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)

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

50th anniversary of Ripple Rock

explosion

Trevena

Vaisakhi

D. Hayer

Leonard Antoine

Routley

Water rescue awards

R. Lee

Reading initiative at Ecole

Marigold

Cubberley

Proposed elementary school in

Burnaby

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Funding for Royal Columbian

Hospital

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Puchmayr

Surgical services at Kelowna

General Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Agricultural land reserve

regulations

L. Krog

Hon. P.

Bell

Investigation into ICBC vehicle

sales

H. Bains

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Sale of school lands

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

J. Brar

Routley

Petitions

J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the provincial health officer, annual

report, An Ounce of Prevention Revisited: A Review of Health Promotion and

Selected Outcomes for Children and Youth in B.C. Schools

Committee of the Whole House

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13) (continued)

Conroy

Hon. O.

Ilich

L. Krog

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)

Committee of the Whole House

Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 15)

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

J. Kwan

Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

Simpson

C. Wyse

Fraser

Trevena

Ralston

[ Page 10959 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have an announcement rather than an

introduction at this point, if I may. One of the members of the press gallery is

particularly grumpy today. Now, everyone might say that the press gallery is

always grumpy.

Interjections.

C. James: I was going to add that. There's one member who's

particularly grumpy today because he's struggling with a change in his life. I

think all of us in this House would like to say a very happy 40th birthday to

Sean Leslie.

Hon. G. Campbell: With the Leader of the Opposition, let me

just inform the House that I still think of Sean as Sean "the Kid" Leslie.

D. Cubberley: If I could, I'd like to introduce a couple of

guests who are joining us today on the occasion of a rally that was held earlier

this morning on the steps of the Legislature regarding the sale of surplus

school lands.

[1335]

There were many people in that rally, but a couple of guests, I

believe, have joined us for deliberations here today. They are Irene Lanzinger,

president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, representing the 41,000

teachers in the province. Joining with her, I believe, is Sylvia Bishop, who is

an assistant director in the communications and campaigns department. Would the

House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to be joined in the House today

by three constituents. Peggy Alca, who is here, is a leader in the PAC at Lord

Kitchener Elementary School, and she is joined today by two of her children,

Milton and Emery. Will the House please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: I, too, have constituents in the precincts today

that were here on the steps of the Legislature this morning concerned about

schools in their community. From the Cowichan Valley, joining us today are

Heatherann Macintosh, Naomi Barclay, Rayna Hyde-Lay, Caroline Kirman and two

youngsters who are looking forward to single-track French immersion in the

Cowichan Valley, Adam Hyde-Lay and Sam Mellemstrand. Would the House please make

them all very, very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today we have 20 grade 5

students and four adults, including their teacher M. Thierry Tacail, of Ecole

Vancouver is affiliated with a network of 410 French schools around the world.

Would the House please welcome them by saying bonjour .

Some Hon. Members: Bonjour .

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome to the House

today seven participants in the Powell River youth ambassador program. They are

Maria Bryson, Kaylah Coopman, Nicole Whitley, Kristie Egan, Michelle Hamoline,

Heather Gamborski and Isabel Villeneuve. Joining them are Kim Miller, the

manager of the chamber of commerce in Powell River; Maggie Hathaway, my

constituency assistant; and Randi-Lynn Egan. Would the House please make them

welcome.

J. Yap: The Yaps are in town. I'm very happy to welcome to

the legislative precincts some family visiting from far away. I have visiting us

in Richmond and today in Victoria my cousin Kenneth Yap. He's actually in the

public gallery as we speak, and he's here visiting with his family. That is his

wife Joanna Yap and Rupert Yap and another son Toby Yap from Braintree, which is

in Essex county in southern England. They tell me they have visited the mother

Parliament in Westminster but would like to see how we do things here in one of

the former colonies.

Also with them — not in the public gallery but taking in the

sights with family — is the most important person in my life, my partner for

life, my spouse, my wife Suzanne Yap. Would the House make all of them very

welcome.

D. Routley: Also joining us in the House for the purposes

of joining the demonstration outside are some very dear friends of mine: Duncan

Brown, chairperson of the Community Alliance for Public Education; Eden

Haythornthwaite, a local school trustee in district 79; Alastair Haythornthwaite,

her husband; and one of my very dearest friends, David Halme, who is the

president of the Lake Cowichan Teachers Association.

I think all of us have friends who have known us all the way

along, and as our circumstance and context change, they keep us with two feet on

the ground and remembering what our purpose is. That's David for me. I want to

appreciate him and all those people.

[1340]

Hon. W. Oppal: In the House this afternoon are John Hunter,

QC, president of the Law Society of British Columbia, and Tim McGee, chief

executive officer of the Law Society. I wonder if the House could make them

welcome.

G. Robertson: Joining us today in the House is one of my

constituents from the sunny shores of False Creek, Kathleen MacKinnon, a

lifelong and steadfast advocate for public education who's here today with the

BCTF to support our public schools and the lands that they are on.

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce a new coalition of groups

here in B.C., and they happen to be with us this

[ Page 10960 ]

afternoon here in the House. It's the B.C. Wildlife Coalition. It's made up

of the B.C. Trappers Association, the B.C. Guide Outfitters Association and the

B.C. Wildlife Federation.

In the gallery today we have Alison Beal with the B.C. Trappers.

Darren DeLuca is with the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., and Dixie

Hammett is the president of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. We've got

Mel Arnold, who's with the B.C. Wildlife Federation; he's the vice-president.

We've got Mike Morris, who's with the B.C. Trappers; Patti MacAhonic, who is the

B.C. Wildlife Federation executive director; Rod Wiebe, who is another

vice-president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation; Scott Ellis, who is with the

Guide Outfitters Association; and Wilf Pfleiderer, who is the president of the

B.C. Wildlife Association.

Please help me make them all welcome.

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on April 1 the member for

Cariboo South sought to raise a matter of privilege alleging that the Minister

of Small Business and Revenue had misled the House during estimates debate in

Committee of Supply. On April 3 the minister made a statement in response.

It should be noted at the outset that an allegation that a member

has deliberately misled the House is a serious accusation and ought not to be

made lightly. The member for Cariboo South did not accuse the minister of

deliberately misleading the House but rather chose to use the charge of

misleading the House.

In considering a similar situation on May 5, 1998, Speaker Brewin

quoted the following passage from Joseph Maingot, QC, in Parliamentary

Privilege in Canada , second edition, at page 241: "To allege that a member

has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and is not

unparliamentary, whether or not it is qualified by the adjective

'unintentionally' or 'inadvertently.' To allege that a member has deliberately

misled the House is also a matter of order and is indeed unparliamentary.

However, deliberately misleading statements may be treated as contempt."

I have reviewed the Hansard transcripts quoted by both

members. It is clear that they disagree as to the facts that they were debating

— a disagreement, in essence, of debate.

There is no evidence before me that would indicate that the

minister deliberately misled the House. Accordingly, I cannot find a prima facie

case of breach of privilege that has been made out.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Districts Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 19, the

Electoral Districts Act. This bill enacts the new electoral districts for the

province of British Columbia. It would create an electoral map of 85 districts.

The bill implements Motion 39 of the Legislative Assembly.

Specifically, it would enact a majority of the recommendations of the Electoral

Boundaries Commission except as modified by appendix P of the commission's

report. The commission's final report recommended 83 electoral districts for the

province. This includes a reduction of one district each in the north and the

Cariboo-Thompson regions.

Appendix P of the commission's report contained alternative

scenarios for the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions of the province. Under

these scenarios those two regions would maintain their existing number of

electoral districts rather than have them reduced. This is what the bill would

enact.

[1345]

The bill contains two schedules. The first lists all the 85

districts in alphabetical order. The second

schedule provides for the areas and

boundaries of those districts. In the past years the boundaries were described

using lengthy verbal narratives known as metes and bounds. New advances in

digital mapping technology have made physical land surveying unnecessary for

this purpose. The commission took advantage of these methods, and therefore, in

the circumstances, the

schedule defined these boundaries as published by the

commission on two official disks. The disks are now on file with the province's

Chief Electoral Officer.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 B )

50th ANNIVERSARY OF

RIPPLE ROCK EXPLOSION

C. Trevena: Anniversaries are a good chance to celebrate

and honour those involved. Campbell River marked the 50th anniversary of the

explosion of Ripple Rock on Saturday and did just that. The city celebrated, and

those involved in the explosion were honoured.

The twin peaks of Ripple Rock stood just three metres below the

surface at Seymour Narrows, just north of Campbell River, described by Captain

Vancouver as one of the vilest stretches of water in the world. Ripple Rock

damaged or sank more than 120 vessels and claimed the lives of 114 people.

[ Page 10961 ]

Attempts to destroy the shipping hazard from above were tried in

the 1940s, but it took another 15 years to develop the plan and the successful

explosion from underneath. It was a feat of engineering described by one person

as the world's biggest root canal, effecting the largest peacetime non-nuclear

explosion.

Some of those involved in the events were in Campbell River to

mark the 50th anniversary. They had the opportunity to see a re-creation of the

explosion from a barge off Robert Osler park — another feat of engineering,

because people said it did look like the blast of 50 years ago. No fancy

fireworks but an orchestrated explosion of greys and blacks, which looked

something like a maple leaf and was very quick.

The day continued with the screening of a documentary and the

unveiling of an information sign about Ripple Rock at the Seymour Narrows

lookout. Then there was a lecture at the museum, also celebrating its 50th

birthday, and the telling of the story for children through puppets. For those

who wanted a sense of the place, there were commercial boat tours to the site

and a guided four-hour hike along the Ripple Rock hiking trail.

It was a worthy event to celebrate. The significance of the

removal of Ripple Rock is huge. Without that, much of the shipping and most

definitely the cruise ships would not be sailing through the passage, and that

has an impact not just for the North Islanders but for the province as a whole.

It was also an engineering feat which brought the country

together. It was broadcast nationwide on CBC TV, the first time a live event had

been broadcast from coast to coast.

VAISAKHI

D. Hayer: For four weeks South Asians throughout the world

will celebrate Vaisakhi, the time of harvest, time to appreciate the fruits of

labour, and time to recognize the rewards of effort and accomplishment.

Vaisakhi is a time of the year which marks cultural and spiritual

importance to many South Asians living around the world. I spent the past

weekend visiting with the students of Kwantlen Park School, and I was most

impressed by their presentation of Vaisakhi Mela 2008.

I am looking forward to the Vaisakhi gala, which is being held in

Surrey on Wednesday, April 9, at the Bombay banquet hall in the Surrey

convention centre. Vaisakhi is an important event, and many communities across

British Columbia and throughout the world will hold Vaisakhi celebrations.

These celebrations are not new to our province. One of the biggest

celebrations of Vaisakhi in North America will be the one put on by the Khalsa

Diwan Society in Vancouver, established 101 years ago. This event will be held

on Saturday, April 19, and will be attended by thousands upon thousands from

every race, every ethnic group, and from our incredibly diverse communities.

That is what makes this festival so important. It brings together

everyone regardless of their race, colour and creed. It truly is an

international festival in which everyone can and does participate. Vaisakhi is

not a recognition of an event that happened half a world away. It is a gathering

of British Columbians and of all people, regardless of their race or ethnic

background. It is the melding of ethnic diversity that is astounding and perhaps

unique in the world.

[1350]

I urge everyone in this House to join the festivities,

particularly your community Vaisakhi festival, that celebrate the incredible

diversity of our different cultures, freedom, democracy, respect, harmony and

peace, which makes our province the best place on earth.

LEONARD ANTOINE

D. Routley: Growing up in the Cowichan Valley, I came to

know a great many first nations people — friends in school. It was playing road

hockey that I would meet their parents and their grandparents, but it was when

my family was in great upheaval that I became aware of the gentle touch and the

guidance of the elders. So it's with a great sorrow today that I rise to speak

of the passing of a graceful and wonderful man named Leonard Antoine.

Leonard Antoine was born September 20, 1928, and he passed away

April 3, 2008. In between these dates, which give us context to his beginning

and his end, is a dash. That dash is where all the meaning is in all of our

lives. In Leonard's life that dash meant grace, dignity, service, commitment and

humour.

We will always remember Leonard walking through town. He would

tell us that he walked because he'd run into more people, and that way he could

talk to more people. That was Leonard. We know there are less than two dozen

fluent speakers of the Hul'qumi'num language, and Leonard was one of them.

Seventy percent of Cowichan Tribes people are 26 years or younger, and they all

looked to people like Leonard. They all looked for that grace as he attempted to

save the language, as he passed the lessons of snuw uy'ulh — original

teachings — to the young people. So many young people saved by the influence of

men like Leonard Antoine.

We all look at him, and we know that he was humble, but he was

proud. Leonard Antoine was as we should be — humble but proud.

WATER RESCUE AWARDS

R. Lee: On March 29, I had the privilege to attend the 96th

honour and rescue awards ceremony with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor Steven

Point, recognizing committed Lifesaving Society volunteers and heroic

individuals who have put their lives on the line during water rescues in British

Columbia.

Michael Anderson, Brent Blackmore, Shane Nicol and Glen Watts were

acknowledged with the silver medal for bravery for their rescue efforts in

January at the Millstone River in Nanaimo. Other silver medals for bravery were

awarded to Jon Bula, Troy Dalton, Richard Juryh and Graham Tutti for rescue

actions in a

[ Page 10962 ]

kayak incident at Porteau Cove; to Sean Deakin for his heroic attempt to pull

a man out of the water in Cameron Lake and to William McKinnon for helping Sean;

to Donald Gough for saving the life of a man whose car went into the Similkameen

River; to Blair Haaf and Larry Rivard for saving a woman from her sinking

vehicle in Okanagan Lake; and to 11-year-old Kyle Jenkins for saving his

schoolmate's life at the Hyde Creek Recreation Centre in Port Coquitlam.

The prestigious George A. Brown Memorial Medal was awarded to

nine-year-old Andrew Choi, who saved his three-year-old brother from drowning in

Whistler last September. Young Andrew also received a bravery medal from the

Governor General.

The Governor's gold medal for the most heroic rescue of the year

was presented to a Burnaby resident, 14-year-old Caleb Gillett, who pulled an

unconscious non-swimmer out of the bottom of a Burnaby apartment pool last June.

Would the House please join me in recognizing the contributions of

the volunteers and staff of the Lifesaving Society and all these brave British

Columbians.

READING INITIATIVE AT

ECOLE MARIGOLD

D. Cubberley: Every month in British Columbia is education

month as schools, families, teachers and kids seek to impart and acquire the

tools for lifelong learning. Recently, I learned of a novel approach to this

noble calling at my neighbourhood school, Ecole Marigold, that celebrates

learning by building improved literacy. The tool — the Marvelous Marmot

Millionary Reading Club — is a collective effort to read a million pages this

school year. That means every student and staffer has to read at least ten pages

every day.

Marigold's first goal was to read 100,000 pages as a school by

October 31, a goal it easily met, in order to celebrate the possibility of

success.

[1355]

There is, of course, another agenda here, which is to bolster the

habit of daily reading as a way of rooting the Reading Power program that

teachers are using to improve comprehension. Reading Power, a program developed

by Lower Mainland educator Adrienne Gear, helps students become fluent decoders

and teaches them to develop an awareness of their thinking while they read, in

turn deepening their experience.

The five reading powers — connect, question, visualize, infer and

transform — enable readers to extract the meanings embedded in words, introduce

sequentially the power to liberate learners to comprehend and to draw their own

conclusions.

The brainchild of Mrs. Colleen Pommelet, a grades 3 and 4 teacher

who is also a teacher-librarian, the Millionary Reading Club brings fun and

celebration to a serious subject. By being inclusive, creating an atmosphere of

fun and engagement, offering possibilities of tailoring to individual and

grade-level needs, giving recognition and rewards for group effort and imparting

powers and skills that contribute to confidence and competence, the Ecole

Marigold initiative is an inspiring example of growth and behavioral change in a

community of young learners.

PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: It's a great pleasure to rise in the House today.

Last Friday after many years of waiting, a new elementary school was announced

at Burnaby Mountain. I was honoured to be there to announce this new elementary

school for a growing neighbourhood. I was thrilled to be part of Simon Fraser

University Community Trust, the university community and the Burnaby board of

education working together for the betterment of our children.

We already know that UniverCity is an international showcase for

innovation and creative approaches to sustainable planning and new urban

development. This new elementary school will be an integral part of that

development. I would also like to recognize the foresight of the Burnaby board

of education. By keeping a close eye on where enrolment was expanding in their

district, they've been able to direct funding to this growing area. It was a

powerful partnership, and it has been great to be part of the team that made it

happen.

I was joined at the opening by my colleague from Burnaby North; by

Gordon Harris, president and CEO of UniverCity trust; by Warren Gill,

vice-president, Simon Fraser University; and by Kathy Corrigan, chair of Burnaby

board of education. But the most important guests were the five youngsters

representing the class of 2010 who will be attending that school when it opens.

You know, since 2001, the province has invested over $65 million

in the Burnaby school district to complete seven capital projects. While the

design for the new school has not been finalized, we know that it will be green.

It is truly an exciting time for education in British Columbia.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

C. James: Last week the opposition raised concerns about

the crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. We highlighted a

letter by Dr. Granger, a surgeon. He said that the hospital was in crisis and

patient care was being compromised. What was the response from the Minister of

Health? He called Dr. Granger an alarmist.

Well, one of Dr. Granger's patients contacted us. Donna Donald has

stage 4 colon cancer. She's been told she has to wait until the end of May to

get her surgery.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Does he stand by his

words that Dr. Granger is an alarmist, or will he admit that Royal Columbian is

in crisis and patients are being put at risk?

Hon. G. Abbott: I like to let the facts speak for

themselves. If one looks at the surgeries performed at

[ Page 10963 ]

Royal Columbian Hospital in 2007, there were, on average, 736 surgeries being

performed on a monthly basis at Royal Columbian. This year it's 790 surgeries

being performed on a monthly basis.

[1400]

I received the same e-mail letter as, obviously, the Leader of the

Opposition did. I received it at my constituency office, apparently, at 9:30

p.m. on Friday evening. We received it in my office here in Victoria about an

hour ago. We're attempting to look further into the case of Ms. Donna Donald to

see what exactly the story is there.

But I need to advise the Leader of the Opposition that the urgency

of a surgical procedure is not defined by this Legislature or this Health

Minister. It is defined by the physician and surgeon that serve the patient.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: The Minister of Health seems to have forgotten

someone in all his talk about throwing statistics around. He's forgotten the

patients. That's who the health care system is supposed to be here for — the

patients. This isn't simply about one patient.

This isn't the first time that we've seen the Minister of Health

brush off concerns by doctors. In fact, doctors came to the minister in 2006

from Royal Columbian and said that there was a crisis, and he brushed them all

off then. In his letter last week Dr. Granger said: "We are having cancers and

urgent elective surgeries cancelled continually for lack of resources."

Now, those aren't simply numbers. Those are patients, and one of

those patients is Donna Donald. So my question is to the Premier. Will he tell

his Minister of Health to listen to the concerns of doctors at Royal Columbian

Hospital and actually make sure they get the resources they deserve to meet the

needs of patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, it's the Leader of the Opposition

that's not listening.

There were 736 surgeries per month at Royal Columbian last year

and 790 this year, per month, at Royal Columbian Hospital. That is over a 7

percent increase year over year in the number of surgeries being performed at

Royal Columbian Hospital. That speaks to me of a great hospital and a great

health care system, not a shortage of resources.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: British Columbia has the best management of

cancer in the nation. In fact, British Columbia has one of the best cancer

agencies. Whether it's treatment, whether it's prevention or whether it's

research, British Columbia leads Canada and in many ways leads the world on

cancers. To take this case….

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

supplemental.

C. James: What does it take to get this Minister of Health

to actually listen to the people in the system who are talking about the system

being in crisis? Patients, their families, doctors, nurses, health care

providers — everyone knows the system is in crisis except the government over

there. It takes families having to e-mail the minister's office to try and get

him to recognize the crisis that this hospital is in.

Who caused the pressures that we have? The Liberal government

caused the pressures. It was the B.C. Liberals who closed and demolished St.

Mary's Hospital. That was a surgical hub with 71 acute care beds.

What's the result? Royal Columbian is overcrowded, surgical

cancellations are routine, and the doctors are calling it a crisis.

On Friday Dr. Granger's assistant contacted our office. She said

that they had to cancel another case, and she left at the end of her day in

tears because of the pressures that she's facing because of this government's

direction.

These are professionals in the system. They're doing an

extraordinary job under very difficult circumstances and getting absolutely no

support from this minister, who in fact is just accusing them and calling them

names. That's his response to the health care crisis.

So my question is to the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Will the Premier and his government stop picking

fights with the professionals in the system, listen to families and do something

about the crisis in health care?

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I know that this opposition leader

and the opposition Health critic constantly bemoan the excellent health care

system that we have in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is…. And we

regret anytime there is a postponement of a surgery because a more urgent or

emergent case gets in front of it. We regret that. But the fact of it is that

there will be a record number of surgeries done at Royal Columbian Hospital this

year, 2008, just as there were in 2007 — a record number of surgeries.

As far as the Canadian cancer issue goes, they don't need to take

it from me. The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada says British Columbia has

the best cancer care in the nation. We should be proud of that. We have the best

treatment, we have the most timely surgeries, and we have a wonderful cancer

care system in this province. All members of this Legislature should be proud of

it.

C. Puchmayr: Well, let's have a look at what happened in

New Westminster — why the minister takes credit here for increased surgeries at

Royal Columbian. He closes a hospital that services 1.6 million people in the

region and puts the pressure on Royal Columbian

[ Page 10964 ]

and stands here and boasts about the increasing surgeries.

I've spoken with Donna Donald, and I spoke with her family, and

they are appalled. A fourth-stage colon cancer should be dealt with immediately.

The cells are now multiplying, and they are posing a greater risk to her organs.

Donna tells me that she is expecting to become a great-grandmother

for the first time this fall, and she desperately wants to be there to be a

great-grandmother. This is an extremely advanced case of cancer. The minister

can stand up here and talk all he wants about the service being provided, but it

isn't…. The doctors are speaking out — not only Dr. Granger. Dr. Matishak, Dr.

Morton — all the doctors are speaking out. It is a crisis at the Royal Columbian

Hospital.

To the Minister of Health: does he believe that eight weeks is an

appropriate time to wait for a stage 4 colon cancer?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question, because

it goes to the heart of the matter. Would the member have politicians concluding

what the appropriate period was for treatment, or would he like to have

physicians and surgeons form those judgments about what the appropriate times

are?

Dr. Granger, I am presuming, is vitally concerned with this

patient. I presume that he has oriented surgical times appropriately, based on

what he believes are the best medical interests of the patient.

But it's ironic. This member talks a lot about reinvestment in

Royal Columbian Hospital. It's interesting. In the 1990s this former government

made no reinvestments in the health care system.

In terms of cancer care, the biggest step forward we will see in

2008 is the opening of the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre — a

$355 million investment promised for ten years, never delivered.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: I'm puzzled. He talks about the '90s, and yet

it was in 2005 that they closed St. Mary's Hospital, not in the '90s — 2005. He

talks about lack of investment, and what does he do? Closes a hospital.

Doctors have been communicating the crisis of surgeries at Royal

Columbian Hospital since the demolition of St. Mary's Hospital, and all they get

from this Health Minister are accusations that they are alarmists. Is this

really what the minister believes — that those hard-working, dedicated

professionals are merely alarmists?

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member wants to talk about closing

hospitals, I can tell him about the two community hospitals that were closed in

the 1990s in my constituency of Shuswap. Enderby Hospital and Armstrong hospital

— both closed by an NDP government. These sanctimonious folk across the floor

might want to think a little bit about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: Only 17 percent of the patients that went

through St. Mary's were from New Westminster. As the member well knows, the

Eagle Ridge Hospital was upgraded in order to meet that additional capacity

demand. This is a government that annually makes $700 million to $800 million of

investments in hospitals across this province. That is a huge departure from the

past. The strong economy we have here, the great planning we have here and the

great health professionals we have here put us in an opportunity to make those

kinds of investments.

SURGICAL SERVICES AT

KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week

600 Kelowna patients waiting for orthopedic surgery were told their surgeries

had been cancelled — perhaps 600 more reasons for the Minister of Health to feel

unsuccessful. Their wait times have been extended because this government's

for-profit health care scheme in the area collapsed. The head of surgery at

Kelowna General Hospital says treating patients this way is "unacceptable." What

is Interior Health's solution? Well, keep the operating rooms at Kelowna General

Hospital open and play catch-up for the next year for those patients.

If the solution is to perform more surgeries and empty operating

rooms in the public system, then why has he been raiding public resources to

fund unsuccessful for-profit health care schemes?

Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of nonsense once again from

this so-called opposition Health critic. What a load of nonsense. It's typical

of the fearmongering that this member does on a constant basis around the

province. Fearmongering and calling for more and more spending — that's all he

can do. The fact of the matter is…. The member knows it well, and if he doesn't

know it well, he should have talked to the Interior Health Authority and got the

facts before he shoots off and tries to scare people about their future.

This, in fact, stems from a contractual dispute between the

Interior Health Authority and a proponent for minor surgical services in the

Okanagan. The unsuccessful proponents sent out a letter to some of their

patients saying that they would have surgeries delayed. There is no reason to

believe that. I spent much of the weekend with the Interior Health Authority. We

discussed this matter. They are going to ensure that every one of those 600

patients gets their surgeries on a timely basis, regardless of the fearmongering

of this member.

Interjections.

[ Page 10965 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: So 600 surgeries cancelled; 600 surgeries delayed. A

health care scheme that costs more money….

Interjections.

A. Dix: The surgeries are delayed. They all got a letter.

Those surgeries are delayed. No one is fearmongering. What causes fear is when

patients get letters delaying their surgeries; that's what causes fear. Their

scheme costs more money. They cancel 600 surgeries, and the Minister of Health

declares victory. Presumably, he and his erstwhile friend the Premier will put

him in charge of the convention centre next.

My question to him: when will he finally acknowledge that the only

threats to the sustainability of public health care in British Columbia are the

policies of the Premier and the Minister of Health?

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things that I will never do,

which this member does constantly, is go around the province sowing the seeds of

fear in people where it is absolutely not true or not necessary.

This is a member of a party that has no policies. I used to think

it stood for something else. Now I think NDP stands for no discernible policies.

No discernible policies. Never have they articulated a single policy. All this

member can do is go around the province and try to scare people.

Why don't they put out some policies? Why don't we hear what the

NDP would like to do with the health care system? Spend, spend, spend or more

fear, fear, fear, because they've got no policies. They're ashamed of it, so all

they can do is spread fear around the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you can just take your seat for a

second.

Member for Nanaimo.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

REGULATIONS

L. Krog: I'm delighted to talk about a little policy here

today. As the investigation into the land dealings in Chilliwack continues,

British Columbians are concerned that these types of activities could be

occurring in other areas of our province. People are worried about the loophole

that seems to allow ALR lands to be subdivided into two-acre estates without

ever having to go to the Agricultural Land Commission.

So before more food land is lost forever, my question to the

Minister of Agriculture is very simple. What is he actually doing to close that

loophole?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member opposite would do a little bit

of research, he would know that the ALC actually has a full compliance and

enforcement regime. They do monitor on an ongoing basis the decisions that have

been made and the uses of agricultural land around the province. In fact, we've

had an extensive compliance and enforcement regime going on in the Fraser Valley

over the last year or so.

So again, no research. If they'd take the time to look at it,

they'd understand that there are the appropriate mechanisms in place, and there

is a current investigation going, as was announced last Friday by the ALC.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: There may be an enforcement regime in place, but

it doesn't seem to have stopped what the problem is before British Columbians

today, which is the subject of the investigation.

Since 2002 local governments have been able to be delegated the

power to make decisions around subdivision applications and non-farm use of

land. Without proper controls and oversight, this could lead to increased

problems such as those we've seen in Chilliwack.

As all across the province agricultural land is being developed,

why should British Columbians trust that farmland will be protected when the

government refuses to even look at closing the two-acre loophole?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should pay attention to the rules

in the Agricultural Land Commission. He would know that all of the decisions

made, if there is a delegation agreement in place — and there are only a few

delegation agreements in place — are reviewed and open to the review by the

Agricultural Land Commission. They're very committed to making sure that there

is only appropriate use of agricultural lands, and there is an active

investigation ongoing at this time.

INVESTIGATION INTO ICBC

VEHICLE SALES

H. Bains: Another late Friday afternoon, another scandal,

another resignation from the Premier's inner circle. This government has done

everything it can to keep the public in the dark.

My question to the minister responsible for ICBC is quite simple.

We now know that there was an ICBC internal investigation completed into the

car-wreck resale scandal. Will he release the result of this investigation so

that the public can see what was going on,

[ Page 10966 ]

how long it was going on for, and who knew what and when?

[1420]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure this House that I have

continued my due diligence on this matter over the weekend with a two-hour

meeting with the chairman of the board on Saturday and a further meeting with

the whole board of directors this morning. I can assure the member that all of

the internal investigation, the results of that and the work of

PricewaterhouseCoopers — the independent external auditors — will be made

available to the public.

But I also want to confirm for the member that on Friday, the RCMP

confirmed that they were doing an assessment of all of these matters from a

criminal perspective. Any release of information has to be subject to the

request of the RCMP to make extremely limited comment at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: I think the minister's response can be described

as this: "We have kept the public in the dark, and we'll continue to keep the

public in the dark." The public have had enough of the secrecy. How can we have

any confidence in this government when the minister won't even release the terms

of reference of the investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers?

Will the minister tell the public exactly what is being

investigated at ICBC and what powers the investigators have, and will he release

that basic information now?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the member in this

House that all of the results of the investigation done by ICBC were released,

starting on March 19. All of the information that they could release, they have

released. As I said, there is an ongoing external review being done of that.

I want to assure the member that the board of directors of ICBC,

their CEO and this government are of one mind — that we will release all of the

information that we can possibly release as quickly as possible, subject to the

investigation of the RCMP, subject to the law and subject to matters of

freedom-of-information and privacy issues. We are of one mind to continue to do

that.

I also want to assure the member that in my own due diligence, I

requested a lot of documents from the CEO. They were promptly produced, and I

can assure the member that I support the work of the board of directors and the

CEO in initiating a prompt investigation — a thorough investigation — when they

became aware of these issues.

SALE OF SCHOOL LANDS

D. Cubberley: Hundreds of students, parents and teachers

are here at the Legislature today calling on this government to stop the

sell-off of school lands. Since 2001 this government has closed over 150 public

schools, with another 45 schools on the chopping block as we speak. These

buildings and green spaces should be a lasting legacy in our communities.

Instead, this government is forcing school districts to sell these lands in

order to help fund future buildings.

Will the Minister of Education reverse this shortsighted policy

and end the liquidation of this community-owned resource?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can tell you that one thing this side

of the House is extremely proud of is that under this government, we have the

highest level of funding ever in British Columbia for education. In fact, our

record on capital investment is clear. Under this government, since 2001 we've

added over $1.3 billion to build new schools in British Columbia.

[1425]

J. Brar: They have closed 150 schools, and this minister

will not take the responsibility for that. Hundreds of students, parents and

teachers are here. They're asking to stop the sale of school land, and this

minister will not take responsibility for that as well. They're also closing a

school called Fleetwood Elementary School in Surrey, the fastest-growing

community in the province, and this minister will not take responsibility for

that as well. Many parents believe that the school in Surrey is being closed

because of the funding cut this ministry has for the school district of Surrey.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. Can the Minister

of Education explain to the people of Surrey why her ministry has cut funding in

the range of $3.6 million to the Surrey school district when, in fact, the

enrolment in Surrey is going up?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite would like to

hear the rest of the story. One would expect that being a Surrey representative,

he might know that.

During the last number of years in Surrey we've seen six new

schools. In fact, the list doesn't end there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I will just quickly finish the list. Not only

were there six new schools, there were five replacement schools, 14 additions

and two renovations.

D. Routley: On December 27, 1962, the town of Lake Cowichan,

their school district, bought for $1 the J.H. Boyd school property from B.C.

Forest Products. Now that community, because of this minister's policies, is

being forced to offer $765,000 to keep that property public. In 1998, $883 was

spent per student in capital spending in our schools. That plummeted to

[ Page 10967 ]

$231 per student in '02-03. T his year it's $545 — still well below

what it was ten years ago.

The results of these policies are driving our districts to sell

properties, and it's that minister who has made it happen. Will she finally

stand up and admit that her funding formula is driving these deficits in our

classrooms and forcing our districts to consider selling public property, which

our communities object to?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, around the world today,

jurisdictions are grappling with declining enrolment and facing the challenges

that British Columbia is facing. Let's listen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's actually listen. Perhaps the member

opposite would like to have a conversation with the opposition leader, actually,

who was a school trustee. Let's listen to this quote: "There are some schools

that have been closed because of dropping enrolment, and you're always going to

see that in this province. There were schools that were closed under the New

Democrats because of dropping enrolment." That's a quote from the Leader of the

Opposition in February of 2005.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: On this side of the House, the government is

proud of its record. We will continue to fund education at record levels, and in

fact, we will continue to build new schools, where appropriate. We have a record

that we can be proud of.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition with 370 names of residents of

the Cowichan Valley calling on this Legislature to ensure that Ecole Mill Bay,

the only single-track French immersion school south of the Cowichan River,

remains open.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the pleasure to table the provincial

health officer's annual report, entitled An Ounce of Prevention Revisited:

A Review of Health Promotion and Selected Outcomes for Children and Youth in

B.C. Schools , that was released this past Friday.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, continued

committee stage debate on Bill 13 and, in

Section A, continued debate on the

estimates — for the information of members, the continued debates on the

Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

K. Conroy: I want to carry on from where we were last week

on Thursday. What I wanted to do at the time on Thursday was make an amendment

to add

section 8.1 to be read as I provided to the Table on last Thursday. I

understand that the amendment is in the orders of the day.

[ 8.1

SECTION 13 is amended

(

a) adding the following text, highlighted by underline, to

subsection 13 (1):

(1) The head of a public body may refuse to

disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice or

recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister if that

information would reveal a suggested course of action for acceptance or

rejection in making a decision or formulating a policy .

(

b) adding the following text, highlighted by underline, to

subsection 13 (2) (a):

13 (2) (

a) any factual material

or analysis of factual material ,

(

c) adding the following subsections:

13 (2) (a.1) any background explanations or

analysis for consideration in making a decision or formulating a policy,

13 (2) (a.2) a professional, scientific,

technical or investigative opinion or report.]

On the amendment.

K. Conroy: The reason I put forward this amendment is that

there was a glaring omission in this Bill 13 that

section 13 of the Freedom of

Information Act didn't have any amendment.

I was informed that this would probably be the best place to table

this amendment, such that

section 13.1 would now clarify that policy advice

could only be withheld "if that information would reveal a suggested course of

action for acceptance or rejection in making a decision or formulating a policy"

and would clarify under

section 13.2 that not only would factual material be

exempt from severing under this

section but also "analysis of factual material,"

and would also add subsections to clarify the background explanations or

analysis and a professional, scientific, technical or investigative opinion or

report be put on the list of information the government must disclose.

[ Page 10968 ]

I was led to believe that this might be a time to table this

amendment and that it's one that was actually recommended to the minister by the

Information Commissioner. It was actually recommended last April. The minister

had an opportunity to put that amendment in the bill when it was introduced last

year, and it unfortunately wasn't. Now I see, again, in this bill it was not

introduced, and I was hoping that this might be an opportunity to give not only

the minister an opportunity to have the ability to support this amendment but

also the member for Peace River South, who had expressed great support to this

amendment, and hoping that we could, in fact, have this amendment before the

House.

With that, I table this amendment.

Point of Order

Hon. O. Ilich: Just on a point of order. Standing Order 84

governs the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole and states: "In

proceedings upon Bills in Committee of the Whole, every clause shall be

considered by the Committee in its proper order, with the

preamble and the title

being considered last."

[1440]

Section 2: "Any clause may be postponed but shall be taken up

before the Bill has been reported to the House." In addition, Parliamentary

Practice in British Columbia , third edition, page 171, reads as follows:

"The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill

clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to accepting the

bill as committed or making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render

it more generally acceptable."

Page 171 also identifies a list of inadmissible amendments,

including any amendments that are beyond the scope of the bill.

Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice , 21st edition, further

states on page 491: "An amendment is out of order…if it is irrelevant to the

subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration."

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, provides

perhaps the clearest direction when it states on page 207, citation 698,

subsection 8(b): "An amendment may not amend sections from the original act

unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the

committee."

I would also note that Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia, third edition, page 2, clearly identifies Beauchesne as one of the

authorities that members and others may rely upon to guide them in the search

for answers to procedural questions.

Madam Chair, since this bill does not address

section 13 of the

FOI Act, I would submit that the amendment being proposed is beyond the scope of

the bill and the clause currently under consideration and, therefore, is out of

order. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you so rule.

The Chair: Member, I've had a chance to consider the

amendment, and the amendment would add a new

section to the bill which does not

relate to other concepts in the bill. Accordingly, the amendment is out of

order, as it is beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading.

Debate Continued

section 9.

K. Conroy: Just under

section 9, then, could the minister

explain what exactly foreign demand is, underneath the…?

Hon. O. Ilich: A foreign demand for disclosure is a

subpoena, a warrant, an order, a demand or a request that is from a foreign

court, an agency of a foreign state or another authority outside Canada and is

for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information to which this act

applies.

For the information of the member opposite, though, this is a

housekeeping amendment to the act. The act already has this in it. What we're

doing is that instead of it saying that…. Right now there's a foreign demand

that goes to a public body. A public body can't receive anything, so this is

going to a head of a public body. That's the only change that's being made.

We're introducing the head of a public body, and so nothing else has changed in

this clause.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

K. Conroy: In this clause it talks about the concerns

around the Patriot Act and that public bodies and their staff must immediately

notify the head of a public body if there is unauthorized disclosure. Would that

also lead true, then, that the public would be notified if there was

unauthorized disclosure?

[1445]

Hon. O. Ilich: This clause requires, if there's a security

breach, that there is a notification to the head of the public body. There is no

subsequent policy here that states that that head of the public body then must

notify the public, but I'm told that we do, do that through policy. But right

now there's no requirement for anybody to actually disclose that to the head of

the public body.

L. Krog: I apologize for being absent when this

section was

first brought in the House this morning.

"'If a public body, an employer or a public body' and

substituting 'if the head of a public body….'" It strikes me that the term

"a public body" is a much broader, more encompassing phrase that would describe

the public body. In theory, it would describe everyone who's involved with the

public body, etc. In fact, the way I read this section, it is a narrowing, if

you will, of the broader definition.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain. Am I wrong in my

interpretation, or am I right?

Hon. O. Ilich: Could the member opposite just clarify what

section he's on, please?

L. Krog: I'm sorry.

Section 9.

The Chair: Member, we're on

section 11.

[ Page 10969 ]

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thus my apology. I'm

obviously a little late on that one.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

K. Conroy: In

section 12 there's a reference to a third

party's position. Could the minister define what that would be and give an

example of what or who a third party would be?

[1450]

Hon. O. Ilich: I wonder if the member opposite could

clarify where it says that in

section 12 and, specifically, what she's asking

for?

K. Conroy: Parts of

section 22 that are applied to

section

33 by this amendment…. It talks about: a public body may disclose "if the

information is about the third party's position, functions, or remuneration as

an officer, employee or member of a public body."

Hon. O. Ilich: What we're doing here is listing things that

will be routinely disclosed. Right now

section 22 limits the routine disclosure.

One of the things that it is going to be allowing, that we will be specifically

routinely disclosing, is details of personal information that right now are held

private.

In that particular instance, this amendment will permit public

bodies to make routinely available a person's position, function or remuneration

as an officer or employee or member of a public body; financial and other

details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body; expenses

incurred by a third party while travelling at a public body's expense; a

licence, permit or other similar discretionary benefit granted by a public body,

not including personal information supplied in support of the application for

the benefit; and details of a discretionary benefit of a financial nature

granted by a public body.

These are all things that have been excluded before, and now they

will be routinely disclosed. Does that answer the question for the member?

K. Conroy: Could the minister actually define, then, who or

what a third party would be that would be disclosing?

Hon. O. Ilich: The third party would be different in every

single case. It would be a person who is getting remuneration as an officer or a

person who is filing expenses to an agency. That would be the third party, and

it would be different in every single case.

What the member should know is that this is now held private, and

this will be now released. So it's an expansion of what is now meant to be

released.

K. Conroy: Does that mean that anyone could get access to

any contracts that the different ministries might have with outside bodies and

scrutinize them for the financial details around those contracts?

[1455]

Hon. O. Ilich: What we're doing here is making a routine

release available. If something would have been normally releasable under a

formal access request, we're going to be releasing these things on a routine

basis. Anything that would have been withheld before will still be withheld, but

it's going to be released on a regular basis if it could have been released on a

formal request.

K. Conroy: So for information like that, there no longer

will be required freedom-of-information requests? They will just be released to

the public on a regular basis from the different ministries?

Hon. O. Ilich: The

interpretation of the member opposite is

correct. The opportunity will be there. The ability to routinely release

information is there. It will still be up to the public body to decide whether

they want to routinely release that, but I think the member's

interpretation of

that is correct.

L. Krog: As I understand it, then, the amendment is going

to give the power to disclose financial and other details of a contract to

supply goods and services to a public body, which arguably is very good public

policy. The public should have a right to know how its dollars are being spent.

On the other hand, there are clearly contracts the government has

entered into and policy around disposition of some Crown assets and other

matters where these things aren't made public. I'm just wondering. What's the

minister's position on this as a matter of policy? In other words, does she

think this is good policy? Should it apply across the board with government

contracts?

Hon. O. Ilich: This amendment does permit public bodies to

routinely disclose predetermined personal information that can currently be

released in response to a formal request. So it will allow public bodies to

routinely release information.

The third-party aspect of it is that this is personal information,

so what we are now allowing is that, for instance, if the director of IM/IT…. If

I had a contract with her, what she's paid would be her personal information,

but we will now be allowing the routine release of that information. I think

that's what the member opposite was trying to get at earlier.

L. Krog: I've probably not made myself very clear to the

minister. As I read

section 12, it will allow a public body, under (f), to

disclose "financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services

to a public body."

My question is: does the minister think this is good public

policy? In other words, are all the details of the contract available? Am I

missing something in terms of the specificity of the release, or does it apply

to everything in that contract?

[1500]

[ Page 10970 ]

Hon. O. Ilich: We do think — and I do think — that that is

good public policy. It will allow much more disclosure of information and

provide for a more open government. There are specific categories of personal

information that this amendment will allow a public body to make routinely

available: a person's position, function or remuneration as an officer, employee

or member of a public body; financial and other details of a contract to supply

goods or services to a public body; expenses incurred by a third party while

travelling at a public body's expense; licence, permit or other similar

discretionary benefit granted by a public body; and details of a discretionary

benefit of a financial nature granted by a public body. These are things that we

believe we can disclose routinely and won't be needing an access request.

L. Krog: My specific question to the minister is: does she

believe that this is an appropriate approach for government to take with respect

to all contracts involving the provincial government?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think, in talking about

section 12…. I

believe we are expanding the disclosure that we routinely do. We are very

pleased to be supporting this part and think that's a good public policy. Other

issues that we are not routinely disclosing…. Obviously, it's outside the scope

section 12.

L. Krog: I'm asking this question. I mean, I appreciate

that we're talking about this section. But I'm asking the minister: with respect

to this

section and its implications for government policy, does she agree that

this is the appropriate approach to take with all government contracts?

Hon. O. Ilich: We're debating

section 12 here. My personal

beliefs about what we should do with the FOI Act aside, what we're talking about

here is

section 12. We're asking questions and answering questions on

section

12, so I think that I've answered the member's question.

K. Conroy: I just have one more on that section, then. I

just want to confirm. All public bodies will now automatically release this

information. But could a public body choose not to if, for whatever reason, they

decided they didn't want to release it? Will this amendment now make it so all

public bodies will automatically release the information?

Hon. O. Ilich: Right now it's prohibited, so should a

public body want to release this on a routine basis, they're not allowed to.

This clause will in fact allow public bodies to do that on a discretionary

basis, should they choose to do so.

Sections 12 to 33 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 13, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act,

2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 15,

intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008. The hon. Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Committee of the Whole House

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

The Chair: We'll have a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

section 1.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to participate in committee stage

debate of Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. We have a number of

questions for the minister and a number of amendments as well, which the Clerk

is reviewing and which I'm sure we'll get to the minister and his staff as

quickly as possible.

With respect to

section 1, the addition of some new

definitions,

I'm wondering if the minister could help me out with "demand-side measure,"

particularly sections (a), (

b) and (c) — (

a) being "to conserve," (b) "to

reduce" and (c) "to shift."

Hon. R. Neufeld: Before I start, I'd like to introduce the

folks that are with me today. Deputy Minister Greg Reimer is on my left. Shelley

Murphy is a director of electricity policy in the ministry, and behind me is Les

McLaren, ADM for electricity and alternative energy.

The three items, (a), (

b) and (c): (

a) is obviously to reduce

greenhouse gases wherever they can, and they should take that into account while

they're reviewing projects that come before them. I think that one is pretty

straightforward.

[ Page 10971 ]

Then "(

b) to encourage public utilities to take demand-side

measures." The energy plan says that we want to actually meet 50 percent of our

growth, going forward, through demand-side measures, and it's to actually take

that into account.

And "to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and

acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources" is something that has been

a bit of a debate over the last while within this chamber and outside this

chamber. We want to make sure that the commission actually reviews those in a

way that we can maintain the 90 percent average we now have today in the

province of British Columbia with energy generation from clean sources.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister, but as I read those

definitions, he made reference to greenhouse gases, and I don't see that

anywhere in this section. Maybe he can point me to it in his response.

[1515]

One demand-side measure that I know the government and B.C. Hydro

are promoting is the residential inclining block funding or block tariff. I'm

wondering if the minister could articulate, for the House and for those paying

attention at home concerned about where their hydro rates are going to go over

the next number of months or years, whether the residential inclining block

tariff would fit under the demand-side measure definition. I would think it

would be under

section (a), but I'm not clear.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize for that. I went to the second

(a), (

b) and (c).

The first one that you're talking about is "to conserve energy or

promote energy efficiency." That was your first question. "To reduce the energy

demand a public utility must serve, or to shift the use of energy to periods of

lower demand."

The last one obviously is that if you can shift energy demand from

peak times to off-peak times, you need to build less generation or have less

electricity at hand at any given time. I think that's better for any utility or

better for the ratepayer at the end of the day, because we have to build to a

certain percentage over and above what the peak demand is. If we can actually

move some of that peak off of peak into another time frame, that makes good

sense. That's something that B.C. Hydro, I know, has been doing for the last

couple of years with some of the test runs they've been doing.

Then "(

b) to reduce the energy demand a public utility must

serve." Again, that's through conservation, the things that we have to do.

The member asked the question about the inclining block. Yes,

that's a part of it. The inclining block, although we call it stepped rates in

the industrial world, has been in place with industry now for two years. They

can use a certain amount of electricity that's relatively cheap from the

heritage assets, and there comes a time when they have to step up and pay a

higher rate for new energy consumed.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I am a fan of the

stepped rates in the industrial tariff. That makes a lot of sense to me. When

you've got large users who have an ability, through managing their shifts and

depending on whether their output is high at certain times of the year, that

makes complete sense. Some of the people that have been talking to me…. I know

that the inclining block application is before the commission or will be

shortly, if it's not there already. I guess we'll hear if it is there or not,

thanks to the able staff beside the minister.

As a demand-side management measure, it makes sense if you use

electricity for cooking, turning on the dishwasher, that sort of thing. But

many, many British Columbians — and the minister will know this — in the 1980s

and 1990s were encouraged to get rid of fossil fuel heat sources, whether it be

natural gas or home heating oil, and convert to electric baseboard heating, to

electric floor heating. Their electricity consumption increased, but their

greenhouse gas contributions decreased.

We encouraged people, not just this government but the government

across the way and all governments since the 1980s…. We encouraged citizens to

stop doing one activity and promoted another. Now, 20 years on, we've decided

that even though, as the minister knows, 90 percent of our electricity is clean,

green electricity…. We're saying to consumers of that, who may not have the same

opportunities as the industrial tariff sector, that they should pay more at

certain times of the day because their usage is larger than their neighbour's.

I'm wondering if the minister could help me explain to my

constituents and others who have been writing to me. Maybe, even, he could

advise me on how he's responding to people who say: "That's really not

demand-side management. We did our bit in the '80s or '90s, and now we're being

penalized for it."

[1520]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, at the time, 20 years ago in the

'80s, the issues about greenhouse gases and the effect they was having on the

environment were not topical on the public's mind — in fact, probably weren't

spoken much other than maybe in some circles, but not commonly.

The process that was used in the 1980s to get people to change

over to electricity is because we had a huge amount of electricity that was in

excess to what the province needed at the time. That's the only reason I can

give for that.

I don't think it's wrong in today's world, 20 years later, to

change attitudes a bit, to quit thinking that we have a huge amount of

electricity that we can just use all we want at any given time. I know it will

be a bit more difficult for those that heat their homes, but what we want to do

is actually change habits a little bit. I think that with an inclining block, we

can start to do that.

I'm sure we'll get to another

section here that the member will

want to talk about at length, which is smart meters, which has something to do

with the inclining block. I'm going to be careful how I choose my words about

the inclining block, because it is before the B.C. Utilities Commission as we

speak.

[ Page 10972 ]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for reminding me that it's

already before the commission. That's good to know, but I am pleased that I had

an opportunity to raise the issue.

I don't disagree with the minister. We were awash in electricity.

It made good sense to market that electricity by encouraging citizens to use

more of it. Now we're in a different environment, and I appreciate that. I want

the minister to know that I'm not so obtuse that I don't get that.

The irony for these people is that they were really trendsetters

on the climate change front inasmuch as they were forgoing burning their wood in

their heat stove, or they got rid of their oil burner and started warming their

water with electricity. It's not lost on them that they were groundbreakers even

though, as the minister quite rightly says, it wasn't on the top of everyone's

mind in the 1980s when these transitions were being made. We were awash in

energy, so it made good sense for our Crown to market it as aggressively as they

could, and that's what they did.

With respect to

section 1, I'll just ask a couple of more

questions, and that would be

section 1(f). It reads as follows: "to encourage

public utilities to take prescribed actions in support of any other goals

prescribed by regulation." I appreciate that we don't have all the regulations

here, but I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what's contemplated in

that section.

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is not uncommon to have in a piece of

legislation maybe not the exact wording but something similar. What it does is

give flexibility for a government to actually make regulations as things change,

as the world changes around us, as it has over the last while — changed

dramatically in some areas — and for governments to be able to adapt to those

changes by regulation.

J. Horgan: Well, the Minister of Finance and I were having

a discussion about the need to manage Hydro's debt cap a week and a half ago,

and I asked when the last time…. The issue was that we don't want to keep

changing the cap all of the time. The last time it was changed was 1984.

I appreciate that government needs flexibility and the Crown needs

flexibility, but it is a little bit open-ended. I just want the record to show

that prescribed actions in support of prescribed goals some time later is not

something that we can discuss here with any confidence that we're capturing all

of the possibilities that may be contemplated here.

I just think it's important that we be on the record saying that

the government hasn't completed its work here. They've got some other work to

do. That'll come forward in the regulations, and if that's not good enough for

particular issues as they come forward, then we're going to see this

section

enacted to ensure that those goals are met. That's my

interpretation of it

anyway.

[1525]

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we move forward — and the member is

correct — things will change. The debt cap that Hydro has is not in here any

place, but I could maybe use that as a bit of an example. The last large

facility that was built by B.C. Hydro was Revelstoke. That would have been in

the '80s. Very little was built after that, so debt caps were able to be

maintained.

The member is right in his assertion. As time changes, as we move

forward, a government will be able to move forward and make those changes by

regulation, depending on the magnitude of them. I think any government would

look at those kinds of things and be careful about what they put in regulation

and what they don't.

I know the member would probably agree with me that that's

probably what a prudent government would do in the future.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Horgan: This section,

section 3, speaks to directions

from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. For those who don't have a copy of the

bill and those who don't know what that is, that's basically the cabinet.

The existing Utilities Commission Act has a "Commission subject to

direction" section,

section 3. There are amendments, as I'm looking at the two

acts, and I'm wondering…. It seems the significant changes in

section 3(2), "The

commission must comply with a direction issued under subsection (1), despite (

a) any other provision of (

i) this Act," and so on….

That doesn't appear to be…. Oh, that's an addition here. Could the

minister explain to me where the changes are between

section 3 in the existing

act and

section 3 of Bill 15?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Subsection (2) is the question that the

member has. It makes it clear that this power is despite any other provision in

the act, any regulation under the act or any previous decision. This ensures

that where there could be a conflict between a government regulation and a

requirement under the act or a previous decision of the commission, it is clear

that the government direction prevails.

J. Horgan: That's consistent with the previous powers of

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the Utilities Commission?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's different.

J. Horgan: That begs the question, Minister: how is it

different?

[1530]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll attempt to expand on it a little bit.

Section 3 allows the government to specify factors, criteria and guidelines a

commission must use in regulating and setting rates for B.C. Hydro and B.C.

Trans-

[ Page 10973 ]

mission Corporation. These powers are despite any other provisions of the act

and despite any previous order of the commission.

J. Horgan: Then these are new powers to the minister and to

cabinet to direct the commission subject to acts or policies that may come after

this bill has passed.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. It enhances and clarifies. There was

some discussion amongst the legal world that some of the powers that a minister

had prior to the changes maybe wouldn't take effect, and so what you wanted to

do was to enhance it so it was relatively clear. I think that all we're trying

to do is make it relatively clear that when a direction is made, it's a

direction.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

J. Horgan: I know that a government never takes lightly a

special direction, either in the '80s, '90s or now. I don't want to appear to be

fearmongering, but there are those who are concerned whenever cabinet or the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the minister — all being the same, I think,

when it comes to this act — is given more power than they had before.

This speaks to…. I was in a briefing this morning with staff from

the ministry. I know that the Queen takes our responsibility very seriously to

shine light upon those things that change on our watch. I just want it to be

clear, and the minister's done that by declaring that there are new powers

granted to the minister as a result of this amendment in

section 3.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It enhances the power and clarifies it,

and it's a power not to the minister but to cabinet. How the cabinet minister at

his or her peril can…say something and just go ahead and do it — may get in a

fair amount of trouble with his or her colleagues in cabinet later on, if it

were something that were a little bit out there….

I agree with the member. I know that every government has used

directions. It's not that one government has and another government hasn't. For

specific reasons, they do that, and they do it with trepidation, I can tell you.

I know, from our government, they do it with trepidation, and I'm sure that the

last government and the government before also did it with trepidation.

We needed to actually clarify it and make sure what it actually

was. It's not conferring any new powers. It's enhancing what's there and

clarifying it.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Horgan: With respect to this

section and the existing act,

we're now dealing with…. "Commission's duties" is the heading for

section 5, and

we're amending that section. We are now explicitly saying: "In this section,

'minister' means the minister responsible for the administration of the Hydro

and Power Authority Act ."

Now, I appreciate that the Minister of Energy is responsible for

B.C. Hydro at this present time, and ministers are responsible some days for one

thing and other days for others, depending on the Premier's wanting to saddle

them with a lot of stuff or not. But as I understand it, the Utilities

Commission Act is the responsibility today of the Attorney General.

I'm curious if the minister could explain to me why now the

minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is named in the Utilities Commission Act. If

it's nothing nefarious, that's grand, but I'm curious as to why it's there now.

[1535]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Nothing nefarious. This actually just

leaves with the Attorney General…. The reason it went to the Attorney General

was because the Utilities Commission now regulates more than just utilities.

ICBC, for instance, is now regulated by the Utilities Commission. That's why it

was moved from the Ministry of Energy, Mines to start with.

But this has to deal with energy, and we thought that the minister

responsible for energy should be the minister responsible for the electricity

part of it. That's why it's named in there that way.

J. Horgan: I know I'm going to be jumping ahead here, but

this may save us at the end of the debate. There are consequential amendments at

the back of the bill, sections 18 and 19, to deal with ICBC and the Water

Utility Act.

Coming back to

section 4, where the minister's name, the minister

responsible for B.C. Hydro…. The minister is not named on those other sections.

Again, I know we're out of sequential order here, but is there any

reason why that's left hanging, or is that because the Attorney General's

responsible for those sections?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have any problem with going

forward. But would you ask that question again, please? We're just having a

little bit of trouble trying to understand what the question is.

J. Horgan: Sure. I thank the minister for that. As we get

to the back of the bill — and we'll be able to fly through these sections at

that time — sections 18 and 19 make consequential amendments to the Insurance

Corporation Act and the Water Utility Act. The minister just said, in his

response to why the Minister of Energy is now named in the act, that it's

because the commission now has other, broader responsibilities, so that it was

felt important to name the Minister of Energy on these sections. I'm wondering

why it wasn't important to do those sections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Under

section 19, at least what I'm told

by the staff, it's to make sure that the issues that we're dealing with that

deal with the utilities that are covered under this do not apply to the Water

Utility Act. So it's just the reverse — okay?

[ Page 10974 ]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister and his staff for that.

That'll be one less question to ask at the end.

Still within

section 4, again, under the heading of what is in the

act,

section 5, "Commission's duties," we now have

section 4(c), sections 4, 5,

6 and 7 through 9.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment. "The commission, in

accordance with subsection (5) must conduct an inquiry to make determinations

with respect to British Columbia's infrastructure and capacity needs for

electricity transmission for the period ending 20 years after the day the

inquiry begins." I'm wondering what that means.

[1540]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Prior to this anticipated change — and it

still has to be approved by the House — there was no requirement for B.C.

Transmission to look forward 20 years, as there is now for B.C. Hydro to look

forward 20 years in generation capability. Transmission didn't have that

responsibility, and we thought it was prudent that…. Let's say an inquiry

started, for the purposes of this, a month from now. They have to look, from

that period, 20 years out as to what would possibly be required so that planning

for the future 20 years in transmission can be made, not in a per-project

process but more long-term planning for the greater good of the utility.

J. Horgan: That's useful for

section 4(5). If we go to the

following page, subsection (7) says: "The minister may declare, by regulation,

that the commission may not, during the period specified in the regulation,

reconsider, vary or rescind a determination made under subsection (4)." I'm

wondering if we're looking….

Again, I think everyone would applaud strategic planning and

forward planning for our transmission and generation needs — even our

distribution needs, I suppose. But then, when we turn the page, as it were —

literally, with the bill — we find that…. Should, over the course of conducting

investigation, new information come to light, I seem to think, as I read

subsection (7), that that can't be brought forward to the commission for

reconsideration. Is that an incorrect

interpretation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In my earlier response, I said BCTC didn't

have to, and I was incorrect in that. They did, but they did in a very broad

way, and they didn't do it in conjunction with other utilities, that being

Fortis — right? So now they have to take that larger look, the 20 years out,

incorporating…. We have another large utility in the province of British

Columbia called Fortis, so we need to actually make sure that they're part of

the long-term planning process too, because there are some difficulties that are

happening in that part of the world in regards to transmission.

As I understand, it's to fix the need for a period of time so that

you don't constantly go back and keep reviewing transmission. Transmission is a

lot of people. In fact, I often thought transmission was probably the easier

part to build, but it's apparently not. I've experienced a few of those things

in the last number of years with transmission. I'm sure the member is aware of

it. So it takes a lot longer to get some of those things happening. We just

didn't want it to be something that they constantly replan and replan and replan

— that we actually look out 20 years and get on with doing it.

[1545]

J. Horgan: Of course, Fortis is the other large utility.

I'm wondering, though. Just while we're on this, then, with respect to

transmission, would this contemplate hooking up smaller generators? Would that

be part of a long-range plan, or will hooking up smaller generators still be on

an as-needed basis, in terms of planning?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, although there will probably be

some of that happening individually, it's to try to get away from that. You

know, Hydro and Fortis and BCTC need to get together and actually get this plan

figured out.

I think Hydro has a good idea of where the energy is generally

going to come from — not always exactly where all of it's going to come from,

but generally has a bit of an idea — so that we can actually build transmission

to those areas where generation will probably come from in the long term, so

that when you build a line, you get the right-of-way and get the line built. You

build it a bit for the future, instead of just building for the past.

I think probably if we look at a lot of things that we have done

in the province, and it's of no fault of anyone's…. But looking forward at some

of these things, such as transmission, that take a long time to build and cost a

lot of money…. We should be thinking out 20 years to make sure we build that so

it at least facilitates the upgrading of something so that we can actually get

more energy as we move forward and the province grows, even though we're going

to try to get as much from conservation as possible.

There's no doubt the province is going to continue to grow. It's a

great place to live. People are coming here by the thousands, and they're going

to continue to need electricity. Probably, when you think about industry and

those kinds of opportunities that take place and will take place in the province

of British Columbia…. We need to be able to serve their needs.

J. Horgan: Well, one of the areas that the minister, I

know, is very interested in — as am I and certainly the members for North Coast

and Skeena and the member from Bulkley Valley — is the electrification of

Highway 37. I'm hopeful that when one thinks of providing large blocks of energy

to industrial users….

I know that this isn't the right time. I am planning a whole bunch

of time on this in estimates with both the ministers responsible. But just as an

example so we can close this section…. In the 20-year planning, would it be

contemplating potential industrial activity, and would BCTC be directed to bring

forward plans that contemplate industrial activity that's not yet on the ground

— just based on what we would all hope might happen, subject to commodity prices

being right and

[ Page 10975 ]

capital for expansion and various corporate entities being right? Is that

sort of what we're talking about here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think probably, in a nutshell…. And I'm

sure that we will go through that at length in estimates about northwest

transmission line. But it's maybe, in a nutshell, to look at where the demand

is, where the generation is and where the transmission has to be located to get

that to where the major demand is.

There would be all kinds of, which come out of that…. But we need

to actually start looking at how that's done in a rational way and meets the

ratepayers' best interests. That's the other part the commission has to be

careful about — that we maintain some of the lowest rates in North America

moving forward.

J. Horgan: Just a last question on this section, and that

would be it.

We were talking about BCTC, B.C. Hydro and Fortis. We could

probably add Columbia Power, which was also kind of located in the southwest

corner and needing transmission upgrades on the Fortis system to hook up with

the BCTC system. I guess my question would be burrowing down a little deeper to

independent power producers who would require transmission hookups to the grid,

to the BCTC system.

[1550]

I'm assuming that those hookups are not contemplated in this

section. Rather, that's part and parcel of a power purchase agreement and a

commercial arrangement between the provider and B.C. Hydro.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It looks at the major transmission and not

the interconnections. That would be done in a separate process.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Horgan: In

section 5…. Again, for many people it's

difficult to follow these debates, because people don't have access to statutes

readily, even with the Internet. I try and find statutes through the very

capable Legislative Assembly webpage, and it takes me forever and ever. I'm very

grateful to have a big pile of them right behind me here in my unique corner

where I can grab them and refer to them.

We're dealing now with persons generating electricity for own use

section 22, where we're repealing that

section and substituting the following

with respect to exemptions. I'm wondering if the minister, again, who is named

now in this section, could clarify for me what changes from

section 22 in the

current act are now contemplated in

section 5's amendments.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, changing the minister

responsible is pretty straightforward — to the minister responsible for energy.

The only real change, as I understand it, is adding transmission and

distribution that can be exempted if, in fact, a cabinet deems that in the best

interest.

Also subsection (3) of the old act says "(

b) authorize the

commission to make an order under subsection (2)." There's another

section

coming further that will deal with that issue.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that answer. Again,

with some apprehension on my part with respect to eligible persons…. In

section

(a), it says "generates, produces, transmits, distributes or sells." And as the

minister just said, we added "distributes." Where did "sells" come from, and who

can sell electricity in British Columbia right now?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you go back to the old act, "sells" was

there. It's just in a different part of what we're dealing with. So that's

nothing new.

J. Horgan: Would an eligible person be someone who is

perhaps in a net metering situation or someone who has a large number of solar

panels to meet their own needs at their residence but yet has additional power

that they can sell back to the grid? Would they be contemplated in this

section

— people like that?

[1555]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am told that the net metering or the

small ones may be under that or under the tariff that's already there with the

Utilities Commission. So no, it doesn't mean that; it means the larger ones.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It means larger generators.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Horgan: As I read

section 6, it's amending

section 43 of

the existing act. It is just about being compelled to respond to commission

questions, and it tightens up the requirements for annual reports. Is that

correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Horgan: In

section 7, in the explanatory notes — this is

referring again to sections 44.1 and 44.2 in the existing act — it says as

follows: that this now "requires public utilities to submit long-term resource

plans to the commission and authorizes them to submit expenditure schedules to

the commission." Could the minister explain what those expenditure schedules

would look like, or are they as they are today?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What it is, is that you can get approval

from the commission for your demand-side

[ Page 10976 ]

management, whatever form that may take. You'd have to get approval from the

commission to do that. Or smaller capital projects, you could do it there, or

electricity supply contracts. Those are just a few of the examples that

expenditures would be related to that they could bring forward to the

commission. Instead of doing each one individually, you could do a number of

them at one time.

J. Horgan: So "Long-term resource and conservation

planning" is the subheading for this new section. It fits in with the duty to

keep records, or it's under that

section of the new act. This is a new

subsection, and it's quite extensive. It runs a number of pages in the new bill.

I'm loath to let that go by, just because the Queen likes us to

shine light on these things. Again, the intent, as I understand it, of the first

sections, as the minister has explained, is to encourage demand-side management

or find that as part of the requirement for utilities to ensure that they are

regularly reporting on what measures they have in place.

We're going to get to smart meters in a second, but again, I'm

giving the minister licence here to stand and tell me in great detail why we

have eight subsections now, where there used to be none.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, it's not that there doesn't have

to be any. It's to clarify it, put it out relatively straightforward so that the

commission understands, and so do the utilities that are actually going before

the commission. It's to make sure that they bring all the relative information

forward so that the commission can make informed decisions as they move forward.

[1600]

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Horgan: In

section 9, we are now amending

section 46 of

the Utilities Commission Act, and this is the procedure on application. Again,

I'm wondering at what point, if there is any in this section, interveners should

be concerned. The "government's energy objectives" could be a movable target, I

think.

One of the concerns that people have with this

section — who have

talked to me, at any rate, and there may be others out there that are concerned

as well — is that it's fairly broad. Again, therefore, it's subject to potential

abuse — not, certainly, by this minister but by potential ministers in the

future — as to what the government's energy objectives might be. Maybe a

clarification of that now would be a good idea.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I get the member's question. Really, and

the member knows this, it's explained earlier. It's a

section to deal with the

commission — that they must take into account a government's energy objectives.

I would assume there are people who don't always like the energy objectives of

any government. That's pretty understandable. That happened, I know, during the

'90s. It has happened now. No one is immune to those kinds of things. This is

just to actually inform the commission that they must look at the objectives of

an energy plan put forward by a government and apply that energy plan.

I'm hopeful — and I'm always hopeful, Member — that regardless of

whose government it is, people actually think through these things, and think

through them well, before they bring them forward as policy. At least in our

administration, it has to go through an awful lot of processes to become policy.

It doesn't just become policy because one person thinks it should

be. It's because a group of people, larger than just a government, has decided

that's probably the best thing to move forward. It's probably an argument that

the member has heard before, but I'll leave it with him.

J. Horgan: I don't disagree with the minister. It's just

that as I read

section 9(3.1)(a), the "government's energy objectives" are

pretty broad. Again, as time goes by, circumstances change. Governments can come

and change and amend this if they have the will of this Legislature. That's

quite all right, except that I'm not necessarily clear — and I'm paying

attention — on what the government's energy objectives are.

How are those that are not spending as much time on this as the

minister's staff and myself going to find comfort that the government's energy

objectives are consistent with — again, one assumes that they are, but they may

not necessarily be — the objectives of some families, which are to keep the

rates as low as possible so that they've got more money for other necessities

like food and shelter?

[1605]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll maybe give one quick example: when

you stood up after I released the last energy plan and said: "This is a real

good energy plan. I think we should move forward with it." That's one example.

I can think of another example of Dr. Andrew Weaver, who said the

same thing. I can think of another example of David Suzuki saying that this is a

good energy plan. The Environment critic even gave not his whole support — and

I'm not trying to infer that the member gave whole support either — but said:

"You know, depending on how these things are enacted, it looks like a pretty

good plan to move British Columbia into the future."

I think that regardless of what happens, there's no difference

between that side of the House and this side of the House about the cost of

energy. Of course everybody wants to keep the cost of energy down. We want to

maintain and in fact stipulate that. We want to have the commission review costs

on a constant basis and look at those costs to make sure that we're still

retaining some of the lowest in North America.

You can also look at this in the light that we need to actually

build some generation. We need to actually do some things in the province of

British Columbia instead of just saying that we're going to keep your rates

[ Page 10977 ]

really low and not build anything for the future, because that will cost you

some place too, obviously. I know the member would agree with me on that.

I think that any government that comes in and wants to change the

energy objectives certainly can do that. Basically, when we went through

section

1, there was a pretty good description of them. It is broad. We want it to be

broad so that the commission can actually look at all of those and see how they

all fit together in the best way possible for the ratepayers in the province of

British Columbia.

J. Horgan: I agree with quite a bit of what the minister

said. I know that sometimes he finds discomfort when we are in agreement;

sometimes not. I do want to say, while I'm on my feet, that I did give full

marks to the conservation components. I hold Scott Sutherland responsible, if

he's listening. He asked me to give a grade, and I said that on the conservation

measures, I'd give them a B. I thought I was being generous. I'm glad the

minister was grateful for that.

I think 50 percent of new energy, to fly, is an ambitious target,

and if we can meet that, we're all going to be better off as a result. I

believed it when the minister stood and issued the plan, and I still believe it

today. So I have no quarrel with that.

As we go through this bill, we're going to be coming to

part 3,

"Energy Security and the Environment" shortly. There I divide greatly with the

minister, and he knows that. This is where I think we can have some problems

with this

section under the government's energy objectives, because as he quite

rightly said, there are many of the issues outlined in

section 1 — the

definition about what we would like to see the utility encourage. I think most

people in this place would agree with that.

But as we literally turn the pages, shortly we're going to be at

quite a significant divide between this side of the House and that side of the

House and, I would suggest, a significant divide in the community. It's not just

an "us against them" issue. There are many, many people very concerned about how

the term self-sufficiency is being used as a component of government's energy

objectives in what I would argue, and will argue shortly, is an uneconomic way.

Again, were it to be just

section 1 and the

definitions, I think

you'd have complete agreement with me that government sets objectives, and the

commission should be mindful of those as it hears applications for CNCPs.

However, when we get further on in the bill, I'll have some trouble with that.

With that comment, I'll just take my seat.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

J. Horgan: I would suggest at this point that it would be

useful to submit the following amendment, and I believe a copy is with the

Clerks' table. It will be section….

The Chair: Member, may I just intervene. I think the advice

I've been given in dealing with your amendment is that we should deal with

section 11 first and then deal with your new section.

J. Horgan: So deal with the existing section…?

The Chair: Then you are adding a section, 11.1 —

recommending an addition, I should say.

[1610]

J. Horgan: Correct. While I'm on my feet, Chair, I'll just

ask for clarification. I'd like to seek a division on

section 11, so I'm

wondering at what point the amendment fits into that.

The Chair: Member, after the House has dealt with

section

11, then we would receive the member's new section, 11.1.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much for that clarification.

We are now, again, for those who don't have access to the

legislation and are following this debate — I think Oprah started ten minutes

ago, so we might not be as high up the channel as we would be otherwise…. We're

dealing with the rate rebalancing section. This is amending

section 58.1, the

revenue-cost ratio. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me and to

those watching the intent of this section.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The commission had actually asked B.C.

Hydro to come forward with a plan on rate rebalancing. There's no magic to how

many years you wait until you do a rate rebalancing. In the midst of a whole

host of other things that were going on, the commission ordered a rate

rebalancing and would have increased further the cost of electricity to

residential consumers by 11 percent.

We thought it was not prudent at this point in time to actually do

that, so we're undoing a commission's decision of rate rebalancing. It would

have had some further effects…. I think I said in my second reading debate, in

regards to irrigation for farmers that actually irrigate their crops, that it

would have been a lot higher than 11 percent. What we wanted to do was actually

have some time to make sure that we get the amendments under the Utilities

Commission Act and then, at a later time, the commission look at how they

rebalance rates.

This is just simply to say no, we don't agree that you should put

another 11 percent on the ratepayers of the province of British Columbia at this

particular time. We undid that decision.

J. Horgan: Just so I'm clear, the rebalancing was an action

by the commission to reduce industrial rates and increase residential rates —

the tariffs for those classes of customers. By introducing this section, by

passing this section, this Legislature will be saying to the commission that

that rebalancing is not in effect. We'll be telling them to go back again and

come up with

[ Page 10978 ]

another rebalancing. Or is that the end of the exercise? Industrial rates

will go back to the rate that they were at, and residential rates will remain

where they were.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, rate rebalancing is something that is

done to actually set the rates, the costs of generation and what you should be

charged in relationship to industrial, commercial and residential. What we are

doing is saying that rate rebalancing that was done cannot be done and that they

actually are encouraged to look at it — in fact, there's a date in there — by

March 31, 2010, when they can review it again.

[1615]

At that point in time, if in fact the rates need to be

rebalanced…. That determination will be made at that time that they can't

increase residential rates — because they're the ones that are out of sync a bit

now — more than 2 percent a year to actually get it back into balance or what

they determine balance to be, because it's different in different jurisdictions.

J. Horgan: I don't have with me the various orders that are

referenced in the act under

section 3, but it's

section 3(a), (b), (

c) and (d).

I appreciate the minister's response, but I didn't hear "with

respect to the industrial class," because I believe that's where the rebalance

took place. One rate went down when the residential rate, therefore, went up.

That was the balancing exercise. Am I correct in that? If so, does that mean

that the industrial rate will go back to the level it was prior to those orders,

whichever one of those is the correct one?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry if I didn't fully explain that.

The rates will stay exactly as they were before the utility changed the rate

rebalancing for industrial, commercial and residential, other than for the rate

increases that took place.

[1620]

Section 11 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

J. Horgan: At this time I'd like to submit an amendment to

Bill 15 under

section 11.1. It goes as follows:

[Section 11.1 The following

section is added:

60.1

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

the Commission may require a utility to make a discounted lifeline rate in

order to maintain the affordability of energy for eligible low-income

households.

(2) If the Commission makes an order under subsection (1),

it must establish:

(

a) the criteria for households to be eligible for the

lifeline rate,

(

b) the procedure for households to apply to be eligible

for the lifeline rate,

(

c) the amount of the lifeline rate, and

(

d) such other rules and directions as the Commission

may consider appropriate for the administration of the lifeline rate

program.]

[1625]

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: For those who are not familiar with this, a

lifeline rate is something that currently exists in other jurisdictions in North

America, particularly in the jurisdiction of California. To qualify for a

lifeline rate, families or individuals would have to demonstrate to the utility

that they have a certain level of income that is below a standard that would be

prescribed by regulation.

For example, in the California context they have what they call a

CARE rate. CARE is the acronym that they use, and that is the California

alternate rates for energy act. I know that the minister will want to support

this amendment, because it gives the opportunity for this Legislature to say to

the commission that there are those in our community who are hard hit by

increasing costs of energy, whether it be home-heating fuel or gas at the pump

if they need a vehicle to get to and from work or other pursuits.

With this amendment, we in this Legislature have an opportunity to

say to low-income British Columbians that their hydro rates should not be so

onerous that it leads to distress or shortfalls in other areas of their life,

whether it be for food or housing or other such things. It has been considered

in other locations. It's being discussed in Nova Scotia, as I understand it, as

well as in Ontario.

I think it's certainly time in this Legislature and in this

province where we can, with our abundance of electricity options…. I know the

minister and I have some dispute on just how much electricity we do have at our

disposal. Certainly, it's my contention that with the downstream benefits, which

are a premium product owned by the province of B.C., not by B.C. Hydro but by

the Treasury Board — in essence, by the taxpayers of British Columbia — we have

an abundance of electricity at our disposal.

It might be an opportunity, with this amendment, to say to

low-income British Columbians, to those many seniors in the community who see

their rates rising…. Of course, we've all just voted in favour of forestalling

the rebalancing that the minister talked about, which the commission had brought

forward, and that's a step in the right direction.

By bringing forward this amendment at this time, I think I'm

giving the Legislature and certainly the minister the opportunity to take

another step in the right direction for low-income British Columbians — to set a

rate specific for those who can least afford the cost of keeping their lights on

and the cost of heating their homes, if they're using electricity.

This is innovative. It's cutting edge. It's something that in my

opinion would certainly strengthen the relationship between the commission and

ordinary people. These regulatory bodies quite often don't take into

consideration the hardships that rate increases do have on families and

ratepayers. Certainly, I know my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings would be

supportive of this initiative. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where

there are a number of folks who are living right on the edge….

Hydro rates quite often can be the difference between making it or

not making it on your own. Finding

[ Page 10979 ]

housing in the Lower Mainland is a challenge at the best of times. If you

have to hook up with the hook-up charge that B.C. Hydro requires of new

customers and then you have to pay significantly higher than necessary, based on

the amount of electricity that I believe we have available to provide to

low-income citizens…. This is an ideal opportunity.

In the California case, what they do is look at the total combined

gross annual income, based on the number of members in the household. They must

be below a certain amount prescribed by a table. I've got a table in front of me

that indicates that a family of two with an annual income of less than $30,000

would come in at a certain rate. Then it goes up from there, depending on the

number of individuals in the house — family members. I don't think this is

necessarily designed for communal living, but that's something I think others

certainly may want to touch upon as this debate progresses.

From my perspective, this is something that is being done in other

jurisdictions. It's not so innovative that it would be dismissed by the

government as something that's not necessary at this time. We all know the

rising costs of energy — whether it be, as I've said, in the form of fuels or of

electricity — can be a significant hardship.

[1630]

I commend this to the House's attention. I'm hopeful that other

members who have an interest in keeping rates down for low-income residents in

their community will support this amendment.

The Utilities Commission is the place that would be appropriate

for setting this, and I know that the minister and his staff would be aware of

this. It's an opportunity. I believe it should have been addressed at this time,

rather than leaving it for a subsequent amendment at another time. That's why

I'm pleased to put it before the Legislature and before the minister for his

approval and the approval of his colleagues on that side of the House.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm happy that the opposition finally got

an opportunity to read the bill and actually vote for a section,

section 11,

that eliminated the 11 percent rate increase.

Everyone in the House will remember that during second reading

they spoke about this bill in a huge number of ways that…. I didn't read

anything into the bill, but one thing they did vote against in second reading

was rate rebalancing, which would have seen everyone receive another 11 percent

on top of what's already happening and, as I said, some farmers actually receive

up to a 20 percent rate increase for irrigation.

So I'm pleased that the members actually saw the wisdom, in their

way, to actually call a division on

section 11 and actually record that they are

in favour of keeping rates low for the people in the province of British

Columbia. I appreciate that from the member opposite — that you're looking at it

that way. That's how we actually looked at it when we designed that section.

We've done a number of things in British Columbia to keep the

costs down for people who find themselves — maybe seniors on a fixed income and

those kinds of people, through increased SAFER grants…. It was our

administration that actually increased SAFER grants, which hadn't been increased

for decades, I don't think.

We actually increased rates for those that find themselves

disabled for whatever reason. We actually have increased revenue by eliminating

and reducing income tax for those $15,000 and less. In fact, we eliminated it

totally. That's something that wasn't there until this government came into

office.

I appreciate what the member talks about here — a number of things

and compared us to California. I just want the public to know, because they

don't always have the information that we have in the House, although I would

hope that the B.C. Energy Plan is on everybody's coffee table so that

they can read it.

The price for electricity in California, in San Francisco in 2007,

was 21 cents, and ours was 6.4 cents — so three and a half times what it is in

British Columbia. I can understand maybe why California would be looking at some

of those issues.

The bill also says that the commission must take into account

rates and keep them some of the lowest in North America. We're very fortunate in

the province of British Columbia, and contrary to what some people may say, I

think that everyone in this House, really, if you come right down to it, wants

to keep your electricity rates as low as we possibly can, understanding that

there are some things that have to happen if we're going to have new generation

in British Columbia.

There is a whole host of things that we've done. The inclining

block rate, which the member said he was hugely in favour of earlier. Earlier I

believe the member said the inclining block….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, you're not in favour of the inclining

block now? Okay, well, that's interesting, because I'll go back and read the

Blues tomorrow. I think that earlier you said it was a good deal, and you

were in favour of inclining block.

[1635]

What happens with inclining block is that actually, most people

that consume less than 1,600 kilowatts, I believe it is, during two months will

actually see their prices stay exactly the same. They won't receive any

increases. I'm not even talking about rate rebalancing. They won't even see any

other increases.

So we have taken into account how we can do that. There's a whole

host of things that are being done through the Ministry of Environment, through

the Ministry of Housing in actually looking at ways that we can help people

maybe insulate their houses, if in fact they need that — many people already

have that — or doing something with the windows or doors — all of those kinds of

things.

Power Smart. The member is aware of Power Smart. There's a program

within Hydro to look at all of

[ Page 10980 ]

those kinds of things — to work with seniors and those on fixed incomes to

make sure that they're not impacted in a hugely negative way with rate

increases.

As I said, we have the third-lowest rates in all of North America

— not just Canada, in all of North America — and we want to stay there.

The member mentioned one other thing, the Columbia downstream

benefits. I know that under the NDP administration…. They tried to give those

away at that time, not to people that were on fixed incomes or that may have

been having difficulty in life. They gave them away to large corporations in

Power for Jobs, a program that we eliminated that actually chose companies that

were having lots of problems financially. All of a sudden, guess what. The NDP

were going to step in and help that particular company at the peril of other

ones who were surviving quite well. So we saw a giveaway of some of the

downstream benefits.

I think one of the programs in the downstream benefits — and I'll

say it probably before the member says it — was the Highland Valley one, which

was actually relatively good. Actually, it's worked well. But not all of them

worked well.

Member, when you started picking out different groups to get a

special deal, it didn't work out so well.

The member's also aware that those Columbia downstream benefits at

some point in time…. He's right. They're owned by all British Columbians. I

think it's $250 million or $350 million — I can't remember — back to the

province of British Columbia to supply health care and education to everyone,

regardless of who you are. It helps, actually, to provide that.

But those benefits don't last forever. They will end, I assume, at

some point in time. There's a process in place. How that process starts…. It's

not too long before we'll probably get the first notice that the U.S. wants to

begin the first stage of revisiting the Columbia downstream benefits. I think

that in the long term we'd better keep that in mind also.

I know that the Columbia downstream benefits weren't there for the

full ten years that the NDP were there. But for a number of years, if the member

remembers correctly — I do; I was here in the House — they wanted to actually

sell them in a block for somewhere around $50 million for the next ten or 20

years to the U.S. to take that electricity. But thank goodness, cooler heads

prevailed, and we were receiving that back in British Columbia, with Power Smart

actually marketing that on behalf of all of us in the province.

That's basically what I would say to the member's amendment. I

think we've dealt fairly with what has typically and always been in place in the

province of British Columbia. There's a residential rate, there's a commercial

rate, and there's an industrial rate. There are different things that happen in

different areas, but basically, there are those three rates. That was never

changed during the ten years in the 1990s, and I don't think we should venture

out changing it today, with some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North

America.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate on this amendment, the

call for the lifeline rate for this government. The minister just finished

talking about the value and the importance of keeping hydro rates low to benefit

British Columbians.

[1640]

I've got to tell you that in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

we're one of the poorest neighbourhoods in all of Canada. Many people struggle

day to day to try and just survive, to make ends meet. They have difficult

choices with respect to tough decisions. Are they going to buy a new pair of

shoes for their child at a time where the weather pattern is changing? Or do

they spend the money to buy a new coat for their child when the weather pattern

is changing? Or do they try to put food on the table? Those are the kinds of

decisions that they make.

Many people in my riding actually don't have a telephone. Why is

that? Not because they don't make calls but because they can't afford to have a

telephone. They can't pay the monthly charges of a telephone, which I think it's

fair enough to say that all of us in this Legislature take for granted. Not only

do we have a telephone, but we have a cell phone. We have those things that

people call CrackBerrys; we have computers and so on and so forth.

For some of the folks in my riding, the basic choice becomes: are

they going to make rent this month? Are they going to be able to pay for food on