H1105pm 03

H1105pm 03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, November 5, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, November 5, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7809 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7809 Flooding in Nass Valley and role of provincial emergency program B. Belsey Houston sawmill D. MacKay Political leadership R.

Masi Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7810 Privatization and viability of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid B.C. Rail services J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid Dispute resolution for strata councils and property owners T. Bhullar Hon. G. Collins Skilled trades training W. McMahon Hon. S.

Bond Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7813 J. MacPhail Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 7813 Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills B.

Lekstrom Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7813 Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) (continued) L. Mayencourt Hon. G. Hogg J.

Kwan Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7818 Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7818 Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7818 BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85) Hon. R. Neufeld P. Nettleton B. Kerr J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond L. Mayencourt J. Bray K. Stewart D. MacKay R. Hawes R. Sultan W. Cobb R. Visser B. Suffredine B. Lekstrom V. Roddick M. Hunter Hon. R. Thorpe R. Harris B. Belsey P. Bell

7809 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members A. Hamilton: Entertained for lunch today from the navy were Commodore Roger Girouard, Lt. Com- mander Scott McVicar, Hon. Captain Cedric Steele, retired Commander Lloyd Barnes and Lt. Paul Lehay. Joining us for question period are the Hon. Captain Cedric Steele and retired Commander Lloyd Barnes. Would the House please join me in making them wel- come. [1405] J.

MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today people from Prince George: Councillor Dan Rogers; and people who work in Prince George for B.C. Rail, Kevin Anderson, Lance Yearley, Bob Sharp and Erik Lonne. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. C. Hansen: I had a great discussion this morning with a grade 9 student from Prince of Wales Secondary School, which is located in my rid- ing. We had a great chat about some of the great programs that are offered at that school. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Bryan Wong to the Legislature today. L.

Mayencourt: I note that the former member of the Legislature for Vancouver-Burrard is here in the chamber with us. I'd ask the House to please make Councillor Tim Stevenson welcome. P. Bell: Along with Councillor Dan Rogers, who is here to watch question period today, is another friend and colleague from Prince George: Kevin Brown. I would ask that the House please make him very wel- come as well. J. MacPhail: I join the current member for Vancouver- Burrard in welcoming the former member for Vancouver- Burrard sitting behind us. My colleague and I welcome him. I would also just note, Mr.

Speaker, that he was a former Deputy Speaker as well, which is a very highfa- lutin position, as I understand it. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25 public servants seated in the west gallery, who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedures workshop. This workshop, offered by the Legislative Assembly, provides a first- hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of the ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them wel- come.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) FLOODING IN NASS VALLEY AND ROLE OF PROVINCIAL EMERGENCY PROGRAM B. Belsey: Recently two communities in my riding, Kincolith and Greenville, were cut off from the rest of the Nass Valley when flooding washed out a bridge. Heavy rains — the Pineapple Express, as we often refer to it — left the Pemberton area and moved north to the Nass Valley. These rains caused a rapid swelling of creeks and rivers — in particular, the Nass and the Kalum Rivers. The men and women of the provincial emergency program were called upon, once again, to serve the public.

Coming out of an emergency like this are stories of bravery and determination and heroism. More often they include the heroics of the front-line workers, those in the trenches — rightfully so. They often risk life and limb. However, there's another group that works tire- lessly behind the scenes. They are the men and women that work for the provincial emergency program. They're not the ones that we see standing in the middle of the flooded fields with water running over the tops of their boots, trying to fill dam bags. No, Mr. Speaker.

They're the ones that are calling in the extra help, find- ing the dam bags, looking for the fill for the bags, searching for pumps and ultimately faced with the logistics of moving men and material and emergency equipment to where it's needed. They are often called upon to make the decisions that have profound effects on people's lives. These decisions are sometimes made with limited information and often after long hours of work. I have nothing but praise for these men and women of PEP. They, too, are heroes.

I would just like to point out that PEP has a website, and I encourage people to take a look at it: www.pep.bc.ca. You can find informa- tion on everything from emergency management to disaster financial assistance and from hazard prepar- edness to information and volunteering. So I encourage you. Give that website an opportunity; have a look at it: www.pep.bc.ca. HOUSTON SAWMILL D. MacKay: This is going to be a two-minute quiz. I'm going to talk about the world's largest sawmill — the world's largest sawmill under one roof and with the largest milling capacity.

I wonder how many mem- bers in this chamber or how many people in the prov- ince of British Columbia know where this facility is lo- cated. The fact that I am the member for Bulkley Valley– Stikine and that I am speaking to this issue should be the first clue. [1410] A sawmill that presently consumes 1.55 million cubic metres of wood and will consume 2.54 million cubic metres of wood when it is finished with the up- grade. This facility will be producing 13.3 million

7810 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 board feet per day when completed. That's a 30 percent increase from today's production. This capital upgrade will also benefit the community with additional value- added facilities. As well, the increase in the logging industry needed to deliver wood to the mill will in- crease by approximately 30 percent. During the capital expansion, estimated at $34 mil- lion, 175 tradespeople per weekend will live and spend money in this community. This will have a positive direct impact on hotels and restaurants. There is so much good news, but I'm limited by time.

The final clue to this quiz is that the community is the forest capital of British Columbia in 2003. I would like to close by telling you that this sawmill is located in the community of Houston, British Co- lumbia. For those who don't know, Houston is a vi- brant, forest-dependent community on Highway 16. The sawmill is owned by Canadian Forest Products. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP R. Masi: I would like to make a few comments on technology as political leadership. British Columbia's success will be measured by a gradual amelioration of a wide variety of political, economic, strategic and so- cial problems.

We must be careful to distinguish be- tween what we must do, what we would like to do and what is beyond our capacities. The startling advance of communications technol- ogy suggests that our age is at the beginning of intellec- tual and political transformations likely to prove more sweeping than those produced by the invention of printing and certain to evolve more rapidly. However, there is a significant and fundamental difference be- tween information and knowledge.

While the process- ing of information has undergone extraordinary ad- vancement, the successful conduct of government re- quires the intuition and the ability to sense the future and thereby master it. Leadership is the art of bridging the gap between experience and vision. While a computer does an excellent job of storing information and data, at the same time it encourages a shrinking perspective, especially in dealing with future policy. The study of history and philosophy, the disci- plines most important to the art of political leadership, are unfortunately neglected.

Today most political lead- ers gain prominence by exploiting and manipulating the mood of the moment. Focus groups have replaced the following of one's own perceptions and intuition. Many leaders view the future as simply a projection of the status quo. Understandably, choices are not sim- plistic. Excessive realism can produce stagnation, while excessive idealism can cause disillusionment. In British Columbia during the last decade, we ex- perienced roughly five years of excessive idealism fol- lowed by, unfortunately, five years of distorted real- ism.

Now as we seek to build a new future, a new era of politics in British Columbia, we must build a future based not only upon an economic philosophy but also upon social and humanitarian values. It is with great confidence that we look forward to a continuing era of enlightened leadership — leadership based on our unique historical and social values — as well as a full awareness of how to build a dynamic and prosperous economic future. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: I think the sound effects signal the end of members' statements. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY OF B.C. RAIL J.

MacPhail: It seems that every day the govern- ment changes its story about why it's breaking the new-era promise on B.C. Rail. When we brought to light internal government documents showing that B.C. Rail is one of the most profitable rail companies in North America, the minister responsible said yes, but the debt is too high. To the minister responsible for selling B.C. Rail: can she tell the House how B.C. Rail's debt compares to CN Rail and CP Rail, the leading candidates to take over the line? [1415] Hon. J. Reid: B.C. Rail is vital to the transportation links across British Columbia and in the north. B.C.

Rail needs to be a business that grows and that is able to meet the needs of the industries in the future. This member still doesn't seem to grasp what is going on in the lumber industry in the north and the productivity that is coming out of that industry at this time in a response to softwood lumber. That is creating an unusual situation in the marketplace that is leading to increased traffic on B.C. Rail. That is not sustainable in the long term; that is not sustainable in the long-term forecasts. We have to make sure that B.C.

Rail is there for the long term for the people, for the communities and for the industries of this province. For that reason, we're taking on an operating partner. J. MacPhail: I really can't believe what I just heard the minister say. She said we're expecting the forest industry to get a lot worse, and therefore we need to sell B.C. Rail. What a backer of a strong economy. The forest industry is going to go down, so we need to sell off B.C. Rail. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Hon. members, let us hear the question. J. MacPhail: That's just more evasion. It's all eva- sion in an attempt to sell B.C.

Rail through misinforma- tion. The opposition has obtained the B.C. Rail senior management team monthly report for September 2003,

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7811 and that paints a very clear picture about B.C. Rail in comparison to these other companies that this govern- ment wants to sell the rail line to. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is all about price competitiveness for their customers. Here's what the report showed: the debt-to- equity ratio for B.C. Rail, as reported to management, is at 1.2. That compares absolutely favourably to CN, and i t ' s e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a s C P ' s d e b t r a t i o . I f B . C .

R a i l ' s debt ratio is out of control, as the minister maintains in this House, why is she being contradicted by internal documents prepared by B.C. Rail's top management? Hon. J. Reid: It is so important, with this integral piece of transportation infrastructure, that we look at the longer picture, the history and the future. Again, this member wants to take out a small piece of the business case instead of looking at the larger picture and being willing to invest in B.C.'s future and being willing to invest in an ongoing, sustainable rail net- work. We listened to the communities.

We listened to the industry that said the status quo was not acceptable. In pursuing that — in looking for a way of improving service to the industries to make sure the investment was going to be there for the long term — we've taken the advice of communities, and we are proceeding in finding a rail operating partner for the freight rail divi- sion. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Well, we once again have a new message box — what is it, Wednesday? — the third message box this week, and that is that the forest industry is going into the tank.

Isn't that good news for the north? This is about doing what's right for the customers of B.C. Rail, and this minister is trying to say that B.C. Rail can't serve the customers best. The truth is that the debt load at B.C. Rail is not out of control. It's exactly the same as that of the major companies bidding to take over the service. Yet the minister and government don't want to hear that because it destroys the rationale for breaking their new-era promise. The internal document from B.C. Rail also confirms that the B.C. Rail profit was $72 million last year, and it's going to make even more this year.

We have a prof- itable company, manageable debt, reliable service and competitive prices. I should also point out that the members from Prince George are on notice… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. J. MacPhail: …that they have an opportunity to vote with their city council and against the sale on the 17th, when my bill comes up for debate. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the member now please put her question. J. MacPhail: I want them to know they can vote in favour of their community on the 17th. Mr. Speaker: Please put your question. J.

MacPhail: Can the minister explain again why she's sacrificing the political futures of her northern colleagues to break the Premier's promise to not sell B.C. Rail? [1420] Hon. J. Reid: It's unfortunate that this member doesn't keep up to date with the information that's available and then takes it out of context. In fact, in working with the communities, who know the north and whose industries are located there, last September — a year ago this past September, September of 2002 — there were 27 communities that got together and five regional districts that presented a symposium that put together….

The recommendation that they passed to me was this: "A balanced solution to B.C. Rail's financial diffi- culties could be a public-private partnership, with the provincial government as a partner. This would resolve some of B.C. Rail's financial challenges and provide necessary infrastructure investment while preserving the regional integrity of the railway." That was the ad- vice of 27 communities. That is what I've been working on to deliver, because those communities know what they need. B.C. RAIL SERVICES J. Kwan: B.C. Rail's financial difficulty that she talks about means that B.C.

Rail is profitable, that they're competitive and that they have a debt ratio that's manageable. Here's another area that perhaps the minister should turn her attention to. The opposition has ob- tained B.C. Rail's internal customer survey, the survey results from May of this year. Let me quote from the survey. Here's what Janet Mitchell of Slocan Forest Products had to say: "I'm in an area where B.C. Rail is the only rail service, so I'm solely dependent upon them. I would have to say that B.C. Rail is very impor- tant to our community's economy and livelihood." Can the minister responsible for B.C. Rail tell Ms.

Mitchell…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Interjection.

7812 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question, please. J. Kwan: Thank you. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. J. Kwan: If the members from the government side know that B.C. Rail is actually doing a great service for the community, then can the minister responsible for B.C. Rail tell Ms. Mitchell and British Columbians why she is breaking her party's promise to not sell a profit- able company that provides a valuable service for her community? Hon. J.

Reid: I'm not sure if these members actually talk to shippers at all, but I have been talking to ship- pers. For the last two years I've been talking to the cus- tomers that are dependent on B.C. Rail, which are de- pendent because transportation is their highest cost after raw materials. It is absolutely integral to them that they have a sustainable rail network. They are shipping product by road that they'd prefer to ship by rail if the cars were available, if the rates were competitive, if the service was available. That's what needs to be there for the shippers.

It is the shippers that we've been working with for the last year on a shippers council, and they have been saying that these are the improvements they need to keep their industries competitive. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: If the minister doesn't want to listen to what Slocan is telling B.C. Rail, maybe she'll listen to… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: …Perry Pellerin of Louis Dreyfus Canada, a major customer of B.C. Rail. Asked for one recom- mendation Louis Dreyfus would make to B.C. Rail, Mr.

Pellerin said: "Remain on present course. B.C. Rail is becoming a force in price, service and overall reliabil- ity." Terry Lynchfield from Nexen, a global energy company says: "Avoid letting CN buy you." These are the comments of B.C. Rail customers. We have a profitable company with a manageable debt load getting good reviews from its customers. Why will the minister not listen to the customers? Why won't the minister just admit that the only reason she's selling B.C. Rail and breaking her party's promise is to help get the Minister of Finance out of the fiscal jam he has put himself into? [1425] Hon. J.

Reid: It's unfortunate…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. J. Reid: It's unfortunate these members are not remembering their own actions from the past, the actions that created a greater debt load for B.C. Rail — that took on other aspects of business that had been bringing B.C. Rail down. I t ' s o v e r t h i s l a s t y e a r t h a t w e h a v e f o c u s e d t h e business of B.C.

Rail on the freight side, that we have been focusing the attention on delivering the freight service with the understanding and the knowledge that the customers needed improved service. If the member actually wanted a quote from that survey, the vast ma- jority of respondents said they wanted improved ser- vice in a number of areas. They needed the competitive rates; they needed more cars; they need better response time. That is, indeed, what we believe needs to be de- livered. DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR STRATA COUNCILS AND PROPERTY OWNERS T.

Bhullar: My question is to the minister responsi- ble for residential strata councils. While in the private practice of law, I had several individuals who were strata owners meet with me regarding disputes with their strata councils. In fact, one is a member of this House. I'm not, because of client confidentiality, going to reveal that it was the Minister for Deregulation. Recently I had two separate constituents approach my office over similar disputes. Strata councils can be overbearing and vexing at times.

The only remedy now in the legislation is to appeal to the superior courts of the province, an expensive route. Has the minister given any thought to creating a quasi-judicial body to deal with the disputes between strata owners and strata councils? Hon. G. Collins: As part of the ministry's deregula- tion initiative, as well as just updating our legislation, we have a workplan in the ministry to review virtually all the legislation that the ministry is responsible for. We've completed a certain amount of that.

One of the p i e c e s o f l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t i s o n t h e w o r k p l a n t o b e r e - viewed is the Strata Property Act. We will be reviewing that in the not too distant future. I've received lots of written submissions, generally from constituents right across the province, with re- gard to positive but mostly negative implications of their experiences with the Strata Property Act and in some cases their strata councils.

If the member has any ideas or input on how we might improve the legisla- tion and how that works for people, we'd be glad to hear it, as we are glad to hear it from anyone who wants to contribute to that effort.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7813 SKILLED TRADES TRAINING W. McMahon: My question today is to the Minister of Advanced Education. With the looming skills short- age in B.C. trades and an increasing demand for skilled workers, we are faced with the difficult task of bridging this gap. Students who would like to become certified in a trade are having to wait too long to receive the appro- priate trades training. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell trade workers and prospective students in my constituency what she's doing to address this issue? Hon. S.

Bond: We certainly recognize that there is a challenge as we provide enough skilled and trained workers in the province. We have an aggressive strat- egy in place which recently saw the passing of the In- dustry Training Authority Act and the creation of the Industry Training Authority, where nine very skilled people from across the province will look at a 30 per- cent increase in training skilled workers in the province over the next three years. In preparation for looking at a new system, we've just started a series of pilot projects around the prov- ince.

That includes one in the Kootenay region, with centres in Cranbrook, Kimberley and Creston. In this very exciting and innovative program, we're going to look at an opportunity for students to look at training in two skill areas: mechanics and carpentry. They'll be able to gain dual credit both for secondary school and for college credits as well. It's a great way to look at new training models, and we're awaiting the results as we create a new training system in British Columbia. [End of question period.] Petitions J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition. Interjection. J.

MacPhail: I don't think you're big enough. I'm just kidding. Come on. [Laughter.] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] J. MacPhail: I don't want you to hurt yourself — fall on your head or anything. I rise to table a petition by over 32,000 British Co- lumbians. It's entitled S t o p t he s a l e o f B . C . R a i l ! It's ad- dressed to the hon. Members of the Legislative Assem- bly of British Columbia. The petitioners note that B.C. Rail is a profitable business, vital to the future eco- nomic prosperity of resource-dependent communities. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. J.

MacPhail: One prominent business person, and a signatory, says: "A lie is a lie is a lie." Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Reports from Committees B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received. Motion approved. Law Clerk: "November 5, 2003: "Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that the

preamble to Bill Pr409, intituled Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003, has been proved, and the commit- tee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading. "All of which is respectfully submitted. B. Lekstrom, Chair." B. Lekstrom: B y l e a v e , I m o v e t h a t t h e r e p o r t b e adopted. Leave granted. Motion approved. Bill Pr409 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1435] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 63. Committee of the Whole House YOUTH JUSTICE ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 63; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:36 p.m. On

section 32 (continued). L. Mayencourt:

Section 32(1) allows the minister to enter into an agreement with the municipalities — like Surrey or Vancouver or what have you — for detention in a youth custody centre, and that detention is "chargeable to the municipality, on terms for reim- bursement of expenses as may be mutually agreeable." Can the minister please inform me about that? Hon. G. Hogg: This is a matter of when youths are picked up — late at night perhaps or at any point in

7814 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 time — and for some reason the police believe they have to be held or retained in custody. This

section refers to the Vancouver and Victoria areas, where we have facilities to hold those youths overnight. It is a municipal responsibility; however, the province pro- vides the service and does not charge back to munici- palities in those instances to do that. So in Victoria, where we have a youth detention centre, we can actually hold the predetention. This is prior to the charge being laid but before being heard. The same applies to Vancouver, where we are able to provide pretrial detention for youths and on behalf of the municipalities in those areas. L.

Mayencourt: That's one of the concerns that would come up for the city of Vancouver with respect to who's going to pay the bill on this one, so I thank you very much for your answer. [1440] J. Kwan: On

section 32, I have one last question for the minister, and that is with regard to the detention agreements with municipalities. Is there any require- ment under this act that these municipality centres, the lockups, be exclusively for youth? Hon. G. Hogg: I'm assuming that's subsection (2). We just dealt with subsection (1). In subsection (2), where they're being held in local or municipal lockups, is there any requirement in this legislation that they be kept distinct and separate? That does not exist in this legislation, but that is part of the federal legislation, so it is covered within the federal legislation requiring the separation of youth from adults.

Section 32 approved. On

section 33. J. Kwan: Will the municipal detention centres be ex- pected, under

section 32, to provide addiction services? I know we're debating 33, and 33 establishes that it is an offence to possess contraband in a custody centre. With municipal centres, would they be expected to provide addiction services for youth that are detained there? Hon. G. Hogg: This, again, is a municipal responsi- bility. The amount of time they're held in local lockup is usually six or eight or maybe ten hours — so it's very, very brief — b e f o r e t h e y g o b e f o r e a c o u r t a n d then are remanded. This is all pretrial detention, so this is detention prior to them proceeding with this.

Once they've been to court and remanded, then they go into a provincial facility, which would be for a longer pe- riod of time. These would be very brief periods of time. J. Kwan: If a drug-addicted youth who's been or- dered by the courts to go through treatment is brought to the centre…. In that instance, even for that brief pe- riod of time, would that youth be brought into the mu- nicipal detention centres, or would the youth be brought into provincial custody centres and go through the treatment available to the individual? Hon. G.

Hogg: The only time I could envision them being held in that local lockup after appearing before the courts would be while they await pickup from the sheriffs to be moved to a youth facility. That again would be a very brief period of time, a matter of a few hours. Once they move to the provincial facility, if they're on remand and coming back before the courts quite regularly, they'd probably be involved in a gen- eral program of some sort. It's once they get sentenced that the state has au- thority and responsibility for developing programs for them.

Prior to them being found guilty, on a remand status, it would primarily be voluntary programs that they chose to be a part of, because they're assumed to be innocent at that point.

Section 33 approved. On

section 34. J. Kwan:

Section 34 deals with the powers of sei- zure and disposition of things seized. Are these broader powers or narrower powers or the same as under the previous provincial statutes? [1445] Hon. G. Hogg: Previously the powers of seizure were contained in regulation rather than in statute, so we've actually just taken exactly the same provisions which were in the statute and moved them into the legislation so they're more explicit. J. Kwan:

Section 34(7) indicates that if the material seized is actually legal outside the centre, the director may keep it in a secure place to be returned upon re- lease or may allow for the youth to make arrangements for disposal or safekeeping. The material envisioned would be, perhaps, things like cigarettes or liquor, for example. Could the minister please advise what other options exist for the staff to do with this material? Hon. G. Hogg: I understand the question to be: what other options does a staff member have if they have an object or item which may be legal?

Rather than returning it to the individual or an accomplice or a friend of the individual, what other options do they have? Am I correct in interpreting the question? Well, any items such as that would have to be covered by policy of the institution. An example of that may be a knife. The policy might dictate that rather than returning the knife to the individual, after consultation with the individual's probation officer or social worker, there would be a determination that it would not be returned.

It may be returned to the social worker or probation officer to make some provisions for that to occur in the future. J. Kwan: What about things like cigarettes or li- quor, as an example? What would happen to items like that?

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7815 Hon. G. Hogg: As a matter of course, cigarettes are returned, but liquor would be unlawful, as these indi- viduals are under the age of 19 — so not legal to drink. J. Kwan: When the term "legal" is used, we're not necessarily talking about illegal substances. We're just talking about any item the individual may have that might be deemed to be not legal, such as liquor, be- cause of the age parameter. Those items would be seized. Am I correct? Hon. G. Hogg: That is correct.

Section 34 approved. On

section 35. J. Kwan:

Section 35 deals with the reintegration of leave and day absences. This is, as I understand, a re- worked version of the language from

section 30 of the Correction Act. Am I correct in understanding that? If so, is there anything substantive in terms of changes in comparison to the Correction Act? Hon. G. Hogg: There are no substantive changes to the wording.

Section 35 approved. On

section 36. J. Kwan:

Section 36 deals with the wages for em- ployment. This

section establishes how a youth's wages are to be managed. There are similar provisions under the Correction Act. Can the minister outline if there are any changes in this bill with respect to this provision? [1450] Hon. G. Hogg: There are only minor changes here — a change in reference from minister to provincial director, changes in decision-making authority that are consistent with other decision-making authorities which are under the act. They are inconsequential changes.

Section 36 approved. On

section 37. J. Kwan:

Section 37 deals with the inspection of youth custody centres. This

section appears to be ex- panded from the Correction Act provisions. What changes will there be from the manner in which inspec- tions are currently carried out under Bill 63? Hon. G. Hogg: The inspections of youth custody centres now are carried out under the Ministry of So- licitor General. When the last government transferred youth custody and created the Ministry for Children and Families, they left the inspection division for youth custody facilities with the Solicitor General's ministry.

This will now be moving it into the Ministry of Chil- d r e n a n d F a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t s o t h a t i t c a n h a v e a consistent, coordinated, integrated focus on the best i n t e r e s t s o f c h i l d r e n . T h a t w i l l a l s o a l l o w u s t o m o v e into accreditation processes. It is our intent to have our youth custody facilities accredited by international accrediting agencies. In fact, we will be the first youth custody centres in North America to go through this process of accreditation.

By having the inspection of standards division as part of the ministry, we're able to have them focus spe- cifically on the differences that exist between a youth facility and an adult facility, and be cognizant of and sensitive to those appropriate differences in the opera- tion of a facility. J. Kwan: The key change, it would appear to me, would involve the people who carry out the inspec- tions. Yet the procedures and the manner in which the inspections are conducted…. Is it safe to assume that the procedures would remain the same? Could the minister please advise. Hon. G.

Hogg: They'll be very similar but not ex- actly the same. We'll also be moving some focus to key outcome measures so we can start looking at outcomes as youths move out of the facilities. Those are not part of the criteria that are generally looked at currently in the model handled under the Solicitor General's minis- try. We think there are some different foci that should exist with youth. The inspection or the technical part of that will remain largely the same. However, we'll also be adding to that and augmenting it with such things as outcomes for youth. J.

Kwan: Could the minister give some examples of what key outcome measures might involve? Hon. G. Hogg: Some examples would be the inju- ries that occur within the facility, safety of youth, safety of staff, WCB claims and those types of initiatives that are collected now but not included in an inspection part. Those are things we would include in part of the inspections and standards responsibilities so that we would be able to get a broader picture of what meas- ures there are that look at the outcomes of the safety of staff and residents within these facilities. [1455] J.

Kwan: So these outcome measures centre on safety issues for staff and for the youth who are staying at the centre. Am I correct in understanding that, then, or are there other areas these outcome measures would include? Hon. G. Hogg: They would also include the safety of the public, so one of the outcome measures would be escapes. We would be looking at the residents, the staff and the public — our community at large.

Section 37 approved.

7816 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 On

section 38. J. Kwan: On

section 38, which deals with investiga- tions, what about the way in which investigations are carried out? Do they differ under this act versus what was in place previously? Hon. G. Hogg: No, they're essentially the same. There's a little more flexibility that exists in that, but the structure and format is basically the same. J. Kwan: When the minister says there is a little more flexibility, could he explain flexibility in that con- text? Hon. G. Hogg: Currently the investigation, inspec- tion and standards office does those investigations.

The flexibility is now that under these provisions, the minis- ter can ask anyone to do that investigation. You can have an independent person come in. It gives us that type of flexibility in terms of contracting for an investigation. J. Kwan: But the premise for conducting the inves- tigation in terms of protections of rights, etc., will re- main in place, and those remain unchanged. Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, that's correct.

Section 38 approved. On

section 39. J. Kwan:

Section 39, "Offence of obstructing inspec- tions and investigations" — is this a new offence? Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it is. J. Kwan: Could the minister explain how this new offence came about? Were there concrete examples where there were concerns raised — therefore the crea- tion of this new offence? Hon. G. Hogg: This is based on legal advice. As an example, if there was a staff member in a facility, an inspection were to take place and the employee was found to be at fault in some measure, then as the em- ployer we could take action against that employee through the processes of progressive discipline.

How- ever, if we have a contractor coming into the facility, we don't have the same flexibility. This

section gives us an opportunity to actually do investigations of a con- tractor who will be providing services within a facility and to take some actions with respect to that. [1500] It in fact also relates back to the previous question the member asked around if we were to contract with an inspector to come in, if the inspector had done un- der contract something that was inappropriate in the institution, we need to have the ability to follow up and hold them accountable for their actions within the institution. J.

Kwan: I thought I heard earlier that the inspec- tions would be done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development staff. I don't think I heard the minister say that the inspections would be done by contracted agencies. Am I wrong in understanding that? Would the minister clarify? Hon. G. Hogg: These apply to investigations rather than specifically to inspections, but they may also ap- ply to community facilities and community services as well. It's not necessarily limited to just institutional inspections. We also review and look at standards as they apply to community-based services. J.

Kwan: Have there been problems before? The question is: have there been problems before with re- spect to employees conducting their work and perhaps violating or misconducting themselves in some way that would therefore require a look at imposing a measure of an offence or disciplinary actions? Have there been problems before? Hon. G. Hogg: W e d o n o t k n o w o f a n y s p e c i f i c example where a person has obstructed, impeded or refused to participate in that. It is simply a safeguard and a measure which has been recommended to us by legal counsel as we've reviewed this.

Section 39 approved. On

section 40. J. Kwan:

Section 40 deals with when a person is at large without lawful excuse. Could the minister please advise on the language for this

section — where the lan- guage came from and, in comparison to current practices, if there are any changes in terms of that comparison. Hon. G. Hogg: The changes are substantially the same. The

section adds a provision to clarify the au- thority to apprehend without warrant a youth who escapes from a youth custody centre. The amendment reinforces that police have the authority to apprehend a youth who escapes from a centre. It's substantially the same as it exists today. It's minor. J. Kwan: So the provision to apprehend without a warrant has always been in place? Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, in these instances, it has. Sections 40 to 56 inclusive approved. On

section 57. J. Kwan:

Section 57 repeals the provisions from the Correction Act concerning contraband and trespassing. Could the minister please advise: what is the reason for these changes, and what are the effects? [1505] Hon. G. Hogg: The sections of the Correction Act that were repealed are substituted by a

section that

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7817 clarifies the provisions by relating to the possession of contraband and transmitting contraband in a correc- tional centre. It also is designed to clarify, and it makes the possession, delivery or receipt of contraband — as well as trespass on the grounds of a correctional centre — offences. This also clarifies and includes similar pro- visions found in

section 18 of Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations . This, again, came as legal advice that this appear in this form. Sections 57 to 77 inclusive approved. On

section 78. J. Kwan:

Section 78 references the Parental Respon- sibility Act. Could the minister please advise: how will Bill 63 affect that legislation? Hon. G. Hogg: It has no substantive change at all. It is simply changing the wording to be consistent with the Parental Responsibility Act. Sections 78 to 84 inclusive approved. On

section 85. J. Kwan:

Section 85 deals with the Victims of Crime Act, which changes the definition of justice personnel in the Victims of Crime Act to "persons working in positions designated by the Attorney General…." Could the minister please advise: why is the language so broad in this section? [1510] Hon. G. Hogg: As the member points out, the

section reads: "… striking out 'and personnel in the Court Services Branch, Criminal Justice Branch and Corrections Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.'" Therefore, we are not currently, under the current legislation, including those youth justice workers who work within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. So by adding: "…and substituting 'and persons working in positions designated by the Attorney Gen- eral,'" we're able to have, through the Attorney Gen- eral's designation, the appropriate appointment for those staff members who are within this ministry.

So the creation of this ministry was not…. When it was created, they didn't have the appropriate pieces of leg- islation in place to support the staff working within these facilities. This corrects that. Sections 85 and 86 approved. On

section 87. J. Kwan:

Section 87 deals with the Wildlife Act. Could the minister please advise how Bill 63 affects the Wildlife Act? Hon. G. Hogg: T h i s d o e s n o t c h a n g e a n y o f t h e substantive activities or actions which were previously contained. It's simply an updating of the wording to make sure that the words now reflect the changes in the federal and the provincial legislation. J. Kwan: Are there implications in this

section that impact aboriginal youth, as an example? The reason why I ask specifically about aboriginal youth…. As the minister knows, Mr. Chair, many of the aboriginal youth would have wildlife hunting licences, etc. What are the implications there? [1515] Hon. G. Hogg: This also applies to the recent Su- preme Court of Canada decisions with respect to the Métis people.

Subsection (13), which makes reference to a person who "does not hold a licence or limited entry hunting authorization or is exempted from hold- ing one." So the same applications that would apply to adults, and the exemptions which were seen and granted under the Supreme Court of Canada decisions, apply in these as well. So youth are exempted just as adults would be in terms of the need for licences or any other provisions which adult aboriginal people would receive. It also flows to youth. J. Kwan: In the case where there's a dispute….

Let me first ask this question: does the minister anticipate situations arising where there would be a dispute on the authority for the youth to continue his or her activi- ties under the provisions of the Wildlife Act? Has the minister seen situations or does he foresee situations where there might be a conflict with respect to the al- lowance for that youth to continue to participate in their activities under the Wildlife Act? Hon. G. Hogg: No, we're not aware of any situa- tions of conflict that have arisen or that we're anticipat- ing. J.

Kwan: In the event that there is, is there an ap- peal mechanism to resolve that conflict? What is the process? Hon. G. Hogg: A possible scenario, I think, would be if an aboriginal youth charged under this

section claimed to have the rights for exemption, yet there was a conflict because the arresting or enforcement officer said: "You do not have rights and have not established the aboriginal rights." The youth would then appear before a youth court, be represented by legal counsel in the youth court, would put that position forward to the youth court judge and would have all the rights that exist within due process of law to appeal that up the appellant process. They would have the jurisdiction and protection of the court system and representation for that at that point in time. Sections 87 to 89 inclusive approved. Title approved.

7818 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 Hon. G. Hogg: I move that the committee rise and report conclusion of Bill 63 with amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:20 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 63, Youth Justice Act, reported complete with amendment. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. J. Murray: With leave, now. Leave granted. Bill 63, Youth Justice Act, read a third time and passed. Hon. J. Murray: I call second reading of Bill 85.

Second Reading of Bills BC HYDRO PUBLIC POWER LEGACY AND HERITAGE CONTRACT ACT Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of this enabling legislation is to create the regulatory framework for the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council to establish the heritage contract. Government's new energy plan promised a heritage contract to lock in the value of B.C. Hydro's existing generation assets for an extended period. The heritage contract will ensure that B.C. residents continue to enjoy among the lowest electric- ity rates in North America, which are regulated by the B.C.

Utilities Commission and are cost-based. The BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act also strengthens and secures continued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmis- sion and distribution assets. The act also has provisions t o a l l o w B . C . H y d r o t o c a r r y o n n o r m a l b u s i n e s s i n a lawful fashion. The government is committed to pro- tecting the core assets of B.C. Hydro. The desire of British Columbians to continue to benefit from the historic investments they have made in B.C. Hydro's core assets is enshrined in this legisla- tion.

B.C. has one of the lowest electricity rates in North America, and we consider that to be one of our eco- nomic advantages in attracting businesses and resi- dents. This act enables government to establish through regulation a new structure for the cost of heri- tage electricity that recognizes the value of B.C. Hy- dro's existing assets. In December, B.C. Hydro is expected to submit a rate application to the B.C. Utilities Commission. The heritage contract will form part of an integral part of the application to keep the rates as low as possible. The independent B.C. Utilities Commission will review B.C.

Hydro's application and set electricity rates. Included in Bill 85 is the repeal of the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, which dates from the mid-1980s. Some history is in order here. The act, with its restrictions, was imposed on B.C. Terasen arising from the sale in the 1980s of B.C. Hydro's lower mainland gas division to Inland Gas — t h e n B . C . G a s and now Terasen. When B.C. Gas, now known as Terasen, was created in the 1980s, the government of the day designated the utility a special company under the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act,

part 2. [1525] Under the act, a special company is subject to re- strictions on certain corporate matters, including share ownership, composition of the board of directors and reporting requirements. Terasen Inc. is the only B.C. company subject to these outdated restrictions. The original purpose of the designation was to ensure that ownership of the then newly created B.C. Gas utility was widely held and that it was not taken over by another company soon after it was created. Fifteen years have passed. This is 2003, and none of those issues is of particular concern.

Today, Terasen is fully established and a very successful company. The repeal will increase Terasen's access to investment dol- lars. All potential transactions of share ownership of more than 20 percent will remain subject to B.C. Utili- ties Commission approval. The change encourages utility investment through enhanced private sector participation in the energy sector. It supports govern- ment's ongoing commitment to streamlining regula- tions and cutting red tape. The repeal results in the elimination of 134 unnecessary regulatory require- ments.

A point I want to stress is that the repeal in no way weakens government's commitment to continued pub- lic ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and distribution assets. The purpose of the new BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act is to further strengthen and secure continued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's core assets. This government has explicitly repeated its com- mitment to protect the core assets of B.C. Hydro. This was a new-era promise, and we have followed through on our commitment.

From before the election through the development of B.C.'s energy plan and including recent legislation, we have taken extraordinary steps to protect the assets that with Bill 85 continue — and I stress continue — to be owned by British Columbians. I look forward to passing this legislation and demon- strating our government's firm commitment to contin- ued public ownership of B.C. Hydro's core assets and a legacy of low-cost electricity. I can only stress too much that this government, under the leadership of our Premier, has said from

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7819 long before the election and through the election…. I travelled this province when I released the energy plan in November 2002 to just about every community that asked me to come to their community and talk to them about it. We've written letters to almost every commu- nity. Every community in the province had the oppor- tunity for input into the energy plan, and that input was respected and used. We had hundreds of people put into the energy plan their views on how B.C. Hy- dro should be understood in the province. We have done that.

I want to stress again that there are those out there who for their own frivolous reasons, their own political reasons and their own reasons to make people uneasy in British Columbia…. I find it rather reprehensible, actually, that people would go out there and say things like we're selling B.C. Hydro when we have — in every act that we've passed in this House since we came into office — put into place that the core assets remain with the public, with the people of B.C. We want to maintain the lowest rates possible that we can in all of North America.

Today we enjoy some o f t h e l o w e s t , a n d w e w a n t t o c o n t i n u e t h a t p r o c e s s . This act is to enable us to continue with the process of setting up this heritage act, which will protect those assets that B.C. Hydro has today, that we'll have in the future and that we'll have forever, as far as this gov- ernment is concerned. [1530] For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, and for you also…. I'm sure you wonder some days, after sitting in this House and listening to how many times we've said we would protect the core assets of B.C.

Hydro, how many times we put it in legislation, how many times we've said it time and time again…. But there are those that want to fearmonger. There are those that want to misrepresent. There are those that want to dream in Technicolor. There are those that are so far out there it's unbelievable. There are those out there with a pedigree who are very much attached to the NDP, called Citizens for Public Power, that actually want to destroy British Columbia, I assume. That's shameful. This government, I'm going to stress again, wants to maintain the lowest possible energy costs for every British Columbian.

I can't say it strongly enough. How we do that is: we m aintai n the core assets of B .C. Hy- dro in public ownership. That means Fred and Martha in British Columbia own B.C. Hydro lock, stock and barrel. They will continue to own B.C. Hydro lock, stock and barrel as we move into the future. B.C. Hydro also has to be allowed to do the busi- ness that a corporation its size should be able to do. The largest business in British Columbia by revenue, the third-largest utility in all of Canada has to be able to carry on its business in a businesslike fashion. This bill allows B.C. Hydro to carry on that business.

We have made steps to ensure that we can continue trade into the Pacific Northwest so that $150 million to $200 million every year, which comes in from that lucrative trade, actually goes to the bottom line and actually keeps rates low in the province — contrary to what some people might want to say.

It will be interesting to listen — and I intend to lis- ten intently — to what's said today and possibly to- morrow by members of this House about how they feel about the largest utility in British Columbia that's pub- licly owned and will continue to be publicly owned for the benefit of all British Columbians as we move for- ward. I will listen intently to what people have to say, and I'm going to criticize those that are way out in left field when they stand up and talk about B.C. Hydro. P. Nettleton: Thanks for this opportunity to re- spond to Bill 85 in second reading.

I would really like to believe him when the Minister of Energy says the government is not privatizing B.C. Hydro. I hate to be the bogeyman or the scaremonger, as the minister refers to me. After all, I don't want to be going after something that's not there if what he says is true. I truly want to believe him. Perhaps the Minister of Energy and I got off on the wrong foot at the beginning of this issue. I wouldn't mind starting all over again. I want to begin by assuring the minister that my bark is worse than my bite. I say: let bygones be by- gones, and let's start afresh.

In the words of the immor- tal Joan Rivers, I ask: "Can we talk?" Now that I've got that off my chest, where do we begin? It takes two to tango, but we seem to be dancing around each other. One of us appears to be doing the waltz. Can we talk? This is the way I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong. In question period I ask the minister a question. He in- variably responds with an evasive and unrelated an- swer. I always keep my question straightforward and relatively simple, so what is the problem here? It is either (

a) that the minister is being evasive, or (

b) I'm not making myself clear. I tossed a coin, and lo and behold, the answer is (a) — heads. It is the minister who is being evasive — no surprise. In the face of such scientific evidence I am left with no other option except to ask myself: why is he being so evasive? Is everyone following this train of thought, or should I speak slower? Good, I'll continue. The min- ister being evasive can only mean one thing. What do you think that can be, boys or girls? By George, you've got it. The minister has something to hide.

Perish the thought that he doesn't know the answer — that he's merely the messenger. [1535] Now that we've established that the minister has something to hide on Hydro, what could that some- thing be? The minister could stop all this speculation by offering up the evidence that will put the lie to the innuendo that there is a secret plot afoot to privatize B.C. Hydro. Know the truth and the truth shall set you free, Mr. Minister. Say the truth. Blurt it out, and it will be good for your soul. The same goes for me. A good heart-to-heart talk is what we need.

That's all we've been asking — honest communication, for me and four million other British Columbians. But the minister keeps us guessing, and I'm guess- ing that there is more to Bill 85 than meets the eye. But

7820 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 are you going to tell us? No. So we have to figure that everything is the opposite of what you say. Is that fair? No, it's not fair. Is that right? You bet it's right. Con- vince me otherwise by telling me why Bill 85 repeals the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. Could it be that the privatization act did not go far enough? It was too restrictive for this government's plans in some areas, so they decided the least contro- versial way to change it was to repeal it altogether.

Also, could it be that by adding the following proviso to Bill 85 — that the generation, storage, transmission and distribution assets of B.C. Hydro are not to be sold or disposed of unless — and I repeat this proviso: unless…? Those assets are no longer fit for purpose, are n o l o n g e r u s e d o r u s e f u l , o r a r e t o b e r e p l a c e d w i t h assets that fulfil a similar function…? That's a strange new twist. The minister, when asked, "What is the intention of this proviso?" glibly answered that the exceptions had been included to ensure that Hydro can sell off out- dated equipment.

Since when, in the history of our province, has a clause been deemed necessary to enable the government to sell off B.C. Hydro core generation, storage, transmission and distribution assets? This government thinks it needs it, I guess. What else did the minister tell us about this pro- viso, this clause? Well, he repeated his timeworn man- tra that core assets can't be sold. All the dams and gen- eration facilities will be listed, and they will not be sold. That would be encouraging if that weren't just half of the sentence in Bill 85.

The minister continues his answer as if the clause is separate from the list of now-endangered core assets. That other clause, he says, is only for Hydro to be able to carry on the business. Yes, Mr. Minister, someone is giving British Columbians the business. Excuse me; I digress. Back to the minister's answer. That other clause is only for Hydro to be able to carry on the busi- ness. If we don't do that, he continued, they — that is, Hydro — would be stuck with a 2003 truck forever and would have to come back to cabinet for approval to sell it. That's all the clause is there for. Wow.

We wouldn't want cabinet to have to handle that. They are not used car salesmen, for gosh sakes. Mr. Minister, since when has Hydro operated grid capacity power generation, storage transmission and distribution out of the back of a truck, even a 2003 model? Ever? Never? Since we are on the subject of giving the people of B.C. the business, I note that the Minister of Energy states in Monday's news release that under this contract, Bill 85, British Columbians will continue to enjoy electricity rates that are the lowest in North America.

I'm glad he acknowledges that the rates were low — past tense — but we are all unsure about the future, especially since new Hydro CEO Bob Elton and former CEO Larry Bell have already announced rate increases of up to 21 percent over four years or 65 percent over ten years, and that doesn't factor in the prospect of un- foreseen circumstances or the looming precipice of the government's present action to officially join the west- ern U.S. electric grid through RTO West and become a part of the American deregulated system. [1540] Correct me if I'm wrong, but could it be that much of what is in Bill 85 greases the wheels in British Co- lumbia for a smoother deregulated slide into RTO West?

There I go again, supplying possible answers for the secretive minister — or rather, the skulking and secretive government. The minister's news release on Bill 85 further states that this legislation before us also removes outdated restrictions that have acted as a de- terrent to investment in Terasen Inc. and Terasen Gas Inc. Such all-encompassing and unexplained phrases as "outdated restrictions" are very problematic to fly-on- the-wall fearmongers and whistle-blowers such as my- self. I'm not proud of the fact that some call me a whistle- blower, but this government has had a

part in making me what I am. I guess it's that old nature-or-nurture thing. Back to the topic at hand: is the government privat- izing B.C. Hydro or not? And if so, is Bill 85 part of that ongoing process or not? I strongly believe it is on both counts, but I do invite the Minister of Energy or the Premier to prove me wrong, if they have real evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to hear what they have to say, but it has to correspond to the questions asked as well as make sense to the average British Columbian. Until that time, I will continue on in my role as the offi- cial bogeymen on the B.C.

Hydro privatization issue. In closing, I want to say boo, but I will resist the urge. B. Kerr: I ' m g o i n g t o r i s e i n t h e H o u s e t o s u p p o r t this bill. I'm not going to speak too long, because I know there are a number of people that also want to support it. I can tell you that if I had a dollar for every e-mail I got from people telling me to not privatize B.C. Hydro, I could retire from politics a wealthy person. It's sad that this group, concerned citizens for public hydro, the proxy of the NDP, are putting this scaremongering tactic out there.

We have said on numerous occasions that w e ' r e n o t g o i n g t o p r i v a t i z e B . C . H y d r o . W e h a v e i t i n our New Era document. The minister said it over and over and over again, and I don't know how many times we have to stress that we are not selling B.C. Hydro. The member for Prince George–Omineca men- tioned: why would we put a

section in the act that says we may have to sell some of the assets? Probably we have to do that — and again, I'm speculating — just to overcome the arguments they're placing that we are going to sell the assets. We have to have something in there, because people are coming at us and saying: "You can't sell a truck; you can't sell this asset; you can't sell that asset." Assets do depreciate, and sometimes they serve no useful purpose. Common business sense says that we have to get rid of those assets and replace them with newer assets. I suspect the minister put it in there to avoid any confusion, and maybe that can be

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7821 brought up at committee stage. Certainly, I agree with it being in there, and certainly I agree with the fact about not privatizing B.C. Hydro. I'd like to just discuss the heritage aspect of this act, which is really what it's all about. It's about protecting the hydro resources we have right now, which are at a very low rate because we're using hydroelectricity from dams. Any new generation is going to cost more money to develop.

Clearly, it's going to cost a lot more dollars to develop generation now than what it cost in the 1950s and 1960s when these dams were built, and we have to take that into consideration. What I really like about this is the fact that we're blending the low costs with the higher costs of produc- ing electricity, so we come up with a blended cost at a lower rate. This is unusual, from a business perspec- tive. As a retailer, I can tell you what we do in the retail business — or what anybody in the retail business does when they have a price change because they bring in their new stock and the costs come in higher.

They have a computer program, and they change their pric- ing, because everything is scanned. All the inventory, whether it's inventory that cost them less in the past, is now bumped up to the newer price. I have to admit that some of my constituents were concerned about that.

They were saying, "We under- stand that bringing on new energy" — I won't call it hydro, because they're not all hydro energy sources — "is going to cost more money, but are you going to charge us at the higher rate or the lower rate?" I'm glad to see we're going to blend those payments and come in at the lowest possible rate, so Hydro can still bring in its efficient funds to regenerate itself and replace its assets and give us the best possible electricity we need. [1545] Also, the importance with hydro here, by coming on with new generating capacity, is the fact that they're going to have green….

A good portion of the energy will be green energy, and I think that's a good thing for British Columbia, and it's certainly a good thing for the Island. In this act they have a provision for Terasen, which is a new name for B.C. Gas. I can tell you a funny story there. I had a constituent phone me up, of course, criti- cizing us for selling off B.C. Hydro, which we weren't going to do. She also criticized us because we were going to sell off B.C. Gas, which is a very good com- pany. I answer all my e-mails, so I e-mailed her back, telling her we're not going to sell B.C.

Hydro, that it will still stay in public hands — that all the core assets will stay in public hands. I had to inform her that, in fact, B.C. Gas is a separate, private company right now, and if she did want to continue to own it, she could go on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I gave her the symbol and said it was $33, and she could go and buy it. I only wish I had followed my own advice. I looked today, and I see it's trading at $46 on the Toronto Stock Ex- change, but it was $33 when I told her about that. Had she followed my advice, she would have done quite well.

But, you know, that's what happens on the stock exchange. We are getting a heritage price, which I think is an excellent idea. We're not privatizing B.C. Hydro. We've set it up there, and we're setting off and setting free B.C. Gas now where they can act like a regular com- pany to enhance the value to shareholders and con- tinue to provide good service. I should say that, again, the member for Prince George–Omineca was throwing out these scare tactics: there's going to be a 65 percent increase in rates and a 21 percent increase in rates. Well, we don't know what the increase in rates will be.

There will probably be an increase in rates because it costs more money to bring energy to serve four million people in British Columbia instead of three million people or two million people that were here 15 years ago. But whatever the increase in rate is, if there is one, it will have to be done in an open, transparent and accountable manner through the B.C. Utilities Commission. It won't be done in the se- crecy of cabinet. The public will have an opportunity to discuss this in the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings.

Whatever happens, it will be done in an open and transparent manner, and I think that's excellent as op- posed to the past when things were done in secret and you could get into a Raiwind situation, which was a company set up by B.C. Hydro for its own insiders and turned out to be about a $100 million debacle. To allay the fears of the people, we are not deregu- lating B.C. Hydro; we're, in fact, regulating B.C. Hydro. It is now going to have to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission for any change in rates. I think that's an excellent idea. All in all, what we're doing with B.C.

Hydro is a good-news story for British Columbia, and it's going to help British Columbia. There's one item here…. I have to say that I do have one concern on this bill. Maybe it isn't in this bill; maybe it should be in another bill. I guess I'm con- cerned about the protection of the rates for Vancouver Island, which is where my riding is. I'll talk in terms of postage-stamping. I wish there was something we could do with regard to postage-stamping so we knew there would be one rate for all of British Columbia.

We'd take that blended rate, and everybody would h a v e t h e s a m e r a t e s o i t w o u l d n ' t c o s t y o u m o r e , d e - pending on what large centre you lived in. That would protect Vancouver Island's rates. As you know, the power now has to be brought across from the mainland, or it will have to be through new generation on the Island. Having said that, I'm happy to stand to support this bill, and I'll be voting in favour of this bill when the time comes. [1550] J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to my colleagues for their allowing me to speak at this moment.

I am going to talk to Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. I just want to outline a bit of a history here about why we are where we are. It was almost one year ago that the Minister of Energy and Mines and petroleum resources

7822 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 went public with his National Public Relations–scripted energy plan for B.C. The number one policy action in that report was: "A legislated heritage contract to pre- serve the benefits of B.C.

Hydro's existing generation." Then, when the minister introduced this bill on Mon- d ay , he m ad e s p e c i f i c no t e o f t hi s al s o , whe n he s ai d : "The energy plan's first policy action is a legislative heritage contract to preserve B.C.'s low-cost energy advantage." He then went on to call this bill "enabling legislation to create the regulatory framework to estab- lish the heritage contract." In his press release issued on Monday, the minister notes that the B.C. Utilities Commission report is now in the hands of cabinet, where it's being reviewed, and it's quite a report.

The title alone is cause to pause. Here's the title: In the Matter of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and an Inquiry into a Heritage Con- tract for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's Existing Generation Resources and Regarding Stepped Rates and Transmission Access — Report and Recommendations. Phew, a full page just for the title. For ease, I'm just going to call it the report.

Recom- mendation 1 in the report is "that the heritage contract attached as appendix B be legislated as contemplated in the energy plan…." But of course even though the government says it's legislating the heritage contract, and even though the report of the B.C. Utilities Com- mission says that they should legislate the contract, and even though the energy plan said that it should legislate a heritage contract, that's really not what we're doing today at all. In fact, we're not legislating a heri- tage contract at all. We don't have that before us.

What we do have, as is typical with this government, is legis- lation that enables the cabinet to establish the heritage contract by regulation, just as we see everything being done by this government. They try to tell people they're legislating out front in an open and accountable way, but really they're doing it behind closed doors. Now, some — in fact, I would suspect every single Liberal MLA — will see this as pettiness and a minor point, and they'll stand up and berate alternatively the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Vancouver- Hastings.

They'll spend all their time berating me mak- ing this silly little point, as they would call it. But actu- ally that point is emblematic of how this government really does not want the light shone on any of its activi- ties. Yesterday it was the Columbia Basin Trust being completely appointed by order-in-council from Victo- ria. Today it's the heritage contract being done not in legislation, as was promised and as was demanded, but in regulation. The promise of openness and trans- parency becomes more closed and more clouded with each passing day of this government.

There is nothing wrong, actually, with the concept of a heritage contract, although it is somewhat super- fluous, and for a government bent on cutting red tape and redundancy, it really is more of an opportunity for speech-making than continuing to provide the lowest electricity rates in the country. With or without this contract, the low cost of Hydro's generation facilities w o u l d h a v e t o b e u s e d t o o f f s e t t h e h i g h e r c o s t o f a l l new generation that this government has decided must come from the private sector. So it is window dressing. It would have occurred anyway. The B.C.

Utilities Commission would have had to take the cheaper power into account in establishing its rates. The B.C. Utilities Commission would have it no other way. It is the B.C. Utilities Commission that regu- lates B.C. Hydro. So this is fluff, and in fact it's cloud- ing fluff.

It's fluff that clouds the fact that the govern- m e n t i s r e n e g i n g o n i t s o w n e n e r g y p l a n r e p o r t t h a t calls for a legislated heritage contract that could be debated in this Legislature, and they'll do it behind closed doors. [1555] In a sense, the minister with his enabling legislation is in fact doing what he condemned the previous gov- ernment for. He used to stand up every day — actually, he still does it — and condemn the previous govern- ment for not listening to the B.C. Utilities Commission and for doing things by regulation, by cabinet.

In fact, that's exactly what he's legislating today — exactly the same thing. I know it's a new standard that this government likes to set. It's their only defence: "Hey, we're no worse than the NDP." I love it. That's their new defence for everything, and today is a perfect example of this. What this minister used to accuse the previous admini- stration of doing, he is now doing himself. He is insti- tutionalizing by legislation the role of cabinet to make the determination of electricity rates.

It is like this gov- ernment wants to take credit for what nature has en- dowed this province with — thousands of rivers, steep canyons and plenty of precipitation — because that is what the heritage contract is all about. The B.C. Utilities Commission report was the result of a thorough process. It contains 26 recommendations. If this government were truly committed to the inde- pendence and expertise of the B.C. Utilities Commis- sion, it would adopt all of them and would start with recommendation No. 1 and bring in a legislated heri- tage contract. I guess the B.C.

Utilities Commission actually thought the minister was speaking his mind when he said they weren't going to do anything behind closed doors in cabinet, but it turns out that what the minister's doing is now legislating, for the first time ever, his right and his government's right to do every- thing behind closed doors and to do nothing out in the open. It would be of interest to see what the cabinet is going to do with the other two dozen or more recom- mendations of the B.C. Utilities Commission report.

We will no doubt hear a great deal this afternoon about how this government is not privatizing the core assets of B.C. Hydro. Unfortunately, like B.C. Rail, it will sound a lot like the backbench doth protest too much. What little credibility this government has on the issue of privatization will again be put to the test. That credibility is not helped by the comments of the Minis- ter of Energy on that

section of this bill that deals with what assets can and cannot be sold by Hydro.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7823 To suggest that Hydro ever needed the approval of cabinet to sell off its used vehicles is to pander to igno- rance and substitute hyperbole for reasoned explana- tion. That minister knows full well that was never the situation — ever. He uses hyperbole and misleads on using examples such as that. We actually don't know what he means when he talks about the change in this legislation, because he was using an erroneous, false example from the past that never existed to justify the change he's bringing in.

We have no idea what exactly is the intent of this legislation. In fact, that kind of silli- ness does not bolster the minister's case. In fact, I would assert it makes his assurances that Hydro is not for sale even less believable. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is an important part of our heritage. The low electricity rates we have enjoyed for two generations have helped build this province. That great natural heritage remains the back- bone of our economic future. It has performed that role as a Crown corporation owned by all British Columbi- ans for the benefit of all British Columbians.

If British Columbians are going to continue to have faith in that corporation and in the government that directs it, the minister must step out from behind his rhetoric, ditch the National Public Relations script and demonstrate a real commitment to keeping Hydro in public hands. Maybe he should use facts to justify these changes and not false, misleading examples that never existed. Maybe then he could lay some claim to having ensured B.C. Hydro's legacy. [1600] Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased today to stand in the House and speak to Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

You know, it never fails to amaze me how we can stand and read a piece of legislation, and yet in this House we continue to have those people who would have us believe that what we read on the paper and w h a t w e c o n t i n u e t o s a y a n d w h a t t h e M i n i s t e r o f Energy and Mines continues to say in the province is somehow not accurate. It's absolutely incredible to me. The BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act fulfils our commitment to secure — let's repeat that: to secure — public ownership of B.C. Hy- dro's historic low-cost electrical generation assets.

This contract will essentially make sure electricity rates are kept as low as possible for British Columbians. We've heard a lot of comment in the last hour or so about our energy plan. I want to be able to tell you some of the good news that's happening as a result of a progressive, exciting energy plan that was created by this government to ensure that we will maintain low electricity rates, public ownership of B.C. Hydro, a secure supply of energy and — imagine that — in- creased public opportunities and private opportunities.

You know, there has been no significant new genera- tion established in British Columbia for almost 25 years. We need to bring new power into the system to meet growing demand. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I come from a constituency that produces power. Alternative en- ergy potential is all around us in Prince George–Mount Robson. We have the ideal conditions to produce elec- tricity in a clean and green manner. Just recently my colleague from Prince George North and I were de- lighted to celebrate an announcement between Power Smart and Canfor.

Through an amazing Power Smart partnership, Canfor will save enough electricity — hear this — to power 39,000 homes in our province. Now, I think that's the direct result of an energy policy that addresses the kinds of issues we need to be addressing in this province. It is time we stood up and put to rest the nonsense that's being contributed by several members of this House. It's simply not true; it is simply not accurate. It's time we celebrated an energy policy that reflects the needs of British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, I want very briefly to introduce you to some of the people in my constituency who are going to take advantage of an energy policy that respects and celebrates independent power production in this prov- ince. I want to introduce you to Duke Peterson, because Mr. Peterson is on the leading edge of providing alterna- tive power in this province. Eleven years ago he started selling electricity to B.C. Hydro from his run-of-the-river turbine on East Twin Creek in the Robson Valley.

By definition, a run-of-the-river hydro project effec- tively borrows water from a fast-flowing, steep portion of a stream and carries it in a pipe to a powerhouse downstream, where it is used to propel turbines, creat- ing electricity. The water is then returned to its normal flow in the creek. Since that time, he has added Hystad Creek. He is a veteran of eco-energy. Peterson's two power sites sell electricity directly onto the B.C. Hydro grid, supplying as much as eight megawatts between them during peak flows.

Green hydro projects, those projects that we are encouraging and endorsing and celebrating as a gov- ernment, provide a sustainable energy source with minimal impact on the environment. In order to qualify as a green hydro project, the project must meet strin- gent guidelines laid out by both government and B.C. Hydro. These strict guidelines ensure that environ- mental and social issues are addressed and public re- sources are used in a responsible manner. I want you to know that our energy policy and our support of independent power producers are having an incredible impact in my constituency.

Just recently I was pleased to be able to bring the Minister of Energy and Mines to Prince George to meet with a number of independent power producers from the Robson Valley for a series of meetings that my colleague the member for Prince George North and I knew was important for the constituents we serve. In that meeting we talked about the kinds of potential we have in Prince George– Mount Robson. We talked about ways of continuing to streamline and use our resources efficiently. All of those discussions and the support for inde- pendent power production are reflected in our energy

7824 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 policy. We think that's absolutely great news in Prince George–Mount Robson, and it's certainly great news for British Columbia. [1605] I want to say today that as we look at the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, we are securing continued public ownership of B.C. Hy- dro's generation, transmission and distribution assets. We remain committed to protecting the investments of British Columbia that we have made in B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and distribution assets. I will be supporting this bill. L.

Mayencourt: It's a great privilege for me to be able to stand here and speak in favour of Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago. We don't often agree on things, but I'll tell you, there's one thing I kind of agree with her on: that's a heck of a title for a bill. With the introduction of Bill 85, our government has brought forward enabling legislation that will cre- ate the regulatory framework needed to establish the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

This heritage contract was promised in our policy action No. 1 of the energy plan to secure public owner- ship of B.C. Hydro's historic low-cost generation assets. The heritage contract will essentially lock in the value of existing low-cost generation assets for British Co- lumbia for an extended period of time. This is good and important information, but more than this, B.C. Hydro is a part of our heritage. It holds deep emotional meaning for many people who live in British Columbia, because B.C. Hydro was a founda- tional piece of B.C.'s initial growth and development.

My family moved to British Columbia in 1956; I was just a small child at that point. I can remember growing up in British Columbia with my father always talking with great pride about this province, always talking about what a great place it was to live. They'd moved from Manitoba, which is also a nice province, but this was different. This was a province that was blessed with natural resources. This was a province that had a can-do kind of attitude. This was a province that was building and growing under the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett. I'm sure my colleagues in the House are well aware of B.C.

Hydro's history, but let me take this opportu- nity to put some highlights on the record. In 1860 the founding of the Victoria Gas Co. started the B.C. Hydro legacy. Almost 25 years later, Robert McMicking turned on the very first commercial lights in this coun- try right here in Victoria. McMicking and a group of local investors then incorporated the Victoria Electric Illuminating Co., and that was the dawn of the electric age in British Columbia. The coast's very first hydro- electric plant was built near Victoria in 1898. We fast-forward to 1945, when the provincial gov- ernment created the B.C.

Power Commission. This public sector entity sought to acquire small utilities, extending electrical service in rural and isolated areas throughout beautiful British Columbia. Over the years existing generation plants and transmission facilities were modernized and new systems were built. By 1961, a company known as B.C. Electric served well over 200 communities. The late fifties and early sixties saw an era of un- precedented growth in our province.

To power the needs of this growth and enable the development of the Peace River and Columbia River hydroelectric gen- eration projects, the provincial government — under the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett — bought B.C. Elec- tric. Around a year later, the provincial government created a new Crown corporation when they merged the Power Commission and B.C. Electric to create the entity British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Everybody in this House and most people in this prov- ince know that entity as B.C. Hydro. [1610] This was a visionary move.

It brought together the determination of our people from every part of this province. It brought together all of our political leaders to bring about great change in British Columbia, to facilitate the great growth and development that have made this province so strong. Many members in this House will remember the glory days of the sixties and seventies, which would see B.C. Hydro pursue some of the most ambitious hydroelectric projects in the world. In the eighties B.C.

Hydro, consistent with industry trends and best practices, shifted its focus from the creation of new generation facilities to maximizing existing ones. In 1989 B.C. Hydro introduced a very successful and very high profile energy consumption reduction plan known as Power Smart, which was in- troduced to British Columbia in that year. I just want to reflect for a moment on the Power Smart program, because there are some important things that have come as a result of the work of those good, hard-working people at B.C. Hydro.

Do you know that a compact fluorescent bulb uses approxi- mately 75 percent less energy and lasts eight times as long as a conventional bulb? A water-saving shower head can save up to 15 percent of a home's hot water consumption. Lowering the temperature on your thermostat just a couple of degrees overnight or when y o u ' r e n o t a t h o m e c a n s a v e u p t o 5 o r 1 0 p e r c e n t o f your average energy bill. Those are savings that save us money, but they also al lo w us to m ake wise use of what power we have in British Columbia. But I digress. B.C. Hydro continues to provide high value.

It con- tinues to provide reliable power that fuels our homes, our businesses. More importantly, it fuels economic growth in this province. In fact, B.C. Hydro is one of the largest electric utilities in Canada. It serves 1.6 mil- lion residences in British Columbia. Our very own B.C. Hydro endeavours to provide energy solutions in environmentally and socially re- sponsible ways by balancing our province's energy needs with environmental concerns.

Some of our most successful new projects are ones that are providing citizens with environmentally sound alternatives to energy production, like the Holberg wind energy pro-

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7825 ject and the Forrest Kerr run-of-river hydroelectric pro- ject. The Minister of Advanced Education just a few min- utes ago explained what run-of-river means, the way you take the downward slope of a stream or river and use it to maximize hydroelectric power generation out of that. The Forrest Kerr run-of-river hydroelectric project is also important because it does something really great. It opens up the northern part of our province. You know, when we were talking a little earlier…. I was talking to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

This particular power project is just north of Stewart. If you look at the map of British Columbia, Stewart is up in the top left-hand corner, if you will, just alongside Alaska. It's the site of a couple of mines: the Kemess mine and the Eskay mine, which is a copper and gold mine. You know, that area of the province is known by miners as the golden triangle. Mining needs a couple of really good things to make mining work. It needs power; it needs electricity. By opening up the opportunity for the Forrest Kerr run-of-river hydroelectric project, we're actually gener- ating power just north of Stewart.

We have the poten- tial to feed the mines that are up there and, potentially, other mines. Now, the other portion that mines need in order to be effective and useful is transportation. That's another thing our government has really put its mind to. We've really got very aggressive and responsible plans to expand the transportation corridors in British Columbia. Opening up the golden triangle right now with this hydroelectric plant is very, very important to that part of the province. [1615] B.C. Hydro has constructed a world-class inte- grated hydroelectric system.

It's capable of generating almost 12,000 megawatts of electricity. Almost 90 per- cent of the electricity in this province is created from hydroelectric dams and generating stations. This elec- tricity is delivered safely and reliably to customers across British Columbia and through some 72,000 kilometres of publicly owned transmission lines. Because of B.C. Hydro's world-class employees and an efficient and reliable system, British Columbians continue to enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates anywhere in the world.

British Columbia continues to enjoy the lowest electricity rates of nearly anywhere else in the world, just like it did in 1956 when my dad and my mom came to British Columbia, and just like it did in 1960 when B.C. Hydro was formed. You know, building on past successes, B.C. Hydro is now position- ing itself to continue to deliver this same value to the ratepayer and the shareholders of B.C. Hydro. Who are the shareholders of B.C. Hydro? Well, as the Minister of Energy and Mines stated, they are the Freds and Marthas of the world.

They are, in my case, the Wilmas and the Marcels; they are, in the case of other members, their moms and their dads. These peo- ple own B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro has an obligation to make money for those people so that it can provide economical power to them as well as to the industries we have in this province. Now B.C. Hydro is positioning itself to continue to deliver that value to all British Columbians under a variety of economic and market and restructuring sce- narios. This heritage contract, Bill 85, shows that this government is committed to maintaining low electric- ity rates; public ownership of B.C.

Hydro; a secure, reliable supply of energy; more private sector opportu- nities, environmental responsibilities and accountabil- ity; and a guarantee of no — no — nuclear generation in British Columbia. We listened to the opposition. We listened to the member for Prince George–Omineca go on about how this is about privatizing and about fearmongering and how much he wished he wasn't doing it. Well, I wish he would stop. I wish he would stop and reflect on this. You know, just a few minutes ago we had a stun- ning statement from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

It was a stunning one because, once again, the member was admitting that she and her colleagues have no idea what this legisla- tion is about. She said it right in this House. I don't understand that, because this is a very simple act to read. It's three pages; it's pretty simple. It tells people that we're preserving B.C. Hydro, that we're protecting its core assets. We are ensuring that people in British Columbia have low-cost power. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has made an art form of her Chicken Little routine. She's running around claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

As usual, and as in all previous instances when Chicken Little ran out into the hallways to scare British Columbians, that member was wrong. This topic has been of great concern to people across this province. It's a very emotional subject for most British Columbians. It's an emotional subject for me. It's an emotional subject for my constituents. It's an emotional subject for the members of this Legislature on both sides of this House. It's important, in all of that emotion, to look at the facts. It's important to understand, for all British Colum- bians, that this is not about privatization.

This is about ensuring that the people of British Columbia will retain the B.C. Hydro that has been so important in their lives. You know, my father, God rest his soul, would t u r n i n h i s g r a v e i f w e s o l d B . C . H y d r o . H e w o u l d . I know that the Premier's mother would not feel good if we were doing that. We all have family members that have been involved in some way in the building of this province, and we all have this deep and abiding con- nection to B.C. Hydro. It is one of the main issues I receive mail on. It's something people really care about. They see it as theirs.

They want to retain it. They want to ensure they have excellent service through B.C. Hy- dro. [1620] I a m p

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1105pm 03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1105pm 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c23234e18c1fa9f6d839f9e636cb110c39d0d7c0

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).