Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 4, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 212

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Ferries are the lifeblood of the British Columbia coast

N. Simons

J. Sturdy

Building B.C.

J. Martin

R. Kahlon

The role of women in politics

R. Leonard

D. Barnett

Balance for better

J. Tegart

A. Kang

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 2 — Long-term private power contracts at B.C.

Hydro

R. Glumac

P. Milobar

M. Dean

G. Kyllo

D. Routley

T. Shypitka

J. Brar

R. Coleman

B. Ma

J. Rustad

B. D’Eith

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2019

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FERRIES ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA

COAST

N. Simons: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to

Monday morning statements. It’s private members’ time now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about B.C.

Ferries and ferries in general, and their relevance and importance to

coastal and island communities. The topic has been recently raised in

this House because a report recently recommended that sailings which had

been cancelled in 2014 should be restored. Because of that, we’ve heard

a lot of discussion around the needs of communities that are reliant on

this mode of transportation — and not just reliant on this mode of

transportation; these communities rely on B.C. Ferries as the lifeblood

of their communities.

[10:05 a.m.]

When I looked up the word “lifeblood,” I tried to figure out how

we use that term in general. A lot of people talk about volunteers being

the lifeblood of our communities or small businesses being the lifeblood

of our communities, or arts and culture. There are a number of opinions

on this matter, but one thing is for sure: none of these other

lifebloods would be possible in our communities were it not for a way of

getting to and from our coastal communities.

Now, I represent the Sunshine Coast, where we have over 50,000

people who are reliant on B.C. ferries, for whom B.C. Ferries is a

lifeblood for their economic and social and cultural well-being. That’s

essentially how I want to talk about B.C. ferries — that the ferries

that connect our communities do so not only to create good economic

opportunities, not only to ensure that families have an ability to visit

with one another but in order to stitch together and to promote cohesion

between our various communities.

That is essential when we have a coast like British Columbia’s

coast. We can’t do much about the geography, but we can do things to

overcome the challenges that are in place that make it difficult to go

from one community to the other. I’m very pleased that we are currently

in a situation where we are fully conscious of not only having that

lifeblood, those boats going back and forth, to strengthen our health

but also to ensure that we can continue to build and grow our

communities in a way that is sustainable.

B.C. Ferries was originally created in the late ’50s in order to

ensure that our coast and our communities can become stronger

economically, that people can live in our various parts of our province

where roads are not available. Because of that, we had a system put in

place that took into account the interests of residents of these

communities. Government felt it was important enough to have a system of

transportation that was predictable, that was cost-efficient, that was

safe and that was reliable. And we’ve had that for decades.

There have been occurrences in the last 20 years or so where that

lifeblood has been choked off, where that lifeblood has not been allowed

to flow the way our communities require it to. When businesses are

interested in setting up a company in a particular area, they want to

know how they will get the necessary products from their shop to the

market. When families think about where they want to live, how do they

ensure that their children will have access to the arts and cultural

opportunities and the sporting opportunities that other families have?

If a senior wants to live on an island, they’ll want to know how often

they will be able to go and see their grandchildren or other members of

their family.

Family, culture, sport, recreation — these are essential to our

communities, and these essentials require an efficient and predictable

and cost-efficient method of transportation to and from. When

communities lose their ability to travel between one another — if a

bridge is shut down — we know the impact. If a road is closed, we know

the impact. If our ferries are cancelled because of weather, we

understand. If they’re cancelled because of mechanical problems, we

understand. We don’t want to drive across a bridge that won’t hold the

weight of our vehicle.

We understand when there are structural issues that make it

difficult to travel back and forth. But when bridges are unilaterally

closed for no reason or ferry services are reduced for reasons that are

unknown to a community, that has a significant, long-term impact on our

communities.

[10:10 a.m.]

We have hockey teams that wonder whether they can

schedule the

games appropriately for teams to come. In fact, in Gibsons, the

volleyball teams are always playing away games. They could be ranked

number one and be first in playoffs, but they’ll play every game as an

away game because if ferries are interfered with, the ability to travel

is hampered.

I think it is important that this House recognize that the value

of our ferries is far more than the economic generation they provide.

They are links between our communities. They are places where a family

will travel, whether to play in an orchestra concert or to act in a play

or to play hockey. It’s families visiting one another, finding a common

ground. It’s families from Powell River visiting families in Delta,

families from other parts of British Columbia coming down to visit our

islands and our communities. That’s what we talk about when we build

social cohesion. That’s the fundamental importance of the interaction

between our communities.

I look forward to the comments from my colleague from the other

side.

J. Sturdy: I think this is a very important issue. It’s nice to hear from the

member opposite on this. Nothing very surprising, I suppose. It’s

unfortunate that I only have five minutes, because there is much to

say.

Ferries are essential to the communities and families and

businesses on the coast — up and down the coast — to help them thrive.

Whether they are the lifeblood…. I would actually assert that the people

of the coast are the lifeblood. The ferries are important. They’re part

of a network that supports people on the coast — like the health care

system, which is important; like the education system; in transportation

like the aviation network or the transit services or barges or cargo

ships or pipelines that deliver gas to your house; or transmission

infrastructure that keeps the lights on. All of these things are

important parts of what supports people on the coast.

I’m glad the member brought this up, because in their wisdom, the

government at this time has commissioned a study, the Redlin report,

which I think is what the member was referring to — a mere $1,000 a

page, by the way. It was to look at whether the ferry service has been

provided in a manner that supports the public interest, considering

whether the ferry system is working as efficiently and effectively as

possible, whether there’s opportunity to enhance the ferry service or

reduce costs — interesting — without impacting existing

services.

After sitting on the minister’s desk for eight months, it has

finally been released. What are its conclusions? How is B.C. Ferries

doing? There are many recommendations coming out of it. I’ll try and

cluster them a little bit in terms of safety, reliability, cost and

vision.

From a safety perspective, here’s a quote right out of the report:

B.C. Ferries has a strong culture of safety and a top priority

integrated into all daily operations that has been “steadily improving.”

That’s certainly a pat on the back.

B.C. Ferries has won a number of sustainability and safety awards.

I won’t go into all the details there. Here’s one reflection that I

think is important. They received a $600,000 WorkSafe premium rebate

based on their actual safety record, and they’re expecting to see that

going forward again.

In terms of reliability, according to the Redlin report: “B.C.

Ferries is consistent in meeting its targets for on-time performance,

with approximately 90 percent of sailings leaving within ten minutes of

the scheduled departure time.”

In terms of customer satisfaction, in 2015, ’16 and ’17: 4.11 out

of 5, 4.14 out of 5, and 4.18 out of 5. This is really good response

back in terms of customer satisfaction. I wish I could actually achieve

the same sort of satisfaction with my constituents. I don’t even know

that the member from West Vancouver–Capilano can achieve that kind of

endorsement. They have similar targets going forward. I think this is

important, and I have every confidence that they’re going to reach

that.

[10:15 a.m.]

In terms of costs, a number of recommendations. What was a good

quote here? The main objective is to “keep the price cap at or below the

provincial inflation rate,” which I think is an important piece, and “to

set a challenging efficiency target which reduces costs.”

Additional spare vessel resilience will be “an important

consideration in the final capital plan,” but since the cost of every

additional vessel puts upward pressure on fares, there will be a need

for a careful balancing of “fleet resilience, growing demand, improved

efficiency and fare affordability” in the next price cap. This is a

challenging service to continue to provide on an effective and

cost-effective basis, I suppose.

I know I’m running out of time here, but there are some important

pieces around what the provincial vision for the ferry service looks

like, how it integrates into the overall transportation network around

the province and what it does provide benefit to. Ultimately, the

questions are…. Here’s a quote out of the report again. “B.C. Ferries

is, on the whole, a well-run company. The employees and managers of B.C.

Ferries are committed to providing a safe, reliable service for the

coast and work hard at it every day of the week.” The B.C. Ferries

executive is “competent and experienced, and the board of directors

takes seriously its obligation to provide good strategic direction and

oversight.”

So I think B.C. Ferries is in good hands. There are a number of

other recommendations which I would be thrilled to speak about.

Unfortunately, it looks like I am going to be out of time.

N. Simons: Thank you to my friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for his

comments on ferries. I know he can see our ferries from his particular

area. Maybe he even has one going….

Anyway, I understand how there are certain philosophies that guide

the management of our public infrastructure system. I think that when we

have something that is a lifeblood of communities, it should have a

special place in government priorities and a special place in the

consideration of government policies. I think the member points to some

recommendations made recently. In the past, we had other recommendations

that were finally put forward, including considering the impact on the

public when contemplating fare increases.

We have a system that acknowledges the lifeblood of our

communities, the lifeblood for the people of our communities. In order

to be able to be successful in our communities, we need ways to get back

and forth. When those are interfered with, then it’s impossible. People

cannot conduct their business in a way that is successful. They can’t

continue to participate in sporting and cultural events as they had in

the past. In fact, people lose their jobs because of changes in ferry

scheduling.

We have now a situation where the lifeblood is being recognized by

this House. It’s being recognized as in need of support and in need of

strengthening. It is not simply a policy question that has only anything

to do with the bottom line. It has to do with ensuring that people on

Texada Island can still commute in time to meet their hospital shifts

and that people in Skidegate can get back and forth when they need to

and not suffer from having to spend exorbitant amounts of money on

hotels. They can get home at night.

We need to get home at night. We need to get to work in the

morning. We need to be able to visit our grandparents. We need to be

able to send our children to important events. Because of that, we need

to consider B.C. Ferries as a lifeblood. It’s not a policy toy to be

played with, a partisan tool to be used, one against the other. This is

far more important than that.

I think the ability to talk about B.C. Ferries and its relevance

to our communities, its importance to business, its importance to the

cultural fabric of our communities and the cohesion between our

communities can’t be measured.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to have this

discussion.

BUILDING B.C.

J. Martin: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, colleagues.

Our province could not have achieved the success we have today if

not for the many, many skilled British Columbians participating in our

workforce. For many British Columbians, the trades provide a

long-lasting, well-paying career with excellent mobility across the

province. These are the folks who ensure our roads are safe, our schools

are sound and the structures that make our society great meet our

needs.

[10:20 a.m.]

Even the homes that we are fortunate enough to live in require the

work of nearly a dozen types of tradespeople — plumbers, roofers, gas

fitters, electricians, framers, home inspectors, welders and many more.

These tradespeople work tirelessly so that we can lead safer, more

comfortable, more efficient lives. Before I begin, I would like to say

thank you to them, each and every one of them.

It’s crucial that this House works in a forward-thinking and

constructive manner both to maintain our skilled workforce as well as to

create opportunities through apprenticeship programs for those who will

form the skilled workforce of tomorrow.

Opportunities for skilled work are wide-ranging, from aircraft

maintenance to plumbing. But B.C.’s vast opportunity has not always

translated to a vast supply. Rather, according to the B.C. Construction

Association, 68 percent of employers say that finding skilled labour is

their single biggest challenge. The problem is not unique to

construction. It’s common across the trades; 29 percent of contractors

right here on Vancouver Island expect more work in 2019. But 82 percent

of them say that they are short of workers, especially carpenters,

labourers and plumbers. That’s up from 76 percent last year.

Across the province, we see similar situations in the Interior, in

the north, throughout the Lower Mainland. In fact, provincewide 76

percent of construction companies can’t find qualified workers in the

trades they require. When employers aren’t able to hire the skilled

labour they need, they may, in some cases, resort to hiring those

without the skills to appropriately match the task at hand. This sort of

hiring practice doesn’t benefit anyone — not the employer, not the

employee and certainly not the British Columbians who are supposed to

benefit from the finished task.

This is not to say that nothing is being done to boost the skilled

labour market. I’m proud that within my community of Chilliwack, the

University of the Fraser Valley runs a Trades and Technology Centre. At

the centre, students are trained in agriculture and horticulture,

aircraft structures, architectural drafting, autobody collision and

service, automation and robotics, carpentry, culinary arts,

electricians, electronics, heavy mechanical trades foundation,

hospitality event planning, joinery, plumbing, piping, welding and much,

much more. These diverse programs are a major draw for the university

and the trades centre.

Similar programs exist all across the province, and British

Columbians of all stripes are taking advantage. I recall back in 2016,

when a number of grade 7, 8 and 9 students were invited to the

University of the Fraser Valley to try their hand at welding, autobody

airbrushing and pipefitting. They had a blast. I’m sure this experience

put a career in the trades on many of their radars. In fact, I wouldn’t

be surprised if, down the road, some of these students become

apprentices in the trades of their choice.

I’m very proud of these youth trade programs through the Industry

Training Authority and the youth trades capital program. Both of these

programs were funded through the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills

Training in March 2017. They answered the call for trades training among

our youth by allowing them to start apprenticeship training and earn

high school credits at the same time.

Apprentices are an incredibly important part of the skilled labour

market. They are a key component of trades programs. Within these

programs, students spend 80 percent of their time gaining hands-on

practical experience — that being the apprenticeship — while they spend

the other 20 percent of their time learning essential skills in the

classroom.

There are currently over 35,000 apprentices across the province

who work to build, make and maintain our communities. Their work, along

with the work of all of our skilled tradespeople, is a substantial

driver of our economy and a key component of a prosperous future for

British Columbia.

Let’s take a look at some of the numbers from the B.C. Institute

of Technology: 96 percent of those who complete apprenticeships are

employed. Within one specific program, the security systems technician

certificate, 100 percent of graduates are hired within six months of

leaving school. The prospects are limitless. Programs like these are

what British Columbia needs in order to stay competitive as we move to

the future.

Results of the 2019 annual wage and benefit survey by the

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association say hourly wages for

trades have gone up by 4 percent or more annually in recent years, with

a projected hike of nearly 5 percent this year. This very same survey

found that B.C. construction workers should expect to see pay raises of

more than 10 percent over the next two years.

[10:25 a.m.]

We must all do our part to inspire our province’s young people to

take up trades training through initiatives — to make that training and

the career where it will lead more attractive, to build a strong and

fully skilled workforce in B.C. The days when an education in trades and

a career in trades were considered secondary to traditional studies at

college and university and academia are long, long gone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having an opportunity to give this

shout-out to the young people who are building B.C. and will continue to

do so.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to speak to building B.C. I want to thank the

member for Chilliwack for his remarks regarding the challenges we face

with ensuring the amount of work — folks working in the sector — and

that we need to meet the demands of the future.

When I think of building B.C., I think of…. Well, just recently we

announced $20 billion over the next three years to build B.C. Just to

put that $20 billion over the next three years in context, the federal

government is spending approximately $50 billion over the next three

years across all of Canada.

The $20 billion there, just for B.C. over the next three years, is

going to go a long way to building B.C. Whether it’s within our health

care…. We’re talking about a redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital.

We’re talking about a new patient care tower in Royal Inland Hospital in

Kamloops. Just recently we heard of the new hospital being built at St.

Paul’s, fully funded in the capital plan.

Not to mention transportation, the Pattullo Bridge. The Pattullo

Bridge is going to have shovels in the ground soon, which is critical

for our region because it’s a piece of infrastructure that desperately

needs it. Of course, I was speaking at the Delta chamber the other day,

last week. We were talking about the replacement of Massey, and that’s

coming soon as well. I’m looking forward to seeing a good solution with

all the mayors in the region to come together and find something that

works for all of them, not only for the crossing but also all the feeder

routes that go into that. We’re seeing some positive steps

there.

Historic infrastructure spending when it comes to the SkyTrain

extension. We’re talking about an extension around Broadway. We’re

talking about possibly SkyTrain in Surrey — a historic amount of dollars

to build the critical infrastructure that we need to build this

province. Not to mention other pieces outside of the Lower Mainland —

four lanes of Highway 1 through Kicking Horse Canyon; also, the

replacement of the Bruhn Bridge in Sicamous.

If we’re talking about building B.C., we can’t not talk about

housing — $7 billion coming for housing, to build the critical housing

that we desperately need. We hear about housing all the time. We hear

about the need for affordable housing, affordable rental units. People

are struggling. Our commitment as a government was 114,000 units over

the span of a period of…. Certainly the next ten years, but much sooner

than that.

Also, part of building B.C. is…. We’ve talked about

transportation, we’ve talked about housing, but building B.C. is also

critical around the education system. We’ve got historic dollars

building schools and post-secondary education expansions across this

province.

Just in my community alone, I’m delighted to see $245 million to

go towards Highway 91 and the Nordel exchange, easing the bottleneck

congestion points along there. We’ve been hearing from the port and

other businesses in the region that those chokepoints are critical for

us to address. I’m pleased to see all levels of government participating

in this — the federal government, Tsawwassen First Nation and Port

Metro. Everybody is involved in that critical project.

I mentioned education, and I mentioned schools. I’m proud to say

that North Delta just recently, last year, finished the seismic

upgrading of Gibson Elementary, which is the last school in North Delta

that needed to be seismically upgraded.

[10:30 a.m.]

All this building, all this infrastructure and capital throughout

this province, raises a critical question that my colleague from

Chilliwack raised, which is that we need to ensure we have the people

there to do the work that needs to be done. So I, too, want to join him

in recognizing the colleges, the trades-training schools and the

campuses across B.C., which are giving our young people, or people who

are looking, the tools to meet the demand that we’re going to have in

the future. I have also seen the University of the Fraser Valley

program. It is an excellent program, and they do fantastic

work.

With that, I would say that I think that there’s a will from all

members of this House to want to continue to build B.C., make B.C. a

better place, and we know that capital spending is the foundation of

that.

I want to thank the member for raising this, and I look forward to

hearing his comments.

J. Martin: I thank my colleague for those remarks specifically referencing

the projects that are taking place not just in his riding but throughout

British Columbia.

With the last couple moments I have, I’d like to reaffirm the

importance of a strong, skilled workforce for British Columbia’s future

and to again express my gratitude to those who form it. These are the

men and women who have made it their career to build the infrastructure

that we use every day, and I have no doubt that we owe them choice and

flexibility in the work that they do.

The only way to maintain this workforce that we have now as well

as to build an even larger skilled workforce in the future is to be very

attuned to the needs of building B.C. Every move we make on this issue,

as members of this House, needs to be guided by principles of fairness,

worker safety — I cannot stress worker safety enough — efficiency and

cost-effectiveness. These are the principles that members on both sides

of this House can surely agree on all of the time.

British Columbians deserve this because, at the end of the day,

it’s their money on the line, it’s their future, it’s their province,

and it’s their quality of life. They care about the infrastructure that

they rely on to carry out the daily routines in their day-to-day

lives.

Skilled workers deserve no less because they’re the ones putting

their livelihoods on the line. They deserve the very best agreements,

fairness, safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. They deserve to be

able to freely associate or to freely not associate with groups of their

pleasing.

These types of freedoms are a two-way street. I can’t help but say

that the 85 percent of construction and trade workers who have chosen

not to affiliate themselves with certain organizations are no less

diverse, no less skilled and no less wanting of the opportunity to make

a contribution to build B.C. We should not exclude them.

We’re facing enough shortages of labour as it is. The scale of the

problem is pretty clear, when 58 percent of companies are turning down

work and 58 percent are taking longer to complete work. We can all agree

that this is not the ideal situation. It’s time for the House to address

the problems associated with skilled labour in a way that provides real

benefits to all stakeholders.

I’m reminded of a visit in 2014, just past Agassiz out to Seabird

Island. A mobile welding shop was set up at Seabird Island, and there

were no less than a dozen young Indigenous men and women learning their

skill to become welders and contribute to British Columbia. That’s what

I like to see in every single corner of the province.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN POLITICS

R. Leonard: Once again, as we have for over a century, we’re set to celebrate

International Women’s Day on March 8. You have to admire the

determination that triumphs every year as we continue to work toward a

more gender-balanced world. And 2019’s theme is

#balanceforbetter.

One of the most important ways women can contribute to reaching a

goal of equality is to get involved in politics. But before we consider

why women need a place at the decision-making table and why it is still

a challenge to achieve gender balance in government, I’d like to walk

down memory lane and get reacquainted with some influential women in

Canada, particularly in B.C.

Mary Ellen Smith was the first woman elected to this Legislature

in 1918. As a member of the Liberal government, she championed a minimum

wage for women and girls to open the door for women as judges in the

lower courts, social welfare for deserted wives, the protection of women

in the workplace and pensions for mothers.

[10:35 a.m.]

Agnes Macphail was born in 1890 and trained to be a teacher. She

became Canada’s first female Member of Parliament in 1921. She served

there for 19 years and went on to serve as an elected member for the

province of Ontario in the 1940s. She was responsible for Ontario’s

first equal pay legislation that passed in 1951, her final year as an

elected politician. What did she say about gender balance? “I want for

myself what I want for other women — absolute equality.” She also said:

“Most women think politics aren’t ladylike. Well, I’m no lady. I’m a

human being.”

In 1943, as a CCF’er — that’s a Co-operative Commonwealth

Federation party candidate — Ms. Macphail was elected to Ontario’s

minority Legislature along with a second woman, Rae Luckock. Ms. Luckock

was a seamstress by trade and originally set her political sights on the

school board. At the provincial level, she advocated for free university

tuition and improved rural education. And of course, she championed

equality for women, promoting equal pay for equal work and pay for

homemakers. After she was defeated in the next election, she went on to

organize a petition with a million names that resulted in William Lyon

Mackenzie King’s government stopping milling and baking companies from

fixing the price of bread.

Grace MacInnis, daughter of CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth and Lucy

Lillian Staples, was elected to B.C.’s Legislature in 1941 at the age of

36 and then as a Member of Parliament in 1965 until 1974. Her role model

was Agnes Macphail. Ms. MacInnis recognized that men don’t usually focus

on issues involving women. She raised the need for more child care so

women didn’t have to choose between work and having children. She

advocated for more opportunities for all women to train to qualify for

better jobs. She debated affordable housing policies and the right to

choose in order to reduce the amount of botched illegal abortions.

Medicare, pensions, birth control — the list goes on of the many women’s

causes she championed.

In 1972, Rosemary Brown was the first black woman elected to the

provincial Legislature in Canada. British Columbia was served by Ms.

Brown as a social worker and then as the first Ombudswoman before she

jumped into provincial politics, where she used her voice for equality

for 14 years. I think my favourite quote of hers is: “To be black and

female in a society which is both racist and sexist is to be in the

unique position of having nowhere to go but up.”

In 1979, 54-year-old social worker Margaret Mitchell was elected

MP for Vancouver East. She served for 14 years. She wanted to empower

single moms. She raised the issue of children going to school without

breakfast, the stigma of welfare, the lack of training opportunities for

women. In 1982, when she raised the issue of battered women, where far

too many wives were being beaten by their husbands, male MPs laughed at

her. She famously fought back, saying: “This is no laughing matter.” She

demanded legal recourse for these women and safe homes. She also wanted

domestic abuse to be treated as a criminal offence, as in those days the

statistics were telling: there were only two convictions out of 10,000

violent incidents.

Each of these women’s trail-blazing herstories indeed answers the

original question of why women need a place at the decision-making

table: to have a voice and a vote, to make a difference in the lives of

women. So we should celebrate, each of us who sit in this House with our

own gender lens. I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for

Richmond South Centre, who installed the women MLA wall in the Hall of

Honour.

But why is there still a challenge to achieve gender balance in

government? We know that throughout the world, there’s a long way to go

to achieve the goal of gender balance. We should be encouraged to see

organizations like Canada’s Equal Voice being active. Their commitment

to a better future was made all the more real to me when I met Sadie

Cameron, the daughter of one of my husband’s colleagues back home in the

constituency, amongst the contingent of young women from UBC’s Equal

Voice who came to the Legislature recently.

[10:40 a.m.]

Equal Voice crosses all political parties. It is committed to

increasing the number of nominations of women candidates and promoting

electoral and other change that would increase the number of women in

politics. They’ve explored what prevents women from entering politics.

In comparing men and women, they’ve discovered that one in five women

consider politics, but men are twice as likely to consider

it.

Women tend to get involved in politics more gradually than men,

and they don’t perceive themselves as knowing as much about politics as

men do. Women worry about the public persona facing discrimination and

being critiqued. Even in today’s world, they worry about the increased

judgment they would face for abandoning family

responsibilities.

Today is a new day with renewed vigour and focus. We will

overcome. We will never give up until we can say we have achieved

equality for all.

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague from across the aisle for sharing her

insights and thoughts on the role of women in politics. Given that later

this week is International Women’s Day, it seems topical to discuss our

experiences as women in the political ring.

Like many of us in this room, my introduction to politics was at

the municipal level. In the fall of 1986, with only eight hours to go

before the nomination period came to a close, I decided to run for mayor

of the village of 100 Mile House. I already had experience running

election campaigns for our MLA, Alex Fraser, but what was brand-new to

me was learning how to be a politician. Perhaps a few members of this

House are familiar with that learning curve.

When I decided to run, I was a realtor, and my husband and I owned

a small business. I recognized that our community was facing many

economic problems that weren’t being appropriately addressed. Despite

the challenge of running for office and any apprehension I felt, I knew

that I could make a real difference in my community.

The residents of 100 Mile House had a great deal of respect, as

did I, for the mayor, Ross Marks, who had been in office since the

incorporation of the village in 1966. That being said, the community was

looking for change, and change they certainly got.

I was elected as mayor on Saturday, election night, and the next

day included plenty of excitement and congratulatory messages. I woke up

on Monday morning asking: what now? I served as mayor from 1986 to 1991.

My council, staff, community and I accomplished a great deal over these

two terms in office. We were able to put 100 Mile back on an

economically successful path, introducing industry and subdivision

development and implementing responsible annual budgets.

Instead of running for mayor again in 1991, I tried my hand at

provincial politics. I ran for the Social Credit. I am sure many

listening are familiar with the results of that election. A few years

later I returned to municipal government after I received support from

my community in 100 Mile House to run for mayor again. I then served as

mayor from 1996 to 2008, winning three elections.

In 2008, I said: “No more. Enough.” That didn’t work. I was

persuaded to run again for a spot as an MLA, this time with the B.C.

Liberals. In 2009, I won my seat in Cariboo-Chilcotin by 88 votes in a

recount. It has been an honour to serve since.

Having spent many years in elected office as a woman, I would love

to be able to say that women and men are treated no differently. I wish

it were the case. But when I was first elected, I was certainly treated

differently than my male colleagues. I worked extremely hard to prove

myself.

I never let the way I was treated hold me back from reaching my

goals. I was raised to believe that you are the master of your own

destiny. You can be anything you want to be through hard work, honesty,

trust and faith.

To the young women and girls in this province who have aspirations

of running for public office: you are capable, and you can make an

incredible difference. Always be true to yourself and to those who are

true to you.

[10:45 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Thank you for the words from the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Women come from many different political perspectives, but there

is an inherent commitment to a better world for women. Some of the early

suffragettes and second-wave feminists have been criticized as coming

from white privilege and not in tune to all the needs of women and

others suffering from inequality — not unlike the Leader of the

Opposition, who recently dismissed the plight of struggling renters in

an insanely unaffordable housing market because all he had to draw on

was his privileged, wacky time as a renter decades ago.

Deputy Speaker: Now, Member. Keep it non-partisan.

R. Leonard: Yes. My apologies.

So it is we need women in politics from all stripes — seamstresses

and doctors, Indigenous and transgendered, young and old. Today in this,

our 41st parliament, 34 women serve as MLAs, making up 39 percent of the

87 seats. This NDP government has achieved parity, with 50 percent of

the cabinet being female.

I’d like to say a few words about our equity mandate as a way of

increasing women’s participation. Today’s caucus is made up of 20 women

out of the 41 MLAs, which is nearly 50 percent, and the B.C. NDP has

been promoting more women to enter politics, which has resulted in an

increase in women running every election cycle.

In 2009, 29 percent were women. In 2013, 35 percent were women.

Purposefully we have moved forward, as of the 2013 election, so that

elected female NDP MLAs who retire will only be replaced with another

woman. Male MLAs who retire have to be replaced either with a woman or a

member of an equity-seeking group. The numbers show that this policy is

working.

To continue building on this work, we’re introducing gender-based

analysis plus into everything we do as government. Gender-based analysis

is in place in one form or another in every other province in Canada and

at the federal level. Gender-based analysis plus recognizes how diverse

and marginalized groups of people may be impacted by policies, programs

and budgets.

Rosemary Brown would be proud to know that the Parliamentary

Secretary for Gender Equity is working hard to build capacity and

understanding throughout government about this new tool, and Budget 2019

is a first step. One reason that it works for women is because women

were central to creating it. Looking through a gender lens is an

essential part of making sure our government has fairness at the heart

of all its actions, and I’m proud that it is now underway here in

British Columbia.

So happy International Women’s Day — a little bit early, but we

can celebrate all week.

BALANCE FOR BETTER

J. Tegart: It’s an honour to rise in the House today to speak about the

importance of a gender-balanced world just ahead of International

Women’s Day this Friday, March 8. It’s great to be in the House to see

all the women and to see the men, also, listening to the important words

today.

The theme for this year is #balanceforbetter, highlighting that

the world is a better place when it is balanced. The campaign aims to

dispel the myth that balance is a women’s issue, because often that’s

how many of us think and speak about it. We talk about women doing the

work to find balance in their lives, but we often neglect how other

individuals or institutions can help contribute to that goal. That’s why

one focus of this year’s International Women’s Day theme looks at

balance as a business issue. It encourages balance in our boardrooms and

in the makeup of our staff, in media and sports coverage, in wealth and,

yes, at all levels of government.

We take a lot of pride in the number of women currently elected to

the B.C. Legislature and those who have served before us setting the

path forward. Currently there are 34 women serving as Members of the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, representing 39 percent of the

87 seats in our Legislature. It’s an accomplishment that has been many,

many years in the making, but clearly, there is still more work to be

done.

[10:50 a.m.]

We are more than just numbers. Women bring a unique perspective to

decision-making based on our personal experiences. We value

collaboration, and we keep an open mind as we gather input and take in

the opinions of others. We like to explore many possibilities, investing

the time needed to come to the ideal solution to the problem at

hand.

Sometimes these are viewed as negative qualities. Women are often

said to be indecisive, blamed for taking too much time to collect data

and opinions. When we assert our point of view after gathering all of

the information, we’re sometimes said to be aggressive, or worse.

Sometimes we show emotion in the chamber that others prefer to keep

private. Standing up for our constituents and sharing their stories can

move us deeply, because we feel their pain deeply. But displaying that

type of emotion can summon complaints that we are overemotional or

whining.

It can feel like a lose-lose situation at times, and sadly, those

characterizations can hold women back from seeking certain positions or

promotions. It certainly can make them pause and really think about

whether they want to pursue public office. That’s why it’s so important

that we cast aside these stereotypes, embrace our differences and our

similarities, too, and work towards balance in all settings. We must

strive to create environments that are welcoming to all

people.

There was certainly a time that saw far fewer of us in this place.

A number of the female members in this chamber today have played a role

in making the legislative building a more inclusive space. The member

for Nelson-Creston recently showed us what it looks like to be a working

mother in this chamber. The member for Richmond South Centre was

instrumental in making sure there were change tables in the washrooms to

help make the babies’ stay more comfortable. She was also active in

pressing for maternity benefits, and scheduled legislative sessions and

hours to benefit members and their families.

Efforts like these have made the Legislature a more

family-friendly place, where members are supported in their desire to

serve the people of British Columbia, as well as care for their families

and be with them as much as possible. That’s not to say it’s easy to do

both. Perhaps it’s more of a juggling act than a balancing act, but it

certainly helps to have these measures in place. It also brings more

diversity to the chamber. Supporting families in this way does help

encourage younger members, those with families, to run for office. It

now looks like a more feasible option for them.

We need to keep up that encouragement in other ways as well, not

only in our words and actions in this place. There are wonderful

organizations here in B.C., nationally and internationally, as well,

that work to get more women involved in politics. We recently welcomed a

delegation of young women to Victoria who were part of the UBC

chapter

of Equal Voice. As part of their MLA-shadowing program, they spent the

day at the Legislature to really get a feel for a typical day in the

life here.

These intelligent, engaging young people were a delight to speak

with and get to know. They had plenty of insights to share and lots of

good questions about the barriers that we have faced and overcome to get

here. We hope that our experiences resonated with them in some way, and

maybe even inspired them, and that we’ll see some of those faces here in

the years to come.

We have made great strides to make the B.C. Legislature a more

welcoming and inclusive space for all, but I encourage each of us to

think about the ways we can do even more, in the hopes that we might

create more balance for the betterment of British Columbia.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Kang: I thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for her very thoughtful

statement.

Balance is very important, whether we’re talking about a balanced

lifestyle, a balanced diet or a balanced approach to something. When

one’s values are clear, making decisions becomes easier.

“Balance for better” is the International Women’s Day 2019

campaign theme. Building a gender-balanced world is imperative one step

at a time, one initiative at a time, one decade and one century at a

time. What the future holds for us is exciting, and what we see here on

this side of the House and in our Legislature is very

exciting.

On this side of the House, we have 41 members. Breaking the

numbers down as such — one for our Premier — we have, then, an equal

breakdown of 20 men and 20 women members. The Premier had a progressive

vision and a value that we have a gender-balanced cabinet. What makes

this even more exciting is that within this gender-balanced cabinet is a

female Finance Minister who has put forth her third consecutive balanced

budget.

Quoting another awesome woman, Tian Wei of CCTV News: “Any society

that fails to harness the energy and creativity of its women is at a

huge disadvantage in the modern world.” Well, certainly this isn’t the

case for B.C. The Premier recognizes the talents and wisdom of our

Finance Minister and puts them to use.

In an

article in Forbes about the traits of powerful

women, it says: “Powerful women have the strength to take risks, learn

from failure, deal with remarks, insults or stereotypes and the courage

to fight for what they believe in, and they never give up, no matter how

hard a challenge is.” If you know her, and I know I do, with all

admiration and with respect, this sounds like the Finance Minister to

me.

Women in leadership often display characteristics of perseverance

and passion, strength, empathy and courage. We see this clearly in the

Finance Minister’s most recent report on Budget 2019. Budget 2019

creates opportunities for all British Columbians, taking a balanced,

people-centred approach to addressing the struggles of British

Columbians for both men, women and gender-diverse people.

In the many years previous, we saw B.C. gradually becoming one of

the provinces with the highest rate of poverty and child poverty. It

became a place where one couldn’t afford to live in the city that one

grew up in, and that’s unbalanced. That’s why we’re taking a balanced

approach by investing in the people of B.C., with policies like the new

B.C. child opportunity benefit, creating affordable child care spaces;

our soon-to-be released poverty reduction plan; our 30-point housing

plan; eliminating MSP; and fixing the financial messes at B.C. Hydro and

ICBC to keep pressure off rates. As well, we are investing a record

amount in infrastructure. Certainly, a balanced approach is better for

everything.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Budget 2019 is all about providing more opportunities for

everyone, especially women. We are making historic investments in child

care. We now have a Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity to address

gender-based issues. We are raising the minimum wage, and we’re

addressing housing issues. We’re providing seniors with more care and

support. All of these are barriers that hinder a woman from reaching her

potential.

It is extremely challenging for a woman to dedicate herself 100

percent in pursuing her dreams and advancing her job when she is

constantly worried about child care, worried about her senior parents or

worrying about the debt in housing that she has to be responsible

for.

These worries are oftentimes the responsibilities of a woman. For

many years, opportunities were given to the top 2 percent to get ahead,

and 98 percent of British Columbians were left behind. In reflection of

that, no country can truly develop in halves. No country can truly

develop half of its population if they’re left behind. Gender equity is

not just a women’s issue, but it is a human issue.

Our government is taking bold action to deliver better education,

child care, health care, seniors care, environmental policies and many,

many more. We’re making investments needed to build a strong,

sustainable economy that will continue to lead the country today and

into the future, equally for men, women and gender-diverse

people.

Budget 2019 takes a balanced approach to make life better for all

British Columbians. Balance is better.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Tegart: Thank you to the member opposite for her remarks.

This institution, like many others, has been largely male

dominated, but we are making tremendous strides in creating a more

balanced legislature for the benefit of all British Columbians. This is

reflected in the number of women sitting in the seats of this chamber

but, more importantly, in the work we do each and every day.

We’ve taken on a variety of roles in this place, from MLA to

minister to Speaker to Premier to Lieutenant-Governor. We bring our

passion, our persistence and our perspective to each task before us,

helping to shape decisions that impact our constituents and our

province.

It’s taken a long time to get here, and we follow a path carved

long before we got here. It took decades of effort by suffragettes to

finally see Mary Ellen Smith receive 58 percent of the vote in the

provincial riding of Vancouver City and become the first woman elected

to the Legislative Assembly on January 24, 1918. Women were granted the

right to vote in provincial elections just one year earlier, in April

1917, the fourth province to do so.

Over the years, the percentage of women has slowly increased from

just over 4 percent in 1934 to just over 10 percent in 1941, decreasing

for a period in the 1950s, then returning to just under 11 percent in

1983. We saw a boost in 1991, when just over 25 percent of the members

were women. That didn’t change much until 2016, when we saw another

significant boost: just over 37 percent. Today we hold 39 percent of the

seats in this chamber.

It’s mind-boggling to think of a time when we wouldn’t have been

allowed to be here or permitted to cast a ballot. Still, despite the

incredible changes that have led to us being recognized, acknowledged

and elected, we need to be thinking about what we can do to make the

Legislature more accessible to those who still feel excluded. We need to

work with diverse communities to identify those obstacles and clear

them, creating opportunities for all to shape the future of British

Columbia.

Members, I have great hopes for my daughters and your daughters

and all our grandchildren. I have six female grandchildren, and I’m

looking forward to seeing them running and being in this place sometime

soon.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’d ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 2 standing

in the name of the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — LONG-TERM PRIVATE POWER

CONTRACTS AT B.C.

HYDRO

R. Glumac: Many people ask me: how did I get involved in politics? I was

working on animated films — Shrek 2 and

Madagascar .

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you move your motion, please?

R. Glumac: All right. Let me back up, then. I would like to move:

[Be it resolved that this House agree that government should no

longer direct B.C. Hydro to sign long-term private power contracts that

force British Columbians to buy expensive power and sell it at a

loss.]

Many people ask me why I got involved in politics. I don’t have

the political background. I was working on animated films like Shrek

2 and Madagascar . This is the reason. Back in 2008, I

could see the coming financial disaster when the B.C. Liberals forced

B.C. Hydro to buy energy we don’t need for way above market rates to

sell at an 80 percent loss.

[11:05 a.m.]

The truth has finally come out in an independent report, and the

scale of the financial disaster is frightening. We’re losing $16.2

billion — $16.2 billion; think about that. That’s $4,000 for every

household — $4,000 out of my pocket, out of your pocket, out of the

pockets of every residential ratepayer in this province and straight

into the pockets of private companies to pay for energy we don’t need

for at least 20 years.

How did this happen? B.C. Hydro had more than enough energy and a

good plan for the future. The B.C. Liberals stepped in, and in 2008,

they directed B.C. Hydro to purchase 8,500 gigawatt hours of energy per

year. They would not allow B.C. Hydro to import this energy or generate

any more of its own. It had to come from private companies.

The B.C. Utilities Commission tried to protect ratepayers by

saying that B.C. Hydro should use Burrard Thermal in its energy

planning, rather than the expensive energy from private companies. B.C.

Hydro agreed. Then the CEO of B.C. Hydro was terminated in November of

2009, and Burrard Thermal was scheduled to be shut down, despite having

$150 million of environmental upgrades. Then the 2010 Clean Energy Act

was passed, which eliminated the role of the BCUC in all future energy

purchase agreements with IPP companies and the oversight of many other

projects like Site C. Instead, government would approve these

plans.

The BCUC is an independent regulator. Its role was to protect

ratepayers. The B.C. Liberal government did not see any value in this

role. They didn’t care how much the energy would cost. Now we, the

people of this province, are left to pay for this mess. The B.C.

Liberals were determined to plow ahead and would listen to

nobody.

In 2009, when large industrial customers were shutting down like

Catalyst pulp mill, demand for energy fell. B.C. Hydro and the Ministry

of Energy warned the government that the market had changed. How did the

government respond? As stated in the independent report, government did

not heed the warning. Government could have, and should have, stopped

the IPP procurements. If they had stopped, the total impact to B.C.

ratepayers would have been avoided. Let’s be clear. The government did

not do the right thing for the people of this province.

I got involved back in 2008 because these run-of-river projects

were bad for so many reasons, environmentally and financially. The

rivers flowed in the spring and the summer when energy could be

purchased for $5 per megawatt hour. But instead, we bought this energy

from private companies for $120 per megawatt hour. How does this make

any sense?

That’s what the B.C. Liberal government did, and we are stuck

paying these rates for 40 years. We don’t need the energy for at least

20 years. But even after that, we will continue to overpay for it by at

least $6.6 billion. That’s $25 billion that we’re going to overpay over

the terms of these contracts. It was a mistake, it was irresponsible,

and the B.C. Liberals should apologize to the people of this province

for the economic disaster that they left us and that we will all have to

pay for, for generations to come.

P. Milobar: It’s always interesting to rise to speak to such a ridiculous

motion as this, but I’ll give it a shot.

The previous member referenced $16.2 billion and is suddenly

worried about how many dollars that will take out of your pocket as a

taxpayer, yet not a peep out of that member when we see $10 billion of

new taxes which will add thousands of dollars per capita to everybody’s

tax bill on day-to-day operations of government.

The member seems to fixate on not an independent report. Let’s be

very clear. This report was generated by somebody very much formerly

connected with the NDP government of days of old and seems to be a

hyper-politicized document at that. They’re not really wanting to

reference back, I noticed — the member — that the NDP government, back

in the day, seemed to think that IPPs weren’t such a bad idea as well.

In fact, if someone’s trying to come into a market, they need some cost

certainty when it comes to 40-year contracts, to know that their capital

return is going to happen.

[11:10 a.m.]

What we will likely see moving forward, as technology improves and

as the cost of those technologies comes down, is there won’t be the need

for as long a contract with the next tranche of types of green energy

that gets contracted out.

But to make this motion saying that we shall never, essentially,

have green energy in British Columbia that B.C. Hydro will help to

initiate makes absolutely no sense. Is the member perhaps saying that

Burrard Thermal should still be operating? Burrard Thermal got shut down

because of IPPs. I would suggest that people in that member’s riding are

probably thrilled that Burrard Thermal is no longer in operation. In

fact, if memory serves, I believe that people in the Fraser Valley

fought very hard against Sumas 2 being permitted down in the United

States for a very similar type of power generation.

I really hope the government members aren’t too afraid to actually

look at the big picture and the overall global impacts of these types of

statements and the decisions that were being made at the time. That

would mean we actually had a government that knew how to look at the big

picture of things, not just take a little myopic view of one small

sliver of a report out of a wide range of topics, not just around energy

generation.

Let’s look at what happened with these IPP contracts. There was a

benefit to area Indigenous nations in terms of where these were located.

Then we look at CleanBC. That’s saying: “We actually should be trying to

expand green energy opportunities.” Yet here is the government making a

motion to say to do the exact opposite.

Maybe it was just because CleanBC was created all the way back in

December that that was the case. But no, wait. Let’s look at the throne

speech, and let’s look, more importantly, at the budget this year that

was introduced all of a week and a half ago, the budget from this

government that actually states that there will be…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order.

P. Milobar: …money from the carbon tax provided to remote communities to try

to get off of diesel generation. Obviously their green energy comes at a

cost if you’re going to truly try to green up the

environment.

I suggest the members opposite maybe read their own documents and

understand what’s actually in CleanBC, what’s actually in their own

budget. Well, that would be shameful if the government actually

understood what was in their own budget.

Their own budget is calling for these exact types of measures.

That is why it’s amazing to me that they would bring forward this and

try to hyper-politicize yet again something around B.C. Hydro. When you

look at the overall picture, when you look at what the global market was

doing, what the spot pricing was doing, the peak demands for energy back

when these contracts were signed, there was a need. So if we dial it

back and start looking at the conditions they were signed under, they

make perfect sense.

Unfortunately, this government seems unwilling to look at the big

picture, the global picture of how these are actually improving the

environment. Instead of reinvesting the increased carbon taxes into

green energy projects like this, this motion is essentially saying

exactly what we feared: that they want to take that extra $1.4 billion

of unspent carbon tax revenues and not put them into green energy

products, not do it to try to actually improve airsheds like around

Burrard Thermal, where the member lives.

No, they would rather see Burrard Thermal keep pumping out and

have more diesel generation everywhere, because that would be the most

cost-effective, cheapest form of energy going. That way, they could keep

dumping their carbon tax increases into general revenue and do what they

would like to do, while still taxing an extra $10 billion of spending on

people and dipping into everybody’s pocket.

Only in the NDP’s world are increased taxes to that level somehow

making life more affordable for all. It certainly is not. This motion

certainly does not help airsheds and air management planning around the

province move forward, if they were to see this come through.

M. Dean: I’m very happy to rise and speak in support of this

motion.

The recently released report by Ken Davidson, Zapped , on

B.C.’s independent power industry, has revealed that sweetheart deals

made by the B.C. Liberals are going to cost us, British Columbians,

$16.2 billion over 20 years. That’s an extra $200 per year for 20 years

for each residential ratepayer. As the B.C. Liberals signed these deals,

the independent power industry filled the B.C. Liberal campaign coffers

to the tune of $3 million between 2005 and 2017. The report details how

the previous government manufactured an urgent need for power while

disallowing B.C. Hydro to produce it, therefore requiring the public

utility to buy power from private producers at inflated

prices.

[11:15 a.m.]

According to the report, this is going to cost the average

residential customer $4,000. The contract signed with independent power

producers required B.C. Hydro to purchase power that B.C. consumers

didn’t need, often at two or three times the market rate. The report

demonstrates that the power B.C. Hydro was forced to purchase from these

IPPs was actually largely the wrong energy profile. Of 105 contracts

with IPPs since 2002, 71 were from run-of-river projects, most of which

can only be relied on during the spring freshet. B.C. Hydro doesn’t need

more power during that time, when the demand is low and there’s an

abundance of water available in B.C. Hydro’s reservoirs.

The report also shows that even as the problems with IPP contracts

became clear, the B.C. Liberal government continued to direct Hydro,

often against warnings from B.C. Hydro and ministry staff, to pursue

these contracts. According to the report: “In interviews, both the

ministry and B.C. Hydro advise that government was made aware of the

risks inherent in its directives…. Government was purposeful when the

only option it left B.C. Hydro was to buy that energy from

IPPs.”

They were advised by professionals and disregarded that advice,

with not an insignificant consequence for British Columbians, especially

those living in poverty. As the report from January 2019 shows: “The

proportion of Canadians who are $200 or less away from financial

insolvency at month end has now risen a significant six points over the

last three months from 40 to 46 percent.”

One in five children in B.C. lives in poverty. While the B.C.

Liberals were making their sweetheart deals, children in B.C. suffered

without any plan to tackle poverty in the province. Instead of having to

pay the price for the Liberals’ sweetheart deals in my community, a

senior on a fixed income could buy a coat to get through the rainy

winter. A single mom could buy an apple a day to add to her children’s

school lunches. A young woman would be able to buy feminine sanitary

products through the year. A student could afford a bus pass for most of

the year.

Not only is the burden downloaded to British Columbians; the

potential revenues leave the province. The report stated that most of

the money has left and continues to leave the province, with 81 percent

of the money flowing to companies not headquartered in B.C. This money

could have funded critical programs for British Columbians like building

affordable housing, lifting children out of poverty, increasing

allowances for people living with disabilities, enhancing health

services, caring for seniors.

Off the backs of hard-working people in Esquimalt-Metchosin, the

B.C. Liberals were creating sweetheart deals and adding costs to

families already struggling to get by. Our government is ending this by

ensuring that future energy purchases from private power producers are

properly managed, including indefinitely suspending B.C. Hydro’s

standing offer program, effective immediately.

We will introduce regulatory and legislative changes to roll back

past government directions that have restricted the BCUC’s oversight of

B.C. Hydro. We will look out for British Columbians.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf

of my constituents in Shuswap. We need to keep an eye on the important

factors here. One is that in B.C., we pay the fifth-lowest hydro rate in

North America. So as much as there is concern raised by members opposite

around the direction of the current government to the B.C. Utilities

Commission, we have to remember that we are paying the fifth-lowest rate

in North America. That’s extremely important.

We also have to take a look at the fact that under a previous

government, we made record investments in B.C.’s crown jewel, B.C.

Hydro, which is such a significant Crown corporation providing

electrification for British Columbians. That’s in stark contrast to the

1990s, when the then-NDP government made almost zero investment in B.C.

Hydro’s infrastructure across our province.

[11:20 a.m.]

We also have to give consideration to some of the very important

factors to the development of IPPs, unlike the incorrect statement that

the member for Port Moody–

Coquitlam made by indicating that B.C. Hydro

was able to meet its power needs. That is categorically wrong. In the

early 2000s, 18 percent of B.C. Hydro’s energy was purchased on the open

market — 18 percent.

Whereas the member opposite, in his statement,

actually tried to indicate something that is categorically

wrong.

You have to also consider what was happening in the early 2000s.

We had the economic crisis down in California, where we saw electrical

rates in the mid-$200 range per megawatt hour — the mid-$200s. At the

time, B.C. had a decision to make. There was a focus of the previous

government to become self-sustainable with respect to the

electrification of British Columbia. At the same time, there was

definitely a concern by Metro mayors, largely in Vancouver, about the

concerns of GHG emissions. They were pressuring the current government

to actually shut down Burrard Thermal.

There was a focused effort of getting away from purchasing power

from natural gas–fired and coal-fired plants and a move towards more

clean, renewable energies. We have to have a look at the impact that

made. British Columbians largely wanted to see B.C. Hydro move towards

more renewable, and I think British Columbians are proud of the fact

that 98 percent of our energy is currently renewable in this

province.

IPPs — whether we look at wind, solar or run-of-the-river projects

— are all renewable sources. They attracted $8.6 billion of foreign

investment into this province to actually provide and meet the demands

of British Columbians and meet the demands of B.C. Hydro. These are

extremely important.

It should not be lost on either the current government or British

Columbians that renewable energy sources are more expensive than

purchasing power from gas- or coal-fired generation. If the current

government somehow thinks that that should be the move, that in order to

be respectful to ratepayers, we should avoid at all costs purchasing

renewable energy from renewable sources and go back to purchasing power

at the cheapest, lowest-cost form by increasing GHG emissions by burning

coal or natural gas, they should actually say that.

At the same time, when they talk about the direction to the B.C.

Utilities Commission…. The NDP, in their own election platform, made a

commitment to freeze hydro rates. Now, where is the independence of the

B.C. Utilities Commission when the government, in their election

platform, make a commitment to British Columbians that they’re going to

freeze hydro rates?

The Energy Minister last year made an announcement that they were

freezing, capping, B.C. Hydro rates, only to find out…. About a week

later she had to walk that back because, unfortunately, that is actually

directing the Utilities Commission — exactly what this motion is about.

This member’s motion is actually offensive, and I would like to hear

more from members opposite about exactly how they believe that they are

going to meet their new clean energy B.C. plan by failing to actually

move forward on IPP projects in this province.

D. Routley: When I looked at this motion, I thought about the history. I’d

like to clear up a bit of the misconception that was just presented to

us — that in fact, the idea of self-sufficiency that was offered by the

previous government was a failure of reason.

If you dropped down from another planet and looked at how could

B.C. provide its energy needs — what assets does it have, what tools

does it have, and what challenges does it have — would you have designed

a system where you demanded the power to be produced at a time when we

don’t need it and then purchase it for 80 percent more than it’s worth?

I don’t think that would be the choice that would be made by any

rational being of any kind.

If you look back at what happened, the premise was sold to British

Columbians by the previous government that we were not self-sufficient.

That took into account only the number of megawatts we consume versus we

produce. What was happening was B.C. had a really good business plan

that that side destroyed.

What B.C. would do is fill its dams at night and not generate

energy. Then, during the day, when energy was at a high price, we would

sell our energy. We would run our dams at full capacity. Then at night,

we’d buy cheap, downgraded, discounted power off the grid.

[11:25 a.m.]

The grid is a battery. The grid is an account. We put energy in;

we take energy out. We had a system where B.C. sold its energy for $1

billion more each year than the energy it had to buy at night. That was

a good business plan.

What did the B.C. Liberals do? They tried to sell British

Columbians on the fact that they were not self-sufficient. And in an

atmosphere of cheap private money, they pushed BCUC out of the way, and

they leveraged…. The only way their private friends could get the

capital to build these projects was if this government guaranteed we’d

buy the power at four times what it’s worth. That they took to the bank.

That they could finance in an atmosphere of, basically, zero interest

and free money everywhere. And it was a gold rush. It was the next gold

rush on our rivers.

Gordon Campbell’s government had thousands of claims on rivers in

British Columbia. It was ridiculous. And it was constructed to create a

bubble where, in fact, it wasn’t rivers that were being diverted; it was

the public interest. It wasn’t rivers that were being contained and

diverted into their friends’ pockets; it was the public interest. And

funds that should go towards supporting people in this province won’t do

that now.

The run-of-the-river gold rush forgot that the grid is a battery,

forgot that there are two sides to the balance sheet. These

business-minded people forgot that we could sell energy at a huge profit

rather than have to generate it at night or generate it in the spring

when we have too much anyway. It was ridiculous, and it was

intentional.

What we had was a privatization. The privateers are at the helm of

the good ship public interest in B.C., and what they’ve done is steer it

aground. They’ve steered it aground so that $16 billion needs to be paid

by British Columbians — $16 billion not to support schools, not to

support hospitals, not to support child care but to be directed directly

into the pockets of their friends. It’s a heist on the public purse, and

they are privateers.

This is what they’ve done. They took the public interest. They

said: “Treasure, my friends, treasure. We’ll shovel it out the back door

for you.” All you have to do is promise to build a ridiculous power

plant that we don’t need, that will damage our environment.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: And all for your friends, Members opposite. All for them. And when

it comes to the…. Who pays? All those people who come through my office

and your offices who can’t get housing, who can’t get what they needed

for the last 16 years.

Now this government is making different choices, putting the

public interest first instead of auctioning it off, instead of

liquidating the public purse the way they did to pay off their friends.

That’s what happened in B.C. A false crisis was created and the solution

offered. It was a solution that benefited the donors of the B.C. Liberal

Party, and we will pay for the rest of our days because of their

ridiculous choices in managing the public interests of this

province.

It’s a terrible failure, and British Columbians won’t forget.

Thank you very much, Members, for bankrupting B.C. Hydro and flushing

the public interest.

T. Shypitka: It gives me a great sense of duty today to rise and speak against

this private member motion from Port Moody–Coquitlam. There is so much

to this motion that reeks of hypocrisy, as well as a lack of plain

common sense, that five minutes are not near enough to describe it all,

but I’ll try.

There are three things I’d like everyone to take away from my

statement today. First, B.C. leads the country and most of the world

with 98 percent of its power generated from clean power green sources.

Former governments such as the B.C. Liberal Party had the vision and

courage to put forth not only large-firm sources of energy — such as

Sites A, B and now C — but also saw the vision of incorporating an

alternative, independent side to power production.

This bold move brought this province to where we are today as

world leaders, producing 98 percent clean, green, renewable power

production. As a contrast, Alberta and Saskatchewan are around 13

percent clean power. The amazing thing about all of this is that we’re

the fifth-least-expensive electricity in North America.

[11:30 a.m.]

The second thing to remember is that our current government is

mandating 100 percent of all vehicles to be zero emission, to be put in

place by 2040. That is a lot of infrastructure needed and a lot more

capacity required to facilitate the electricity needed to run this

super-aggressive initiative. If we are to meet this challenge, as well

as our climate targets, then we will need to partner up with the private

sector, to some degree. Long-term contracts were put in place. That

partnership will need to go forward.

The third and final piece is that of balance. In my riding, I have

the clean power station in Sparwood that provides much-needed jobs for

so many families. To the north of my riding, about a 40-minute drive

from Cranbrook in the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding, we have the

Skookumchuck Pulp Mill that just celebrated its 50th

anniversary.

The Skookumchuck Pulp Mill employs close to 300 families. Its

secret to sustainability is partly accredited to the implementation of

its cogeneration power plant that produces clean energy from over 10,000

truckloads of biomass every year. This biomass that feeds this co-gen

plant is largely scrap bark and post peelings from all around the East

Kootenays. Before Skookumchuck Pulp Mill had contracts with B.C. Hydro

to purchase this green power, the biomass around the East Kootenays was

burned on site in beehive burners, putting carbon emissions back into

the atmosphere equivalent to about 18,000 automobiles per

year.

This co-gen plan cost the company around $55 million in 1999 and

costs about $5 million a year just to maintain it. A long-term

commitment was required to bring this initiative on line. These energy

purchase agreements were set out in 2001 and were indeed long-term

contracts. This agreement not only provided certainty to 300 families

from going hungry but eliminated a massive amount of greenhouse gases

and a dangerous supply of fuel for forest fires.

These are the valuable offsets that the former government looked

at when putting the wheels in motion for our current long-term

contracts. It’s this balance that gives B.C. options going forward for a

greener tomorrow. The hypocrisy of all this is that the NDP, who put

this motion forward to stop long-term contracts, were the ones promising

these independent power producers that they would help them.

Speaking to independent power producers, this is what the now

Environment Minister had to say: “As the Premier has said, and as I have

said, we see the future of energy, electricity generation in B.C., as

being smaller scale, incremental. We see your sector as having the

expertise and the experience and the innovation to develop it. We want

to work with you, not against you.”

Another quote from the Environment Minister: “We want to promote a

different energy position for B.C., one that includes your sector:

renewables, small-scale distributive power.”

The hypocrisy continues. The NDP accuses the former government of

directing the independent BCUC on policy for long-term contracts for

IPPs, when it was this NDP Energy Minister that promised British

Columbians to freeze hydro rates, as the member before me has stated,

then actually announced a rate freeze but, since then, has promptly

increased them.

On top of that, their new energy plan predetermines B.C. Hydro’s

income until after the next election. Our Energy Minister has even

stated having “regular meetings” with the BCUC to brief her on the

things they were working on. That comes from Hansard of May 28,

Long-term contracts and partnerships with IPPs bring several

things to the table. One, it reduces risk, cost and liability to

government, implementing infrastructure and operation of alternative

energy….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

T. Shypitka: So, Madam Speaker, I cannot support this motion.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to support the motion introduced by the member

for Port Moody–Coquitlam. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this

House agree that government should no longer direct B.C. Hydro to sign

long-term private power contracts that force British Columbians to buy

expensive power and sell it at a loss.” That’s the motion.

First of all, I sincerely appreciate the member for this motion

because it gives us all an opportunity to debate the choices governments

make and to debate the reasons behind those choices. Our government is

putting people first. That’s why we are making choices to make life

better for all British Columbians.

[11:35 a.m.]

Under the last government, only the few at the top benefited,

while opportunities became further out of reach for most British

Columbians. The long-term private power contracts signed by the previous

government were not good for the people and not good for our economy in

the long run.

A recent report clearly points out that the old government signed

contracts worth billions of dollars in sweetheart deals with their

friends in the independent power industry. These insider deals will cost

every B.C. Hydro customer an extra $200 every year for 20 years. That’s

the cost the people are going to pay. That means people will have to pay

about $4,000 over the next 20 years. In total, people in B.C. will have

to pay a staggering $16 billion in unnecessary costs. We could have

built 16 hospitals or maybe 300 schools in the province of British

Columbia with that money. Now we are forced to pay that money to their

friends, all because the old government put their friends first and

people last.

Many of the independent power projects were B.C. Liberal donors.

No surprise there. This is a prime example that the members on the other

side continue to prove they put their friends first and the people

last.

The energy experts have said time and again that we have surplus

energy in B.C. To be very clear about that, B.C. Hydro currently

generates approximately 60,000 gigawatt hours per year. Site C, to be

built with a price tag of about $12 billion, will produce about 5,100

gigawatt hours per year. So it is shocking to note that the surplus

energy for the year 2018, which is last year, was approximately 5,000

gigawatt hours, the same as Site C energy will produce.

This very objective and eye-opening information did not stop the

B.C. Liberals from signing long-term contracts with independent power

projects. In 2002, the previous government decided that except for Site

C, all new power should be produced by private producers. A choice was

made to sign long-term deals to benefit their own friends and insiders.

It was based on pure greed, not based on the need of the people of

British Columbia.

The current export market price for power ranges between $23 to

$41 per megawatt hour. The price for power purchased from a private

power project is about $100 per megawatt hour. B.C. Hydro would be

selling this surplus energy at a significant loss, about 60 percent less

price. Therefore, the people of British Columbia have to continue paying

the price for the next 20 years — a really bad choice by the old

government, a really bad deal for the people of British Columbia, a bad

business decision.

We are taking a different approach. On this side, we’re putting

people first. Our government is making life better and life more

affordable for the people of British Columbia, so I support the motion.

I hope the members on the other side will support the motion.

R. Coleman: I’m surprised the member from Cowichan, who spoke earlier, didn’t

mention how the Harmac pulp mill is actually in operation today because

it has an IPP. It actually saved that particular mill and the jobs in

his particular riding.

In the 1990s, by the way, and in the 2000s, British Columbia has

been doing IPPs. The former government to the B.C. Liberal government

did IPPs. The only IPP they did that didn’t go ahead was a $162 million

investment in a power plant in Raiwind in Pakistan. It went down the

tube, just flushed.

[11:40 a.m.]

Let’s talk about how we get here today. I went through 162

meetings. We did our climate action work with Dr. David Suzuki all the

way through, from industry to interest groups, environmental groups. The

one thing they told us back in the early 2000s was that B.C. was not —

surprising to me, because I thought we were — self-sufficient in

electricity. The other problem was, the criticism was that we were

buying dirty power. We were buying coal power from Alberta, and we had

Burrard Thermal sitting there that could do 2,000 megawatts.

Now, the member has talked about the cost of this stuff. Well, can

you imagine if all those kids who had ear, nose and throat infections in

the Fraser Valley before we cleared up the air had lifetime irritants

today and were jamming up our hospitals because the energy wasn’t clean

in the areas where they breathed the air?

The reality is this. We bought dirty power, and we went through a

process about our environment and what the values of British Columbians

were going forward. That’s why, against the opposition from the now

government, we actually brought in a carbon tax, revenue-neutral, to

push technology to clean all aspects of our industry in B.C. And we

reinvested it — not took it into general revenue but reinvested it in

clean projects and opportunities.

It is about this that we need to understand. IPPs are independent

power. There’s a pulp mill in Kamloops. There’s one in Skookumchuck.

There are sawmills around this province that use wood waste to create

energy, and they sell it back into the grid to B.C. Hydro. Without that,

some of these organizations wouldn’t be in business today. What would be

happening is thousands more jobs lost because we can’t figure out how to

make bioenergy work by numbers when it affects jobs.

Bioenergy is part of your green plan. You won’t be able to get

that power for the same price as you can get out of a dam, but you need

to make the decision for the environment, for the cleanliness of the air

and for the future health of British Columbians. You make that because

you’ll actually spend or invest.

Now, let’s remember something else. In the 1990s, no capital was

invested in new projects and upgrades for B.C. Hydro. There was a huge

capital deficit that existed. That’s why the $2 billion project on

Vancouver Island to upgrade the John Hart dam that had wooden penstocks

that were creosoted every year above a salmon stream. That’s why the

Ruskin dam has been done for the tune of $900 million. All projects were

done when we were government because we recognized we couldn’t live with

a structural deficit of infrastructure if we wanted to actually have

self-sufficiency in power and long-term power for the people of British

Columbia.

That was important, and it’s important it was done clean. That’s

why we’re 98 percent clean today. We’re 98 percent clean because we

actually concentrated on the environment. Now, these guys have a report

that says to reopen Burrard Thermal, repollute the Fraser Valley,

repollute the air in British Columbia. Why? Why would you do that?

Concentrate on clean power. Concentrate on the fact that you’re going to

need a lot more power as you go electric.

I remember asking a question of B.C. Hydro one time: what happens

if every car in British Columbia goes electric? The answer was two to

three more Site Cs, because that’s how much power it’s going to take to

do this. So we have to do it smart, we have to do it right, and we have

to balance costs off for human health and the environment.

If you want to flush the environmental stuff, on that side of the

House, you go right ahead. We weren’t prepared to do that. We knew we

had to make tough decisions to go clean, tough decisions to make British

Columbia 98 percent clean energy and to keep it that way — not for us

but for our children and our grandchildren and their

children.

We need to do our

part in British Columbia, and flushing that idea

of clean energy, which the government wants to do by reopening places

like Burrard Thermal, does nothing for the future health of British

Columbians or the environment. As a matter of fact, it just means they

don’t care.

B. Ma: It was in 2016 that I sat down with an impressively well-informed

former accountant and North Vancouver resident named Norman Farrell at a

local Starbucks on Marine Drive. It was my first time meeting him, and

as a newcomer to the political scene, I had no idea what to expect. For

years, Norm had been doing deep dives into the inner workings of B.C.

Hydro and coming up with more and more shocking revelations of the B.C.

Liberal government’s management choices of the massive Crown

corporation.

[11:45 a.m.]

“Reluctant accountability,” he wrote in a September 30, 2016,

blog.

“Scant hours before the legal reporting deadline, B.C. Hydro finally

issued the 2015-16 report required by the Financial Information Act.

Late on Friday, September 30, the end of quarter 2, the agency also

issued its first-quarter report. Together, these documents demonstrate

appalling mismanagement. It’s what happens when unqualified political

hacks take charge of complicated corporations worth tens of billions of

dollars.”

Sipping on lattes in the corner of a busy, noisy coffee shop, Norm

unloaded years of research on me in a short couple of hours. The story

he told was incredible yet his research, entirely credible: hundreds of

millions of dollars of long-term contracts signed to purchase electrical

power from independent, for-profit power producers, known as IPPs, based

on electrical demand projections that proved entirely false over and

over and over again. What’s more, the independent power would be

available exactly when B.C. Hydro’s public assets would already be awash

with inexpensive energy rather than at times when reserves were likely

to be low.

He told me of the contracts that locked the province into

purchasing power at ever-increasing rates, despite totally stagnant

prices for power on the market, with built-in requirements for the

province to purchase the energy at enormously inflated prices, whether

it needed it or not, for decades to come with no way out. He told me the

public would be paying billions of dollars they never used without so

much as an asset to their name at the end of the day.

The release of the Ken Davidson independent report on IPPs on

February 13 was, no doubt, a cathartic and vindicating moment for Norm,

who had estimated the losses at $800 million a year. The report

confirmed he was right on the money. The people of B.C. will pay a

staggering $16 billion over 20 years in completely unnecessary costs to

private interests for absolutely nothing in return. Nothing, not even an

old piece of infrastructure to point at, at the end of the day — $16

billion, of which 80 percent will go to companies based outside of the

province. We can’t even say that investment at least helps the local

economy.

It’s difficult to imagine what $16 billion really means for a

province until you break it down by households. So $16 billion, as many

of my colleagues have already said, is $4,000 for every ratepayer in

this province.

Government and B.C. Hydro staff warned the former B.C. Liberal

government against requiring lengthy contracts with independent

producers, but the advice was rejected. Why? People would be forgiven

for wondering whether the $3 million in political donations the B.C.

Liberals got from the companies that received these contracts had

anything to do with their decisions to sign these sweetheart

deals.

Norm Farrell offered some insight to me recently.

“After years of writing about the subject, I applaud the new

government’s decision to commission and publish the report. Had I been

involved, I would probably have pushed for it to be even harsher on the

people that developed the private power policy. I am convinced that

while the initial purposes had some validity, a malignancy developed,

and it allowed schemers to take advantage and score profits that were

unearned and undeserved.”

With all of the work our new government is doing to try to clean

up the mess they left behind, it feels like every time we turn over a

B.C. Liberal rock, there’s another brain-sucking sludge monster waiting

to attack the public and take advantage of them, with the Liberals’

mismanagement of B.C. Hydro and its IPP contracts piling on top of the

dumpster fire that the previous government left behind with ICBC and the

rat’s nest of rot that continues to shock the world when it comes to

money laundering in our province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s really quite incredible what they’ve managed to leave behind.

No wonder the public is calling for a public inquiry into what’s

actually been happening in this province. I know I’d sure like to

know.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Rustad: There’s so much in this motion and quite frankly, in the politics

behind that report, it’s not even worth addressing some of it. But there

are some things that do need to be talked about. First of all, you’ve

heard speaker after speaker talk about increases to the taxpayers, yet

they throw $10 billion increases in taxation to the ratepayers, to the

people in this province, and they don’t bat an eye at it. It’s quite

interesting what they will talk about and what they don’t.

I want to take a little trip through memory lane. In the 1990s,

the NDP refused to put any capital into B.C. Hydro. What happens if you

defer repairs to your home or to your vehicle? Guess what. Those repairs

become more and more expensive over time. So when we came into power in

the early 2000s, we had to do significant investments to upgrade the

grids, to upgrade dams, to upgrade facilities, all because they refused

to do that in the 1990s. Why? For politics. No other reason. Simple

incompetence and politics.

So we go forward, and we make major investments in B.C. Hydro. We

do the improvements that are necessary. What do we see today? Guess

what. They’ve decided they’re going to defer over $2.7 billion in

maintenance and upgrades on the grid. Back to the 1990s again. They

didn’t learn their lesson then, and once again, they’re damaging B.C.

Hydro and our infrastructure in their policies going forward.

Let’s take that aside for a minute. Green power and green energy.

The members opposite…. I remember these debates back in ’08 and ’09. I

believe even the Premier at the time participated in these debates. The

debate was that we should not go ahead with these projects, that we

don’t need them. The debate from the other side was that we could be

buying this cheap power.

Let’s get this right. Where was this cheap power coming from? It

was coming from coal-fired power from Alberta and from other power from

down in the United States. That was the argument of the day — that we

didn’t need to be clean, and we could be using that cheap power, not to

mention Burrard Thermal. That’s their vision for this province, so that

we could be hooked on power that comes in from outside our jurisdiction,

that is not clean, that is coal, because it’s good for the environment,

I guess, somehow. I don’t know. I don’t understand their arguments. But

here they are making the same types of arguments.

Let’s look at other policies going forward. You want to have a

clean B.C. policy. You want to electrify the northeast and put in the

grid. You want people to move away from natural gas and electrify the

homes, and these types of things. All this takes power.

I did the math. Just one-third of the passenger vehicles in this

province, if they were to be electrified — just one-third — would

consume 100 percent of Site C. That’s just passenger vehicles. If you

want to do every passenger vehicle, like the party opposite here — the

government is currently talking about doing them by 2040 — you would

need three Site Cs just to power that, not to mention a fourth Site C to

deal with all the other increases in power that are required in the

province. Where’s that going to come from?

Where is that power going to come from? It’s certainly not going

to come from another dam. They opposed the original dam at Site C. They

opposed that as well. It’s amazing. They’ve opposed everything. But you

know what else is interesting about this debate? The Green Party is

conspicuously absent from debating this particular issue.

I want to talk for a second, in the limited time I have, about

independent power projects, because I’ve got a number in my riding.

Let’s talk about an organic rankine cycle power project at Nechako

Lumber in Vanderhoof. This is an independent power project that’s

actually using waste heat to generate power. I’ve got other power

projects on the mill in Fraser Lake that are using waste wood. There are

a number of these things.

I’ve visited many, many First Nations — a project on Vancouver

Island that’s using solar, all through an independent power; other First

Nations that have gotten off diesel because of independent power; First

Nations that have signed treaties and agreements because they had

opportunities to generate power and to move forward; First Nations that

want these opportunities to be able to create economic opportunity, to

get their people out of poverty, that have partnered in these things.

Just go talk to the chief of Kanaka Bar about the independent power

project and what that’s meant for his community.

Yet the members opposite seem to ignore all those things. There’s

no question in my mind that we are going to need significantly more

power as we go forward. As we all decide to go towards a greener economy

and driving things, we’re going to need significantly more power, and

that power has to be able to come from somewhere.

These independent power projects have been able to step up. We’ve

created an industry in this province. They have been able to fill a gap

and meet the needs. Quite frankly, we need more of these types of things

going forward, given the types of policies that this province should be

looking for.

[11:55 a.m.]

B. D’Eith: I rise to support the motion put forth by the member for Port

Moody–Coquitlam.

First, let’s look at the B.C. record. Let’s look at the B.C.

Liberal record over 16 years. What’s the legacy of the B.C. Liberals? An

income gap that’s widening. An economy that worked for the 2 percent and

no one else. A housing crisis that was unaddressed. Dirty money in our

casinos and real estate market, an ICBC dumpster fire, service cuts,

hundreds of schools closed and battles with teachers. And, of course,

the Crown jewel of mismanagement by the B.C. Liberals: B.C.

Hydro.

They ignored the B.C. Utilities Commission racking up $5.5 billion

in deferrals. Deferrals are just a way of creating the illusion of

profit under mismanagement, because that’s what happened.

Now, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources did

want to freeze rates while we got to the bottom of this. But this is the

difference. We went to the Utilities Commission, and when the Utilities

Commission advised against that, we listened. I know that’s something

that people on the other side don’t want to hear about because they

didn’t listen to the Utilities Commission. We are listening to the

Utilities Commission.

The other thing that we’re doing is trying to deal with this

problem, and it’s patently clear, through the first report, that the

B.C. Liberal government interfered in the operation of B.C. Hydro to the

benefit of their friends to the tune of billions of dollars on the back

of B.C. ratepayers. Ken Davidson was a former B.C. Treasury Board

director who consulted often with the B.C. Liberal government. He

delivered his report Zapped: A Review of B.C. Hydro’s Purchase of

Power from Independent Power Producers , and from this report,

as part of the B.C. government’s green plan…. This is a quote from the

report.

“The government provided clear direction that, moving forward, B.C.

Hydro would not increase its internal generating capacity and was no

longer allowed to rely on importing power to meet demand…. Also, to add

to the urgency of the process, the government directed B.C. Hydro to

apply new parameters to its energy planning processes. These parameters

created the appearance of an urgent need for 8,500 gigawatt hours per

year of new firm energy.”

There were three conclusions from the report. B.C. Hydro bought

too much energy and the energy with the wrong profile. B.C. Hydro paid

too much for the energy it bought, and B.C. Hydro undertook these

actions at the direction of the government.

In his report, Mr. Davidson alleges that the previous B.C. Liberal

administration manufactured an urgent need for electricity but barred

B.C. Hydro from producing it. This forced B.C. Hydro to buy power from

private providers, and the result, as we’ve heard from the other

speakers, was $16.2 billion on the backs of ratepayers. That’s $4,000

over 20 years. That’s $200 per ratepayer per year for 20 years. Just

think of what we could have done with that money. Think of the programs

and the services and the infrastructure. It’s unbelievable.

The worst

part is that the energy purchased was the wrong kind of

power; 71 out of 105 contracts are run-of-the-river projects that are

only reliable in the spring. Of course, the spring is the very time when

B.C. Hydro doesn’t need the extra power. Demand is lower because of the

warm weather, and the reservoirs are full.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources stated:

“Professional staff within government and B.C. Hydro warned them,” the

B.C. Liberals, “against that course of action, but that government

refused to listen. As a result, these contracts have already cost

consumers $3.2 billion and are set to cost billions over the next two

decades.” The minister goes on to say: “B.C. didn’t benefit. B.C. Hydro

customers didn’t benefit. A small number of well-placed independent

power producers benefited, and the consumers were stuck with a 40-year

payment plan.”

While the B.C. Liberals will say that they were trying to move

towards clean energy, the reality is that the way they went about it

resulted in the wrong kind of energy produced at the wrong time for a

cost that was far greater than the potential revenue, the cost, and it

was borne by the ratepayers.

How can a party that supposedly represents free enterprise and

good fiscal management justify this result? It doesn’t add up. How does

it make sense to produce power that costs more than you can sell it for?

The other result is that billions of dollars were granted through

sweetheart deals to their friends in the independent power industry.

These companies donated $3 million to the B.C. Liberal Party. Friends

first. B.C. people last. The B.C. Liberal Party way.

We’re a different government. We listened to the B.C. Utilities

Commission, and that’s how we will deal with this issue.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada