British Columbia Hansard — WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
20031119pm-Hansard-v18n10
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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)
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 10
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading
of Bills
Health Sector Partnerships Agreement
Act (Bill 94)
Hon. G.
Bruce
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
National Child Day
W. McMahon
Addiction services
Mayencourt
Addiction treatment centres for youth
H. Bloy
Oral Questions
B.C. Rail privatization bid process
J. MacPhail
Hon. J. Reid
Export of B.C. wood products to China
B. Penner
Hon. G.
Campbell
B.C. Rail privatization bid process
J. Kwan
Hon. J. Reid
Influenza vaccination
V. Anderson
Hon. S.
Hawkins
Petitions
J. Kwan
Reports from Committees
Select Standing Committee on
Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private
Bills
B. Lekstrom
Committee of the Whole House
Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 79) (continued)
J. MacPhail
Hon. R.
Neufeld
Reporting of Bills
Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 79)
Third Reading of Bills
Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 79)
Committee of the Whole House
BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and
Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)
J. MacPhail
Hon. R.
Neufeld
P. Nettleton
Report and Third Reading of
Bills
BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and
Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)
Committee of the Whole House
Public Service Amendment Act, 2003
(Bill 71)
Hon. S.
Santori
Reporting of Bills
Public Service Amendment Act, 2003
(Bill 71)
Third Reading of Bills
Public Service Amendment Act, 2003
(Bill 71)
Second Reading of Bills
Parks and Protected Areas Statutes
Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)
Hon. J.
Murray
J. MacPhail
K. Stewart
M. Hunter
W. Cobb
Christensen
B. Penner
Hawes
D. Jarvis
B. Bennett
Hon. J.
Murray
[ Page 8017 ]
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R.
Thorpe: I would like to welcome Dick and Barbara Smith from Paul Lake,
British Columbia, to the Legislature today. Barbara and Dick are the parents of
the communications manager in my ministry, Gayle Downey. I understand that
Gayle's father has got all of the fix-it jobs done, and now it's time for them
to return home. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
[1405]
Hon. G.
Campbell: I have the pleasure today of introducing Samira Thomas, who has
joined us. She is a graduate of University Hill Secondary School. She is a
recipient of the two-year United World Colleges Scholarship worth more than
$48,000. At the moment she is at Lester B. Pearson United World College of the
Pacific and is pursuing her career goals in journalism and international
relations. I hope the House will make her welcome.
Hon. G.
Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a
special visitor from Senegal. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Amadou
Diallo, Ambassador of the Republic of Senegal to Canada. This is the
ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I am pleased he has
travelled here to discover the many opportunities of our beautiful province.
He's accompanied by Mr. David Varty, the honorary consul general of Senegal in
Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Hon. G.
Campbell: As you know, Vancouver Island is the second-largest technology
sector in this province, and today Victoria is taking
part in showcasing the
technology companies of Vancouver Island.
Joining us
today in the House are John Flemming, vice-president of Silicon Valley Bank;
Colin How, CEO of How2Share, a digital imaging company; Robert Bennett, CEO
of Municipal Software, last night's winner of the CSCBC export award; Denzell
Doyle, partner of Fullerton Capital Corporation; Dale Gann of the Vancouver
Island Technology Park; Timothy Staub, president of Selfor seed technology
company; Wolfgang Scutch, vice-president of Selfor; and Bill Cooke. All of these
gentlemen are driving a new sector of the economy forward. They're creating
jobs, and they're creating investment opportunities. I hope the House will make
them welcome.
Hon. J.
Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce the chairs of the regional
transportation advisory committees. These committees identify regional
transportation needs and will be advising me on the transportation priorities in
their regions.
Joining us
today is the chair from the Cariboo, Jim Rustad; from the Fraser Valley, Dave
Kandal; from the Kootenays, Jim Ogilvie; from North Coast, Bill Zemenchik; from
North East, Victor Brandl; from South Coast/Mountain, Ron Nelson and his wife,
Renee; from Thompson Okanagan, Chief Bonnie Leonard; and from Vancouver Island,
Bill Luchtmeijer. I ask the House please join me in welcoming them.
J. Les:
It's my great pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the House, on behalf of all
members of the B.C. government caucus, 85 constituency assistants who are here
to observe the Legislature for a couple of days and to meet the staff at the
Legislature. They are here from all over the province, and I would ask all
members of the House to make them most welcome.
Hon. M.
Coell: I'd like the House to welcome a cousin of mine, who happens to be my
godmother, Marg Hansen and her husband, Cliff. They are here from Exshaw,
Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.
S. Orr:
Today we have the best bunch of UVic B.C. Young Liberals with us. This is a
group of students who…. Just a couple of years ago there was a handful of
them, and now their club has grown by hundreds. That's an exaggeration — tens,
in the fifties, in the sixties. These students are the best kids. They are
Dallas Hanol — he's the president and the driving force of this group; Tricia
Gerrard; Tom Grainger; Alexis Norton; Pardeep Sahota; Lissa Marcell; Neil Evans;
Kennan Racelli; Agata Lees; Jessie Basay; Bupubinder Vinning; Robert Boyd;
Mycroft Shorts. And that's just a few of them. Would the House please make them
welcome.
[1410]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Visiting us today in the Legislature is Jordan Dawes, a grade 8
student from George Bonner Middle School in Mill Bay. Jordan is job-shadowing
today with Jacquie Kendall, the director of corporate services in my ministry. I
ask the House to make them both welcome.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, it's my pleasure to introduce my constituency
assistant, Linda Friesen, who is visiting today all the way from Kamloops with
her husband, Harvey. Would you please make them both very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
HEALTH SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS
AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. G.
Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I move that Bill 94 be introduced and read a first time now.
[ Page 8018 ]
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Bruce: This government has committed to putting patients first in our health
care system, and among the first to benefit from this bill will be the residents
of the Fraser Valley. This legislation, Bill 94, will apply to the long-awaited
Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre, currently in the request-for-proposal
stage.
Bill 94,
the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, will encourage the development of
new and upgraded health care facilities throughout British Columbia. It will
open up opportunities for government and health authorities to partner with the
private sector to provide British Columbians with the quality health care they
both demand and deserve.
This bill
ensures that the private-public sector partners will be able to operate on a
level playing field with other health employers, because we are clarifying the
rules for P3s in the health sector. This legislation will enable private
partners to finance, design and build or renovate health facilities and to
deliver non-clinical services according to set standards monitored by
government. It opens the way to partnerships that will add capacity to our
health care system, creating better facilities for patients while upholding the
principles of the Canada Health Act. Private-public partnerships are a win-win
situation for our patients, health care providers and the public in British
Columbia.
I move the
bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting
of the House after today.
Bill 94
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
McMahon: Tomorrow is National Child Day, a day commemorating the adoption of
the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 and the adoption by
Canada of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.
This year's
theme is A Community Fit for Children, and what an appropriate theme it is. It
is a day to promote awareness of the rights of children and youth as citizens
and to reaffirm the responsibilities of our leaders and communities as advocates
for children. It is a day to acknowledge the important contributions that
children and youth, their parents, caregivers and families, and all those
working for and with children and youth make in our communities. It is a day to
celebrate children and youth as they are today and as we hope they will be for
the betterment of future generations.
Most
importantly, it is a day to pledge our dedication to making our communities fit
for children, to advance the global network for the leaders of our communities
in promoting children- and youth-friendly communities, because communities fit
for children are communities fit for all.
There are
142 countries that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It provides for the protection of children from exploitation and abuse; for the
provision of essential health, welfare and education services; and for the
participation of children and youth in decisions affecting them.
[1415]
We are
indeed fortunate to live in a province and in a country that recognize the
rights of children and youth. We are fortunate to live in a province and in a
country that promote the awareness of our children.
I ask that
my colleagues, our community leaders and our citizens recognize tomorrow for the
special day that it is. But even more importantly, take some time to read a book
to a child, throw a ball or help them with their homework. Make an effort to
become a positive role model for our children. Life is too short not to.
ADDICTION SERVICES
Mayencourt: It's Addictions Awareness Week here in British Columbia.
Addiction is a health and social issue that impacts all aspects of one's life
— physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual.
One of the
battles we have to face as a society is the public perception that addiction is
about weakness. This is dangerous because it inhibits people from openly
addressing problems for fear of being judged. Because of this fear, people
isolate themselves and seldom break free from addictions on their own. Family,
friends, loved ones and the wider community must all help. Time, empathy and
understanding all contribute to the ability of an individual to recover from
addiction. The success stories of people who broke free from addiction all
mention the support of others.
In support
of people dealing with addiction, this government has made some dramatic changes
in how we deal with these problems. Many people have a dual diagnosis: addiction
and mental illness. We've integrated addictions with the health care system as
we work with people in a cohesive network of care. The restructuring of the
health care system has given people the ability to have a single point of
contact where they can receive holistic care to meet all of their needs and not
be forced to navigate through a maze of different services. Someone with an
addiction can make one phone call now and have access to the continuum of
services the government is providing. Those services include mental health
services, prevention and education, sobering centres, shelters, treatment
programs and harm reduction strategies.
Our
government is fostering strong communities by giving people with addictions the
support, time and empathy they need to work their way back to health. I believe
we're on the right track. I think we must now allow the wonderful people that
carry out these initiatives to succeed.
[ Page 8019 ]
ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES
FOR YOUTH
H. Bloy:
Recently I spoke at a fundraising dinner hosted by Mr. Peter Legge to help
establish the Vancouver adolescent recovery centre. I believe the excellent work
that has been taking place behind the scenes at this organization should be
commended. Their efforts to bring safe recoveries for young people with
substance abuse challenges are truly worthy of the public's support, and this
group certainly has mine.
I think we
can all agree that drug and alcohol addiction is one of the biggest problems
facing our young people today. As parents we can do only so much to prepare our
children before they are exposed to these dangers. Far too often these dangers
start right in our very own homes. It's hard enough for adults to escape
self-destructive lifestyles, and we can only surmise that it's even more
difficult for young people. That's why, when I hear some of the success stories
coming out of a similar recovery centre in Alberta, I'm really hopeful that we
can have some of that great success right here in British Columbia.
I am told
that the average North American rate for recovery is around 25 percent, but when
I hear what's happened in Alberta, they're putting up numbers closer to 80
percent. I know this team of committed individuals in British Columbia will aim
even higher. I told this group that I was willing to bring their voice to
Victoria to make all of my colleagues aware that we have another success story
in the making in British Columbia.
[1420]
Addiction
knows no borders. Fortunately, it is possible to break that deadly cycle.
Recovery can be a reality, especially when you have organizations like the
Vancouver adolescent recovery centre hard at work in our communities.
Oral Questions
B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION
BID PROCESS
MacPhail: Today we learn that the Canadian Pacific Railway has pulled its
bid for B.C. Rail, casting a cloud over the whole process. We've also learned
that the only other non–CN bidder, Omnitrax, has expressed concerns about the
fairness of the process to the Premier. A report into that process released
earlier this week identifies two leaks from B.C. Rail. In one case, data were
sent to a party that should not have had access to it.
Can the
Premier tell this House what was leaked and to whom?
Hon. J.
Reid: Indeed, we've worked very hard on a process that is fair and equitable
and have worked very diligently with the proponents. The fairness adviser's
report…. The fairness adviser is Charles Rivers Associates, which is a very
reputable firm, and that firm has stated that the process established and
implemented by the province, the evaluation committee and its advisers was fair
and impartial. The information they investigated within this — because they
were concerned about being absolutely concise and drilling down and making sure
that they could bring forward those conclusions — was not substantive and was
not harmful to the process.
Mr.
Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
MacPhail: Well, the minister didn't answer my question, and certainly the
Premier didn't rise to answer my question.
Let me tell
what the report says. The report on the process, an interim report where the
minister admits the person still has to talk to the proponents, says only that
the lawyers verified that the leak was retrieved and destroyed by those who had
access to it. It doesn't say what was leaked and to whom it was leaked. From the
start this process has been called into question by bidders, by B.C. Rail
customers and by British Columbians who depend on the line.
Now, can
the Premier provide assurances that the process was fair when his own minister
won't come clean on the details of this leak? If the leak was to one proponent,
were the other proponents advised immediately, or did the government simply
think this matter could be swept under the carpet? To the Premier: were the
other proponents told what was leaked, and who received the information?
Hon. J.
Reid: The whole purpose of the fairness adviser's report is to investigate
the concerns the member has said, not to perpetuate those concerns. The fairness
adviser's report investigated those concerns, and the conclusion that was
arrived at was that the process was not compromised and that everyone involved
was treated fairly and equitably.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the
Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: In fact, that's not what the report says. It's not what the report
says on the second leak at all. In fact, what it says is…. I'll read it:
"In the second case, we have been informed that the error was quickly
identified. We have documented statements from the attorneys involved verifying
that the data were retrieved or destroyed by those who had access to it."
It doesn't
say who had access to it or whether they then distributed all that leaked
information to all the proponents. So unless the Premier has a giant magnet,
some kind of secret memory-erasing device, asking for the information back and
destroying it does not fix the problem. Two of the major bidders for B.C. Rail
are now saying the whole process was unfair. They say that CN has already been
given the go-ahead, despite
[ Page 8020 ]
the minister's repeated denials. The Premier needs to face reality. The deal
stinks….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: The little support it had is vanishing by the hour. Will he at
least stand up and give the House assurance that the second leak wasn't to CN
Rail?
[1425]
Hon. J.
Reid: The whole purpose of the fairness adviser's report is to make sure
that all three proponents were treated fairly, were treated equitably and
received the same information at the same time. It was verified by the fairness
adviser that, indeed, that was the case. There is no need to be able to repeat
problems or concerns. What's important is the conclusion. It was investigated,
and the conclusion was that it was fair to all the proponents.
EXPORT OF B.C. WOOD
PRODUCTS TO CHINA
Penner: Twelve days ago a number of unelected and unaccountable
environmental groups launched a boycott campaign in China in a deliberate
attempt to undermine this government's efforts to open up new markets for B.C.
wood products and find new job opportunities for B.C. workers. I'm appalled that
all of the people vying for this weekend's NDP leadership vote came cap in hand,
looking for support, when a number of these same extreme environmental groups
sponsored an NDP leadership debate in October.
Despite
these attempts to kill jobs, the Premier has been working hard to expand
economic opportunities for our province in China. Can the Premier tell us the
result of his efforts?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I can tell you the results of a number of people's efforts,
including our Forest Innovation Investment staff's work. The Chinese Ministry of
Construction has just released a brand-new national building code, and the
critical thing about this building code is that for the first time ever China's
building code now provides for construction of wood-frame houses.
If I can
just put that in context. The Forest Innovation Investment staff has worked very
hard with the technicians in China. The establishment of this new national
building code allows them to build local building codes, which will allow us to
build wood-frame homes. As you may know, the Shanghai Jin Qiao Group has agreed
to build 200 new wood-frame homes, five new wood-frame retail outlets over the
next year. That's a 40 percent increase in what was used in the past.
Just to put
this in context for the House, in China there are ten million new homes built
each year. We now can access those and use wood products to create those homes
in a flexible and environmentally sound way that meets the needs of China's
homeowners as well as….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members.
B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION
BID PROCESS
J. Kwan:
I don't know what planet this Minister of Transportation is living on. Mayors
from Fort St. James to Mackenzie to 100 Mile House say that the plan to
privatize…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the question.
J. Kwan:
…B.C. Rail is bad news for their communities. Those who supported the deal
are now saying that they've been kept in the dark about the details and the
impact on their economies. Let me quote Mayor Donna Barnett of 100 Mile House:
"I was probably a supporter of this as long as it was transparent. Now I
don't feel so comfortable."
Face it,
minister. The Premier asked you to break one of his central election
commitments, and you botched it. Now the Premier and every Liberal MLA from the
north are feeling the heat. Can the minister explain why CN gets preferential
treatment, but the communities affected are left in the dark?
Hon. J.
Reid: In fact, the mayor from Prince George was on a radio show this morning
saying that he agrees with the process and believes that what we're doing is
seeking the good of the people of the north. Further to the release of…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[1430]
Hon. J.
Reid: …information, the sharing of information and the need to balance off
that information, I'd just like to quote from the fairness adviser's report, who
also addresses this: "While the desire to share more detailed information
with key constituents throughout the process is understandable, the
confidentiality agreement served a necessary purpose by ensuring that all of the
proponents had the same information and that none of the proponents had the
opportunity to influence the evaluation committee through the media or by
negotiating in public."
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
Interjections.
[ Page 8021 ]
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
The Prince George council passed a resolution asking for a two-year
moratorium to hold up the sale and privatization of B.C. Rail. UBCM passed a
unanimous resolution asking the government not to break its commitment by
selling B.C. Rail. This minister is not facing reality.
Let's be
clear. The process that has led to the sale of B.C. Rail is under a serious
cloud. Supporters are now saying the government should reconsider. Over 32,000
northerners signed a petition saying stop the sale. There's no benefit to the
shippers; there's no benefit to the communities. The minister's time in cabinet
is short, I know. But why doesn't she go out…?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the question, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Question.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
Why doesn't the minister go out with a bang, Mr. Speaker? She can do that. She
can do that to make up for her shortcomings, for all of the files she has
botched — admit that it is a broken promise and that she is prepared to kill
the B.C. Rail privatization deal.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear….
Hon. J.
Reid: I'm interpreting that the question was about a concern with regard to
sharing of information with communities, which I agree has been a process with
which we have tried to find a balance. Once again I'd like to read a quote from
the fairness adviser's report: "While the absence of detailed information
may have increased rumourmongering and speculation by the public and the
media…"
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon. J.
Reid: "…we found that the evaluation committee struck an appropriate
balance between sharing information with those who needed to know and protecting
the confidentiality of the participants…"
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J.
Reid: "…and ensuring the neutrality of the process."
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
INFLUENZA VACCINATION
Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. A large number
of cases of flu have already hit the people in our province, and health
officials are warning that the flu of this season will be particularly serious.
Research shows that the flu shot is one of the best ways to prevent illness
during this season. However, last year statistics showed that 56 percent of
health care workers did not get the flu vaccine. Can the Minister of Health
Planning explain to all British Columbians why getting the influenza vaccine is
so important for each of them?
Hon. S.
Hawkins: The flu season has arrived early this year, and it appears that
it's arrived with a vengeance. It usually runs from about December to March or
April every year, but you can see already that we're seeing the impact of the
flu on kids in school and certainly on the elderly. It's estimated that about
1.5 billion workdays are lost every year across Canada because of the flu, and
that loss of productivity is estimated to be around $1 billion.
Flu is
serious stuff. It can be deadly. One in six of us will get sick every year from
the flu. About 1,400 people die in our province every year because of the flu
and pneumonia, and most of them are over the age of 65 years. Evidence tells us
that the most effective way of reducing the number of outbreaks is to get
immunized. It's important to note that it's particularly important for health
care workers to get immunized, because not only.…
[1435]
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: We think it's….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 8022 ]
Hon. S.
Hawkins: We think it's really important for health care workers to not only
protect themselves and their families but also to….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: We think it's particularly important for health care workers…
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: …because it protects not only themselves and their families, but
it also protects the vulnerable patients and the elderly that they work with. I
do encourage everyone to get the flu. I know lots of members….
Interjections.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: Flu shot. Flu shot. Somebody might want to get the flu, but it's
particularly important to get the flu shot. Get your vaccination, because an
ounce of prevention in this case is as simple as a shot in the arm. Thanks.
[End
of question period.]
Petitions
J. Kwan:
I rise to table a petition. This petition is from Trail, Fruitvale, Montrose and
Rossland. It's asking the government to keep its hands off the Columbia Basin
Trust. It's signed by 137 individuals who do not support Bill 79.
Reports from Committees
Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing
Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private
Bills.
I would
move that the report be read and received.
Motion
approved.
Law
Clerk:
"November
19, 2003:
"Your
Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing
Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: one, that the
preamble
to Bill Pr410, intituled Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, has been proved and
the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; two, that the
preamble to Bill Pr411, intituled Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2003, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the
bill proceed to second reading.
"All of which is respectfully submitted.
B. Lekstrom, Chair."
Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt
the report.
Leave
granted.
Lekstrom: With that, I would move the adoption of the report.
Motion
approved.
Bills Pr410
and Pr411 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the
next sitting of the House after today.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 79.
[1440-1450]
Committee of the Whole House
COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
(continued)
The
House in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 79; J. Weisbeck in the
chair.
The
committee met at 2:50 p.m.
section
3 (continued) .
MacPhail:
Section 3 sets remuneration for the board members of the Columbia
Basin Trust. I'm wondering what problem the minister is trying to fix here.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: We have a set standard of remuneration for different boards in the
province. It comes through board resourcing. As I said yesterday in the
discussions, the folks that remain on the Columbia Basin Trust board will remain
with the same remuneration they have today, even if there happens to be a
change, so we're not going to affect the folks that will carry on. What will
happen is that with people who are appointed from here forward, the decision
will be made on what level they will be paid. It has not been made yet, but it
will be made later on.
MacPhail: I'm wondering whether there will be any differential treatment
between those that are appointed by the government and those that aren't
appointed by the government.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No.
MacPhail: The reason why I ask that question, Mr. Chair, is because I am
very concerned about differential treatment of board members. We're hearing more
and more from the communities affected by this legislation about their concerns,
and many of them are ex-
[ Page 8023 ]
pressing concern about the nature of the appointments this government is
going to make. Here's the reason why. It just came to our attention last night.
Yesterday
the minister took great umbrage that we on this side would suggest that some of
the government appointees to the Columbia Basin Trust also have an allegiance to
the Liberal Party, for instance, and in particular to the member for
Nelson-Creston. The minister railed on about how the previous government
appointed persons with a political past, and he conveniently forgot the promise
he made during the election to appoint only on merit.
That's why
I'm curious about this under this
section of remuneration, because during the
election the Liberal government promised to depoliticize the appointment
process. The minister also claimed that the process that the board resourcing
and development office goes through ensures that only high-quality persons are
appointed. Then his staff was helpful enough to direct us to the board
resourcing and development office website, where all those qualifications are
laid out for all to see how impartial this whole process is.
Let's look
at that in the context of an appointment this minister made — Ben Arcuri. Mr.
Arcuri was appointed by the government to the board of the Columbia Basin Trust
on July 24 of this year, and I have the order-in-council. It's signed by the
Minister of Energy and Mines. I also have a copy of the Crown corporation
declaration and profile. It's also here, and it says that all appointees to the
Crown corporations are to fill out this form in order that their candidacy is
properly assessed.
[1455]
I think
this Legislature and the good folks of the Columbia basin would be most
interested to know how Mr. Arcuri answered question 21. Let me read question 21
into the record: "Generally, are you aware of any fact or matters which, if
publicly disclosed, could cause the government embarrassment or hinder your
performance of your duties as a board member?" Remember, Mr. Arcuri was
appointed by this minister in July of this year.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I want to reassure her again that there will be no difference in
the pay
schedule for the people of the Columbia Basin Trust. The determination
will be made in the near future of what that pay
schedule will be. Board
resourcing has a huge list of people that have been recommended from across the
province. In fact, people who would like to sit on boards and commissions even
put their own names forward, all on their own. Boards and commissions goes
through those recommendations and through those names and picks out people they
feel should be qualified to sit on boards. As far as making public the
declarations each one of them makes, I believe that is confidential.
MacPhail: Well, the minister yesterday assured us that people would be
appointed on merit. Today we're talking about how we're going to appoint these
people. I'm asking specific questions about how Mr. Ben Arcuri meets those
qualifications. I asked a very specific question. Let me ask another specific
question about the questionnaire that has to be filled out. I don't know why
this has to be confidential. I have no idea why this is confidential. It's the
first time we've heard that these profiles are confidential. Let me ask how Mr.
Arcuri answered question 18. "In your employment, business or personal
affairs, have you…(
f) been involved in any issue or controversy that has gone
or is likely to go to litigation or public review?" How did that question
get answered by Mr. Arcuri before July of last year?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: If I omitted the word "merit," I want to put it in the
discussion now. They are appointed on merit. They are folks whose names are put
forward, and in some cases people put their own names forward. It is on merit. I
have no idea how this gentleman signed the conflict-of-interest papers. I don't
have that in front of me. I haven't for any of them. That's what the boards and
commissions secretariat is to do when they recommend folks to us to put on the
boards.
The
Chair: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are
dealing with
section 3. Some of the line of questioning you're proceeding down
has been well canvassed in
section 2 — believe me, well canvassed. Just a
reminder that we're dealing with
section 3, the directors' remuneration. I ask
her to confine her remarks to the remuneration.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the guidance. We are getting questions
from the community, I must tell you, about how this particular person can
receive any money from the government, so it is under
section 3. I'll make my
point in a minute, Mr. Chair. You'll see where I'm going on this.
The reason
why I ask these questions is because I'm sure the minister is well aware — and
if he isn't, he shouldn't be in his job — that Mr. Arcuri was, at the time of
his appointment, being investigated for theft. It seems that Mr. Arcuri and his
friend Mr. Rushton, also a close ally of the member for Nelson-Creston, decided
to remove a recall petition from a private business without the knowledge or
permission of the recall canvasser. They took the petition and hustled
themselves down to the member for Nelson-Creston's office to photocopy it. In
reaction to this appalling lack of judgment and blatant partisanship on behalf
of the member for Nelson-Creston by Mr. Arcuri, the Attorney General appointed a
special prosecutor. I'm surprised the member for Nelson-Creston hasn't raised
these matters in the Legislature.
[1500]
That
special prosecutor reported back to the Attorney General on October 3. Here's
the report. This is what he wrote:
"The
next consideration is whether, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it
can be said that property was taken fraudulently and with the colour of right.
I am
[ Page 8024 ]
satisfied that the evidence could establish that the removal of the
documents was done knowing that the canvasser has a possessory claim to them and
that it should have occurred to Arcuri and Rushton that they were depriving that
canvasser of property or a special property interest in the documents."
In other words, the evidence points to them fraudulently removing the
documents.
The special
prosecutor next addresses the issue of "colour of right," and
concludes — and I quote again from the special prosecutor's report that was
not issued until October of this year, several months after this minister
appointed Mr. Arcuri:
"It
is important to bear in mind that the belief in a state of facts must only be
honest. It is not required that the facts be correct. All of the circumstances
point to an inescapable inference that in this case the two men were acting
under an honest, although perhaps mistaken, belief in a state of facts which, if
true, would justify their removal of these documents."
There we have the quality of candidate that the board resourcing and
development office and this minister think is appropriate to oversee millions of
dollars of public funds — willing to commit fraud and too stupid to know when
they are.
A question
about Mr. Arcuri. The minister appointed Mr. Arcuri while he was under
investigation for taking the recall petition from the recall proponent, taking
it down to the office of the member for Nelson-Creston. Under investigation,
this minister appointed him to the board of the Columbia Basin Trust. Which of
the two demonstrated skills does the minister think Mr. Arcuri has that fit the
skills matrix for board members?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The
section we're dealing with deals with remuneration for
directors, not to bring forward what some people may think are some kind of
charges. I would recommend to the member, if she is serious about this — and
we should take it seriously — that she should put it in writing and send it to
me or to board resourcing, and we'll deal with it. I'm not about to stand here
and talk about issues that probably have already been dealt with or that I'm not
knowledgable about. If you want to put it in writing, put it in writing and send
it to the appropriate authority.
MacPhail: It went to the appropriate authority — a special prosecutor. It
went to the special prosecutor, and while this appointee made by this minister
was under a special prosecutor's investigation, the minister appointed him to
the board of the Columbia Basin Trust. Is that what the Columbia basin
communities have to look forward to — Victoria now in charge, appointing their
friends, people who take recall petitions and are under special prosecutor's
review? This minister thinks that's meritorious?
Well, let
me ask a question. When a person is under investigation by a special prosecutor,
does that qualify him or her to be meritorious for appointment to the board? The
minister sitting right behind the Minister of Energy and Mines got removed from
his office because he was under investigation. Why is it that this minister can
appoint to a board people who are under investigation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: If she has a serious issue that she wants to bring forward, then
put it in writing and bring it forward. We're talking about remuneration to
board directors.
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No, it's not what I'd like to be. It's actually what's in the act.
The member has been in this House long enough to know that we should be talking
about the
section that's here. In fact, I would hope that we start dealing with
this section.
[1505]
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It may seem funny to you. You may want to laugh, and you may want
to do all the little antics that you want to do and your dancey, dancey dance.
That's fine.
MacPhail: Afraid? Afraid?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I'm not one bit afraid of you.
MacPhail: Afraid to answer the questions?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No, I'm not afraid to answer the question.
The
Chair: Member, let's hear the minister.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I think I've answered the question fully. I've told you that if you
have a serious concern, put it in writing and send it, and let's get on with
dealing with what's in the bill.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I want to remind you again that we are
dealing with
section 3 under remuneration. I'd like you to get back to that,
please.
MacPhail: Thank you. I appreciate that direction.
I'm,
frankly, asking questions that have come from Nelson-Creston, which the member
for Nelson-Creston won't get up and ask. They sent this information to us last
night saying: "Is Ben Arcuri going to get money from this government?"
That was the question, Mr. Chair.
The
minister will not answer the questions. How humiliating for him. His whole
argument about the Columbia Basin Trust appointees made by his government being
on the basis of merit has been blown out of the water, and he wants me to send a
letter. Well, that will serve the member for Nelson-Creston and his constituents
extremely well — the minister's whole
[ Page 8025 ]
argument about appointments of merit blown out of the water. He appoints
someone who's under investigation, and he won't stand up and justify it. He
won't stand up and defend it. He cowers. He cowers away from it and says that I
should write a letter. Frankly, the letter's been written. The special
prosecutor's report is in, and the member for Nelson-Creston refuses to stand up
and ask these questions.
Section 3
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Now, here's an interesting section. Here's a very interesting
section.
Section 4 repeals the requirement of the board to appoint advisory
committees. Why?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Actually, this repeals that, but what the board can do is appoint
advisory committees as they deem necessary from time to time for whatever issues
they want to appoint an advisory committee for.
I guess
we're a little different than the NDP. We don't think we….
MacPhail: Yeah. You bet.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yeah, we are. We don't think we have to tell the board to appoint
an advisory committee. Actually, the board will be wise enough — the people
that you appoint from the basin — that if they want to have an advisory
committee, they can go out and appoint an advisory committee to get all the
information they want. They actually have the knowledge, the ability. There are
people there….
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: You know, you can slander whoever you want.
Interjections.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Maybe you should go out in the hallway and do that. I would bet you
wouldn't.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Through the Chair, please. The minister
has the floor.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, the folks on the board know when they need an advisory
committee and will be able to actually appoint, at any given time, any type of
advisory committee that they deem necessary to have appointed — not that
Victoria deems necessary.
MacPhail: Who would believe the minister on that? There's absolutely no
evidence whatsoever that there will be any advisory committees at all. He's just
repealed the legislation that appoints advisory committees. In fact, I could see
people — given the kind of appointees he's making — like Ben Arcuri, who
steals stuff and runs down to the Nelson-Creston office to photocopy stuff he's
just stolen…. I could see him saying: "You can't have an advisory
committee."
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Point of order. Mr. Chair, we went through this yesterday when the
other member of the opposition was actually referring to members of the board
from day one as stooges. Really, that's not correct. Talking about stealing in
here and those kind of things and trying to impugn someone's reputation, I
think, is a bit unfair. We should be actually, I think, thankful for those board
members that want to spend their time on these boards for the benefit of people
in the region.
I'd rather
not see that kind of language. I don't think that does anything for anyone here.
[1510]
The
Chair: I thank you for that, member. We are now dealing with
section 4.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, clearly that was not a point of order. I hear catcalls
from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management that are just as bad. No
one calls him to order. No one does.
It is
unbelievable how…. I'd hate to see this government actually face an opposition
that's larger than two. They're quivering; they're fearful. They can't stand to
actually face up to their responsibilities with just two of us. They have to
stand up and change the agenda. It is embarrassing. Gosh forbid that they
actually have more than two. This poor minister just quivering….
The
Chair: Member, let's get back to
section 4, please.
MacPhail: I was asking him a question about
section 4. I asked him about
advisory committees. In fact, I said that people like Mr. Arcuri, who wouldn't
want any advisory committees, could actually hold up the legislation and say
they're not allowed. They used to be allowed, but they're removed now. They're
not allowed. Sure, he could make that argument. So let me ask the minister: what
advisory committees did exist, and what did they do that he's now outlawing?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: First off, one member of a board of 12 cannot actually dominate the
board and tell them exactly what they should do and shouldn't do. What we're
saying is that the Columbia Basin Trust board is wise enough, and I do have some
faith…. I have lots of faith in those people that sit on all those boards and
commissions, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who didn't have any faith, I
guess, in any of the boards and commissions that she was party to appointing. I
guess she didn't have any faith in anyone because what she wanted to do was
write in absolute prescriptive language exactly what they should do, what they
shouldn't do, when they can come and when they can go.
[ Page 8026 ]
Actually,
what we're trying to do here is allow the board to do the things that they
should be doing for the region. Unfortunately, if the Leader of the Opposition
doesn't have trust in people, I'm sorry. I have trust in those 12 individuals
that will be appointed at the end of the day, and I want to thank them very much
publicly. The Leader of the Opposition — all she wants to do is berate all of
them. All 12, I guess, she would say wouldn't be able to do a job, wouldn't be
able to figure out when they should have a committee and when they shouldn't
have a committee. What we're saying is that the board will make that decision on
their own, and I think that's giving some freedom to the board to decide what
destiny they want for their board that's in the Columbia basin.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you have rightly asked me to ask relevant questions.
Could the minister answer my question, please.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I already did.
MacPhail: No, he didn't. I asked: what are the advisory committees that the
minister is now outlawing?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: We're not outlawing. The language that's used is absolutely
unbelievable. We're not outlawing. What we're saying to the board is: "You
can actually use your own knowledge, your own thought processes, your own
abilities. You 12 individuals, use your own ability to run this board as best
you can for the benefit of the people of Columbia basin." We're not telling
them exactly how they should appoint those committees or whether they should
have committees or not have committees. I think they're capable on their own of
having committees.
The member
can read
section 13 that's being repealed as well as I can. If she wants to read
it, that's what she should do. What we're doing is trusting in the people that
are appointed from the basin, all 12 individuals from the basin, to represent
the interests of the people from the basin.
MacPhail: Could the minister please answer my question?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I already did. If she wants to read
section 13, read it.
[1515]
MacPhail: What are the advisory committees that are established now, and
what are they doing?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I don't know exactly what committees the board has working.
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Well, I guess I could understand why the Leader of the Opposition
would sit over there and make those kinds of faces and those kinds of antics
about this. When she was in government, it was prescriptive. They wanted to know
what everybody was doing at every part of the day — to actually tell them what
to do. That's the old socialist way of moving forward.
We're not
doing that. Actually, we're not telling the board they have to dissolve any
committees. If they want to have ten committees, or two or one, they can have
those. We're not telling them not to have them. We're giving them the freedom of
having exactly what they think they need in their best interest. If that isn't a
good enough response for the member…. I'm not sure, Mr. Chair. We should move
on to the next section.
MacPhail: How embarrassing for the minister. No wonder he didn't want to
answer my question. He couldn't. Here he is repealing, outlawing advisory
committees that come from the community, are representing the community's
interests, are appointed by the community, and he doesn't even know what he's
repealing. Shame on him.
Hon.
R. Neufeld: I mean, what she just said is ridiculous. I think everybody
knows that, except people that would be of the same political persuasion as her,
but maybe even some of those wouldn't.
I don't
know what part of this the member doesn't get; I can't figure it out. We're not
saying that they have to get rid of the committees they have, but what we're not
telling them is that they have to form committees.
It's
actually quite innovative, quite new. It's a different process. We actually
trust people. You actually put people on boards, and you expect them to use
their ability and their knowledge. And we trust them. I know that's difficult
for you to understand, but that's the way we look at it.
I trust
that the Columbia Basin Trust board — the 12 members, when this bill finally
goes through — will actually make good decisions on behalf of the people from
the Columbia Basin Trust without some person from Victoria telling them, like
the last government: "Thou shalt have this committee. Thou shalt have that
committee. Thou shalt do this. Thou shalt do that." No, we're not doing
that. We're actually depending on those people to look after the best interests
of people in the Columbia basin.
[1520]
MacPhail: I notice that the member for Nelson-Creston isn't applauding,
because he knows the minister doesn't even know what he's talking about.
The
advisory committees were established by community consultation and were asked
for by the community. Now the minister is outlawing them.
Section
4 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 58
Coell
Hogg
Halsey-Brandt
[ Page 8027 ]
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Wilson
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Neufeld
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Brenzinger
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Christensen
Krueger
Bray
Les
Locke
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Hawes
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 3
Nettleton
MacPhail
Kwan
[1525]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 4.1, by adding the following section: 4.1
Section 14
(2) is repealed.]
section
4.1.
MacPhail: The ministry explanation is that the trust has always been a
government corporation and that the act, in its current form, leaves the
impression that it was not at some time. Will the minister confirm that the
Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act
will continue to apply to the Columbia Basin Trust?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yes.
Sections
4.1 and 5 approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Here's another very troubling section. This
section repeals the
conflict-of-interest provisions of the act. Isn't it interesting, in context of
what the quality of their appointees has been already, that they're repealing
the conflict-of-interest provisions in the act? I guess the minister may stand
up and say: "Well, we've got the board resourcing and development
office." Well, we've seen the quality of the job that office does. We've
seen that in the context of Ben Arcuri. We've seen how effective they've been in
that area.
Will the
minister actually table the board resourcing and development office guidelines?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: They're on the website, and I believe the website address was given
to your office yesterday or today.
MacPhail: Has the minister read the guidelines?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yes, I have.
[1530]
MacPhail: Good. Then how do the board resourcing and development office
guidelines differ from those in the act that he's repealing?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: There are extensive conflict-of-interest guidelines that have to be
signed at board resourcing. Along with that, the board has extensive
declarations as to conflict of interest on their own, which people have to sign.
MacPhail: I have heard from people, given the Ben Arcuri appointment — the
fact that he's a very close Liberal Party organizer for the member for
Nelson-Creston and his activities on behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston
against the proponents of recall — that they're very concerned about the
removal of the statutory requirement for declarations of conflict of interest.
The reason why they're very worried about this — this was expressed to me this
morning — is that one of the values of having conflict-of-interest guidelines
in public documents like the Columbia Basin Trust Act is that they're readily
available for anyone to see. In fact, they couldn't be changed unless there was
debate in the Legislature. Now they're gone.
Why is it,
when I ask the minister for the guidelines…? Of course, he referred me to the
website, and that's great. That's nice. I'm sure the people of Nelson-Creston
and Cranbrook will appreciate that. But why not make the conflict-of-interest
provisions open and readily available?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, the conflict-of-interest guidelines are on the board
resourcing and development office's government public website, so they're there.
The website address has been given to the member's office.
MacPhail: Well, it was people who telephoned me who said that they're
absolutely dismayed, given the context of the appointment of Ben Arcuri and the
fact that the minister refuses to disclose the information provided under the
board resourcing and development office profile. He refused to disclose it —
that the information is secret. There will be absolutely no public declaration
of conflict of interest, and that's a step backward.
[1535]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, through board resourcing the conflict-of-interest guidelines
are not made public. They are filled out. Now, the trust still has in its policy
[ Page 8028 ]
manual and will continue to have in its policy manual, as I understand,
conflict-of-interest guidelines that must be signed. I'd be surprised if the
trust would release all of that information to the public, and in fact we will
find that out for you. My staff doesn't know whether they would make that public
if people actually filled out conflict-of-interest forms, but I wouldn't think
they would. But I could stand corrected on that.
MacPhail: Well, the minister has no idea whether they do or not. My
information is that they do release them, and that's why they're in the act, and
that's why people are so upset about this. Why is it that the board resourcing
and development office keeps this information secret?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: They don't keep it secret. They keep it confidential, and probably
for good reason. In any event, obviously the Leader of the Opposition doesn't
know either, because she's not definite about it, so she's just fishing for
something. Our staff is listening, and we'll find out from the Columbia Basin
Trust whether they put on the website the conflict-of-interest papers that are
filled out by people that sit on the board.
It would be
interesting, maybe, to read some of that information if it is public, going back
to when that member was part of a government that appointed members to the
board, to find out just exactly where the conflicts were at that time — or
perceived conflicts, or somebody wants to actually make up a story about
perceived conflicts. We'll find that answer for the member.
MacPhail: I'm surprised the minister doesn't…. He's repealing a
section of
the legislation, and he doesn't even know why he's repealing a
section of the
legislation. He is completely and poorly informed about why he's even doing
this. Now, that would be — what? — the third, fourth, maybe fifth
section
that he has no idea why he's doing what he's doing.
Tell me:
where is it in the board resourcing and development office guidelines that the
minister has said that he's read? Where does it say that this information is
confidential? I can't find it.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I want to say to the member that, yes, we know why we're
repealing sections. The difficulty is that the member opposite doesn't want to
accept, in some cases, the reasons for repealing some of the sections and
actually eliminating some of the needless requirements on different boards so
that they can operate in today's world.
What I'm
saying today is that
part 3 is repealed because we already go through a process
at board resourcing on conflict of interest. I know that. I want to put that on
the record so you understand that. I want to say that to you again. I think I've
said it six or seven times now. I also want to say that the board has a policy
of conflict-of-interest guidelines internally that they ask their board members
to fill out.
What I
didn't qualify, and what I can't until I get that information, is one small part
of that. I understand fully what I'm doing; we understand fully what we're
putting forward. I don't know whether the Columbia Basin Trust puts on the
website publicly the conflict-of-interest papers that are signed by people that
are on the board. I don't know that. I can't say yes or no. That's the
part I
don't know. The rest of it I know quite well. You may not think so, but I do.
MacPhail: Well, in fact, Mr. Chair, he's got one thing wrong: that the board
resourcing and development office forms are filled out on a confidentiality
basis. That's not true. Let me read into the record what it says:
"The
personal information requested on this form is collected under the authority of
and used for the purposes of administering a variety of statutes which authorize
the appointment of individuals to government's agencies, boards and commissions.
Information on the authority for a specific appointment is available on request.
This profile and declaration will be kept for a minimum of one year."
That
doesn't say it's confidential. Oops.
Hon.
R. Neufeld: It is confidential.
[1540]
MacPhail: Well, then it's not by authority that it's confidential, because
the form to which the minister referred me on the website I just read into the
record.
Yeah, read
No. 22 on the form.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yes, in fact, I'm going to read into the record No. 22 that's in
the profile.
I'll read
part of 22. It says: "I also consent to the disclosure of my personal
information to such persons or organizations when such disclosure is necessary
to evaluate my suitability for appointment to a British Columbia public
agency." That's what it says.
MacPhail: Right. It's a disclosure, not a confidentiality statement. It's a
disclosure statement, and then the whole form is summarized. That's not a
statement to agree to confidentiality. That's a statement to agree to
disclosure, and then the entire form is subject to this:
"The
personal information requested on this form is collected under the authority of
and used for the purposes of administering a variety of statutes which authorize
the appointment of individuals to government's agencies, boards and commissions.
Information on the authority for a specific appointment is available on request.
This Profile and Declaration will be kept for a minimum of one year."
Boy,
isn't it interesting? The most open and accountable government interprets that
as a confidentiality agreement and shuts down information. That's the form he
referred me to, and he's repealing legislation that guarantees
conflict-of-interest reporting.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, she's wrong. What we're saying and what I've said here is
that that information is kept confidential. If….
MacPhail: You have no right, no authority to do that.
[ Page 8029 ]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No. If you want to request it and put in writing some of the things
that you said earlier, put it in writing and make that request.
Secondly,
the Columbia Basin Trust has its own guidelines in regard to conflict of
interest further to what's there with board resourcing. That stays in place.
They have that in their guidelines, and they will continue to get that
information. The board itself will have that information on each individual so
that they can actually have a read of it.
MacPhail: I'm requesting right now, as is my right in this chamber, for the
minister to release the profile of Mr. Ben Arcuri.
Section
6 approved on the following division:
[1545-1550]
YEAS — 58
Falcon
Coell
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Wilson
Lee
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Clark
Bond
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Neufeld
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Christensen
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Hawes
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
Nettleton
MacPhail
Section
7 approved.
section 8.
[1555]
MacPhail:
Section 8 repeals the provision requiring the submitting of an
annual report, including audited financial statements, to the minister. My
question is: what assurance is there that an annual report will continue to be
made publicly available?
Hon.
R. Neufeld: The requirement to provide this information actually is under
the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the Financial Information
Act, so they will be required.
Section 8
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: This
section amends
section 31(3) of the act, and it takes out the
reference to the Columbia Power Corporation with respect to taxes. Why?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's a permissive
section to exempt Crown corporations from tax. If
the Columbia Basin Trust owns part of it, they would be exempt from taxes and
pay something similar to what B.C. Hydro pays.
MacPhail: It's the reference to Columbia Power Corporation. I'm sorry; I
didn't understand the reference to the Columbia Basin Trust.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: As we're dealing with this piece of legislation…. We have been in
discussions with the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation in
amalgamating those two units to actually still provide the same benefits to the
Columbia basin but to actually come out, at the end of the day, with one entity.
That's the reason for this section.
MacPhail: Sorry — amalgamating the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia
Power Corporation? They're two very different entities. I'm sorry. Let me ask
this question, Mr. Chair, which was my question before the minister spoke: how
will the Columbia Power Corporation pay their levy now? Will they pay taxes as
opposed to providing the grant-in-lieu? That's the case with other Crown
corporations. That's a question that may be redundant now that the minister has
just revealed something, but perhaps he could answer that question.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No, I'm not trying to confuse here. This is a complex set of
discussions that's going on between the trust and Columbia Power Corporation.
The power projects that would be developed would still be paying taxes to the
same level as B.C. Hydro, as long as the trust has an ownership in those
projects.
[1600]
MacPhail: Yeah. I might add the Columbia Power Corporation has built a
substantial amount of generation that this government never, ever refers to when
it says the previous government didn't generate any new hydro. It's shocking
that they think they can get away with that, saying that in the 1990s there was
no new generation created when Columbia Power Corporation has done that to the
tune of megawatts after megawatts.
Just tell
me this, then. What's the nature of these discussions? How are they occurring?
Are they in se-
[ Page 8030 ]
cret? Are they open? Where can we go to participate in these discussions?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The Columbia Basin Trust, Columbia Power Corporation and the Crown
agencies secretariat are having those discussions in regard to these issues. At
the end of the day, hopefully, it will come out with something where we can
actually deliver more revenue to the Columbia basin than what is being delivered
now.
MacPhail: Why is this
section necessary?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I'm not trying to be difficult with this, because there are
discussions going on, and so there's nothing untoward here. Actually, as I said
before, what it does is leave the ability to tax whatever happens at the end of
the day between the discussions between Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power
Corporation in a way that it should be properly taxed or not taxed. That's one
part of it.
I neglected
to talk about the definition of the boundaries of the region, and that is also
part of this section. I'm sure the member is aware that when they were in
government, they were probably asked as many times as we have been to change the
boundaries of the region in regard to the Columbia Basin Trust. What we're doing
is actually…. It used to be that the government only made that decision. What
we're saying is that we're putting that authority with the Columbia Basin Trust
also. It has to be a request from the Columbia Basin Trust to the government
before there would be any changes.
MacPhail: Could the minister tell us whether the discussions to
amalgamate…? Well, in fact, are the discussions to amalgamate the Columbia
Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation to take over, to merge? What is
the nature of the discussions? Who is involved in those discussions, and how
long have they been going on?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again I'll say that the folks who are discussing this are people
from the Columbia Basin Trust, Columbia Power Corporation and Crown agencies
secretariat, which is responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia
Power Corporation. Those people have been discussing it, and they've been
discussing it for a while.
I believe
those were the two questions you asked.
[1605]
MacPhail: Is it the board of the Columbia Basin Trust that's discussing
this?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I've met with the board chair and the CEO in regard to this on a
number of occasions, and so has Crown agencies secretariat. I've met with both
from both CPC and CBT.
MacPhail: Thank God I asked that question, because the minister originally
forgot to name himself as part of these discussions. He forgot that little
detail. So the politician in charge involved in these discussions…. Tell me:
could I go to the Columbia Basin Trust minutes and see the nature of these
discussions? Have the chair and the treasurer reported back to the board on
these discussions?
The other
question I had for the minister is: the nature of the discussions — is it a
merger, an amalgamation or a takeover?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I've only had a few meetings with those people in regard to this.
The board, I would assume — and in fact I'm told by staff — had been
informed of these discussions that are going on. It's really an issue about
streamlining the whole operation, and the final part of it has not been decided
yet.
Sections 9
to 11 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I move that we rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 4:07 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill 79,
Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.
Third Reading of Bills
Mr.
Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: With leave, now.
Leave
granted.
Third
reading of Bill 79 approved on the following division:
[1610-1615]
YEAS — 58
Falcon
Coell
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Wilson
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Neufeld
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
[ Page 8031
Anderson
Orr
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Christensen
McMahon
Bray
Locke
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Hawes
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
Nettleton
MacPhail
Bill 79,
Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, can I call for a recess of ten minutes?
Mr.
Speaker: A ten-minute recess has been called.
The House
recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 85.
[1635]
Committee of the Whole House
BC HYDRO PUBLIC POWER LEGACY
AND HERITAGE CONTRACT ACT
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 85; H. Long in the chair.
The
committee met at 4:37 p.m.
On
section
MacPhail: I just need to clear up some confusion arising out of the second
reading debate, Mr. Chair. Member after member from the government side got up
in this House and said that B.C. Hydro is not for sale. Both the member for
North Coast and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson got up and alluded to
the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act as somehow facilitating the sale
of B.C. Hydro. They very clearly made the charge that because that act stayed on
the statutes in British Columbia, the previous government had some secret desire
to sell off B.C. Hydro. I actually just reviewed Hansard on that earlier
this morning.
Perhaps the
minister can stand up and clear up once and for all whether or not the Hydro and
Power Authority Privatization Act facilitated or in any way permitted or
encouraged or set in motion the sale of B.C. Hydro.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Before I start, I'd like to introduce, on my right, Paul Wieringa,
director of electricity policy, and that's in the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
On my left is Stirling Bates, senior regulatory adviser with the Ministry of
Energy and Mines.
I want to
clearly state for the record, again, that B.C. Hydro and its core assets are not
for sale. They are a protected asset, and what we're doing with Bill 85 is
laying it out fairly strongly and, in fact, listing the assets — specifically
the dams — and that these assets are not for sale. If some government in the
future wanted to sell any one of those assets, it would actually have to come
before this Legislature to get approval to do that. That's why we wanted to
actually strengthen in this act — to make sure, just as we did in the BCTC act
— that the assets are not for sale.
[1640]
MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether the minister was
deliberately avoiding answering my question. I'm referring to the debate brought
forward by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for North
Coast, who said that the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act permitted
the sale of B.C. Hydro. It didn't, according to my reading, so I wondered if the
minister could clarify where his government caucus members got that
interpretation.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I appreciate what she's saying in her question. Actually, in the
Hydro Power and Authority Privatization Act, there's one short sentence that
says: "Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale of the authority's
electrical division, nor any part of the authority's electrical division."
It's something that was put in, I believe, in the late eighties and didn't
describe accurately or strongly enough that those assets could be for sale.
Actually, under that act, they could be sold more easily. Under this act, they
can't be.
We should
remember it was the last administration that had, at one of their caucus
meetings, a meeting about selling a large Crown corporation and listed all the
Crown corporations, of which B.C. Hydro happened to be one. I assume they sat
behind closed doors and talked about that. We also know they talked about that
and had B.C. Hydro do polling with the public across the province to find out
whether they wanted the assets sold or not.
They found
out very quickly that no, British Columbians didn't want it sold. To their
credit, they didn't sell it, but they certainly contemplated it. What we wanted
to do was bring this bill in so that it's stronger language, more understandable
language about the fact that you can't sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro
without coming before the House.
MacPhail: Yeah, I feel so bad about a government that actually consulted
with the public and listened to them. It was terrible that in the 1990s that
took place. It
[ Page 8032 ]
was terrible in the 1990s when you had an open caucus discussion about
whether to privatize public assets, and the government came to the conclusion to
not do so — unlike this government, which has to be forced by the court of
public opinion and protest and dismay to stop privatization such as with the
liquor stores and the Coquihalla.
But this
minister actually was a Social Credit. I think that was his rookie induction
into politics. He then went on to be a Reform, then he went to be an
independent, and then he's a Liberal. There's commitment to a philosophy. But
this minister was a Social Credit, so he must have known about this legislation.
What part of electrical division would be excluded from the transmission,
generation and distribution of the electricity then?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I'm glad she reminded me of my history. Let's see. I think that in
all three elections, I was elected with a majority. I think the public in Peace
River North actually have some faith and trust in me, and I thank them for that.
In fact, I believe that last time, I was elected with a high 60 percent majority
of the people in the constituency of Peace River North. I make no apologies for
that. I have served the constituency well and continue to serve the constituency
well, as the member opposite does. I certainly don't take umbrage with what she
has done in her past political life.
But what we
are saying — and we're talking about
section 1, I believe, Mr. Chair — in
the
definitions is that we have listed the generation and storage assets
identified in a
schedule to the act that can't be sold. We've also said the
equipment and facilities for the transmission or distribution of electricity
can't be sold. That's a fairly strong definition as compared to the old act. As
I said, all we're trying to do is strengthen it to make sure that British
Columbians understand that we're not selling it and that we never intended to
sell it. In fact, it was manufactured by some other people that we were going to
sell B.C. Hydro or any part of it.
MacPhail: I can understand why the minister would take umbrage at someone
saying they may not be actually revealing all of their plans — like B.C. Rail.
I can't imagine why anyone would be suspicious about the government
flip-flopping on a promise not to privatize something.
[1645]
Secondly,
if the lengthy and many denials of government members that B.C. Hydro was for
sale or being privatized…. In those lengthy denials, despite how long it took
us to get the minister to admit that the sale of the Hydro administrative
services to Accenture was in fact privatization…. That is on the record.
There has
been a vociferous attack by the government caucus members on the B.C. Citizens
for Public Power. In fact, the member for Chilliwack-Kent went to great lengths
to show that because someone worked for the previous government in 1996 and is
now an employee of the Citizens for Public Power, the NDP is somehow responsible
for the views of that organization.
Let's carry
that forward. It seems to be logic that the executive council supports. Let me
ask this then. Mark Reder. He's a lobbyist for the energy industry. He's a
former Liberal caucus worker and a former Liberal Party constituency activist,
and now he works for the energy lobby. Well, does the minister then dismiss him
as a partisan without any credibility too?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Nowhere did I say that we sold any part of B.C. Hydro. The member's
wrong. We outsourced services from B.C. Hydro to Accenture so that the
ratepayers could save over the next ten years approximately $250 million. I
think that was actually a pretty good deal. In fact, we have another new
business and a head office in Vancouver which actually has been able to garner
some more business across Canada. It's headquartered in Vancouver, providing
jobs to British Columbians — people working for that company. I don't think
that's a bad deal. I never once said we sold anything out of B.C. Hydro, because
we didn't. We outsourced those services to Accenture.
Again, I'm
not here to discuss, I don't think, second reading debate. That's already
transpired. It's gone by. We finished that.
Section 1 clearly states the assets
that are not for sale with B.C. Hydro.
MacPhail: Yeah. I know the minister never likes to discuss things that his
government caucus members have said. He can never defend his government caucus
members. There are two reasons. There are two potential reasons for that. The
words that come out of the mouths of the government caucus members are
completely indefensible, or else he doesn't want to get up and admit that
perhaps Mark Reder, an energy lobbyist and former staffer of the Liberal caucus,
is now actually directing him on his energy policy — doesn't want to admit to
that. Just the same way that when Marcia Smith was revealed as wearing two hats,
working for the energy industry and also working for the minister directly,
somehow that wasn't an issue as well.
I can
understand this minister being embarrassed or not wanting to defend his
government caucus at all. It's like the Minister of Sustainable Resource
Management. He couldn't defend his government caucus members either, because the
statements were completely indefensible.
Are there
any generation or storage assets not identified in the
schedule that are
currently owned or operated by B.C. Hydro?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The assets are listed in the
schedule as they relate to generation
and storage assets.
Maybe I
should put something on the record, Mr. Chair. Marcia Smith. The reference was
made that Marcia Smith was somehow an adviser to me or my ministry on the
development of the energy policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In
fact, that was cleared up very well the same day that it was brought forward in
question period. I know the member doesn't
[ Page 8033 ]
like the answers sometimes, and she doesn't like the truth sometimes. Marcia
Smith and her company were hired to help us roll out the energy plan, well after
it was developed. That's what took place — not in directing how the energy
policy was put together.
[1650]
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I would like to counsel that we will return
section 1,
definitions. Both sides should try and stick to that, please.
MacPhail: I'll repeat my question, because the minister didn't answer it.
Frankly, his word about Marcia Smith is as good as their saying they're not
going to privatize B.C. Rail. Who the heck knows…
The
Chair: Is this something to do with section…?
MacPhail: …what Marcia Smith did? Yes. I'm going to repeat…
The
Chair: Thank you. If you would….
MacPhail: …my question that the minister didn't answer. Are there any
generation or storage assets not identified in the schedule?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I'm going to answer the question first. They're listed in
the schedule. All the assets are listed there.
You know,
she can continue to talk about Marcia Smith all she wants. It's interesting that
she wants to go there.
The
Chair: Minister, on both issues, I think we should stick to
section 1 —
both the Leader of the Opposition and the minister.
MacPhail: The minister has been quoted in the media as suggesting that
without the provisions of this bill as they relate to protected assets, which is
section 1, B.C. Hydro would not be able to dispose of old vehicles. How did
he get to that conclusion?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: That's one example. There are probably hundreds of examples that I
could use in B.C. Hydro's operation. There could be lines someplace that went,
let's say, into a remote area or a remoter area — to a farm — and the farm
was no longer operational, and the hydro lines were no longer needed. They could
be taken down. That's just another example. There are all kinds of examples. Or
transformers or anything like that…. That's what we're referring to there —
those kinds of operational things.
The world
is a bit different today than it was in 1988, and the legal folks have asked us
to identify it and be a little bit more clear on some of these issues.
MacPhail: So the minister has a legal opinion that supports him saying that
he would not have been able to dispose of old vehicles. Is that correct?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I have been informed that old vehicles, along with a lot of other
things that B.C. Hydro have that they would want to dispose of because they were
no longer needed…. Legally, they couldn't. What they wanted to do was reflect
in the legislation the fact that they could.
MacPhail: Was there a bunch of illegal activities going on, like selling a
tractor?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I don't know about old tractors. I couldn't tell you. But under the
old legislation, it didn't cover it properly. We're trying to cover it properly
so that it is a lot more clear to the public and everyone concerned about what
assets are protected and what assets actually can be disposed of, if that is
necessary.
MacPhail: How much did the minister pay for legal advice that he just got
about the inability to sell a truck? How much did that cost the taxpayers?
Interjection.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition. A new question?
MacPhail: I think that's a legitimate question. Is that not a legitimate
question? Is the minister getting tired? I mean, I am the only one amongst the
government caucus members asking any questions, so it is interesting that the
minister has to sit in his chair and refuse to answer questions. How much did
the legal advice cost to reach such a questionable conclusion?
The
Chair: The Leader of the Opposition on
section 1. A new question on
section
[1655]
MacPhail: Absolutely. It's arising out of the definition, Mr. Chair.
Did the
minister pay for any legal advice in reaching any of these conclusions? Just
answer yes or no. On what basis did the minister make that statement about how
they couldn't sell a vehicle? The only reason I question this is because it
really goes to the credibility of what the minister says about anything.
Section 1
approved.
section 2.
MacPhail: The reason why I want to make sure I do my job properly is because
the Premier in his secret scrum just said he'd be more than happy if I would
step down out of my seat and give it to the new leader of the NDP. I said to
him, "In your dreams, Mr. Premier," that I would leave. I'm just
trying to do my job here. In fact, the minister doesn't want me to do my job.
It's embarrassing how he sits in his seat. What are the criteria that Hydro will
use to determine when an asset
[ Page 8034 ]
is no longer useful? Has he received legal advice on that?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Hydro is a well-run corporation. Actually, Hydro is one of the
largest corporations in the province of British Columbia — the third-largest
utility in Canada. They have been running a large hydro operation for many
years. They're quite capable of running a large hydro corporation, and they will
make decisions about what they have to dispose of and what they don't have to
dispose of.
What we're
saying here and what we've listed in the
schedule — and you may not like it,
but we've listed it — is that any of those assets or transmission and
distribution are not for sale, unless you want to come back to this House and
explain to people in this Legislature why you're doing it.
That's
simply what this bill is about: to reassure that it's not for sale. Here it is,
and if you want to sell it…. If this bill actually will give a lot of
protection into the future in relationship to B.C. Hydro…. Although the member
says she might get calls about it, I get lots of calls about it, saying:
"Right on. That's a good bill. We like what you have in that bill. We like
what you're doing with B.C. Hydro, and we're really happy that you're
strengthening the fact that assets are not for sale."
MacPhail: That was what my question was about. The minister stands up every
time he gets a chance and says how he's strengthening the criteria about what
assets can be sold, etc. I'm just asking him how he makes that determination.
It's just the question that arises out of the minister's own comments: what are
the criteria upon which the minister just based his assertion?
[K.
Stewart in the chair.]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The bill lays it out. As I said, B.C. Hydro will be able to make
most of those decisions. What we're saying is that here are the things that
can't be sold: the dams and the reservoirs, the transmission and the
distribution. It's listed; it's stated. It actually is in the bill. They can
dispose of things they have to dispose of in the regular course of business.
This bill also allows them to do that.
MacPhail: Well, there were people who operate the dams who were sent over to
Accenture. The dams couldn't operate without these people. Yes, minister —
through you, Mr. Chair — that's true.
[1700]
What about
intellectual property? Is intellectual property able to be sold? What happens in
that area, for instance? The minister made a very clear statement over and over
again that he wouldn't have been able to sell a truck. I can't figure out where
the truck stops — the assets of the intellectual property. As everyone knows,
the generating station doesn't operate without a person, and yet the minister
sent those people operating those generating stations over to Accenture, a
private operator. What are the rules? Just tell me what the rules are. The
minister makes this big assertion and claims a lot of credit for it. I'm just
trying to figure out how he worked it through.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I go back to this discussion we had a while ago about the control
of the dams and the transmission. That remains firmly with those corporations.
What was outsourced to Accenture were some of the back-office services. The
control still stays with the corporations that are owned by the province.
MacPhail: I have to debate a lot of legislation in this House, far more than
the minister does, and I remember very clearly that the people who are
responsible for operating the dams — I listed the dams — have gone over to
Accenture. The dams would not be able to operate without those people. Maybe the
minister doesn't remember that, but I do. Will the bits and pieces…?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: You're wrong.
MacPhail: I am not wrong, and I'd be happy to have him stand up and prove me
wrong. Will the bits and pieces of existing generation facilities be allowed to
be sold off when they're not in use?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Actually, the operation does stay with B.C. Hydro and BCTC, in
response to the earlier question. I remember debating those issues in this
House. It stays with the control of B.C. Hydro and BCTC — is now and will be
in the future. Maybe the member could tell me what bits and pieces she's talking
about.
MacPhail: Well, I'd be happy to. It's interesting that the questions are now
coming toward me.
Well, let's
look at Burrard Thermal. What happens to Burrard Thermal, where they're only
running three of its six generating units?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: If you look closely on page 3 of the bill, No. 6 is Burrard
Thermal. It's a protected asset. At least that's what I read. If there is a move
to change Burrard Thermal, whether it's running on one turbine or two or three
or four or five or six, it doesn't make any difference. If there's a move to
sell Burrard Thermal, that would have to come back to this Legislature for
discussion because it's listed as a protected asset.
MacPhail: Every single generating unit at Burrard Thermal is protected,
whether it's operating or not. Is that correct?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, the operating generators….
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Let's remember that that is a system — Burrard Thermal. It's
large. It can generate up to
[ Page 8035 ]
900 megawatts. If they want to change out a turbine, they ought to be allowed
to do that to generate electricity. It says this in the act. The old ones —
no, we're not going to protect the ones that are really old. If B.C. Hydro can
actually put in new generation, they ought to be able to do that to improve
efficiency. I'm sure the member would like us to move forward with that, improve
the efficiency and the air quality in the lower mainland. I think that would
make good sense. If you want to change out an old turbine, this allows B.C.
Hydro to do that.
MacPhail: Where in the legislation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's
section 2(2)(c): "…the assets disposed of are to be
replaced with one or more assets that will perform similar functions…."
MacPhail: Is that systemwide or an individual generation plant?
[1705]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: That's systemwide.
MacPhail: Why, then, was (
c) put in there? What's the necessity for that?
Burrard Thermal is an example of that. Where else?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: That could take place in any one of the other facilities across the
province. We do own more than one thermal facility. There's another one in Fort
Nelson. At some point in time that one may have to be upgraded. There could be
one of the dams that may need a turbine upgraded to where you can put in a newer
turbine that will actually generate more electricity at a more reasonable rate.
There should be nothing wrong with being able to do that.
MacPhail: Does (
c) mean that power now produced by B.C. Hydro could be
replaced by independent power and the act would still be considered fulfilled?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Actually, this bill has to deal with the assets that are listed
here. They're listed by name as far as generation facilities go, so I think the
schedule is fairly straightforward in what is a protected asset.
MacPhail: Well, I asked the minister whether it was systemwide, whether the
replacement could be added systemwide, and the minister has a plan that all
future power production will be by independent power sources. Maybe let me just
clarify, then. If Burrard Thermal shuts down, then that amount of power has to
be replaced by B.C. Hydro and owned by B.C. Hydro as an asset?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, use Burrard Thermal for instance. You would have to come
back to this Legislature and actually explain in this House to the people of the
province why you would be closing Burrard Thermal and how you would be replacing
that energy. That whole process is open. It actually allows the Crown
corporation to operate in the world today. If, for instance, you did close
Burrard Thermal and you have to build new generation to take its place, you may
do that by putting in two generators in Mica or Revelstoke. That's a
possibility.
At the end
of the day, the B.C. Utilities Commission now has authority over B.C. Hydro,
unlike the ten years under that member's administration. Actually, B.C. Hydro
has to prove to the B.C. Utilities Commission how they are going to generate
electricity and why it's the cheapest way to go about generating that
electricity. Vancouver Island today is a good example of that. The BCUC asked
B.C. Hydro to go back and make another call for generation on Vancouver Island,
for the benefit of the people of the province, to keep the rates as low as we
possibly can.
MacPhail: I can't find here…. Perhaps the minister could walk us through.
Let's just use an example — Burrard Thermal. The minister wants to sell off
parts of Burrard Thermal, or Burrard Thermal, and replace it with generation
somewhere else, somehow else. Where under the act will that be brought to the
Legislature?
[1710]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The assets that are listed — the generation and storage assets
that are listed in the
schedule — clearly list Burrard Thermal. If some
government in the future wanted to close Burrard Thermal, they would have to
come back to this Legislature and say: "Burrard Thermal is off the list,
and here are the reasons why." I can't hypothetically think, ten years from
now, what that conversation may be about at that time. I'm not exactly sure. The
member may know, but I don't know.
At that
point in time the Crown corporation will come forward. B.C. Hydro, I would
assume, would come forward with reasons why they think they should close Burrard
Thermal and for what reason. People in this Legislature like yourself, if you're
still here, will be able to ask those questions of why they are or why they
would be.
I don't
think they are contemplating closing it. Right now it's an integral part of the
Hydro system. I mean, it's the only large plant that's right close to the
largest load we have in the province. If you did have some major impacts in some
other part of the province, you could actually still keep the lights on down
here. There may be some reason in the future to remove it off the protected
asset list, but there will have to be a reason for it, and it will have to come
here. Right now I'm not asking that. I'm saying it's on the list as a protected
asset.
MacPhail: Uh-oh. That's kind of dismaying news, because the Minister of
Education repeatedly states that Burrard Thermal is going to be shut down —
repeatedly. I mean, the Minister of Education…. Actually, she's the Deputy
Premier. Not only did she do it
[ Page 8036 ]
during the last election, but she keeps repeating it. I'm shocked to hear now
that this government is not going to do that. I'm sure her constituents will be
shocked as well. In fact, when there was a debate about whether Burrard Thermal
should be kept open or not, the Minister of Education said her government will
shut it down.
It's not a
hypothetical question, unless the minister…. Well, I guess the government
could be abandoning the Minister of Education. She's probably on that list of a
no-win seat again. There are about 30 on the list now. That's a possibility.
That actually is a possibility.
It is
dismaying that the government hasn't actually come clean. Actually, that's not
true. The minister has now come clean. They're not going to shut down Burrard
Thermal. I can hardly wait for the Minister of Education to have to justify that
to her constituents. Maybe she'll bring the Minister of Energy to a town hall
meeting, like she did when she made the commitment that her government would
shut down Burrard Thermal. I can hardly wait.
It's not a
hypothetical question. If the government shuts down Burrard Thermal, can the
minister guarantee that 2(
c) will not be invoked and that that issue will be
brought to the Legislature?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Well, that's the difference between this government and the last
one. We listed Burrard Thermal knowing there's lots of controversy about Burrard
Thermal and ways that maybe you could generate that electricity in a different
way. We have said by this bill that we're listing it as an asset today. It is an
asset today, and it will stay an asset until there's a decision made that maybe
it should be phased out.
I'm not
sure that it will be totally phased out. It may be repowered for all I know —
one or the other — but at the end of the day, what we're saying is now…. I
mean, if I left it off, you'd be asking all the questions: "Why did you
leave it off, and what are you doing?" Understand that. We left it on there
so that when, hypothetically, we have to do that — it is hypothetical now; we
want to look at how we improve the air quality in the lower mainland — we will
bring that to this Legislature, and people like yourself can ask the questions.
I was
remiss just a while ago when the member asked me the question: were all the
assets listed? There's one dam and one diesel-fired plant that aren't listed.
The Coursier Dam is decommissioned and has been decommissioned for safety
reasons, I believe. The Keogh plant on Vancouver Island burns diesel fuel. That
was decommissioned.
[1715]
The member
should remember that plant. I remember that when they were in opposition, when
hydro was being sold for a pretty high rate south of the border into California
for some pretty phenomenal funds, the government of the day — who talked about
wanting clean air in British Columbia — decided that they were going to fire
up the Keogh plant and burn diesel fuel to generate electricity, to send it
south of the border to the U.S., because they were money-hungry and needed
money. We've said that plant isn't on here. I just thought I'd remind the member
of that and what they accomplished while they were in office.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, it is a constant source of amazement how this minister
justifies his actions by saying: "We're no worse than you were." The
voters voted for something pretty much different. I love it every time he stands
up and says that. I think it's hilarious. He has no idea how much damage he does
to himself when he says: "You were bad, and we're just as bad." Wow.
That's championing the interests of British Columbians — isn't it? There's a
real champion of the cause. He just did it again.
Under what
circumstances, if any, will
section 2 be used to avoid bringing a change in
assets to the Legislature?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Subsection (2)(b): "the assets disposed of are no longer used
or useful."
MacPhail: The minister listed two assets that are no longer used, that have
been…. I assume that's a word for "decommissioned" — no longer
used.
I'm talking
about the assets that are in the schedule. The ones that are decommissioned are
not listed here. In the
schedule here, in terms of the change in ownership or
the determination that they're no longer…. Well, let me just ask this. Will
section 2 ever be used — any aspect of
section 2 — in relationship to the
schedule to not have a debate on a change in the
schedule here in the
legislation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No.
MacPhail: I didn't hear it clearly, but the answer was no.
Hydro
recently completed a study on the viability of continuing to operate some of its
smaller generating plants. Is that the case?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Under the last administration, I believe, a study was commissioned
to look at some of the smaller plants and see if there was a way to better
utilize those plants to generate electricity.
MacPhail: Well, I'm told there was a recent study by B.C. Hydro under this
administration. Then when this study was made public recently, the minister said
that none of these plants would be disposed of. Does that remain the position of
the minister?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yes.
[1720]
MacPhail: When protected assets are disposed of and replaced with similar
assets, will there ever be a mixture? I've already approached this question from
a different angle, Mr. Chair, but I'm not…. Let me explore it just a tiny bit
more, because I didn't get an an-
[ Page 8037 ]
swer, and I want to make sure I present the question clearly. Can B.C. Hydro
assets be disposed of and be replaced by independent power sources? Is that
contemplated under this legislation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: If B.C. Hydro were to dispose of any of the listed assets that are
here or are spoken about, you would have to come to this Legislature to get the
approval to do that.
MacPhail: Does the minister have in his energy plan…? I'm going to get to
the energy plan as it relates to this legislation. Is it contemplated in the
energy plan that independent power sources, which are all the new power sources
from now on, will replace assets of B.C. Hydro?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No. B.C. Hydro is allowed to do upgrades to its present facilities,
the ones they operate, to make them more efficient to generate electricity.
We've also said we want to open up the process and allow for independent power
producers to generate the new incremental power needed for the province of
British Columbia going forward. That's clearly what the energy plan says in both
cases.
MacPhail: Will it be possible for Hydro to replace currently owned assets
with leased assets?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I'll go back to the fact that that's why the assets of B.C.
Hydro are listed. If they wanted to change any of these assets from what they
are today, that would mean disposal of them. They would have to come to this
Legislature with a recommendation. I'm sure there would be some ruling by the
B.C. Utilities Commission to get approval to do that.
MacPhail: Well, the government says the Accenture contract isn't a
privatization contract. Given that only-made-in-Liberal-heaven definition of
that, what if they contemplated saying to Accenture: "You're going to run
the dams now"? The government says that's not privatization. Would that be
allowed under this legislation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No.
Nettleton: I think the question, which appears to be answered in part at
least, is: can the protected assets be replaced by an independent power or
outsourced if they are declared obsolete or not fit for purpose? The answer
appears to be yes. I know the minister makes reference to the fact that the
Legislature will somehow be involved with respect to that determination, but —
correct me if I'm wrong — the answer is indeed yes to that question.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I think I've already answered this question. What I've said is that
for the assets that are listed here, if they are to be decommissioned or put out
of service, you have to come to this Legislature and actually prove why you
would be doing that, explain to the people of British Columbia why you would be
doing that.
We have in
our energy plan the fact that B.C. Hydro can upgrade its facilities — that
includes this group of facilities here — to new types of generation so they
can meet the load going forward and that we're going to encourage independent
power producers in the future to generate the incremental supply moving forward
in the province. That's what we're doing.
Actually,
it's been pretty successful — signed $800 million worth of contracts. Mr.
Chair, that's for clean energy. That's for wind power and biomass and
run-of-the-river — all those good things for the environment of the province
— and meeting, at the same time, British Columbia's energy requirements.
[1725]
Nettleton: This is the
section that's particularly problematic for me, from
my perspective, and the Leader of the Opposition has certainly identified some
of the important issues with respect to this clause and the practical
implications for all British Columbians in terms of where this government's
going. Bill 85 will indeed allow — it appears to me — B.C.'s core assets of
generation, storage, transmission and distribution to be sold or disposed of, if
B.C. Hydro deems them to be no longer fit for purpose or no longer useful, or to
be replaced, relocated or outsourced. Indeed, this is a huge loophole in the
legislation — a loophole big enough, I would argue, to drive a Mack truck
through. I know there's been reference made to trucks by the minister. The Mack
trucks, I expect, are lined up just waiting to drive through that loophole.
With this
one clause alone, it appears that government is now poised to declare any of
B.C. Hydro's core assets obsolete. They can be replaced, relocated or treated as
an outsource asset. It's entirely consistent with this government's approach to
the whole question of B.C. Hydro, and I expect that core asset by core asset,
they plan to divest themselves of the remaining assets and the responsibility
that flows from those assets to produce, transmit and store power.
I know the
minister is shaking his head. The minister is a true believer in the sense that
he accepts, at face value, the claims of the executive with respect to B.C.
Hydro. I don't, and I expect that most of the voting public do not accept, at
face value, the claims of this government with respect to B.C. Hydro and a
number of their other privatization initiatives. I know the minister is a true
believer, and there are about 75 true believers here that will some day wake up,
face reality and accept that in fact what's being done to B.C. Hydro and across
government with respect to this government's privatization agenda is destructive
and wrong. It's our hope that this can be stopped at some point.
Really,
this government is all about reducing the scope of government. Bill 85, with
respect to
section 2, is not about protecting B.C. Hydro, which is truly a
public power legacy. It's about dismantling and deregulation, and that's
unfortunate. That's something we
[ Page 8038 ]
will certainly attempt to fight at every opportunity not only here in the
Legislature but more importantly, I believe, outside of the Legislature. We will
continue to carry the message forward that this is a government that can be and
should be forced to back down with respect to where they're going in and around
B.C. Hydro.
I guess
those are comments as much as questions, but the minister may want to respond.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I find it rather unbelievable that B.C. Hydro…. The energy plan
says clearly: "Public ownership and low-cost electricity." I don't
know what part of "public ownership" some folks don't understand. Let
me tell you, I think most people across the province understand public
ownership, and that's what this energy policy is all about — public ownership
of B.C. Hydro and lowest possible rates moving forward.
You know,
it would be unbelievable — and when you think about the question or the
statements that were just proposed about privatization…. What's public
ownership and privatization? That member ought to know the difference.
Privatization is not where we're going with B.C. Hydro. Public ownership is
going with B.C. Hydro. We're talking about protecting all of B.C. Hydro. We're
talking in this act about actually expanding the protection for B.C. Hydro for
the people of British Columbia and have been consistent in saying that. We've
have been consistent in saying that.
[1730]
Deregulation.
That was a movement by the last government. It was the last government that
deregulated B.C. Hydro. We re-regulated B.C. Hydro. In fact, the energy plan
shows it is re-regulated.
Interjections.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I don't know. Maybe both opposition members, maybe both NDP members
don't understand that.
But you
know, the B.C. Utilities Commission has just made some rulings around B.C.
Hydro. That's regulation. Let's think about regulation. Let's think about…
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: …regulation. Re-regulate it. You know, we actually instructed
B.C. Hydro to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission to get a certificate of
public convenience to build a plant on Vancouver Island that they wished to
build. I'll tell you what deregulation is. It was when Dan Miller, one of the
Premiers under the last administration — one of four or five, I think…. He
actually wrote a letter to the B.C. Utilities Commission saying they didn't need
to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission. That's deregulation.
The member
in the corner ought to know that's deregulation. We re-regulated B.C. Hydro.
It's regulated. It's cost-based. It's regulated. Mr. Chair, further to that
statement, tell me: is B.C. Hydro going to come forward and say they're going to
decommission G.M. Shrum? It's only 2,780 megawatts, the largest plant in British
Columbia. Are they going to come forward and say: "You know what? We're
going to mothball that monster"?
You know,
we're short of electricity in British Columbia now because the last
administration built in Pakistan instead of in British Columbia. We're short of
electricity. In fact, one member from here went to Pakistan and had a little
view of that good plant. It's a tough thing to get that energy from over there
to here.
I can't
imagine anything as ridiculous as saying B.C. Hydro would decommission G.M.
Shrum or…. I don't care — any one of them. John Hart. Would they
decommission Fort Nelson and shut down Fort Nelson? Hardly. Why would they shut
down a plant? I mean, what rationale is there, other than bogeymen stuff, to
shut down any plant and say, "You know what? We're going to mothball 2,780
megawatts, and we're going to go to the private sector to build a new one"?
There might
be a government sometime in the future that would be that stupid, but that's not
going to happen. That kind of bogeymen tactic, that kind of ridiculous
statement, is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, I find it unbelievable that I'm
taking the time to respond to it, but I am taking the time to respond to it so
that people understand how ridiculous those kinds of statements are.
Section 2
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Let's just carry on about how this government determines stuff
that has to do with Hydro. The minister just says: "Oh, they're doing
everything through the BCUC." Well, let's just look at that, at the promise
to "re-regulate." Let's just see.
We now know
there won't be any review of any construction done — independent power
construction or anything — because Bill 75, the Significant Projects
Streamlining Act, outlaws any review, allows the government…. Yes, it outlaws
any review. It absolutely does. All you've got to do is go to the Premier behind
closed doors and say: "Oh, I'm so stressed out by all those regulations.
Let me ram my project through." And the Premier will go: "Oh,
okay."
So that's
the new future under this government, but let's see about re-regulation.
Section
3 talks about the heritage contract. Just as the minister suggested, after years
of complaining that the previous government was interfering in the setting of
hydro rates and his promise to re-regulate B.C. Hydro, we have in this
section
an explicit legislated direction that the cabinet — the cabinet — tell the
BCUC what the heritage rate will be.
[1735]
Oh, would
that be cabinet making a decision about hydro rates? Yes, it would. What made
the minister flip-flop on his promise to re-regulate B.C. Hydro and
[ Page 8039 ]
put in, by legislation, this level of interference in the rate-setting role
of the B.C. Utilities Commission?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Yes, actually, we are re-regulating B.C. Hydro, and we asked the
B.C. Utilities Commission to go out and hold hearings around the province. They
did that publicly — I'm sure you attended some of those public meetings — to
review a number of things specifically around the heritage contract and stepped
rates and time-of-use rates to actually get input from people, to get the
public's input from around the province.
I know
that's strange. That may not sit well with the member, but that's exactly what
the B.C. Utilities Commission did. They went out and solicited that information
from a lot of people, not behind closed doors but actually in public meetings
where people could come forward and make presentations. There were quite a few.
In fact, I'm not too sure that Citizens for Public Power weren't there at some
point in time. They might have been. I'm not sure. They presented, I believe, to
the formation of the energy policy.
We did hold
that. When that report was given to us, we posted it on the website. I believe
it's on the website for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It's been there since
about October 18 — somewhere in there towards the end of October. It's been
there for everyone to read exactly what they recommended to do. That's public
consultation and using the B.C. Utilities Commission for what we should use it
for.
MacPhail: We're going to get to that in a moment, Mr. Chair, but let's be
clear. No matter how much this minister obfuscates, here's what the legislation
says about the commission: "Without limiting any other obligation of the
commission or the authority" — and the "commission" means the
B.C. Utilities Commission — "(
a) the commission must, when setting rates
of the authority, comply with any regulations, including, without limitation,
any general or special directions, made by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council…."
Do you know
who the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is? It's the cabinet. It just confirms
what I said earlier. This minister justifies his actions by saying he's just as
bad as the previous administration, only now he's confirmed it in legislation.
Now he's actually had the gall to say: "Everything we complained about in
the previous administration we're now legislating as fact." The
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the cabinet, and the cabinet will set the
heritage contract rate by fiat, by legislation. The commission has to take it
holus-bolus, no questions asked, no protest. Maybe the minister could stand up
and explain where I'm wrong.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The member is correct in a bit of her statement. We actually asked
the commission to go out and get input from the public across the province as to
how the heritage rate should be set up. I believe, if I remember correctly, they
said it should be a blended rate. That means that new generation, although it's
more expensive, and the heritage energy should be blended together for the
benefit of people to keep rates as low as possible. They made those
recommendations, and at the end of the day they do make those recommendations to
a cabinet. That cabinet happens to be a B.C. Liberal cabinet today. The B.C.
Liberal cabinet will write some special directives exactly as….
MacPhail: Oh. Oh.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No, it's not "oh." I mean, special directions have been
given for many years.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I'll try to refrain from the name-calling.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: Such a gentleman.
[1740]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Thank you.
What we
have done is get the public's input so that we can move forward with it. That is
the normal course. That's regulating B.C. Hydro; that's re-regulating B.C.
Hydro. It will be cost-based. As we move forward, B.C. Hydro — and it's no
secret — is going to go before the B.C. Utilities Commission for a rate
review. Interesting. They haven't been before the B.C. Utilities Commission, I
believe, since 1991.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Member, can we let the minister finish.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: They haven't had to go before an independent body to set their
cost-based rates since 1991, and they still will. In fact, I think sometime
early in December they will be going before the B.C. Utilities Commission — at
least, that's what they've indicated — to ask for a rate review and a rate
increase. Whether the B.C. Utilities Commission gives that to them or not is a
decision the B.C. Utilities Commission will make on their own. They'll make that
decision on their own.
Just
further to B.C. Hydro making all that money, I wish the last administration,
which keeps talking about making all that money, would have collected all that
money so we don't have to spend the millions of dollars we are today to try and
collect the balance of the $300 million that's owed to the province.
MacPhail: Oh God. How incompetent this minister is.
The
Chair: On
section 3.
MacPhail: Yes, I am on
section 3. How incompetent this minister is that he
can't get his money from California. They've been in government for over two and
a half years, and they're blaming us for that. You
[ Page 8040 ]
know, earlier on, yesterday, I heard a Liberal member take credit for snow,
give the Premier credit for snow. If they're that God almighty powerful, how is
it they are so incompetent that they can't get what's due them from California?
They've got a whole new opportunity there.
Let me ask
the minister this. The rate is going to be determined behind closed doors by the
cabinet. What portion of the overall rate will the heritage contract comprise?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The heritage assets will generate for the province approximately 95
percent of the generation needed.
MacPhail: So 95 percent of the generation will have a rate established
behind closed doors, just exactly the way….
Interjection.
MacPhail: Oh, I wish the member for North Vancouver–Seymour would join in
the debate, because he somehow claims I'm wrong.
[1745]
Here's what
the legislation says. The heritage contract, which will form 95 percent of the
generation…. The rate for the heritage contract will be determined behind
closed doors by cabinet fiat — exactly the complaint this minister made over
and over again against the previous government. For 95 percent of the
generation, they're doing exactly the same thing. It confirms the point I made
earlier. Actually, no, they're going one step further on this one. Not only are
they not delivering on their promise to re-regulate hydro rates, but they're
actually legislating the inability to re-regulate hydro rates on 95 percent of
the generation. They're actually legislating that.
Well, isn't
that wonderful? Doesn't that just make a mockery of their commitment to
re-regulate through the B.C. Utilities Commission? The B.C. Utilities Commission
now will have a heritage contract imposed upon them by this cabinet for 95
percent of the input of determining hydro rates in this province.
Well, I
actually read the report. It was October 17. The minister has a very good
memory. He said October 18. October 17 — I read the report. Here's what the
B.C. Utilities Commission said about the heritage contract. I'll just go through
some of these. It said that the commission allocate the benefits of the heritage
resources among customer classes as part of its ra