2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Edith McNish

Hon. S.

Hagen

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Robert de Grace

Hon. P.

Bell

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Hon. B.

Penner

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Cancer awareness

McIntyre

Community events in Campbell

River

Trevena

Fur trapping in B.C.

Rustad

Boundary Woodworkers Guild

Conroy

Bridge builders in B.C.

Sultan

Autism

Routley

Oral Questions

Funding for Royal Columbian

Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Puchmayr

ICBC performance bonuses to Paul

Taylor

H. Lali

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Investigation into ICBC vehicle

sales

H. Bains

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Agricultural land reserve

regulations

L. Krog

Hon. M.

de Jong

Wild salmon fishery

Fraser

Hon. P.

Bell

Non-essential pesticide use

Robertson

Hon. B.

Penner

Labelling for products

containing toxic substances

Robertson

Hon. B.

Penner

Proposed power project for

Cascade Falls

Conroy

Hon. B.

Penner

Tabling Documents

Capital project plan, integrated

case management project

Hon. T.

Christensen

Petitions

N. Simons

Second Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 15) (continued)

Lekstrom

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Committee of the Whole House

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

J. Brar

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Sather

Robertson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

Committee of the Whole House

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)

Hon. O.

Ilich

Puchmayr

Conroy

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

H. Bains

[ Page 10883 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: This morning the Premier and a large number of members on both sides of the House had the privilege of joining representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society for breakfast. It was, as is usual in breakfasts with the Canadian Cancer Society, a very informative and constructive event, and I'm sure all members of the House were very appreciative for that opportunity.

It is also, Mr. Speaker — and you know this probably better than everyone — Daffodil Month, and that's why this daffodil adorns my jacket here today. Of course, the daffodil has become a symbol for the Canadian Cancer Society and the wonderful and beneficial work that they do on behalf of all British Columbians and all Canadians.

It would be my pleasure to advise the House that in the gallery today are Barbara Kaminsky, the CEO; John Jacobson, the board chair; and Kathryn Seely, the public issues manager with the Canadian Cancer Society. I'd ask members across the House to join me in welcoming them and thanking them for the wonderful work they do day in and day out.

S. Simpson: I also attended the breakfast this morning and certainly join the minister in congratulating those guests.

We also have with us today Mae Burrows, who is the director of the Labour Environmental Alliance. Mae was at the breakfast this morning as well, and part of the reason for her being there is that she was one of the recipients of the Canadian Cancer Society partnership award. She received that award for work that she and her organization are doing on the CancerSmart Consumer Guide and on the issue of having pesticides banned throughout British Columbia, which was the focus of the discussion this morning.

I would ask the House to both congratulate Mae on her award and make her welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like the House to welcome a great friend of mine and one of Canada's best-known actors, Mr. Jackson Davies. Jackson and I first met when we worked on a CBC show together perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. We don't like to quite remember.

[1335]

Jackson is now serving on the B.C. Arts Council and helping us with those responsibilities. But I should also say that tonight he is in a play in Sidney, and it's called Hockey Mom, Hockey Dad . So if anyone has time, you can see Jackson tonight. Please welcome him.

N. Simons: I'd like to introduce in the House today my guests Dal and Kay Matterson from Powell River. Powell River has hosted the world-renowned Kathaumixw Choral festival since 1984. Dal Matterson chaired the very first festival, and both he and Kay continue to be very involved with the event. Kay also works with the Powell River Academy of Music. Dal is the president of the Myrtle Rock improvement society. Truly, they're both great assets to the citizens of Powell River and the region.

I'd like the House to join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House two constituents, two friends of mine from Fort St. John, Bruce and Gail Reid. They're accompanied by Bruce's mother Jean Reid, who lives down here. They're having a visit. I'd like everyone in the House to make them welcome, please.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome Julie Nygaard and Heather Bosch. They are two parents of autistic children and members of a group that has formed in our constituency who are advocating for services and understanding around the issues of autism. Would the House help me welcome them.

H. Bloy: It gives me a pleasure to rise in the House today and welcome the future of British Columbia. We have grade 5 students here from Our Lady of Fatima School, and I had the privilege of talking with them earlier. They're in the gallery. I know that British Columbia is in good hands with the teaching that they get. They're accompanied by their teacher Paula Bourassa. Would the House please join me in welcoming them today.

Tributes

EDITH McNISH

Hon. S. Hagen: It's an honour for me today to pay tribute to a pioneer in the Comox Valley who passed away late last month. Edith McNish was born on June 4, 1907, and it was a privilege for my wife and I to attend her 100th birthday in June of last year.

I first met Edith in 1972 when I was elected to school board and she was on school board. Prior to that, she'd been a teacher. She was also the first student from the Comox Valley to complete her senior matriculation exam.

After she retired from school board, she became a volunteer, visiting people in the hospital until she was about 95 years old. I would have to think Edith McNish was probably the world's oldest candystriper, and people all over knew her for that.

She is also very interesting because almost up until her death, my wife would phone her to get information on the history of the Comox Valley. She would sort of cut my wife short and say: "I'm sorry. I've got to go, Judy, because I've got to go visit the old people."

So I want to pay tribute to Edith, and certainly our condolences to her family. She was a wonderful, wonderful citizen.

[ Page 10884 ]

Introductions by Members

V. Roddick: In the precincts today were 22 grade 5 students and three long-suffering parents and their teacher Mr. Jason Webber from Southpointe Academy. It's always great to have young people because they ask real direct questions. It was a terrific time trying to answer them. Would the House please join me and make them very welcome.

Tributes

ROBERT DE GRACE

Hon. P. Bell: Prince George lost a key individual a little over a week ago in Rob de Grace. Rob was a businessman, well respected in the community and an avid outdoorsman who really represented all the great values of northern British Columbia — entrepreneurialism, but also someone who really enjoyed life to its fullest.

[1340]

Rob did not suffer long. He passed away quite quickly at quite a young age, unfortunately. He has left behind his wife Kathy, and I would ask that the House please pay their respects to the de Grace family.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. This bill is a significant component of this government's climate action strategy. We took our first step in climate action with the enactment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act last November, setting out targets to reduce British Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below the 2007 level by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will help us achieve those targets by enabling a market-based system to limit greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. This act is one of several pieces of legislation concerning greenhouse gas reductions that are being introduced during this session.

The act will provide regulatory authority to support our climate action goals while establishing a legal basis for the province's participation in the regional system being developed by the western climate initiative, a partnership of U.S. states and Canadian provinces that is dedicated to tackling the challenge of climate change.

A cap-and-trade system puts an absolute limit or a hard cap on the emissions responsible for global warming. It is designed to spur innovative and low-cost solutions to reduce carbon pollution.

In B.C. the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will provide authority to set a hard cap that will apply to designated large emitters. The cap will consist of a limited number of emission allowances that will be distributed by the government. The act will require that the regulated emitters obtain enough emission allowances and other compliance units, such as offset credits, to cover their emissions. These units must then be surrendered to the government as proof of compliance.

Over time, reductions in this cap will drive reductions in emissions. The act will also enable emitters to trade allowances, offsets and other compliance units to take advantage of market forces that promote innovation and investment and cleaner and more efficient technologies.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will make British Columbia the first Canadian province to introduce legislation authorizing hard caps on greenhouse gases.

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

Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CANCER AWARENESS

J. McIntyre: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Canadian Cancer Society and all the dedicated volunteers for their efforts to educate us and to find a cure for a disease that has touched the lives of almost everyone and, unfortunately, affected several colleagues in these very chambers.

In Toronto in the '50s, the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers organized a fundraising tea and decorated the tables with daffodils. The bright, cheerful flowers seemed to radiate hope and faith around the room that cancer one day could be beaten, and that symbol and optimism remain today.

I'd like to specially recognize Barbara Kaminsky, who for the past 13 years has been the chief executive officer of the B.C. and Yukon division of the Canadian Cancer Society. With a multitude of accreditations and more than 30 years of experience in health care, she has shown true leadership and the will to help in the fight against cancer.

Statistics show that one in three British Columbians will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. In

[ Page 10885 ]

our effort to enhance and protect the lives of our upcoming generations, our province continues to make significant investments in cancer research, treatment and prevention.

As mentioned in the throne speech, the province has committed to spend $2 million to expand research on preventing and treating childhood cancers. Last July, with approximately $12½ million in funding from the Ministry of Health, the B.C. Cancer Agency opened newly renovated areas of the Fraser Valley Centre in Surrey.

The B.C. Cancer Agency also plans to open a fifth regional cancer centre in Abbotsford later this year. New provincial regulations just came into effect, which restrict the promotion and sale of tobacco products, and also a ban on smoking in all indoor public spaces and workplaces.

[1345]

These are just some of the measures that our government is taking to tackle this insidious disease, especially for our youngsters who will now be protected from being subjected to secondhand smoke in vehicles.

The Canadian Cancer Society delivered a daffodil to MLAs this morning. We'll proudly display these daffodils as a symbol of our support and gratitude to the Canadian Cancer Society for making the month of April Cancer Awareness Month. Together we will aspire to one day find a cure.

COMMUNITY EVENTS

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: It's going to be a busy weekend in Campbell River this weekend. It starts off with the annual Words on the Water, which is Campbell River's writers' festival, which opens on Friday night.

This event brings together authors and readers for two days of readings and discussions with a literary cabaret on Saturday night. Tickets usually sell out very quickly for the event, and the sessions overflow. Two years ago organizers were honoured to have the then Lieutenant-Governor open the event at the Maritime Heritage Centre. This year the Lieutenant-Governor has other commitments in Campbell River at the 50th anniversary of the Ripple Rock explosion and at the annual Walk Away From Racism. I'll talk about the former event on another occasion, as I do only have two minutes.

The Walk Away From Racism has been organized by the Campbell River Multicultural and Immigrant Services Association for the last 12 years. It's an event which brings together people of all ages and all backgrounds — new immigrants, first nations, people from the city and from the islands. Bringing people together is vital because only by coming together can we challenge and overcome ongoing issues such as racism. No matter how nice we think we are, what a progressive place we think B.C. is and how multicultural we are as reflected in the latest statistics, there is undeniably racism here.

That's why this walk every year, along Campbell River's city blocks among the Saturday shoppers, is so important. People walk side by side and say: "Racism is wrong." The organizers this year are extremely pleased that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be there, not just because of his office but his clear, unwavering commitment to reconciliation and the need for us to celebrate our differences.

The Walk Away From Racism ends with celebrations at the community centre. It ends with the opportunity for people to talk, share music, share food, have entertainment and hope that each year the walk will grow and the understanding of our differences and our values will grow along with it.

FUR TRAPPING IN B.C.

J. Rustad: More than two centuries ago our province went through an incredible transformation. People came to this land for the opportunities created by the demand for fur. These newcomers entered into partnerships with the first nations and developed trade. Their legacy helped to transform our province and laid the foundation for our society. Today more than 50 percent of the trappers are from our first nations, and all trappers continue in the traditions that are such a significant part of our heritage.

The B.C. Trappers Association was formed in 1945 and is the oldest trappers association in Canada. I had the honour of attending their AGM in Vanderhoof recently and found it a great opportunity to discuss their issues. The association is a positive, non-profit organization with four objectives: to promote sound, humane, furbearer fur management through research, education and cooperation with other related organizations; to represent trappers at the provincial, national and international levels; to promote the general welfare of the trappers of British Columbia; and to promote communications, information and dialogue among trappers.

Wildlife biologists have long recognized the necessity to steward the province's wildlife and the need to educate the general public in the role of trapping as a critical segment to wildlife management. Without trapping, furbearer populations expand, creating competition for limited resources which can compromise the health of the entire population. The weakened conditions of these animals could result in starvation and disease.

Regulating trapping involves the control of disease and animal population densities. In this regard, the trappers help keep furbearer populations at healthy levels and help avoid diseases. Trappers also work towards improving habitat and have been creative in suggesting ideas around utilizing woody debris for enhancing wildlife opportunities.

[1350]

Please join me in congratulating the B.C. trappers for their efforts towards helping our environment and for continuing in the traditions that helped to open our province to the world.

BOUNDARY WOODWORKERS GUILD

K. Conroy: Lately we are continually hearing the horror stories associated with the devastation that the

[ Page 10886 ]

pine beetle has caused in our forests. However, today I want to acknowledge the ingenuity of the Boundary Woodworkers Guild, who have taken the disaster and turned it into incredible beauty. Ten members of the guild have taken a lift of blue-stained pine donated by Pope and Talbot and used it to produce works that cover a range of items.

The exhibition at the Grand Forks Art Gallery is entitled Rhapsody in Blue Wood. The guild members have produced not only functional items like dressers, tables and bowls; they have created an amazing display of art.

I want to quote David Milton, one of the founding members of the guild:

"Variously called a disaster, a calamity or the death knell of B.C.'s forest economy, the challenge presented by millions of acres of beetle kill forests has been met by this guild's membership and turned into an exhibition of some of the possibilities the medium offers. Exhibition visitors are invited to make up their own minds about utility, beauty, form, texture, artfulness and so on, and hopefully take with them an impression of blighted wood as an expression of woodworkers' passions and skills."

One only needs to look at the works to acknowledge the passion in these woodworkers that has been transformed into exquisite functional art by talented hands. Dave has a vision that he hopes comes to fruition. His vision is to give the province's woodworkers — and that's everyone from the primaries to the high-end, value-added workers — a chance to show the whole world how we can change an unmitigated disaster into a golden opportunity.

He hopes that through Forest Renewal's Beyond Boards initiative, there could be a provincewide effort to display a magnificent exhibition in Vancouver during the Olympics. He applauds the construction work being done with the blue stuff, but there is much more to it than that. The guild's opening foray more than makes that point.

He also asks that I — and no pun intended — put a bug in the minister's ear to help make this happen.

Dave, consider it done.

BRIDGE BUILDERS IN B.C.

R. Sultan: British Columbia professional engineers are famous as bridge builders from Borneo to Kicking Horse. Why? Look around. Rivers and canyons, islands and fjords in every direction. Bridge or boat — take your choice.

My constituent Peter Buckland, P.Eng., and the firm he founded, Buckland and Taylor, win lots of awards for their bridging accomplishments. Recently at a black-tie gala, Buckland and Taylor received the Lieutenant-Governor's award for excellence in engineering, as judged by the Consulting Engineers of B.C. A few weeks earlier Peter Buckland himself had been given the Order of Canada.

What are these engineers up to now? Two outstanding projects: the North Arm bridge across the Fraser River for the rapid-transit Canada line connecting downtown Vancouver to the airport and the Golden Ears bridge spanning the Fraser further upstream at Maple Ridge. Both are what engineers call extra-dosed bridges.

Now, extra-dosed doesn't refer to some high school disease. It's a particular design where the weight of deck and vehicles is carried through cables up to the towers and down through the towers to the foundation. Both girders and cables carry the load. Got that?

The result is a very efficient, low-profile bridge with superior aesthetics. Low-profile is important because both bridges are near airports. These will be the first and second extra-dosed bridges in all of North America.

Recently contractors Bilfinger Berger and McIlhaney showed me around Golden Ears — spectacular. I particularly appreciated the eagle statues which will crown the towers — a fitting challenge to the pair of lions guarding the entrance to my own constituency's Lions Gate Bridge.

By the way, Peter Buckland also supervised the recent renovation of that North Shore icon and, thanks to great engineering, says it should last another hundred years.

AUTISM

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the challenges of autism. Autism is a disease or a syndrome that had an incidence just a few years ago of one in 10,000, which has increased now to one in 150 according to the largest study carried out in the United States.

[1355]

We can clearly see a link to certain areas and environments. Premature babies are more susceptible. There are more boys affected.

Although the cause remains a mystery, there is no mystery that there are myriad services and agencies for parents and families to guide themselves through, and multi-ministerial roles that are confusing. Contracting of professional services is very challenging to families. The integration into schools without adequate support….

It is no mystery that they face a great struggle and a lack of support. They have great issues in classrooms, and classrooms have issues with them. But it doesn't need to be that way. We don't need to suffer financial devastation, and it is a good experience for people to be in a classroom with autistic children with proper supports.

What's required is training and funding. The throne speech pointed to a residential school setting, but according to many of the parents that I have spoken to, classroom integration is important because the role of modelling from other children who are not affected by autism is important to autistic children.

Adjustments need to be made by students, by workplaces and by society as a whole. We must accept autism. We have a skill shortage, but more than that, we have a youth shortage. We have to make the best of each other. Only by being the best can we be the best B.C. Only by supporting autistic children in B.C. can we reach our goals.

[ Page 10887 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Last month Dr. Rob Granger, a surgeon at Royal Columbian Hospital, sent a letter to the head of the Fraser Health Authority and to the Minister of Health. It was another in a long list of warnings that this B.C. Liberal government is failing patients, doctors and nurses at Royal Columbian Hospital.

Dr. Granger called the overcrowding of the ER chronic and stated that we are truly in a crisis. He goes on: "Operating slates are cancelled on a daily basis, operating rooms are closed, and patients are sitting in hallways for nursing care."

To the Minister of Health: is he simply going to dismiss Dr. Granger as he's dismissed so many people in the past, or will he finally admit that his government's policies and cuts are putting patients at risk at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell the member definitively that no government in the history of British Columbia has ever made the investments both on the capital side and on the operational side that this B.C. Liberal government has made.

When we took office back in 2001, the annual budget for health in British Columbia was $8.3 billion. This year it's over $14 billion in investments. We've made investments in Abbotsford, which the opposition promised for a decade — never delivered — and we will see in August the opening of the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. We are making over $200 million in investments in Surrey Memorial Hospital, including a tripling of the emergency department.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: This minister, like the previous minister, shows that he doesn't care at all about the situation at Royal Columbian Hospital. It's a shocking situation. Here's what Dr. Granger said — not me; Dr. Granger. He says that this hospital has suffered from years of financial neglect with no significant input into infrastructure. Dr. Granger said, "We are having cancers and other urgent elective surgeries cancelled continually for lack of resources," and the minister says that's acceptable. The minister is bragging.

Is this just one other warning about Royal Columbian Hospital that this minister is going to ignore, or will he finally listen to doctors, to nurses, to health care workers and to patients in New Westminster and across the Fraser Health Authority and put the resources needed into the Royal Columbian Hospital?

[1400]

Hon. G. Abbott: Royal Columbian Hospital is a great facility for British Columbia. I am enormously proud of the work that doctors, surgeons, nurses and residential care aides do at Royal Columbian Hospital.

They do a great job, and this government backstops that great work by all the health professionals at Royal Columbian Hospital with appropriate investments — like 45 more sub-acute care beds at Queen's Park Centre, ten additional overflow beds at Royal Columbian, ten rapid-discharge beds at Royal Columbian, a new trauma nurse practitioner, a full-time geriatric nurse — in a whole range of areas, including a new eye care program for improving the flow of patients through Royal Columbian Hospital.

Government and the Fraser Health Authority are making great investments and ensuring that Royal Columbian Hospital remains a fine and viable facility for all the residents of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The previous Minister of Health was warned in 2003, and he did nothing. They were warned in 2005. They did nothing. They were warned in 2006. They did nothing. They were warned in 2007. They did nothing. The situation has gotten worse and worse. Oh yeah, they were warned in 2004 too, and what did they do? They shut down St. Mary's Hospital.

My question to the Minister of Health is: when is he finally going to listen? When is he going to acknowledge that it was a terrible mistake to shut down St. Mary's Hospital? When is he going to acknowledge that his policies and his government's policies are failing patients at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it is remarkably tempting to defer to that member and that former government's acknowledged expertise in knowing what doing nothing is. They did it for ten years — ten years. They promised the new Abbotsford hospital for ten years. Didn't deliver. Promised improvements to Surrey Memorial Hospital. Didn't deliver. Promised hospitals in Kelowna. Didn't deliver. Promised facilities and programs all around British Columbia. Didn't deliver.

Clearly, they have expertise in not producing anything for the people of British Columbia, but if we look…. The member says that Royal Columbian Hospital doesn't get the dollars that they deserve. Not true. In fact, we have seen the budget for Royal Columbian Hospital grow from $146 million just a couple of years ago to now close to $250 million.

C. Puchmayr: The crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital was designed by this government. It was the B.C. Liberals that closed and demolished St. Mary's Hospital in 2004, taking 71 acute care beds out of the region — 71 beds that were very needed in that region. Doctors warned the B.C. Liberals repeatedly that the impacts would be severe on Royal Columbian Hospital.

[ Page 10888 ]

ER Chief Dr. Haggard said: "ER delays are causing harm to patients." He went on to say: "The Royal Columbian ER is the worst in Canada."

This happened under this government. To the minister. For five long years doctors have been sounding the alarm. When is the minister going to wake up and take their concerns seriously?

Hon. G. Abbott: I visited Royal Columbian Hospital, including their emergency department. I know that often, particularly in peak times, there are challenges there. I know that Fraser Health and all of the staff at Royal Columbian Hospital work constantly to see continuous improvement in the way they manage that.

[1405]

One thing that disturbs me, though — because I hear it from this member, I hear it from the opposition Health critic — is they link the closure of St. Mary's to emergency department pressures at Royal Columbian Hospital. In fact, St. Mary's never had an emergency department in living memory. Never in living memory did St. Mary's have an emergency department. So to make that false linkage….

I think they're trying to cover up for their embarrassment at doing nothing about Royal Columbian, Surrey Memorial, Abbotsford regional hospital. They did nothing for a decade, and they're trying to hide their embarrassment today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: You know, we have over and over again said to the minister that Royal Columbian Hospital and St. Mary's Hospital did work in tandem. They had operating theatres that they could open during an overflow such as the overflows that are happening now, as opposed to cancelling the many surgeries.

The Minister of Health needs to go back and look at his own record. In January 2004 the Fraser region ER chiefs warned the Liberal MLAs that overcrowding was threatening patient safety. In May of '04 the B.C. Liberals ignored the warning and closed St. Mary's Hospital.

In April 2006 Royal Columbian ER doctors issued a public letter warning of a severe bed shortage and a crisis. February '07 — all 24 ER doctors sent this Health Minister a letter talking about the massive overcrowding. In February 2008 the fire marshal had to intervene in Royal Columbian Hospital because patients were clogging up the doorways and the hallways. That was two months ago. Enough is enough.

When is the Health Minister going to take these concerns seriously and act so that we can save the lives of patients that are at risk today?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member taking us for a walk down memory lane. One thing he didn't do, though, was take that walk down memory lane back to the 1990s, when we used to hear repeatedly…. We used to see, repeatedly, headlines in relation to the situation….

Interjections.

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

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the members want to take a walk down memory lane, they should take a real walk down memory lane. Go back to the 1990s. See headline after headline about the emergency department at Royal Columbian Hospital.

What did they do about that? Nothing. What did they do about Surrey Memorial Hospital? Nothing. What did they do about Abbotsford? Nothing. They made no investments. They're big talkers. They do nothing.

We invest. We're the ones that are creating a new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. We're….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

ICBC PERFORMANCE BONUSES

TO PAUL TAYLOR

H. Lali: My question is to the Solicitor General. Was Mr. Paul Taylor paid a performance bonus last year? If yes, how much?

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, I thank the member for his question.

I want to preface my comments by restating that this situation is unacceptable. In considering this matter in the last 48 hours, I want to state for the record my expectations of ICBC, both in dealing with this issue and in the conduct of all of their operations. I expect integrity, I expect competency, and I expect service from the organization. That is what I am asking for from the board of directors and the whole of the organization.

[1410]

I am continuing to do my due diligence on this situation. I have made a second phone call to the chairman of the board of directors and asked for a meeting with the board of directors in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: My question was really about Mr. Paul Taylor.

Well, let me remind the minister opposite. Here's Mr. Paul Taylor's record: (1) a Liberal B.C. Rail corruption scandal, (2) a Liberal convention centre scandal, (3) a Liberal ICBC corruption scandal.

[ Page 10889 ]

Paul Taylor must have known that there was some rot that was taking place at the ICBC facility. Paul Taylor ran the Automobile Dealers Association before he became the Premier's hand-picked Deputy Finance Minister and then moved to ICBC. As a former Automobile Dealers Association chief, Paul Taylor — more than anyone else — knows that not telling the truth about accident records is an offence.

Again, to the new Solicitor General — now that the old Solicitor General is gone, and also in the interests of public accountability: will he now appropriately hold Mr. Paul Taylor, the CEO of ICBC, responsible for the Liberals' ICBC fraud scandal?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the question, I want to reaffirm with the House that the board of directors of ICBC reports to me as minister and that the CEO, the chief executive officer, of ICBC reports to the board of directors.

I will say further, in answer to the member's question, that matters of personnel are matters that have to be dealt with appropriately within the law and with due respect to all of the legislation and common law around that, including issues of personal privacy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

INVESTIGATION INTO ICBC

VEHICLE SALES

H. Bains: According to ICBC spokesperson Doug McClelland, there was an internal investigation last year following a complaint about disposal of cars from this repair centre.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House why nothing was done six months ago when the senior management at ICBC first learned of this complaint? Can he assure this House that the Pricewaterhouse investigation has powers to find out why ICBC failed to rectify that problem when it was brought to their attention more than six months ago?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question. As I said, I am continuing to do my due diligence on this issue. Further to that, that is why I've asked for a meeting with the board of directors and will be discussing with them a range of issues that I have reviewed. I will include all of the issues that I think are relevant in that meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know, the public is looking for more than just a friendly phone call to a chair of that organization. They are asking this minister…. They're looking up to this minister to do some proactive duties that he ought to do, so that he could ensure that the confidence and trust of the public, which has been broken through this scandal, is restored. It's your job. You haven't been doing it so far.

My question is this. How can he assure the public that Pricewaterhouse has the powers that they need to get to the bottom of this scandal if we don't know what they have been asked to investigate? Will the Solicitor General release the terms of reference so the public can be assured that they have the power needed and a scope wide enough that we can get to the bottom of this scandal?

[1415]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member, the public and the members of this House that all of my actions will be predicated on doing what I believe I need to do to restore public confidence in ICBC.

Secondly, I want to confirm for the member that I have read the terms of reference, and those issues that are within the terms of reference will form part of my discussion with the board of directors.

Further to that, I want to confirm that my expectation of PricewaterhouseCoopers as an independent, reputable, external auditing firm includes that their investigation and report includes all of the matters that they consider relevant to this issue.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

REGULATIONS

L. Krog: We are learning more each day about the business activities of the former Solicitor General and his friends. It is alleged they were skirting the ALR rules. It is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for the policies of the ALR. So to the minister, very simply: what is he actually doing to protect the ALR lands from being subdivided into two-acre estates?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, as critic, knows that this is a matter that is being investigated. He knows full well what the advice from the criminal justice branch has been about the appropriateness of commenting during that period.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister wasn't listening to the question — not an unusual occurrence in this House.

This is about people skirting the rules. You don't even have to get this land excluded from the ALR. The minister has the public trust for a cherished B.C. institution. So what steps is he taking to stop the avoidance of the ALR rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll again refer the member to the statement from the criminal justice branch dated March 28, 2008, and quote the final paragraph…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …referring to the subject matter of the release: "As this matter is currently with the

[ Page 10890 ]

special prosecutor, it would not be appropriate to comment any further at this time."

WILD SALMON FISHERY

S. Fraser: According to the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, not only is this government not going to implement the Aquaculture Committee's recommendations, but suggested that B.C. would be better off ending the commercial wild fishery. Instead of protecting wild salmon from fish farms, the member said that people who want to save wild salmon should "stop hunting them commercially as food."

My question is a simple one to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it his government's policy or plan to bring an end to the commercial fishery in favour of fish farms?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite should full well know that fisheries licensing issues as they relate to wild salmon are the responsibility of the federal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I'm going to try one, hon. Speaker. That's like a "before the courts" kind of answer.

[1420]

We've got a bunch of contradictions here. The minister has a responsibility in this province also to protect wild salmon. There's a contradiction here that's following contradiction. The minister, just a few weeks ago, said no fallowing in the Broughton to protect the salmon. Instead, use neurotoxins, which I'm sure will please our guests here today. Now we have the vice-Chair of the Sustainable Aquaculture Committee stating that fish farms should be given priority over wild fisheries.

Again, to the minister: will he denounce those statements from the vice-Chair of the Sustainable Aquaculture Committee, or is his government indeed planning on a closure of the commercial fisheries in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: The member's first question was whether or not we were going to close the commercial fishery, which is clearly the responsibility of the federal government.

Let me talk about the aquaculture plan that we are in the process of developing with the First Nations Leadership Council. Everything is on the table of this aquaculture plan. We are working closely with the first nations community. There is a good relationship developing. We think there is a future for a comprehensive plan that is done in a collaborative way with first nations.

I might add that members on that side of the House are only interested in one thing. It's their way or the highway. This government is going to work with first nations to have a plan that makes sense for all British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

NON-ESSENTIAL PESTICIDE USE

G. Robertson: I'll leave the fishy business aside and get straight to the issue of cancer. Today the Canadian Cancer Society released polling that shows that three-quarters of people in B.C. support this government passing legislation to restrict the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides. Some 6,000 Canadians will be acutely poisoned by pesticides this year, half of them under the age of six. The impacts of chronic exposure are even more tragic.

Over 130 municipalities across this country have responded and passed bylaws banning non-essential pesticide use. In B.C. we have no meaningful provincial legislation to protect children from toxins like deadly pesticides.

Will the Minister of Health stand up for the health of our children and support a ban on the cosmetic uses of pesticides provincewide?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Penner: Twice in one session.

Yesterday Ministry of Environment staff had a chance to meet with representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society, and I also had a chance to drop in on that meeting. We had a good discussion, and it wasn't our first one. Ministry staff have been working on this issue for quite some time.

The member needs to know that pesticides that are used in British Columbia can only be used if they've first been approved and registered by Health Canada, who have experts on staff that analyze these things. We have requested that Health Canada review….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps I, more than most people, think that cancer is a serious issue, so I hope that members will refrain from heckling.

We have requested that Health Canada review whether the use of herbicide fertilizer lawn products should be discontinued. In addition, in 2005 we enacted the new Integrated Pest Management Act, along with regulations that encourage the use of alternatives

[ Page 10891 ]

to pesticides. For the first time it also requires notification and consent from individuals before pesticides can be used around their property. In addition, it also requires notification to schools before those substances can be used.

We've done a lot of things that the NDP didn't think about doing during their ten years in government. My staff are continuing to work with Health Canada to look for even more protections for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

LABELLING

FOR PRODUCTS

CONTAINING TOXIC SUBSTANCES

G. Robertson: The Canadian Cancer Society's poll also showed that an astounding 97 percent of British Columbians would support legislation that requires labelling of all products that contain carcinogens. These right-to-know laws are now common in Europe and being worked on and developed in Ontario and Quebec.

The Premier said this morning at breakfast that fighting cancer is not a partisan issue. In that same spirit, I introduced comprehensive legislation last fall to regulate toxins and mandate clear labelling in British Columbia. Citizens want action.

Will the Minister of Health agree to support legislation that regulates toxins and right-to-know labelling this month?

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, the Ministry of Environment staff have been working with the Canadian Cancer Society and with their counterparts across Canada on a whole range of issues dealing with pesticides and also toxics. Here in British Columbia the ministry has already put in place a number of regulations to curtail the hazards that are faced by individuals when it comes to toxics, such as the hazardous waste regulation, the contaminated sites regulation, the organic material recycling regulation and various codes of practice that our government has implemented under the Environmental Management Act.

I accept that there's always more that we can consider doing, because we always are looking for the best available science. Ministry staff have been directed by me to gather up that science from across Canada — I understand that there have been some initiatives undertaken in Quebec recently — and those things are being considered.

PROPOSED POWER PROJECT

FOR CASCADE FALLS

K. Conroy: For over 15 years the community of Christina Lake has said no to the development of Cascade Falls. Thousands of citizens from the region have said no. The local municipalities have said no. The regional districts have said no. The chambers of commerce have said no. What did this Minister of Environment do? He ignored all those voices from that region.

To the minister. We'd like to know: what does it take nowadays to get a private power project cancelled? Does it have to be close to the Lower Mainland, not near rural British Columbia? Does it have to be near the mainstream media? Or perhaps it's a thousand people close to the minister's own constituency a year away from an election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: The member should know that that project went through a fulsome environmental assessment review. In fact, it went on for more than a decade. I think it was the longest….

K. Conroy: Fifteen years.

Hon. B. Penner: Fifteen years, the member says. It could be that long.

It was a very extensive environmental review. In fact, at the end of the day, I received a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology saying that they don't have concerns for the fisheries. In fact, they think that project could result in a benefit, and it met all of our standards.

Here's what's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker. The current incarnation….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Do you want to finish, Minister?

Hon. B. Penner: It didn't just pass approval from Canadian and British Columbian regulatory authorities like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and through the Canadian environmental assessment process and those federal agencies, but it also had support from our colleagues south of the border.

What's absolutely shocking is how, when British Columbia has become a net importer of electricity because of their inaction during the 1990s, they would rather us continue to import power from coal-fired plants in Washington…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: …and in Alberta and in Montana, supporting American and Albertan IPPs instead of Canadian ones.

[ Page 10892 ]

Now, here's what's different. I'll conclude very quickly. Who said this?

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: We'll see if they'll be as enthusiastic when they hear this. "On the issue of markets…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Do you want to finish, Minister?

[1430]

Hon. B. Penner: I'll quote. "On the issue of the markets, we're moving to a more open market. The generation is now becoming a competitive generating market. In terms of the business plans, it's not the government that's building the plant; it's an independent power producer. In fact, on the RFP there were 47 different projects that came in to be able to construct an IPP, and it was on a competitive basis."

So that's what's taking place. That's the Opposition House Leader that said that in 1998. The NDP's Opposition House Leader said that.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, watching question period has been a group of grade

6, 7 and 8s from Linnaea School on Cortes Island. The older students were warning the younger students that they might not believe the behaviour, and I think we've lived up to that. The students are on tour in this place. They come down annually.

Today the grade 6, 7 and 8s students are here with Donna Bracewell and Sabina Leader-Mense, and I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. T. Christensen: I am very pleased to table a document intituled the capital project plan for the integrated case management project.

Petitions

N. Simons: I am pleased to present a petition from over 675 residents of the Powell River area asking for a moratorium on ferry fare increases.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, and in

Section A, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

B. Lekstrom: Just before the break at lunch I began speaking in my support of Bill 15, and that is the Utilities Commission Amendment Act.

I had heard a great deal of response at second reading from the opposition, and as I indicated earlier, I was a little bit surprised at some of what I heard. I thought, as I indicated before lunch, that they were speaking about a different bill. I heard things ranging from hospitals and schools and roads, so I was a little surprised. As I said earlier, I went back and rechecked to make sure that Bill 15 really was the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, and it was.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

This bill is about a lot of things, and it's about something that is good for British Columbia. I want to reiterate what I began. It's about the government's energy objectives. I heard a lot of people, and I'm having to believe that the opposition is opposing this bill, but we'll see during the vote. Our energy objectives…. This bill lays out what we want.

I'll just point out a couple of those: to encourage public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — a pretty good objective; to encourage public utilities to take demand-side measures — another very good move; to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources. Those are just a few of the actions of this bill. So to hear that people believe the end of the world is about to happen if this bill passes surprises me. It surprises me in a way…. Possibly they didn't read the bill. I'm not sure. Maybe they read a different bill and have misinterpreted it to be Bill 15.

I also heard many of them talk about the great legacy of W.A.C. Bennett, and I support that legacy. Much of it is in my area. The W.A.C. Bennett dam is, I believe, one of the great hydroelectric projects that this province has ever seen, and the Peace Canyon dam that followed.

[1435]

But I have to believe, in hearing the support that I heard for W.A.C. Bennett from the opposition…. Yes, people have to believe me. That's what was said. They supported what W.A.C. Bennett did, the legacy he had with B.C. Hydro and his vision, and I support that. I have to believe that they support the development of

[ Page 10893 ]

Site C, and I want to thank the opposition for that. That is certainly something that is under discussion at the present time. There is a great deal of interest, and it's going to carry on for some time.

The member for Yale-Lillooet surprised me. He's a person that I would call a friend. He obviously sees politics a little differently than me, but he jumped up and was railing on — I believe there was the word "cowardly"; possibly I misunderstood him — about what we were doing to sell out British Columbians with this bill.

This is a gentleman that wouldn't show up for a vote, and I was a little surprised. So friend or not, I think you've got to be careful who you speak to and how you speak when you don't have the conviction to stand up for what's right in this chamber.

There's also, under

section 58 of the bill…. I know we'll get into it at committee stage.

Section 58 actually deals with the rate rebalancing.

Section 58 is actually going to save British Columbians from an 11 percent rate hike. That's what the opposition is opposing, and for the life of me, I'm not sure why. I look forward to hearing at committee stage under

section 58 why they would oppose that. An 11 percent increase is what you're saying that you want British Columbians to have. So I do look forward to that and am going to, I guess with great interest, hear what they have to say.

Also, the talk about power. I think it's accepted that we need to produce more power. I also am somewhat surprised that there seems to be opposition to self-sufficiency. I think there is a need to be self-sufficient in British Columbia. I understand when you talk about buying and being able to buy power on the open market. We do it now, and we do it very effectively to the benefit of British Columbians.

But ask yourself this question, whether you're a British Columbian watching today, whether you're a member of the opposition or a member of our government. The question I ask myself is: what takes place when that power isn't available on the open market? Do we turn our lights out here in British Columbia because we didn't plan and look to the future in order to be self-sufficient? I would hope we never, ever put ourselves in that situation.

The ability to become self-sufficient in power production and meet our own needs is fundamental to the well-being of every British Columbian. I look forward to meeting that. It's actually a sad day for British Columbia to realize that we aren't self-sufficient in the production of our own power needs here.

Now I do know — and I know that it's obviously for political reasons, I have to believe — that people are jumping up and rallying against Bill 15. That's what we do here. I do want to point out that the last major development of a power production facility, by the New Democrats in the mid-1990s, was Pakistan. Pakistan. I have to ask myself why. I don't think it got off the ground, but I can tell you there were tens of millions of dollars — millions of taxpayers' dollars, and British Columbians that funded that. So I have to actually kind of wonder what's going away.

Giving away ownership of the rivers. I've heard that from virtually every speaker on the opposition side. Giving away ownership of our rivers. That's nonsense. It's misleading the public. It's actually not telling the truth. There's no selling of rivers here. I'm sure you're aware of water licences.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are very careful in our language around truthfulness and issues like that, so be careful.

B. Lekstrom: Okay, but I do believe it isn't truthful to say we're selling the rivers, Madam Speaker, and that's factual.

Deputy Speaker: Well, Member, you can't say it.

B. Lekstrom: We're not selling rivers, Madam Speaker. There are water licences. That's what they're called.

I'll carry on. The issue of ownership of these rivers is always in the hands of the public — always. What we have is…. Again, I look forward to the debate at committee stage. I have to believe that the opposition opposes any water licence in this province. God help our agricultural community if that's the case that the opposition stands on. God help them.

The issue of Bill 15…. I'm not going to take a great deal of time, because I do look forward to committee stage on this. I do hope to hear some of the reasons that will back up second reading debate here.

[1440]

This is a good bill. It isn't about IPPs. It's about the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. I do want to lay that out. It lays it out, and I encourage British Columbians — the people listening today and the ones that may see a rerun of this — that you don't have to take my word. You don't have to take the word of the opposition. I encourage you to pick up the bill. Read the bill and make up your mind for yourself. If you have questions, contact your MLA. Contact people in the know. But I encourage you. Read the bill. That's what it's all about.

So to sum up, and I'll close… There is no selling of any rivers in British Columbia as you heard. There are water licenses that will go on, and hopefully the opposition would support water licenses. Self-sufficiency is something I would hope we would all strive for, every one of us, because the day will be there when the open market doesn't have power for us to buy, and if that happens, I have to believe that everyone in this room wants to ensure that the people that call themselves British Columbians and live here have power to meet their needs.

The rate rebalancing under

section 58, I hope that…. Again, I'll have to wait until I see the vote, but if the opposition votes against this, they're saying they want to increase the residential rates in this province by 11 percent. That's not working on behalf of British Columbians.

I'll close by saying that I wholeheartedly support Bill 15. I support the ability for our province to once again be self-sufficient in power. I support the impact

[ Page 10894 ]

that this bill will have. I certainly support encouraging public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable resources. I encourage what this bill does, and I encourage all members of this House to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you're closing debate.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will close debate on second reading of the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008. I was going to do a relatively short closing. When we first talked about this bill in the House, there were going to be four speakers, and we were going to actually look at it objectively.

After listening all yesterday afternoon and this morning to things that my colleague from Peace River South just talked about that…. Members of the opposition talk about: "This is selling B.C. Hydro. It's selling rivers. It's privatizing B.C. Hydro. It's privatizing BCTC." None of those names or any of that is in this bill.

I've been here long enough to know that we can get pretty wide-ranging, and I accept that. That's part of the debate in this House, but I think it's also…. I think, as members of the Legislature, we can do that wide-ranging debate, but I would hope that in most cases people would read the legislation, understand it to the degree that they can and speak to those points, and be wide-ranging about what they think about their policies.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You know, the NDP could maybe lay out for us what they think an energy policy should be. I've been here since 1991. I've never heard of an energy policy from the NDP, but yesterday afternoon and this morning I listened to a wide-ranging debate of almost everything that you can imagine, to even logs — dealing with, I don't know, timber. I don't see anything in the bill, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, that deals with logs. Nothing. I don't see anything in the legislation that deals with selling anything.

The Utilities Commission Act is there to actually regulate utilities. I know my critic, the member opposite, understands that. He's been around this House for a long time, working for the NDP prior to us becoming government. So I know he understands that.

To stand here in the House and talk about things that I heard from some of the members about what this bill is about — and trying to actually, I think, instil some fear in people about what the Utilities Commission Act is all about — is probably a bit unfair.

[1445]

I agree with wide-ranging debate. The member for Yale-Lillooet…. It's always interesting when the member for Yale-Lillooet gets up and speaks, because he is a little bit shy on some of the knowledge, obviously, about this bill, but he never passes up the opportunity to actually attack me.

It's always interesting. I'm used to it. I've got pretty thick skin by now. I've been here for quite a while. I've been here since 1991. Those personal attacks on me aren't required in this room. I'm as proud today to be an MLA, a B.C. Liberal MLA, as I was proud to be a Socred MLA in the early 1990s.

When the member for Yale-Lillooet says that I don't stand up for people, I want to tell you: I do have the gonads to stand up and vote. I have stood up in this House. I have never backed down from an issue, ever. I have seen that member run, tail between his legs, back to Yale-Lillooet when we actually brought a pension bill in here that he didn't have the courage to stand up and vote about.

I stood here in the mid-1990s when that kind of thing was cancelled. I stood and voted. I stood and voted on things that were difficult for me to vote for or against. I can tell you that sometimes I voted with the NDP because they did have some good ideas once in a while, and I actually voted with them.

But to constantly listen to that barrage is just a little bit too much. I don't need that. The people don't need that. It's got nothing to do with the bill.

Talk about doing things? There was hardly a dollar spent on roads in northeastern British Columbia until this guy came to the room. We hardly had any money spent in northeastern British Columbia on roads. We had hardly anything spent on generation in the province. We had nothing spent on hospitals or seniors. That member should know.

Today we're going to build a brand new hospital in Fort St. John. We're building for seniors in Fort St. John, and we're doing that because the province is doing well. This government is looking after the store to make sure, with this B.C. Utilities Commission Act, that we move forward, that we have enough electricity in the province to meet our needs. I'm not shy to say that.

I have heard speaker after speaker stand and say that this is not in the public interest. Let me read a little bit of the bill. All this does is amend the act to put in sections of the energy plan so that the B.C. Utilities Commission actually knows what they have to look at.

So let me read it. It's "to encourage public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Is that not in the public interest? I guess it's only this side of the House that thinks that's in the public interest. That side of the House…. I can only assume — when they're going to vote against it; they all spoke against it; no one spoke in favour of it — that they don't believe that it's in the public interest to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It's "to encourage public utilities to make demand-side measures." That's to curb use. I heard everybody on that side of the House and the opposition speak against it. I think that's in the public interest. I think that we ought to be able to look at how we use our electricity and how carefully we should use our electricity and our natural gas, and our public utilities ought to be able to do that.

It also says: "…to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources." That's not in the public interest? I guess in the NDP mantra, in the socialist world, it's not.

[ Page 10895 ]

In my world it is. In the government's world, it is important that we do those things.

Next, it's "to encourage public utilities to develop adequate electricity transmission infrastructure and capacity in the time required to serve persons who receive or may receive service from a public utility." My goodness, how can that not be in the public interest?

[1450]

I guess that only the opposition would think that's not in the public interest. I can't imagine that…. Shouldn't we plan? I know they ran pillar to post during the 1990s. I know they weren't sure where to build or not to build. I know they went to Pakistan thinking they were building, I guess, for people in British Columbia — because they built a plant in Pakistan. I don't know. But to me it's important. Planning is important. I think the public tells us that we better plan.

We look at our budgets three years out. The Minister of Finance has that all figured out for us — how we're going to actually meet and stay within our budget limits. I think that's important. I guess the NDP doesn't think it's important.

Hey, to encourage public utilities to use innovative energy technology that facilitates electricity self-sufficiency or the fulfilment of their long-term transmission requirements or that supports energy conservation or efficiency or the use of clean or renewable sources of energy….

I think there was one member who talked about conservation on that side of the House. No one over on that side of the House thinks we should have any conservation.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I heard the critic actually say that's not true. Well, let me take him back to the 1990s when they cancelled out the Power Smart program in B.C. Hydro.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They did. They cancelled it. You were there.

I know. I have the numbers. The smart ones from the NDP actually cancelled the Power Smart program within B.C. Hydro because they don't care about conservation. None of them spoke about conservation.

I think it's important for British Columbians to conserve energy and to encourage public utilities to take prescribed actions in support of any other goals prescribed by regulation. That's what the bill is about. It's not about selling B.C. Hydro.

As I recall…. I've been in this House long enough to know that it was the NDP that actually had a discussion at one of their party meetings that we got notes from that talked about selling B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, ICBC — all of them. If there was anybody in this House that was going to sell B.C. Hydro, it was the members opposite.

I remember clearly that there was a piece of legislation here in this House that would have allowed it — while the NDP were here, during the 1990s. I took a stand. This government took a stand. We brought that bill to the House and said: "You can't sell B.C. Hydro. You cannot sell BCTC. In fact, they will remain in the public realm." We put a bill in place that actually said that. The NDP had a bill where they could have moved it out without even coming to the House, and they darn near did. If anybody was looking at selling B.C. Hydro, it was the NDP, so it's interesting to listen to the members opposite talk about this bill.

Let's look at rate rebalancing. I know the member for Peace River South actually left….

I hope that after reading those first ones and talking about the public interest, we'll actually have the NDP get up and say: "You know what? It's not that bad a bill. It actually makes sense. It is in the public interest, and I better vote for it." I hope that takes place. I hope there's a moment…. Maybe they forget their socialist roots and come forward and say: "You know what? We think this bill is actually a good bill."

If they vote against it, they're actually voting for an increase to residential rates of 11 percent. That's what they're doing. They all talked about rates here a bit, but that's what they're doing. They'd be voting for a rate increase. Not only that. For irrigation for farmers…. Listening to the NDP talk about how they're the defenders of the farm community — my goodness — and they're great stewards of the land and everything…. There would have been a 20 percent increase to those farmers that irrigate their land if we had not stopped that rate rebalancing.

[1455]

The whole works of you across the way all say you're going to vote against the bill. So you're in favour of increasing to farmers 20 percent. You're in favour of increasing to the residential 11 percent. You don't care. You never cared before. I don't imagine why you should start caring now.

It was interesting. I also heard a little bit of stuff about smart meters. In fact, the critic across the way called them a gimmick. What a term. Then, of course, his colleagues who hadn't read the bill were actually reading from the Blues — I saw that this morning — so that they could make their speech. I appreciate that, so they could actually reiterate what somebody else said that they think was classic. Great thinkers really think on their feet and really get at her and understand what an amendment to the Utilities Commission Act is.

Smart meters. You know, almost every jurisdiction in the world is actually putting them in now, has had them for a while. We're actually a bit behind. I guess the members want to go back to the 17th and 18th centuries. I don't know. The Stone Age, the Dark Age. I'm not sure. You know, there's new technology out there. There's new technology. You should embrace some of that.

Actually, some of that technology is here in British Columbia. Why aren't you proud about the technology that's developed in British Columbia — the people that have jobs doing those kinds of things? Why don't you actually say: "Wow. We could lead the world"? Under this government, we could. Under your government,

[ Page 10896 ]

we'd go back to the 17th century, I guess, because they think they're a gimmick.

But whether you're in Europe, where the price of electricity is sometimes five times as high as it is here, they're actually using smart meters.

The member for Surrey-Whalley, who is sitting in the back corner over there, says: "That's where we want to take British Columbia." That's entirely incorrect. His whole speech was entirely incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, don't refer to people — whether they're in or out of the House please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Oh, I'm sorry.

I think members have to be in their seat to heckle too. Right, Mr. Speaker? Would that be correct?

We'll get back to smart meters. Jurisdictions from all over the world are doing this. In Europe smart meters actually….

I understand that the NDP has trouble keeping up to this, but Hydro has been doing a program of smart meters for a couple of years. They've been testing them across the province, even on Vancouver Island. The critic ought to know that. They're doing it on Vancouver Island. In fact, I think Campbell River won last year. I don't know…. That's a little bit further north from where the member lives. But he ought to know. In the process, Campbell River, I think, won. Fort St. John actually came in a very close second in conserving energy on peak, and that's what we're trying to do.

So when you look at smart meters, what people can do in their homes is actually see how much electricity they're drawing and when they're drawing it. If you can move electricity from on peak to off peak, you don't have to build so much generation.

Right now we have to build ten to 15 percent over and above peak. If we can move some of that off peak, that means we have to use less electricity. That's what a smart meter is all about. That's showing people to use electricity a little bit wiser, to think about it in a different way, not the old way that the NDP have — that we just have oodles and tons of electricity; just use whatever you want, wherever you want, how much you want and just carry on. That was the old way. That was the 17th-century way.

Get into the new world, folks. There is a new world out there. There's a different way of doing things, and you can actually manage your electricity demand a lot better.

My home is on that system, on peak and off peak. You pay more for electricity on peak than off peak. Let me tell you, it sends a message to you. Turn the lights off when you leave the room. Unplug what you're not using. Do those kinds of things.

[1500]

It's always good to hear the member opposite, my critic, talk about wanting to go back to the dark ages. But there is a new age, and there's a new way of doing things. I know that the NDP are not keen about doing anything in the new way. They'd rather stay with the old way.

Let's talk a little bit, because this is part of the bill too, about sustainability. The interesting

part is that I had heard from all the members across the way — I guess it was because it was started from the critic — that we shouldn't be self-sufficient. That's exactly what he said. In fact, you know, he said it's lunacy. This is his word; it's not mine. The critic said it's lunacy to be self-sufficient. Can you imagine anything more loony than not being self-sufficient?

The public understands that we should be self-sufficient. The public understands it. Fred and Martha, who haven't even had a chance to read this bill, understand it. But for the NDP with their old socialist ways, it's: "We don't want any new technology. We don't want to curb greenhouse gases. We don't want to look at conservation. We just want to continue to pollute and run all over the land." That's the good old Karl Marx way. They're right on tap; they're working. It's called the flat earth society.

It's amazing that someone in this House should stand up and say we shouldn't have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to keep these lights on — our lights in our house and all the things that we depend on with electricity. That is lunacy. I can't imagine how someone can think we shouldn't have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to actually meet our needs. Why in the world wouldn't we do that?

They also waxed on about W.A.C. Bennett and building the dams and how great that was, and it is. We have a system that is second to none in North America, a system that we're proud of. I just wish the opposition would start being proud of it. I wish they'd start thinking about how good a system this is and how we should maintain it and how we have to build more generation in the province of British Columbia to meet the needs of British Columbians well into the future.

I just wish that little pearl would come out and that people over on that side of the House would actually say: "You know what? I think we should have enough electricity in British Columbia to keep our lights on." So what we do to actually do that is build generation in the province of British Columbia. I don't know. They're even against that. You don't even want to build generation in British Columbia.

You know, it's just amazing. What you say is: "Well, we're hooked into a North American grid, and we're on a market system." No, we're not on a market system, but we buy and sell into a market system. We're on a cost-base system, and that's good enough. We should continue to buy from Alberta. We should continue to buy from south of the border, the United States. As our needs continue to grow and we get shorter and shorter and shorter of electricity, we should be okay with that because — you know what? — someone else is going to build it for me. That's their thought process.

There they are saying how terrible private power developers are. Every one of them stood up and trashed every private sector thing that's happened in the province of British Columbia through their talk. I know they hate the private sector. I know they don't want business. I know what happened in British

[ Page 10897 ]

Columbia in the '90s. I watched as companies that started their business in northeastern British Columbia actually left B.C. and went to Alberta.

[1505]

And you know what? We'll get that back, if you ever elect this group across the way again. It will happen again. They'll leave quicker than you can imagine. The wealth and the jobs and all of those kinds of things that we enjoy in the province of British Columbia — record spending on health and education and social services — will be once again gone. They'll be once again gone.

I just can't for the life of me understand how you would not want to actually have the generation in B.C., the jobs, the investment. The people across the province of British Columbia — actually, they're proud of it. The people in British Columbia are proud of our generation capability. They're proud of B.C. Hydro.

What we find from the NDP is that they're against it. So if you want to be dependent on the United States, you guys go ahead. Nothing wrong with the United States, but you can be dependent on them. Be dependent on them for whatever you want.

But I'll tell you, Fred and Martha actually want us to have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to keep their lights on. This government, on this side of the House, will make darn sure that takes place.

Where I come from, 33 percent of electricity is generated in the province of British Columbia — B.C. Hydro, I should say. When all those large dams were built, we couldn't consume all that energy. We had a huge excess of electricity. We sold it to the Americans in long term. It was a great deal, and I know the members actually supported that. They said: "That's great."

But what really confuses me is that back then, when we had a huge excess of electricity, the NDP supported it. But today we're short of electricity. We're actually net importers of electricity. They say: "We're okay with that. We shouldn't build anymore in the province of British Columbia."

Well, they talked about selling electricity as apples. "If you can sell lots of apples," I think one of the member says, "what's the matter with doing that?" I say the same thing. What in the world is the matter with doing that? Why don't we build some more generation in the province of British Columbia so that we can sell it?

You know, in the 1990s the NDP built only about 11 percent of generation in the province. They actually built one in Pakistan, but in the province of British Columbia, for British Columbians, they only built 11 percent of what we needed for growth. Is it any wonder that today we're short?

These numbers come from and are verified by the B.C. Utilities Commission. These numbers are verified by B.C. Hydro. They put them forward, not me. They do it through an integrated electricity plan.

The B.C. Utilities Commission reviews that to make sure those things are right, and they are right. But in 2001 we were short 1,993 gigawatt hours of electricity. Multiplying that by a hundred tells you how many average houses you can actually light up. In 2002 we were short 5,238 gigawatt hours. In 2003 we were short 1,754 gigawatt hours. In 2004 we were short 5,118 gigawatt hours. In '05 we were short 7,381 gigawatt hours. In 2006, 4,352 gigawatt hours — and they're okay with that.

So 4,352 — let me put this in context a bit for the NDP, but also for Fred and Martha.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, you wouldn't know anything about Fred and Martha. They're the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. You never did care about them.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm a Fred.

So let me put this in context. A Site C — one day they're for it; one day they're against it. You never know. The leader says one thing, someone else says another, and someone else says another. But a Site C would produce 4,600 gigawatt hours.

We need 30,000 gigawatt hours in the next 25 years to meet load demand. And you know what? Today we consume 55,000 gigawatt hours, and the NDP say, "Don't worry about it. Don't build anything. We'll be okay. We'll just depend on the market south of us, and we'll depend on the market in Alberta" — until Alberta started talking about building a nuclear plant. Then the Leader of the Opposition wrote me a letter and said: "You better oppose that."

[1510]

You know, everyone around us is building new generation because they're consuming more. The population is growing — surprise, surprise folks. We should actually have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to meet our own needs.

I mean, it got crazy enough that we had members starting to talk about deals with Enron and with Alcan. You know that the only group in this House that sold to Enron was the NDP, when they were in power. That was the only group that sold to Enron in this House. They're up there talking about how terrible it is.

You know what? They were great at selling electricity; they sold lots of it. They just couldn't collect for it. You know, we're still owed $300 million U.S. for electricity that was sold in the 1990s by that group of financial wizards across the way. The whole works of them are so smart. They can sell it, but they can't collect. The whole works of them are that bad.

W.A.C. Bennett said they….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: W.A.C. Bennett said they couldn't run a popcorn stand, and nothing could be more truthful.

I want to read what my critic said about self-sufficiency, the notion that self-sufficiency is a priority. This is a quote from my critic, on the fifth of October of '07. "My parents grew up in the Depression. My mom

[ Page 10898 ]

taught me to take care of myself. Make sure you've got enough stuff in the larder, and that sort of thing."

I think in his heart he knows that. I think he's been taught that, and I think he'll stand up and vote for this because he knows it's the right thing to do to be self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia.

The list goes on and on. I mean, we have….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, your time is up.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I just have so much to say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Could you put the question on second reading.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move second reading.

[1515]

Second reading of Bill 15 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Falcon

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Bell

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 23

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Kwan

Ralston

Hammell

Coons

Simons

Puchmayr

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Wyse

Sather

Conroy

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting after today.

[1520]

Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Christensen: I call committee stage on Bill 11, the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:23 p.m.

section 1.

J. Brar: This bill talks about a lot of housekeeping items, but for your reference, Madam Chair, I do have questions on sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 12 and 14. My colleagues may have questions on other sections as well. Just for the information of the Chair, I have questions on those sections.

The first one I would like to ask the minister to clarify, if the minister can provide a clarification on

section 1, is about the assessment roll number — what it means and if there's any example that the minister can provide.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm advised that it is a number on the roll that will identify and designate the properties that will fall under this area.

J. Brar: I understand that piece, because that's written in the piece of proposed legislation.

[1525]

Can the minister provide any example of a particular roll number so that a common person can understand what it means?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be an identifier that will be used to identify a particular individual piece of property that will have been identified as a result of regulations that this type of property will fall under.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister once again. Does that mean that every property in the province will have an assessment roll number?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Brar:

Section 2 actually adds four different

definitions in this section, which include accommodation unit, eligible supportive housing property, leasehold accommodation property and leasehold unit. My first

[ Page 10899 ]

question to the minister is: can the minister tell us what is the purpose of adding these

definitions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's so that we can identify, by definition, which pertains to each piece of property.

J. Brar: Can the minister explain what difference it is going to make, as compared to the current situation we are in, and when these

definitions will be implemented?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The first definition, the eligible supportive housing property, will be identified and defined by order-in-council. That will flow through my ministry as we are responsible for B.C. Assessment. We will receive the definition of eligible supportive housing from the Ministry Responsible for Housing, and then because we administer working with B.C. Assessment — we have the ministerial responsibilities — that will flow through on an order-in-council.

With respect to the leasehold, the next three items.… They are

definitions that are used for split-class-property identification. Split-class-property identification is split based on usage, very similar to what we've done with strata properties when we made amendments to the Assessment Act. I believe it was last spring.

[1530]

J. Brar: To make my question probably more clear, this act proposed to amend and add four new

definitions. Can the minister clarify as to what

definitions we have today and how these new

definitions are going to make a difference?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, all four

definitions are new. The supportive housing definition is new because our government, through our throne speech, had identified the need and our position for supportive housing. Therefore, it is new.

The other three are new because they relate to properties very similar to strata properties that were defined in the amendments to the Assessment Act last year — strata properties and, quite frankly, the leased properties. The leased properties were overlooked. They were overlooked when we made the changes. If they hadn't been overlooked last spring, they would have been in the

definitions and legislation of last spring.

As we worked through the implementation, we were advised, I believe, both by B.C. Assessment and by the ministry that there had been an oversight, so this oversight we are correcting with these three definition amendments that follow after this supportive housing property item.

J. Brar: The minister is proposing now these new

definitions. I understand the intent is that these

definitions are going to specifically create new categories and also clarify as per the properties concerned. But today or in the past there were units we can call accommodation units. There were leasehold units as well. So in what category did they fall before this? That's my question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: With respect to the leaseholds, they, like the other strata properties or a large percentage of the strata properties, fell into class 6. Class 6 is business. When we made the amendments last year to strata property, it was based on making a shift based on usage. Some of it could stay in class 6. Some of it could go to class 1. That's what we did in the spring with the amendments last year.

What these

definitions now do with respect to leaseholds is provide the exact same treatment as the strata properties — the short-term overnight stays. They will now be split between business and residential based on use, because quite frankly, it was overlooked when we did the amendments last spring.

[1535]

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for clarification.

When we talk about the accommodation units, two particular categories come to my mind: hotels and motels. Can the minister provide some sort of list of what other properties will fall under the accommodation units?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These are what we call — which I have learned they are called — short-term overnight accommodations, or in the industry, STOCAPs. Of course, there are always going to be exceptions, but for the most part, they find themselves in resort-type settings and have been a very important part of facilitating accommodation both for residents and for the tourism sector.

What we did in the spring last year and what this also accommodates with respect to the leaseholds…. If an individual has one of these properties, and they use it for a certain number of days, that information is then filtered through to B.C. Assessment, and when it's used for personal use, it will be deemed residential, which is class 1. When it is actually used for business purposes, tourism-attraction purposes, it's a commercial activity, and then it would be deemed to be in class 6 and be taxed accordingly.

J. Brar: The eligible supportive housing property, as the proposed act defines, means somewhere where a person who receives housing funding from the government lives. I understand that piece.

My question is: will that designation be automatic, or will it be through a particular regulation from the cabinet or what authority?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be a specific regulation. That regulation will flow from our ministry through to order-in-council, but it will be based on the information we receive from the Minister/Ministry Responsible for Housing.

They will bring forward from time to time what will be identified as supportive housing. Of course, that will evolve over time as the supportive housing approach is developed and expanded throughout British Columbia to serve the needs that members on our side of the House, members on the other side of the House and municipal leadership have identified as

[ Page 10900 ]

a result of homelessness, those with addictions and those, perhaps, with physical disabilities and/or mental health concerns.

J. Brar: I'm a little confused with the response, and I would certainly request a clarification from the minister. As I understand from the explanation by the minister, it seems like this will be a process just within different ministries, identifying particularly the Ministry Responsible for Housing and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

[1540]

My question is: is there any other additional process — any individual or any organization which received funding has to go through a process — whether it's a licensing process or requesting that property, based on this act, as designating supportive housing property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for us to know that — I will quote the throne speech of 2007: "A new assessment class and new tax exemptions for small-unit, supportive housing will be developed over the next year for this Legislature's consideration."

That supportive housing will not come through an application process, but it will become…. The recommendations and the policy responsibility will fall within the housing and policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.

They will, through their policy, recognize supportive housing such as properties that are funded by one of several provincial housing program; have conditions for residency that may include or could include low income, mental or physical disabilities, drug or alcohol addiction and provide on-site supportive service; have self-contained housing units. At this point in time I think it's envisaged as, generally, no more than 450 square feet of floor space.

That is generally where we are. That is what we believe will fulfil our commitment to British Columbians, as outlined in the throne speech of 2007.

J. Brar: My understanding, based on the response from the hon. minister, is that this is a process. When we talk about eligible supportive housing property, this is a process taking place within different ministries. In other words, that no individual or any organization is not part of that process when the government is going to define the eligible supportive housing property. That's my understanding from the response.

This act suggests that the eligible supportive housing property will be a property where someone has received funding from the government. So my question is: wherever somebody has received funding, will that be automatically going through the ministry process and getting the designation, or is there any discretionary power with the ministry to say no? If that's the answer, what will that be?

[1545]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important to recognize that the criterion I outlined a little earlier is that the housing policy branch from the Ministry of Forests and Range responsible for housing recognizes supportive housing, and I've talked about that.

Right now, of course, we're trying to pass the legislation so that we can then go forward through regulation with the policy development of the housing branch — to bring that forward so that we can actually identify the one set of criteria. The preliminary work of the housing branch indicates that at the present time throughout the province of British Columbia there would be between 80 and 100 properties that would fall into this new supportive housing assessment class.

Now, I gathered that the member is wondering why there is one branch of government looking after the policy. The reason they're doing that is because they are the Ministry Responsible for Housing. That's why they're doing that.

We are the ministry responsible for the administration, through our Crown corporation called B.C. Assessment. Therefore, as the minister responsible for B.C. Assessment I must bring forward that order-in-council that will define and then earmark which of the properties in British Columbia will be defined as new supportive housing classifications.

I believe I've gone through the criteria as the policy thoughts at this point in time are envisaged to provide eligibility for those new supportive housing units.

J. Brar: I think the intent of the regulation is clear in this piece of proposed legislation. It states that "eligible supportive housing property…means property that is used by or on behalf of a person who received funding from the government in the preceding calendar year for the provision of supportive housing on that property."

My take on that one is that this is something automatic. The person who received funding…. That property will automatically get this designation called eligible supportive housing property. I'm not clear about that, Minister, yet. If you don't have a clear policy at this point in time, then it is a question.

What I want to know is: is that automatic, or is there or could there be any discretionary power with the Minister of Housing, if it's the case that they can deny someone who has funding from the government?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe the member is talking about

section 2, where

section 19 is amended — the eligible supportive housing property area. I think it's important that we focus in on the first word. The first word is "eligible." It's not automatic that everybody gets it. They have to be eligible. That eligibility kicks off by what I have alluded to as what is seen at this time by the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing as they see supportive housing today.

[1550]

I will go over those: "…as part of the eligibility, are funded by one of several provincial housing programs, have conditions for residency that include low income, mental or physical disability, drug or alcohol addiction, provide on-site services, have self-contained housing units that are generally no more than 450 square feet in

[ Page 10901 ]

floor space and do not include housing units that are intended primarily for seniors."

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for trying to clarify an issue which is a bit confusing.

Can the minister clarify whether both "leasehold unit" and "leasehold accommodation property" refer to rental property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm sorry. I did not hear the question, hon. Chair. If the member could repeat the question.

J. Brar: There are two categories. One is a "leasehold unit," as defined under

section 2. The second one is what we call "leasehold accommodation property." My question was if the minister can clarify whether both

definitions refer to rental property.

Hon. R. Thorpe: On the assumption that I have understood the member's question with respect to the leaseholds, it's my understanding — I've been advised — that the overall complex is owned by one entity but the units are within that entity. Leases are entered into on an individual basis, a 99-year basis.

J. Brar: I'll move on to the more complex — and I will call it the key — subsection of this piece of legislation, which is

section 2(d), under which…. As I understand, this

section provides the cabinet the ability to create a new property class for supportive housing.

[1555]

My question to the minister is: can the minister tell us what the purpose of this is?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The section, 2(d), that the member refers to…. This amendment amends

section 19 of the Assessment Act by adding a subsection and provides for regulation-making authority for cabinet to create a new class of property — namely, a supportive housing property class.

The amendment creates the following new paragraphs…. It allows for cabinet to prescribe supportive housing property as a class of property and by regulation designate — and there's that key word again — eligible supportive housing property to this class, rather than defining the types of uses of the property to be included in that class.

For example, if I could, a small supportive housing property intended for inclusion in the new supporting class will be specifically identified in the regulation designating this property to the new class.

J. Brar: Will this section, then, give sole power to the cabinet to designate supportive housing property as a class of property, or will there be anybody else having some sort of powers?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, this legislation is enabling legislation. Enabling legislation is brought into force through order-in-council, and the minister sponsoring an order-in-council must take that through to cabinet.

So again, let me state that the new supportive housing policy

definitions will be the responsibility of the housing policy branch within the Ministry Responsible for Housing — the Ministry of Forests and Range.

They will work and will continually, I believe, be looking at some of the policy areas I talked about before which, generally speaking, address homelessness, identify addictions, mental health, a type of disabilities — folks that are receiving some form of the many different forms of assistance from the province. It's anticipated that generally they will be 450 square feet or less, and there will also be supporting services.

So that policy direction and definition will flow over to me — from the housing responsibility to the minister responsible for B.C. Assessment. I must then take forward that order-in-council to the cabinet, and cabinet will make the final decision on that.

[1600]

J. Brar: I understand there will be a lot of processes before the proposal goes to the cabinet. But at the end of the day, as I understand it, it is the responsibility — the power — of the cabinet to designate a particular property as supportive housing property. That's my understanding.

Having said that, I understand the intent, because what we have in the province, as the minister indicated before, is an issue of homelessness, mental illness, addiction services and the number of homeless people going up significantly. In fact, as per the latest report, we have more than 15,000 people in the province who are homeless. So we need to work very aggressively to deal with those issues.

If you look at homelessness or mental health issues or addiction services, the situation in Vancouver is probably much bigger than in any other city. Of course, there are other cities — the cities of Surrey, Kelowna and Victoria. But different cities have different needs. So different cities may also want to actively deal with this problem, and they need supportive housing.

The city government, of course, is responsible for city planning and land use and all those kind of things. So will the city government be able to designate a specific property as what we call supportive housing property or not?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In the throne speech of 2007, our government clearly laid out that we would be doing this. But we also said that we will be encouraging local government to exempt small-unit supportive housing projects from development costs, charges and levies.

I think that, simply stated, we must all realize that everyone has to work together, whether it be the provincial government or local government. I think that our government has, through the Minister Responsible for Housing, demonstrated unquestionable leadership in the area of working to address this issue.

I actually believe very strongly that no member of this House believes this is a partisan issue. I believe all members of this House believe that homelessness is an issue that we have to work together at all levels of

[ Page 10902 ]

government and all political parties. I believe all members of this House and local government want to deal with those with addictions, those with mental illness.

Therefore, I think it's very, very important to recognize that this is just one part of a wide range of options that is going to be available to communities. There's no question in my mind that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer for every community in the province of British Columbia.

That is why recently — as a matter of fact, last week — the Minister Responsible for Housing worked with the city of Kelowna to create up to 140 new supportive housing units, on three city-owned sites, to be built by 2010. The mayor of Kelowna, Her Worship Sharon Shepherd, said: "The city of Kelowna recognizes that supportive housing is needed in neighbourhoods throughout Kelowna, and we're pleased to be able to partner with the province to build capacity in our community at all levels of care."

[1605]

Just another quote here. The executive director of NOW Canada Society, Liz Talbott, said: "Safe, affordable housing is a fundamental requirement for everyone, especially necessary for women and children. This development will enable NOW to provide a safe home and necessary supportive services for women with a proven financial need…."

I think it's fair to say that our government is encouraging municipalities to make, as part of their official community plans, where facilities to serve those less fortunate than all of us — whether it be as a result of homelessness, whether it be because of drug or alcohol addiction or other reasons…. I think it's important that all of us work together.

I believe, with respect to Vancouver, that our government has demonstrated its commitment to Vancouver. Most recently we've added 19 single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria totalling 1,122 beds. We are continuing to work with communities such as Kamloops, Burnaby, Victoria, Quesnel and Port Alberni, and we've committed $15 million to that.

There is a wide range of programs to address the wide range of challenges that we face as a society throughout British Columbia.

J. Brar: We are debating Bill 11, which is the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. We can certainly talk about the issues we have in the province. The minister may have a different opinion than me. But the minister didn't respond to my question — the question I'm going to pose again.

The city of Surrey now has over 500 homeless people. This grew significantly during the last three or four years. If the city of Surrey wants to take action today to deal with the issues the minister is talking about — whether it's homelessness, addictions, mental health issues — and provide housing for those people….

If they want to zone a particular property — we are talking about here, under this proposed piece of legislation — as a supportive housing property, do they have the ability to do it or not, once this piece of legislation becomes law?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that they actually could do that under the Community Charter. They could give an exemption for that.

Also, all communities — whether it be the community of Surrey, which the member represents, or the community of Westbank that I represent…. If a community wants to work with the government on new supportive housing opportunities in their communities, I know very well that the Minister Responsible for Housing in British Columbia is very open to working with all British Columbians.

The Minister Responsible for Housing knows that by working in partnership, we can create solutions within communities. So we will continue to work.

But again, to answer the member's question, the municipalities can give full tax exemptions, should they choose, under the Community Charter.

J. Brar: I understand the spirit of cooperation and other issues, but the question here is very simple. The question is about the ability of the city to zone a particular property. My take, from the answer from the minister, is simple.

At this point in time, once this piece of legislation becomes law, it will be only the cabinet, when it comes to zoning the property, which will have the power. The city government will not have the power to zone a particular property as supportive housing. Can the minister confirm that?

[1610]

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member is absolutely incorrect. This legislation has nothing to do with zoning.

J. Brar: We are talking here about the ability of the cabinet to designate a particular property as supportive housing property. What I want to know from the minister is: if a city wants to designate a piece of property as supportive housing property, can they do it after this piece of legislation becomes law or not?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister. So my understanding is that local government actually does have the power to designate a particular piece of property as supportive housing property.

In areas where cabinet is going to make decisions, what kind of input will the impacted city government have, and what will be the process?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The municipalities, communities, currently have involvement in working with the government of British Columbia on housing projects. I think I just quoted here on Kelowna. I know, for instance, that in another one of the communities I represent, it hasn't materialized yet. The work is still going on, so I won't identify that community.

[ Page 10903 ]

In my experience in being here, again, under the responsibility of the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing, the housing branch looks forward to working in partnership with municipalities and local governments throughout the province of British Columbia. This legislation does not envisage changing any of that. In fact, we believe the thrust as a government is based on building effective local partnerships to serve the needs within the local community for whatever the needs of that community are.

J. Brar: I think it will probably be helpful if the minister can clarify. We say that the cabinet has the power to designate property as supportive housing property. Now, my understanding on that — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that cabinet may make a decision that in the city of Vancouver, there's a piece of land they want to designate as supportive housing property. Is that a true statement or not?

[1615]

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is not contemplated in this legislation.

J. Brar: The difficulty here is that I keep hearing from the Minister for Housing. When we debate the legislation, the minister has a responsibility to answer questions that we are asking. They may be innocent questions, but there is a responsibility because we are debating a piece of legislation which is going to impact, positively or negatively, the lives of people in British Columbia.

Again, I would like to clarify. When the cabinet is going to make a decision, what process will be there? Can the minister tell me of the actions to involve the local government to get their input? I understand the spirit of cooperation and that the government wants to work with the city. I understand that. But will there be any specific process where the city or the local government will have a meaningful role to play?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for all members to understand that this legislation is about how property is classified for assessment purposes. That's what the intent is here.

I have attempted several times — but if it's important, I will do it one more time — to make sure that all members of this House know that supportive housing for these purposes has been defined and recognized by the housing policy branch of the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister Responsible for Housing, as properties that are funded by one of several provincial housing programs; have conditions for residency that include low-income, mental or physical disability, drug or alcohol addiction, and provide on-site support services; have self-contained housing units that are generally no more than 450 square feet in floor space; and do not include housing units that are intended primarily for seniors.

I also want to add that B.C. Housing works with an extensive list and network in all corners of the province of British Columbia, with municipalities and non-profits on all forms of supportive housing. Again, under this policy direction, which has been established by the housing branch, properties will be identified.

As I have mentioned, we believe there are between 80 and 100 at this point in time. They will fall into this new assessment class, and that is how they will be taxed. The OIC to establish the new assessment class will flow from me through to the cabinet, and cabinet will make that decision.

M. Sather: I've been following the debate a bit, and I would like to ask the minister a question — to clarify for me, anyway — around this

section and the policy directions here. We have a situation in Maple Ridge where B.C. Housing, as I understand it, is offering to fund supportive housing units. We have a non-profit organization, Alouette Home Start Society, that's willing to build that.

Interjection.

M. Sather: We have a supportive housing unit in Maple Ridge that I understand the Ministry for Housing has offered to fund. There's a non-profit organization, Alouette Home Start, that wants to build it. They're looking for input of land from the municipality.

[1620]

My understanding is that most of the council, the majority, is in favour of it, but the mayor is very much opposed and I believe has written to the Housing Minister to that effect. What I'm trying to understand is: does this legislation have any bearing on our situation? For example, does it allow the provincial government in any way to pave the way for that development that it can't now? Does it assist that, or does it have no bearing on our situation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. This legislation has no impact on that situation. This is for properties that are already built, will be designated and will be assessed.

I would advise the member with respect to his question on this, which is an important question, that he may want to take those details to the Minister for Housing. I'm sure he'd be pleased to work with you on it.

The Chair: We're still on

section 2. Is that correct?

J. Brar: That's correct.

The minister just mentioned, in answering my last question, that property will be identified. I would like to know: what will be the process to identify the property, to designate the property as supportive housing property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be the criteria that I have outlined several times in this House this afternoon. That information will flow through to B.C. Assessment in their various offices throughout British Columbia. That will then form part of the roll and will roll itself up into the new assessment classes both for the municipal rolls and for the provincial rolls.

[ Page 10904 ]

J. Brar: We can continue talking about this for hours. If that's the intent, that's fine with me.

When I say identify…. There's a process to identify. Will a particular city government, where the property will locate, have a role? If that is the case…. I want to go beyond cooperation. How are they going to provide the input? What will be their role, if there is any role?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said several times here this afternoon, with respect to community housing projects, the Ministry Responsible for Housing, B.C. Housing and other organizations work very, very closely and in partnership with local governments. This is not going to change that.

With respect to assessment issues, B.C. Assessment actually considers local governments, municipalities, as one of their stakeholder groups and meets with them all the time. This legislation does not envisage that changing one bit.

The Chair: Member, may I just simply observe that we've spent virtually an hour on this, and I think it has been canvassed quite broadly. You might want to tailor your questions with that in mind.

Continue, Member.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, thanks for your advice. But certainly at the same time, I think it's my role to debate a piece of legislation and get the answers which people of British Columbia ask us to ask the minister and get clarifications.

[1625]

My understanding is that whatever the different department is in this case, when cabinet is going to make or designate a particular piece of property for supportive housing property for the assessment property — if I understand that piece — then the impacted city will have a role to say yes or no to a particular property. Or cabinet can go and say: "We have a property in mind, and we will assess that property as supportive housing property."

I would appreciate it if the minister can clarify it so that we can move on to the next question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I could be mistaken, but I believe I've answered this question several times. I will try one more time.

There is a process that a policy will be developed through the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Minister Responsible for Housing, which will identify and recognize what is supportive housing. I can go through those one, two, three, four bullets again if that's important to the member, but that is clearly laid out.

Once we have that information, that will then flow over to our ministry, which is responsible for B.C. Assessment. We will then do an OIC, because this is enabling legislation. OICs in enabling legislation are something that — I'm not the historian of the Legislative Assembly — have probably been in use for a long, long time in this House. OICs are yet another part of a process to ensure that input is received and considered before the OIC is put through. OICs in the future and in the past have been amended, and they have been rescinded, etc.

The intent here of our government is to fulfil a commitment to British Columbians that was stated in the throne speech of 2007 to create a new property assessment class to support supportive housing as defined through regulation, which will be driven by the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.

G. Robertson: The minister, as far as I'm concerned, is not answering the question directly. So I'll try one more time to state this as clearly as possible. Can cabinet designate supportive housing class without the approval of a municipality?

Hon. R. Thorpe: B.C. Assessment, for all the members of this House, has a long history of working with municipalities throughout the province of British Columbia. They consult with them all the time. Again, a local government can provide zoning to build a supportive housing. Once it's built, they can apply for the designation, provided it meets the criteria contemplated here, which I've repeated several times today.

This is not about somebody doing something in complete isolation. This is about people working in partnership to address the issue that I know the members on this side of the House are very concerned with and that I believe members on that side of the House are very concerned with.

[1630]

We believe this is yet another tool to assist in addressing homelessness, those with alcohol and drug addiction, those with mental health challenges and those who are being funded by one of several provincial housing programs, amongst other things.

G. Robertson: The minister is saying that his government's definition of partnership precludes approval of a municipality in the reclassification or designation for this new supportive housing class. That's my understanding here.

He has said…. We've asked this question at least a half a dozen different ways. Basically, the minister is saying that cabinet can designate supportive housing class for a property without the stated approval of the municipality.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Excuse me, hon. Chair. As the question was asked, I don't understand what the question is, so if the member could say it again, please.

G. Robertson: Okay. We'll try one more time. Can cabinet designate the supportive housing class for a property without the stated approval of the municipality in which that property exists?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

[ Page 10905 ]

If the answer to that is in fact yes, the cabinet, by virtue of this legislation, is creating the right to designate supportive housing class for properties without that approval, then in effect, the minister's definition of partnership means that the municipality actually has no option but to accept the cabinet decision to designate the property. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm getting a little bit concerned. If everyone in this House, who…. I thought everyone in this House at one point in time was concerned about those with homelessness and mental health and drug and alcohol addiction problems and having a home for the homelessness. I actually didn't realize that some people may want to turn this into a political issue when it's an issue that's designed, through the throne speech, to serve a need that community and municipal leaders have suggested.

I'm particularly puzzled by the last member's question. The member from Vancouver, who apparently has other aspirations in the Vancouver area, appears not to recognize the significant, significant millions and millions and millions of dollars that our government has committed to Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver area for 19 single-room-occupancy hotels, additional affordable housing stock throughout the province of British Columbia, the number of homeless ou