2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)

Hon. S. Hagen

Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69)

Hon. M. de Jong

Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71)

Hon. S. Santori

Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Ten things you didn't read in the newspaper

P. Bell

Fixed election date

J. Les

End of legislative session

K. Krueger

Oral Questions

Government policy on slot machines

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Coleman

Mental health funding and services

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Cheema

Government action on mad cow disease

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van Dongen

Bowser basin and oil and gas industry royalty structure

R. Harris

Hon. R. Neufeld

Funding for child protection services

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, first report

J. Kwan

Petitions

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Tabling Documents

Information and privacy commissioner, annual report, 2002-03

Office of the merit commissioner, annual report, 2002-03

Petitions

B. Kerr

Tabling Documents

Report on Multiculturalism , 2000-01

Report on Multiculturalism , 2001-02

Petitions

K. Krueger

J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act (Motion 102)

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Kwan

P. Bell

W. Cobb

J. MacPhail

R. Harris

Reporting of Bills

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29)

Third Reading of Bills

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29)

Committee of the Whole House

Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39)

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39)

Third Reading of Bills

Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39)

Tabling Documents

Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project

Ltd., service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06

Royal Assent to Bills

Community Charter (Bill 14)

Safety Standards Act (Bill 19)

Safety Authority Act (Bill 20)

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27)

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29)

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Bill 31)

Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (Bill 32)

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34)

Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39)

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50)

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51)

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58)

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr403)

M&M Insulation Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr404)

Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr405)

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

[ Page 7107 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I had a delightful lunch today with a professor from the University

of Victoria. We had a marvellous time talking about the nature of our democracy

and how to ensure that our interests are represented by those we elect, as well

as ensuring we have a passion for education in every classroom in British

Columbia. Gerhard Brauer is joining us today, and I hope all of the House will

make him welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: I have many introductions today. I have 50 grade 7 students from

General Currie Elementary School in Richmond. They are accompanied by Mr. Avery

and Ms. Lavery. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1405]

Then

I have four of the finest women in the world. We have my mother Cathy Reid, we

have my daughter Olivia Reid-Friesen, who is just three years old and very

pleased to be here, and we have the souls who looked out for her when she was

very small. Rheta Steer is in the gallery with her, and Rheta's sister has just

come from Prince George to Victoria to live. Her name is Jan Powell. If the

House would make all four of those souls welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I have several introductions today. In the first one, I want to

recognize 48 grade 5 students here from Talmud Torah Elementary School. There

are five adults with them: Mr. Larry Bauer, Mr. Elazar Reshef — I apologize if

my pronunciation isn't perfect — Mrs. Andrea Milman, Ms. Lily Bouskila and

Hadas Av-Gay. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

To finish,

probably for this session, a long string of introduction of new citizens to

British Columbia, I want to ask the House to welcome a new young person into the

province. Last night Scott Sutherland's daughter Bronwyn and her husband, James

Stocks, had a baby boy at 11:54 p.m. at Lady Minto Hospital on Saltspring

Island. His name is Jacob Barthélémey Kemp Stocks. He weighs 6 pounds and 14

ounces, and I'm sure he came out with his eyes wide-open and a microphone in his

hand, asking long and difficult questions to everybody in the operating room.

R. Lee: It's

a great pleasure to introduce to the House 42 grade 10 students from Alpha

Secondary School in my riding of Burnaby North. Joining them is their teacher,

Mr. Dale Lintott, as well as two volunteers who have taken time off their busy

schedules to accompany these students. They are Frank Shin and Gordon Chow.

I'm also

pleased to announce to the House that they are accompanied by another teacher

from Alpha Secondary School, Mr. Jack Trovato. He was honoured this month by

receiving the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence from Prime Minister

Jean Chrétien.

Would the

House please join me in congratulating him and welcoming our visitors to the

Legislature.

J. Les: It's

a pleasure for me to introduce to the House today and to thank seven people who

have been assisting the government caucus as interns in the last several months.

They will be here until the end of June. But as today is the final day of

session, I want to take this opportunity to introduce them to the House and to

thank them for everything they have done for the government caucus. They are

Theresa Gerritsen, Jonathan Kim, Tyler Wightman, Azmina Ladha and Julia

Lockhart, who were all working in caucus research, as well as Quinn Newcomb and

Robert Parker, who were assigned to caucus communications.

They have

done wonderful work for our caucus, and I suspect they will all be back at some

time in the future perhaps in a different capacity. There's at least one Premier

in that group, I'm sure.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the precinct, I'm pleased to say, there are two groups of

school children representing two schools from my constituency — much to the

chagrin, I'm sure, of the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who appears to have an

unlimited number of schools in his district. But today we have grade 6 and 7

students from Morgan Elementary School, which is a new school where I had the

pleasure of being at the opening ceremony in Surrey, and they are joined by

their teacher, Mr. McKim. We've also got some grade 7 students from George

Greenaway Elementary School, joined by their teacher, Mr. Clifford. I would ask

that the members please make them feel welcome.

Brenzinger: Today I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce and to thank

a very special legislative assistant, Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas. She has a pot of

MLAs: Rob Nijjar, Jeff Bray, Patrick Wong and myself. We just want to say thank

you to her for all the hard work on this last day of session. I hope she has a

good summer.

[1410]

J. Bray:

It's a great pleasure for me today to introduce three people to the gallery.

First, my mother and father, Marshall Bray and Evelyn Bray, who I promised not

to introduce, so I'm not actually going to do that. Accompanying them is my best

buddy and my nephew, Graeme Bray, who is here for his first visit to the

Legislature. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Hamilton: As the MLA for the riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin, I'm very

conscious of the deep historical links between Esquimalt, the sea and sailors.

That strong tradition will be recognized June 20 to 22, when Esquimalt, thanks

to the commitment and dedication of the people of the community, will stage its

annual

[ Page 7108 ]

Buccaneer Days festival. What makes this day special is the degree of

community involvement. The festival theme is nautical, and the focus is on

participation by non-profit organizations. For more than 30 years these

volunteers have staged displays, manned booths and marched in the traditional

Saturday parade along Esquimalt Road. I'd like to encourage everyone to join the

fun by catching the seafaring spirit at Esquimalt's community event, the one and

only Buccaneer Days festival.

Stewart: I t's my pleasure today to introduce to the House two schools that

have come from Coquitlam to visit the Legislature. We have a group of students

and teachers and parents from Como Lake Middle School in my riding. They were

over at the museum today, and I'm sure they got the tour of the Legislature and

enjoyed their time here.

We also

have the band and choir from Centennial Secondary School. The band, under the

leadership of music director Tim Laithwaite, performed in front of the

Legislature this morning. The choir, under the leadership of music director

Carole Baker, performed in the legislative rotunda, and I know some of the

members were able to participate in that. Would the House please make these two

groups welcome to Victoria.

Hayer: Since this is the last day of this session, I would like to keep the

tradition by introducing…. I advise the House that we have 90 grades 1 and 3

students who will be visiting the parliament buildings from Tynehead Elementary

School and Tynehead Montessori School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead,

with their teachers Ms. Manjit Mann, Ms. Suzanna Filipovic, Mr. Wayne Morin, Ms.

Cindy Butler, Ms. Karen Dueck and Mr. Murray Henderson, as well as the parent

volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these

students. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's my pleasure today to announce that Jennifer Barclay, one of the

key members of my team and office, gave birth on May 25 to a bouncing baby boy

who weighed in at, I think, 8 pounds 14 ounces.

Lekstrom: I rise today to welcome a very hard-working gentleman who works in

the Legislative Assembly with us. He is my legislative assistant and a friend of

mine, Mr. Frank Costa. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon.

S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Land Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Today I am pleased to introduce the Land Amendment Act, 2003. These

amendments make an important contribution toward meeting this government's

commitment to provide greater certainty and access to Crown land and resources.

These

amendments add a new

section to the Land Act relating to authorities for land

use planning, which will streamline the planning process and provide resource

users with clear direction respecting government's intentions for land and

resource use. The amendments will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

establish designations for areas of Crown land and to set management objectives

for those areas.

[1415]

These tools

will allow the government to meet a number of needs, including the fulfilment of

government's new-era commitment to establish a working forest land base that

will provide greater stability for working families and enhance long-term

forestry management and planning.

The

amendments also support the establishment of the results-based frameworks

required for implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act,

2003, by simplifying the framework for setting land use objectives that is

currently contained in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

These

amendments are an important step toward the government's objectives of enhancing

certainty for resource development through changes in how the province

implements strategic land use decisions. I'm pleased to present this bill in the

House today.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 46

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 69 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Bill 69 is introduced for debate in the coming fall session. When

the Forest and Range Practices Act was introduced last fall, I indicated that

there would be additional legislation to facilitate the

[ Page 7109 ]

transition between the Forest Practices Code of B.C. and the new act, the

Forest and Range Practices Act. This bill sets the framework for that

transition.

The

amendments reflect the results of pilot testing that has taken place and

comments that have been received over the winter months. The bill adds clarity

to the designations and objectives for maintaining environmental standards such

as wildlife habitat, areas' community watersheds and water quality objectives.

The bill also contains provisions to deliver on the government's commitment to

the defined forest area management model by providing licensees with the means

to prepare forest health strategies across timber supply areas.

Lastly, the

bill also contains a number of consequential amendments which last fall we

committed to introducing this session and which are necessitated by the move

from the Forest Practices Code of B.C. to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 69

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon.

S. Santori presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Public Service Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that Bill 71 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: I am pleased to introduce the Public Service Amendment Act, 2003.

This bill amends the Public Service Act to modify the review process for public

service staffing decisions. It eliminates the Public Service Appeal Board and

replaces it with an independent staffing review by the merit commissioner. This

change will ensure that the integrity and accountability of the staffing process

is preserved, while making the most efficient use of public resources.

The bill

also changes the name of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission to the

B.C. Public Service Agency to reflect the recent change in direction and

organization for the management of human resources in the British Columbia

public service.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill

71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1420]

MANUFACTURED HOME ACT

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Manufactured Home Act.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present this bill, the new Manufactured Home

Act, which tracks ownership and location of manufactured housing in the

province. This replaces the current Manufactured Home Act in force since 1978.

The new act

will streamline manufactured home registry processes and reduce the costs of

operating the registry. It will also result in improved efficiency for the

registry by accommodating electronic filing and reducing the registrar's current

oversight role.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill

72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) TEN THINGS YOU DIDN'T READ

IN THE NEWSPAPER

P. Bell:

As most members will know, I produce a weekly e-mail entitled "Ten Things

You Didn't Read in the Newspaper This Week." Here are the top ten of the

best of ten from the last year.

(1) The

ministries of Advanced Education and Health Planning have jointly developed a

new, more advanced nurse-training program called the nurse practitioner. These

individuals will have a huge impact on the small communities in the heartlands.

(2) Wages

in B.C. For the first 20 months of our time in office, wages in B.C. are up 6.8

percent. That's 62 percent higher than the national average.

(3) Of the

over 200 commitments we made in our 2001 New Era document, we've acted on

almost 90 percent.

(4) Numbers

are just in on exports to China of wood products, and 2002 saw a 100 percent

increase over 2001.

(5) In

2002-03 we were able to eliminate 50,000 regulations. This put us on pace to

eliminate one-third of all requirements within three years.

(6) Building permits have tripled this year in the heart of the heartlands, Prince

George.

(7) The

heartlands economic strategy will bring together transportation, energy,

forestry, tourism, agri-

[ Page 7110 ]

culture and new-tech technologies to create a powerful economic force for the

regions and the province as a whole.

(8) We will

spend $609 million in the next three years on roads in the heartlands.

(9) In the

last 16 months a total of 98,900 new jobs were created in B.C. — number one in

Canada.

(10) In

2002, B.C. went from dead last in investment attractiveness, a position of

dubious distinction held in both 2000 and 2001, to number three.

FIXED ELECTION DATE

J. Les: It

was an idea whose time had come. Two years ago our government campaigned on a

promise to implement a fixed election date in British Columbia. We told the

people before the election when the next election would take place. That promise

was put into law during the first 90 days of our mandate. It was an

unprecedented relinquishment of power by the Premier to give up on the long-held

tradition of manipulating election timing to suit the government in power.

Now

political parties in five provinces have adopted this pioneering reform. Setting

a fixed election day has been promised by the Progressive Conservative

government in New Brunswick and the Progressive Conservative opposition in

Manitoba, both in the heat of election campaigns in their provinces. The Ontario

Liberals and the Newfoundland Tories have also adopted a fixed election day in

their election platforms. Setting a fixed day for an election is also a plank in

the Saskatchewan party policy handbook.

Fixed

election days is just one idea of many that our government has delivered on when

it comes to democratic reform in British Columbia. Now British Columbia's ideas

are spreading east across the Prairies, through central Canada and to the shores

of the Atlantic. B.C. is taking its place once again as a leader in Canada.

END OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Krueger: It's the last day of session, and the mood in this venerable

building once again conjures up memories of term's end in our school years. In

the excitement over getting back to our constituencies and getting reacquainted

with our families and friends, and in the bustle of moving work and belongings

back with us, often we barely get a chance to say goodbye.

[1425]

Nobody ever

seems to feel sad about session ending, and I guess I don't either, but I do

always feel a little wistful. Tomorrow the halls will be quiet, and everything

will feel very different than it has since the second Tuesday in February.

There's something very unique and vibrant about the Legislature in session and

the way that a session almost seems to take on a life of its own. The throne

speech gives it birth, and the budget and legislation and other business rapidly

build it to what it will be. You never really know until the end how it will all

turn out. Then it's suddenly over. I guess I do feel a tinge of sadness, maybe,

for the session itself.

I know for

sure what I love about the session, and that is the people of the Legislature

and the amazing synergy that develops in working together. I don't just mean the

elected people but the staff of the Legislature itself and our caucus support

teams and the ministry personnel and the press gallery. It is inspiring to see

how people come together for the common good and the accomplishments that flow.

Everyone gets swept up in it. Even the people who come here just to observe and

report become part of the life of the session.

I want to

thank all of you for your

part in the life's work of this session, and I do want

to wish every member, as we finish it up, good health and God's blessings until

we meet again. We know it is a special trust that the people of B.C. have placed

in us. Only a few hundred people have ever had the privilege of serving in these

seats. We take the responsibility very seriously and work very hard, often to

the detriment of our families. I especially take my hat off to the mommies of

Olivia, Hamish and Cee-Yan, somehow carrying off prodigious workloads while

caring for these little treasures.

Let's all

be sure to find some more time for our loved ones this summer. Our thoughts and

our prayers will be with Alexander Hayer as he undergoes radiation and bone

marrow transplantation next week. Life is precious and short. Take time for your

loved ones.

When autumn

leaves begin to fall and scatter in the colder areas of this beautiful province,

we'll be gathering again to continue this work. But for now, it's back to

constituencies, families and friends. All the best to each of you, and Godspeed.

[Interruption.]

Mr.

Speaker: So it has come to this. Nobody offered to hug the Speaker.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SLOT MACHINES

MacPhail: Now you know where you can stick your No. 10 list. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker, 18 months ago in open cabinet, the Premier and the minister responsible

said that the gaming policy in B.C. was that casinos would be allowed to have a

maximum of 300 slot machines. The cabinet approved that policy, but now we see

that the casino in Nanaimo has just been allowed to go to 425 slot machines. Now

we know that the policy is really one of allowing as many slot machines as a

casino can hold, as long as the provincial limit is not exceeded.

Will the

minister responsible for quietly — some might say sneakily — increasing the

number of slot machines tell us why this change in policy was covered up? And

will he tell us why the cap approved by cabinet is now being flouted by the B.C.

Lottery Corporation?

Page 7111 ]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm not sure if that's a "tomato" or the member for

Prince George North across from me at the moment.

[1430]

Through to

the member opposite, what we did is actually took gaming in this province arm's

length from political influence, gave it to the corporation and said: "You

manage gaming within the capacity." We identified that capacity, and the

corporation is doing its job in the way it should be — without political

influence, as some people maybe had seen in governments of the past.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, that's a new script from the one that was in the open

cabinet meeting just about 16 months ago. Actually, 18 months ago at an open

cabinet meeting, this cabinet rejected an option that would have seen the

government do exactly what it's doing today. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why did they

reject that option 16, 18 months ago? Because the cabinet document, right here,

says that if they had done that, it would have been an expansion of gaming.

That's what their own cabinet document said.

Can the

minister explain how he developed the figure of 5,400 slot machines, and can he

tell us how many slot machines are plugged in and functioning in British

Columbia today?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The casino infrastructure in British Columbia when we came to

government had a number of commitments that had been made to it by the previous

government, and we reviewed the legal responsibilities of government and those

relationships. In addition, as we went through we identified that there were 18

casinos in B.C. whose capacity would be up to a maximum of 300 slot machines. We

identified that capacity of the corporation, and we moved on.

We have

made our decisions in public. We are not a government of Bingogate; we are not a

government of Casinogate. We have no political interference in gaming, and we

have restored the confidence in the gaming sector in the province of British

Columbia.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, no wonder the Solicitor General didn't want to come clean

with how many slot machines are operating today, because he knows full well it's

hundreds and hundreds fewer than what his government is going to expand in days

— in absolute days. The minister was hoping that no one would find out about

this move. Open and accountable? He snuck it through yesterday — no news

release, no splashy event, no announcement of any kind, no open cabinet meeting.

When the minister sold the old policy to cabinet, he said that openness and

accountability relative to this decision are absolutely vital. Now he secretly

allows the Lottery Corporation to expand gaming in British Columbia — another

broken campaign promise.

Again to

the minister: if accountability and openness are so vital to him, why did he set

the first policy in the light of day and change it to expand it in the cover of

night?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There was no announcement yesterday. A member of the member's staff

phoned the gaming branch yesterday and asked what the number is. They were open

and accountable and told you the number, and then you ran around and thought you

were making some new announcement.

We have

talked about the capacity for the last 18 months. It has been a consistent

number. It has been a consistent discussion. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a

corporation that is operating without political influence and will do its

business on behalf of British Columbians to the level it should be, rather than

having — as in the past — political influence dictating stupid decisions in

gaming.

MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING AND SERVICES

J. Kwan:

A broken promise is a broken promise. There's a whole long list of them.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

On Monday the Minister of State for Mental Health told this House that they have

not cut any mental health services or any program in the province. Next he tried

to clarify by saying mental health services have not been reduced. Those

statements to this House directly contradict information provided by his own

ministry. According to the coastal health authority's redesign plan, the

authority is closing 15 psychiatric beds, is reducing services to mental health

teams and is closing supported employment programs.

Will

the minister now admit that what he told this House was not true, and will he

admit that he's cutting and reducing mental health services and programs in

B.C.?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Cheema: I was waiting for that question. This is the last day.

We are

spending an additional $263 million, and that's not a cut. This year we are

spending $1.067 billion — $42 million more than last year. That's not a cut.

In 2001-02 we spent $15 million in new funding to strengthen community mental

health services. That's not a cut. In 2002-03 we added $18 million to strengthen

community mental health services. That's not a cut. On March 15, 2002, our

government made a commitment to build new facilities across the province by

spending $138 million. That's not a cut.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

[ Page 7112 ]

J. Kwan:

This minister told this House that no service, no program has been cut or

reduced. I pointed him to his own documents that prove this is false. All told,

according to the government's own document — maybe he should flip his binder

and find that page — the Liberals are cutting $2.2 million from mental health

services at the coastal health authority. The minister can stop with the baloney

about not cutting the budget.

The list of

cuts made by his own ministry goes on and on: the mental health advocate gone,

ten psychiatric beds at VGH closed, mental health drop-in centres being

eliminated, and 67 mental health residential care beds are gone in the coastal

region alone.

Given this

record and given the fact that this is probably the last chance for the minister

to answer a question as a member of this cabinet, will he just admit that what

he told this House and what he has been telling the mental health community,

patients and families is simply not true?

Hon. G.

Cheema: As I was indicating to you, we have been working with all the mental

health organizations in this province, unlike the previous administration. Every

organization is supporting this government's effort for mental health in this

province.

We are

opening facilities across the province. We opened Connolly Lodge in 2002. We

opened Iris House in Prince George in April of 2002. We opened Seven Oaks in

Saanich in October of 2002. We opened South Hills in Kamloops in April 2003.

Again, because we were doing extremely well, we opened another facility at Iris

House in Prince George. That was this year.

Not only

are we funding the mental health plan, we are implementing best practices across

the province. We are the only province in the country where capacity is being

increased. Every other province wants to follow us. That's the achievement of

this government.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON MAD COW DISEASE

Nettleton: I'm glad to see that the B.C. beef producers are being proactive

in their handling of the mad cow BSE situation as, of course, it is of concern

to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Their actions will include, I understand,

educational courses to protect the safety and quality of their herds. They are

considering the implementation of an accreditation process for their members

following an audit process. That's good news for the minister responsible, even

if it has been precipitated by an unwelcome event.

[1440]

My question

is to the Minister of Agriculture. I have been informed that resources are not

available at present for the Ministry of Agriculture to assess the provincewide

impact to the beef industry. I also have it that without that information, the

ministry cannot make informed comment to properly place pressure on the federal

government to fairly compensate B.C.'s beef industry workers, who I'm also told

number up to 10,000.

Would it be

helpful to the minister if that funding was made available and the ministry was

indeed able to assist the industry in this way?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: It may be somewhat premature to try and do an assessment of

damage to the beef industry, but I want to assure the House that, first of all,

any individual farmer or rancher who has animals removed from the herd will be

compensated to the level of market value and a maximum of $2,500.

We also

have a federal-provincial program in place that provides general disaster

assistance to ranchers if there's a significant drop in income. We're currently

in the process of signing a new five-year agreement to do that, and that

agreement contains a significant component of business risk management.

I think the

best assistance we can give the beef industry is to get the borders open. The

Canadian Food Inspection Agency is working very actively and diligently to win

the confidence of our trading partners and get the borders open for the beef

industry.

BOWSER BASIN AND OIL AND GAS

INDUSTRY ROYALTY STRUCTURE

Harris: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Last week

there was media coverage suggesting that the Bowser basin, located in

northwestern B.C., is attracting a significant amount of interest from investors

in the oil and gas sector. Recently the minister stated he was looking for a new

royalty structure for this and other regions of the province where there is a

need to build infrastructure. With this heightened awareness of the potential of

the Bowser basin, can the minister report on the progress he has made in

developing a new royalty regime?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the member and the people in the northwest have reason to be

optimistic with the possibility of oil and gas industry actually happening in

the northwest part of the province. Onshore, there's an estimated 2.5 billion

barrels of oil in the Bowser basin and about 13 trillion cubic feet of natural

gas by the federal survey. We want to tap into that.

That was

part of the job the Premier gave to me, and we're working hard at putting

together a royalty scheme that will actually get the industry interested in

these other basins across British Columbia. As I understand, Rally Energy,

EnCana and Devon, to name a few, are very interested. We'll have an update in

September on a geological survey on the Bowser basin that I think will be very

good and actually encourage some more investment in the province. That's exactly

what this government intended to do when it came to office, and we're living up

to that promise.

[ Page 7113 ]

FUNDING FOR

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

J. Kwan:

Child protection and community living agencies have told the Minister of

Children and Family Development over and over again that they can't implement

his cuts without compromising the safety of children. Service providers in the

South Okanagan have run the numbers, and they show that after the implementation

of the government's cuts, they'll have a $5 million deficit. That will mean the

elimination of mental health services, youth justice programs and residential

treatment, to name just a few.

The

minister says the Treasury Board is reviewing the budget, but the child

protection providers are in the dark. In Nanaimo service providers recently made

a presentation to the local MLAs about the impacts of their cuts. They gave them

a stark assessment of what will happen if the minister plans to proceed. They

told them that more children will end up in care, that there will be a loss of

skilled foster parents, that there will be an increased safety risk to children.

How much

more evidence does the minister need that his cuts can't work without

compromising children's safety? Will he tell this House: when will Treasury

Board make their decision and complete their review?

Hon. G.

Hogg: As I've said all along and as this government has said, our primary

focus will be to provide and ensure that there are health and safety protections

for all the children and vulnerable adults in this province.

[1445]

This

government is doing the responsible thing and reviewing all of the service plans

and reviewing the impacts that those will have within the context of communities

all across this province. That's the responsible and appropriate action for a

government to take, which has that vision of ensuring that we involve

communities in the development of a positive system that will support the most

vulnerable people in the province. We're doing that. We're doing that as a

government, and we're doing that in a process that is reasoned, responsible and

is evidence-based. We will do the right thing for the right people of this

province.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Kwan:

I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

J. Kwan:

I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the

report.

Leave

granted.

J. Kwan:

The committee examined the retention and disposal applications made to it by

the Public Documents Committee and recommends acceptance of all 21

recommendations contained in the report to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Petitions

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I rise to table a petition on behalf of 265 constituents who

support the changes urgently needed to improve safety on the Caulfeild Overpass

in West Vancouver and surrounding roadways.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents:

the annual report of the information and privacy commissioner, 2002-03, and the

office of the merit commissioner annual report, 2002-03.

Petitions

B. Kerr:

I'd like to table a petition. This petition is from the residents of

Spectacle Lake. While small in number, they are certainly passionate in their

cause, and they would like to see Spectacle Lake saved as a community park for

their children.

I have a

further petition here, with 55 signatures, from the residents near or using

Goldstream bridge. This petitions the province to assist in preparing a

pedestrian walkway and viewing platform on the proposed new bridge at Goldstream

River.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Abbott: I have the honour to present the 2000-01 Report on

Multiculturalism and the 2001-02 Report on Multiculturalism .

Petitions

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to table a petition presented to your

office, actually, by 1,000 seniors in Kamloops concerned about medical services

and MSP premiums.

MacPhail: I rise to present a petition signed by 11,981 British Columbians

who request that the House recognize that naturopathic physicians provide safe,

effective and valid health care in B.C. They're calling on the government to

create a scope of practice that reflects the current education and historic

practice of providing safe and effective primary health care for B.C.

I seek

leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 7114 ]

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: I would ask the House to make welcome a former Member of

Parliament and government relations consultant with the British Columbia

Naturopathic Medicine Association. Jim Hart is in the gallery today, and he is

in Victoria this week trying to meet with MLAs and cabinet ministers about

proposed changes to the scope of practice for naturopathic physicians. Would the

House please welcome Jim Hart.

Motions on Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO REVIEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon.

G. Collins: I move Motion 102 standing in my name on the order paper. It's a

motion to charge the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to conduct the five-year review of

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, pursuant to

section 80

of that act.

[ That a Special Committee be appointed to

review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c.

165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so

appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also

empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess

after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of

the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during

a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the members of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills comprise the membership of

the said Committee.]

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 29.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST (REVITALIZATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:52 p.m.

Section 3

as amended approved.

section

section 39.

The

Chair: Minister, is there an amendment on

section 4?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my

name.

[SECTION 4, in the proposed

section 39 (3) by deleting everything

after paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

if the holder requests the replacement or amendment by

written request delivered to the minister . ]

Amendment

approved.

Section 4,

section 39 as amended approved.

section

section 43.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move the amendment to

section 5 standing on the order paper in my

name.

[SECTION 5, in the proposed

section 43 (3) by deleting everything

after paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

if the holder requests the replacement or amendment by

written request delivered to the minister.]

Amendment

approved.

section

section 43 as amended.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise? The price of pulp chips is priced by a

formula that ties it to the price of pulp. Is there any intention to reduce,

amend, change or eliminate that formula?

Hon. M.

de Jong: None that I'm aware of.

J. Kwan:

Just for my information, could the minister please advise this House what

exactly that formula is?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Sadly and embarrassingly, no. I can't, off the top of my head, but

those that are watching these proceedings, I'm sure, at this moment are rushing

to have it sent in to us.

J. Kwan:

I would ask, yes, for the minister to provide that information, and should

there be a change — the minister said he doesn't anticipate there would be —

would the minister advise the opposition accordingly and provide that

information to the opposition?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That's reasonable, and yes. The answer is yes.

Section 5,

section 43 as amended approved.

Sections 6

to 8 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7115 ]

section 9, sections 54 to 54.8.

P. Bell:

On 54(2)(d): "in the case of a disposition of an agreement that is a

woodlot licence, any private land in the woodlot licence area remains subject to

the woodlot licence."

[1455]

Is there a

substitution provision available for woodlot licensees, should they choose —

or should they desire — to dispose of some private land and replace it with

other equivalent private land?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes. They would have to do it before the transfer, but the other

component to this that I want to — and I think the member is aware of…. We

are engaged in a further examination in cooperation with the B.C. Federation of

Woodlot Associations about that existing mix of private and Crown land that

comprises the woodlot program presently.

W. Cobb:

section 2 in 54.1(

a) it talks about "will not unduly restrict

competition."

I guess my

question would be: is there enough protection here to ensure that we can in fact

restrict competition, and we don't end up with one mill, say, owning all the

fibre supply in British Columbia?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I just wanted to make sure I was referring to the right sections

that the member is speaking about.

We think

so. We think that the inclusion of that language — which is significant by its

presence here and, I should say, somewhat at odds with the overall philosophy of

the legislation…. But it's there because of the very concern that the member

has expressed here. We have heard in communities in B.C., particularly in

certain communities, where the fibre supply tends to be more concentrated and

where — and there are no secrets here — there are speculations about how

mergers could occur. The inclusion of this language is predicated upon this

notion. If you have a system built around the notion of a market and

competition, then there must be a market and competition. That is why that test,

as it relates to transfers and perhaps consolidations, exists in the

legislation.

But the

member is quite right when he points…. I should say, as well, that the

language is included because of what we heard from British Columbians —

stakeholders, communities, community leaders — as we went around the province.

W. Cobb:

You mentioned mergers. I guess that was one of the concerns, particularly to

ensure, somewhere in the review of the competition, that we actually couldn't

have a blind company — the same shareholders, basically, forming a different

company — that could buy the timber and then do it through the back door.

Hon. M. de

Jong: You cannot escape these provisions by cleverly registering yourself at the

business corporations office. The

section contemplates looking beyond whatever

corporate veil someone might try to erect. It goes to the question of

controlling interests and ensuring that there is actual competition taking

place.

[1500]

P. Bell:

In 54(1)(c), the transfer of a woodlot licence, has the ministry considered

perhaps, inclusion in the market pricing system over time? Would that be of

value?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay. His question gave rise to

a number of different thoughts.

The

specific answer is that it is not presently contemplated that that data would be

plugged into the formula which will drive stumpage rates. His point, however,

about the relevance and the values this would have — that the relevance of the

values is a signal for what the overall value of the timber is — is, I think,

a good point.

What I was

trying to wrestle with here a moment ago is access. When you have a woodlot that

is composed of private land and Crown land and it is sold as a single unit with

a combined value, I'm not sure what access you would have. I think the member's

point is whether it is worth examining whether or not that data should become

available. There are certainly, as I say, arguments that say it is relevant in

terms of assessing the overall value of the timber resource.

P. Bell:

One other question on this section. Has it been contemplated whether or not

the 1 or 2 percent property transfer tax would apply to the sale of a woodlot,

although that would come through a different ministry? I'm not sure if that's a

role that would be played by the Ministry of Forests, given that there are

private lands associated with it.

[1505]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am answering the question based on the assumption that the PPT

— property purchase tax — presently applies to the transfer of the private

land component of a woodlot. We are not doing anything here that would alter

that fact, except that the general exemptions would apply as it relates to

transfers between related parties. Nothing in this bill would alter the present

application of the property purchase tax to the private component. I think, in

fairness, that the member's question is whether we are contemplating any

changes, and I appreciate the question. It is not something I had turned my mind

to at this point.

Section 9,

sections 54 to 54.8 inclusive approved.

section

10,

section 56.1.

P. Bell:

Can the minister tell me how many outstanding job creation plans there are

from the previ-

[ Page 7116 ]

ous…? I believe it was called the jobs and timber accord or something like

that.

Hon. M. de

Jong: My advice is that there are presently 12 companies with job creation

plans in place.

Bell: How much money was invested by the previous government in those job

creation plans? I gather this simply amends it and does not require any

execution of those commitments.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I can't at this moment answer the first part of the question, which

is a quantification of the actual investments. The way the

section is intended

to operate, however, represents something of a phase-out of the entire regime,

because there will be ongoing monitoring of the existing plans until 2006. Some

actually expire prior to that date, but after April 1, 2006, there will no

longer be any monitoring. It's possible that there will be examples where the

terms have not been fully complied with, but after April 1, 2006, there will no

longer be any monitoring of those plans.

Section 10,

section 56.1, to

section 12,

section 67 inclusive approved.

section

13, division 3.1.

The

Chair: Hon. members, on

section 13 there are nine amendments. Is it the wish

to pass all of those amendments and then deal with the section, or would you

like to deal with each amendment individually?

Interjection.

The

Chair: Shall the amendments to

section 13 pass?

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

The

Chair: So ordered.

Section 13 as amended.

Now we have

a number of subsections here. Would you like to deal with each subsection or the

section as a whole?

MacPhail: Can the minister explain the new cut control requirements, please?

The

Chair: Minister, in my haste, I didn't have you move the amendments. If you

would do that prior to answering the question…. The amendments to

section 13

— if you could move those, please.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I thought we did, and I will now.

I move the

amendments to

section 13 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.2 by deleting subsection

(1) and substituting the following:

(1) In this section, "licence"

means a licence that has a term of 5 years or less and is a timber sale

licence that specifies an allowable annual cut, is a forest licence, is a tree

farm licence or is a woodlot licence.]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.4

(

a) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In this

section and in

section 75.41 "licence" means

(

a) a forest licence that specifies an allowable annual cut

greater than 10 000 m3 and has a term of more than 5 years,

(

b) a timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual

cut greater than 10 000 m3 and has a term of more than 5 years, or

(

c) a tree farm licence that has a term of more than 5 years.,

(

b) by deleting subsection (3) (

a) and substituting the

following:

(

a) the first cut control period is the same as the cut

control period for the replaced licence, immediately before its replacement,

and]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.5

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following definition:

"timber

sale licence" means a timber sale licence that specifies an

allowable annual cut of 10 000 m3 or less and has a term of more than 5 years;

(

b) in subsection (2) by adding "or timber sale licence"

after "forest licence",

(

c) in subsection (4) and (5) by adding ", timber sale

licence" after "forest licence".]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.51 (1) and (2) by adding

"timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut" after

"holder of a".]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.6 (4) by deleting paragraph

(

c) and substituting the following:

(

c) the volume of timber harvested

that

(

i) was charged to the replaced licences during the calendar year of

the replacement, and

(ii) exceeded the volume that was authorized for, or available

to the holders of, the replaced licences for the immediately preceding cut

control periods

must be charged to the first cut control period of that other

licence.]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.7 by deleting everything

before paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

If the volume of

timber harvested during a cut control period for a licence, as defined in

section 75.4, a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5, a timber sale

licence, as defined in

section 75.5 or a woodlot licence, as defined in

section

75.5, exceeds the sum of the allowable annual cuts for that period that are

(

a) authorized for the licence if it is a forest licence,

timber sale licence or woodlot licence, or]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.8 (1) by deleting everything

before paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

If the volume of

timber harvested during a cut control period for a licence, as defined in

section 75.4, a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5, a timber sale

licence, as defined in

section 75.5 or a woodlot licence, as defined in

section

75.5, is less than the sum of the allowable annual cuts for that period that are

[ Page 7117 ]

(

a) authorized for the licence if it is a forest licence,

timber sale licence or woodlot licence, or]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.9 (1) (

a) by adding "a

timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5" after "a forest

licence, as defined in

section 75.5,".]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.91 (1) by adding "a

timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5" after "a forest

licence, as defined in

section 75.5,".]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.92 (

a) by adding ", a

timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut" after "a

forest licence,".]

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.93 (1) by deleting paragraphs

(

b) and (

c) and substituting the following:

(

b) for a licence as defined

section 75.4 that does not so provide,

(

c) for a forest licence as defined in

section 75.5 that does

not so provide, or

(

d) for a timber sale licence as defined in

section 75.5 that

does not so provide.]

Motion

approved.

section

13, division 3.1 as amended.

[1510]

Hon. M.

de Jong: So here's the regime that this admittedly complex bit of legislative

drafting is intended to provide for.

preserves a five-year overall cut control period, and it preserves the notion

that you must not overcut. So if at the end of that period, you have the

expectation you would cut 100 percent of your entitlement, if you cut up to 110

percent — so that would represent something above what your entitlement is —

that 10 percent is deducted from the subsequent cut control period. If you cut

anything beyond 110 percent, you're penalized, and the penalties are very, very

stiff.

It is at

the other end of the equation that the real significant changes occur, because

what we have done away with are annual minimum requirements so that during the

life of the cut control period, the harvesting will take place. It may be higher

in one year; it may be lower. Although I have learned enough about this industry

to know that the efficiencies of operations are found when you maintain as

steady and consistent a harvesting

schedule as possible.

The other

huge change here is that in the past, if you haven't harvested your allotted

volumes, you have been entitled to make application to the Crown — the regional

manager, I think, is the statutory decision-maker — to carry forward that

undercut volume, that portion to which you were entitled to harvest but did not.

That has been the exercise of a discretionary authority on what conditions

should apply, should there be an undercut carried forward. We're eliminating

that and saying, in effect, to licensees: "You will have greater

flexibility to ascertain your harvesting

schedule over the life of that cut

control period, but if you don't harvest it, it's going to be put to use for

someone else. It will be made available to someone else." That is a

significant feature of the changes that are occurring here.

Kwan: During the briefing provided by the ministry, we were advised that the

ability to reopen the cut period at any time would therefore mean that companies

could dramatically increase the cut without violating the annual allowable cut.

With that, by allowing the licensee to terminate, as an example, one five-year

control period and start another one immediately, the amount of cut would be

accelerated. Is that not the case? That's as we understand it.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I appreciate the question. It's not, but maybe I can try to explain.

Over that

five-year period…. The member is right. It can be a variable period, and it

can restart. But there is a maximum amount of timber which a licensee is

entitled to harvest, and you can't get beyond that by playing with the cut

control period. So if you have an entitlement to 100,000 cubic metres…. Let's

take that example; it is straightforward numbers.

If your

entitlement is 100,000 cubic metres per year, that's 500,000 over five years.

You can't increase that through the back door by restarting your cut control

period. In that kind of a scenario, if you've harvested 100,000 cubic metres

over the first four years and you restart the cut control period, that doesn't

entitle you to harvest more timber than you would otherwise be entitled to. So

whether it's on the downside or on the upside, at the end of the day, on the

upside, you're held to what your allotment is.

Kwan: I understand what the minister is saying, that at the end of the day

the amount — the allowable cut — is the same. Therefore, it's the same amount.

There would be impacts, though, I would imagine, in terms of an accelerated cut

in terms of the time frame on the environment as an example. Has the minister

done any analysis in that regard in terms of this kind of approach, and what

kind of environmental damage may result?

[1515]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I agree with the first part of the member's statement. In fact, she

asked a question, so I don't have to disagree. She asked a question that I'll

try to answer.

It's

possible, depending on prevailing market conditions, that within the licensee's

cut control period the volumes that are harvested in one year could be higher

and in another year, lower. So when the price of lumber is where it is today,

one could probably anticipate reduced harvesting activity. The price goes up,

which is what we are hoping will occur, and you would see some accelerated

harvesting activity.

That is a

separate issue. Whatever the volumes of that harvest are, it must be conducted

in accordance with all of the requirements of either the Forest Practices Code

or the Forest and Range Practices Act. What

[ Page 7118 ]

we are dealing with here is the volume entitlement, but all of the other

statutory instruments that govern the manner in which that harvesting takes

place continue to apply.

Kwan: Is the minister aware of any other jurisdiction that has adopted this

new kind of cut control regime?

Hon. M.

de Jong: All provinces that I'm aware of include some manner of cut control

period within their legislation. That is a feature common to all the provinces.

The rotating period is a feature that we think is new and unique to British

Columbia.

As I say,

one of the things we needed to be confident of is that the overall integrity of

our sustainable timber supply analysis and annual allowable cut processes

remained intact. For example, I mentioned I could foresee a circumstance in

which, on a year-to-year basis, harvest levels would fluctuate. I am reminded

that under our present system, in any given year, under a five-year cut control

period, a licensee can harvest up to 150 percent even today. Even the system we

have today contemplates significant variation on an annual basis. But I think

the member's question related specifically to the variable or rotating period.

As far as I know, that is something that is now going to be unique to B.C.

Kwan: The reason why I'm asking is this. I would anticipate this new cut

control regime — the rotating component of it…. In some ways it sounds as

though there are no overall impacts in terms of the amount of timber that's

harvested, because that number is limited at the end. But if you're able to

rotate that time period, it does allow for an acceleration of the cut and the

harvesting over a longer period of time, because you have a shorter period of

time for the timber to produce and reproduce.

[1520]

The

question for the minister is: what studies or analysis has the minister done in

looking into this new rotating regime and the environment? What kind of studies

show that it would actually increase production and therefore community

stability? What kind of analysis has been done? What makes this minister think

that this new approach would actually work for B.C.?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member really raises two issues. One relates to the

environmental aspects of what is taking place here. I do think I have to repeat

my earlier answer. What we are talking about here is rate of harvest and

quantification of what the harvest will be. All of the legislation that governs

how one engages in harvest activity in British Columbia continues to apply. I

can't point to analysis on that front, because everything about this assures me

that the statutory provisions, protection provisions and environmental

provisions will apply as they have and as provided for under the new Forest and

Range Practices Act.

Secondly,

we think that at the end of the day, by providing that increased flexibility,

operators are going to be better equipped to both respond and take advantage of

fluctuations in the marketplace. Now, I'm probably pre-empting myself, but I

think there are members in this House who have concerns — and we'll hear about

them — about how quickly undercut volumes are going to be made available for

use by other licensees. There has been an argument, in fact — and I think

we'll hear that in a few moments too — about shortening that cut control

period.

I will say

this again. A significant feature to this is eliminating the ability that

licensees have had in the past to say to the government: "We didn't harvest

that amount of fibre because it was a lousy market, and we want to carry it

forward." That has been far from an exact science. I think the concern that

I have heard in some quarters is: "We don't really want to wait five years

for that determination to be made. If some licensee hasn't used the fibre, get

it out there quicker."

We did an

analysis. We worked with stakeholders, with licensees, who were calling for a

longer period — who were looking for a period of six, seven or eight years —

and we decided that the period of time that best served the purposes of the

province, the communities, the people that own the resource and the workers was

a five-year period.

Cobb: As you know, we've talked about this one many, many times. The concern

in my riding in the interior, of course, with this

section is the steady

employment. Because of breakup and a lot of other things that happen in the

Cariboo in particular, forestry is classified as a seasonal industry, and I

think this

section could further that dilemma.

I have a

couple of questions throughout this section, but to start with: is there any

protection here? I realize that they can cut different segments at different

times over a five-year period. What would stop a licensee from coming in,

high-grading, taking off the best of the timber, then halfway through his cut

period…? It would be a five-year period. He could high-grade for the first

couple of years and then shut down for the balance or sell off the rest, because

elsewhere in this bill there are subdivision opportunities and what not to sell

off the balance of his wood.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's not really a high-grading issue, because all of the provisions

that we dealt with yesterday in Bill 45 apply to protect against that — the

harvest take-or-pay provisions. There is, in my view, sufficient protection to

ensure that the profile is being cut and that people are not simply combing the

forest for the highest-value logs and leaving the junk for someone else or to

rot.

[1525]

I think the

concern, though, that the member has heard and, in fairness, that I have heard

relates to the possibility for an increased cyclical nature of harvesting. The

obligation to cut the profile or pay continues to exist. I think the concern is:

in a period of time where

[ Page 7119 ]

the price of lumber drops precipitously low, what is the likelihood of

continued harvest activity taking place?

The answer

to that relates, in part, to the economics of maintaining steady harvesting

activity — the benefits that will accrue from having the flexibility to

respond to those changes in market conditions. I don't think there's anything

here that should be cause for concern around the issue of high-grading.

Cobb: I may have used the wrong term, but yeah, high-grading was some of the

discussion and concern. Is it a fact, then, that a licensee can take a five-year

cut period, cut half of it when the prices are high, either sell off the rest or

shut down for the rest of that time and not harvest anything for the next two

and a half or three years, depending on what the high price was?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll try to confirm for the….

Here's the

worst-case scenario. In a five-year cut control period, because of where the

price of lumber is, a licensee says: "I'm not going to harvest for the

first three years and then harvest like mad in the last two years." I don't

believe that's likely to occur. That would be catastrophic for a whole bunch of

reasons — the ability to maintain the infrastructure on the part of the

licensee and all of those things. These people are in business to harvest.

Conversely,

I suppose, if the price of lumber is way up there during that cut control

period, you could see licensees harvest fairly aggressively in their first year.

You could see that. Now, my expectation would be that if they all do it, the

price of lumber ain't going to stay up there very high. That's where I have

heard the nervousness expressed — around how that is likely to play out. The

member for Skeena has also expressed a nervousness around one other feature to

this that I'm sure we'll discuss in a moment.

Bell: I'd just like to refer to the

section that talks about selling undercut

volumes off a woodlot. Given the nature of woodlots and the amount of volume

that is harvested in any given period, that gives me reason for concern. I'm

wondering if the minister can speak to the issue in terms of: are we going to

sell off as little as 500 or a thousand cubic metres? Or will there be a

benchmark where, if an entire cut period goes uncut, perhaps there would be a

sale on it? That entire notion of selling volume off a woodlot unless it's

really not being maintained by the owner gives me some reason for concern.

[1530]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't think I disagree, actually. Just checking with the

officials, I'm told that the provisions that have allowed for this have existed

with respect to the woodlot program. It is exceptional indeed where they have

been utilized. The key word preserved within the

section is the word

"may."

It is,

however, a provision we wanted to preserve in the event that we or a government

in the future were confronted by a situation where a woodlot owner was simply

showing absolutely no interest or no intention to make use of the asset they had

been provided with.

So you're

quite right about the volumes, although I suppose we might want to speculate

about the years ahead and the possibility that woodlots will get larger. In

those circumstances it may be a provision that, I suppose, the Crown might wish

to have at its disposal if the volumes involved grew significantly.

Harris: I'm going to look at this from a little bit of a different

perspective than I've heard in some of the questions asked.

The nice

thing about the forest revitalization — the whole collection of bills — is

that it provides a whole variable number of new access points to people that

want to get into the forest industry. It actually encourages new entrepreneurs

just by providing access to fibre. That's the key.

What

concerns me in

section 75.4, the ability to rebook, is that one of the unique

access points that communities are going to see is an opportunity to benefit

from a rolling undercut model, one that actually sees, when timber isn't

harvested…. We have a formula in place that actually sees that fibre roll into

the marketplace in some kind of predictable fashion. It's that access to the

fibre, when major licences don't want to use it, that actually gives

entrepreneurs, people we refer to as Bill 13 contractors, first nations —

everybody, really, in those local communities who live around that fibre basket

— an opportunity to get at it.

Historically,

look at what's happened in Skeena, where we're been building up undercuts now

for years and years. We're probably approaching three or four million cubic….

We're probably up to four now. Yet during that time, while that undercut's been

building, people who have actually had ideas or ways of generating activity and

putting people to work — whether it's in the value-added sector or in the

harvest side or in the log market side or any of those occupations — have been

really stifled by lack of access.

The

minister talked originally about the fact that under the old system, industries

and companies and major licensees literally hoarded timber. The concern I have

with this

section is that people will start to strategically book, not the way

the member of the opposition talked about but more in terms of strategically

book, so that it in fact prevents a consistent flow of fibre into the

marketplace in any predictable fashion, and we won't actually see that access

point realized — not in any fashion I think is going to work for a lot of the

forest-dependent communities.

The bills

— the collection of them — are great. I think this particular

section

becomes an inhibitor to an access point, and that gives me a lot of concern. I

don't think it actually completes the intent of the full package we are trying

to deliver.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I appreciate the member's remarks, and it's obviously an issue that

he and I and

[ Page 7120 ]

others — people around the province — have talked about. I have the

member's point that a shorter period would lead to a situation in which those

unutilized or undercut volumes would find their way back into the market and be

available for other interested parties more quickly.

I am

perhaps less suspicious — or less concerned, I suppose — than he about the

pattern that may emerge. But it is, of course, something we will need to track

very carefully. It is helpful and, I think, appropriate that the member put his

concerns on the record in clear, unambiguous terms, because if he's right and

I'm wrong, this government or another government may have to look at the

implications of that and address it in the future.

[1535]

The

Chair: Noting the time, I'm going to put the question on the remaining

sections of the bill.

Section 13,

division 3.1 as amended approved on division.

Sections 14

to 17 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:36 p.m.

Tributes

BRUCE McRAE

Hon. M.

de Jong: While we wait, I just want to take advantage of the moment. ADM

Bruce McRae, who I know many members of the House have known, and who has served

this province well and with distinction for in excess of 30 years, has just

participated in what we believe will be his final debate in these chambers

before he takes his retirement later this year. I want to thank him on behalf of

the members and the province.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 29,

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

[1540]

Mr.

Speaker: Pursuant to the order on the order paper regarding time allocation,

we will now vote on third reading of Bill 29.

Hon. members, the question before the House is third reading of Bill

[1545]

Third Reading of Bills

Third

reading of Bill 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

van Dongen

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Plant

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Abbott

Neufeld

Penner

Jarvis

Harris

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 29,

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 39.

Committee of the Whole House

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 39; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:48 p.m.

section 1.

MacPhail:

Section 1 is

definitions. The definition, as it's listed here, of

the B.C. Transmission Corporation doesn't sound like any other Crown

corporation. So what is it? If the minister were to describe the category into

which this new company fits, is it the Crown corporation set of companies?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, it is.

Before I

start, maybe I should introduce Chris Trumpy, deputy minister in charge of the

energy policy. I have on my right Karen Adderley, manager of regulatory

[ Page 7121 ]

affairs in transmission; Yacout Mansour, the vice-president of grid

operations, behind me; and on the other side is Shelley Murphy, senior adviser,

electricity policy.

MacPhail: So it is a Crown corporation, the minister says. Where would it be

in here that it's a Crown corporation like other Crown corporations which

legislate their operation as a benefit to the province?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It is a company, a corporation, owned by the Crown. There are many

such examples in British Columbia of the same type of Crown. I can give these:

Columbia Power Corporation, Victoria Line, Land and Water British Columbia.

There's a whole host of them that are incorporated this same way. It is wholly

owned, completely owned — 100 percent — by the people of the province of

British Columbia.

[1550]

MacPhail: The minister has said it's a Crown corporation, so I'm satisfied

that he's made that admission. What does the RTO expect in terms of a

transmission company?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: First off,

section 1 in this act is not talking about an RTO. In

fact, at no place in the act do we talk about regional transmission

organizations.

MacPhail: Thank you for that information. That was useful. My question is….

The minister has said this is a Crown corporation, not a company, so if British

Columbia were to join an RTO, what is the requirement of membership in the RTO —

a company or a Crown corporation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It is a company under the Company Act, owned by the Crown, so it's a

Crown corporation. The decision, to my knowledge, as to what the RTO will

require has not been made in the U.S.A., and at some point in time they will

make it. But this is a company, a corporation, owned by the Crown, by the people

of British Columbia.

Further to

that, it will be a company that's regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission,

exactly the same as B.C. Hydro is regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat for me the Crown corporations

in British Columbia that are subject to the Company Act, as he just stated?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There are a number of them. I listed them before, and I probably

don't have all of them, but I have a number of them here. They are the Columbia

Power Corporation, Victoria Line, Land and Water British Columbia, B.C. Pavilion

Corporation. There are some that are dissolved — the Skeena Cellulose ones.

Those are some examples.

MacPhail: I have only the time to take the minister at his words — that

they're also Crown corporations, subject to the Company Act.

The

definition of "transferred employee" deals with employees designated

transferable. The corporation intends, as I understand it, to pick certain

people and transfer their positions away from the authority. Will that

designation be by name — Christian and last name — or by position?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, under

section 1…. Later on we deal with employees, if we

want to wait until then. In fact, there's an extensive part of this bill that

deals with pensions and employees.

MacPhail: No, I'd like my question answered now, please.

[1555]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: With the agreement, I'll read out

section 7(1): "The Lieutenant

Governor in Council may, for the purpose of effecting transfers referred to in

subsection (2), make orders as follows: (

a) identifying by name, classification

or other description, employees of the authority to be transferred

employees."

Yes, they

do have the names of the employees.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 2 is a key

section in this legislation. The

section is

titled "Applicability of certain statutes and common law to transmission

corporation."

How will

the application of the Economic Development Electricity Rate Act

section

32(7)(

f) affect the rate structure set up at B.C. Transmission Corporation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld:

Section 32(7)(

f) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act has been

repealed in Bill 40.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I can't keep track. Did the Hydro and Power Authority

Act subsume the Economic Development Electricity Rate Act?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The Economic Development Electricity Rate Act was also repealed in

Bill 40.

MacPhail: Okay. Isn't everything nice and tidy? The Financial Administration

Act applies to the B.C. Transmission Corporation. Will the B.C. Transmission

Corporation be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: How will that occur? The act is silent.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Ministerial order.

MacPhail: A ministerial order. Is there not a way that the minister can do

that the way it's done everywhere else, which is to amend the legislation to

demand that this be included under the

schedule of the

[ Page 7122 ]

FOIPPA? I'm sure the minister is well aware that the freedom-of-information

commissioner stated that because Bill 39 does not designate BCTC as a public

body under the FOIPPA, it should be added to the schedule.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It can be done either way. There is a regulation from the Minister

of Management Services that adds B.C. Transmission Corporation to the FOI

requirements.

[1600]

MacPhail: What particular statutes or statutory provisions is the minister

excluding this Crown corporation from and why?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: B.C. Transmission Corporation will be treated exactly the same as

B.C. Hydro.

MacPhail: When the minister says — just to clarify — that they will be

treated exactly the same as B.C. Hydro, there are no fewer exemptions…. This

is almost like a double negative. Are there fewer exemptions that apply to B.C.

Transmission Corporation than do to B.C. Hydro, or is it absolutely identical?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: All sections of the Company Act apply. All sections of the Financial

Administration Act apply, and all the ones that apply to B.C. Hydro will also

apply to BCTC. There is apparently a fairly extensive list, as I understand.

[1605]

MacPhail: I'm just wondering whether the minister can tell me, under

section

40…. I'm trying to see right here. Was there an entire repeal of the Economic

Development Electricity Rate Act? Was the entire act repealed? If the minister

could just quote me that.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, it did repeal the whole act.

MacPhail: Now, I understand that that act did allow the government to provide

reduced electricity rates in order to stimulate economic development. I'll just

read a

section of that act that has now been repealed. It previously said:

"An

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers are advisable, including terms and

conditions (

a) setting the economic development rate for surplus electricity to

be supplied, (

b) specifying the period during which the economic development

rate is applicable, and (

c) specifying the amount of surplus electricity to be

supplied at the economic development rate."

That

allowed for lower electricity rates. That act has been repealed now. Is there

any contemplation of the permission of lower rates?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member will recall that we repealed the jobs-for-power bill

also, the same as this one. The B.C. Utilities Commission will regulate the

prices for electricity as they relate to commercial, industrial and residential

in British Columbia. We don't have any intention of having a special rate for a

special company. We will actually have the same rate across a broad brush of

companies.

MacPhail: Just to be clear: this government has repealed legislation that

would permit lower rates to stimulate economic development, by repealing the

Economic Development Electricity Rate Act. Is there an ability for a person or a

company or anyone to obtain intervener status to recommend to the BCUC that

there is justification for a rate reduction in order to enhance the economy?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, this government has said there will be no special deals and

no business subsidies. We will have the B.C. Utilities Commission set the rates.

They'll be cost-based rates in the province of British Columbia. They will set

them the same for BCTC as they would for B.C. Hydro. That's why that was

repealed.

Hawes: I wonder if I could seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hawes: There are, in the gallery today, 54 young students from E.S. Richards

school in Mission, grades 4 and 5. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Tough — who isn't really tough; he taught three of my kids some years ago —

and 21 adult chaperons are accompanying them to Victoria today. Could the House

please make them welcome.

[1610]

Debate Continued

MacPhail: The minister didn't give me the list, but I assume that the

Expropriation Act still applies to the B.C. Transmission Corporation as per the

Hydro Act,

section 32(7).

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member is correct. There are no expropriation rights needed for

BCTC because B.C. Hydro still owns all the transmission, all the poles and all

the wires. BCTC is actually charged with running the business on those wires.

We just

checked briefly for the Economic Development Electricity Rate Act. No one can

remember the last time that was even used. Had it been used, it was quite a long

time ago.

MacPhail: Thank you for that evaluation of the corporate memory. I'll just

say that so far in this Legislature the corporate memory has often been

completely incorrect. Never let it be said that I'm accusing it at this

[ Page 7123 ]

time, but on several occasions, in this session particularly, the corporate

memory has failed.

The

Expropriation Act doesn't apply to BCTC. Is that what I'm hearing the minister

saying? He's nodding yes. Any expropriation for expansion of transmission lines

will be done under the Hydro Act. Is that right?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: If there were need for expropriation to build a transmission line,

B.C. Hydro would have that authority and would do that.

MacPhail: Any requirements to consult and to meet the duty to accommodate

with first nations are the responsibility of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: If one were to determine the cost of expanded transmission in this

province, to whom would one turn — B.C. Transmission Corporation or B.C. Hydro

— to determine the costs of expansion of transmission lines? Who is held

accountable for those costs?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It is a responsibility of BCTC to put forward the planning if there

is a requirement for further transmission. They would put that plan to the BCUC.

The BCUC would review it in the normal ways that they do, and then they would

instruct B.C. Hydro to build it.

MacPhail: Does the B.C. Transmission Corporation do all of the planning,

including receiving the submissions from proponents for expansion?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: And then B.C. Transmission Corporation orders B.C. Hydro to build

it? What if B.C. Hydro says no?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, when BCUC reviews the plans for expansion on transmission

and approves those plans that are in the best interests of consumers, they will

then instruct B.C. Hydro to build the facilities. I can't imagine B.C. Hydro

would refuse it, because they are required to provide electricity to British

Columbia first to the people of the province. They're mandated to do that; they

have to do that. If there's not enough transmission room, they're obviously

going to have to build enough transmission room to be able to do that.

[1615]

MacPhail: As I understand it, Hydro has the ability to get sources…. They

have claimed that they're going to build up sources of energy other than through

the transmission lines. The government takes great pride in that. So, where is

it? What other example exists where one Crown corporation can order expenses

incurred by another Crown corporation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, in discussions, none that I know of within B.C. This is a

process that we're beginning here.

MacPhail: Just tell me quickly: if we're breaking new ground here where we

are separating two bodies, and the government claims they're both Crown

corporations…. We'll take them at their research. Yet one Crown corporation

can impose costs on another Crown corporation. So we have rankings of Crown

corporations now. The B.C. Transmission Corporation can impose costs on another

Crown corporation. Can that Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, appeal to the BCUC

about those imposed costs?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, we'll have public hearings before any new transmission would

be built. B.C. Hydro would have the opportunity to appear before the B.C.

Utilities Commission.

MacPhail: I'm wondering about this — independent power producers wanting an

expansion of transmission lines so that they can wield power for export. It has

nothing to do with domestic use. It has nothing to do with the ratepayers of

B.C. Hydro, and yet they could make a case to the B.C. Transmission Corporation

— close relations. The Transmission Corporation could hear their case and say:

"Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. That's great profit for you independent

power producers, so we'll build the transmission lines." No use whatsoever

domestically — and Hydro has to pay those costs?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, there's a step missing, and it's the B.C. Utilities

Commission. The B.C. Utilities Commission will review those costs. They will

review the benefits, and they'll also determine how that will be paid back, if

in fact they do agree with building transmission strictly for export for an IPP.

MacPhail: So it is possible that transmission in this province could be

expanded strictly for IPP export use. Is that correct?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That could be a possibility. An IPP may want to build strictly for

export. Maybe they want to build their own line. I don't know. Maybe they'll

want to access B.C. Transmission. They'll be able to do that, but there's a

process that has to happen if you need new transmission lines. That's not always

the case. There could be room to move those electrons on what's already there,

and that will be a benefit to the province of British Columbia because there

will be a wheeling rate charged for that.

MacPhail: Well, who knows whether it will be a benefit or not — whether the

wheeling charge makes

[ Page 7124 ]

up for the debt incurred by B.C. Hydro building the transmission lines?

It will be

privately built — is that it?

[1620]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, the B.C. Utilities Commission will make that determination on

application from Transmission. The B.C. Utilities Commission will not see B.C.

Transmission Corporation or B.C. Hydro lose money if they have to build new

transmission to carry electrons for an independent power producer. There will be

a wheeling right.

It's much

the same as a pipeline. There's a pipeline that goes in the ground. They're not

always full. They're sometimes part empty, and there's room to move other

products or more product through it. There's a rate that people have to pay to

be able to do that.

If you have

to expand the transmission, I would assume, when you get to that finite point

— I'm not going to preguess the B.C. Utilities Commission — they're going to

have to determine what that rate would be and what would be in the best

interests of British Columbians. It could possibly be that they may say:

"You know what, IPP? If you want to export across the border and we have to

build new transmission, the whole cost of that may be the cost to the IPP."

Again, that will be done through the B.C. Utilities Commission, through a panel

of experts that will be able make a decision on that. Again, the consumers in

the province benefit.

MacPhail: There is a huge difference, Mr. Chair, with the greatest of

respect. There could now be competing interests presenting to the B.C. Utilities

Commission. The B.C. Transmission Corporation, whose interests are only served

by profit of an IPP…. I make no judgment on this. I'm just saying that the

submission could be that the IPP needs expanded transmission strictly for export

purposes, and oh yeah, by the way, there will be a wheeling charge paid to the

province. Who knows whether that is in any way compensatory or not.

Or, you

then may have the other competing interest of B.C. Hydro having this ownership

foisted upon them for no purpose to their ratepayers — none to the ratepayers

— and having to absorb the costs of maintenance of that transmission line,

regardless of future prospects whatsoever. For the very first time there's a

ranking of priorities in this province in use of our hydro, and private

interests have top ranking.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We can get into some real fine details here, but again, I'm going to

stress….

MacPhail: Yeah, that's the idea.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yeah, I'm going to stress the fact that the B.C. Utilities

Commission is again involved. I know that's a new thing in British Columbia when

it comes to B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation, but it will be

involved and looking out for the best interests of British Columbians.

After all,

B.C. Hydro hasn't changed. What happens is they are still to deliver electricity

to people in the province. Our energy policy states that we have to maintain the

lowest possible rates going forward in the province. British Columbia is number

one. It is first.

In a

hearing, it will not preclude others from putting forward their points of view.

A public hearing is inclusive of a lot of different individuals. It won't be

just Transmission, B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission. The others can

come in and put forward their submissions as to why it should happen or why it

shouldn't happen.

MacPhail: Yes. I only note that no matter how many cheap shots the minister

tries to take about the lack of utility review in decreasing rates or keeping

them frozen being awful, British Columbians don't feel the same way. I repeat,

for the very first time BCUC will be hearing from a competing Crown corporation,

one that may be there just to serve private interests.

Hon.

R. Neufeld: That wasn't meant to be a cheap shot. It was meant to reinforce

with the public that there is a body that will review those costs as we move

forward and keep the best interests of the people of the province of British

Columbia.

I would say

that probably there have been competing interests before the B.C. Utilities

Commission on other matters. If I think about Columbia Power Corporation and

B.C. Hydro, two Crown corporations, there have been discussions at BCUC over

those types of things. I don't think that's totally uncommon.

[1625]

We should

put our faith a bit in the experts at BCUC to be able to remember their goal,

and that is to make sure that as our energy policy states, we want to maintain

the lowest prices moving forward. The B.C. Utilities Commission will help us

make those decisions.

Section

2 approved on division.

section 3.

MacPhail:

Section 3 describes the operating and management agreements for the

new corporation. Currently, transmission maintenance is largely carried out by

the employees of B.C. Hydro. Will these employees continue to be responsible for

maintenance…? Let me just put it there.

Hon.

R. Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: So there will be no contracting out.

Hon.

R. Neufeld: There is currently contracting out that happens, so it will

proceed in much the same fashion, not much different than what has taken place

up until now.

MacPhail: In 3(2) it says "despite the common law." Can the

minister explain the necessity for this to be contained in this legislation?

[ Page 7125 ]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It is to provide absolute clarity.

MacPhail: Absolute clarity about what?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Of what the bill says.

MacPhail: I'm no lawyer, as everybody in this chamber knows. But as I

understand it, from my layperson's point of view, there's legislation and

there's common law, and the two operate within their own realm. Both are valid,

and both contain rights, civil rights…. That's not the right word —

whatever. The common law has certain rights and responsibilities for people, and

legislation has certain rights and responsibilities.

What's the

confusion that arises there? What does it mean by "despite the common

law"? Give me an example of where the two could compete that would require

a legislated hammer like this one.

[1630]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This is to put in place the agreements between B.C. Hydro and B.C.

Transmission Corporation and to implement the government energy policy.

MacPhail: Well, I'm not sure whether that's very helpful to us, who are just

simple folk here and trying to understand why this government's exempting itself

from the application of a huge body of law.

I'm

wondering…. And I don't know the answer to this question. It's always risky to

ask these questions after ten years in government, but can the minister tell us

what other Canadian legislation, either provincial or federal, contains this

kind of attempt to avoid being held accountable in the courts? — because

that's what this is.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I cannot right now tell her of any other place where this would be

used in someplace else in Canada.

MacPhail: Phew. The small but hardy research caucus was correct for the NDP,

because we came up with a blank too. No other draconian exemption has any

government given itself. Well, actually, one smart young chap suggested that the

only other statutory action more severe in Canada is the invocation of the

notwithstanding clause in the Charter, and he's actually right. Some of us agree

that that clause should be there in the Charter, and others of us don't agree.

But what we couldn't find was any government legislating itself out of the

application of common law.

I'm

wondering whether that concept — of the validity of legislation containing the

term "despite the common law" — has ever been tested in a Canadian

court and, if it has, what the result was.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm not a lawyer either. I can give an answer to the member at least

with the knowledge that we have here: no, it's never been tested.

[1635]

MacPhail: Well no, it hasn't ever been tested because nobody's dared. No

government, regardless of political stripe, has ever dared to introduce such a

draconian exemption on its own behalf.

What

aspects of common law required clarity to allow the contracts to exist between

the B.C. Transmission Corporation and B.C. Hydro? Just some ballpark areas of

common law.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We'll try this here again. In common law, a natural person is free

to enter into all types of contracts. B.C. Hydro is not a person. Does that add

some clarity to the question?

MacPhail: Well, who am I to judge? No, not in my case, but it will be the

public that will judge about whether this draconian legislation serves the

interests of the public, of British Columbians.

Let me ask

this: has the minister obtained any legal opinions upon which the decision to

include this language was based?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I do not have a written legal opinion, but our legal advisers are

the ones that recommended this wording.

MacPhail: Is the effort for the Transmission Corporation to be exempt from

common law an attempt to undermine the lawsuit that's currently before the B.C.

Supreme Court filed in September 2002 by two plaintiffs representing the B.C.

Citizens for Public Power?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: No, we're not exempting BCTC from common law. The lawsuit can carry

forward.

MacPhail: So there will be no application by the province under any

circumstances to invoke legislation to shut down that lawsuit?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I just had some advice. As it is before the courts, we don't discuss

it in the Legislature.

[1640]

Hon. G.

Plant: It's called the sub judice rule.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, I always appreciate legal advice. I was just going to

say that when I first asked for the legal opinion on this language in its

existence, it was kind of verbal, so I guess we get the same sort of thing. I'm

happy we've got an Attorney General who can be everywhere to give us verbal

advice.

In regard

section 3(2), let me read it here. It says: "Despite the common law and

the provisions of this or any other enactment, if an agreement is designated

under subsection (1), (

a) the authority is deemed to have, and to always have

had, the power and capacity to enter into the agreement "

It's like

one of those magic Liberal fairies that can say: "Poof, the past didn't

happen. Poof, a railway line can become a road." And then: "Poof, back

to a railway

[ Page 7126 ]

line." This is legislation. This is the legislative equivalent to that.

Poof, the past never happened. It's deemed to have the ability — this is the

ability of the corporation — to go retroactively to have its powers and

capacity. Is that not so?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, what this says is that the authority has the power and has

always had the power to enter into this agreement. It has not entered into an

agreement before. It's moving forward and entering into an agreement now.

MacPhail: Well, no. This has the ability of retroactivity. Or am I wrong? Is

there no retroactivity here? If the minister says, "No, there's no element

of retroactivity here," we're fine with that. If this is all just

forward-looking — the corporation can't do anything retroactively as a result

of this language — fine.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There is no retroactive capacity.

MacPhail: There's also a

section in here — I'm reading (2)(b) — that

says: "the agreement, and all actions of the authority and the transmission

corporation taken in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, are

expressly authorized and valid."

I have no

idea what these words mean, but I get a little nervous when this government

deals with contracts — either the upholding of or the breaking thereof. That

seems to be language that must have special meaning. What is it?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This is, again, to provide certainty once this act becomes law.

MacPhail: Well, let's move on, and let's be clear. This

section is the one

that gives all of the legal authority for this corporation to do its business

and to enter into agreements. It is a key section.

[1645]

Section

3(2)(

d) reads as follows: "the authority is deemed to have, and to have

always had, the power and capacity to carry out all of the obligations imposed

under, and to exercise all of the rights, powers and privileges granted by, the

agreement according to its term."

That sure

sounds like a retroactive capacity to me, but I'm happy to have the government

stand up and reassure the voters again that there is no ability to retroactively

go back in and take rights.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There is no intent to do any retroactivity here.

MacPhail: So what does the language mean, then?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: When in the future they actually do the agreement, it means that

they have always had the power to have that agreement and to carry that

agreement out.

MacPhail: Now, just to be clear: the agreement with whom?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: They will be agreements between B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission

Corporation.

MacPhail: Let's just follow the string here. This clause deals with the

setting up of an agreement between the B.C. Transmission Corporation and B.C.

Hydro. The government stands up here day after day after day and claims that

B.C. Hydro will be subject to review from the B.C. Utilities Commission and that

BCUC will have its power strengthened to regulate electricity.

But if you

read (2)(f), it says this — and let's remember, this is the clause that deals

with the agreement between the Transmission Corporation and B.C. Hydro. Here's

what it says: "the authority and the transmission corporation are deemed to

have all approvals, authorizations, permits, certificates, exemptions or orders

that, under the Utilities Commission Act, are or may be required (

i) to enter

into the agreement, and (ii) to operate, control, use, manage or maintain any or

all of the transmission system in accordance with the agreement."

That's the

magic fairy wand. Poof! You're deemed to have had approval by the BCUC, not that

you actually have to go there like this government claims and have your case

heard. This clause deals with the agreement between the two, and the last little

bullet under (2) says — poof! — it's deemed to have had all of the approvals

— the approvals, the authorizations, permits, certificates, exemptions or

orders as if they had gone to the Utilities Commission.

So tell me

how this is not removing all of the normal approval processes under which energy

policy decisions are made with relationship to transmission of power.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'll read 3(4) into the record:

Nothing

in subsection 2 (b), (

e) or (

f) or (3) limits the jurisdiction of the commission

under the Utilities Commission Act to (

a) set rates of the authority or the

transmission corporation, (

b) regulate the authority or the transmission

corporation to ensure transmission services are, in all respects, adequate,

safe, efficient, just and reasonable, and (

c) regulate the manner in which the

authority or transmission corporation performs any role or responsibility it is

to assume under a designated agreement."

[1650]

MacPhail: Yes, but that doesn't negate…. If the minister's sort of saying

that negates clause 2, he's wrong. Both have to be read in conjunction with each

other. They have to be read together. As I read it, what happens is that the

agreement is made between B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Transmission Corporation. It's

not subject to B.C. Utilities Commission review, but that agreement has to be

considered in terms of its costs when the Utilities Commission sets the rates.

It's kind

of like my colleague and I here reaching an agreement to spend thousands of

dollars on jewels, and

[ Page 7127 ]

then that cost is taken as a given when it's decided about whether expenses

are fair or not. The Utilities Commission gets presented with an agreement that

it cannot rip apart, look at or examine, but it has to take that into

consideration when it's determining costs for the taxpayer. Is that not right?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That

interpretation is not correct.

MacPhail: Where am I wrong?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: All that the member brought forward is wrong.

MacPhail: That's reassuring. No details.

All right.

Let me break it down then. Can I? I'd be happy to open up this debate to anybody

who's in the Legislature — anybody. Leap in. We're just trying to obtain the

facts here. The agreement that will be negotiated between the B.C. Transmission

Corporation and B.C. Hydro, which isn't subject to common law and which the

minister also says can't have any retroactive aspect to it…. That agreement

— every aspect of it, the building blocks of it, how it's assembled — can be

examined to determine whether that's proper, cost effective and necessary by the

B.C. Utilities Commission. Is that

interpretation correct?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The agreements that will be entered into are agreements that will

give the division of responsibilities between the B.C. Transmission Corporation

and B.C. Hydro. The B.C. Utilities Commission will be able to review…. In

fact, those agreements will be public. They will be posted to a website so that

the public can look at them. The B.C. Utilities Commission's responsibility is

to make sure that the rates that the B.C. Transmission Corporation charges and

that B.C. Hydro charges are in the best interests of British Columbians, of

ratepayers in British Columbia, moving forward.

MacPhail: An agreement made in secret behind closed doors without review

that's published on the website is meaningless to the commitment that this

minister has made.

Let me ask

this: will the approvals, authorizations, permits, certificates, exemptions or

orders that arise out of an agreement made between B.C. Transmission Corporation

and B.C. Hydro be first put to public hearings before the B.C. Utilities

Commission?

[1655]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, those agreements are the divisions of responsibilities of

operating the Transmission Corporation between B.C. Hydro and the Transmission

Corporation. No, there will not be a public discussion around those agreements.

MacPhail: Where I was wrong in my

interpretation of this legislation? The

minister has just admitted that those will not be subject to regulatory review

or public hearings, but that agreement, regardless of its substance, has to be

considered by the BCUC as costs without review. It is exactly as I said it was

going to be when the minister bald-facedly stood up and said I was wrong. I'm

not wrong. I'm exactly right, and shame on him.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I'm going to say that this is the division of the

responsibilities — agreements that will be made between B.C. Transmission

Corporation and B.C. Hydro on how it is operated, what's going to be operated

and how it's going to be operated. There obviously has to be an agreement to

make that happen. That agreement is what we're talking about.

MacPhail: Let me ask it this way, then. If the creation of B.C. Transmission

Corporation is so beneficial to the public like this minister stands up and

claims, why is it that all of those agreements of divisions, just as the

minister likes to sort of slough off…? Why is it that those agreements aren't

going to be tested through public hearing and regulatory review? What is this

government trying to hide from — that those approvals wouldn't be subject to

BCUC regulatory review?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I'm going to say that this is about agreements and the

division of how B.C. Transmission Corporation will be operated between B.C.

Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation. They will be agreements made in good

faith so that…. I can't quite understand where the member's going, I guess, to

start with. Why would a person put anything into an agreement that would make it

impossible to operate?

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

I mean, it

is BCTC and B.C. Hydro. We have committed that we're going to keep the rates as

low as we possibly can in British Columbia. That's exactly where we're moving,

and that's how those agreements will be made between B.C. Hydro and B.C.

Transmission Corporation.

MacPhail: I only have an hour on this before the government shuts down some

of the most important legislation in the history of British Columbia. What the

minister is admitting is that half this business around determining our

electricity rates here in British Columbia will be done in secret — absolute

secret. So the next time he stands up and claims that they're the most open and

accountable and are restoring the credibility of the BCUC, he might want to just

stoop down a bit, because he's telling only a half-truth.

[1700]

Let's look

section 3(3). Here's what

section 3(3) says: "The transmission

corporation is deemed to have received a certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing operation of the transmission system in accordance with

the designated agreement." Poof! It's another little sprinkling of fairy

dust: "…deemed to

[ Page 7128 ]

have received a certificate of public convenience." What does that mean?

Those of us

who can't keep up to all of this probably say, "Oh well, whatever,"

but here's an example of someone who did have to go through an application for a

certificate of public convenience. The Vancouver Island Generation Project

undertaken by B.C. Hydro had to submit an application to the B.C. Utilities

Commission to obtain a certificate of public convenience. Not years ago, not

during that "decade of decline," but months ago — just months ago.

Their

application totalled 139 pages. It included information about the impact on the

environment, demand for electricity, costs of service, rate impacts and many,

many more public issues. So given the fact that the Vancouver Island Generation

Project is itself of a much smaller magnitude and a much smaller impact than all

of the electricity transmission and the transfer of that from B.C. Hydro to

BCTC, how can the minister justify evading the important regulatory step by

legislative fiat? If he's going to stand up and say all of that has been subject

to review, he's wrong.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member's wrong on a number of points again. First off, the

agreements do not deal with rates. The agreements that we spoke about earlier do

not deal with rates.

MacPhail: No, they're inputs to rates.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It deals with….

MacPhail: Maybe you don't know what that concept is. They're inputs to rates.

The

Chair: Order, member. Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It deals with how BCTC will be operated. It does not deal with the

rates. So that, hopefully, is clear.

Obviously,

there's a system already in place, so all this does is authorize BCTC to take

over a system that already has a CPCN — that has already gone through it. I am

surprised the member would venture to Vancouver Island and use that as an

example. Let me just bring forward what happened on Vancouver Island.

Prior to

this government being elected, there was a directive from a previous government

to B.C. Hydro: "You do not have to have public hearings of any kind."

The government of the day — the NDP back then, which she was a member of

actually said to B.C. Hydro: "You build it that way, because that's how we

deem it should be built."

This

government brought in a new energy policy, and we said we were going to be open

and transparent and maintain the lowest possible rates. That's exactly what we

have done by telling B.C. Hydro in the policy that they had to go forward to the

B.C. Utilities Commission to have a hearing on Vancouver Island before they

could go ahead and build any kind of a plant. So British Columbians, ratepayers,

get the lowest rate possible moving forward in the province; a secure, reliable

supply on Vancouver Island; and actually have a public debate about it, which is

happening right now through the BCUC — a public debate that is actually very

good in British Columbia, because it brings others to the table.

It allows

the public to come and talk to the B.C. Utilities Commission about what they

think is right and what they think is wrong. It allows other companies to come

forward with their plans to say to the B.C. Utilities Commission: "Here, I

have a better idea. I have a better nut to crack here. Would you experts in the

B.C. Utilities Commission look at this, and does this make better sense for the

people on Vancouver Island moving forward in supplying electricity?"

That's what

we're talking about, and that's what we've always talked about. When we brought

forward our energy plan, that was a key cornerstone of the energy plan. We're

opening it up. We're letting some light shine in on the decisions that are made

and how they're made, and it's specifically on Vancouver Island, as we speak.

That's happening today — something that didn't happen four or five years ago

under a previous government.

[1705 ]

MacPhail: The minister tried all of that line several months ago, when the

legislation was debated around Accenture, and the public rejected his arguments

fully and forcefully.

Let me just

ask the minister this, then: why is the legislation necessary to say it's that

the Transmission Corporation is deemed to have a certificate of public

convenience and necessity if they already have one? If there already is one,

produce it, please, and let the light shine on that one.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: If she wishes me to get all the information that's around CPCNs for

B.C. Hydro over the last 30 or 40 years, we could do that. I think that would be

a bit ridiculous. In fact, it's not over the last 30 or 40 years, because the

B.C. Utilities Commission didn't have anything to do with B.C. Hydro from about

1993, '94, '95 — somewhere in that area — forward, but B.C. Hydro does have

those. They had to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission prior to the NDP deciding

they could make the decisions in a cabinet room. B.C. Hydro had to go to the

B.C. Utilities Commission to be able to build those facilities.

MacPhail: What's the date of the certificate of public convenience and

necessity? Of course I want it. What's the date of it, and why the necessity of

this language? What is the legal intent of

section 3(3), then?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, the purpose of this

section — and it's not untoward in any

way — is to give to BCTC a system they will operate where there's already been

a process done prior to it by B.C. Hydro, and there's no need for them to apply

for another one. It's just a process of eliminating some red tape and a whole

bunch of work by people. That's all it is.

[ Page 7129 ]

MacPhail: If it's that straightforward, what's the problem with producing the

certificate of public convenience? Perhaps it's available now. Is it?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I answered the question before.

There will probably be numerous CPCNs in relationship to transmission — to

B.C. Hydro in total, because when the B.C. Utilities Commission regulated B.C.

Hydro, which it does now again, B.C. Hydro had to appear before the B.C.

Utilities Commission to acquire a CPCN. So they would be numerous. I can't tell

you right now how many there would be, but there would not be one, because the

system was not all built at once, at one time, and that's it. There were

additions. Things were built later on, so there are probably numerous CPCNs that

B.C. Hydro would have. All we're saying is those CPCNs are enough for the B.C.

Transmission Corporation to move forward, so they don't have to apply for any

more.

MacPhail: I'm not sure why the minister decided to repeat that. I asked for

them. I don't care whether there's 90. Surely, if they're there, it must be a

nice, neat little computer containing them. What's the time line to get them?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We don't have them here, obviously. If the member wants them, we'll

provide them.

MacPhail: Yes. I asked what the time line was.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We'll get it to her as quickly as we possibly can.

MacPhail: I'm sure they're readily available, because God knows you wouldn't

want to inconvenience a corporation in terms of a little bit of red tape, like

things as inconsequential as certificates of public convenience and necessity.

The minister just sort of said, "Oh, this is just to get rid of that little

red tape." Clearly, it's just a little pile of paper — not important at

all. So, just get them and produce them. We'd be very happy, Mr. Chair.

[1710]

It's the

role of the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that transmission services are

in all respects adequate, safe, efficient, just and reliable. Can they, under

those auspices, order B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation to construct

new transmission lines that will allow independent power producers access to

both foreign and domestic markets? Can they set rates as a result of that order?

That is happening in Alberta. It's not speculation; that's happening in Alberta.

I'm fine for the minister to stand up and say no, they can't do that.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The B.C. Utilities Commission will — I think I said this earlier

— in the best interests of British Columbia ratepayers, the best interests of

the people of the province…. That's how they'll make approvals on whether

there is any new construction or not that has to take place with the

transmission system — again, remembering the domestic customer comes first

with B.C. Hydro.

MacPhail: My question is very specific. Can the BCUC assign costs across all

British Columbians because an IPP needs new transmission, from which they will

make profit — not public profit, but private profit? This is happening in

Alberta as we speak. Those private, for-profit companies can apply and are able

to recover the cost of the new transmission lines from all British Columbians

through electricity rate increases — across all British Columbians — to

recover costs of transmission lines used for both domestic and foreign private,

for-profit use.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: In Alberta it was a completely different process. There was a

specific government directive. Again, I'm going to explain that it is the B.C.

Utilities Commission in British Columbia that will regulate both the B.C.

Transmission Corporation and B.C. Hydro, and they will do that in the best

interests of British Columbians. They will do that in the best interests of the

domestic load in the province moving forward into the future.

Mac