2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Hon. J. Les

Private Members' Statements

The Evergreen line

H. Bloy

D. Thorne

Land use planning

N. Simons

B. Bennett

The importance of arts and culture

J. McIntyre

N. Macdonald

Housing affordability indexation

R. Fleming

L. Mayencourt

Motions on Notice

Independent power producers (Motion 4)

J. Rustad

J. Horgan

J. Yap

S. Simpson

J. McIntyre

C. Wyse

R. Sultan

R. Austin

R. Hawes

B. Bennett

[ Page 6045 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, today is Commonwealth Day, and

I'd like to draw your attention to the message from Her Majesty the Queen that

is at the desk of each member. The theme of this year's Commonwealth Day is:

"Respecting difference, promoting understanding."

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SECURITY SERVICES ACT

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Security Services Act.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce today the new

Security Services Act, which replaces the 26-year-old Private Investigators and

Security Agencies Act.

The security world has changed dramatically since the current act

was introduced in 1981. We have seen extraordinary growth in the private

security sector, with new businesses offering a range of safety and security

services that were never previously contemplated. The security world of 2007 is

also far more complex, demanding and knowledge-based, as the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, legislative changes, new case law and jurisprudence have changed

the dynamics of the industry.

Private security workers play an important and fundamental role in

our society, and we need to ensure that all aspects of the industry are covered

by regulation and therefore operate with oversight and accountability, with

security clearances and with standards of training. The new Security Services

Act will address these and other issues.

[1005]

First, the legislation will extend to segments of the industry

that are currently not regulated. Amongst others, this will include the corps of

commissionaires, armoured-car guards, in-house security guards, bodyguards and

bouncers at licensed liquor establishments.

The new act will enhance public safety by ensuring consistent and

appropriate standards across the industry. The new act will also introduce a

public complaint process, something that was not included in the current

legislation. The new act also provides the authority to further develop the

complaint process, and we will ensure that it is transparent and enhances

conduct and accountability throughout the industry.

In addition, the new Security Services Act will provide direct

licensing of security workers, also known as portable licensing. This will allow

security workers to move freely between employers and/or work for more than one

employer, but the impact on business will be minimal.

Finally, the new act will provide an additional 5,500 screened,

trained and licensed security workers available for work within the industry in

this province.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Security Services Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

of the House after today.

Private Members' Statements

THE EVERGREEN LINE

H. Bloy: Just before I start my statement, I guess I'll

mention for the first time today that we have a new Canadian champion from

British Columbia from Simon Fraser University. The women's Clan basketball team

won the championship over the weekend.

I rise today to highlight the importance of enhancing our

transportation system in my community. I have been working hard, meeting with

all levels of government — mayors, councillors, MPs, fellow MLAs and Minister of

Transportation — to ensure that the Evergreen line is built.

There were many options proposed for this new transportation line

— various routes, alternate technologies. Despite this debate, the mayors, the

provincial government and the federal government representatives are all in

agreement that it is time to move forward. The Evergreen line is important to

the residents and will bring many benefits to our communities.

The Evergreen line will feature 12 stations over 11 kilometres,

linking the neighbourhoods of Coquitlam, Port Moody and Burnaby with Lougheed

Town Centre, where they'll get connecting buses to SkyTrain and also have

opportunity with the West Coast Express. Our government has committed $170

million to this project.

This light rail technology will feature high-capacity,

driver-operated, quiet passenger vehicles travelling in embedded rails in

streets or exclusive rail rights-of-way. The light rail transit system provides

fast, efficient and reliable service.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The communities of the northeast sector of the lower mainland are

experiencing a period of rapid growth. This is putting increased pressures on

our roadways. From 1991 to 2005 the northeast sector population has grown by 48

percent, while the average growth in the lower mainland has been 35 percent,

[ Page 6046 ]

with many residents in my riding of Burquitlam facing a long, frustrating

commute to work, experiencing gridlock on a daily basis.

The Evergreen line will not only give residents more time with

their families and less time commuting to and from work, it will get them out of

their cars and using public transit. It is estimated that the Evergreen line

will convert 1.9 million annual car trips to transit soon after it opens,

growing to 3.6 million trips per year by the year 2021.

As our province embarks on an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions, enhancing our public transit system is more important than ever.

Providing residents of the northeast sector with a viable, convenient public

transit option in the form of light rail transit will help us meet our goals in

tackling the challenges of climate change.

I'd like to talk a bit about the financing of the Evergreen line

and voice my support for the delivery of this project as a public-private

partnership. We've heard a lot lately about public-private partnerships or P3s,

and I would like to set the record straight today.

[1010]

At the 2006 UBCM conference it was announced by the Premier that

all provincially funded capital projects over $20 million will be evaluated by

Partnerships B.C. to look at how the project might be built as a public-private

partnership. I can tell you the reasons for this. P3s save money. That's the

bottom line. They transfer risk and add great value through design, innovation

and the private sector.

Our government is committed to ensuring that transportation

projects are undertaken in the most efficient and fiscally responsible manner.

That is why the Minister of Transportation proposed a new governance structure

for TransLink this past week. The new governance structure would clearly define

the roles and the responsibility of the council of mayors, the TransLink board

and the independent commissioner.

Despite the misgivings of Burnaby's mayor, Derek Corrigan, this

structure and the proposed funding for framework will actually give TransLink

the ability to generate the additional revenues, allowing them to proceed with

their long-term plan, which includes the construction of the Evergreen line.

With the proposed new governance structure of TransLink, the province's $170

million commitment and the option of a public-private partnership, the Evergreen

line is moving forward.

Since our government launched the public-private partnership

initiative in 2002, we've either started or completed $4.7 billion in new P3

projects. The results and the benefits are evidently clear to everyone. We're

getting at least $131 million in additional benefits on the Sea to Sky Highway,

at least $92 million in additional benefits on the new Canada line, $39 million

in additional benefits on the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre, $17 million

in additional benefits in the $95 million out-patient hospital in Vancouver, $10

million additional benefits in the Britannia mine water treatment plant, and $25

million in additional benefits in the new William R. Bennett bridge in Kelowna.

That's $310 million in added benefits.

Despite the misgivings of big labour and their supporters, P3s are

the future of capital development in British Columbia. They have a proven track

record of providing better value, on-time and on-budget projects.

British Columbians are already seeing the benefits of

transportation projects that have been undertaken as a public-private

partnership. There's the $30 million Kicking Horse Canyon project. Another

example is the new five-lane William R. Bennett bridge crossing the Okanagan.

Closer to home, we have two major public-private partnerships in the lower

mainland: the Sea to Sky Highway improvement and the Canada line.

The private partner will design, construct and partially finance

and operate the line for 35 years — that's the new Canada line — under an

operating licence from the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. The

partnership agreement is expected to result in $92 million in value for

taxpayers' dollars over the life of the agreement.

B.C.'s Auditor General reviewed the value-for-money report and

concluded that it fairly represents the project and the results to date. The

GVTA will own the line, collect all fare revenue, and set transportation policy

and fare levels. The private partner will only be paid during the construction

period and after achieving specific milestones. During the operating period

payments to the private partner will be made based on the achievement of

performance measures such as train frequency and safety.

Clearly, the Canada line as a public-private partnership is an

innovative approach.

D. Thorne: I'd like to thank the member for Burquitlam for

pointing out how much we need rapid transit in the Coquitlam–Port Moody area

because that will save me having to do that. However, that's about where…. Oh,

no, there is one other thing that I agree with Mr. Bloy on that he pointed out.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Thorne: I apologize — the member for Burquitlam. Sorry.

He certainly is right that P3s will be the future in British

Columbia if this government gets its way. I do agree with him on those two

points.

[1015]

However, where the member and I disagree is that I was actually

there for all of the votes, all of the studies, all of the work that's been done

up to this point. I was actually there voting, and I know exactly what happened

and what the real situation is.

On Coquitlam council we had signed an agreement with the GVRD to

build in Burke Mountain the second-largest development in the history of this

province, second only to the British Properties. We were well on the way, had

spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to fulfil our obligations,

and we

[ Page 6047 ]

kept waiting for rapid transit, which was the other part of the deal.

Well, it just didn't come, and we were moving ahead. In 2003 when

I was sitting on the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver regional

district, the Canada line reared its ugly head, then known as the RAV line.

I can tell you that this was the most raucous debacle that has

ever been seen at the GVRD. In the end, after TransLink does its work, it has to

come to the GVRD board for final agreement. We had vote after vote. We had

meetings that were extended long after meetings were to be held. Finally, the

Canada line was voted yes by one weighted vote. To put that into some kind of

context for those people who are not familiar with the GVRD voting process, that

means a community the size of Lions Bay, Belcarra — 500, 600, 700 people.

One weighted vote made the decision to build the Canada line. We

knew then, those of us who were worried sick about this line, that the province

was pushing it. They wanted it through for the Olympics. We knew there were

federal dollars they didn't want to lose, but we also knew that every single

transit dollar for this region would be sucked up by the Canada line.

What would happen would be that we would lose the Evergreen line

to Coquitlam, which was SkyTrain at that time, and always was…. Again, hundreds

and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent studying technology for the SkyTrain

to get it down the mountain and through Port Moody and into Coquitlam….

Well, let me tell you that nobody could believe that that small a

vote was going to allow the Canada line to go ahead. However, it's a democracy,

and the line went ahead. So what has happened now was exactly what was

predicted, even though at that time we were guaranteed in Coquitlam that the

line would be concurrent. They would build the Canada line and the Evergreen

line at the same time.

Most of us in our hearts, even some people that voted for it, knew

it could not happen. There was no money. It couldn't happen, and guess what. The

Evergreen line has been postponed again because of lack of money. For the last

year everybody has been concerned there isn't going to be enough money. The

province won't put any more in. TransLink doesn't have any money.

Of course, now it's resurfacing with the new TransLink plans as a

P3. Well, the new TransLink plans and the P3 model are once again going to

override municipal rights to zoning and land use. The livable region strategic

plan will not be involved. Once again we're going to have transit planning

that's not connected to land use planning — this, with a government that says

it's going to be involved in climate change. It's worried about the environment.

We're going to take a sensitive region like the lower mainland of

British Columbia that is already starting to see environmental degradation, and

we're going to once again separate land use planning from transit planning. One

can hardly believe that this is happening. There are so many things that a

person could say about this, about the new plan and about the Evergreen line.

Now, as far as the Evergreen line is concerned, there is no doubt

that we need rapid transit very badly, and we have been promised it for a long

time. So we do look forward to getting it, but we are very apprehensive.

H. Bloy: Thank you very much to the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville for putting her thoughts forward. I just wanted to

correct a few of them. When they first started the concept of the Evergreen

line, it was proposed…. There was a Millennium line that was going to continue.

It was proposed by the former NDP government, which only proposed it — never had

the money for it, never had any fortitude to finish it and did nothing — unlike

our government that came ahead, looked at it and said: "We are going to do

something, and we're going to work with TransLink."

[1020]

We also talked about the Canada line. The member was there on

different boards and voting. Yes, they voted and they voted, and they flipped

and flopped. They went backwards and forwards. They went nowhere.

One of the main reasons for a review of the governance of the

TransLink system was because it was dysfunctional. When you get that happening,

no one moves ahead.

We talk about climate change and what we can do for the

environment. Here's an opposition who voted against the throne speech and the

budget speech. They didn't vote one word for climate change at all. I find it

hypocritical the way that they can stand up here and talk about climate change

and vote against everything that's happening.

The member wants to know if it's real yet. Everything that we have

said that we've said….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

H. Bloy: Everything that we've said, we've proceeded on.

We're moving ahead for the betterment of everybody in British Columbia, not just

for a select few, like the opposition has.

Let's look at a couple of public transportation projects from the

'90s, unlike the P3s, that were not delivered on time, nor on budget. The NDP

announced in 1993 that the Island Highway project would be built at a cost of

$1.06 billion. By 1995 the project had gone up $150 million.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

H. Bloy: The cost overruns were caused by soaring labour

costs. Paying workers way more than the average rate of the day caused the

project to not even be finished

[ Page 6048 ]

yet and to be reduced in all areas. In order to compensate for the

out-of-cost labour costs, the completion date originally scheduled for '99 was

pushed back to 2001. In the end the project came in $310 million over budget.

Then there was the SkyTrain system, the new Millennium line. The

cost rose by $2.6 billion. The government was going to finish in 2001. It didn't

finish until September 2002. The Millennium line lost $17 million in their first

year and continued to use money on a regular basis until TransLink started to

put in more commuter buses in the northeast sector to feed it.

I say it again. Public-private partnerships save money. They

transfer risk and add great value through design, innovation and private sector.

I would agree and urge everyone in this House to support the Evergreen line as a

public-private partnership.

LAND USE PLANNING

N. Simons: I gather my composure after the outburst from

the member for Burquitlam. I'm thinking that his discussion was on the Evergreen

line, but I think I heard him say it once.

I'm very pleased to stand here and speak in favour of what I

believe to be a process that is needed by the communities that I represent. That

is land use planning.

I have a number of concerns. The minister may know that a land and

resource management plan was originally planned for our area in 1996, a step

after the protected areas strategy, and again in 2001. Now we have a commitment

from the Premier recently, in the newspaper, speaking very eloquently in favour

of such a high-level plan for the coast.

My feeling is that there has been enough delay. My constituents

are adamant that it is time to get on with higher-level strategic planning. That

is partly because there have been so many conflicts in our area, many of which

have been unnecessary and could have been avoided through intelligent long-term

planning.

My constituents also know that in the past, many resources have

been poorly managed. We're anxious to see a reasonable approach to resolving

some of these old issues as well as the ones that we're facing in the future.

I'm sure that the minister is aware that it is often necessary to

spend money in order to make money. Likewise, it is often necessary to invest

resources in order to reap benefits. In this situation investment in planning is

necessary to get the broadest possible benefits to the province as well as to my

constituents.

Times are changing, and challenges are emerging that we haven't

seen before. We can't do things in the simplistic way we've done them in the

past if we wish to create a prosperous and a good future for coming generations.

[1025]

One of the purposes of land use planning is to put all the public

and private stakeholders together and to support them with the best currently

available social, economic and scientific information to be used for them, to

help them to foster an intelligent approach to sustainability and harmony

between different communities, first nations and the various economic sectors in

our communities.

It costs money to get beyond the stage of just doing the right

things and getting to the point where we're actually getting things done. The

minister will probably know that I'm apprehensive about the plan around the

Sunshine Coast and the Sunshine Coast forest district because I haven't seen any

strong indication, besides our discussions interpersonally, that would indicate

that funding is forthcoming for a comprehensive plan.

As we know, planning for the Sunshine Coast is important. I hope

that the minister is aware that the need is underscored by the lessons that

we've learned in the past and the resulting impacts on our environment that have

been created by not having adequate planning.

Many rivers in my constituency once produced salmon runs numbering

in the hundreds of thousands. These fish supported jobs, and they supported the

livelihoods of communities and thousands of people for thousands of generations.

We're talking about a fish resource that has sustained communities and cultures

for generations, since time immemorial.

I'm talking about rivers like the great Brittain River, the

Deserted River, the Hunaechin River, the Skwawka River of Jervis Inlet, the

Tzoonie at the head of Narrows Inlet and many others, like the Homathko, the

Silvergate in Bute Inlet and the Toba River at the head of Toba Inlet — the vast

majority of which are in long-term decline. Hundreds and hundreds of small

salmon runs have entirely disappeared.

I think the minister should consider these issues and the need for

strategic land use planning to bring the massive potential wealth back to the

province. Maybe the minister will consider that, instead of a piecemeal approach

and granting aquaculture licences, we need to get our priorities straight and

make sure that our focus is on the enhancement, support and regeneration of the

wild population. A fully funded land and resource management planning process

would help us ensure that the wild fisheries and the aquaculture enterprises do

not conflict.

I believe also that the minister is aware of the global climate

change issue which is facing us. The people of Powell River and Sunshine Coast

would like to be the first in the province to create a land and resource

management plan that will actually consider how to cope with these new and

unavoidable changes resulting from climate change. People in my riding are

prepared to face these kinds of challenges. I hope the government will support

them in investment in this LRMP strategy.

There are many more issues that need to be addressed. I hope that

the government, and the minister in particular, knows that a good land use plan

will ensure that geoduck farms aren't placed in front of residential

neighbourhoods — and such a proposal is on the table before us — and further to

the issue of geoduck farms,

[ Page 6049 ]

maybe the public has a right to expect that the best currently available,

peer-reviewed scientific evidence is brought to bear on the question. Before

projects such as those are planned, the community, the stakeholders have a right

to have some input into that form of activity.

With that, I look forward to the comments of my friend opposite.

B. Bennett: I want to thank the member for the opportunity

to discuss land use planning here in the House and also for the opportunity to

say some nice things about where he happens to come from. I've spent a little

bit of time up in the Sunshine Coast, and it is indeed a beautiful, beautiful

area.

I offered to speak this morning to the member's statement because

I've had a fair bit of experience at land use planning in my own part of the

province in the East Kootenay. In fact, over the past six years I've been

engaged in land use planning in my region, probably some days more than I would

like. It's a very challenging exercise.

[1030]

I agree with the member that it is the right thing to do. It is

very much necessary in areas, particularly like the Sunshine Coast, that have a

lot to offer in terms of natural resources and that are close to the big city of

Vancouver. It is seeing lots of people move up there to retire and choose a

different lifestyle.

I was up in the Sunshine Coast about a year ago, actually, with

the member. I flew over the peninsula with a helicopter. I took a boat ride with

the member up the Sechelt Inlet with a number of his constituents and then went

to a meeting after that on the mainland side of the inlet and met with several

of the member's constituents and really got an appreciation of how important it

is to the people who live there to maintain the natural environmental integrity

they have. That includes things like the view and clean water and just, frankly,

to not see as much industrial activity as what a lot of them saw when they lived

in the various cities across the country.

I do think it's fair for me to point out that the minister

responsible here, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, has in fact made a very

sincere commitment to land use planning on the Sunshine Coast. His ministry has

just completed a comprehensive scoping exercise for the Sunshine Coast which

included stakeholders, regional governments, local municipal governments and of

course the four first nations. As I say, it was a comprehensive exercise, and

the ministry is now working with the four first nations to try and determine how

to go forward with this land use planning process.

I would suggest — and I'm sure the member agrees with me — that

it's not possible today and not desirable, either, to proceed with land use

planning without having the resident first nations completely engaged in the

process. That will no doubt take some time, but it's important that that

happens. Again, I'm sure the member agrees with me.

I note that the member said that back in 1996 there was some

discussion at that time about land use planning and that the government of the

day put that off. I think, Madam Speaker, that you'll see this government pick

up the challenge and get the job done there. The one advantage of a bit of a

delay to the member's constituents is that now we can see the future of the

Sunshine Coast. I think that when you go up there now and look around, you see

what it's going to be like over the next 50 years, frankly.

Again to the member, the exercise won't be easy. You'll find that

once the land use planning process starts, the member has some constituents up

there who still would like to make their living in the mining industry and in

the forest industry. Many of the people that move to areas like the Sunshine

Coast and to areas like mine, frankly, in the East Kootenay go there with a

pocket full of money. They don't need to earn their living from the local

economy. What the member will find is that there is some conflict between the

folks who move there from the city and the folks who have lived there for a long

time and make their living in traditional ways.

Again, land use planning is the right thing to do. It's just bad

business, bad government to proceed with economic development unless you have a

vision for what your region should be like 20 or 30 years down the line. That's

what the member is asking for. I think it's an eminently reasonable thing to ask

for, and I support him on it.

N. Simons: I appreciate the member for East Kootenay and

his comments about land use planning. I think we agree that, yes, in fact,

possibly to prevent some of the conflict that exists in communities, the hard

work of sitting down at the table and hashing out issues in the long,

potentially conflictual process ultimately leads to better certainty for the

entire community.

Some of the other reasons — and I'm glad that the member opposite

agrees…. I believe that his government is coming along to actually go forward

with this land and resource management plan or at least a higher-level plan for

the Sunshine Coast forest district.

[1035]

I would say it's no more urgent than now because of some of the

significant developments that are being proposed, including some mining where

large-scale mining has not traditionally taken place, including community

developments that are taking place close to watersheds, including

run-of-the-river hydro generating projects that will involve transmission lines

going in various directions across the entire forest district.

Some of the intelligent land use planning in this area could go a

long way to ensuring that we have the benefits of these power projects without

compromising the needs of the economic sectors that rely on environmental and

visual quality for our landscapes. It's a job we need to get on with, Madam

Speaker — with respect.

I could speak of many land use conflicts in my riding. Every day I

spend in Powell River–Sunshine Coast I'm approached by people who find

themselves drawn into

[ Page 6050 ]

conflicts unexpectedly, and people are sometimes outraged by some of the

proposed plans that are taking place.

I would just like to reiterate the importance of planning and the

importance of engaging with the first nations community in this process. I

believe that the first nations in my constituency also see the benefit in order

to protect the resources that have been under their stewardship for a

millennium. I believe that we can actually come together and work cooperatively

for the benefit of the environment and for the benefit of the economic stability

of the region as well.

With that, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to

speak on this issue.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ARTS AND CULTURE

J. McIntyre: I rise today to emphasize the importance of

supporting and promoting arts and culture in communities throughout B.C.

According to a 2002 study, 75 percent of Canadians consider the arts essential

to their quality of life. Residents value access to arts and cultural events,

and a strong arts and cultural sector is critical to building healthy and

vibrant communities. A thriving arts and culture sector also contributes to

tourism, public education, diversity and tolerance. People are attracted to

cities and regions that are open and culturally diverse. They choose these

places to live and work and vacation.

British Columbia is a ferment of creativity, innovation and

artistic expression. In a recent national survey that measured artists as a

percentage of the workforce, seven out of ten of the most artistic small

communities in the country and six of the ten most artistic large cities were

located in this province. Our largest city, Vancouver, has an artistic

concentration three times the national average.

Some of the leading innovators in North America's video, media

arts and digital technology industries are located right here. Our writers,

painters, musicians, singers, photographers, dancers, playwrights and architects

are celebrated internationally. We are well poised to take advantage of the

opportunities that will be presented in the new imagination economy of the

coming decades.

Overall, B.C. holds great promise as an international centre for

collaborative innovation and imagination, with cultural activity taking its

place alongside economic, social and environmental considerations as an integral

element of a provincial culture of prosperity, literacy, health and

sustainability.

Our government supports arts and culture through the funding of

several programs and organizations — the B.C. Arts Council, the Spirit of B.C.

arts fund and 2010 Legacies Now, to name a few. Last year the province increased

the B.C. Arts Council budget by $3 million, to approximately $14 million. Since

its inception, the council has provided over $130 million in funding to assist

artists and arts and cultural organizations.

The $20 million Spirit of B.C. arts fund supports increased arts

and cultural activity leading up to the 2010 games. On top of this, $12 million

has been allocated through 2010 Legacies Now for Arts Now funding, which

strengthens and enhances the creativity capacity of organizations and

communities throughout B.C.

The establishment of a $25 million B.C. arts renaissance fund will

also help to support arts and culture, and just last week the $6.5 million arts

partners in creative development program was announced. This program is a

partnership between the provincial government, the city of Vancouver, Canada

Council for the Arts, Vancouver Foundation, VANOC and 2010 Legacies Now. It will

enable B.C. arts and cultural organizations to create artistic works that

achieve a high level of excellence by allowing them up to 90 percent of their

development or commissioning costs up to a maximum of $300,000.

The successful arts and culture sector really is dependent on

partnerships. When government is committed to making investments to further arts

and culture and when communities come together to promote the arts, we can

achieve great things.

[1040]

Nowhere is this more evident than in my riding of West

Vancouver–Garibaldi. I'm incredibly proud of the partnerships that have

developed in the Sea to Sky corridor. Cultural activity helps define the

character of a community or a region and, through shared experience, enhances

social relationships and helps harmonize interaction among diverse cultures.

Last November I attended the Sea to Sky cultural alliance forum,

which I'd been a fundamental partner in. We brought together stakeholders from

throughout the corridor, led by Max Wyman, mayor of Lions Bay, to discuss

cooperation and collaboration in promoting arts in our region. We were there

with well over 120 people who participated to show our dedication to cultural

enhancement in the corridor and to find ways to develop critical mass.

The dedication of the community is evident in the numerous events

that take place in the corridor throughout the year. I just attended the Wild at

Art Festival in Squamish. This festival is a celebration of the abundant

artistic talent in the local community, featuring everything from sandblasting,

glass workshops, musical festivals, fashion shows to concerts, film nights and

poetry readings.

Wild at Art is an annual event. Each year it runs longer than the

previous year — this year up to ten days — and is committed to run the full 17

days of the Olympic Winter Games. The 2010 Legacies Now is committed to

involving all British Columbians in the opportunities arising from hosting the

Olympics. The Wild at Art Festival is just a great example of a community

seizing the opportunities presented by the games.

I also attended events at West Vancouver's second annual

WinterSong festival last month. WinterSong is a wonderful two-week celebration

of the human voice and the joy of music. West Vancouver has a long history of

embracing the arts, and our community continues to support and strengthen the

arts sector today.

The new West Vancouver performing arts centre is a result of the

support of longtime West Vancouver

[ Page 6051 ]

resident Kay Meek and the tireless efforts of local groups to help make that

dream come true. West Vancouver's dedication to promoting the arts earned it the

designation of cultural capital of Canada for 2006, an honour bestowed upon only

five communities each year by the federal government.

The arts and culture sector creates healthy communities, and it

also drives our economy. It employs nearly 80,000 people in our province and

contributes over $5 billion to the economy. There's a mutually beneficial

relationship between business and arts and cultural organizations. By partnering

with the arts, businesses are able to enhance their brand image, their profile.

They can gain valuable advertising opportunities and can count on increased

tourism dollars as a direct result of promoting cultural events.

Investment in arts and culture encourages economic growth. It

attracts and fosters the skilled and imaginative workforce that the new economic

forces demand and, thereby, strengthens our national and international

competitiveness. At the same time, it reinforces the social scaffolding that

supports vital and healthy communities. It is of material benefit to our health

and justice systems. Cultural activity deepens and reaffirms our sense of

identity, sharing and belonging.

With the Vancouver 2010 Cultural Olympiad, B.C. has a special

opportunity to promote arts and culture across the country. Beginning in the

host cities of Vancouver and Whistler, with activities that highlight our local

cultures and creative artists, the Olympiad will extend across the country to

involve a full range of Canada's creative communities and national cultural

institutions, culminating in a five-week Olympic arts festival.

But we don't have to wait until 2010, because another major

opportunity for celebrating our heritage and culture is B.C. 2008, the

commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the founding of the colony of British

Columbia. Major plans are underway for celebrations throughout the province to

highlight our distinct cultural heritage and 150 years of progressive change. It

will be a time to showcase our rich arts and culture, to celebrate our diversity

and to explore our cultural roots, including first nations.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to thank the member for the

opportunity to talk about arts and culture and its importance to all British

Columbians. There are parts of the speech that I'm going to agree with.

Certainly, the sentiments expressed by the member are sentiments that I think

everyone in this House would agree with.

The importance of arts and culture is evident to all. The value to

communities of all sizes, whether it's an international city like Vancouver or

small communities like Revelstoke, Kimberley, Invermere and Golden…. All

communities find arts and culture important.

There are dedicated volunteers and professionals throughout the

province that will struggle under any conditions to provide opportunities for

people to act and to perform and for people to watch performances. They will

make sure that there are chances for people to learn about arts and culture and

that there are places for people to display their work. There are people in

every community that are committed to preserving and displaying our history.

[1045]

What they need from us in this Legislature is funding, and that's

where I'm going to differ with the member. With funding, it's a case where a

modest increase can make a significant improvement because there are so many

people who are there ready to work with an infrastructure that you set up.

There should have been money in the last budget for arts and

culture. It should have been talked about in the throne speech. It was not. In

every meeting of the Finance Committee there were arts and culture groups from

the various communities, which hosted public meetings of the standing committee,

to push the point that there needed to be additional funding. They were specific

in what they needed. They made solid explanations for what the government needed

to include in its budget, but the government did not accept any of those

recommendations.

Now, the committee members understood that the provincial Standing

Committee on Finance, with representatives from both parties, recommended a

significant increase to core funding for arts and culture. The recommendations

from that committee were not perfect, but on that point they got it right.

For three years the government has promised funding increases, but

despite the talk, there has been no additional core funding from the province.

I'll just give one example of the program the member referred to. There was Arts

Partners. My understanding from e-mails I received is that it does not actually

include any new money from the province. It is money shuffled around to create

the impression of provincial increase rather than an actual increase.

There has also been no new provincial money put toward

infrastructure. The ministry service plan talks about the need for

infrastructure investment for arts and culture, but where is it? With culture,

we can broaden that to include our heritage and the very real needs of museums,

especially the smaller community museums, to have base funding. I'm hearing

consistently that programs and needed funding are being eroded, so there are

funding issues to be addressed there.

So as I come to the end of the time that's allotted to me, it

really achieves nothing to make announcements or to make commitments unless we

are willing to follow those words with real resources.

Arts and culture, as the member here agrees — and as I agree with

how she said it; I hope I can say it as articulately — is a key part to our

success as a society. It gives us quality of life, a quality of life that each

community strives for. I want arts and culture to thrive in metropolitan areas.

I think it does, but it needs our support. I also want it in the small rural

communities that dot the interior and where I come from, and there clearly is a

need for more government involvement.

[ Page 6052 ]

I'm going to push with members in my caucus — and I will raise it

in estimates with the government repeatedly — that there needs to be more

funding. That is clearly what we are hearing from the arts and culture

community. The provincial government has failed to provide adequate funding and

needs to improve dramatically if it is to be credible on the issue.

With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this,

and I thank the member for raising this issue. It is an important one, one we

should talk about as often as possible.

J. McIntyre: I must say that I'm very pleased that the

member for Columbia River–Revelstoke agrees with my sentiments. At least we

agree on the importance of arts and culture and the direction. I guess we may

have a fundamental disagreement in terms of funding.

I think that for anything in any situation, there's always more

money, and I know that arts groups — and I have lots of empathy and sympathy

with them — always want more funding. We are doing the best we can, given all

the other demands we have with the galloping health care costs and everything

else. We try and balance all of this.

I was able to report…. Maybe what's happening is there may be some

confusion about some of the funding because the funding is being given out and

meted out in different ways now, perhaps through Arts Now and things like that.

But there are very, very generous programs that are connected to 2010. The Arts

Now grants, the B.C. spirit week activities where we fund cultural festivals,

the WinterSong I described in West Van — all those festivals have received

significant funding from the province. The 2008 150-year celebration I'm talking

about will have an arts celebration and, also, what I referred to in my notes

about the $6.5 million that it's doing in conjunction with VANOC.

[1050]

What happens, maybe — and the arts community has to keep up with

this — is that there are different programs and different ways of supporting

arts. The point I wanted to make today, essentially, is that I have never seen

British Columbia so engaged in arts and culture, and I've been following this

for some time. We have the Spirit of B.C. Week activities happening every year,

the Arts Now grants I was talking about and all the other funds. This government

set up a brand-new ministry for it in 2005 when we were elected — the Ministry

of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I think there's no question that this government

gets it.

I also wanted to speak a few more moments about first nations,

because I think one of the things that hosting the 2010 games has really given

us is an opportunity to focus on our cultural heritage. First nations and their

component of the bid…. My understanding is that a very important part of our

being awarded the bid was our emphasis on first nations culture.

I was talking about the opportunities…. We now have an aboriginal

tourism blueprint, a model for all of Canada. I have in my very own riding the

Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre that will be opened. The government has put $6

million towards that centre.

We're going to have all sorts of opportunities to look at our

cultural heritage, and I just think there's no doubt that taken together, the

cumulative impact of cultural activity — personal, social, educational and

economic — makes a vital contribution to the sustainability of the society in

which we live. This B.C. government not only gets it, but we support it.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEXATION

R. Fleming: I welcome the opportunity this morning to

briefly speak about housing affordability. It's an issue of critical importance

to the well-being of my constituents, a major challenge to the quality of life

of residents of this region and a significant source of anxiety in cities,

towns, communities and households across British Columbia.

I want to speak specifically about how we might retain and

increase the stock of affordable housing during times of rapid real estate

valuations by indexing the corresponding growth of windfall surtaxes received by

government with an appropriate level of reinvestment in affordable housing.

Despite a sustained global boom in housing construction and

steeply rising values of residential property of all types, conservative

governments around the world — and I include B.C. in this — have been reluctant

to look at innovative policy interventions that might help low-income — even

moderate-income — individuals and families get into the housing market. That is

because right-wing governments believe that the market can never be wrong.

But the evidence all around us points to a housing market that is

more and more exclusionary, where British Columbians in ever greater numbers pay

a greater share of their monthly incomes to housing. It is not uncommon in the

capital region or the lower mainland for an individual or a family to pay 40 to

70 percent of their income to housing.

Major housing developers in B.C. and Canada will candidly tell you

that there is market failure or an inability by private investors to make money

and create a supply of new rental housing at rents that people in the demand of

such housing can afford. It is simply not being built.

Another symptom of the housing affordability crisis is the

wait-lists for public and non-profit housing, which have grown by 50 percent

since 2001. The fact is that today in British Columbia there are fewer housing

choices for those who are left outside and left behind by the real estate

frenzy. Rising rents, strata conversions and demolition of good rental

accommodation have made the rental market more expensive and much tighter. The

vacancy rate in the capital region is an extremely unhealthy 0.5 percent.

Public and non-profit housing developments slowed to a trickle

after programs like Homes B.C. were cancelled when the B.C. Liberals took

office. The family and at-risk housing programs that were eliminated

[ Page 6053 ]

signalled a shift of B.C. Housing's mandate to now assume Ministry of Health

duties to coordinate seniors' residential care or assisted living.

The staggering growth of homelessness in this province and the

great difficulty that low-and even middle-income British Columbians are having

finding suitable and affordable housing suggests that we must take action or the

situation will worsen with unknown consequences. Unfortunately, the government's

response after six years was the disappointing Housing Matters, recently tuned

up and recycled in the mischaracterized 2007 budget.

This government's failure to build the promised 5,000 residential

care units has been commented upon widely elsewhere. Another time, perhaps, we

should examine the lessons from Alberta's mistaken attempt to save operating

dollars by shifting to a cheaper care level of assisted-living residence without

aligning this housing type to the actual needs of seniors.

[1055]

Historic drops in mortgage lending rates began apace around 2000.

They have stayed low in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New

Zealand. This drop in interest rates initially was a tremendous help for

millions of first-time home purchasers, but with the massive rise in housing

costs, it is more and more property investors that are the target market of

choice as modest-income first-time buyers are priced out of reach.

Statistics Canada has recently reported on one by-product of the

new housing reality. The percentage of those between 26 and 34 years of age

living with their parents has more than doubled with this generation. Calling

general income tax cuts an investment in housing is totally disingenuous. There

are no lines that connect the two. The fact is that what people spend their

individual income tax cut on is completely discretionary.

In the case of this budget, the amount returned to the net income

of regular working families is so slight that it will be consumed by paying for

the additional fees for public services this government increased since 2001.

MSP premiums were raised by 50 percent for all British Columbians. Young people

in B.C. who borrow to pay for high tuition fees in university now have the

second-highest debts in the country — almost $27,000. This is the start they are

getting. This is the first mortgage-sized debt they must now repay.

While credit may be cheaper than it has been in 40 years, the size

of household debt has crept from higher mortgages and grown incredibly. Modest

tax cuts of a few hundred dollars per year make little difference to those

making payments on a home and even less to those who can't qualify to borrow for

a home in this crazy market.

The federal, provincial and municipal levels of government accept

as good public policy the idea of directly earmarking gasoline excise taxes and

fuel surcharges of all kinds and linking that to transportation infrastructure

and public transit operations. Why then not link the various surtaxes on housing

sales to a reinvestment in building affordable housing for those being left out

of the market and for those whose needs keep growing in British Columbia?

Progressive governments are looking at carbon taxes on emitters to

fund alternative energy programs and other green conservation programs. The

irony is that during the past six years when government did so little here for

housing affordability, their coffers grew much fatter from the massive growth in

the province's property transfer tax.

In the 20 years of the PPT's existence as a surtax on the sale of

property in B.C., it has raised $7.5 billion in revenue. Over $4 billion of that

revenue was taken in just in the last six years. The B.C. Liberal government has

dined out on the property transfer tax in recent times.

The concept of linking the property transfer tax revenues into

affordable housing programs is something that is supported by the UBCM. In fact,

in its 2006 report, the task force on communities that was presented to the

minister responsible, there was a direct recommendation on page 14 to use the

property transfer tax to provide ambitious housing programs of all kinds and

work with municipalities to do that. I understand it was quite a battle to keep

that recommendation in the final report, but it stands.

The realtors of B.C. are also calling for reinvestment of the

property transfer tax into affordable housing programs. I think that homebuyers

would feel much better about paying a tax that can easily add $10,000 to the

closing cost of their home if they knew it was going to good housing programs in

their community rather than the black hole of government general revenue.

L. Mayencourt: Thanks very much to the member from Victoria

for raising a very important issue and that is about housing affordability. I

was glad that he was able to link the property transfer tax. I wasn't sure what

he meant by the title of this presentation, which was housing indexing — so

grateful for that.

Housing is a great issue for all of us to be thinking about. You

know, British Columbia's experiencing a great economy right now, and that

economy has caused all sorts of historically low unemployment rates and really

solid economic growth. That strong economy has allowed us to sustain programs

and services that are very important to people, but at the same time, it has

placed extra pressure on people for home-ownership and such. That is why our

budget is dedicated towards housing.

[1100]

Now, it is true that that is a discretionary kind of decision,

something that an individual would be able to make a decision about. But if his

premise is that most people in the capital regional district or Vancouver are

putting 40 percent to 70 percent of their income towards housing, then this tax

benefit is of benefit to those individuals. I don't like it when people in this

House sneer at the fact that we've left more money in people's pockets, which

can be used towards more housing affordability.

[ Page 6054 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Another important part that government put forward was a $250

million endowment for innovative housing projects. I really think that's a good

sound investment, when we have a bit of surplus, to be able to put that away. In

Alberta they've put it in the heritage trust and others. I think everybody that

sees government saving money in a specific pot to do a specific task…. People

like that, so I'm very grateful for that.

One of the things I hope the member will comment on is that when

you look at housing matters, one of the issues we face with entrenched property

is that individuals who do not get into the housing market — in other words,

they don't get to buy an apartment or buy a condo or a house — are the ones that

really suffer over the long term.

If a person were to buy a house, say, in 2001 and today continued

to own that home and had paid the mortgage on it, typically they've raised

something like 50 percent in value. That's a great thing. Housing is a great way

for people to catch up and get inside of the economy and avoid poverty.

That's why I've been working with SEDI, which is creating a

program called HomeSave. HomeSave is a program that I am really pushing on this

side of the House. I hope the members opposite will do so as well. It's a pilot

project in which individuals can create a development account towards the

purchase of a home. It allows people to learn to save. It gives them budgeting

information. It helps them with all their financial planning for the next five

years.

This innovative program would see individuals put away a set

amount of dollars every month. That money would be matched by the province, by

the federal government and by a civic government so that we allow people to save

more rapidly. It gives them tremendous incentive to do that. It teaches them the

budgeting skills. What it does is get those people the opportunity to put a down

payment on a house.

I believe that probably the best thing we can do for people living

in poverty is get them involved in home ownership. It really does make a

difference. I mean, I am certainly a huge supporter of social housing, certainly

a supporter of innovative housing projects. But really, if you want to get

people out of poverty, you've got to get them into their own house. It is an

important decision, but I believe that we have the creativity here in the

province to be able to do that.

We've also done a lot of things in terms of raising shelter rates

— the first time in decades. I'm really proud of that. We'll continue to do

that. I'm also really interested in what the member brings forward. I think it's

innovative, and it's a solution that we should possibly discuss — such a good

idea that maybe what you should do is sit down and meet with the Housing

minister to see if there's some way of synchronizing that great idea you have

towards public policy in the province. We're always welcome to talk about those

things, so I would encourage him to do that.

I think what we've done is try to build a housing legacy for

British Columbians where every family will have the opportunity to buy their own

home as a way of securing their future, not just in terms of their housing but

in terms of their net value or their net worth.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard

for his comments, because I know he represents constituents who perhaps more

than any other in this province are concerned with the loss of rental

accommodation that we've seen over recent years and who face some of the highest

housing prices in the province today. I know that it's a major concern of his

constituents and that he represents them on those issues as part of his daily

duties as an MLA.

He suggested I canvass it with the Minister for Housing, and in

fact I would like to assure him that I indeed did that at this time last year

during Housing estimates. I welcome him to look at the Hansard

transcripts, because unfortunately the minister dismissed it, basically, out of

hand. We will look at that in Housing estimates again this year and not take no

for an answer.

[1105]

Mr. Speaker, if only a minority portion of the property transfer

tax were earmarked for housing expenditure — and I throw out, say, 35 percent —

we would have accumulated almost $1.5 billion for housing over these past six

years. Such a policy could lay the foundation for the kind of ambitious housing

reinvestment strategy that B.C. needs to be a truly inclusive society in the

21st century.

Such a reinvestment in housing could begin to realize the

significant downstream savings that housing the homeless, addicted and

impoverished would have on our health care and criminal justice systems. With

that kind of reinvestment, we could actually build thousands of affordable units

each year across B.C. for low-income working families and at-risk populations.

We could join other jurisdictions such as Portland, Oregon, in

boldly vowing to eliminate homelessness within ten years, instead of seeing it

continue to spiral out of control like we do in B.C. We could look at creating

social housing programs administered by the non-profit and municipal sectors

that help tenants achieve equity to transfer to homeownership or own the units

they rent — an idea that the member apparently supports, as he just mentioned.

We could help ensure that the thousands of co-op units and CMHC

transferred properties in this province will not be lost due to inadequate

maintenance funds, but be properly repaired or redeveloped. We could have

programs that work with municipalities and developers and give incentives to

make possible density-bonusing projects aimed at providing mixed income housing.

By linking a portion of the windfall surtaxes with an actual

reinvestment in housing, B.C. could help better address many of its worst social

problems, improve the quality of life and commerce on the streets of its

downtowns, and be a much more humane and progressive society.

[ Page 6055 ]

Failure to link the benefits of the housing boom to a necessary

reinvestment in affordable housing has left tens of thousands of vulnerable

people behind and without a home. It's made life much harder for the working

poor in our communities, who work in jobs that are necessary to keep the economy

growing. It has made B.C. a less inclusive place that sends the wrong message to

the millions of annual visitors to this beautiful place who ask: how did this

happen in Canada?

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: I call private member's Motion 4.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priorities of

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to bring forward

Motion 4, which is:

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the vital role of

independent power producers in our goal of becoming energy self sufficient and

our goal of producing more electricity in an environmentally friendly manner.]

B.C.'s economy has been booming, but it's creating more

than just jobs. It's also creating a huge demand for electricity. Now, it's very

unfortunate that we didn't have foresight back in the '90s to look at this

future need as we saw the need for electricity and the demand for electricity

continually increasing, and yet there was virtually no investment under the NDP.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

IPPs are a very cost-effective way of meeting our future needs.

They have been proven to be efficient, reliable and supportive approaches to

building capacity in B.C.

An NDP solution, from what I've heard, is that they believe

government could be better at building power capacity. It's really a shame that

in the 1990s instead of seeing the need for that capacity, they went and

instructed B.C. Hydro to go off and look at Pakistan for power generation

instead of B.C. But let's not go there, Mr. Speaker.

In other words, instead of having close to $4.4 billion worth of

investment in IPPs and much more to come, the NDP would rather have us as a

province balloon our debt and take on that — basically, selling our children's

futures in order to support more of an ideological perspective. When you look at

ideology, it's clear to me that what they're really going after is following

what their federal leader believes, Mr. Jack Layton, and his socialist manifesto

that he co-authored. He believes that public ownership of decisive sectors of

the economy — in particular, resource, finance, manufacture, transportation and

communication sectors — is the way to go.

Clearly, private investment has created many successful entities

in B.C. It's private investment that created our booming economy. It's private

investment that is helping to build our future, and it's private investment that

will help meet our electricity needs well into the future through IPPs.

[1110]

IPPs do more than just meet our demand for electricity. They

create jobs. In particular, they create jobs in rural B.C. in places where we

are in great need for it.

I want to talk for a second about bioenergy and the opportunity

and the call we just had, particularly for IPPs in bioenergy. The advantage in

utilizing wood fibre is phenomenal. In particular, it can be a huge part of the

solution of meeting the challenges we have with pine beetle throughout the

interior of this province. Instead of that necessarily being a challenge, what

we're looking at is creating that as an opportunity.

There is a potential from just the waste that is along the side of

the roads and that is left in the woods from logging for more than 4,000

gigawatt hours. It's estimated that just in the Prince George area alone 1,700

of those gigawatt hours are potential, and that's just from the wood waste. When

you also look at the pine beetle itself and the potential for using the raw wood

to generate power, it could potentially be a huge solution for a problem, quite

frankly, that came from neglect in the 1990s.

Independent power production is all about bringing that

investment. It's all about sparking the entrepreneurial spirit that helped to

build this province. It's about trying to meet our needs through innovative

processes instead of having to rely on government to be able to try to provide

this. Government and B.C. Hydro are very good at producing large-scale projects,

but they've never really been in small-scale projects. It's really through that

small-scale work through IPPs….

In my riding we have quite a good project, a good example that

Canfor helped to build in terms of independent power production. Those kinds of

examples are why I'm so happy to be able to bring forward this motion today in

support of IPP.

Quite frankly, I think the NDP should be up celebrating the

success of this motion wholeheartedly. It speaks to the basic principles of

self-sufficiency and the spirit that helped to build this province. I ask the

NDP to put aside the political philosophy for the good of the people of B.C., to

stand up and support IPPs in this House. Show the people of B.C. that you really

learned the lessons of the 1990s and that you support steps like IPPs that help

to build a brighter future for the people of this great province.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in

discussion this morning on the member from Prince George's motion with respect

to IPPs.

In the interest of clarity for those who may be watching at home,

I think the ideological statements

[ Page 6056 ]

that were made by the member should be rebutted. That wasn't my intention,

but whenever the member and I get together in debate, I feel compelled to

respond, and he knows that.

I think we need to go back to the 2002 energy plan. That was the

"It wasn't broke, but we're going to fix it anyway" plan. B.C. Hydro, of course,

has been the crown jewel of Crown assets in British Columbia. It has provided us

with among the cheapest energy anywhere in North America. It is clean. It is

green. Of the energy produced in British Columbia, 90 percent comes from our

hydro systems in the Peace, in the Columbia and in the Bridge River system

behind — the member from Garibaldi will know — the Seton dam and the area around

Lillooet. It has provided us with energy that's publicly owned, publicly funded

and, from that, a public benefit.

The challenge I think we have with this motion — certainly I do,

and we'll have many members speaking today — is that there are a couple of flaws

in the logic of the member. I think that government benefits from confusing the

public on what the real state of play is with respect to our energy resources

here in British Columbia.

First and foremost there's this notion of self-sufficiency. In

most homes if someone said, "You know, you need to be self-sufficient," people

get that. They understand that. But if the language is used inappropriately and

it's used unnecessarily, then the public is led to perhaps a conclusion that may

not be in their interest.

Certainly, the notion of self-sufficiency is one we all support,

but picking a date artificially…. These are the market-force people. These are

the people who say that the market will determine where we go. They are

dictating that by a certain date, we should have something done. That sounds

like heavy-handed government to me.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh yeah. I hear an "Oh, oh," from West

Vancouver. My goodness. At least the heart is working. That's good to see.

The notion of self-sufficiency is an important one, but having an

artificial date of eight years out makes no sense at all — unless, of course,

you want to prop up the independent power industry. The bulk of my remarks will

be on that issue.

[1115]

In 2002 the B.C. Liberals said to B.C. Hydro: "You can no longer

generate electricity to meet the needs of British Columbians." It was clear; it

was unequivocal. Any new generation would be purchased from the private sector.

That was the direction from the B.C. Liberals.

It wasn't: "We need balance in the marketplace." It wasn't: "We're

going to assist IPPs to get going in British Columbia." There have been IPPs

here for decades. The NDP signed contracts with independent power producers in

the 1990s. This is not new; this is not unusual.

What is unusual is for a government to say to a Crown corporation

that has been extremely successful: "Put one hand behind your back, and put your

other hand behind your back, and now go forward and buy power from our friends.

Buy power from the people in the private sector that we will send to you."

That's what they said, and that's what they did.

I want to focus just on the water aspects here, the independent

power producers that are doing micro-hydro and run-of-the-river projects across

British Columbia. These are innovative projects, not rocket science. It's not

rocket science to create a headpond above some rapids and run water down beside

that river, run it through a penstock and then run it through a turbine at the

bottom. This isn't rocket science. This isn't innovation. This is basic and

fundamental, and it's been happening for centuries. The private sector didn't

invent this process. The private sector is benefiting from this process at the

expense, I would argue, of the people of British Columbia. As I go through my

remarks, that will become clear.

When the Ministry of Energy had nothing better to do with its time

in the 1980s, it did an inventory of all the river systems in British Columbia.

They earmarked the best locations, the premier spots to generate electricity

from micro-hydro or run-of-the-river hydro. In 1983 they started this process,

and in 2000, B.C. Hydro entered the fray and said: "Where is it that we can go

with our expertise as dam builders? We've built some of the best dams in the

world here in British Columbia. With our expertise, where would we go to build

these micro-hydro projects?"

We had an inventory. It was computerized. It was a data bank. It

was there and ready to go for the public sector to build public resources —

public energy using public water. That wasn't what the B.C. Liberals wanted to

do. Instead they said: "We're going to take that public information. We're going

to open it up to our private sector friends and say: 'First come, first

served.'"

What do you think happened, hon. Speaker? Do any of my colleagues

want to know what happened? I can tell you what happened. Since 2002, 495 water

licences have been given to independent power producers — 495. There are only

600 in the whole province, and virtually 500 of them since 2002. A gold rush.

It's a gold rush. "How do I make money off a public resource — better yet, a

water resource?" We gave it away.

The result is that if you are a B.C. resident or a B.C. registered

company and you are first in line at the registry office, you too can get into

the independent power business. No risk there. We've already done the research

for you. We've already found the best rivers. All you've got to do is be first

in line. Good gig, really good gig. So we identified the sites, and we provided

the water.

Now, what is it that we pay for that water? If you're an

independent power producer, what's the cost to you of getting in the game? We've

already given you a line on the best spots, and now what do we need from you? We

need a water licence — a modest fee. We need a water rental — another modest fee

— and a capacity charge. That's it. That's all it costs to get in the game.

[ Page 6057 ]

How much can you make, hon. Speaker, at $87 a megawatt hour?

The market price, just for those who are keeping score at home, is

$55 a megawatt hour on the spot market — 55 bucks right now if you have a

megawatt and you want to sell it. That's what you'll get, unless you're in

British Columbia and you've got B.C. Hydro with two hands tied behind its back

having to buy power from you. Good deal. Really good deal — $87 a megawatt hour.

That's what they set as the benchmark.

"Well, there's risk," says the private sector. "There is risk

involved. I mean, we have to do the research." "No, wait a minute. You don't

have to do the research. I forgot about that. The research is already done."

"Well, we need a product. We have to put something through our turbine." "Oh,

right. We gave you the water. So that's already done."

"Well, we've only got a 40-year contract. What are we going to do

with that? It's only $30 a megawatt hour more than the market price. There's

risk involved here."

[1120]

I can see that. I see my banking friend from Chilliwack…. If I go

into my bank and say, "I've got a 40-year contract. I'm only making $30 a

megawatt hour over the market price. Can you lend me a couple bucks so I can get

started…?" I think that's a pretty easy deal.

Yes, they play a vital role. I don't want to diminish for a minute

those entrepreneurs who took advantage of misguided Liberal policy. That's not

their fault. I would have done the same thing had I only known they were going

to open up the registry, show me the best rivers in B.C. and then give them to

me for 40 years. Good deal. You had to be a B.C. resident to get that water

licence, but you don't have to be a B.C. resident when you flip it. That's my

biggest concern, and that speaks to the self-sufficiency question.

We've got a 25-year contract. Some of these guys have only got 25

years to print money, which I assume is quite disappointing for them when their

colleagues got 30 and 40. But let's say 25 years from now that contract has been

flipped several times, and now it's held by a California company. The contract

with B.C. Hydro is up. I've got ten megawatts. What am I going to do with it?

I've got the river in perpetuity. I'm paying the water licence.

It's almost 3 percent of the value of the whole process. I guess I'm going to

say: "Who wants to buy my power? B.C. Hydro, do you want to buy my power?" They

say: "Of course we do. We need to be self-sufficient because the B.C. Liberals

made a misguided date back in 2007, and they gave us this river. We need to buy

your power."

The company, which now is owned by Californians — Orange County

Inc. — says: "Well, I'm sorry. You're not offering us enough. We're going to

sell it to our friends in Los Angeles instead."

Where's our self-sufficiency now? It's out the door. It's gone.

The California company has taken the B.C. water and the B.C. energy, and they're

shipping it to Los Angeles. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his 97th term as Governor,

stewed in steroids, is going to say: "Thank you very much, government of B.C.,

for allowing us to buy your rivers in 2002 so that we can now provide

electricity to California."

The challenge for us is not whether or not IPPs play a vital role

in our economy, because of course they do. They did before these guys got here,

and they will after these guys go away. The challenge for us, however, is that

in an era of climate change, the public wants some confidence that someone is in

charge. Over the decades people have been comfortable with B.C. Hydro. I

certainly have been comfortable with B.C. Hydro. My neighbours have been

comfortable with B.C. Hydro.

With this IPP policy that's been put in place by the B.C.

Liberals, B.C. Hydro won't exist 25 years from now, because all of the new

energy supply — everything they do from this point on — must be through the

private sector and cannot be generated by the Crown corporation unless directed

by cabinet.

Well, isn't that delightful? We erode the ability of this Crown

corporation to serve the people of British Columbia. We put one hand behind

their back. We cut the company in half. We've got a transmission company now,

and we've got a generation company. We've privatized all the backroom work and

given it to Accenture, another U.S. company. They're monitoring all this for us,

and what do we get out of it? Overpriced power for a defined period of time, and

when that defined period ends, the power is going straight south. I guarantee

it.

Write it down. On March 12, 2007, the member from Malahat said

that when these contracts are up, every single one of them is going to go to the

highest bidder, and it won't be B.C. Hydro.

I have many colleagues who want to speak to this issue, so I'm

going to leave my remarks for now. It's unfortunate that we only have a short

time to debate this issue, because since 2002 we've had very little opportunity

to discuss the end of B.C. Hydro as we know it. But that's exactly what we're

doing right here. That's exactly what's happening. The benefit to the public of

giving away our water resource will not be returned to us over time. It will be

returned to someone else.

Those on that side of the House are responsible for it. I'm

hopeful they'll be accountable for it in the future. With that, I'll give the

floor to members opposite and my colleagues.

J. Yap: It's an opportunity and a privilege to rise to

speak in favour of this motion. I'm grateful to my colleague the member for

Prince George–Omineca for bringing this motion forward on a very important

issue.

[1125]

Before I go into my brief comments, it's always a delight to

follow the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Today he didn't disappoint again

with a presentation that included not just a whole bunch of fearmongering, but

he also inserted some insults to a government that is leading the way in the

United States — the government of California — and one which we in British

[ Page 6058 ]

Columbia, our government, will try to not just emulate but do better than in

leading climate change in North America and indeed the world.

We also heard very clearly some private sector bashing by the

member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Somehow it goes against the principles of the

NDP to look at how the private sector can bring innovation, creativity and

efficiency in providing what we all need here, which is a source of power, part

of our energy program in the years to come.

We in British Columbia, we all know, have been blessed with great

natural resources, including the ability to generate clean hydroelectric power.

Thanks to the vision of past governments, our province has seen our ability to

generate clean hydroelectric power at the rate of 90 percent. Ninety percent of

our power is from clean energy sources, and we want to keep it that way. We want

to have the majority of our power, our energy, generated from clean sources.

We also have an energy plan, as was mentioned, that will see us

energy self-sufficient as a province, and we have a date as a goal. By 2016 we

want to be a province that is self-sufficient. In spite of what my colleague

from Malahat–Juan de Fuca might say, that is a worthy goal: to have a target

date to work towards to achieve energy self-sufficiency — and not just to be

energy self-sufficient but also to have all of our energy generated from clean

sources which do not pollute, do not generate carbon emissions.

We have an energy plan that includes a number of initiatives.

Conservation is a major part of the energy plan. The need, the priority, to try

and tap into alternative sources of power generation using independent power

producers as a way to deliver this energy effectively over the long term,

whether it's from wind power or biomass…. These are the ways our energy plan,

using independent power producers as one of a range of initiatives, will help

our province achieve energy self-sufficiency.

In this regard, I strongly support this motion put forward by my

colleague the member for Prince George–Omineca, and hope that other members will

also support this motion.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand up

and speak to this issue around alternate power and independent power. Let me

start by saying that on this side of the House we have a long history of

supporting green power, of looking at alternatives, of developing those

alternatives and promoting those alternatives — unlike the government side. As

early as last fall, when we had our little three-day session here, we had the

Minister of Energy and the Minister of Environment standing up and campaigning

for coal-fired power.

Now their position changed, of course, after the Premier had his

revelation in Maui, but they were campaigning for coal-fired power up until that

time. Now we've had a change in that position, of course, as we saw in the

throne speech.

The real issue with this is the public interest, and we need to

look at what the public interest is in this. There are two areas that I'd like

to talk about. The first one really is the interest around self-sufficiency and

around ownership and water rights. What we know, as my friend from Malahat–Juan

de Fuca talked about, is that essentially the government, through the IPP

process, is giving away British Columbia assets in terms of water rights in

perpetuity to independent power producers. As we heard, in return for that,

we're getting something less than $10 a megawatt, and they're selling that to

B.C. Hydro for about $87 a megawatt. So it's a pretty good deal, I'd say.

[1130]

Now, when we talk about it in terms of the long-term public

interest, the problem with this, of course, is really around the

self-sufficiency question. The member for Richmond-Steveston talked about the

goal of 2016 for self-sufficiency, and we'd all like to see that. The problem

isn't 2016. We might see self-sufficiency in 2016. The problem is what happens

in 2025 and 2030. That's when the issue arises.

The expectation is that upwards of 40 percent of our power will be

provided by independent power producers. What happens after those contracts

expire? They go to the open market, and they go to the highest bidder. They end

up being sold elsewhere. Clearly, we know that California is not waiting around

for 2016.

On March 1 we saw the California Utilities Commission give $14

million to Pacific Gas and Electric explicitly for them to look at building

transmission lines, the feasibility of transmission lines, to British Columbia

and the feasibility of acquisition of green power. They've said that 33 percent

of their power has to be green power in California by 2020. They want to get it

out of Canada and out of British Columbia.

They're very clear. Their intention is to look at acquisition of

British Columbia green energy companies. Then there won't even be a discussion

about whether we get to keep that power here. They'll just move it south as soon

as those contracts expire. That's the plan. So it's in 2030 as to what kind of

self-sufficiency we'll have, not in 2016, but this government is not looking

there.

The other issue that I want to touch on very briefly is the issue

around sustainability. What we know is that we saw the Squamish-Lillooet deal.

We saw Ashlu. We've heard it discussed here — the 60 projects where there are

water licence applications in the Squamish-Lillooet area. What do we see with

the 60 projects? No planning and no looking at which rivers are appropriate for

this and which aren't appropriate. It's a Wild West show out there.

The Squamish-Lillooet regional district asked for planning. This

government said no. They gave them Bill 30 instead and crushed their rights as a

local government. That's what this is all about.

As my friend, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca said, this isn't

about bashing independent power producers. It's about bashing a government that

ripped up local rights of local governments. It's about bashing a government

that can't see past 2016. It's about bashing a government that doesn't care

about the future of

[ Page 6059 ]

energy self-sufficiency in this province as much as it cares about giving

money to its friends who pay for its campaigns.

That's the problem here. This isn't about the future of the

province. It's about trying to ensure the future of the Liberal Party, and

that's wrong.

J. McIntyre: It's very hard to just sit here and listen to

what's coming down the row here in terms of speaking out against $4.4 billion of

private sector investment in this province in green energy resources.

I'd like to know which hospitals and schools and infrastructure

they would forgo while we divert $4 billion to infrastructure when we have an

ability to leverage the taxpayer dollar here in British Columbia and move

forward with these kinds of projects. I just have to shake my head. I just see

an opposition that's so ideologically opposed to anything that the private

sector would do or could do for our province in partnership. I just can't

believe it.

They'd rather stop these projects and have us import

less-than-green power. Anyway, I don't want to get too far into the overall

benefits. Others have spoken about the benefits of these projects.

I also have to say that I can't go much further and not comment on

the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca being opposed to a fixed date for energy

self-sufficiency. I am in just absolute disbelief. He would be the first person

on his feet in this House to complain if it we didn't have a fixed date for our

plan. No, I can't believe it. They just love the vague promises. Anyway, I'm not

going to say more on that either.

I want to talk about the projects in my riding. In the wonderful,

beautiful riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, we do have and are

disproportionately blessed with a riding that is basically built on a

mountainside.

[1135]

We have the opportunity to do small run-of-the-river projects, as

we drop precipitously into the ocean. We have a number of projects — up in Furry

Creek, the Mamquam, Brandywine — all of them very successful projects that have

involved first nations and are actually getting the job done.

But I want to spend some time on Ashlu. I see that the hon. member

who spoke before me would like to hear what I have to say. I hope he is

listening, because I want to talk about some of the facts. It's been a sore

point in this House. It's constantly raised, and I want to get the facts into

the record.

Ashlu was, as the member spoke earlier, mentioned and identified

in the '80s and '90s as one of the ideal spots for a run-of-the-river project.

It's taken far too long — 20 years or so — and millions and millions of dollars

and environmental assessments and consultation to bring this into service. It's

a project that is 49 megawatts. It will power 23,000 homes. It will support up

to 60 full-time, high-paying construction jobs for 2.5 years to construct the

project. An estimated $10 million will be spent locally in the community.

They partnered with the Squamish First Nation. I must say and must

point out that at the end of this 40-year contract it will revert to the

Squamish First Nation for a dollar. Is that being sold to the Americans? I don't

think so. No. I wish they'd get their facts straight.

Residents of the upper Squamish are going to be receiving revenue

from the Ashlu green power project for community projects — $400,000 to start

and $80,000 a year for the next 20 years. Once it's constructed, it will be

inspected by Hydro to ensure it's complying with their environmental green

criteria. The project will be an EcoLogo-certified project, which is a

Canada-wide recognized certification that's applied to projects or products that

meet specific environmental guidelines.

Also, there will be no new transmission lines down the upper

Squamish valley as a result of this project. The amount of greenhouse gas

emissions that are not produced by this clean source of energy is equivalent to

moving 21,000 cars from the road each year.

So I believe this is a great example of a significant project

helping B.C. reach our goal of energy self-sufficiency and producing more

electricity in an environmentally friendly manner — a win-win.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up here to bring

some more facts to this House on this particular motion. The first fact that I

bring forward is that the NDP do favour clean, green public power as provided by

a comprehensive energy plan.

The second fact that I'd like to also bring in front of this House

is that as a member of city council back in the '90s…. That city council brought

forward the first biomass cogeneration electrical plant here in British

Columbia. As a result of the waste material being required to be brought in and

used by the mills and whatever industry was available….

Underneath those sets of rules and regulations, the city of

Williams Lake was able to convince both the province as well as B.C. Hydro to

change the rules and regulations to make biomass economically profitable for

industry and, at the same time, use waste material, which had previously not

been able to be done.

That is within the style that I also want to bring some facts to

this House. The way the Liberals do business…. In September 2004 the Liberal

government signed a memorandum of agreement with the UBCM on how IPPs would be

provided.

There were four points that were contained in that agreement, and

they were: fostering cooperative intergovernmental relations, recognizing the

jurisdiction and accountabilities of both orders of government, facilitating the

responsible development of clean renewable energy sources to meet the energy

needs of British Columbians and, finally, providing efficient and effective IPP

review and approval processes for both orders of government.

[1140]

About a year later, 2004, the Liberal government passes Bill 30,

section 56, which guts that agreement — guts it. This

section established two

points. The IPP "is not to be superseded or impaired by anything in or

[ Page 6060 ]

done under the Community Charter or Local Government Act ."

Regulations for ministerial order M-22-0205 ordered June 6, 2006, reduced

regulations of IPPs to include an exemption from local government zoning bylaws.

When I have a look at wind power generation up in the Peace

country, the noise that would be done by that particular method of developing

power will now be dropped right next door to residents without any input from

local government and how it affects their residents.

Coalbed methane — no effect upon water supplies and how it will

affect the residents of local government. The input I've already mentioned on

biomass — no effect, again, on local government and how it will affect their

residents.

I wish to close. On April 1 of '07, this government, in enacting

the agreement of TILMA — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement —

will have completely emaciated any control that local government would have upon

anything that affects investment, trade and labour mobility. It is within that

style that this government has processed and bullied through how they do

business — not a particularly good record.

R. Sultan: My ears perked up when the member for Malahat–Juan

de Fuca listed all these wonderful installations which he referred to as the

jewels in the crown: Seton Dam, Bridge River, the project at Lillooet. He could

have thrown in Kemano hydro power plant as well. What made my ears perk up is

that I worked on all those projects, probably before the member was born.

The other thing that sticks in my mind is that when we built those

wonderful, efficient green plants — which we are still benefiting from,

extremely reliable — they were built by the private sector. They were built by

the B.C. Electric Co., which I worked for. It was only after they were completed

that the government came along and expropriated them. So these were not products

of government enterprise.

Now, I did a little bit of homework in very limited time. What's

going on currently? I called my friend Mike Burns. These are my friends. I'm

proud of that. The NaiKun project, the $1 billion wind farm up on Rose Spit in

the north end of the Queen Charlottes. It's 50-50 owned with the Haida. The

Haida have bought into this deal. It will pay $400 million in taxes over its

30-year life. At full capacity, in fact, it could satisfy our current import

deficit on energy.

I called up my friend Donald McInnes who runs an interesting

little company called Plutonic Power. He has 22 run-of-the-river. He's probably

engaging that feeding frenzy which was described a moment ago — a 200-megawatt

capacity in the first phase. It's estimated that 34 percent of the electrical

revenues will be going back in the form of local, provincial and federal taxes.

I also attended a presentation by Dr. John MacDonald, one of the

founders of MacDonald Dettwiler — not an insignificant company — one of the

leading satellite manufacturers. John is convinced the answer to energy

long-term is photovoltaic. Who knows whether he will be proven correct or not.

The point of it is that we have this outpouring of creative

alternative solutions here, and it is attempting to address the supply deficit

that accumulated in the '90s under this presumably very wise, thoughtful,

creative government-owned enterprise. They left us importing 15 percent of

electricity from the Americans and from Alberta.

You talk about a market price of 50 bucks. Yeah, it probably is

about that. If you want to buy dirty coal-generated power at the border, that's

probably what we could get it for. To go green, a self-sufficient,

environmentally friendly supply is going to cost us money. Let's be honest

enough to admit that.

[1145]

I think we should congratulate the playing field which has been

turned by this government from one of essentially government monopoly to one

based on competition. I'm personally convinced the competition will provide the

innovation and the economies and will keep the price honest in the long run to

satisfy the future energy needs of this great province.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure to respond to the motion: "Be

it resolved that this House recognizes the vital role of independent power

producers in our goal of becoming energy self sufficient and our goal of

producing more electricity in an environmentally friendly manner."

As the MLA for Skeena, I have grave misgivings about certain

aspects of this motion, and they revolve around two things. Firstly, what

constitutes an IPP? Secondly, are we putting in place appropriate water rentals

on our rivers and streams so that we can capture the monopoly rentals on these

public resources and not end up giving our rivers to private companies at prices

that don't benefit British Columbians in the long run?

As many people are by now aware, there is an ongoing dispute in

northwestern B.C. concerning the role that Alcan is playing in terms of the use

of its water licence. For over 50 years Alcan has been a great corporate partner

in this province which, after a major capital investment in Kemano, has built a

hydroelectric power source that has used publicly owned water to good use in

creating an aluminum industry here in British Columbia.

This investment over 50 years ago has generated millions of

dollars of profit for the shareholders of Alcan, while at the same time

generating industrial production in a part of the province that previously

relied solely on forestry and was looking to diversify.

This was a visionary agreement at the time but one that would

never be contemplated today, as it would be hard to value an entire watershed

and negotiate a deal that returned a fair rate of return to a global company

while still giving a return to the owners of that public resource — namely, the

citizens of British Columbia.

[ Page 6061 ]

The 1949 Industrial Development Act was very specific in its

language. It is a two-page document that is available and easy to read, even for

those of us who are not lawyers. It explicitly states that the province of B.C.

was exchanging water for industrial production, specifically an aluminum

industry or other industrial purposes, in the vicinity of the Kitimat Works.

It was never intended that Alcan would be able to use the power

generated from that public resource to make profits by selling power on the grid

at the expense of production at the works. It is astonishing that this B.C.

Liberal government has not fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility to uphold that

contract in the interests of British Columbians.

Since 2001 this government has attempted to change the intent of

the Industrial Development Act by allowing Alcan to turn itself from an aluminum

company to an IPP which happens to also make aluminum. This has had a negative

impact on the economy of the entire region, as selling power and cutting

production and therefore jobs has hurt a region that is already undergoing an

economic transformation in the downturn of the forestry industry.

This motion refers to a new power and to self-sufficiency. There

is not one megawatt of new power being created by Alcan in this deal. It hardly

helps the province to reach self-sufficiency. All this is doing is removing

power that was designated for industrial production and, therefore, generating

jobs in a part of the province that desperately needs them and transferring this

power to the grid, where it can be used for residential purposes.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

How does turning off the lights in Kitimat and laying people off

help us to reach self-sufficiency? This is an example of bad public policy and

is a way to transfer wealth from the citizens of B.C., who own our rivers, to

the shareholders of a private company, who owe us nothing.

I don't blame Alcan for taking full use of this opportunity to

increase their bottom line. Why would any company decide to operate a smelter

and make a return on its capital of between 20 percent and 30 percent when it

could turn around and make over a thousand percent by selling our own river back

to us as electricity?

When it comes to our rivers being used by private companies, we

need to be very wary and realize the enormous wealth that these rivers

represent. This province was built on cheap hydroelectric power, and our rivers

have benefited all British Columbians by providing cheap electricity both for

industrial purposes as well as for residential use. Let us remember that our

cheap hydro has enabled us to pay for other things, such as schools and

hospitals, which in many other countries have to come second to paying for a

basic need like electricity.

By allowing industrial users to make windfall profits off our

rivers, we are losing all the revenue from these rivers which, had they been

created by a public utility, would have gone back into government coffers to be

used for these vital public services.

Finally, let us demand of this government that it uphold the

current water agreements with companies like Alcan and Teck Cominco to ensure

that they are turning water into aluminum and zinc and not into gold.

[1150]

R. Hawes: In the very short time that I have, I just wanted

to address a couple of things that my NDP friend from the Malahat said earlier.

As the Energy critic, I'm sure he didn't mean to mislead or state some

inaccuracies. So let me just straighten out a few of the things that he said,

which I'm sure he didn't intend to say.

First, on price. He talked about $87 as the price being paid to

IPPs. I'm sure what he meant to say is that actually the price is in the low

$70s. Delivered in Vancouver, after taking off the power loss in transmission,

it's $87, perhaps, compared to the spot price paid at the border of $55, he

said.

Of course, then you need to take off the power loss for that, so

the price delivered in Vancouver — to make an apples and apples comparison —

would be somewhat higher. But I'm sure he really meant to say that.

He didn't say that here we're talking about coal-generated power

at the border, rather than the green power — which is more expensive, of course

— that we're talking about with the IPPs. So much for the NDP's global warming

plan. It apparently applies only within British Columbia. What goes on outside

of the borders couldn't matter less to them.

Let's talk about tenure. He talked about the giveaway, that we're

giving these in perpetuity, and it's a great gift, etc. The fact is that most of

these IPPs are on licences to occupy or on leases which, at the expiration of

the lease period, may be renewed. Of course, terms at that point would be

negotiated.

Who knows what the terms would be at that time? If they're not

negotiated, there is a requirement on the IPP to return the land in the same

condition that they got it, which would mean they have to remove the

infrastructure. Or if the government wanted, they could be gifted to the

province. So much for that.

The other thing that I think was a gross error on the member's

part is when he talked about the benefit to British Columbians. The member for

West Vancouver–Capilano did touch on the fact that 34 percent of the money

generated from the sale of electricity does come back to the province in the

form of taxes in one form or another, which is a tremendous return. There's also

a very good return to the province on water rentals during the period of

operation.

So when he spoke about selling power into the United States, etc.,

the fact is the power has to be sold into the B.C. Transmission Corp. It can't

fly to the United States through the air mysteriously. It's got to go on a

transmission grid, which is of course owned by B.C. Transmission Corp, which is

of course owned by

[ Page 6062 ]

the people of British Columbia. This is just an absolute inaccurate statement

that I know the member didn't intend to make.

I think that the fearmongering and gross misstatements really are

just indicative of a political bias on their part that everything should be

operated by the government and nothing should be operated by free enterprise

where profits generate jobs, and jobs actually are what pay the taxes.

B. Bennett: It's my honour to get up and support the

member's motion. This really is a quintessential debate between the socialist

point of view and the free enterprise point of view, and it's interesting. It's

been illuminating. I'm glad that it's all on the record. We'll let the people of

British Columbia sort out which vision for the future of British Columbia they

care to support.

The first thing that I want to say is not actually so much related

to the motion as it is to a statement made by the critic for the opposition for

Energy and Mines. He insulted the Governor of California in this House this

morning, and I think he should consider apologizing for that.

J. Horgan: I take the comment from the member for East

Kootenay very, very seriously, and I withdraw the comments that I made.

B. Bennett: First-rate response from the critic. We all

sometimes put our foot where our teeth are supposed to be, and as long as we're

prepared to admit that and apologize, I think we can carry on.

[1155]

The motion refers to the vital role that independent power

producers will play in terms of B.C.'s electricity self-sufficiency, so I'm

going to focus on that. I do want to get on the record, first of all, by stating

unequivocally that the opposition — when they were in government, in fact — were

the first government to start talking about the importance and the usefulness of

independent power projects.

There were a number of NDP leaders who were on the record. Premier

Dosanjh is on the record. Premier Harcourt is on the record. In fact, the critic

for Energy and Mines for the opposition was a special adviser to the Ministry of

Energy and Mines and minister responsible for northern development — that was

Mr. Miller at the time — who oversaw the management and development of

independent power project policy.

That was between March of 2000 and November of 2000. So it's odd

that he and his colleagues would now indicate here this morning that they don't

support the use of independent power projects.

I think it must be troubling, in fact, for some of the opposition

to stand up in this House and oppose something that some of their most respected

leaders thought just a few short years ago was an excellent idea.

I do want to mention, as well, that I think it's talking out of

both sides of your mouth when you suggest that you believe in the concept of

electricity self-sufficiency but you do not believe in establishing a target or

a goal for achieving that self-sufficiency. It's not a surprising position for

the NDP to take, because their history, when they are in government — which

hopefully won't happen for a very, very long time, and I suppose, hopefully,

never — in terms of how they manage the economy is just like that.

They'll say: "Yeah, we believe in such and such, but we're not

sure when we're going to get there. We sure don't want to establish a target. We

wouldn't want to put a date in there. That would impose too much discipline on

us, and we might not make the date. So we'll just say that we believe in it, and

we won't establish any sort of a target."

One of the other aspects of the opposition's approach to this

policy of IPPs is to take the position that B.C. Hydro can build power projects

more effectively and less costly than the private sector. I note that the NDP

has supported Furry Creek, or at least some of the members have. But they've

said that it's too bad that B.C. Hydro didn't or couldn't build that project,

because they could build that project for half as much as what the private

sector could.

I would recommend to the critic, specifically and with all due

respect, that he should go have a visit with his colleague from Nelson-Creston,

who's been around this place for quite some time and was here in the 1990s. In

fact, I think as an MLA he was quite engaged with Columbia Power Corporation

when they built the hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River in the

Kootenay region.

I don't know for sure, but I think that if the critic does that,

his colleague from Nelson-Creston will tell him that, in fact, pretty much

everybody on both sides of the political fence realizes that Columbia Power

Corporation built those dams and created those hydroelectric facilities for a

whole lot less money than B.C. Hydro ever could have built those facilities.

I think the evidence, in fact, is that the private sector can

build and operate these facilities, probably for less money than what B.C. Hydro

can.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member, and noting the time.

B. Bennett: Noting the time, I make a motion that we

adjourn debate.

B. Bennett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175