Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 299

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 24 — Amendments to

Nisg̱a’a final agreement

Hon. S. Fraser

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Fuel Price Transparency Act (continued)

R. Kahlon

Hon. H. Bains

N. Simons

P. Milobar

R. Coleman

J. Sims

J. Brar

R. Sultan

Hon. B. Ralston

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. James: I will call a motion on notice,

Nisg̱a’a final agreement amending

agreement (No. 4).

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 24 — AMENDMENTS TO

Nisg̱a’a FINAL

AGREEMENT

Hon. S. Fraser: I move Motion 24 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to

section 38 of

Chapter 2 of the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

consents to the amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement set out in the

attached Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 4).

NISG̱A’A FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 4)

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT is dated for reference March 31,

AMONG

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the

Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

The NISG̱A’A NATION, as

represented by the Nisg̱a’a

Lisims Government Executive

(“Nisg̱a’a Nation”).

A. On May 11, 2000 the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement came

into effect.

B. The

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement provides

for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendments of various

of its provisions.

C. The Parties have previously agreed to make

certain amendments to the Nisg̱a’a

Final Agreement.

D. The Parties now propose the further

amendments to the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement related to the

definition of Nisg̱a’a settlement

trust.

E. The Parties have determined that the

processes set out in paragraph 37, 38 and 40 of

Chapter 2 – General

Provisions apply to the proposed amendments set out in

Part II of this

Amending Agreement No. 4.

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree that the proposed amendments to

the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending

Agreement No. 4 be recommended

a) By the Nisg̱a’a

Lisims Government Executive to Wilp Si’ayuu k hl

Nisg̱a’a,

b) By the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations to the

Governor in Council, and

c) By the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation to the Legislature of British Columbia.

PART I –

DEFINITIONS

1. In this Amending Agreement No. 4:

a) “Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement” means the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement among the Nisg̱a’a Nation,

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in

right of British Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as

amended;

b) A reference to a

Chapter by number or name is a

reference to the corresponding

chapter number or name in the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement;

and

c) A reference to a number and paragraph of a

Chapter

is a reference to the corresponding number and paragraph of the

chapter

in the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement.

2. Words and expressions appearing in this

Amending Agreement No. 4 that are not defined in this Amending Agreement

but are defined in the Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the

Nisg̱a’a Final

Agreement.

PART II – AMENDMENTS

3. The definition of

“Nisg̱a’a settlement trust” in

paragraph 1 of

Chapter 15 of the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement is

amended by deleting “means any trust having the following

characteristics” and substituting “at any time means a

Nisg̱a’a settlement trust as

defined in the Taxation Agreement referred to in paragraph 21 of the Tax

Chapter or any trust having the following characteristics”.

4. Subparagraph (

f) of the definition of

“Nisg̱a’a settlement trust” in

paragraph 1 of

Chapter 15 of the

Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement is

amended by deleting “Financial Transfers Chapter” and substituting

“Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment Chapter”.

PART III – PROCEDURES

5. The proposed amendments set out in

Part II

of this Amending Agreement will take effect in accordance with paragraph

41 of

Chapter 2 – General Provisions, on the date that the last Party

required to consent to the amendments gives its consent.

6. This Amending Agreement may be signed in

one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one

Party to another Party by facsimile transmission and a facsimile so

transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts

held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same

instrument.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by

the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations, signed this ________ day

of __________________, 2019.

___________________________________

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Crown–Indigenous

Relations

Witnessed by _______________

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as

represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, signed this _____ day of ____________,

___________________________________

The Honourable Scott Fraser, Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

Witnessed by _______________

FOR THE NISG̱A’A NATION, as

represented by the Nisg̱a’a

Lisims Government Executive, signed this _____ day of ____________,

___________________________________

Eva Clayton, President

Witnessed by _______________]

I rise in this House today to move the amending agreement to the

Nisg̱a’a final agreement, British Columbia’s first modern-day treaty. The

purpose of this agreement is to enable the amendment of two provisions

of the final agreement.

[1:35 p.m.]

The first amends the definition of “Nisg̱a’a settlement trust” to

enable the settlement trust to also be defined in the taxation

agreement. This paves the way for changes to the taxation agreement that

will allow the Nisg̱a’a Nation to broaden the scope of investments by the

settlement trust.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The second provision corrects a reference error in the fiscal

relations

chapter that was identified during the negotiations. The

amended agreement will enable the

Nisg̱a’a Nation to invest in

limited partnerships, which are not permitted under the current

settlement trust rules.

Changes to federal tax law cleared a path to negotiate these

amendments. Canada and the Nisg̱a’a

Nation have each ratified the amending agreement. British Columbia is

the last signatory that needs to ratify it before the agreement can take

effect.

I’ll take this opportunity to congratulate the

Nisg̱a’a Nation on its ongoing

efforts to create a powerful, sustainable economy that benefits its

members with jobs and with opportunities. Our treaty with the

Nisg̱a’a Nation is the first

modern-day treaty in B.C. history that came into effect in

I look forward to celebrating with Nisg̱a’a their 20th anniversary

next year. The treaty is the foundation for how all other modern

treaties have been built as a relationship that can evolve over time,

not frozen in time.

Nisg̱a’a demonstrates the power of the modern treaties and why it’s

part of my mandate to re-energize treaty negotiations. We have been

actively working to renew treaty-making in British Columbia with the

federal government, the First Nations Summit and the First Nations in

the B.C. treaty process as well as the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty

Nations. Through this work, we are basing treaty-making on a recognition

of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples and on lasting

government-to-government relationships that can evolve over

time.

We are modernizing the treaty process to better respect case law

and embody the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples. This is part of a commitment to deepen our relationships with

First Nations and advance true, lasting reconciliation.

J. Rustad: I just have a few words to add to the minister’s

comments.

I work closely with the Nisg̱a’a Nation, and this is something that

has been done on numerous occasions as changes and stuff go forward. As

a matter of fact, I think I remember being on that side and bringing in

a motion not long ago. The minister, of course, I believe, was the

responder at that time to this.

I actually just want to take a moment just to thank the Nisg̱a’a

Nation for the work they’re doing. I know they are working very hard at

developing their economy, developing opportunities for the people and

working through. Of course, managing the money and the funds that they

have as part of the treaty settlement as well as the works that they

have done over the years has been an important piece of advancing their

reconciliation and advancing the prosperity that they are hoping to

achieve for the people.

With that, these amendments don’t pose anything else in terms of

significance that needs to be dealt with within the Legislature, so I’m

happy that they’re moving forward. Once again, congratulations to the

Nisg̱a’a people on the work they’re doing in their treaty and the

advancement they’re doing towards improving lives for their

people.

A. Olsen: I’m just going to stand and add the voice of the Third Party to

this very, very briefly and also raise my hands up to the Nisg̱a’a, whose

perseverance, in many respects, has us having the conversation that is

happening in many rooms, and specifically one other room in a few

minutes once this debate on this motion is complete.

We are having this conversation about reconciliation because of

the persistence of communities and nations such as Nisg̱a’a, who have

been coming to this place here in the Inner Harbour in Victoria and

encouraging government to take action. I think we see here, as we’re

making an amendment, this process requires the three parties to pass

motions in order for this to come into effect. British Columbia is

certainly a part of those agreements. I’m proud to stand here today to

enable the work that has been done before us.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member for Nechako Lakes and the member, also,

for Saanich North and the Islands — and thank, of course, the Nisg̱a’a

people and the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government. They have been

inspiring.

They also brought us together on an issue where partisanship

doesn’t exist. The advancement of the Nisg̱a’a people in the region and

in this province will benefit all of us, and all of us working together

in this House with the Nisg̱a’a government and people, I think, is

inspiring too. I thank them for allowing us to come together around this

issue.

With that, I thank the members for their cooperation, and I move

the motion.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, you’ve heard that it has been moved by the Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that pursuant to

section 38

chapter 2 of the Nisg̱a’a final

agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the

amendments to the Nisg̱a’a final

agreement set out in the Nisg̱a’a

final agreement amending agreement No. 4.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move continued second reading of Bill 42, Fuel Price

Transparency Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — FUEL PRICE

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

(continued)

R. Kahlon: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to the Fuel Price Transparency

Act.

I’m not going to take very much time, other than to say that

people in my constituency and many throughout the region are obviously

very frustrated when they see the fuel prices surge the way they do.

It’s difficult to explain what the reasoning is for the price changes.

When they hear that the BCUC still cannot explain why there is a 13-cent

difference, after going through all the information that was provided to

them, they get even more frustrated.

I’m grateful for the Minister of….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please take a seat.

Hon. C. James: I also want to call, in the Douglas Fir Room, continued Committee

of the Whole, Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act.

R. Kahlon: Again, I don’t expect to be long, for the members that are heading

to the Douglas Fir Room. I’m only going to be probably five minutes, but

that being said….

As I was saying, constituents in my community are extremely

frustrated when they see gas prices rise the way they do and fall the

way they do, and it’s hard to explain the rationale for why, what’s

happening. When they hear there’s a 13-cent difference between the two,

that makes them even more frustrated. So I’m thankful to the Minister of

Jobs, Trade and Technology for taking an important step to ensure that

there’s transparency.

What this bill will do is essentially ensure that these big oil

companies are being more transparent on how they come across and how

they basically put their fuel prices in place.

We’re not the only jurisdiction to do this. Australia and New

Zealand have both gone in this direction. Washington state and Oregon

state require oil and gas companies to ensure that the information is

available.

Once the information becomes available, obviously, privacy and

sensitive data…. It will be ensured that that doesn’t become public, but

it will be available for consumer and watchdog groups so that they can

look at the numbers and they can come through with assessments on what

they believe might be happening. I think it’s a very important step. As

I mentioned, other jurisdictions are doing this. Just our neighbours,

Washington state and Oregon state, are taking those important

steps.

I wanted to ensure that I read from my constituents some more

details around what information will be gathered from the industry. If

this legislation is passed, the companies will have to provide key

data.

Some of that key data is refined fuel imports and exports,

including volume and source and mode of transport; inventories of fuel

at primary and bulk terminals; storage, throughput, cleanup and blending

of capacity of primary and bulk terminals, upgraders and refineries;

retail fuel prices and the volume sold at each price; comprehensive

breakdown of fuel sales; wholesale prices and volume sold at each price;

refinery capacity; operational uptime and shutdowns; volume of fuels

refined within the province; and finally, volume of feedstock delivered

to a refinery. All very, very important information.

[1:45 p.m.]

Again, some of my constituents have been asking questions to me.

So this is important information that I want to share with them. Public

reporting is, obviously, a fundamental part of this framework. This

legislation requires timely reporting of a range of key metrics by the

fuel industry to government to allow for a public release. This includes

an allowance for the release of commercially sensitive information when

it’s determined that the public interest in that information outweighs

the potential harm to the private interests of the fuel

companies.

The final details — obviously, the regulatory and how these

reports will be structured — will be determined by the independent body,

which is, of course, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Again, I want to thank the minister for bringing this piece of

legislation in. It’s critically important that this building — the work

we do here — is transparent. I think it’s very important, also, that the

oil companies are transparent on how they set their prices so that the

public can have some sense of confidence that….

Many have suggested to me that there’s price fixing. We need to

ensure that this information gets out there so that people don’t think

that way and that they can see that it’s clear, and the information is

out and is transparent. Public agencies that are doing advocacy work

along these lines have the opportunity to get that data and come to

their own findings and come to their own conclusions.

Again, we’re not the only ones, as I’ve said. Other jurisdictions

are heading in this direction. I think it’s an important step for

transparency.

As I said earlier, I’m grateful to the minister for stepping up

and ensuring that this transparency is there. I know it’s important to

him and his constituents. He understands that it’s important to all of

our constituents. So I really hope that all members of this House

support this, ensure that this thing goes through so the public can have

confidence that they’re not being ripped off at the gas pump and that

there’s transparency on how the pricing is done.

Thanks to the minister. I’ll take my seat to listen to other

speakers.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m happy to stand and speak in favour of Bill 42, the Fuel Price

Transparency Act, which proposes to establish a mandatory reporting

framework for companies involved in supplying gasoline and diesel in

British Columbia.

Now, I see many guests in the gallery. I believe they’re all

students visiting this Legislature. First of all, I say welcome. This is

the House where all the laws are made and debates take place before

they’re passed. I hope that this is a really good experience: to come

here and see what happens when people are making laws that affect you,

your parents and your neighbours.

I don’t think many of you are drivers yet, but I think this issue

is important to your parents and your neighbours when they are driving.

You’ve seen — and I’ve seen, driving around with my children — gas

prices. You go there in the morning. It is set at $1.59 a litre. But in

the evening, the same gas station is showing $1.39. How is that kind of

fluctuation of that magnitude…? Where is the justification for

that?

I have seen that, other times, lack of competition…. If there is a

gas price at one gas station of $1.49.9, you go around, and at every

other gas station, you’ll see exactly the same price — $1.49.9. There is

no justification. You go across the line. You see four gas stations at

the same cross-section, and you will see four different

prices.

What is going on here in British Columbia? Part of the problem is

that the prices that these oil companies and the gas companies that

supply gasoline to British Columbia…. They make these decisions in

secret. We’re saying, through this bill, that decision-making process,

the lack of transparency, making decisions behind closed doors — those

days are over, because people of this province deserve

better.

[1:50 p.m.]

When we put BCUC in place to investigate what is going on in

British Columbia compared to other jurisdictions, they came back with a

very comprehensive report. They looked at all of the costs that are

incurred by the gasoline and oil companies — the transportation, the

warehousing price and the commissions they pay — and then they added all

that up.

Then there was 13 cents per litre. There was no justification, and

no one could actually say to them why there was a 13-cent difference and

no justification. The gasoline companies could not prove why they’re

charging 13 cents a litre in B.C.

When we go and fill up our car or truck at a gas station, people

feel that they are being gouged. They feel that they’re being ripped

off. I think this bill will stop that.

At least we are asking the gasoline companies: “Why are you

treating British Columbia so differently than other jurisdictions?” On

any given day, the gas price in B.C. would be 20 cents a litre more than

the other jurisdictions. Then you take a look. There are real issues.

The 13 cents per litre — there was no justification. There was no way to

know where that 13 cents came from.

As a result of that, British Columbians have been paying $490

million every year. This unaccountable 13 cents that they are charging

British Columbian motorists…. That’s why I think government is compelled

to stand on the side of British Columbians and say: “Look, gas companies

and oil companies, you have some justification to do here. You need to

be more transparent. You need to be accountable for what you’re

doing.”

No one argues against competition. No one argues against companies

making profit, because that’s what companies do. We encourage them to do

that. That’s how they grow. That’s how they create jobs. But you cannot

gouge people just because you can.

Right now I think we are looking at, through this bill, that there

will be some justification. They will have to explain why and how

they’re setting those prices. If there is a reason to charge that 13

cents, we’re saying: “Prove it.”

The other thing is that BCUC also looked at the other

jurisdictions, as I mentioned earlier: Washington, Oregon, Australia,

New Zealand. They have this kind of a transparency act in place where

the gasoline companies must provide information on how they set those

prices.

I think when we are talking about affordability issues, we’re

talking about all the other costs in the Lower Mainland and outside of

the Lower Mainland. Housing prices went unchecked when the other party

was in government. Mayors, communities and everyone else asked them —

they pleaded with the other government — to do something about these

runaway prices on housing.

No one from the new generation can afford, even dream about,

owning a house. They can’t even afford to rent a house, never mind

owning one. Many of them, even with well-paid jobs, are not coming to

Vancouver because they know that living expenses are so high that they

could be better off going to other jurisdictions. So we are losing

talent as well.

I think part of the reason for this — why they didn’t do anything

about the oil and gas prices — is that, maybe to the surprise of a lot

of people, they took $700,000 in political donations from the major oil

and gas companies. That’s the B.C. Liberals. That’s why they came to

their defence.

Even today they are defending the oil and gas companies gouging

British Columbians 13 cents a litre for no reason. There’s no

explanation. There’s no justification. But who comes to their aid? B.C.

Liberals. I think $700,000 can buy you good support from the entire

caucus of the opposition.

Well, if that’s how business is done in this province, we need to

change that. This act, then, will be forcing the oil companies to

justify how they set their prices.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now, in a free enterprise, prices are set by supply and demand. We

get that. But here supply and demand didn’t even work, because they

simply, I would say, held British Columbians at ransom. There are only a

few areas where the gasoline could come, and only so much could come,

and they believed that they could charge them no matter what and they

didn’t have to justify it to anyone. I think that is wrong, and that’s

why this bill is so important.

I hope that the opposition, after sitting over there 28 months,

have learned something — to be with everyday people of the province, be

on their side at least once. Hopefully, you will support those

hard-working, middle-class working people who go to work every day, pay

their taxes. They obey the law. Those are the people that are being

gouged. They go to work. They need gasoline to fill their car, their

pickup truck. Why are they being gouged and ripped off at the gas

station? No one could explain. BCUC tried to ask them to justify it, and

no gas company could justify that.

I think that’s why we are compelled to bring this piece of

legislation. I want to thank the minister responsible for taking this

initiative so that we could at least add another piece of affordability

to make life more affordable for British Columbians. After eliminating

MSP premiums, after eliminating tolls, now this other piece will give

them some break, hopefully, so that companies will be extra-careful and

they will not be able to make decisions in the back room. We will be

lifting the curtain of secrecy with this bill. That’s how I view this

bill, and that’s why I’m supporting it.

I could say a lot more, but I think the time isn’t there for me to

continue on. I want to say thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. H. Bains: I may have touched a nerve over there, but I have said enough. I

will take my place.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak in favour of Bill

Just for those in the gallery — I think they’re grade 5s from

École Mount Prevost in the Cowichan Valley — welcome to the

Legislature.

Right now we’re debating a bill. A bill is what we call it before

it becomes a law. When it becomes a law, this law will require oil and

gas companies to tell us how they set their prices.

When you pass a gas station and you see the price on the sign,

sometimes it’s different everywhere you go. We want to know why it’s

different everywhere you go. I’ve got to tell you, people where I come

from on the Sunshine Coast, and Powell River especially, want to know

why they’ve been paying the highest gas prices in all of Canada for the

last six months, at least. It’s been $1.59, and that’s a lot.

It costs a lot to fill up your car, and most people don’t have

other options. So what we’re trying to do as a government is make sure

that when the prices are set, they’re set in a way that’s fair and in a

way that isn’t just what we’re calling gouging, taking more than they

really should from the people of this province.

I’m really glad that the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology….

What else? A few other things. He put forward this bill. That was his

job. He put it before the House. This is what we want to do to try to

help fix things, because we don’t have complete control over the price

of gas. People in my constituency, the people that I represent in Powell

River–Sunshine Coast, say we need to do something about it.

By the way, for those watching from Powell River–Sunshine Coast,

we do have a town hall meeting scheduled for December 15. I know that

there will be a lot of people coming to that, because a lot of people

are really concerned, and they want to know what they can do about it.

Well, I’m going to tell them about this legislation that I hope is

passed in the next day or two. It will allow us to at least tell people

that while we can’t tell them how much to charge for gas, they’ve got to

tell us why they’re charging so much for gas. That’s a good

start.

Enjoy the rest of your visit to the Legislature.

With that, I’ll just go on to some of my notes.

[2:00 p.m.]

Recently Pieta Woolley, a well-respected journalist who wrote for

papers in the Lower Mainland…. She’s written in the north as well. She

tried to determine what it was that was causing the price in Powell

River to be so high. She did a couple of articles in Powell River

Living magazine to try to break down where the price of $1.599

came from, whether it was in the price that we were paying or the price

that it cost to transport that fuel or if maybe there were extra profits

being made.

She said that in her long career, she has never run into a bigger

roadblock — “a brick wall,” she called it — or a bigger brick wall in

trying to find answers than when it came to finding out why the cost of

gas was so high in Powell River. She said she’s never seen anything like

it.

She said she called one of the companies that does the

distribution for gas. They said: “Well, it’s not our practice. It’s

against our policy to tell you how we pay this price.” In fact, they

said: “The Competition Bureau tells us that we shouldn’t disclose how

the prices are set.” She thought, “Well, that’s kind of strange,” and

called the Competition Bureau. The Competition Bureau said: “Well, there

is sometimes an agreement between companies on what they disclose and

what are private and what are commercial interests, but there’s no real

reason for them not to tell us.”

I have a few quotes that I want to just make sure I read into the

record, because quite frankly, I think that her research on the subject,

due to the demand in our community, was thorough. It was thorough, and

it was revealing, I must say. Pieta Woolley has made numerous efforts to

get to the bottom of the gas price issue.

Let me just quote what she said. “In my decade-plus working as a

news reporter in Vancouver and the north, I’ve never encountered such a

brick wall as this gas prices story has been. There are simply no tools

to compel private businesses, big or small, to reveal their gas pricing,

unless you’re the B.C. Utilities Commission. Who wants this story told,

besides everyone who buys gas? Not the suppliers.”

She said that some people in the local industry were happy to talk

to her, but they didn’t want their names used, and there was a little

bit of fear about saying too much. Others, she said, “belligerently

refused to reveal even basic information about how their business prices

their services.”

One of the concerns, or one of the questions we were asking, was

whether the 18-cent TransLink fuel tax was being misapplied to Powell

River–Sunshine Coast gas prices. She thought maybe gas companies didn’t

know that if you’re selling outside of the area, you can apply for that

money back from the Minister of Finance. She was trying to figure out

if, in fact, they’re paying that in the first place and, if they are,

whether they’re applying for the rebate, because that could explain the

exorbitantly high gas prices in Powell River that we’ve seen for so many

months. She wondered if either the Powell River–based gas purchasers

didn’t know about the rebate or if they hid it.

One of the things that I’d like to do is try to figure out if we

can find out who’s applying for that rebate. That’s part of the task I’m

set out to determine.

When the reporter Pieta Woolley asked one of the owners of the

local gas stations, their media representative wrote…. Here’s the quote

about the Competition Bureau: “The Competition Bureau prevents us from

discussing the specifics of pricing, but I can assure you that we always

strive to offer competitive gasoline and diesel prices in all markets

where we operate.”

The senior communications person at the Competition Bureau said:

“It’s considered good corporate practice for companies not to discuss or

share pricing or pricing policies with their competitors. However, the

bureau’s guidance doesn’t specifically address what information a

company may or may not disclose to a journalist.” So the distributor,

the company, could have told her, but they chose not to.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Competition Bureau added — I think this is important — that

since 2008, ten years, there have been 33 individuals and 12 companies

that have been found guilty of fixing the price of gasoline in several

markets, mostly in eastern Canada. Their fines totalled almost $6

million.

Getting to the bottom of how prices are set is a key component in

not only just determining how prices are set but maybe putting on notice

the companies that are setting prices where there’s unexplained….

Thirteen cents unexplained, I think, was the B.C. Utilities Commission’s

determination. After all other costs were put together, there was 13

cents that was unaccounted for.

I would suggest that there’s a larger amount unaccounted for in

gas prices on the Sunshine Coast. I would point out that gas prices in

Iqaluit are $1.25 a litre, and Iqaluit is kind of harder to get to than

Powell River most days. You have to go up around Quebec and into

Hudson…. It’s a little bit farther. Baffin Island is difficult to get

to, and if you’re carrying gas, it’s expensive. So transportation costs

and subsidies might have some part to play, but ultimately, we have many

questions that have been left unanswered.

When the B.C. Utilities Commission asked for comments from the

public, they received close to 100 responses. I would point out — and

it’s due to the acuity of the problem in Powell River — that 20 percent

were from Powell River residents. I don’t mean to diminish the concerns

that other communities have, because we’re all suffering from the same

gouging. However, some are gouged more than others, and I worry that my

constituents are suffering disproportionately due to their pricing

system.

I look forward to a town hall meeting where the impacts of gouging

the families and the businesses of my constituency can be discussed,

where we can document the impact on their lives, on peoples’ lives, on

affordability issues. That’s why our government has taken the step it

has.

You know, we understand jurisdictional issues sometimes prevent us

from doing everything we want, but I believe that this is an important

step, one that I hope is supported by colleagues from all sides of the

House. Sometimes shining a light on something brings with it

accountability, and with accountability, the transparency that comes

with that only can serve the public’s best interests.

It should be clear that the legislation does protect commercial

interests, but we’re asking for more from the gas companies, and we’re

asking for more in the interests of the public. As corporate citizens, I

hope they don’t see this as a problem. They seemed to be hesitant in

terms of trying to make their explanations known earlier, but sometimes

legislation is required to put everybody on an even footing so that

everyone has to operate with the same rules and the same

responsibilities to tell us, tell the public, what is what.

For a long time, we’ve been frustrated by the price of gas. When

it shoots up for no apparent reason, people feel like they’re getting

ripped off, and I think people are getting ripped off. We’ve heard the

official opposition express some hesitation around this requirement from

the oil and gas industry. I don’t know if that’s because they want to

remain friends or if they’re worried about fracturing a relationship

that has served them well.

[2:10 p.m.]

Fundamentally, I don’t see how the opposition could be opposed to

increased transparency and increased accountability for companies that

do business in British Columbia and benefit from the hard-working

British Columbians who pay for the services that they offer.

They shouldn’t do so. It’s not a blank cheque. They shouldn’t do

so without understanding where the prices come from. For that reason,

I’m very pleased that our government has made the decision to require

accountability through the Fuel Price Transparency Act. With that, I

thank you for the opportunity.

P. Milobar: “Every tool in the toolbox.” Who can forget that chestnut that has

been provided by the government? Every tool in the toolbox — about a

project that would help with supply issues into British Columbia when it

comes to oil and gas.

Here we are today dealing with a piece of legislation to bring

transparency, supposedly, to the oil and gas industry and to the price

at the pump to try to provide people with some explanations for

pricing.

All of that sounds good on the surface, but it doesn’t guarantee

that there’ll be any price drops at the pump. As we heard from the

Labour Minister, for people fueling up to go to work and school…. It’s

very expensive to fuel up to go to work and school. In fact, because of

a lot of inaction on the other side, 400,000 people tomorrow on the

Lower Mainland are going to have to figure out a way to fuel up to get

themselves to work and school because of a transit strike that the

government seems to not be too worried about. Instead, they are worried

about other things.

This bill takes a step to try to address and get an insight into

pricing. But unfortunately, as we’ve seen time and again, if anyone on

this side of the House has the temerity to raise some concerns, to raise

some issues and to raise questions about a piece of legislation by this

government, you’re instantly branded. The fearmongering that goes on is

quite remarkable, coming from the government side.

I would point out that I’ve lost count of how many bills have been

presented that have had to be slow-walked back. I think of the

Agriculture Ministry — and the sheer volume of bills — that’s seen

things being walked back. The surveillance plan by the Agriculture

Minister that’s had to be walked back. We’ve seen other things, around

the speculation tax, dragged out and walked back.

The fact that we may be a little skeptical about the proficiency

of the government to actually deliver a piece of legislation without

having a bunch of flaws in it would, I think, stand the test over this

last 2½ years.

My concerns have been characterized by the minister as trying to

stand up for the oil and gas industry and trying to defend the oil and

gas industry when it comes to privacy. That’s not where my concerns lie.

My concerns lie with the overall handling of confidential information

for anybody.

If this was a grocery store bill in front of us for transparency

into pricing, I would have the same concerns about competitive

information, proprietary information, being released at the whim of a

government. I think everyone should be concerned about that. We’ve seen

an unparalleled collection of information by this government on all

sorts of things — again, with the speculation tax, having to provide

your social insurance number to the provincial government — and having

other forms of information trying to be collected.

Going back to the satellite surveillance that the government was

going to try to do on people’s agricultural land, this is a government

that has been demonstrating, time and again in the last 2½ years —

ironically enough, with an Attorney General that used to be in charge of

the B.C. Civil Liberties — that they want any and all information they

can possibly get from you. And they will use it as they deem fit to

further an ideological agenda.

Again, I would suggest that the price of groceries for people

would have as much of an impact to their budget as fuel costs do. When I

put that lens on it and when I put the lens as a former hotelier on it

in terms of the fluctuation you see on hotel prices and the ebb and the

flow of them….

[2:15 p.m.]

I can remember when we were trying to collect information as a

local tourism association, trying to get each competitor’s average daily

rate to be able to get some sense of what was going on within the local

accommodation market. Operators were rightfully protective of that

competitive information.

This isn’t about protecting big oil and big gas, as the minister

wants to try to portray it, because they’re very good with the

over-the-top statements. This is about trying to protect information. I

say that because in the bill, first it says that the administrator needs

to follow privacy rules. Then it says: unless the administrator feels

that that information would be better off released publicly.

Why that’s a problem in this bill — and I look forward to

committee stage, for the minister to try to defend this shoddy piece of

legislation — is because a lot could have been done to make this better.

The administrator could have already been named. Instead, the

administrator of this bill, after the bill has passed, is anticipated to

be the BCUC, which I take no issue with. They do very professional work.

But instead of naming and putting into legislation the BCUC, instead

it’s this vague reference to an administrator.

Why that’s significant is that once this bill is passed, the

administrator can be appointed by order-in-council. And it can be

changed at any time by order-in-council. This means that if the BCUC is

not releasing the documents that the minister or the Premier may feel

are to their political advantage, the government can simply, in

order-in-council, change the administrator.

That’s wrong. That creates an environment where an already

politically charged topic like prices at the pump gets heightened even

further. If the government was sincere about making the BCUC the

administrator, the government should have said that BCUC will be the

administrator in this legislation. Full stop. If the government does not

have confidence in the BCUC full-time to do this role, they should be

honest about that upfront and say who the administrator of this bill

will actually be after it’s enacted.

The government should not have a clause in this bill that says

that although we recognize we are demanding, by law, confidential

corporate and competitive information, we will, at our own discretion,

release that information if we deem, frankly, that it’s in our political

best interests to do so.

I say that under the backdrop of 18 months ago, when prices

spiked. The Premier promised that if prices stayed high, he would take

action. He has still not delivered or told us what one of those actions

he considered 18 months ago were. Seven months ago, eight months ago, he

never said what any of those actions were. Instead, we got a sham of a

review where the BCUC had their hands tied, as a professional

organization, from looking at all factors that go into the price at the

pump.

I look forward, in committee stage, to the minister being able to

point to the

section that also provides transparency from government

policy and government taxation to the BCUC or whoever the administrator

of the minister’s choice happens to be for that week. I’m hard-pressed

to find it in there. I’m hoping I just missed it, and I’m hoping that

perhaps the minister will be able to point to it.

Just like the BCUC review, the government doesn’t want anyone to

actually look at their own policies. The government doesn’t want anyone

to look at provincial taxes at the pump, which are the highest in North

America. The government doesn’t want the public and the BCUC to look at

government policy around things like the low-carbon fuel standard and

CleanBC, which are going to actually add much more costs at the pump. In

fact, the government doesn’t want to even acknowledge they’ve done any

modelling when they put that into CleanBC, about what the impact to the

price at the pump will be.

To stand here and listen to the drivel coming from the other side

about us trying to protect the oil and gas industry, trying to make sure

that, in fact, we are just protecting people’s and businesses’

fundamental right to privacy — their private, confidential, competitive

information — is laughable. The reality is that we’re seeing this across

the board in government. We have legitimate concerns.

[2:20 p.m.]

I personally don’t have a big worry and a big concern that the oil

and gas company may be needed to provide some information so that there

can be a better understanding of how the price is set, contrary to what

the government and the minister are trying to portray that as. But I

want to make sure it’s done in a way that provides confidence for the

business that’s providing that information.

Again, if this was a grocery store transparency bill, I’d be

saying the exact same thing, because grocery stores have a right to be

able to try to compete within their markets. So if we’re going to have a

generalized report so people can understand….

The perception is not lining up with reality. When you hear the

other side talk about how there are price fluctuations all over the

province at the same time that big oil is all working together and

colluding together and gouging everyone at will, it simply doesn’t add

up. What really doesn’t add up is the fact that we’re not allowed to

look at government policy and government taxation under this same

lens.

The government will hide behind privacy the second they get. We

see it on the few FOI documents we get back. Just about everything seems

to get blacked out by government. They don’t want to have anything

released at all. Yet they made sure that in this piece of legislation,

this flawed piece of legislation, there’s a clause that guarantees that

for whatever reason, under the guise of public interest, they can

release whatever competitive, sensitive information they want and make

it public. That is wrong. It’s not wrong because it’s the oil companies.

It’s just wrong because it’s supposed to be protected

information.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t in one

section say that

things will be protected under the information protection laws and in

the very next clause go on about how “except for the fact that we want

to be able to release this if it’s politically expedient for us to do

it.”

We do have concerns about this bill, because it’s flawed and it

won’t actually accomplish anything that the marketing on this bill says

it’s going to accomplish. That’s no surprise, because most things that

the government has marketed in a lot of these types of bills are nothing

more than a title, totally lacking any substance for actual result and

deliverable as it relates to what they’re marketing, the end product

that’s supposed to be accomplished by the bill.

When you take everything on balance…. I know we heard: “Oh, they

took money from oil companies.” Well, in the spirit of transparency, I

really look forward to the government releasing how much their

sponsorship dollars were from their last convention. Oh, sorry. They

weren’t sponsorship dollars — the advertising dollars that they

collected from the unions three days ago.

In the spirit of transparency, I sure hope that number comes out

shortly. In the spirit of transparency…. Surely the minister was not

suggesting we were bought by oil and gas. Surely the minister of a

government whose Premier, who went to Washington to solve the softwood

lumber deal, and all he came back with was a cheque from a union…. Two

and a half years later, we still have no softwood lumber deal, but we

have mills closing all over the place.

Perhaps the Labour Minister is aware of that. Perhaps he’s not. He

doesn’t seem to be too aware of the strike happening for the last five

months in the forest industry, so who knows what they’re actually aware

of. He certainly wasn’t aware of a mediator being requested well before

question period today.

One could question: where did those dollars come from? To be

totally blind to the fact we have labour disputes happening all over

this province….

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s keep comments relevant to the bill.

P. Milobar: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That’s why, again, the deflection techniques by the government

around this bill when it relates to trying to relate things back to

previous donations or any of that is nothing more than smoke and

mirrors. We’ve seen those types of donations and sponsorships and

advertising happen with or without rules in place. It’s a very jaded way

for the government to try to spin away from the fact that this bill does

not actually even come close to accomplishing what they’re marketing it

to do.

[2:25 p.m.]

If we had this transparency in the dairy industry, this bill that

purports to provide transparency, and you found out how much a gallon of

milk was as a result of it — you read it in the paper, you went to the

store the next day, and the gallon of milk was the same price — would it

really matter to your pocketbook that you were told the day before how

they calculated the price? No, it wouldn’t.

Under this bill, your pocketbook will not change when you go to

the pump. You might know what makes up some of the pricing. You’re not

going to know what impact government policy had on that price. You’re

not going to know what impact the government taxation, in conjunction

with those policies, will have on that price with this bill. No

transparency for the government. Nothing to look at over there,

especially if you FOI it.

The reason government policy is critical in this case is that….

When you look at our neighbouring jurisdictions that we get our supply

from, namely Alberta and Washington state, and how much lower their

prices are, it’s interesting when you look at what their governmental

regulatory regime is at a state level or at a provincial level, compared

to ours, especially when you layer it with what their tax levels are in

relation to the two.

Then you layer that on top of a jurisdiction who has policies like

“Every tool in the toolbox.” When that is the overall direction and

guidance from a government that says, “Every tool is in the toolbox,” to

stop the flow of types of products, it does make one question how

sincere they are about the worry of this. When you have a government

that purports to want to get everybody out of their cars…. Most

environmentalists will tell you it’s a mixture of carbon taxes and fuel

prices. In fact, when you talk to transit operators, they will tell you

that when fuel prices spike, more people go on transit.

Now, I get why the government wants to tamp down transit numbers

in metro Vancouver over the next few days. They’re doing a heck of a job

on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week of making sure transit

numbers plummet to an all-time low. But the reality is that that flies

totally in the face of what their supposed agenda is of trying to get

people out of their cars. One would think that a government propped up

by a Green Party would actually welcome high gas prices.

I don’t. I come from a part of the province where transportation

by vehicle is pretty much a necessity.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: I’ve got a half-tonne truck. It’s a nice half-tonne truck,

actually. Yes, yes. I have a Honda Accord too. The member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast is curious about what type of vehicle I drive, as

if that’s going to somehow shame me because I don’t drive a green enough

vehicle, I guess. I’m not sure.

I drive a half-tonne pickup truck, as many people in my city do.

I’m not ashamed of that. In fact, many people that drive to work where I

live, that rely on these fuel prices coming down, drive trucks. They

drive bigger pickup trucks, and they’re proud of it too, rightfully

so.

You know what they want to see? They want to see this government

take action to actually reduce the price at the pump. They don’t need to

know all the ins and outs of convoluted pricing formulas, which this may

or may not even deliver. They need to see real change at the

pump.

You know what they were promised 18 months ago by this Premier?

Eighteen months ago they were promised action. They were promised steps

would be taken. For 18 months, they’ve waited for those steps to be

taken, and the best the government has come up with, after bungling it

and blaming anyone and everyone under the sun for the last 18 months, is

a flawed bill that is nothing more than designed to be a political

hammer for the minister to use at will by appointing an administrator of

choice, whenever they see fit, to get the right report out that they

want structured in the way they want.

Although with the track record between B.C. Housing reports and

child care reports, who knows. Maybe they won’t even realize what types

of reports they’re sending out, with the numbers and deliverables on it.

But that’s fundamentally the problem with this bill.

I look forward to canvassing it at committee stage, because it’s

not about the concept of transparency, despite what the minister might

want people to try to believe. This isn’t about trying to protect the

big oil and gas industry. This is about actually trying to get people

savings at the pump, which has been promised for 18 months by this

Premier.

This is about trying to make sure confidential corporate

information, not just in this bill but every bill moving forward by this

government, is taken seriously and protected so that we have some

semblance of trust from the corporations of this province, which employ

a great many people in this province, and their information will

actually be held in confidence by this province and not just released at

will to create a political sound bite and a distraction when they’re

having a bad week in question period.

[2:30 p.m.]

If that’s the case, pretty much every week we’re in this House,

they’re going to be releasing some sort of gas report to try to deflect

away from the bad week they’re having during question

periods.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

The bottom line is this. I’m fundamentally fine with the

transparency. I’m fundamentally fine with trying to make sure that

people understand what goes into pricing. But let’s make sure people get

a full picture. Let’s make sure of a couple of things. Let’s make sure

for any business or any person at all, any member of the public’s

information is actually truly protected by the government when they go

out and collect it for information gathering and not just published back

out to fulfil a political whim.

That could be removed from this bill. The BCUC could be inserted

in as the defined administrator of this bill, as opposed to a concept as

the administrator of this bill. Third, and most importantly, the

government could be included in all of these reviews every time they get

the pricing information, with the lens of looking at government policy

and government taxation.

I look forward, again, to the minister pointing to the part of

this bill that actually speaks to the fact that the government is

required to provide the same information to the BCUC, or whoever the

administrator of the week is, as the oil and gas companies are. I know

we’re not going to find it in there, because the government doesn’t want

us to actually look at what they are doing. They don’t want any

transparency on what they are doing, and that’s a shame.

Government should be transparent. Government should provide

information to people when they’re seeking it and wanting to know what

the impacts of their government policy are. But that’s not what’s

happening with this government. One thought that information-sharing

might improve with the change in information ministers, but that hasn’t

seemed to be the case either.

Moving forward, moving into committee stage, it’ll be interesting

to see the reactions from the government when they have to try to

justify why, in 18 months, the Premier has taken none of his promised

action to reduce prices at the pump. It’ll be interesting to see how

they justify such a flawed piece of legislation.

Again, this would be flawed if we were talking about milk. This

would be flawed if we were talking about groceries. This would be flawed

if we were talking about hotel rooms. You name it — this is a flawed

piece of legislation. It has nothing to do with the fact it’s oil and

gas. It has to do with the fact it was rushed together as nothing more

than a political stunt to try to appear to be doing something when, in

fact, they’ve sat on their hands and done absolutely nothing for 18

months.

Let’s all remember: “Every tool in the toolbox.”

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to get up to talk about Bill 42, the Fuel Price

Transparency Act.

Every Saturday morning for about 35 years now, if I’m in town, I

join some old friends at a little place called the Coffee Mug at 24th

Avenue and 200th Street in Langley. For the last ten years, we’d go

through this little game at breakfast. Breakfast is usually started by

eight, and somewhere between 8:30 and nine, the service station across

at the corner changes its price. Usually it goes up; seldom it goes

down. But it goes up, obviously, by time and market.

The fact of the matter is that with regards to pricing and the

work the government claims to have done to bring this act here, it’s

somewhat frustrating only from the main aspect of that when they asked

the B.C. Utilities Commission to look at gas prices, they didn’t allow

them to look at all the things that are in the gas prices.

The carbon tax is going from $30 to $40 to $50 a tonne. That goes

into every single person’s gas tank when they go to the pumps. Who

raised that tax to raise the price of gasoline in British Columbia? The

NDP government.

[2:35 p.m.]

As you go through this, you’ll see different taxes and different

pieces of tax that are paid out for road taxes. There are some federal

taxes. In my area, there are also the transit taxes that go to pay for

transit. Now, ironically, my constituents tomorrow will still be paying

transit taxes, but nobody will have any access to transit.

That piece is a significant piece — the taxes that are

differentiated by region of the province. For instance, I used to live

in Aldergrove, and now I live in Langley township. Aldergrove is part of

a township, but I’m living in another area of Langley.

When I was a kid growing up down on Lakeshore Drive, we used to

call it Motel Road in Penticton, because it was all motels, motels,

motels, motels. In Aldergrove, we call it Gasoline Road, which is Fraser

Highway on the other side of 276 Street. The businesses on this side of

the street, on the western side of 276, are paying transit

tax.

We’ve seen the convenience of gas stations drop from a number to

two. The reason for that is that all you have to do is drive a quarter

of a mile, and you’re in Abbotsford, where they don’t pay the gas tax.

All of a sudden, it’s cheaper to go there by eight to ten cents a litre

on a regular basis.

I also live in a community that’s very close to the border. The

regular transportation, in this case, is north and south for people to

go down, picking up eggs and cheese, milk and gasoline. So in actual

fact, we have a price situation that drives business away from our small

businesses in my community.

My disappointment, as I looked at this act and the backgrounder on

it, is a couple things. I never saw where anybody looked at any other

jurisdictions and what they do and how they’ve tried to approach this

issue. I will get into the pricing of gas and what we call the cracking

of the barrel, where the fundamental values come out of a barrel of oil

into other factors, in a minute.

First of all, let’s look at the rest of Canada. In the rest of

Canada, there are one, two, three, four, five provinces, all east of

Ontario, which have some formula and management relative to the gas

prices in their province.

In Quebec, for instance, they set minimum prices weekly, based on

its estimate of the acquisitions — the cost of gasoline. The price

includes an estimate of transportation costs and can include a minimum

retail margin at the discretion of the regulating body, which is the

Régie de l’énergie du Quebec.

In New Brunswick, the Energy and Utilities Board sets the maximum

price every Thursday, based on a formula that links the price to the New

York Harbor price, with allowances made for other factors, such as

retail margins, and no minimum price is set.

Nova Scotia also uses the New York Harbor spot prices to set a

benchmark price. Wholesale prices are set six cents a litre higher than

the benchmark, and a transportation allowance is included in the price,

ranging from 0.2 cents a litre to two cents a litre, depending on the

zone. Retailers are allowed a margin of 5.5 cents per litre and cannot

sell below a margin of four cents per litre.

In Prince Edward Island, the prices are set by the Island

Regulatory and Appeals Commission. The commission has full discretion in

setting prices and tracks a wide variety of trends determining the price

level. In practice, it also uses the New York Harbor prices to drive

changes to the regulated price.

Prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange are averaged over a

two-week period, and the new maximum and minimum prices are usually

announced on the first and the 15th of every month. Wholesalers have the

right to apply for a decrease to their wholesale price. In theory, this

could result in different price from one brand to another. In practice,

any such differences are rare and short-lived.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the price of gasoline is set by the

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities. The board sets a benchmark

price based on spot market prices and adds on various factors — such as

wholesale and retail margins, transportation and taxes — to arrive at a

maximum price. The province is divided into 18 zones to accommodate

differing transportation costs, and prices are revised

monthly.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I don’t know if the Utilities Commission or the minister — I

guess we’ll find this out in committee — have actually looked at any of

this and had any of this information available while they drafted the

act to move forward. The challenge with this, though — and it’s a

frustration for me as a Canadian — is that we’re actually talking about

fuel prices in one area of Canada based on the New York Harbor price on

oil that is not coming from Canada but is actually coming from other

countries because we won’t move our oil across our own country to supply

our own country of Canada.

The frustration with that is that some of that oil doesn’t

necessarily come from ethical places — ethical places being where there

are human rights and freedom of speech and democracy. Yet we buy that

oil, and we do it at the negative impact to our own country and our own

resources in Canada. We should never forget that, because it is, quite

frankly, shameful, in my mind.

The one thing we should be sure of is that the legislation before

us today doesn’t do anything to bring down prices. That is supported by

UBC professor Werner Antweiler, who says that the proposal is “not going

to do a whole lot of good and certainly not bring prices down.” He said

it in the Vancouver Sun on November 7 of this year.

The Premier, a few years ago, said: “I have a range of options I’m

going to look at.” But in reviewing it, he took one of the options

completely off the table, and that is what the impacts of taxes are on

the price of gasoline and markups in British Columbia. Is there markup

on top of taxes? That has a differentiation of how the wholesale price

is taken or not. Is that part of the solution? Is that part of the

issues in and around that?

It’s been almost three months since the first BCUC report on gas

prices. The Premier has done nothing to help drivers in that period of

time. Lots of excuses have been given by this government, but no

solutions.

Rigging the review of the NDP taxation to take the taxes off the

table when the Utilities Commission was to look at this sort of makes it

impossible for them to actually come back with a legitimate report. Nor

would it be able to answer any of the questions someone might ask about

what’s being done elsewhere in the country. They know their taxes, and

what have you, are baked into the price when they decide to set it in

those jurisdictions. We don’t have that here.

I can tell you that if there’s one question and if you want to

have a conversation, particularly in my riding in the Lower Mainland of

British Columbia, when you pump up in your car or your truck, ask the

person at the other pump what they think of gas prices. It’s a great

opener. Everybody says that it’s too high. Then you explain to them:

“Well, the carbon tax has gone up from $30 a tonne to $50 a tonne. That

affects it. This tax is on there. That tax is on there. There are

federal taxes and provincial taxes. And there are transit taxes.” You

get interesting responses. That’s the best way I could describe

it.

Most of the legislation is to be implemented by regulation, which

is not always unusual. But in actual fact, in this particular case, it’s

going to need some refining and also some better information. The

legislation requires fuel refiners to submit information regarding

processing, refining, storing, transportation and marketing or supplying

reportable fuel to government. That’s a mouthful.

What happens with a barrel of oil is very little understood by

people, with regards to a barrel of oil arriving at a refinery. In the

business, they call it cracking the barrel. So a barrel of oil will

rise, and it goes through a number of processes. Those processes could

extract certain types of liquids that will go into making clothing; that

can go into making biofuels; that can go into, quite frankly, making

plastics for cars. That piece of the puzzle is one piece of the value

chain of the barrel of oil. Then there’s diesel. Then there’s gasoline,

which then goes through a refining process.

Each one of the by-products of a barrel of oil actually affects

the long-term retail price of a gallon of gasoline, or a litre, as we

like to call it. I’m old school and grew up just before they did the

metric system in Canada. The reality is that other factors affect

that.

[2:45 p.m.]

Is there a shortage of diesel somewhere in North America while

you’re doing your gasoline? Does that affect the price that drives down

or drives up what your valuation coming out of that barrel can be? Does

it affect your ability to price in a certain way? Or is there a shortage

anywhere?

Now, everybody knows that in North America there hasn’t been a

significant refinery built in well over 30 years. We’ve expanded

refineries, but we’ve not built a new one. The challenge with that is

that the capacity to actually refine oil and gasoline in North America

is always chasing its tail to what the demand is of the marketplace for

gasoline, because at certain times of year, it can’t refine as

fast.

In the last couple of years, we’ve noticed how the price has

spiked. A relatively simple answer to that is that two refineries have

had to take downtime to retool and modernize their equipment. These

things don’t run forever, and they need to be maintained.

This is the challenge we face as we come through committee and

into this legislation. The volumes, the source, the destination, the

modes of transport — all of those things affect at the refinery and at

the terminals and at the wholesale and retail prices.

The conversation isn’t necessarily about the guy who gets the most

criticism, which is the retailer at the very front end who actually has

his prices set at his pumps — not in his or her control. That is set by

a corporate situation averaging costs, sometimes with regards to where

supply and demand are higher or lower. Those are things that have to

always be factored in when you decide to look at something like

this.

The government is asking for reports. They will ask for collected

data on gas prices, as they try to go forward with this, and then come

up with some kind of an entity that will actually define how you get to

what the true prices of oil and gas are in British Columbia. And they

need to actually address the issue of the taxes.

Now, as you go through this bill, there’s fuel data wanted and

information with regards to how this is done; reportable activities in

the processing, refining, storing, transporting, marketing and supplying

supportable information and fuel to the gas station, which in itself is

a mouthful; and then reporting on other types of by-products that come

out of the barrel of oil relative to how somebody is going to be able to

set their price.

There will be an administrator — not necessarily the B.C.

Utilities Commission but an administrator — which will then also be

defined in regulation, according to the government. They will be able to

comply…. Supplementary submissions will be able to be done by companies,

and people will be able to come forward with their information. They

will come up with a formula as to how they set the prices at a minimum

and a maximum price, perhaps, or where it can go in the province. They

are given permission to file this under the act.

There is one thing in here that is interesting from the standpoint

that trade secrets and other commercial information may be disclosed as

a public benefit and may outweigh any potential harm to a corporation.

That is a challenge in that the processing and refining processes are

different in some refineries. The actual fact that the…. In addition to

that, as we go through that, it will be: what is sensitive

information?

If a corporation has actually found some additive that makes the

fuel cleaner for carbon or makes it cleaner for the engine, should they

have to disclose that information to give it to their competitors who

haven’t done the research and development with regards to a particular

product? I think that’s a piece of this act that definitely has to be

discussed in significant detail. And in consideration of the public

benefit…. You know, the government must also consider, in this bill,

market competition, public confidence and said competition.

Then there are the audits, which will basically be submissions and

inspections of private facilities as enabled. How will the government of

British Columbia go down into the U.S. and audit a facility in another

country? A lot of our oil, gasoline and diesel in British Columbia comes

from south of the border.

[2:50 p.m.]

We actually don’t have a ton of refining capacity. We have some in

Burnaby and a smaller refinery in Prince George. How are you going to go

into another country governed by another set of regulations and actually

audit that information and get it under this act — or in any act, for

that matter? Quite frankly, private facilities run by companies not in

this country are actually covered by the rules of that country. So that

will be something that needs to be canvassed as we go through

that.

There will be offences and penalties. For what? Who are you going

to ask for the information? If you have five little gas stations and you

actually are buying your gasoline through one supplier, you don’t

actually have any control over anything that comes to your table, except

for what you had to pay per litre to buy it at the wholesale price and

mark it up.

If you’re a large company, you will buy in bulk. But as you

transport that gasoline through the province, you’ll actually triage how

you will deliver it. In some cases, you’ll send a tanker truck to, let’s

say, the South Okanagan. In actual fact, your customers don’t need the

entire tanker load. So independents will also be buying gasoline from

you, and you want to cover some of your transportation costs and your

ability to do business.

These are important things to discuss as we go through it. The

bulk of what I just described is enabled by this legislation. It’s not

in the legislation. It will be regulation that will do this. That’ll be

the form and style of how things are and the modes of submission, etc.

Of course, regulations can be modified to adapt.

The bottom line is that this legislation does nothing for the

affordability of drivers in British Columbia. Until we actually get down

to how we’re going to tax — either continue to tax or moderate the tax

on British Columbians — we will see people continuing to gravitate from

the Fraser Valley out to Abbotsford and Mission and out to Chilliwack

because they can buy their gasoline cheaper because of the

tax.

We’ll continue to see the lineups at the border that we see every

weekend, going down across the border and, like I mentioned, to gasoline

row on the other side of 276, and the Fraser Highway going out to

Abbotsford. There are also ones just south of the border in Sumas and in

Bellingham and in Blaine, because the Canadian buyers are coming down to

buy the gasoline.

We have to recognize that this legislation isn’t going to reduce

the price. But as we debate it in committee, we’ve got to get down to

how we deal with trade secrets, how we do with formulas, how we’re going

to actually understand how the cracking of the barrel is broken up and

the gasoline and diesel come out and go into one shade of the market and

the plastics and other go into others. This is complicated.

In actual fact, we should also, as British Columbians and

Canadians, recognize the fact that things like the Trans Mountain

pipeline need to be built to move our product to market and to allow us

to increase our capacity for refining but, at the same time, allow

Canadians to benefit from the money that is brought in by that resource

— particularly a province like Quebec, that receives billions from the

rest of Canada — and be able to understand that our resources help pay

to run this country. Those provinces running a deficit are actually

picked up by the strength of the resources from western Canada, for the

most part.

Let’s get our act together in many ways, I’d say. Let’s quit

trying to find somebody at fault here and understand what the industry

is we’re trying to deal with and how it can be fair to our consumers so

that they’re not being unfairly priced but, at the same time, recognize

that as we do this, we’ve got to do it in a way that we’re not trying to

go over international jurisdictions where we can’t actually go get audit

information on how the gasoline is refined and priced south of the

border to come to here.

At the same, would we put that extra red tape just on British

Columbia refineries and suppliers? Or are we going to ignore the United

States refinery that’s also shipping into our jurisdiction? Big

questions.

The reality is that people want, at the end of this, solutions to

having gas prices not be so high, and in actual fact, they want to know

that they are getting the best product. Some of the times the best

product is made by one company over another. They deserve to know that

from the companies, but not the state secrets that may actually affect

the ability for them to deliver a good product at a good

price.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak in favour of legislation

being brought forward by the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology —

Bill 42, the Fuel Price Transparency Act.

I can say, on behalf of the residents of Surrey-Panorama, that I

really, really appreciate the minister bringing forward this piece of

legislation. We know that British Columbians, especially those of us who

live in the Lower Mainland, the Surrey area, have been frustrated and

confused about the changes in pricing that have been occurring at the

pump.

Quite a few months ago, when we know that the provincial tax went

up by one cent, we watched prices in Surrey jump up by anywhere from 20

to 28 cents, down one block of a highway. That was really surprising,

because nobody could understand how one cent extra in taxes could lead

to such a huge jump at the pump.

Of course, most of us…. Because, for the last 16 years, such poor

investment has been made in public transit and those who live south of

the Fraser have been left out in the cold for transit investments, we

rely on our vehicles to get to work, to visit family, to visit friends,

more so than, maybe, downtown Vancouver. So we notice the price of gas

as we fill up our tanks.

What’s more significant are the amazing things we are seeing at

the pump, and this is where it has left the public confused. I can say

that I have experienced some of that myself. So you start

off….

I’m going to use the King George Highway as an example. I leave

the hospital where I’m visiting my mom, and I can hit gas prices

anywhere from $1.26 to $1.58 down that one piece of highway. A very

short drive — well, not really, because it’s usually gridlocked in

traffic. So you can go from one gas station to the next and see a

difference sometimes of as much as 30 cents. The public cannot

understand that. Obviously, the B.C. Utilities Commission had some

questions as well, but they didn’t get the information they needed, the

data they needed to make an informed ruling.

I think it is perfectly appropriate, and I’m so delighted that the

Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology has brought this forward so that

we can begin to understand. I’ve heard a lot of histrionics from the

other side, how the sky is going to fall if this bill passes because

somehow it’s going to interfere with the free market in a way that’s

going to be detrimental.

Really, what we’re trying to do is understand. If, as a

government, we’re going to look for solutions and how we move forward,

and the B.C. Utilities Commission is going to look to see how to handle

something, first you need the data. You need the information. But if oil

companies are not providing the information, then I think it’s perfectly

appropriate and a responsible thing for the minister to bring forward

legislation that will give us that kind of transparency so we can start

making informed decisions.

None of us like paying high gas prices. All of us can remember

when gas prices were in the two digits, and now, of course, it’s very

rare that you find gas under a dollar. And if you’re in the Lower

Mainland, you’re going to find it a lot higher than that. But there is a

huge, huge discrepancy from pump to pump to pump. I’m not talking about

different cities. I’m talking about the same street in the same

city.

I am really pleased to see this. I look forward to getting this

data, getting this information so that we can come to an informed

understanding of what is at play. That’s what this is about. As any

teacher would say, it’s good to find out what the problem is before you

start throwing out solutions.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to stand up in this House to support this bill.

This is a very important bill, the Fuel Price Transparency Act,

introduced in this House by our government.

It’s incredibly frustrating to watch the price of gas shooting up

for no reason. That’s what I hear from people every day. People want us

to do something to make oil companies more accountable to the customers

of this province.

A friend of mine told me a story a few weeks ago. He went to a

temple to attend an event. He was there for about an hour and a half to

attend the event. When he came out, after about an hour and a half, he

told me that the price went up almost 20 cents. That could cost a driver

in B.C. anywhere from $12 to almost $20, depending on the size of the

car. It’s a significant price shooting up within a very small

time.

The British Columbia Utilities Commission found that there are

considerable markup margins on the price of oil. The commission also

revealed that the oil company refused to provide any explanation for the

additional 13 cents per litre premium being charged to the people of

British Columbia.

The premium results in British Columbians paying an extra $490

million every year, and $490 million is a lot of money. The people of

British Columbia can build about 15 new schools every year with that

money. That’s how much more the people of British Columbia are paying

because of the 13-cent price, which the companies are not prepared to

give any answer to. That’s a lot of money.

This bill sends a very clear message to the gas companies. The

message is that the days of setting your price in total secrecy have

come to an end. People deserve clear answers, and oil companies must be

transparent to the people of British Columbia. If there is any reason

for charging British Columbians a 13-cent premium more, prove it. Just

prove it. That’s what any good business will do to earn the respect of

the people of this province.

We are changing the rules of the game to make the oil companies

more accountable, more transparent, to the people of British Columbia.

This act will allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to collect more

information, accurate information, so that we can make better decisions

in the future. The information will be collected on refined fuel imports

and exports, fuel volumes at refineries and terminals, as well as

wholesale and retail prices. This information will be available to the

public as well as customers and watchdog groups.

It is not a surprise that members on the other side are not happy

with this bill. I’ve been listening to the members from the other side

with interest since this afternoon. They are questioning the intent of

the bill our government has introduced to make the oil companies more

accountable to the people of British Columbia.

I completely understand that their hands are tied. Their hands are

tied. They will not stand up for the people of British Columbia. They

will stand up for the oil company, and here’s why they do it. They do it

because, after taking $700,000 in political donations from major oil

companies, the opposition continues to defend their friends in that

industry and oppose any attempt we make to bring the gas prices down or

make the gas company accountable to the people of British Columbia.

That’s the issue.

[3:05 p.m.]

The legislation will force the oil companies to come clean on the

significant markups that are placed on the price of gasoline, including

the 13-cent premium that those companies have refused to provide any

rationale for. By pulling back the curtain, these companies will be

publicly accountable for unfair markups and cost increases that cannot

be explained to the people of British Columbia. It will produce a common

set of facts moving forward, allowing us to properly evaluate our policy

and take other actions, if needed, to bring fairness to the price of gas

at the gas station.

The Fuel Price and Transparency Act is an important first step,

and I fully support this bill. I hope the members on the other side of

the House will support this bill, because this bill is good for the

people of British Columbia. It may not be good for the oil companies,

but it’s good for the people of British Columbia.

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure, on rather short notice, I must

confess, to pontificate on gasoline prices. But I suppose if one were to

pick out anybody in the Legislature who has a bit of history in this

area, maybe I’d be the nominee, because I must confess that I have spent

much of my life analyzing prices. I’ve taught prices. I’ve modelled

prices. I’ve lectured about prices. I’ve advised about

prices.

Some of my clients would include Murphy Oil, Atlantic Richfield

and Imperial Oil. I was one of the advisers on the Mackenzie River gas

pipeline which was going to go to the Beaufort Sea. I certainly got to

know some of the big guys in the industry in those days. So if you’re

looking for somebody to put a label of big oil on or, at least, he’s

aware of big oil, I’m probably your best choice.

What I’ve learned over the years of research, teaching and

business is that this is both a politically magic subject and also one

where it’s easy to be led astray by some simple-minded ideas. For

example, the Premier, in his wisdom, said, “We’re going to get to the

bottom of this, and we’re going to get the B.C. Utilities Commission to

find out what is really going on. In fact, we’re going to pass a law so

there’ll be no more secrets,” as the previous speaker, my honourable

friend, just pointed out.

Once all those secrets are revealed, then that will be a happier

tomorrow. But by the way, in that analysis, don’t look at government

policies, and don’t look at taxes. Well, that’s unfortunate, because

five minutes ago, my friend here just looked up what some of the taxes

are on a litre of gasoline in British Columbia today.

Here’s what you pay when you pull up to the gas pump. Provincial

motor fuel tax, 1.75 cents in Metro. Provincial motor fuel tax

everywhere else, however, is 7.75 cents. The B.C. carbon tax, 8.89

cents.

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority tax, 6.75 cents. TransLink

tax in Metro, 18.5 cents. Transit tax if you live in Victoria, 5.5

cents. Federal excise tax, ten cents a litre. GST, 5 percent. Add it all

up and the total taxes you’re paying are easily 60 cents a

litre.

Now what does a litre of gasoline cost today at the Esso station

in West Vancouver? Well, it’s $1.359.

So not quite but almost a half of what you pay to put gasoline in

your car is taxes, but if you’re trying to understand why gasoline

prices seem kind of high, you can’t look at that subject. You have to

just worry about the other half, which is obviously subject to all sorts

of secrecy and skulduggery.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now, when we look at the secrecy and the skulduggery side of the

equation…. Let me also point out that the other forbidden territory for

the B.C. Utilities Commission to explore, the secrecy and skulduggery

side…. It could not look at government policies either. It’s, to me,

just…. I’m baffled. I’m flabbergasted that you would not consider, if

you’re trying to figure out the price of gasoline…. You would not be

allowed to speculate or measure or estimate or collect secret data on

the supply of gasoline. No, no, no. All we want to do is get a bunch of

cost figures. Somehow this will give you the right answer and reveal the

gouging that’s going on.

At the core of the matter, prices are set by supply and demand.

That’s what economists are taught when we’re still in diapers. On the

supply side, we have a few problems here in British Columbia. In fact,

if I can believe the media reports, our Premier is going to negotiate

with our new Prime Minister to get a greater supply of gasoline in the

existing Trans Mountain pipeline, the twinning of which, by the way,

this government, the government we’re looking at right now on the other

side of these chambers, is committed to stopping with all available

tools. “But, by the way, give us a little bit extra of that capacity

because we need more gasoline here.” It has finally sunk in that we have

a supply problem.

Alberta and the refiners in Alberta are part of the solution,

presumably. But they’re on allotment. There’s only so much capacity in

the pipeline, and I’m sure it’s all spoken for. So good luck, Premier,

with your negotiations with Mr. Trudeau. After all, it’s his pipeline

now. It’s our pipeline. We own it collectively as Canadians.

The other source of supply, of course, is our friends in

Washington state. They’re very quick to complain about all of the oil

tankers in prospect going through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, bumping

into the orca whales and doing all sorts of ecological damage,

conveniently ignoring the three, four or five multiple of tankers

feeding the refinery complex just south of the border at

Anacortes.

Who is one of their major customers? It’s us in British Columbia.

They bring in their crude from Alaska, refine it and sell part of it to

us. I suppose we could say, “Well, please ship more up here,” but it’s

an integrated supply chain. They’ll sell us, at a price, what they think

we will pay. If you want to bring antitrust action against the pricing

behaviour of those American refiners down at Anacortes, well, lots of

luck. Better people than we have tried to do it in the past, and the

results have not been very successful.

Indeed, I was put in charge of the energy group at the Royal Bank

of Canada back in the late ’70s, because we were fed up with being hosed

by very high oil prices which were creating huge problems for the

economies around the world, and we weren’t going to put up with it

anymore. OPEC, the cartel, an openly proud combine of all the major

producing oil nations, said, “We’re not going to undercut one another’s

prices from now on. We’ll all going to get together and stick it to the

customers,” and they did.

Our Prime Minister of the day, the other Mr. Trudeau, said: “I’m

not going to put up with this. I’m going to start my own oil company.”

He purchased a company, relabelled it and called it Petro-Canada.

Needless to say, Petro-Canada wasn’t a very popular head office in

Calgary, where I lived and worked in those days, but they gave it their

best shot.

Unfortunately, the president chose to continue to live in Ottawa.

Bill was his first name. He would fly every week, on Monday, to his job

in Calgary, and then on Friday afternoon, he’d fly back to Ottawa. You

might say he chose to not become part of the oil patch. We’d sometimes

wonder how long Bill Hopper would hang onto his job, and frankly, it

wasn’t very long, because Petro-Canada was a big flop.

[3:15 p.m.]

There are still some bedraggled Petro-Canada retail stations

around. I never go to them. I find them…. Maybe I have been

indoctrinated too much by my Calgary experience. But are they going to

sell gasoline any cheaper than anybody else? Not that I’ve noticed,

because this is a supply-and-demand situation, and the retailers of

gasoline, the wholesalers, the whole supply chain, are going to try and

maximize their earnings.

Wow, some people would call that gouging. Other people would call

it the free marketplace. And how do you stop that from happening? Well,

you flood the market with new supply. You say: “We need another pipeline

from Calgary. Get on with it. Twin that line, Mr. Trudeau. We’re

desperate here. Our customers are paying too much to get around every

day in their automobiles.”

I’m afraid that I’m not a big fan of this bill, which seems to be

based on the premise that if we could only find out all of their costs,

up and down the line, at every stage of the process, we will somehow

find the gouging element and bring pressure to bear to cut it out.

“We’re on to your game. We have the numbers right here. You just

reported it to us last week.”

That raises the next question. Let’s say that we’ve got all of

these numbers, and we find: “Wow, some of the margins are kind of fat.”

I think we all agree that they are. I mean, supply is in short supply.

So why not jack up your prices? That’s what business people do, believe

it or not. So if prices seem a little bit on the high side, well, I

would ask: what does the government then plan to do about it? Call them

in and say: “Well, there’s a $1 million fine in this legislation, you

know. We’re going to get even with you guys”?

I don’t think they would say that, actually. They would somehow

contrive an argument that it’s your moral responsibility to cut down

those margins. But the problem is that there are so many outlets, so

many avenues of distribution, that this whole gasoline supply-and-demand

network really is such a complicated network that to assume that somehow

you can control any one element of it without controlling the whole

thing is somewhat far-fetched.

The question boils down to: is this government, when it gets all

of this data, really prepared to control prices? Because if you don’t

control prices, they’re going to find their natural level, as they have

for lo these many years. So I assume that the hidden agenda here is

price control.

Those of us who lived through Mr. Trudeau’s wage and price control

era know how that worked out. It didn’t even last a year. It was very

unpopular with the voters. And of course, while many of us, as

consumers, liked the price control part, particularly when we talk about

gasoline, to suggest that our wages would simultaneously be subject to

government control…. Well, I don’t think that is consistent with the

speeches I’ve heard in these chambers over the last two or three days

about free collective bargaining.

This is the problem. Once you start tinkering with one little

element of this complex supply-and-demand network, where do you stop? I

think you’ve got to go all the way and say: “We’re going to control

everything.” I know there are some ideologues in the Premier’s office

who believe that we actually should. That’s their doctrine. We see lots

of evidence of it creeping into legislation here, there and everywhere,

as we go along.

I am skeptical that in today’s competitive marketplace, these

endeavours to control the price of gasoline through government diktat,

right here in British Columbia, can survive. Because we are embedded in

the global economy, and if there’s an opportunity to do so, people will

bring, you know, bootlegged supplies in from Bellingham or somewhere, or

somebody will figure out a way to ship more refined product into Prince

George. The marketplace defeats attempts by the government to control

everything.

I’ve got to say that I’m not a big fan of price control, even

though Mr. Trudeau senior gave it his best shot. He had to retreat. Even

Bill Hopper eventually flew back to Ottawa and never did come back. So

that was the end of the Petro-Canada experiment as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

Having said all of that, let me put on my scholarship hat and

admit that for many, many years, economists have advocated that if we

are going to have a market-driven economy, we must have a competitive

market economy. Now, that’s our doctrine. To a degree that really

surprised me, I discovered that our friends — academics, analysts,

economists — south of the border spent a lot of time in the day thinking

about the elements of a competitive economy, and having many competitors

and many purchasers was fundamental.

When you got into a situation where there were only a few

competitors perhaps selling to only a few customers, the rules of the

game changed, through human behaviour, to say: “Well, look, I’m not

going to actually tell you what I’m planning to charge, but it wouldn’t

be surprising to me if there was like a ten-cent price increase next

week. But this conversation never took place.” That goes on all the time

in business. We should not be naive.

The common structure in many businesses today is not pure and

perfect competition, as the economists defined it — you know, a

multitude of sellers and a multitude of buyers. It’s characterized by a

few buyers and a few sellers, a higher degree of

concentration.

One of the secrets of the American economic success in this

century, I think, was they actually passed laws prohibiting

anti-competitive behaviour. They passed laws outlawing monopoly. It was

and still is, under the Sherman Act, a criminal offence to monopolize in

the United States. If we ever had anything like that in Canada, well, I

don’t know. People wouldn’t know what you’re talking about. But it has

been, over the years, an element of faith in how the capitalist system

in the United States operated. Of course, we get the spillover benefits

up here.

Unfortunately, as I intimated a moment ago, the structure of many,

many American markets…. Let’s look at software. Let’s look at computers.

Let’s, for that matter, even look at basic crude oil production. There’s

a great tendency to a greater degree of concentration, and when you get

a greater degree of concentration, you get a few people looking at one

another and saying: “Well, here’s what I think we should do. I don’t

know what you’re going to do, but here’s my plan.” They say, “Well,

okay, maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all,” and anti-competitive

behaviour creeps in.

The purpose of my little diatribe here today is not to suggest

that there is no anti-competitive behaviour in British Columbia. I think

Canadians are quite used to it. It’s perhaps the norm up here. I think

the idea of pure and perfect competition is quite anathema to many

Canadians, frankly, having worked on both sides of the border. To

suggest that the gasoline market maybe has some elements of

anti-competitive behaviour in it would not terribly surprise me. The

fact is I think BCUC has already revealed some unusually large

margins.

So what are you going to do about it? Well, I think I’ve already

made my case that trying to control those prices is a mug’s game.

Getting greater supply is the market-driven solution, and you’re back to

calling up Mr. Trudeau and saying: “Get on with twinning that line. We

need that refined product here right now. We don’t have too many places

to build a great big new gasoline refinery in the middle of Vancouver.

We’ll probably debate the permitting for that until the cows come home,

so forget about it. But you run that refinery in Alberta, and we’d be

glad to buy your gasoline.”

I think that’s the solution to the problem. This idea that somehow

we can pass a law requiring them to produce thousands and thousands of

pieces of information, probably weekly and maybe even daily…. Well, I

hope we buy several great big new computers to handle it all. Then you’d

better hire another 25 or 50 economists to look at it and figure out

what it all means.

Then, once you find out what it means, what are you going to do

about it? Are you going to call somebody up and say: “Hey, we think your

prices are kind of high in Salmon Arm. I’ll hope to see you lowering

them next week”? They probably would, and then as soon as you turned

your attention somewhere else, they’d put them back up again.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s a mug’s game. You cannot control all of the prices in the

economy, and you cannot control the prices of gasoline unless you

control almost everything you can imagine. It just doesn’t work. That

was demonstrated by Mr. Trudeau under wage and price controls in the

late ’70s. The whole thing collapsed in short order.

I think the thin edge of the wedge apparently seems to be somebody

in the Premier’s office who thinks that with all of this data flowing in

by the terabyte, we can somehow control prices in British Columbia. Give

your head a shake. This is a market economy. And like it or not, I don’t

think we are going to become unique in the world and have a different

structure of how we buy and sell gasoline. We are more or less destined

by fate, I think, to be similar to how they do it in the rest of the

world.

It’s very unusual. I think it probably makes good politics. “Hey,

we’re trying.” Come back to the idea that half the price is taxes. But

we can’t look at that. “Oh, I’m sorry. That’s off-limits.” And supply

policy? “No, no, no, you can’t look at that either.”

Here’s poor old BCUC. They’re trying to do their job and not get

fired, and they produced this report saying: “Well, there seem to be

some anomalies here. We don’t understand why they exist.” I know why

they exist. They exist because they can exist, because that’s what

supply and demand allows them to do.

If we don’t like it, well, the simple option, to me, is staring us

in the face. Let’s crank up supply. Let’s flood this market with

gasoline. There will be so much cheap gasoline for sale, electric cars

won’t have a chance here for another ten years. Tell Mr. Musk to go

peddle his papers in his new pickup truck. They’re not going to have a

chance here, because the cheapest thing you can do is buy gasoline in

British Columbia. Wouldn’t that be great.

So that’s my advice. Thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister shall close

debate.

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the members who participated in the debate, a very

lively one. I’m very much looking forward to committee stage, given the

range of questions that appear now to be on the table.

With that, I would ask that we move to the vote.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 42 approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I move to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole House at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Fuel Price Transparency Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess, please.

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House the class from Mark R. Isfeld High

School in Courtenay. Students from the whole Comox Valley have come down

here today with their teacher, Heather Beckett, and — I don’t know how many

— five other chaperones, I guess. I just hope that the House will make them

feel very welcome as they watched an historic moment. Unanimous.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are now recessed. We’ll be back in five

minutes.

The House recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 41, United

Nations declaration act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — DECLARATION ON THE

RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

M. de Jong: When the division bells rang, the minister was in the midst of

delivering an answer to my last question relating to the First Nations

Forestry Council.

The

part I clearly heard was where he indicated that, based on the

available information, he thought and communicated that the B.C. First

Nations Forestry Council would not qualify as a governing body within

the meaning of subsection 2(c). Then I thought he gave some helpful

rationale for that, but the bells were ringing and we started to move,

and I didn’t clearly hear what some of that rationale was.

Perhaps he could, in this new setting, in this new chamber,

confirm what he said about the forestry council not representing a

governing body within the meaning of subsection 2(

c) and some of the

rationale that would determine whether or not a group or agency was a

governing body.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: I guess, just to repeat in the new chamber here…. At this point in

time, we do not view the First Nations Forestry Council as a governing

body. The legislation, Bill 41, that’s before us will allow Indigenous

peoples to determine what governance structures best represent their

nation when entering into agreements with the province.

Existing Indigenous governance structures such as treaty nations,

for instance, Indian Act bands, tribal councils, etc., can remain. It

also means we can work with other forms of government chosen by nations’

citizens, such as collectives of nations or hereditary

governments.

This supports the nations doing the work of rebuilding their

nations and governments and supporting self-determination and also

supporting self-government.

M. de Jong: I think the last question on this point. Again, using the First

Nations Forestry Council as an example, would the government and the

minister be looking for something specific as an indication that First

Nations themselves have conveyed a willingness to have a body such as

the forestry council elevated to governing-body status? Would that

require band council resolutions on the part of membership First

Nations?

Is it possible for an agency like the forestry council to

graduate, if that’s the right word, to governing-body status and, if so,

what indicators would the government be looking to for confirmation that

that term can legitimately be applied and that status can be applied to

an agency like the forestry council?

Hon. S. Fraser: The legislation actually provides some room for government to

recognize other types of governing bodies. So that opens up the space to

do that.

For the province, the two key factors in recognizing an Indigenous

government for the purposes of this act will be confidence that the

constituents of the Indigenous government have freely agreed to this

representation — that would be one key factor — and that the government

has the capacity to work under this act, to participate in the process

and to be accountable for any decisions that are made.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: I appreciate the discussion we’ve been having and the manner in

which we had it on

section 2. I’d like to invite the minister to work

with the member for Abbotsford West and myself through

section

This is a very important

section of the bill, and it has some key

considerations as part of it. Let me just start at the back of the

wording here. There is an obligation here on government to “take all

measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent

with the Declaration.” We’ve spent quite a deal of time understanding

the articles of the declaration.

There was, at times, through that discussion, an acknowledgment by

the minister that there may well be existing statutes in the law of

British Columbia that may not be entirely consistent with the

declaration. I’d like to come back to that point with the minister and

first ask, to start on this section: what assessment has the government

done in terms of what current laws, statutes, regs or otherwise, are not

consistent with the declaration?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. We’ve not done the

law-by-law assessment, if that’s the right term to be used here. This

will be the work that we will embark on with Indigenous Peoples as part

of the action plan. The priorities will be set here and in its course,

recognizing by all that this will take time.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister and the fact that this

may well take time. Does the minister see this as an immediate

obligation of the government when the words say that “government must

take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are

consistent with the declaration”?

Perhaps I can ask the question two ways. One is: is that an

obligation of this government first? Secondly, is that an immediate

obligation of this government? Thirdly, if it’s not immediate, in what

time period would the government be meeting this requirement?

Hon. S. Fraser: The priorities and the pace of the work will be set out in the

action plan. We didn’t prescribe that as such. This work will be

expected to take time. Bringing laws into alignment with the UN

declaration won’t happen overnight. It will be generational

work.

M. Lee: The minister has made reference to generational work. I know, even

in the technical briefings, we heard words to that effect. Just to

confirm, how does he define the time period of generational work? Is

that, say, 20 to 30 years?

Hon. S. Fraser: We have not set a time for this. What we have set is a plan to

move forward with priorities with Indigenous Peoples. We know it will

take time. What we’ve developed here through Bill 41 is a very orderly

and transparent process to proceed, and I’m excited to be embarking on

that work.

M. Lee: I appreciate the need for transparency and the need for clarity

and understanding. That’s why the time that we spend at this committee

stage, the five days that we’re taking, is the opportunity for us to

have that transparency to the extent that we have it, meaning to the

extent that we understand from the government the way in which, the

manner in which and the timing in which the declaration will be

implemented.

Let me just come back to a point around consistency though. We’ve

talked at length in the discussions around the articles that…. In the

government’s view, it will take a meaningful exercise to work with First

Nations and Indigenous Peoples in a consultative and cooperative way,

which is the lead-in language to this section.

[3:55 p.m.]

Who decides and makes the determination as to when a law of

British Columbia is consistent with the declaration, knowing that the

declaration

article which a law might be compared against, is to be

defined between at least the government and the relevant “Indigenous

governing body,” First Nation or others who are authorized to have that

discussion about a particular article? Who, at the end of the day, will

determine whether government has satisfied this obligation?

Hon. S. Fraser: The workplan anticipates us working together with Indigenous

Peoples, as was suggested by the member opposite. That’s how we’ll work

collaboratively to determine what the priorities are, which laws are

providing impediments towards reconciliation, that sort of thing. That’s

how we’ll determine the priorities.

M. Lee: I appreciate that there is a need to determine priorities, and we

will get to that in terms of

section 4.

What I’m really asking the minister, though, here is on the

process which government will be embarking on as this bill gets passed.

It is a cooperative process, the way this has been framed in this

section 3. When will government know that it has met the obligation, set

out in this section, to ensure that “the laws of British Columbia are

consistent with the Declaration,” if the articles themselves and their

meaning — and their application, meaning to British Columbia laws — are

yet to be determined?

I’m asking the minister when the government will have determined

that it’s reached that point.

Hon. S. Fraser: In answer to that question, possibly I can give an example or two

of how that will work.

The Environmental Assessment Act was determined by our work, the

Minister of Environment’s work with Indigenous Peoples in the province,

and where barriers were seen to be in place, to move forward in a

collaborative way with environmental assessments that reflect respect

and recognition of First Nations in a territory where work was going to

be done or projects were going to be done — again, collaboratively. That

is how that act was modified and amended to reflect the values within

the UN declaration. It would be that sort of pattern that we’ll

follow.

I guess I could go to a more fundamental example. That might be

how a collaborative process arrived at a new piece of legislation in

this House, known as Bill 41, which we are in committee stage of right

now. It was done in a different way, not one that was prescriptive by

government.

This was done in collaboration with First Nations. The First

Nations Leadership Council, through resolution of all their members,

individual nations, had a mandate from Indigenous people in this

province to actually move forward, for First Nations to move forward, on

working collaboratively in a different way with government, based on a

respect-and-recognition relationship.

That is actually how it’s got us to this place today, on Bill 41.

It’s exactly, I think, the pattern. Those two examples will show just

how, exactly, this will work.

M. Lee: Well, let me just try and go through another

section of this

section, which is the term that’s utilized: “all measures necessary.”

Can I ask the minister to explain, on behalf of the government, what

that test is?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: It would involve introduction of legislation, if there’s new

legislation, or amendments to existing legislation.

M. Lee: It certainly would involve that, you would expect. In terms of….

We’ve talked about this bill being applied, so to speak, on the laws of

British Columbia going forward. The minister made it very clear that in

response to many of the applications, let’s say —

interpretations of the

articles of the declaration — it would be on a go-forward basis. For

example, in areas of redress.

In terms of amending existing laws, perhaps I could ask the

minister to elaborate more, in terms of what expectation he sees on

behalf of government. Again, when we’re talking about all measures

necessary, is that a review of eventually all laws of British

Columbia?

Hon. S. Fraser: We will work with Indigenous peoples to identify the priorities

and which laws are most important to amend or change. Or if there are

new laws, new legislation coming forward, then we’ll work with them on

those to make sure that the measures we do take to align laws with the

declaration are consistent with that action plan and the priorities that

we work with them on.

This, of course….

Section 3 is specifically entitled — the

measures to align laws with the declaration. Those measures are new

legislation, in some cases, and the amendments of existing legislation.

Those are specifically the two tools that we have at our

disposal.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we will be talking about the action plan and the

priorities of the government with First Nations leadership in this

province. But

section 7, with respect, does not read with any

limitations on it. When we talk about “all measures necessary,” and it

says “to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent,” that will

suggest that whether it’s reasonable or otherwise, this government has

the obligation to use all measures necessary.

This means from any considerations, including considerations from

a cost point of view and other priorities of government, presumably.

That is what is required here in order to ensure that the laws of

British Columbia, and not just some laws of British Columbia, are

consistent with the declaration. Is that the case? Am I reading this

section correctly?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ll take a stab here. The requirement to align laws in

consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples means that

government will have to work with First Nations, treaty nations, Métis

and Inuit to determine the best way to seek their input.

Then what we have available to us as government, the means to do

that, will be through new legislation, consequential amendments — those

things. Of course, they would all come back to this House, also, in the

interests of transparency. I think it’s part of the….

The member cited

section 7. I’m assuming he meant

section 3, if

I’m correct. I just couldn’t see the link on

section 7.

Thanks.

M. Lee: That’s quite right. I intended to say

section 3. So to the extent

that I referred to

section 7, it was

section 3. Thank you for

that.

[4:05 p.m.]

I know that as we look at the declaration itself…. We talked, as

well, at committee stage yesterday…. I referenced the Haida decision in

the sense of where consent is not necessarily required in every case on

asserted rights and title, according to the court in that

decision.

We look at, as a specific way of example here, this government

taking all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are

consistent with the declaration. Is it intended that the government will

read in — for example, in this case — recognizing that there is a

distinction as we look at the term “consent” and how it’s applied, how

it is applied differently on territories over which there is asserted

title versus traditional territories over which title has been

determined through treaty or through the court, as we discussed

yesterday? Is that the case?

Hon. S. Fraser: The revitalization, I think, of the Environmental Assessment Act

is an example how a law in British Columbia can align with the UN

declaration, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples in

British Columbia.

The act sets out a collaborative decision-making process within

the act that includes the addition of an early engagement phase designed

to ensure all parties can understand the proposal from the early stages

of the regulatory process, consensus-seeking requirements throughout the

process on key process steps with Indigenous nations, and a new dispute

resolution opportunity during key phases of the assessment process to

promote consensus-seeking.

It’s really a perfect example in answer to the

question.

M. Lee: With respect, I don’t believe the minister is actually answering

my question. I appreciate the response, and I understand the response in

terms of the process and consultation and cooperation. All I’m trying to

take the minister back to, in the context of

section 3, is to the

discussion we’ve been having the last number of days — in effect, that

the application of the declaration in terms of British Columbia law

would be through the lens of

section 35 jurisprudence.

I’m just giving a specific example, which we discussed yesterday,

that when we talk about ensuring the laws of British Columbia are

consistent with the declaration, there are actually words that we have

utilized by way of explanation that we are hearing from the minister

through the course of the last number of days in committee

stage.

I am looking for an acknowledgment from the minister that, again,

when we talk about…. Just to pull it back to the level of the section,

when we say “the government must take all measures to ensure the laws of

British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration,” it could go on to

say, “to the extent that such measures continue to be consistent with

the Canadian constitution, the legal framework and

section 35

jurisprudence.”

I’m not asking the minister to confirm the exact wording of that

qualification, but I would like the minister, based on our discussion

over the last number of days, to at least acknowledge that that would be

an appropriate qualified understanding as to how

section 3 should be

applied.

Hon. S. Fraser: Just to confirm that everything that’s within Bill 41 is within

the Constitution of Canada and

section 35. For certainty, nothing in

this act nor anything under this act abrogates or derogates from the

rights recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act,

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Well, I will just take the minister’s response as a further

indication of the discussion we’ve been having to recognize the confines

in which the declaration will be utilized and the process that the

government will be following with First Nations.

I want to make one last point and then turn it over to my

colleague, the member for Abbotsford West, on this section. That is that

a great deal of the discussion we’ve been having with respect to

reconciliation, of course….

As we look at

section 3, as to how it will be applied, I would

also ask the minister to acknowledge that under

section 35

jurisprudence, there certainly has been guidance given by the courts,

which we talked about yesterday, that the final responsibility, from a

decision-making responsibility, lies with the Crown, but also that in

exercising that responsibility, there is a need for the Crown to take

into account the broader social, political and economic interests. In

this case, it would be for the entire province.

Those words are not also in this bill. They’re not in the

declaration. But by virtue of the acknowledgment of this minister, on

behalf of the government, that the implementation of the declaration in

British Columbia under Bill 41 will be done consistent with the Canadian

constitution and legal framework and

section 35 jurisprudence, that

particular point of guidance from the courts would also apply. I would

just like the minister to confirm that as well.

Hon. S. Fraser: I will confirm that everything in Bill 41 will be consistent with

the constitution.

I think the member used the term “confines,” and I think the more

accurate phrase would be “the opportunities.” I believe Bill 41 and the

constitution of Canada together provide great opportunities for us to

work together in a way, with respect and recognition, recognizing rights

and title. That sort of thing will move us in a way to bring more

certainty and predictability to the province, to make us a more just