representation is again ignored, as was

recommended by John Watson's report.

There are many, many flaws that I see in this amendment act. This

was an opportunity for the government to fix that. It's not that they didn't

know what was going on in that industry. It's not that it wasn't brought to

their attention. It's not that the students never complained about the problems

that they were facing. It's that the students have been basically taken for a

ride and robbed of their livelihood.

Many of them wasted their time and ended up paying money out of

their own pocket and didn't get the education that they were promised. That's

the responsibility of the minister. That's the responsibility of all of us — to

make sure that we deliver what we promise, that they get what they pay for.

We're not seeing that in this act. Once again I see that the students are being

left out. Students are being ignored, and their needs are being ignored again.

[1140]

Having said that, I hope the Attorney General will be looking at

some of the areas that I have identified. I'm not standing here to just throw

some rocks at them because they're on that side and I'm on this side. These are

some legitimate concerns that were brought to us by our constituents. These are

the concerns that were brought to the government side House members as well.

There are many, many well-published media reports on these areas,

and the ministry, to their credit, has shut down many of those colleges. But you

know, shutting them down and allowing that process to continue to be in

existence, I think, again is abdicating our duty as legislators.

Once again I will humbly request the Attorney General to pay

special attention to this area, because it also covers his particular ministry

of immigration and multiculturalism. It will affect many of those students who

are new, who are immigrants and who are trying to get some help through the

process that we have in this place.

I know that there might be some other speakers speaking after me.

I will be watching very, very closely when we come to debate this part of the

bill, of the legislation, in the next debate.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Attorney General,

to wrap up debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 43.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43 be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008, read

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Bill 29 for second reading,

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND

PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. B. Penner: Putting on a different hat, I move that

this bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to speak to this bill, which contains a number of

amendments to the Wildlife Act and to the Environmental Management Act that will

enhance this government's ability to regulate with respect to public health and

safety, environmental protection and the effective management of our wildlife

resources.

As with my remarks at first reading, I would like to begin by

speaking to the changes proposed for the Wildlife Act. One of the most

significant changes being proposed for the act is the introduction of new

provisions to enable regulation of the ownership of potentially harmful "alien

species" in British Columbia. These amendments build on my commitments and on

those given by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands last year to regulate alien

species that may be harmful to British Columbians and to our native wildlife.

Traditionally, in Canada there have been very few legal tools that

provincial governments have had to regulate the possession of alien species. The

amendments in this bill will close this gap for British Columbia.

It was almost a year ago that we learned of the tragic death of

Tanya Dumstrey-Soos in Bridge Lake. This young woman was attacked by a captive

Siberian tiger at a privately owned zoo. There have been other troubling

incidents involving alien species since Ms. Dumstrey-Soos' death. It was only a

few months ago, I

[ Page 12482 ]

think shortly before Christmas, that a young man was bitten by his pet cobra

in the Lower Mainland, and only his good luck helped him escape serious injury

or worse, although I believe he eventually suffered amputation of several

fingers of his hand.

These incidents show that some alien species need to be regulated,

if they are a threat to public safety. Potentially harmful species that are

foreign to British Columbia, such as tigers and exotic venomous snakes, will be

listed as "controlled alien species" in regulation under the Wildlife Act. This

list will be updated from time to time as needed.

These changes to the Wildlife Act will allow the government to

regulate, prohibit and impose requirements on the possession, breeding, release,

trafficking, shipping and transporting of controlled alien species in British

Columbia.

[1145]

It is also important to recognize that not all alien species are

harmful. We are only concerned with controlling the possession of those species

that pose a risk to human health and safety, property, wildlife or wildlife

habitat.

A limited number of alien species will be designated as

"controlled alien species." Not all controlled alien species will be treated the

same way but will be managed according to their level of risk. For example,

cobras and tigers will be more strictly regulated than less harmful animals. We

anticipate that the list of controlled alien species will be divided into three

categories: prohibited, referring to the most harmful alien species; restricted,

referring to those species where potential risks can be effectively reduced

through correct care and handling; and monitored, referring to those alien

species where there's simply a reporting requirement.

Conservation officers and police officers will have the authority

to seize controlled alien species where possession is prohibited or when permit

conditions or regulations are contravened. They also have authority to euthanize

a controlled alien animal when there's imminent danger to the health or safety

of a person or to native wildlife.

These changes are supported by organizations such as the Society

for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and are in direct response to a

resolution passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities last year.

Madam Speaker, I'm also pleased to speak to some other amendments

in this bill that directly address compliance and enforcement issues under the

Wildlife Act as outlined in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. The people of

British Columbia support getting tough on offenders who violate the provisions

of the act and put our native wildlife at risk. In response, we are introducing

stiffer penalties for poachers and other offenders.

The amendments to the act will increase fines and jail times, and

in some cases, existing penalties will be more than doubled. These increased

penalties will allow the courts to punish the worst offenders more heavily. This

means that killing an endangered species, one of the most serious offences under

the Wildlife Act, will be subject to a maximum penalty of $250,000, an increase

from the current maximum fine of $100,000. The minimum fine — and I think that

this is also very important, because we know that quite often the courts are

reluctant to impose anything near the maximum — is also increased from $1,000 to

$2,500, and the maximum imprisonment time is increased from one year to two

years. These and other new penalties are in line with other jurisdictions across

Canada and makes our penalties amongst the highest in the country.

This government expects everyone to comply with the Wildlife Act

and its regulations, but we also understand that there will always be some bad

apples in society. For this reason, we are also introducing changes that expand

the scope of park ranger powers. The amendments to both the Park Act and the

Wildlife Act will allow park rangers to exercise the powers and perform the

duties of wildlife officers. They will have authority to monitor fishing and

hunting activities within parks and other protected areas in the province.

These amendments will allow park ranger staff to complement and

assist the conservation officer service, particularly at the busiest times of

the year, such as the fall hunting season. I note, parenthetically, that this

year we've added a further five full-time, year-round positions to the

conservation officer service.

As noted in my initial remarks at first reading, the amendments to

the Wildlife Act will also introduce several measures that will improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of regulation making. Regulatory-making powers

concerning limited-entry hunting will be transferred from cabinet to the

Minister of Environment so that these technical and detailed regulations can be

more easily and efficiently amended, from time to time, in response to wildlife

management issues.

Also, these amendments will lower the minimum unsupervised hunting

age from 19 to 18, ensuring consistency with federal legislation and with other

jurisdictions, such as Alberta.

Madam Speaker, amendments to the Wildlife Act will also facilitate

business efficiencies for the guide-outfitting industry. While many

guide-outfitting businesses are still family-owned, the guide-outfitting

industry has changed since the act was last significantly amended more than 25

years ago. Guide-outfitters have expressed their desire for more efficient rules

so that they can properly respond to changing market pressures.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Currently the Wildlife Act says that you have to be a

guide-outfitter in order to own a guide territory and that only one guide

territory can be owned by one guide-outfitter. These requirements are

unnecessarily restrictive. We are introducing changes that will allow a guide to

purchase more than one guide-outfitter territory, and we're also introducing

changes that will affect investing in and holding guide-outfitter territories.

[1150]

The amendments to this act will also remove the requirement that a

guide must be physically present in their territory for "substantially all the

time" when their

[ Page 12483 ]

assistant guides are guiding for game. We will replace this onerous

requirement with the more efficient requirement of having to be present "a

majority of the time." This recognizes the fact that advances in technology,

such as satellite phones and the Internet, have changed the way that

guide-outfitters communicate with their employees and that a guide-outfitter can

still closely supervise guiding activity in their territory without being

physically present at all times.

We are also responding to other business challenges faced by the

outfitting industry. The eligibility requirements for both guide-outfitter and

assistant guide-outfitter licences will be moved from the Wildlife Act itself to

a regulation under the act to make it easier to adjust these requirements to

better suit industry requirement needs. The intent is that eligibility will no

longer be based on where a person is from but will instead be based on a

person's knowledge of British Columbia's natural history, wildlife, hunting and

proper game handling.

Also, local governments have asked the provincial government to

develop new rules that manage the feeding and attraction of wildlife and that

complement existing local bylaws. This was brought to my attention last fall by

the district of Sparwood during the UBCM conference. We are responding

positively to this request. These amendments to the Wildlife Act will allow the

Minister of Environment to make regulations to control the feeding and

attraction of specified wildlife in specified areas.

This bill also makes amendments to the Environmental Management

Act on two fronts. The first concerns the authority of government to take action

in response to spills of dangerous substances that can be a threat to public

health and safety and to wildlife and the environment.

The amendments to

section 80 that are proposed in this bill will

make it clear that the Environmental Management Act provides authority to

address longer-term spill remediation work relating to habitat and wildlife that

the government may need to undertake to deal with ongoing environmental impacts.

Existing provisions concerning the authority of a director to recover costs from

parties responsible for spills will be applicable in relation to the express new

authority concerning wildlife and habitat recovery work.

On the second front concerning the Environmental Management Act,

the amendments proposed in this bill will make improvements to the

regulation-making authorities described in the act. These amendments will

support the increased use of a regulation-based approach for certain sectors of

waste management, including recycling and resource recovery.

The amendments will add authorities so that regulations made by

the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cover the full range of

waste management issues that can currently be addressed by operator-specific

permits. This will ensure a smooth shift to a results-based regulation for

various industry sectors.

The new authorities also provide explicit regulation-making

authority to require the recovery of reusable resources through recycling or by

making use of the energy potential of waste. This will align the legislative

authority with government and ministry policy concerning energy efficiency,

greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction and the beneficial use of wastes.

I will now take my seat, because I think my colleague has a few

remarks.

S. Simpson: I, hopefully, will have an opportunity later to

talk about this more fully. Just very shortly on this, before we break, I would

say that Bill 29…. The content of this in relation to alien species, I think, is

something that everybody would agree with. We need to do a better job of

managing and putting appropriate prohibitions in place around questions of alien

species. There are also issues related to waste management that make sense in

this bill. We'll get a chance to talk about some of that.

But the most shocking thing about this bill, after all the work

that's been done, is the absolute silence on any relationship to issues around

species at risk — the fact that the bill says nothing about that issue. It is

the single most compelling issue related to wildlife in British Columbia.

We have over 1,300 species that are at some degree of risk. That's

out of a little more than 3,600 species in the province. For this legislation

not to have dealt with that issue is inexcusable. I look forward to having the

opportunity to expand on that as I continue my comments later, when this bill is

back.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:15 a.m.

[ Page 12484 ]

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $70,694,000.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just before I start, by way of

introductions, I should say that we have Les MacLaren, who is an assistant

deputy minister in the electricity and alternative energy division. Behind me I

have Bev Van Ruyven, the executive VP of customer care and conservation. Behind

me on my left I have David Wong, a chief accounting officer for B.C. Hydro, and

my deputy minister, Greg Reimer.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to once again take my place and

participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

At the outset, to Ms. Van Ruyven and B.C. Hydro, I'd like to

extend the opposition's sympathy for the passing of Dirk Rozenboom and Robert

Lehmann in the tragic accident in Cranbrook. I would wish that she could take

that back to B.C. Hydro, to the entire family there. Certainly, we'll be sending

our condolences to the families directly.

A terrible tragedy, and I know that the minister and all of the

staff at B.C. Hydro are grieving at that loss. We on this side of the House

share in that loss. When people go to work every day, we want them to be coming

home safe and sound. When they don't, that's a genuine tragedy for all British

Columbians.

With that, I want to thank again, also, the many, many staff from

the ministry who participate annually in this process. It's designed, as you

know, to put some rigour into the work of governments in the areas of energy,

mining, oil and gas, and the various Crown corporations that the minister and

the minister of state are responsible for.

Again, our job on this side of the House is to ensure that

questions are asked in a pointed way, and the estimates process provides us with

an opportunity to put those questions and have a genuine debate. Quite often in

the Legislature we have speeches. We don't have debate. Estimates is a good time

for that, and I look forward to the next number of hours as the minister and I

and some of my colleagues enter into that discussion.

I'd like to start with B.C. Hydro and the notion of

self-sufficiency. We had legislation passed in this session. I believe we can

now speak about it, since it's been given royal assent. The notion of

self-sufficiency…. The minister speaks about it at length. B.C. Hydro is

pursuing a course of self-sufficiency.

My first question to the minister would be: do the minister and

B.C. Hydro consider the downstream benefits, the entitlement from the Columbia

River treaty, as a provincial resource?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I remember the discussion well, over a

number of hours, in regards to self-sufficiency. Although that electricity is

generated in the U.S. — the downstream benefits — it's sold by Powerex on behalf

of all British Columbians and is returned to the province of British Columbia to

provide all the vital services that it does. So it will not be part of what we

call self-sufficiency.

J. Horgan: Why would the government of British Columbia, in

a time of apparent shortage, not consider an asset that belongs to the people of

British Columbia, although generated elsewhere? This isn't a contractual

obligation between two parties. This is an international treaty and an

obligation that transcends traditional business relationships.

Why wouldn't the people of British Columbia expect that resource,

which we own, to be considered part of a local asset?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think the member knows the answer to

this question as well as I do. It's because those contracts are up in 2024. Ten

years prior to when they expire, either party has to give notice to renegotiate.

It's on the strength of that renegotiation that we may be able to continue to

have those or that we may not continue to have those.

It wouldn't be advisable to put that into the mix, to actually

call that British Columbia self-sufficient.

[1020]

J. Horgan: My calendar tells me 2024 is after 2016. If the

government's stated objective is self-sufficiency by that date, couldn't we

achieve that within the terms of this recent negotiation with the United States?

I'm assuming, also…. I know that the minister can't be as flexible

as a member of the opposition, but I can't imagine Bonneville Power

Administration and the United States government not wanting to in some way

renegotiate the Columbia River treaty. Maybe I'm stretching here, but if we

and, in fact, the entire Pacific Northwest of the United States is going to be

significant.

I ask again: why wouldn't we want to have that energy — I believe

it's 4,000 gigawatts — at our disposal as a Crown asset to be sold to B.C. Hydro

to meet the self-sufficiency requirements?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said in the beginning — and I'm sure

the member is aware of this, as I am — we said self-sufficiency within the

borders of the province of British Columbia. Electricity generated outside the

borders of British Columbia is certainly not going to be included.

I am not going to speculate on what will happen in those

negotiations as that moves forward, I hope, for the benefit of the province of

British Columbia. I can only assume that Hydro will negotiate and the province

will negotiate. We work very closely with B.C. Hydro on these types of issues.

We will continue to negotiate that kind of power from the Columbia River treaty

as something that is in response to the treaty that was negotiated many years

ago.

So I'm not saying that no, they won't be there anymore. I'm saying

that's a matter of negotiation, and you can't set out today what negotiation

could take place in 2014. We can set out the parameters of what we'd like to see

happen and what we want to see happen, but we can't actually set out what could

happen.

[ Page 12485 ]

It's very simple. If it's not generated in the borders of British

Columbia, it's not part of self-sufficiency in the province of British Columbia,

much as we were self-sufficient for decades before that. In fact, we were

over-self-sufficient for decades before that, not even including the Columbia

River downstream benefits.

J. Horgan: I don't dispute the facts — that we used to have

an abundance and that now things are tight.

Maybe I'll put this question, then. The representatives from Hydro

can help me. What is the average cost of the independent power production

electricity that we'll be receiving and paying for in 2010? What's the cost per

megawatt hour?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, let me say to the member….

We've had this discussion before, and I'm happy to have it again. I don't care

whether you build new generation in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Washington — wherever. You build it in the Pacific Northwest and in

western Canada. The average that we would pay for that electricity today in

British Columbia from any independent power producers would be almost the same.

So new generation actually costs you more than generation that was built in the

'60s and the '70s. I'm sure that the member knows that and realizes that.

You can't build generation today for 2.5 cents. You just can't. I

don't care where you are. I don't care where you magically are. In fact, that

won't happen in Washington, Oregon or California either. The costs will be

higher to build new generation.

I know that the member wants to say that we're out there paying

excessive rates for electricity that we're buying from independent power

producers today. I would say that that's not in fact true. We're paying what it

costs to actually generate that electricity or to build those facilities and

generate it today.

[1025]

That would be the same as if you build Site C. Guess what. You're

not going to actually generate electricity out of Site C for two cents. It's not

going to happen. Site C, even though it would be built by the province, managed

by the province, operated by the province, would magically cost you a little bit

more than what we actually have to pay for the generation that happened and was

built 30 or 40 years ago.

That is in fact true. Whether government builds it or whether the

independent power producers build it, it's going to cost you more today than it

did to build in the '60s and the '70s, and that's going to be reflected in the

prices. I'm sure that the member is well aware of that.

I know the political route that the NDP is trying to go on this,

and I appreciate that. We can stand here and argue that for as long as we want,

because it costs you more to build it today than it did in the '70s. Most

British Columbians that I know of understand that. When I talk to British

Columbians around the province, they quite understand that.

You can't buy a 2008 Malibu for the same price that you paid for

it in 1968. It just doesn't quite work that way. Now, it might work that way in

some rationales and in some thoughts. Some people may think that, but that's not

exactly how it goes.

On average, Hydro is paying about $60 for electricity that is has

contracts for today. To extrapolate out to 2010 is, again, a certain estimate.

We'll have to wait until we see what happens in 2010 — for what prices Hydro

gets in 2010.

J. Horgan: Let's try this. On the revenue requirement

application of the B.C. Utilities Commission, the question was asked: "What

attrition is assumed for the fiscal 2006 call in fiscal 2010, and what is the

assumed purchase volume and cost? If only half the volume was available and this

amount was replaced by market purchases in 2010, what would be the net impact on

revenue requirement?"

That was the question. That was the question put to you at the

Utilities Commission, and this is the response from B.C. Hydro. I know it will

be interesting to those in this place and certainly to those watching at home.

This is B.C. Hydro responding, not the opposition, not radical

environmentalists, not anyone else.

It's B.C. Hydro, and they say the following: "If only half of the

fiscal 2006 call volume was purchased from the IPPs in 2010 and the other half

was replaced by market purchases, the energy cost in fiscal 2010 would decrease

by $17.9 million, with a corresponding reduction in B.C. Hydro's revenue

requirements."

What that is saying is that if you used the tools available to you

at B.C. Hydro, if you used the market to provide the resource to British

Columbians, you would save $18 million. That's not me saying that. That's B.C.

Hydro saying that.

Again, my question to the minister is: what is the average cost

per megawatt hour of the independent power production that we're anticipating to

purchase for 2010?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've been very clear. We're not

going to depend on other jurisdictions to keep our lights on. You may want to do

that, and that may be NDP policy. You may want to see those jobs and those

investments happen in Washington and Oregon and Alberta, and that may be what

you're advocating for.

One day you want jobs in British Columbia; the next day you don't

want jobs in British Columbia. One day you want investment in British Columbia,

and the next day you don't, when it comes to electricity. In the province of

British Columbia we want to be self-sufficient.

The member smiles at jobs. That's interesting. That's very

interesting. I hear from those members daily in the afternoon that jobs are

important. Well, let me tell you that they're bloody important to this guy, and

they're important to this government. So we want those jobs to happen in British

Columbia.

You're assuming, when you say we should depend on the market for

all of our shortfalls for now and forever…. If you look at what the expected

growth is going to be in consumption of electricity in the province of British

Columbia, you could be depending for maybe up to 40

[ Page 12486 ]

percent of your electricity to come from other jurisdictions.

[1030]

Do you think those other jurisdictions are always going to be

cheap? They have some cheap power today or some relatively low-cost power, just

like we do. But there is a distinct difference between this government and that

opposition, and it is that we want to actually be able to keep our own lights on

without having to, at some point in time, maybe beg someone for some electricity

to keep our lights on. If we get to 45 percent of that electricity coming from

another jurisdiction, I don't think that makes good sense.

This does not curtail B.C. Hydro from actually trading

electricity, buying and selling on the market, as they have done for years. But

the distinct difference is…. You can run around with the numbers all you want.

It's very clear. It costs you more to build generation today than it did in the

1960s.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You might say, "Wow," and you might laugh

at the fact that…. You know what? If you want to depend on the United States for

electricity…. If you actually want to depend on another jurisdiction to keep

your lights on, you can have that policy.

You can say: "We don't want those jobs in the province of British

Columbia." You can say: "We don't want that investment." I'll go back maybe to

some of the quotes, without digging them out of my book. The member says quite

clearly and has been on record as saying, on behalf of the NDP that of course we

should be paying more for renewables. Those are your words: "Of course we should

pay more for renewables."

I tend to agree, but the policy of actually depending on other

jurisdictions for a good part of our electricity is not a policy of this side of

the government. We actually want to be self-sufficient. We want to be able to

have enough electricity, as we move forward, to keep our own lights on, and I

think that's a good policy to have.

The members opposite may laugh at that, and they can go ahead and

laugh at that. They can make fun of it if they want. But let me tell you that in

polls that have been done, over 90 percent of the public says: "We want to be

self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia with electricity." So I

can't imagine why the member opposite would like to throw in all kinds of little

things so we shouldn't be self-sufficient.

You can go out and have that policy. You can have that policy, a

job, someplace else. I'll continue to remind you of that as we move forward if

you want to continue down this path.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm not continuing down a path. I'm

reading from the revenue requirement application of the Crown corporation that

we're discussing right now. That Crown corporation says that if we cross our

fingers and hope that the IPP attrition rate is 50 percent, the taxpayers, the

ratepayers at B.C. Hydro, will save 18 million bucks.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It's not me. If the cheerleader from West

Vancouver–Garibaldi wants to participate in the debate, I welcome that.

My questions are fairly candid, fairly pointed. This isn't

rhetoric. This is the corporation that we're discussing right now. They're

saying to the Utilities Commission, the regulator, that we would save $18

million just in this call. We're not even thinking about 2016. This is right

now, today — $18 million.

That's not trivial. That's not insignificant. That's not rhetoric.

Those are hard numbers — not from me, from the person sitting behind you.

I ask again: what is the cost going to be to get to 2016? How much

will we spend to subsidize independent power in this province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, we're not subsidizing independent

power. It's a cute little term of yours — subsidizing independent power. You may

not like it, but you are on record as saying that you support small projects

across the province to be built now. The only thing you would rather have is

that the Crown build them.

That's the total difference. When you really come down to the nuts

and bolts of this, it's about whether the Crown should build them….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to get into the discussion and

you want to holler from the corners, go ahead.

The Chair: Minister.

The person who has the floor has the floor to speak. Can we make

sure all comments are directed through the Chair, and no interruptions.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have any problem arguing with this

— that we should be self-sufficient in British Columbia, that building new

generation today actually costs more than it did 30 years ago. The public

understands that. The NDP may not.

I understand that the NDP is on record as saying: "Yes, we agree

that all those small projects should be built, but they should be built by the

Crown rather than independent power producers."

This is an ideological difference. That's what it is. It's

whether….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to get in, you can stand up

and ask some questions, Member. Other than that, usually in this room we

maintain it to a back-and-forth between the critic and myself.

[1035]

On one hand, you say that it's okay to build them. Let me tell you

that if the Crown builds them, it's going

[ Page 12487 ]

to cost you about the same kind of money. It's not going to be much

different. In fact, it might even be a little bit more. I'm not going to bet on

that, but it might be a little bit more. That same cost is going to come back to

the Crown corporation. The same cost for electricity will come back as if the

private sector builds those projects.

Now, I know you don't like the private sector. That's clear.

That's been made clear to me by the NDP over the last 16 or 17 years that I've

been here. I know you don't like the private sector. Well, maybe I shouldn't say

that, because I want to go back to the '90s, when there were a number of

projects built in the province of British Columbia.

There are all kinds of quotes, Member, from the NDP at that time

about how independent power producers were going to generate all of this new

electricity in the province. I only need to take the member to Campbell River,

to the largest 250-some-megawatt plant. It runs on natural gas. That project was

built during the 1990s.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Everybody will get their opportunity to ask questions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In fact, if you go back to that project,

the NDP…. Glen Clark — you all know Glen Clark; everybody in this room knows

Glen Clark — talked about how great this would be. Dan Miller, the minister,

talked about how great it would be.

I'll tell you how great it was. You wrote a letter to the BCUC and

said: "We are directing B.C. Hydro to build this project." You didn't even go

through a Utilities Commission hearing on that project.

In fact, it was an American company. Nothing wrong with American

companies. It was called Calpine. It has changed ownership, but you negotiated

with an American independent power producer to build a plant at Campbell River

that burned natural gas, where you had the ratepayers take on the cost of the

provision of natural gas to that plant forever.

I believe that today we're paying somewhere in the neighbourhood

of about $90 or $95 from that plant because of that wisdom in the mid-1990s.

That was something that…. In fact, there's lots of it. Paul Ramsey, the previous

Minister of Finance, talked incessantly about how great this was for British

Columbia and Vancouver Island.

Today you're taking a different tack. I can understand that. You

were an adviser during that time. Today you're elected. Now you want to say:

"Well, we shouldn't have anyone" — you're not even saying U.S.; you're saying

anyone — "build any generation in the province of British Columbia other than

B.C. Hydro."

That's the ideological difference between this side and that side.

We actually believe that independent power producers can go out there and build

those smaller plants as reasonably as the Crown can, and we have the Crown

actually working on other projects.

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister.

Would the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke like the floor?

N. Macdonald: Can I have it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Now he won't. When I'm done, he will.

The Chair: No? Okay. Then we'll save our comments. I just

want to point out that each person has a fixed time of 15 minutes in which to

answer or ask questions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to actually continue and you

want to buy it from the United States — all your electricity, all the shortfall

that could happen in British Columbia with the growth that we're receiving now —

you guys can fill your boots. Not this government.

This government says that we want to generate it here in the

province of British Columbia. We want the investment here in British Columbia.

We want the jobs in British Columbia. You can advocate for those to be someplace

else, Member. That's okay. That clear distinction I'll take out on the trail in

the election any day of the week.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The cheerleader is happy, so I'll ask the

question again. You have staff here. You have experts in this area. We had a

discussion. We were going to keep the rhetoric to a minimum. We have a short

period of time, a quarter of the time we had last year, to do a lot of work.

[1040]

According to the Crown corporation, $18 million this year — $18

million, if 50 percent of the call doesn't come through…. My question is simple.

To meet the requirement that has been set now by statute at 2016, what will the

cost be relative to what it could have been on the open market?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate what you said. Actually, I

don't mind answering questions, but if we want to get into the hypothetical part

of it, I'm going to take the time that's required for me to put out the

difference between the NDP and ourselves.

Today the market is 90 bucks. I just got that from B.C. Hydro. The

member forgets — maybe doesn't forget but doesn't want to recall — that at one

point in time in California it was a thousand bucks a megawatt hour. Those are

huge…. I mean, $90 isn't abnormal, but the thousand is a huge number. We don't

want to get to that.

The answer is…. I'm not going to speculate out to 2016, and

neither is B.C. Hydro, for the benefit of what you want to figure out. You go

out and figure out what you want to, of what more it would cost to buy off the

market. We are simply saying that by 2016 we want to generate enough electricity

in the province, within the

[ Page 12488 ]

borders of British Columbia, to look after our needs. We will continue to

trade on the market with the U.S., to buy and sell to the benefit of British

Columbians, but we want to be able, just like we were in the '80s, to have

enough electricity to keep our lights on in the province of British Columbia.

There is nothing wrong with that — not a thing. If that creates

jobs and investment in the province of British Columbia, which it obviously

will, I'm all for that. You can actually advocate for jobs and investment in

other jurisdictions. I will continue to advocate for jobs and investment in the

province.

J. Horgan: Well, if the market rate today is 90 bucks, why

on April 23 did B.C. Hydro say that they could save potentially $18 million by

using the market? Why did they give that answer?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, magically, the markets change.

Actually, I think they change on an hourly basis. They change on a daily basis.

I think Powerex would tell you that they change by the minute in some cases.

That's the market. That's how you deal with that.

It's the same with natural gas. One day it's one price; the next

day it's another. The member knows that. It doesn't stay consistent forever for

year over year. Oil just a year ago certainly wasn't 125 bucks, what it is

today. Markets change.

J. Horgan: So then, the answer that the Crown corporation

gave the regulator three weeks ago is wrong.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No.

J. Horgan: So ratepayers are out $18 million because of

this policy.

Hon. R. Neufeld: What happens is that we need to build

generation in the province of British Columbia.

I'll tell you, Member, you can continue to advocate for every

other jurisdiction. Last I checked, you were elected in the province of British

Columbia. You should actually start thinking about British Columbia. You should

start thinking about a province that's great, a province that has huge

opportunity moving forward, instead of advocating for those other jurisdictions.

It just amazes me that we would have an NDP member stand in this House and

advocate for every other jurisdiction but the province of British Columbia when

it comes to jobs and investments.

I started out this conversation saying that, yes, it costs you

more to build generation today than what it did in the 1960s. And you know,

every British Columbian understands that except maybe the members on the other

side of the House; I'm not sure. What we will continue to do is meet a target of

being self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia by 2016, and we'll

meet that target.

J. Horgan: What are we selling the downstream benefits for

today — the 1,000 megawatts of capacity and the 4,000 gigawatt hours of

electricity?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll give you the total. For last year it

was $305 million. On a daily basis…. I mean, you're asking something that would

be sold on a little bit of a forward basis. I don't know. But what Powerex, and

what B.C. Hydro, attempts to do for the benefit of all British Columbians is to

sell that electricity at the highest price they can possibly get. It's similar

to what you guys did.

[1045]

J. Horgan: In 2002, responding to a question on a

television program with respect to independent power, the minister said the

following: "What we want to make sure is that independent power producers were

out there and to get a competitive playing field out there to get enough of them

bidding against one another about plants they can build. That's how you get a

good price. If B.C. Hydro is in there competing against them, it seems a bit

unfair that a corporation the size of B.C. Hydro is bidding against someone who

wants to generate small, run-of-the-river programs."

So that was the policy thrust. That was the intent. Say to B.C.

Hydro: "Don't go down this road. We want to create a market here for independent

power." That's fair enough. That was the prerogative of the minister, and I have

no quarrel with that.

But that was six years ago. We've had little or no input in terms

of electricity to the grid from independent power to meet the needs that the

minister says that we have, and I agree that we have. So I'm curious as to why,

in the shareholder letter to the corporation in 2006, the minister said the

following: "Through its subsidiary Powerex, actively pursue extra-parliamentary

energy trading markets and explore and identify opportunities to facilitate

access for independent power producers to western North American markets."

Again, my question to the minister…. I'm not being rhetorical

here. I'm asking a policy question that I would like an answer to. British

Columbians will benefit from the minister's response and that of the staff

around him. In 2002 we set on a course to create a market for independent power.

The government alleges that that market will supply our domestic needs, but in

2006 the minister wrote to the Crown, as the shareholder, and said that Powerex

should find markets for export of this independent power.

So are we generating electricity on the independent power side to

export for more profits for those private companies, or are we generating

independent power to meet our domestic needs, or are we trying to do both?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just to go back a bit, we're not actually

depending on…. I know this is the message that some have taken out there, that

we're depending on IPPs for all of our growth. We are actively reviewing Site C

to look at whether that's an option. It would be an interesting one for me to

hear from the members of the opposition whether they would be in favour of that

or not.

But in fact, we're doing that. We're in stage 2 on that. Hydro

has, in the 2002 energy plan…. Although it's been said many times that they've

been curtailed from

[ Page 12489 ]

any new generation, that's not entirely true. They're actively doing one new

generator in Revelstoke. There's the opportunity for another one in Revelstoke.

There's the opportunity for two other generators in Mica that Hydro is actually

looking at. It's called Resource Smart. It's looking at Aberfeldie. It's looking

at W.A.C. Bennett dam to increase production of the W.A.C. Bennett dam, using

the same amount of water, and all of those processes.

So we're looking at actually getting to self-sufficiency not just

with IPPs but with the Crown actually doing what it can do. Now, Site C will

come after 2016 if, in fact, it went ahead. I appreciate that. But at the end of

the day, there are fluctuations in water, and the member also knows this. It

happens all the time. Sometimes when you have low water to high water to medium

water, you don't have the amount of electricity in your system that you'd like

to have.

What we've asked is for Hydro to actually look at self-sufficiency

with critical water. That means low water. That means that if we run into that

problem…. If we have critical water, you can almost bet the other places that

generate electricity with water will have the same kind of problems we do. What

we need to do is look at that in that fashion to move forward, to become

self-sufficient.

I just want to correct on the record. I quickly got a number from

Hydro. The $305 million is the estimated '09-10. In the revenues from the

Canadian entitlement for…. I think the member asked for '07-08. Is that correct?

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah. It was $230 million. So there's a

bit of a difference there, but that's what's estimated in '09-10.

[1050]

J. Horgan: My question to the minister was: has he

directed, or has his government directed, B.C. Hydro, through its subsidiary

Powerex, to find markets for independent power export?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We need to actually get self-sufficient in

the province of British Columbia by 2016. That's our goal. That will put us in a

position, actually, of sometimes having extra electricity and sometimes not.

What we want to do is make sure that we're sufficient. In high water years — and

maybe I didn't explain it well enough, and I apologize for that — we'd have

extra electricity, so there would have to be some sold on the market. If an

independent power producer actually wanted to build a plant in the province of

British Columbia and sell electricity, they may actually want to contract with

Powerex to do that.

I'll take you back to a time when Glen Clark said: "We opened up