Hansard -- Monday, November 17, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 18, No. 7 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		7917
	Gordon Dowding
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins

Introductions by Members		7917

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7918
	Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 92)
	Hon. C. Hansen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7918
	Substance abuse
	R. Sultan
	Canadian Armed Forces reserves
	B. Kerr
	Soccer in B.C.
	R. Stewart

Oral Questions		7920
	Privatization of B.C. Rail
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. Reid
	Changes to B.C. College of Teachers
	R. Masi
	Hon. C. Clark
	Viability of B.C. Rail
	J. Kwan
	Hon. J. Reid
	Health care services in East Kootenay
	B. Bennett
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Participation by B.C. Hydro in regional transmission organization
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Reports from Committees		7922
	Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
	B. Locke
	J. MacPhail

Petitions		7923
	J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		7923
	Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Statements — 2002-03, auditor general's report No. 3, 2003-04
	Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the Recall Process in British Columbia

Second Reading of Bills		7924
	BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85) (continued)
	B. Penner
	K. Krueger
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. Kwan
	H. Bloy
	G. Trumper
	S. Brice
	B. Bennett
	R. Stewart
	D. Chutter
	J. Les
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) (continued)
	J. Bray
	B. Bennett
	B. Penner
	R. Visser
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	M. Hunter
	D. Hayer
	R. Hawes
	B. Lekstrom

Royal Assent to Bills		7966
	Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
	Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 56)
	Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60)
	Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)
	Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)
	Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77)
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)
	Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 80)
	Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 81)
	Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act (Bill 82)
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)
	Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 86)
	Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 87)
	Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88)
	Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)
	Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)
	Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)
	Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)

Second Reading of Bills		7966
	Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) (continued)
	Hon. K. Falcon

J. MacPhail: I rise today to join with all of our colleagues in the Legislature to mourn the death of Gordon Dowding. Mr. Speaker, Gordon Dowding sat in your chair from 1972 to 1975, joining with you as one of the eminent Speakers of our province. Gordon Dowding died comfortably at the age of 85 this past weekend. He was an MLA from the 1950s through to 1975. He was a New Democrat.

I sent Mr. Dowding a letter to his home just last week, and at the time I was sending the letter I said: "Oh my gosh. It's so wonderful that a man who has played such an important role throughout our history is still well." Little did I know that it would be now that we would be celebrating his life.

It was a good life. He contributed greatly to this Legislature. As an opposition member he was renowned for his speeches in this chamber, and as a Speaker he was renowned for keeping decorum. I would ask, on behalf of all of us, that you would send condolences to his family.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to add the wishes of the government to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Gordon Dowding, who was a servant of this House, a member of this House as we all are — we're servants of the people of British Columbia — for such a long period of time. I think anybody who serves 20 years in the Legislature deserves a medal. Anyone who serves three years in the Speaker's chair deserves a crown.

I just want to add the appreciation of the government of British Columbia and the members on this side of the House and wish his family the best in what I'm sure is a difficult time.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased today to ask the House to welcome two people in particular that are not strangers to the Legislature, two people I had the absolute privilege of working with in my office. I know many of you worked with them.

They are a dynamic duo — and missed, certainly. I want to welcome to the gallery today Danielle LaBossiere and Rozi Dobreci, my first EA and MA, and I am extremely glad to see them here today. With them is a friend of Rozi's, Rosi Mondin from Vancouver. Thank you for helping me welcome two very special people back to the gallery today.

J. MacPhail: It is certainly an important day for all Speakers of the Legislature. I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a former Speaker of the Legislature, Joan Sawicki, who was the MLA for Burnaby-Willingdon for ten years and served with many of us in this Legislature, several of those years from the Speaker's chair. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I would also like to join the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming Ms. Sawicki back to the chamber. Indeed, in the first election I voted in, she was on the ballot in my riding. I'd also like to….

I would also like to welcome Robert Adam, who works in the Ministry of Education public affairs bureau, who is with his son Gareth, a university transfer law student at Camosun College. I hope the House will make them both welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce our good supporters Jagjit "Jaggi" Toor and Jaswinder Dhami. Accompanying them all the way from India are Mohanpal Pannu, general secretary of the Punjab Youth Congress, and Sukhpal Bhullar, vice-president of the Punjab Youth Congress. His father is the Minister of Irrigation in the Punjab. They are here to tour our parliament building and learn more about British Columbia. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: I have the pleasure of introducing Edwin James and Deborah Hartley. Deborah is a constituent of New Westminster and a key staff member at school district 40. I had the pleasure of having lunch with both. Would the House please make them very welcome.

E. Brenzinger: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today an outstanding young woman who is here visiting the Legislature for Women's History Month. Kirsten Brar is active in boxing, rugby and karate, to name a few of her interests, and she spent last summer in London and Paris. It is indeed a pleasure to have her join us today. Would the House please make Kirsten welcome.

Hon. G. Cheema: In honour of British Columbia's Addictions Awareness Week, I would like to recognize two guests in the gallery who are overseeing the outstanding work being done by the Vancouver Island health authority in the integration of mental health and addiction services. With us today is Margaret McNeil, regional director of mental health and addictions, and Alan Campbell, manager of policy. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Locke: It's my pleasure to welcome Samantha Rosindell to the House today. Samantha is a grade 11

student from Esquimalt High School. She's been shadowing me this morning. She's a wonderful young woman who is a rugby player, amongst a number of her talents, and I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to introduce the Coquitlam City Inferno soccer team. This team of young 14-year-old girls went on to win the national championship in Halifax recently. The Minister of State for Community Charter and I were able to join in celebrating that feat, and the minister of state was able to describe to them his athletic prowess as a youth.

R. Stewart: Yeah, it didn't take long. I wanted to welcome the team. They've made the trip over here. I want to name them all: Peter Price, the head coach, his wife Lisa and their son, Fraser; Tom Lachlan, assistant coach; Sheila McQuarrie, first aid/trainer; Terry Dobrozdravich, team manager; and players Paige Adams, Tamara Cormier, Mila Dobrozdravich, Sydney Leroux, Jessica Fleming, Lauren Lachlan, Loren Lidin, Jenny Lyster, Jessica Mazzarolo, Julie McDowell, Melissa Mobilio, Alex Muzzin, team captain Morgan Price, Laura Shaw and Erin Snelling; and several parents. Would the House please make this team very welcome.

G. Trumper: In the House today I would ask you to welcome our legislative assistant, Alison Leontaridis. Also with her is my daughter, Trish Trumper. Also in the House is the mayor of Qualicum, Teunis Westbroek, and I would ask you to make them all welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Following up on the soccer team, I do want to say congratulations to the team that won the nationals. I also want to advise the House that Canada's men's Olympic team is playing El Salvador on Wednesday, November 19 at the Apple Bowl stadium in Kelowna, and I want to wish all the players the best and the best of luck to our men's Olympic team.

P. Wong: I'm delighted to introduce three friends of mine that are joining me in the House today. Ms. Anky Kan, a beautiful and talented lady, is also Miss Vancouver International 2003. Along with her are her parents Landy Lau and Stephen Kan, visiting from Vancouver. Would you all please help me to make them welcome.

R. Sultan: I want to introduce to the House today two of the best constituency assistants almost anywhere. Would the House please welcome Susan Lundell and Patti Hamilton.

L. Mayencourt: I just wanted to advise the House that one of our members here is celebrating a birthday. We don't know which birthday. I've asked around and can't seem to get a straight answer anywhere. But maybe the Leader of the Opposition can help us in question period. Would you please all join me in wishing the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services a very happy birthday.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce Bill 92, which amends the Medicare Protection Act to better protect access for British Columbians to publicly funded health care. The amendments we are proposing today support our new-era commitment to ensure that B.C. health care is universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and publicly administered consistent with the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

These amendments will bring greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices for medically necessary health care services. These amendments will (1) strengthen B.C.'s rules about billing practices by clarifying when charges are inappropriate, (2) confirm the Medical Services Commission authority to audit the billing practices of all diagnostic facilities and private clinics in response to complaints, and (3) allow the Medical Services Commission to recover inappropriate charges from private clinics or physicians and, where it is appropriate, arrange for reimbursement for patients.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 92 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Sultan: I wish to comment on this week's Addictions Awareness Week. Addiction is common in our society, whether we're talking about alcohol and tobacco or about heroin and cocaine, and whether we're talking about the downtown east side or more prosperous elevations in my own community.

Substance use disorders are a health issue. They are also a law and order issue. The need to feed addiction

drives a great deal of property crime in our communities. On the health and treatment side, our government is trying hard to bring an appropriate level of addiction services into the health care delivery system. On the crime and punishment side, our government is trying hard to put new policing tools into the hands of a hard-pressed constabulary. Both efforts merit support from all levels of society. The North Shore was the first area within Vancouver coastal health authority to integrate mental health services and addiction services — clearly, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile the forces of darkness are innovating. A substance known as crystal meth, an illegal methamphetamine, is gaining ground among youth populations. It is easy to make, cheap to buy, produces long-lasting highs, inhibits appetites, keeps users awake and is an aphrodisiac rendering users oblivious to AIDS. If this was not enough, it frequently renders users violent, psychotic or schizophrenic and permanently brain-damaged. What an evil and dangerous combination.

Vancouver coastal health has formed a working committee to respond to the crystal meth menace. Meanwhile our police forces have to contend with invasions of the drug-emboldened who, in the words of one of our local police chiefs, say: "Steal anything which is not nailed down." We must be aware of this threat to young and old. We must encourage our health authorities to provide education, prevention and appropriate treatment, and we must give our Solicitor General and law enforcement officers the appropriate tools to do their jobs.

B. Kerr: Last week we were in our own constituency offices attending the various commemorative ceremonies at our local cenotaphs. As I looked around, I recognized that a number of personnel attending were clearly not veterans of past world wars. It is therefore with great pleasure I stand before you to talk about the Armed Forces reservists and the role they play in this wonderful province that we call British Columbia.

It takes a special person to join the Armed Forces reserves. You make that commitment by giving your time and your energy, and there is a chance you may also give up your life. Like Superman, Armed Forces reservists go from being members of the civilian population one minute to being members of Canada's Armed Forces the next. All that's missing is the phone booth.

In B.C. alone there are thousands of these so-called part-time soldiers. They work in banks, hospitals, schools and offices, on construction sites and in B.C. forests. You name a place, and you'll probably find an Armed Forces reservist working there. But what they do when they're not working in these jobs is truly the amazing thing. To put your life on hold to help your country, your province, your neighbour — that's something most of us just aren't prepared to do. When forest fires ravaged the province this summer, Armed Forces reservists were there. They left their warm beds, their jobs, their spouses, their children, and they put their own lives on hold to make sure other British Columbians didn't have to. Most accepted pay cuts between their civilian and their military compensation scales just to be in the front line.

These Armed Forces reservists have also participated in various international operations in the past decade in the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. Reserve soldiers also supported non-emergency domestic operations such as Expo 86, the 1994 Victoria Commonwealth Games and APEC '97. I hear they are looking forward to participating significantly in the 2010 Winter Olympics, and we would be lucky to have them there. They save lives, they protect our country, and they protect us. To do this, they put themselves in danger for people they don't even know — us. I just wanted to take the time to recognize the great job the Armed Forces reservists are doing. Thank you from all of us, who value our freedom and our security.

R. Stewart: Yesterday I was one of the parents shivering as gusts of wind drove rain almost horizontally across a cold and wet field covered with water. Against this onslaught 22 12-year-old girls ran, splashed and felt the sting of a soccer ball against their cold legs. I'm sure this scene rings true with the players on the national champion Coquitlam City Inferno soccer team and with their parents and coaches upstairs in the gallery.

This year soccer will involve 840,000 players across Canada, including 115,000 here in B.C. This makes it by far the most played organized sport in the country. Here in B.C. we have tremendous soccer success. The percentage of players from B.C. on national teams is very high, and our B.C. teams win more than our share of national championships. We have teams like the U14 girls Coquitlam City Inferno; the silver medallist, U14 boys Alouette United; U16 girls team Burnaby Jazz, with bronze; and the boys Surrey Youth Pegasus, with silver; gold medallist U18 teams Nanaimo girls CVI United and boys Abbotsford Mariners. We have the successes earned by the Surrey United senior men's and Vancouver's Sportstown Alumni women's teams.

Soccer is likely the most gender-balanced sport in the province. Soccer can be played by everyone year-round. It provides excellent fresh-air physical fitness, has low equipment and participation costs and a low injury rate. Soccer also sets the pace internationally in regard to fair play and respect, with zero tolerance for violence on the field of play. The official slogan of the International Soccer Association is "Fair play is our game." As such, soccer programs in B.C. not only produce good soccer players but produce good young people, and judging from the young players I met this morning, it's working.

Our society should give the sport of soccer as much support as we can, so I want to praise B.C.'s soccer coaches and officials. I also want to thank the parents, whose dedication allows their children to succeed. Finally, I want to acknowledge the players across this province who strive for excellence in an excellent sport.

J. MacPhail: I want to read from the Webster's dictionary for the benefit of the Minister of Transportation — definition of the word "promise." Here's what it says: "A declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified." That's pretty simple. Now let me read from the New Era document, page 9: "A B.C. Liberal government will not sell or privatize B.C. Rail." Nothing else, Mr. Speaker. That's all it says.

The people of the north thought that the B.C. Liberals were using the commonly understood definition of the word "promise." Silly them. Now they're very curious.

Hon. J. Reid: The people in the north of this province want to see the economic growth, they want to see the stability, and they want to see their industries put in an advantageous competitive position. Our responsibility is to make sure that it is able to happen with B.C. Rail, and that's the reason we have been looking for an operating partner for B.C. Rail — to grow the economy, to strengthen the rail network and to serve the people of this province.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's curious. I can understand the people of the north being curious, because this minister hasn't provided one new shred of information about B.C. Rail to justify her lack of understanding of what the promise was that her government made during the election — not one shred of information that her government didn't have before.

If the minister wants a copy of an easy-to-use dictionary, I know there's one available. But let me read, then, an alternate definition of the word "promise." Here it is: a binding declaration that gives the person to whom it is made a right to expect the performance of that specified act. Again to the minister: when British Columbians read the words "a B.C. Liberal government will not sell or privatize…"

J. MacPhail: "…B.C. Rail," did they have the right to expect that the Liberals would fulfil that promise? Or should they have anticipated that everything but the tracks and the right-of-way could be sold to CN?

Hon. J. Reid: It was in September of 2003 that over 20 of the communities of the north got together and put a document to government that said we need a revitalized B.C. Rail, and what we need is an operating partnership. That is what was put to this government. That is what we have been sincerely fulfilling on behalf of the people of the north in order to provide the necessary infrastructure that is B.C. Rail and that will continue to be publicly owned as the line and the right-of-way on into the future for the benefit of this province.

J. MacPhail: Nice spin. I hope the minister doesn't mean September of 2003, because she and her government were well down the road to breaking their promise by that date. I can't actually find that kind of spin anywhere in the New Era document. The government has received no new information about B.C. Rail that it didn't have at the time of the election.

All it says in the New Era document is: "A B.C. Liberal government will not sell or privatize B.C. Rail." It doesn't say that the B.C. government will seek an operating partner, that they'll sell off everything except the tracks and the right-of-way. It doesn't say a private company will operate B.C. Rail. It says B.C. Rail won't be sold.

Again to the minister: stop the spin. It would be a lot easier in life if the minister didn't get a new message box every morning. She'd feel better with herself.

J. MacPhail: Stop parsing words. Stop condescending to British Columbians. Why doesn't the minister just admit it? Why doesn't she come clean and say the Premier has broken a fundamental new-era promise to the people of B.C.?

Hon. J. Reid: I appreciate the attempt at correction. The consultation was September 2002 with the communities that came forward with their recommendation. It has been a process of community consultation, a process of consultation with shippers and a process to achieve an outcome that's going to be beneficial.

I'm very frustrated that this member is not willing to look to what the greater good is, and the benefit, and realize that what we are doing is being able to protect the public good that has been identified. That public good is to retain that line, that right-of-way, that track to make sure it is there on into the future for the people of British Columbia. To be able to retain that…

Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. J. Reid: …public good and to be able to deliver an enhanced service for the people of British Columbia for the long term is, I think, a worthy goal that I'm very proud of.

R. Masi: My question is to the Minister of Education. Many of my constituents and many teachers seem to be unclear about the makeup and responsibilities of the newly legislated College of Teachers of B.C. The B.C. Teachers Federation has reported that 76 percent of its members have withheld their $90 annual fee to protest the changes being made. Can the minister clarify for the people of British Columbia and the education community just when the elections for the new college will be held and explain the actual structure and makeup of the new college?

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you to the member for the question. As a former member of the college himself, he's certainly aware of how the college has worked in the past. We have changed the college so that elections will be held this spring for eight of the 20 positions on the board. The elected positions will be available for unionized teaching members of the board. Twelve positions will be appointed by government. Those 12 positions will represent the very many other broad interests there are in education.

We're recognizing that education is a broad public enterprise and that ensuring quality of education works best when responsibility for quality is shared by the whole host of people who are interested in making sure it works. As one example of how the college is working better, they now have standards of competence for the first time in the history of the college. That's something the college has done in six months, which the previous college took 16 years before they began to contemplate.

J. Kwan: A broken promise is a broken promise, but I'll spare the Minister of Transportation the definition of the adjective "broken," because she can look that up herself. Let me just say this. I can assure her that everyone in the north, with the possible exception of her own Prince George caucus colleagues, knows that the Liberals have betrayed them. They were not told the truth. B.C. Rail is not a failing company. Its debt is manageable, it makes a profit, and it is critical to our economy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Well, now B.C. Rail is being sold off to an out-of-province company that gave the Liberals hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the last election. Will the Minister of Transportation at least admit that B.C. Rail has been a profitable company for at least 18 out of the last 21 years?

Hon. J. Reid: The members opposite seem to be able to forget their own history. In looking at the picture of B.C. Rail, the history of B.C. Rail, for anybody to take a small snapshot of a corporation that has a much larger history to it…. In 1993, 1994, '95, '96 and the year 2000, those members were involved in discussions on what to do about B.C. Rail, because this is a historic problem. It is not a new situation…

Hon. J. Reid: …and in fact, over the last couple of years, as one of the members this morning was stating, B.C. Rail has had to consolidate and shrink in order to be in the position it is today. In order to expand B.C. Rail, there is, under the current situation, only one source of funds, and that would be the taxpayer. We do not believe that is the most suitable source of funds in order for a business venture to expand.

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

J. Kwan: Well, it's interesting, because the government's own financial and economic review shows that in 1998 the net income of $40 million represented the seventeenth year of profitability for the company out of the last 18 years of its operation. B.C. Rail continues to make money, its debt is easily manageable out of the company's revenues…

In 1997 the Premier said his promise to sell B.C. Rail was wrong — wrong for the northerners. He said it was a mistake. He said: "Lesson learned." To the minister: why was it wrong to sell off B.C. Rail in 1997, but it is right to break that promise today? Or does the minister need to look up in the dictionary the definition of the word "wrong"?

Hon. J. Reid: The taxpayer has been on the hook for B.C. Rail for over $800 million…

Hon. J. Reid: …that was written off and $500 million existing debt today. The member has not looked at the statements very well. She doesn't realize that B.C. Rail has to invest over $30 million every year in capital investments. That leaves nothing to be able to grow on. In looking at what has happened in the last few years with B.C. Rail, if we want that company to expand, to get more rail traffic and trucks off the road, we are going to have to have a partner to do that. We believe that this is the way the north is going to be best served and the province is going to be best served.

B. Bennett: I would like to ask the Minister of Health Services a question on behalf of my constituents. In April of 2002 the interior health authority announced what they refer to as their redesign of the delivery of health care services in our region. Since then, there have been any number of changes — some of them very dramatic, some of them causing concern to the people who live in the East Kootenay. A year and a half later, I would appreciate it if the minister could tell my constituents: what's the end game of all of these changes? Where are we at? Are we seeing any benefits from all these changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: The previous government actually referred to the hospital in Cranbrook as a regional hospital, when in fact it was never in a position to really provide access to the core specialist services that residents need to be able to count on, on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis. We had a fragmented system, and we had real gaps in care in that 24-7 coverage.

We have now restructured the way health care gets delivered in the East Kootenays. We have renamed the hospital in Cranbrook as the East Kootenay Regional Hospital, and we have resourced it accordingly. So today there is a very strong centre of excellence for health care based in Cranbrook in that regional hospital, and there's a network of other facilities that can feed into that regional facility.

The net result of that is they've been able to recruit six additional specialists in Cranbrook to serve the residents of the East Kootenays, and there are three or four additional specialists that are on their way. What we are seeing is that fewer patients have to travel outside of the region to get access to the care they need, because they increasingly are able to get the health care they need when they need it, where they live. That's what we're delivering throughout this province.

P. Nettleton: Can the Minister of Energy tell me and the electricity consumers of British Columbia: what is the present status of the application by B.C. Hydro to join with the western U.S. electricity utilities to form a regional transmission organization in its efforts to become part of the western U.S. electricity grid known as the Western Interconnect? Can the minister also explain how the creation of the now separate entity, Burnaby-based B.C. Transmission Corporation, accommodates B.C. Hydro's entry into the U.S. grid?

I have looked at the ministry's website regarding this matter, but I am requesting the minister's understanding and conception of the changes taking place at B.C. Hydro that will allow the utility equal status on this U.S. RTO and why he thinks this incorporation with the U.S. will be for the benefit of British Columbia and not be of greater benefit for the U.S. market.

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro has been in discussions in regard to RTO West since, I believe, 1996-97 in regard to electricity trade in the Pacific Northwest. It should be qualified that we will in no way lose any sovereignty of our transmission system through any process.

What we want to do in the long run — and these talks will probably go on for another four or five years and maybe even longer — is maximize what we have in British Columbia for the benefit of British Columbians. We should all remember that for three out of the last ten years, we have been net importers of electricity from the Pacific Northwest. That means we haven't generated enough in the province to supply our needs. We have to look towards how we can maximize the wonderful system that was put in place by W.A.C. Bennett for the benefit of all British Columbians, so we can continue to receive the lowest prices in North America.

The member could actually come to my office and ask those questions, but he has been quite shy about doing that for quite a number of years.

B. Locke: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament respecting the Budget 2004 budget consultation process.

B. Locke: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

B. Locke: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments. This report reflects the consultation of the Finance Committee with more than 200 British Columbians and our consideration of

all oral and written submissions on the province's budget and fiscal priorities for 2004.

Over the past few weeks we had the privilege of travelling to 11 communities, and for the first time we also embarked on a series of site visits within four communities. The site visits allowed us to meet with local representatives and to learn more about the economic opportunities and challenges within each region.

Based on our consultation process, the committee report makes recommendations regarding skills training shortages in B.C. and the need to increase access to post-secondary education opportunities. The report also recommends that the government stay the course, balance the budget, stay focused on economic development, carry on cutting red tape and continue to expand high-speed Internet access throughout the province. I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank all British Columbians who took the time to provide us with their thoughts.

In closing, I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all the members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout this important process. I would also sincerely like to thank the staff of the office of the Clerk of Committees and Hansard staff for working so closely and patiently with the members of the committee. In particular, I would like to thank our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and our researcher, Josie Schofield.

J. MacPhail: I sit as the New Democrat member on this legislative committee, and I share the Chair's view that we travelled widely and heard a widely diverse group of opinions. I did not support this report in its conclusions, and I voted against it. The opposition will be voting against it now for this reason: while some aspects of the opinions that were heard in our consultations are reflected in the report, there are several aspects of widely held views throughout the province that are not reflected at all in this report.

For instance, there were several people at each location we attended who reflected the serious harm to their communities and to the economy that the government's cuts in public services is wreaking on them. That is not reflected anywhere in the report. Opinion about the timing of putting more money into health and education is one-sided in this report. It says it should be done later. There were many people, up to and including the heads of universities, who said that funding for post-secondary education is needed now — not next year but now.

Because this report reflects one side of a very complicated debate about the economic health of this province, I do not support the report, and we will not support it now.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is the adoption of the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

J. MacPhail: I table a petition from the residents of Golden asking the government to stop Bill 79, which will fundamentally change the way the Columbia Basin Trust board members are to be appointed. There are 185 signatures on it from Golden.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents: Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Statements — 2002-2003, auditor general's report No. 3, 2003-04, and Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the Recall Process in British Columbia.

B. Penner: I rise to speak in support of Bill 85, a bill that I think is important. It helps lay the foundation going forward to help meet B.C.'s growing electricity needs.

A lot has already been said about the specifics of the bill, particularly the commitment of the bill and, again, this government not to sell off the assets of B.C. Hydro. Of course, that's something we're not doing — notwithstanding the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and a few people who purport to be independent. We'll talk about that more in a moment, and we'll find out, in fact, that they do have a clear partisan axe to grind in making the public concerned about what is happening with B.C. Hydro.

First of all, let's just talk a little bit about the need for more electricity, as I mentioned at the outset. For British Columbians, we've grown accustomed to the fact that we've had a large surplus of electricity for many, many years. That's due in large measure to the foresight of previous free enterprise governments that encouraged B.C. Hydro to go out and build and develop hydroelectric projects around the province. As a province, we've been essentially resting on the laurels of that success for many years — some would say a decade or more.

In fact, during the dismal decade of the 1990s when the NDP was in office, B.C. Hydro did not develop new power projects of their own, except perhaps in Pakistan. People here will be all too familiar with that sad story, where British Columbians lost millions of dollars on a failed boondoggle in Pakistan that appeared to be designed to benefit a few NDP insiders who were closely associated with the organization at that time.

B. Penner: Members will know that money was flowed through secret accounts in the Cayman Islands, all making this look very suspicious.

In any event, even if that project had been successful, it wouldn't have done anything to bring a single kilowatt of electricity to British Columbia to help meet our growing needs. Our population has grown dramatically since the Revelstoke Dam was completed in 1985. Electricity consumption has grown dramatically since that time, yet British Columbia hasn't seen the advent of any single new large source of electricity — at least not at the behest of B.C. Hydro.

That was the legacy of the 1990s, and that's why, I guess, for some of us it's pretty hard to take criticism from the very people that had a hand in that failed policy in the 1990s of not having B.C. Hydro develop more power in British Columbia but rather frittering away money in places like Pakistan, laundering it through the Cayman Islands and raising the whole question of who Ali Mahmood is, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson keeps asking. I'm not sure we ever got a full answer to that.

It's been well documented. I know that members who have spoken previously on this bill have noted the close affiliation to the NDP of a number of people associated with this group called the Citizens for Public Power. This is a group that purports to be independent from partisan politics and purports to be concerned about the public interest. But as people have already well documented, a number of their directors have been NDP wannabe MLAs, have held NDP memberships, have been federal NDP Members of Parliament or are affiliated with organized labour, particularly the public sector or the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Most notably, of course, has been the Citizens for Public Power's public spokesperson — at least up until recently — a woman by the name of Marjorie Griffin Cohen. Members here may remember that the NDP appointed her to the board of directors of B.C. Hydro. That's why it struck us as rather odd that she's now the person — at least has been the person — out there worrying about what's happening with RTOs, regional transmission organizations. After all, she was on the board of B.C. Hydro when B.C. Hydro began negotiations around the idea of perhaps some day joining an organization known as the Regional Transmission Operation West to help facilitate and coordinate electrical transmission in the western part of North America.

She's been out there hand-wringing, and yet when she had an opportunity to vote against the discussions around RTO when she was a member of the board of directors for B.C. Hydro, she failed to do so. She's been calling in to open-line shows, going around the province writing op-ed pieces and going on TV, if they'll have her, saying that this is a terrible thing and yet, of course, failing to mention that when she had an opportunity as a member of the B.C. Hydro board of directors, she chose not to vote against those kinds of discussions.

She's also been going around the province saying that any deal with a company known as Accenture is a bad thing, when of course during her tenure as a board of directors member with B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro was involved with Accenture, getting accounting services and other services provided by that company — to the tune of about $50 million over the life span of the NDP government, if I'm not mistaken.

We've heard plenty about the various people in this organization known as the Citizens for Public Power, but astute observers will note that there's been a change since about August. The media were starting to get wise to Marjorie Griffin Cohen and her checkered past in terms of being involved with B.C. Hydro when

they were engaged in a number of questionable activities, such as the Pakistani Raiwind power project.

So about August, we noticed she wasn't as prominent anymore in speaking out for this organization known as the Citizens for Public Power. A new face appeared, a young man by the name of John Young, and he's been out there. He's quite articulate and certainly aggressive, if you talk to members of the press gallery, about leaning on them to write stories that are sympathetic to his view of the world. Again, this is an organization that attempts to dress itself up as some kind of non-partisan, civic-minded public interest advocacy group.

But I got a little curious. I wondered who this John Young is. Could it be that he really has the same kind of NDP pedigree as many of the others on the board of directors of the Citizens for Public Power? Could it be possible? I don't know. I thought that maybe this warrants a little bit of investigation, so I did a bit of checking. I found out that somebody by the name of John Young had done some work for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives back in 2001…

B. Penner: …fearmongering around changes to public auto insurance in British Columbia and saying this would be end of ICBC.

Of course, we're now more than two years since the date of that article, and I think people here will know that ICBC is still functioning well. In fact, they're in the black and doing better than ever financially. I know they're still in existence, because I just had to renew my car insurance on Friday. Certainly, the cheque that I made payable to ICBC would stand as some testament that ICBC continues to exist. However, I digress.

Mr. John Young did some work for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an organization that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson points out received a considerable sum of money from provincial taxpayers, courtesy of the last NDP administration. I'm not sure how taxpayers would feel about that, but the NDP for some reason felt it was necessary, maybe in their own political interests, to shovel off $200,000 hard-earned tax dollars that British Columbians have worked for to this left-wing group known as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

This is one of the groups that a certain Mr. John Young did some work for. But I thought, again, maybe there's more to this story. Maybe I needed to do some more homework. So I did. I'm just attempting to find the results of my labours here. I came across an article from October 2001 about a certain Mr. John Young being hired to do some kind of progressive research in the Pacific Northwest around climate change. In this article, the John Young that's quoted talks about having worked on progressive issues from sustainable development to first nations and other issues and coalition-building throughout his career.

I thought: well, isn't that interesting? I know that south of the border the term "first nations" is not known; they tend to refer to tribes or bands. First nations is a fairly uniquely Canadian term to describe aboriginal peoples that live in our country, so I wondered if this person could have some Canadian links. I did a little more digging. The John Young that got hired on for a short-term contract with this organization known as Northwest Climate Response described his background as follows.

He said he had worked in policy positions in the office of the national leader of Canada's New Democratic Party.

B. Penner: That would be in Ottawa, Canada. But stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen, because this same individual then went on to say that he had also worked in the office of the Premier of British Columbia under the former NDP government. So I thought: boy, isn't that interesting? That's a shocker if it could be the same person. So off I went to do a little bit more digging.

If you're like me as an MLA, you keep government phone books at the ready. You never know when you might need them. I started flipping through the pages and let my fingers do the walking. I came across this entry from 1996, and the pages had a distinctly pinkish hue to them. I found there was a John Young working as a policy adviser in what was then known as Cupcakes, cabinet policy and communications secretariat, under the direction, it appears, of the deputy minister, Tom Gunton.

So isn't that very interesting? People who follow politics closely will know that Tom Gunton was one of the masterminds of many of the erroneous policies of the 1990s, things like the fast ferry boondoggle — certainly a pet project of Glen Clark, the former Premier — and things that were being worked on at the same time that this John Young was working there as a policy adviser.

It seems to me that's certainly shortly after or around the time that that Raiwind Pakistan power project went ahead and went bust, bringing embarrassment to British Columbians everywhere. That's some of the information I was able to dig up.

I thought: just how was it that that person ended up in that position? I looked, and sure enough, there are a number of orders-in-council that confirm the appointment of John Young to those positions, leaving government just around the end of 1996. Since then, it appears that John Young has been getting various contracts with different groups that they would describe as progressive but most people would describe as distinctly left-wing.

One last thing. I did also keep Public Accounts close at hand behind my desk. I let my fingers do the walking there and found that a J. Young, an order-in-council appointee for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996, earned $60,852 courtesy of B.C. taxpayers. Now, if it's true that this is the same John Young that's now the

executive director of the Citizens for Public Power, it is yet another in a long list of examples of people involved in that organization who have clear partisan NDP links. Is it any wonder that they are out there fearmongering, misrepresenting the truth, telling British Columbians something that isn't the case, when their real objective, perhaps, is to fight the next election, to fight the election they lost in 2001?

Their fearmongering has not ended, I'm sad to report. Just today I was handed a letter that some people are now getting in their mailbox. Viewers at home may keep an eye out for this. It's a fundraising letter. That's essentially what it is. It's from the Citizens for Public Power, the same group that I've been talking about. In this letter they go on and tell people a number of amazing things. Frankly, they're extremely irresponsible, reprehensible and dishonest things — like that B.C. families can expect to pay an additional $1,000 to $2,000 or more each year as a result of changes that are being made to B.C. Hydro.

Well, that is simply dishonest. B.C. Hydro has been open about the fact that they need a rate increase. Their rates have been frozen since 1993. I don't know how many public servants haven't seen any raise since 1993. I don't know how many people in the general public have seen no raise since 1993. I know some people have had to get by, but it's not easy. Well, for B.C. Hydro…. They haven't had an increase in their rates since 1993, and they've indicated that they will be going to the B.C. Utilities Commission, a regulatory agency, to seek approval for a modest increase of a couple of percentage points. A couple of percentage points does not equate to $2,000 or more per year for a family in terms of their electricity bill. There's just no basis in fact for that statement.

It was the last NDP government that deregulated B.C. Hydro so that their rates were not validated and approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That's something we and the Minister of Energy did under the government's current energy plan. That's to be saluted. I think it gives taxpayers, ratepayers, British Columbians, some assurance that there's an independent agency scrutinizing closely the claims made by whatever the organization is reporting to them about their need to ask for a rate increase from their customers.

That is what's actually happening. We don't know the exact amount of the increase, but B.C. Hydro says all it's going to be asking for is a few percentage points. It's rather hard to imagine the Utilities Commission saying: "No, we're actually going to grant you much, much more than you've asked." If anything, it would be the other way around — that they might reduce the increase.

There are other erroneous statements in this frightening letter in an attempt to get people to send some money back. By the way, at the end of the letter it says: "Please enclose your $20, $30 or $50…." They say right in there: "If you give $50, that will allow us to reach another 100 British Columbians." Yeah, that's probably true. If you send this group $50, it's a chance for them to reach another 100 British Columbians with lies and falsehoods about what the government is doing.

I guess one of the funniest comments in here is about the fact that we are encouraging more independent power producers to bring green energy sources on line. In this letter they say that's going to result in more pollution. I'll read it into the record. "And then there's the environmental issue. Does anyone seriously think that a private company will put issues like pollution and conservation ahead of profits…? Our environment will be severely damaged by this development."

Well, these people seem to be living in an ideological bubble, unable to see the real world through the film and the greyness that they've created around themselves. The reality is that by asking the private sector to help meet our growing electricity needs, which I referenced earlier, we've got green power projects coming on line big-time in British Columbia — so much so that the Vancouver Sun said in a headline that B.C. is on the verge of becoming the Saudi Arabia of green energy. So while the NDP talks about green energy, and they were in government for ten years, the closest they ever came to a wind power project was the NDP leadership debate that they had this fall.

I am proud to say that as of about seven days ago, B.C. Hydro has concluded a contract, a power purchase agreement, for what will become British Columbia's first wind power project on northern Vancouver Island. The Holberg wind power project will involve about an $80 million-to-$100 million private sector investment. It's a very significant amount of money, in my view, and will develop about 50 megawatts of clean, renewable wind power electricity.

There is not today a single operating, generating wind power turbine in the province of British Columbia, and we're working to change that through our energy plan. NDP groups like the Citizens for Public Power would like to make British Columbians believe otherwise, but the facts speak for themselves. Today, because of the legacy of the NDP, there's zero megawatts of electricity generated by wind power in British Columbia. By the end of this government's mandate, I'm hopeful that we'll be well on the way to building a very substantial wind power project on northern Vancouver Island.

Those aren't the only kind of green projects that are moving ahead in British Columbia. There was a big, several-page supplement in the Vancouver Sun back in September that talked about the various green power projects that B.C. Hydro is negotiating to have built through the private sector — 16, in fact. One of those is the wind power project already mentioned. A number of those small hydro projects, which make up the balance of the other projects, are going to be located in the eastern Fraser Valley. This is good. I think it's good for communities and regions to contribute to the electricity that they themselves consume. In fact, from an electrical system reliability perspective, the closer you can bring the generation to where it's actually being consumed, the more reliable and stable your system will become.

Stated differently, shipping electrons long distances over very tough terrain on power lines is not the best

way, the most reliable way, to deliver electricity. Sometimes it's necessary, and it can all be part of a functioning system, but because of the line loss that occurs — that is, a certain amount of electricity gets lost, the greater the distance you move it — it makes sense from an environmental, an economic and a system reliability perspective to generate electricity closer, if you can, to where the people live — closer to the customer base. By looking to the smaller projects — these green, environmentally responsible projects — that's what's actually going to be taking place in British Columbia.

Actually, it already is taking place. Over the summer I got to visit a few projects already under construction, one of which was commissioned recently — a couple of weeks ago — just south of Whistler at Brandywine Falls. That project — somewhere between a seven and ten megawatt project — only took one year to build. It's a good example of what can be done in an environmentally responsible way. The impact on the land base is pretty minimal. Any impact that did take place has been reseeded, replanted, and in no time flat you'll hardly notice, except for the water intake at the top of this creek and the powerhouse at the bottom, that anything has taken place there.

For those who may not be that familiar with small hydro projects, they differ from the traditional big-dam approach that we've had in British Columbia. Rather than building a huge dam that may be several hundred feet high and then flood thousands and thousands of acres, a typical small hydroelectric project diverts a small amount of water at the top of a mountain stream into an intake or a pipe, which is called a penstock, and that pipe or penstock then gets run down the side of a hill. It's that downhill motion that gives the water its impact so that when it hits the turbine blades at the bottom, you get a good bang for your buck, even though you're not really using that much water compared to a traditional hydroelectric dam — the large dams that we've come to be familiar with.

These are the kinds of projects that are happening. They are specifically located on watercourses where you don't have a fisheries impact. A lot of studies are required before they're allowed to go ahead with construction to make sure that there will not be deleterious impacts on fisheries habitat or the fish themselves, and quite often these projects are built above a natural barrier like a waterfall that prevents the fish from getting into that creek in the first place so that you don't have to worry about the impact, because there simply isn't any impact. All of these things are subject to study prior to approvals being given.

What does it mean that we're now seeing these projects getting built? I can tell you that for people from around the province, including in Chilliwack, it means jobs and good-paying jobs. When I was up at Furry Creek around Squamish — some people may be familiar with the golf course there…. There is a small hydroelectric project being built that's well underway now. I was surprised to hear somebody call out my name as I was hiking up the logging road to go look at this project. The fellow came over and let me know that he was from Chilliwack and that a number of his friends from Chilliwack and from the Fraser Valley were there working on this project and will look forward to about one year's worth of employment on a single project.

Good-paying jobs. I'm told the average salary or wage is between $20 to $30 an hour on that jobsite. Some people earn as much as $40 per hour, depending on the type of job they're doing. These are good jobs often in rural locations, bringing money into the heartlands, providing tax revenue, water rental rates to the province and, most importantly, electricity. Remember what I said at the outset: we haven't been generating enough additional sources of electricity for ourselves, and we're becoming dependent on imports.

The NDP purports to be a nationalistic-type party. They don't make any bones of the fact that they don't like Americans; yet as a result of their policies, we're importing electricity from the big bad Americans. I find it incredibly ironic that because of their dithering and lack of action when they were in office, British Columbia did not develop the resources we needed, so we're now importing up to 10 percent of the electricity used in British Columbia this year.

We don't think inaction is good enough. We decided very deliberately that we're going to go out there with an energy plan designed to aggressively encourage the development of new electrical resources for the province. I am pleased to say — and the proof is everywhere — that the majority of these projects are green, renewable projects. They're environmentally sustainable. They're creating jobs. They're creating a tax base. Most importantly, they're creating electricity.

No amount of fearmongering from the Citizens for Public Power Society and their NDP appointees or affiliates can change that fact. I think there's a certain amount of envy going on amongst the NDP that during their time in office, they weren't able to get around to doing anything good in terms of green energy projects. They can't believe that here we are under our government, and they're just popping up all over the place — so much so that, as I said, the Vancouver Sun is calling British Columbia the Saudi Arabia of green energy.

I don't want to take up too much time for people. I know there may be others that hope to speak today to Bill 85. Yet I just can't let it pass — the fact that this group that again tries to dress itself up as a non-partisan public interest advocacy group is, in fact, little more than a front for the NDP, attempting to help them score cheap political points by scaring seniors and other British Columbians into thinking something that isn't true. I can't think of anything more reprehensible.

I'm happy to have a debate on the facts. I'm happy to have a debate on the merits. Let's discuss ideas — government ownership versus private ownership or whatever. But let's be clear on something: B.C. Hydro is not for sale. We've never said it would be for sale. In fact, we specifically said it wouldn't. It was the NDP government, prior to the last election in a secret caucus meeting where one of the things they looked at doing

was selling B.C. Hydro. Now for them to accuse us of doing it when we've specifically rejected it all along is just a trifle ironic. I've got to tell you, it's low.

B. Penner: It is trite, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson points out. I can always count on him to correct me as I go along.

I just urge British Columbians to please…. When you get this letter in the mail from the Citizens for Public Power, I know many of you will have the strong temptation to rip it up into little pieces and throw it in the garbage. Before you do that or even after you do that, maybe what you want to do is put this self-addressed postage-paid envelope back in the mail. If you send it back empty to this group, they'll have to pay for the postage. Maybe that will teach them a lesson — to stop scaring British Columbians into giving them money by sending back this envelope empty so that it costs them money instead of rewarding them for lying to British Columbians.

K. Krueger: It's my privilege to rise and speak in favour of Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. I like this act. I like what it does, and I like its name. It's a strong name for a strong conviction that this government has around those concepts that B.C. Hydro as we know it, our hydroelectric power, is a legacy — a legacy that was handed down to us; a legacy for us, for our children and for our grandchildren for all time; a legacy created by visionary people who led this province; and a legacy not to be trifled with. I like that term "heritage contract" as well — that we seek to continue, as a heritage to all British Columbians, the provision of low-cost electricity because of the legacy that was handed down to us.

One of the things this act does is repeal another piece of legislation with a rather nasty little name. That legislation was called the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. I don't like that name at all. I hear a lot from my constituents, who are very fearful because of the kind of fearmongering that my friend the member for Chilliwack-Kent was talking about — people like these so-called Citizens for Public Power, who are always talking about privatizing B.C. Hydro. British Columbians don't want that to happen, and this government is not going to allow it to happen.

Who knew there was an act on the books since 1988 called the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act? Well, you know who knew, Mr. Speaker. The NDP knew when they were government for ten years. Why didn't they repeal it? Now through their proxies, like the one that the member for Chilliwack-Kent was referring to, they're trying to raise the alarm about privatization.

They had the opportunity for ten years to repeal that act, and they didn't do it. It was just a little sleeper cell sitting there, waiting to see what they were going to do about it. As the member for Chilliwack-Kent mentioned, they discussed doing things about B.C. Hydro in a very cynical way. We happened to get hold of a copy of their cabinet briefing papers at one point, and they actually suggested that they might sell what they referred to as a big-ticket item, something — I don't know — to show people they could do things other than build fast ferries that don't work or buy defunct pulp mills that they couldn't get to work either or blow money on umpteen different failed and ridiculous projects, as they did in British Columbia throughout that sad and sorry decade of the nineties.

They didn't repeal that act about the hydro and power authority privatization. Why was that? Well, they actually named B.C. Hydro as one of those big-ticket items that they might sell just to make their socialist statement, whatever they thought that was going to be. They were foolish enough to document that in their briefing papers. We're not going to spend a lot of time on the NDP, because the people of British Columbia, quite rightly, turfed them — except for two tiny remnants, a couple of very small constituencies here in the province — in the great election of 2001. That was a wonderful outcome for us.

Another thing that the NDP did, though — and we should mention it — is that they stripped the B.C. Utilities Commission of its right to oversee B.C. Hydro rates. Why do you think they'd do that, Mr. Speaker? Again, I'm sure you know. They did that because they wanted their cabinet to be able to set B.C. Hydro rates.

There was a point during the term when I was in opposition, 1996 to 2001, where they almost put Highland Valley Copper out of business because of their stubborn insistence on making so much money out of that employer in spite of the fact that copper prices were very low — an employer that had 900 people on the payroll and still does, thankfully. It took a concerted effort by the B.C. Liberals in opposition to bring the NDP to heel and oblige them to become more reasonable with that company and keep those people employed.

This government has reinstated the B.C. Utilities Commission's power to oversee rates, and I'm proud of that and of the many different ways that this government has entrusted BCUC to look after the interests of British Columbians, including giving us recommendations as to how to proceed with our heritage contract with British Columbians.

We're moving forward. We're moving forward in many ways in British Columbia. One of the ways we're moving forward is in protecting the assets of B.C. Hydro against any future government which might play around with the idea of selling a big-ticket item, like the NDP played around with that idea of selling B.C. Hydro. We promised before we were elected as government that we would protect and preserve those precious public assets — the generating capacity, the generating stations, the dams, the reservoirs, the transmission lines — and that's exactly what we've done and what we are doing.

Almost a year ago — coming right up on the anniversary, November 25, 2002 — our Minister of Energy

and Mines published the energy plan for all British Columbians. It's been a very public document ever since, and it clearly sets out our intention with regard to this legacy of B.C. Hydro's public power and with regard to a heritage contract with British Columbians. It clearly sets out that we will never tolerate the sale of those core assets of this important public company.

Now the NDP adherents are trying to set their hair on fire and alarm people about the act's provision for the authority to be able to sell assets that become obsolete — old pickup trucks, old assets, things that no longer make sense to retain — even though the act clearly sets out the B.C. Utilities Commission's right to oversee any disposal of assets. This is an important legacy in our mind — a legacy for my children and for my grandchildren, of which I will soon have three. I'm tremendously proud of that, proud of my family, proud of the things that this government is doing to make British Columbia great once again, to restore us to the thriving economy that I always knew the whole time I was growing up and, in fact, right up until the NDP took power in the early 1990s.

I was a kid when W.A.C. Bennett built the hydroelectric dams and brought his vision for British Columbians to life — built this legacy for us. My father was a farmer in the North Peace River country, and in the winters when he couldn't farm, he worked on the construction of what we now know as the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

I was a young man in junior high school when I toured the dam as it approached completion. I remember looking at the amazing power of the river as it tore through the diversion tunnels while they were building the dam. I remember feeling terrible for a moose that got caught in those diversion tunnels and was actually skinned in the process because it couldn't swim out of that powerful current. I remember touring the powerhouse before it was put into production, and I got to see things that nobody would ever see again, because you weren't going to be able to tour those places once the dam was up and running. I remember being awed by the size and scope of the project and proud that people in British Columbia, including my father, were involved in creating such a magnificent edifice, such a tremendous legacy for British Columbians.

Like the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I am shocked at the shameful conduct of some of these people who fearmonger in British Columbia — travelling around, visiting seniors. Our former colleague the MLA for Prince George–Omineca…. The shameful things that he says and does from when he first launched his written rant — written, I believe, by Ms. Griffin Cohen, who the member for Chilliwack-Kent referred to…. He published that even though he knew it wasn't true. He knew we were on the threshold, within a week, of publishing our energy policy. He knew that we were going to honour all our commitments and preserve B.C. Hydro's core assets, just as we always had said that we would do.

He went ahead and did that for reasons of selfish, personal political gain, which of course fizzled on him, but he continues to behave in that way. He was recently in Salmon Arm and met with a group of seniors and was doing his best to alarm them with his fearmongering about the privatization of B.C. Hydro. I rebuke that member, Mr. Speaker, on the record. I'm ashamed of the way he's behaving because I once trusted the man, and it's wrong what he's doing — frightening seniors, frightening people around the province with falsehoods that I believe he knows full well are falsehoods.

As I say, this legislation actually repeals an act called the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. I ask members of the public to look at the record, look at the legislation, see what we're doing here and see what the NDP never did. Why didn't the NDP repeal that act? I think they wanted to keep their options open. They really didn't know what they were going to do about power generation in British Columbia. In fact, they didn't do anything. For ten years they didn't create any new generating projects in this province. Mind you, they were stifling the economy at the same time, so maybe they thought they weren't needed.

But we always knew that British Columbia would need more power. As several members have already mentioned, we've been in a position of being a net importer of electricity in a number of recent years. We've had to buy coal-fired electricity from Alberta. We just aren't keeping up to our need. That is a shame; that is wrong.

If we want coal-fired electricity, we've got plenty of coal in the East Kootenays. We've got plenty of coal in the Peace River country, and we could certainly be doing that ourselves. But no, the NDP were content to continue to put British Columbia into the hole in many different ways — not only financially, not only in letting our roads crumble, but also in failing to address our future needs and even present needs for electricity.

During the forest fires which struck my constituency this past summer, the B.C. Hydro line was cut up the North Thompson Valley. It was cut pretty early. It's a really bad thing, when you're a British Columbian and you're used to reliable power, to suddenly not have any electricity. A lot of things went badly for people as a result. Business suffered. Food was spoiled. Whole freezers and fridges, hundreds of them, had to be thrown away because of that. We count on regular, reliable, uninterrupted power supplies in British Columbia. What helped save the day was that we already have some independent power producers in place, and we were able to tap into some of those IPPs. They were able to assist in the emergency by providing power when we no longer were able to connect my constituents to their normal reliable sources of power.

I was proud that we're moving ahead already in that way and that we've made so much progress, with a whole lot more coming down the pipe. We don't want to be a net importer of power in British Columbia, nor should we ever have been reduced to that, nor will we ever be again if we have our way. I'm proud of a government that has found a way to meet British Columbia's needs, to grow our capacity to generate

electricity without adding anything to public debt. I'm proud of a Premier who announced $800 million in independent power production projects in a speech to the UBCM convention this year and the fact that it is only an indication of what is yet to come.

There is an Indian band, a first nations group in my constituency known as the Whispering Pines–Clinton Indian band, and they have brought on a proposal. They want to build a bridge across the North Thompson River. The river will flow unimpeded. Along with the construction of this bridge, they will install an independent power production project known as a run-of-the-river project. They've spent money on a feasibility study which has come out looking really good. Investors are lining up at their door, because they are in the vanguard of these innovative approaches to meeting the needs of British Columbians and generating wealth as they do it.

I toured an independent power production project in the constituency of the member for East Kootenay. It's known as the McDonald Ranch and Lumber place. You wouldn't know it was an IPP, because it looks so innocuous. It blends right in with the scenery, the ranches and farms in the area of the East Kootenays. The man who built it is a genius, in my view. He put a little dam way up the side of a mountain that stands behind his home. It's just a small dam. It creates a little pool of water but enough to fill a large pipe that comes down the mountainside, just as the member for Chilliwack-Kent described some of these projects. The pipe is overgrown with undergrowth, foliage. You can hardly see it unless you're looking for it.

It brings this water down from the little pool created by that small dam, and at the bottom of the mountainside, a sheer mountainside a fish could never have swum up, it goes into what looks like a machine shed — a Quonset hut, a nice aluminum shed. You roll the door open, and you see walls just lined with electric boxes and one giant turbine spinning. That man creates enough electricity with that little arrangement to power his ranch, his sawmill, two planer mills and a number of his neighbours and still sell power into the grid.

There is a plaque on his wall that his children dedicated to him for the legacy he created for them and for their children, his grandchildren, and generations to come with this amazing device that just continues to create wealth and meet British Columbians' needs — and will forever as they replace the various components when they wear out. The same fish can still swim in the same creek. It doesn't affect them at all, but wealth has been created.

We're looking to do that all over the province. The people who went before us didn't do that at all. For ten years the NDP didn't see any new power production projects in British Columbia. In fact, for 25 years before we were able to get in the saddle and get things moving again, British Columbia didn't have very much in the way of new generation of power at all.

With these IPPs, the risks of construction, if errors are made by engineers or contractors, are borne not by the taxpayer — as was sadly the case in many of the NDP's projects, like the fast ferries — but by the proponents themselves. I heard of one project, sadly, where people messed up, and they built their power plant below the floodplain. Having realized later that a flood would inevitably one day destroy their power plant, they had to build a wall around it as if to fence out the moat that the river might one day become. It was a very costly thing, which eroded their profits, and some of their architects and engineers and so on are suing each other. The public doesn't have any expense from that because the risk was borne by the people who brought on the project.

That's what we believe in doing: partnering with the private sector, not being the government that always wants to row the boat but a government that steers, a government that knows where it's going and mapped out the course it was going to take and was endorsed by British Columbians — at the time 77 of 79 seats, a tremendous endorsement, the biggest majority that British Columbia has ever seen. People believe in our abilities, people believe in our vision, and people know that we want to preserve their precious legacies. People know we have a contract with them to keep our promises and deliver on the things that we said we would do. We're not at all afraid — in fact, we're perfectly happy — to embrace the resources of the private sector — their ingenuity, their ability to invest, their capacity, their skills — to partner with them and to move forward in a way that benefits all British Columbians.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent talked about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, their shameful record with the NDP and the fact that they continued to get money from the NDP, a large bequest just before the NDP lost power, on the basis of which they continue to attack the current government and deceive British Columbians, which is a real travesty — using British Columbians' own money, given to them by the NDP, to alarm and deceive British Columbians. I think that's shameful, and I think as they continue to attack this government with their false discussion of the privatization of B.C. Hydro, they continue to abuse British Columbians, as they did in the past.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent, with his scholarly research, laid bare a number of the motives and backgrounds of those who take part in those initiatives. We had an NDP Member of Parliament for 20 years in Kamloops, Nelson Riis, who used to refer to hacks, flacks and bagmen. I never really liked the term, but I can see where he came up with that. He obviously knew people like that, people who behave in that way, and I want to reproach them for treating British Columbians with such contempt, for using British Columbians' own money to try and deceive them with their phony mailouts and their attacks on this government.

The heritage contract that this bill, Bill 85, is setting up will essentially lock in the value of existing low-cost generation assets for British Columbians and enable us to continue to bring on independent power production

projects. It costs more to create electricity these days than it did when I was a boy, when W.A.C. Bennett was building those dams, but by capitalizing on the benefit of still having that reliable power supply, while we partner with people who are bringing on power in this day and age, we'll be able to preserve the advantage that British Columbians have for a very long time.

There's another site on the Peace River. It's called Site C. It has the potential for huge hydroelectric power generation, and I hope investors are looking at that. I encourage them to come forward if they would like to partner with this government, if they would like to see construction. It could be either one large dam or six small dams, as I understand it from the engineering studies that have been done before. We're not likely to ever see the damming of any more wild rivers in British Columbia, I trust, but that river is not a wild river anymore. It's been dammed twice. The Site C project is ripe for moving ahead when we have the right resources in place, so I hope investors are looking at that and people with sufficient resources will come forward one day — one day soon, I hope — and express an interest so that we can see construction of that as well. Hydroelectric power is environmentally friendly power. It's a tremendous source of power, and I'd much rather see us generating our power that way than a lot of other ways that other jurisdictions do so.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent referred to the Vancouver Sun characterizing British Columbia as the Saudi Arabia of green energy, and I'm really proud of that. I trust that we'll become known as the Saudi Arabia of green energy worldwide. I always wonder, when people object to oil and gas exploration off our coast, why they would ever prefer that North America acquire any of its oil from countries that spend their profits on terrorism, that continually go to war with one another, that attack Israel, that murder people, that assassinate people, that pollute the environment by deliberately setting oilwells on fire when they're at war with one another and letting their pipelines run into the ocean when they're having a war between them — all of the terrible things that happen there. Why would we not want to be totally self-sufficient in energy and help our American friends to the south, as well, not to be reliant on such providers of energy?

Now I'm really proud of this government — the way that it is securing British Columbians' legacy for all time with this and other legislation, the fact that we've moved ahead in our commitment to put the B.C. Utilities Commission back in charge of the question of what British Columbians should pay for their electricity and that, once again, this is a government that does what it says it will do.

I want to commend the Minister of Energy and Mines, someone I've looked up to for a very long time. It's a little-known fact that he's actually my older cousin. I used to admire him when he rode motorcycles when I was a little kid. I remember admiring him when I could see him swimming in a slough when we lived on the prairies. I thought I'd like to be big and strong like him one day. He preceded me into this parliament, and I'm proud of his record in office and the things he's accomplishing. He was always a forward-thinking guy. He was always a guy who got things done, as was his father before him.

I congratulate him on this legislation. I congratulate the government on moving forward with it. I look forward to a very bright future for British Columbia with our private sector partners in independent power production and with all British Columbians enjoying the benefits of this precious legacy and this heritage contract.

Hon. K. Falcon: I, too, rise and relish the opportunity to have what I hope is a bit of a lengthy but intellectually driven discussion on the benefits of Bill 85. It's a piece of legislation that follows much discussion within our government, within our caucus and within our cabinet. I think the fruits of that discussion are really evidenced in this bill. The fact that when you get a group of independent-minded elected folks like we've got in this Legislature, who have the ability to think for themselves…. They mostly come out of the private sector. They're not shying away from ever having debates. We came together over one of the most important issues and one of the most important public policy issues for British Columbia, and I believe that under the leadership of our Energy and Mines minister, we came forward with a solution that all British Columbians will be proud of.

Just as W.A.C. Bennett had the vision and the foresight back in the fifties to recognize that creating the large dams that would act as hugely important generators of cheap, inexpensive electricity which helped fuel the economic growth here in British Columbia, so too are we, at this crossroads here in British Columbia in 2003, reaching another milestone when we say: "What is it that will get British Columbia to the next level of where we need to go?"

You know, it's not going to be exactly the same as it was in the past. We have a different set of values in British Columbia. We've got new concerns over environmental quality, and that, I think, is a good thing. We have a public that is more aware of some of the costs associated with major damming projects and some of the implications on wildlife, on vegetation and on a whole bunch of environmental issues that were probably just not thought about in the 1950s.

Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, speaks to the reality that we face here in British Columbia and asks: how do we, as the province of British Columbia, continue to achieve two things? How do we make sure that the residents of British Columbia will continue to enjoy low-cost, so-called heritage energy that is really our heritage, based on the investment that our forefathers and our foremothers made back in the 1950s under the leadership of that great Premier, W.A.C. Bennett? That is, in a way, our heritage — our benefit, if you will.

We also have to recognize, as the Minister of Energy and Mines has reminded people so often, that in

the last decade for three out of the ten years, British Columbia has been a net importer of energy. We have to rise to meet the challenge of recognizing that while there may be a public perception out there that we have oodles and oodles of electricity, the fact of the matter is that given differing conditions — perhaps a dry summer like we just had — if that was followed by very low rainfalls, which gladly it wasn't this year…. We had flooding instead. But had it followed a very light rainfall, we would have been facing some very severe shortages here in British Columbia.

The challenge for our government was how we meet this challenge, and how we meet it in a way that we can actually go out and say to British Columbians that we've brought on new generation that is clean and that will make a future contribution to British Columbians by providing clean energy in British Columbia. How do we encourage that to happen?

Before I got elected, I was in the private sector. I'll share with you a story about what it's like in the private sector when you're considering competing and you're thinking about who your competitors are. There's one truism that any private sector competitor knows, and that's this: if you are going to be competing against a monopoly provider of power, you're not going to be competing. You're not going to be able to win that fight. It's not that there's any potential evil associated with a monopoly provider, whether it's in auto insurance or it's B.C. Hydro. It's just that when you are a monopoly, you tend to engage in monopolistic behaviours, and that is very standard for the course.

An individual or company that wants to think about bringing forward something like wind power, for example, or bringing forward run-of-the-river-type energy that would deliver clean energy at virtually no environmental impact faces the challenge of trying to get onto that transmission grid at a fair rate, at a fair tolling rate, that will allow them to achieve a return on their investment. That wasn't possible under a monopoly system that we had here in British Columbia.

Bill 85 continued the decision we made as a government that we would have Hydro publicly owned but publicly divided into three separate areas: generation, transmission and distribution — all publicly owned. Now, why would we do this? The left and all the critics of the so-called CPP — the former Communist Party symbol, ironically enough, but nevertheless the CPP; that's the Citizens for Public Power — will tell you that this is actually privatization. "They're selling B.C. Hydro; it's for sale, folks." They've been saying this now for at least two years. I continue to be staggered, because I can never find the sale. I keep running into the fact that it's still publicly owned. How is this possible?

There's only one of two things that could be happening, folks. Somebody is not being conversant with the truth. We can look at B.C. Hydro and see that there are no private shares here. The ownership is held by the government. There was no sale that took place. Well, that's a surprise. We could also look at the fact that, actually, what the province of British Columbia has done is re-regulated Hydro. We have now put Hydro back under the regulation of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The NDP government pulled Hydro out of BCUC.

Why did they do that? They wanted to manipulate the rates. They wanted to have the politicians set the rates to the politicians' advantage — never a good move. What this does is re-regulate B.C. Hydro in a very, very important way so that any increases that Hydro may ask have to meet the public test, the public test that is going to have stakeholders. Members of the public, concerned residents — maybe even the Citizens for Public Power, if they ever get their facts right — can go and make a presentation. That is the decision-making body, not the cabinet table.

Here's another reason why that is so very important. One of the things I am so proud of is that because we have separated generation, distribution and transmission, what that means for the small entrepreneur or even the big entrepreneur who has an idea on how he or she can deliver clean, environmentally sustainable power for British Columbia for generations to come is how they can do this and sell it onto the grid and actually achieve a return on their investment. Virtually impossible to happen under the old approach, it's now happening under the new B.C. Hydro publicly owned. That is an incredibly positive thing, one of the things I am so very proud of. The other government, the previous government, liked to talk the talk; they liked to pretend they really care about the environment. Actions speak a lot louder than words, and our actions are actually resulting in real-life clean energy projects underway right now, as we speak, in British Columbia. That's results, and that's leadership that's driven out of legislative changes.

When I listen to groups like Citizens for Public Power…. I really appreciated the member for Chilliwack-Kent speaking about this, because the member brought up some facts. These would be known as inconvenient facts for the folks that have to listen to them. Citizens for Public Power sure sounds like a group that maybe even citizens from my riding of Cloverdale could be involved in. Could that be? Not after I checked to see who is actually on the board of Citizens for Public Power.

What a fascinating group of people this is. Marjorie Griffin Cohen. Do you remember Marjorie Griffin Cohen? I believe we saw some of her work with one of the members who wrote some words on B.C. Hydro that were full of inaccuracies. She actually used to be a professor at the university I used to go to, and I certainly can tell this House that there will be no surprise where her political credentials are. She was NDP-appointed, of course, to the B.C. Hydro board and was part of the decision to undertake that famous Pakistan investment deal we all lost millions and millions of dollars over — money in foreign accounts and the whole bit. It was just crazy.

Jim Abram is a municipal politician and a failed NDP candidate. Jim Fulton is a former NDP Member of Parliament. How about Jerri New, an OPEIU union

leader? Then we've got Jim Sinclair from the B.C. Federation of Labour, also an NDP appointee to the former Hydro board. John McGraw, an IBEW union leader — International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Then, of course, there is John Young, who the member for Chilliwack-Kent pointed out formerly worked in the NDP Cupcakes division and was an adviser to former Premier Clark on some great initiatives under that government like the fast ferries and the Raiwind project in Pakistan, which cumulatively cost over half a billion dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

When the NDP-linked Citizens for Public Power start making criticisms, they have no credibility. They have zero credibility in my mind. They're still going around saying we're selling Hydro, even though the facts do not support that in any way, shape or form.

Nothing is being sold. We are re-regulating Hydro. We are ensuring the growth of a clean energy industry. That could include wind power, and it could include run-of-the-river power. But I will tell you this: it will include jobs for British Columbians, and it will include future green clean energy for British Columbians. That is something I am proud to hand off to my children and your children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much more that I could say about Bill 85, but I took time to speak here today because I want it on the record that when this bill came forward, the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale stood up and proudly supported this direction. I think that this direction will be looked at historically as just as important as when W.A.C. Bennett made the decision to create some of the great dams which are legacies in this province. I believe the decisions we make under Bill 85 of re-regulating Hydro, of keeping Hydro publicly owned, of making sure that we can get clean, private sector–invested, new generation that can plug into the transmission grid in a fair and equitable way, without all of the games that a guerrilla monopoly can play when they don't want to allow people onto the grid…. This is very exciting, and the future for British Columbia, I believe, is going to be very exciting.

There's one other thing I just want to touch on before I conclude my remarks, and that is something I think we need to consider very, very carefully when we listen to members of the opposition speak about this bill. It seems that they can speak — oh, how mightily they speak — about how they can't imagine the terrible things we are doing to Hydro, how we are considering selling off Hydro when that, of course, is not true, and how we outsourced some back-office functions to improve the delivery services at Hydro and reduce the cost for taxpayers.

We'll hear how terrible that all is, and yet I want everybody in this House and in the viewing audience out there to think about this: in the year 2000 a secret briefing document was prepared for the NDP caucus considering the sale of B.C. Hydro and other big-ticket items. Isn't that interesting? The NDP caucus was considering selling B.C. Hydro and other big-ticket items. Later on that very same year it was discovered that the NDP had also been working to outsource Hydro services. Imagine that. In fact, in a letter to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, Hydro's union boss criticized that NDP move and demanded to know why they were not consulted.

Even that government, in that day, recognized that outsourcing could actually save some money, and that's exactly what it's going to do. I want just to say this in that regard. The B.C. Liberal government has never, ever considered putting B.C. Hydro on the market, and we've protected their assets in this legislation so that they will remain publicly owned.

Briefly, there was a question today in the House, and it referred to some discussions that have tangentially touched on the whole question of RTO, because apparently the Citizens for Public Power also oppose the RTO, otherwise known as the regional transmission organization. Well, what is this? The regional transmission organization is a group of hydro providers throughout the western states that try to cooperate in terms of the regional grid to ensure the flow of electricity back and forth. Makes some sense for the different states that are involved. British Columbia's involvement in the regional transmission organization actually started under the New Democratic Party government, and it continues today.

Our minister is showing leadership in ensuring that those discussions…. We have to be engaged in those discussions. It would be nothing short of irresponsible for us not to be part of those discussions. I am encouraged to hear that the minister is engaging in those discussions. I recognize that they will take place over a number of years.

I also understand that Manitoba Hydro has joined an RTO, with the blessing of their NDP government. That is interesting. So maybe there are some benefits there that they've discovered in Manitoba that, through your discussions over the coming years, we may discover. But as we do with everything, we will study it very carefully and will make sure that on balance it's going to benefit British Columbia.

In conclusion, I want to say this. Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, is one of the most important acts this government has put forward in this Legislature. Under the leadership of our Premier and under the leadership of our Minister of Energy and Mines, we have laid a foundation legislatively for a publicly owned Hydro that will have huge benefits for us in the encouragement and the advancement of green, clean energy right across the great province of British Columbia. I and all the members of this House will stand here and say this has indeed been a good day for British Columbia, and I thank the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Premier for bringing forward this excellent piece of legislation.

J. Kwan: As predicted by my colleague, much of what we heard from the government side on this bill is

the repetitive claim that B.C. Hydro is not for sale, that this bill in no way enables Hydro to rid itself of its assets. We also heard a lot of misinformation as well. We heard the accusation that my colleague and I are members of the B.C. Citizens for Public Power. You know what? Just to be clear on the record, that is simply untrue. It's simply not true. We heard that the repeal of the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act would guarantee that Hydro could never be sold or privatized. So zealous are the Liberal government backbench MLAs in trying to prove a negative that it is clear they don't even understand the legislation they're repealing. That does not bode well for their understanding of this bill.

The member for North Coast actually suggests that the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act was on the books to allow for B.C. Hydro to be privatized. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's thanks to the New Democrats that nothing could be further from the truth. During the debate in 1988 on the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, for the knowledge and benefit of the members of this House, it was the NDP official opposition that forced the bill to be amended so that we would have a section included in it, section 2, which states: "Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale of the authority's electrical division, nor any part of the authority's electrical division." It was the NDP, then, that had this provision included in this bill, and they did so because they wanted an unequivocal statement that B.C. Hydro was not for sale.

As a bit of political history, the Social Credit minister of the day that agreed to this NDP opposition amendment now has a building in Victoria named for his contribution to our province. The NDP member who ensured that the then government and any subsequent government could not sell off Hydro has since gone on to a very successful career in the private sector.

When one looks at the difference between section 2 of the act and section 2 of this bill, you can see just why, despite the protestations of the government of the day that it would never consider selling Hydro, it saw the wisdom of the opposition and included the statement "nothing authorizes the sale" in the legislation. This is how unequivocal the NDP was in opposition then; this is how unequivocal the NDP is now. Do you know what? It was also how unequivocal the NDP was when the NDP was in government.

Today we see in this bill that under this Liberal government the language has changed. The language in section 2 now reads: "…the authority must not sell…." Actually, for the knowledge and benefit of the members of this House, the authority has no ability to sell any of the so-called protected assets. Only the government can sell the assets, and we know how quickly this Liberal government can change its mind. They can turn on a dime, just like that. We saw that with the Accenture deal.

Legislation is needed to get rid of parts of B.C. Hydro. When it comes to flip-flops on the verifications of this government, there are no equals. We were assured that B.C. Rail will not be sold. The government bench campaigned in the last election with their New Era document, which clearly stated that B.C. Rail would not be sold, that B.C. Rail would not be privatized.

Do you know what? What we have seen since this Liberal government came into power is they sold off the administrative arm of B.C. Hydro's electrical division.

J. Kwan: Let's go through this. What did we get? Let's talk about B.C. Rail for one moment.

J. Kwan: The minister doth protest. He campaigned, after all, on the New Era document that says: "We will not privatize B.C. Rail; we will not sell B.C. Rail." What have we got? Maybe the minister doesn't understand the English language, because this government, right now, is attempting to sell off B.C. Rail. Make no mistake about it.

They claim B.C. Rail is not profitable. They claim B.C. Rail's debt ratio is too high. They claim B.C. Rail is not competitive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that B.C. Rail is competitive, it is profitable, and its debt ratio is comparable to its competitors — the same competitors who wanted to buy B.C. Rail.

So what do we get? B.C. Rail is on the way to the private sector, and the private company, Accenture, is running one-third of B.C. Hydro. It's this minister and this Liberal government that passed legislation to sell off B.C. Hydro, and one-third of B.C. Hydro is now being run by Accenture.

Then there's the other privatization aspect of this bill, the lifting of any restriction on how Terasen conducts its business. Again it's the same old story. The government says, "Don't worry, British Columbians. Terasen will remain in B.C. Don't worry; Terasen is not a candidate for a takeover like Westcoast Energy was. Don't worry about who sits on the board or who owns the shares." "Customers will be protected as well," we're told. "B.C. Rail will not be sold; don't worry."

Day by day we're losing control of our utilities. Telus can't deliver quality phone service. West Kootenay Power became Aquila and is now to be sold again, further removing it from the customers it serves. All new power generation will now come from the private sector, with its higher costs passed on to the consumers, further undermining our competitive advantage of low-cost electrical power.

Barely a day goes by that we don't hear from big business or members of this government about the need to make the profitable ICBC more competitive, but Liberal hacks masquerading as government relations consultants keep getting their way. Donors to the Liberal Party keep getting their way. The government keeps on rolling over to make sure it happens quickly.

As my colleague pointed out, the government does not need this bill. The Utilities Commission will insist that the cheap power from Hydro's existing facilities be blended with the higher costs of private power and that the blended rate be passed on to the consumers. It does not need the so-called protection of section 2 watered down. Existing legislation already prohibits the sale of B.C. Hydro, and the government has done a dismal job explaining why Terasen should no longer be required to be a B.C. company, protected for the benefit of B.C. consumers. Just a little bit of a history lesson.

If members want to know where the NDP stood then on B.C. Hydro and the privatization and selling of that authority when we were in official opposition and when we were in government, and where we stand now, then the government just needs to look at the legislation that was in place. It was unequivocal language that said that the authority must not be sold off — full stop, pure and simple.

No excuses from this government, where they're trying to sell off British Columbians' assets — here, left, right and centre — just selling it off, no matter what. They're making up their own excuses to justify their broken promises and their betrayal of British Columbians.

H. Bloy: It's an honour to be able to stand up here today and speak to the heritage contract and Bill 85. I just want to let the minister know that I'm fully supportive of this bill and all the work and energy that he has put into making this happen.

There has been a growing demand in this province over the last decade for new energy, and the NDP and the member that's just leaving didn't provide any energy services in this House.

J. Kwan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it has been two and a half years, and I know it's difficult for members of this House from the government bench to learn the rules of the House. It's the second time that I've stood up today on a point of order for this same member. Maybe he'll learn the rules of the House: that he's not allowed to talk about whether or not members are in the House. Maybe he'll learn that rule right now.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will say those are the rules of the House. It is not at this time for another member to notify whether there are members leaving the House or not. I think the member owes an apology to the member.

J. Kwan: It is high time for the members of this House to learn the rules….

J. Kwan: On the point of order. For the member to offer the apology in the way in which he offered it is challenging, in my view, the rules of the House once again.

H. Bloy: I don't know if you'll want me to sing it, but I will apologize to the member.

H. Bloy: As I was saying, the NDP provided no new energy sources in this province. The NDP provided…

H. Bloy: …no new energy sources to anyone in this province. There's no one….

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak again in front of my fellow colleagues.

We did have the NDP, who did not invest any money in hydroelectric power in British Columbia, but they invested in Pakistan. Many of my colleagues have spoken and went on and on about the errors of the NDP government over the past decade, and they have praised the minister with what they're doing now. But I find it hard when the last government could only invest in Pakistan, all for NDP members and insiders from around the world. You know, I find this disgusting.

We have Hands Off Hydro, Citizens for Public Power. We have many groups being supported by unions. We have been so eloquently presented to by the members for Chilliwack-Kent and for Surrey-Cloverdale about how these groups are formed by failed NDP candidates. Also, in my riding we have the people's republic of Burnaby. You know, unlike when our member for Surrey-Cloverdale talked about the Communist Party…. They write letters going on about privatizing B.C. Hydro. I don't know what part of that they don't understand, because I can tell you that I've written them letters explaining to them, point by point, why it's not privatized. In fact, I've offered to sit down and explain it to them in person so that they could understand that. They haven't taken me up on it yet. I don't know why.

I can tell you, I was at the UBCM this past September, and the Burnaby caucus sent letters to the mayor and council inviting them to come to meet with the Premier and cabinet members to talk about issues that concern the citizens of Burnaby. They must be really happy with our government, because they didn't make one appointment to meet with one person at the UBCM to talk about Hydro and all the other concerns they had which were not related to the citizens of Burnaby.

H. Bloy: It is unbelievable, because when we had the meeting, the four MLAs for Burnaby were there. They had all these questions not relating to the citizens of Burnaby, and they were going on.

I did ask them a question about the citizens of Burnaby when we had that meeting. I asked them a question about safety. We have a road called Gaglardi Way that goes from Lougheed Highway up to the university. That road was reconstructed by the city of Burnaby. There are 15 dangerous wet spots. The road was constructed, and the drainage is not right. I've written letters to Burnaby council. They've come back that they're looking into it. They've done some work on it, but it's not enough. I want them to be able to resolve this problem before there's a dangerous accident on Gaglardi Way.

As this bill goes through the House, we are going to pass this legislation for the benefit of all British Columbians. We have consulted widely. It's here for open debate for people.

I just want to quote one comment from the Minister of Energy and Mines: "This act fulfils a key cornerstone of the energy plan, ensuring that British Columbia residents benefit from the investments they have made in B.C. Hydro." The Minister of Energy and Mines said: "Under the heritage contract, British Columbians will continue to enjoy electricity rates that are among the lowest in North America. British Columbia has a growing demand for power, and there's been no significant new generation for almost 25 years. The heritage contract will lock in low-cost electricity rates while capitalizing on new private sector investments. The cost of new power will be blended with the cost of Hydro's heritage power."

Something that's going to happen in Burnaby that I've heard no word about is that through the incineration program in Burnaby, they're going to benefit from one of the green energy plans. Our policy of not privatizing B.C. Hydro, keeping it owned by the people of B.C. Hydro, will now allow the citizens of Burnaby to get a benefit from this through the green energy plan.

On behalf of the constituents of Burquitlam, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill 85.

G. Trumper: Probably the most correspondence I have had as an MLA — whether it's e-mail, personal letters or form letters, of which there have been many — is on B.C. Hydro. I want to reiterate at this time that B.C. Hydro is and will remain publicly owned. We made a commitment to keep core assets in public hands. The new act fulfils the plan to put in place a heritage contract to preserve the value of B.C.'s flexible, low-cost hydroelectric resources for all of B.C.

The contract will work so that the cost of the new power will be balanced with the low cost of the heritage power to keep electricity rates as low as possible for British Columbia. The cost of generating new power in B.C. will be higher than the cost of heritage power, whether B.C. Hydro or independent power producers produce it. The cost of heritage power is about 2.5 cents per megawatt, and the cost of new power is about 5.5 cents.

There's been a lot of discussion about B.C. Hydro and a lot of misinformation that goes around. I just want to talk about the things that I have had to go through in life, regarding hydro.

As some of you may recognize, I was not born in Canada. I am a Canadian by choice. I lived in London. I can tell you that electricity power is extremely expensive in Britain, as it is still today. In fact, when I was working in London, we had a machine that you put

what would probably be the equivalent of a dollar today, but it was a shilling….

G. Trumper: No, it was a shilling which we put in, and we had to hope that our guests who visited us in our little flat would bring the money to put in the machine so we could have the lights on and the heat. It was incredibly expensive. We also went through the time when power was so limited in Britain that you had one light bulb on. The room that you were in was where the lights were on. The rest of the house was completely dark.

That wasn't so long ago. I was back visiting my parents about 15 years ago. They were going through a very serious power shortage at that time, and they were going through that process as well. Today, if you go to Britain at this time of year…. As you all know, we're all putting lights up for the holidays and for Christmas, and our houses seem to have more lights than ever every year. If you go to Britain, you don't see those lights. There are very few lights because power is incredibly expensive.

I've always been amazed since I came to Canada — and I first of all came to the Peace River area — how cavalier we are about power in British Columbia and in Canada for that matter. I believe we use more power per individual than any other country in the world, the reason being that we have very cheap power. We don't have to think about it.

I was back in Alberta last week visiting family and was asking them what their costs for power were, and I can tell you it is a lot more than it is in British Columbia. When I first came to Canada, the first place I went to was a small town in northeastern Alberta where they were beginning to build the dams. It really was very interesting to go and drive out and see all the construction that was taking place and actually the opening of that country, because at that time you could still go by pack horse and go hunting, whereas after a while…. Now the roads are all through, and in fact, within about five years of much of that construction taking place, most places were accessible to four-wheel-drive vehicles.

I had never seen construction such as I saw when we drove in to look at the construction that was taking place and to see the huge hydro power that was going to be released for British Columbia. That is a huge, huge heritage project that we have been so fortunate to have in British Columbia.

One of the issues — as we go through and discuss the needs of power in whatever forms it comes from in British Columbia — is that there does seem to be an attitude today that when you're dealing with providing power, it's "not going to be in my back yard." I live on Vancouver Island, and we have a huge shortage of power. Last year we had brownouts in December at the holiday time. We have been told that by 2007, there will be a huge shortage of power — just to keep what is going now, let alone letting any other industry come onto Vancouver Island.

We've gone through proposals for cogeneration plants, particularly in the community that I live in and also in Nanaimo, which have been turned down. People don't want cogeneration plants in their neighbourhood. In fact, people on Vancouver Island would much rather that the power was produced somewhere else in British Columbia, out of sight and out of mind, as long as they can switch on the lights and can have the power for industry and to keep our economy going.

We are very fortunate, with what has just taken place, that we have these green projects which I think are certainly going to be of great value and will help particularly Vancouver Island in the direction that we are going. I just want to point out the projects that have been approved for Vancouver Island. We have the China Creek hydro project, which is going to be built near the city that I live in by the Hupacasath first nations and which is going to generate approximately 25 gigawatts of electricity per year. We have the Cypress Creek hydroelectric project, which is going to be located near Gold River. We have the Holberg wind energy project, which is going to be built way up on the north end of Vancouver Island. We have the Ucona River hydro project, which is also near Gold River, and also the Zeballos Lake hydro project. These are all green projects.

It's interesting to note that on Vancouver Island, which actually has been a battleground over the years for trying to balance the issue between industry and the environment, we have just celebrated ten years of a great issue that took place in Clayoquot Sound where, interestingly enough, Robert Kennedy Jr. came to visit to tell us who work in the resource-based industries that they did not want to have any further logging taking place on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I read with amusement just recently where they're wanting to put experimental wind towers in the ocean in front of where he has his property in the United States. This is an environmentalist who did not want to see any logging and didn't care whether people were put out of work and communities closed down on Vancouver Island. But when it comes to my back yard, he was protesting, and it was very interesting to see who was also protesting with him — some of the major companies who have financed some of the preservationist movement in British Columbia. It comes back again that so many people don't want to see something in my back yard.

We are very fortunate that we have these new projects that are going to take place not only on Vancouver Island but right through British Columbia. I think we all have to understand that when we are dealing with power in British Columbia, we cannot rely on great, large megaprojects anymore because people really don't want them. They don't want them near where they are. They're happy if they are somewhere else so that they get the power and they don't see the effects that it has.

I think many of us talk about sites up in the Peace River area that…. As I hear frequently on Vancouver Island: how about Site C? The reason they want to see things happen in Site C is because it's out of sight and out of mind. Consequently, we have to rethink how we are going to have power to keep our homes warm, to keep the economy going, to keep industry going. On Vancouver Island, as you well know, we have large industrial bases which use an incredible amount of power. It is encouraging to see that one of the companies, which is Norske, is certainly looking at how they can provide another source of energy not only for themselves but also for the Island.

We are faced with this issue because over the last 15 or 20 years or so, there have been no significant new sources of new power established in British Columbia. We need to have more power, but we also need to make sure that as we produce new power, we are also able to keep our rates at levels which are competitive, which makes us competitive with the province and with the United States, so that we can attract industry and development to the province. If we don't have industry and we don't have a rich economy, then we're not able to do all the other things people want, and we're not able to have a cushion to help those that really need the help when they desperately need it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this bill. It achieves a balance with what we have and with what will be taking place in the future with new power coming in. I look forward to seeing it add to the richness of this province and add to the ability for us to attract new business and new industry to this province, which I know will once again be number one.

S. Brice: I'm going to attempt to make comments on this bill. If the Speaker finds this sounds offensive to the House or hears from Hansard that it's incapable of picking up the words…. I will look to the Speaker for guidance.

This is another important piece of legislation, of course, coming from the Minister of Energy and Mines in conjunction with the B.C. energy plan. I compliment the minister again. I've stood in this House before and complimented the minister on the plan and on this very important aspect of the plan, Bill 85.

I've heard from colleagues this afternoon who have spoken, coming from other parts of the world and coming to this province where we still enjoy relatively inexpensive power. I had the fortune, I guess, of choosing the right parents or somehow or other ending up being a fourth-generation British Columbian — a fourth-generation Islander, actually — so I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill. I was born into the B.C. Hydro advantage, and I want to pass that advantage on to my kids and my grandchildren. Bill 85 is going to do that.

The BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act will ensure that to the very best of our ability under current circumstances, we can pass onto British Columbians who are coming after us the same advantage that was given to us.

As the member for Alberni-Qualicum pointed out, energy has injected a lot of interest from our constituents. Certainly, the Citizens for Public Power can lead you to sometimes think there's an overwhelming groundswell of interest in this issue from the public and demand that B.C. Hydro remain in public hands. Of course it will. B.C. Hydro is a public entity. It will remain a public entity. There is no interest and never was an interest by this government in selling B.C. Hydro.

The Citizens for Public Power with their e-mail tree — sending it out and coming with so many e-mails to us — can give you a sense that it is a widespread public interest agency. Of course it's not. It has roots with the NDP. It is a part of the NDP arm. It is financed by the NDP to give an appearance that somehow, without this body fighting to keep B.C. Hydro in public hands, it's at risk. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

It instils a fear in our public, a fear because energy is so important for our day-to-day use and also for the economic development of our province. By sending out this misinformation and telling lies about B.C. Hydro, the Citizens for Public Power are giving fear to people, needlessly giving fear. There is this gap between perception and reality, and that's why it's important that we take this time to keep reinforcing what the facts are.

The energy plan, which was introduced some months ago, has four key points: low electricity rates and public ownership of B.C. Hydro; secure, reliable supply; more public sector opportunities; and environmental responsibility. It's that first aspect, low electricity rates and public ownership of B.C. Hydro, that brings us to this debate today on Bill 85.

That is in the plan, and that is where Bill 85 becomes of interest to those who are following this discussion.

Why was the reform necessary? First, new energy supplies are necessary to meet the growing domestic demand and to take advantage of opportunities for

trade. Second, B.C. is becoming integrated — and that's to our great advantage — in a regional electricity market crossing provincial and international boundaries. Third, B.C. Hydro's administrative infrastructure, particularly its customer information systems, has become badly outdated. Fourth, the role of B.C. Utilities Commission in regulating electricity rates has been subverted by direct political interference. Prices were directly frozen by cabinet in 1996 and have not been changed since — definitely political interference in the whole business of delivering hydroelectric power to the citizens of British Columbia.

Much has been said in this House about why this is so vitally important. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made disparaging remarks, claiming this was unnecessary. The member could not see the value in this. The member made a point of underscoring that this was unnecessary legislation. I believe every British Columbian following this debate will be very pleased that this legislation will lock in that heritage rate. It will allow the balance between the very low-cost 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour from the existing infrastructure and the new production, which will come in at approximately five cents a kilowatt-hour, to be blended. We'll pass on to our kids the B.C. Hydro advantage.

As has been stated, the NDP talked and talked and talked about green energy. They never did a thing about it. As has been mentioned in this House by many presenters in this debate, green energy is finally becoming a reality. On Vancouver Island we're becoming the green capital, with five projects recently announced.

In conclusion, contrary to the claims of the critics, B.C. Hydro remains a provincial Crown corporation regulated by a strengthened BCUC and free from direct political manipulation. The dividend from its legacy assets on the Columbia and Peace is formally preserved in this heritage contract, and the restructuring provides strong incentives already bearing fruit to new low-cost generation and also protects regional and international trading opportunities. As part of a comprehensive energy policy, the reforms of B.C. Hydro will preserve and enhance its contribution to the development of this province. I take pride in standing and supporting Bill 85.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. I'd like to congratulate the member from Saanich for getting through her speech. She did a great job under difficult conditions.

I want to start by reading a couple of quotes from a letter that was sent to the Vancouver Sun in March of 2001 by one of my colleagues. I won't read the whole thing. I'll just read a few of the better parts of the letter.

That's just part of a letter that a gentleman by the name of Gordon Campbell sent to the Vancouver Sun before this government was elected in May of 2001. Everyone knows Mr. Campbell is Premier of the province and our boss. When you read that letter and see what his vision was for B.C. Hydro, you can tell that because of the efforts of the Premier and the efforts of the minister responsible, we're actually starting to put that vision into reality.

For over 25 years, prior to this government's coming along, B.C. Hydro developed virtually no new generation. What that meant was that we became a net importer of electricity. It meant that we became beholden, essentially, to our neighbours in Alberta, who, incidentally, generate a lot of their power with coal.

One of the parts of our policy around B.C. Hydro and the whole energy discussion that I like, being the member for East Kootenay and having five working coalmines there, is the fact that we now have the potential for businesses and entrepreneurs to go ahead and develop independent power projects and supply the new power that's required in this province so that the economy can go forward.

I've heard my colleagues refer to this, and I think it bears repeating: all of the new generation that was announced just recently — all $800 million of it — is green power. My colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson indicated that he was proud of that, and I'm also proud of that. I've stood in this House and touted the use of coal so many times that my colleagues always laugh whenever I mention the word. I'm not ashamed of that, because it's a very important part of my constituency. Nonetheless, I'm also extremely proud of the fact that we have given independent power producers, the entrepreneurs of the world, this opportunity to supply all of the new electricity that British Columbia requires instead of keeping all of that in the B.C. Hydro monopoly.

In the case of coal, which I want to say just a few words about, in the province of Alberta they generate well over 80 percent of their electricity from coal. It's thermal coal. In the United States they generate over 60

percent of their electricity with coal. The irony is — I mentioned this just a few minutes ago, and it's hard to believe that this has been going on for so many years — that this province actually buys electricity from the province of Alberta, which is generated with coal while we sit on some of the richest coal reserves in all of the world.

Now, that may make sense to the NDP. It probably does make sense to the NDP , given many of the things they have done over their ten years here in Victoria, but it doesn't make sense to the people of British Columbia. It certainly doesn't make sense to the people in the East Kootenays. We welcome this opportunity.

As it happens, the proponent for this coal-fired power plant in the Elk Valley, in my riding, happens to be coming to Victoria tomorrow, actually, to sit down and have a discussion with the Premier and the minister responsible. There is another corporate partner in the wings that's looking at getting involved in this project as well. The project could be anything from 150 megawatts up to 500 megawatts, or possibly even bigger. A 150 megawatt coal-fired plant would cost about $250 million to build, so a 500 megawatt plant is probably in the order of at least $500 million. There would be anywhere from 150 to 300 construction jobs involved over a three-year period — very good jobs, depending on the size of the plant — and anywhere between 60 to 100 full-time, high-paying jobs to operate this high-tech power plant after it's constructed.

This kind of an opportunity for my constituents and everyone else who would benefit from an uninterrupted source of electricity in British Columbia, especially in that part of British Columbia, could not happen without the energy policy of the province. And it could not happen had we not made the changes we've made around B.C. Hydro, including this piece of legislation.

I wanted to mention also — because this is an issue that's been on the minds of my constituents, obviously — that these people who call themselves the friends of public power were running around the last year and a half trying to scare people, telling them that this government was going to sell B.C. Hydro. Some people are a lot more trusting than us politicians, I think, and they listen to this, and they wonder if it's true. I think most people now know it's not true; however, it has worried lots people in my riding.

I'm happy to say to the people in my riding that not only are we not selling B.C. Hydro, but we've actually come up with a way through this legislation — and this is enabling legislation — and subsequent regulations and legislation to be passed that will guarantee a heritage rate for electricity for the people of British Columbia. That's exactly what the people wanted. That's what they asked us for, and that's what we're giving them. I certainly congratulate the minister for that part of it.

In closing, I am going to say just a couple of things about a former colleague of mine who once was in our B.C. Liberal caucus and who now stands up. It's the member for Prince George–Omineca. I was so disappointed, and I join with my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. I was so disappointed when he decided that he was going to make politics over this whole B.C. Hydro issue. Had he been a little more patient and a little more disciplined, he could have stuck with the team, and he could have found out himself, if he did have any doubts…. And I don't know if he really had any doubts or if this is just all politics. Had he kept his nose to the grindstone and worked hard to understand the information that was there and asked the questions in caucus that he had the opportunity to ask….

Quite frankly, I used to sit very close to him. I never saw him ask a question about B.C. Hydro the whole time that he and I were in caucus together. I don't know where he gets his information, and I really don't understand why he didn't ask questions about this. There were very good answers, as we can see today. There is no sale of B.C. Hydro.

I understand that he was very disappointed he wasn't elected as Speaker. He was very disappointed not to get a committee chair and very disappointed, I hear, to not be put into cabinet after the 2001 election. What I would say to that member is that if you work hard and you do a vigorous job of representing your constituents, you can be a very effective member of government. You can ask all the tough questions in caucus. You can go after whatever cabinet ministers you want to in their offices and in caucus without making a spectacle of yourself, and you can provide that kind of vigorous and even aggressive representation of your constituents. It's not necessary to make a fool of yourself, which is what I think this member has done. On that negative note, I am going to sit down and thank you for the opportunity.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this bill as well, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. This bill, as my colleagues have said, sets out to finally clear everybody's mind on what this government promised to do; what this government has committed dozens, hundreds of times to do; what this government continues to commit to doing. That is to protect B.C. Hydro's significant assets for the public, in public ownership for the future of the people of this province.

This is something that I have said publicly dozens of times. I know everyone in this House has said it publicly dozens of times, but I have said it in e-mail responses, in response to letters written to me. I have had the opportunity — I'll call it the opportunity because you could also say it has been the duty — to respond to this issue so many times that it is very frustrating for me.

I'm frustrated by the level of misinformation that has been put forward by the opposition on this issue. I'll say, let's face it, this is the opposition that's putting forward this information. Other members, including the member for Chilliwack-Kent, identified very clearly who the Citizens for Public Power are, and it frustrates me that a group that purports to be citizens standing

up for the public actually, in most cases, could easily be described as the mouthpiece for the opposition party.

The party that for years dragged this province down in an economic way and in very many other ways now is participating in the vicious spreading of blatant misinformation and worse. The fearmongering by that group and by others related to this issue…. People that I respect in my community, who I have always respected — members of the NDP party who I always believed intended to be upfront and honest with the people of my riding and the people of British Columbia — have said things that I have to think they must know are not true. They must know they're not true.

Over and over again we have said that B.C. Hydro's assets are not for sale. B.C. Hydro is not for sale. We will protect B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro will remain in public hands for generations to come to serve the people of British Columbia.

I have heard lots of other things since I've been elected, and I've actually kept a small list of some of the outrageous things that I've heard we were going to do. Among the things I've heard we're going to do is that we're going to close UBC and SFU. We're going to close them both. When I got the e-mail about that one, I was a little astounded because I hadn't heard that we were going to close down SFU and UBC, so it came as a surprise to me.

As with most of them, I checked it out, and it turned out that the information was false. I also heard that we're going to be selling Mount Baker. Now, that one came as a little bit of a surprise to me because when I look on my map, we don't own Mount Baker. It's down in the States. I'll tell you, though, it piqued my interest. I thought: well, maybe we should try to sell it. If someone's willing to buy it from us, we'll put it on eBay, and maybe someone will be willing to buy it from us. That will be great.

R. Stewart: Well, actually, with me having mentioned it in the House, it will probably be in an e-mail tomorrow: "I can't believe you're suggesting we're going to sell Mount Baker." It wasn't me who suggested it. It was someone else. I wrote back to them and said to them that, no, actually, we aren't going to be putting Mount Baker on the market. We'll probably be leaving it where it is, in the United States, but if we could figure out how to sell it, we would try to figure out….

Deputy Speaker: I imagine, member, this will head toward Bill 85 in the end.

R. Stewart: I can't believe the Speaker doesn't recognize the connection, but I'll try to make it more clear.

In any case, as we went down this list of things that I'd heard we were going to do or that people had accused us of planning to do, I recognized that there is a concerted effort out there to misinform the public and to scare the public into thinking that this government cares not one bit about the people and the children of British Columbia. This act cares greatly about the children of British Columbia, the people that the last government completely ignored. The young people of British Columbia…. The last government broke open their piggy banks, took the money from them in order to fund programs that the last government couldn't afford and the public couldn't afford.

This bill sets forth that B.C. Hydro will remain from this day forward in public hands for the benefit of people of British Columbia, and I'm very proud to stand and support it. I'm also proud of the fact that our energy policy is moving in a direction that I think the public should be praising. The public, if they understood it and if they could get beyond the enormous amount of misinformation that's out there, would stand and shout accolades about our energy policy, some of which is contained in this very bill.

I am pleased that all recently announced new generation has been green energy, and that's something that I think the public doesn't know yet, because good news very seldom finds its way into those e-mails that get spread around or, for that matter, on to the front page. I think we have to stand up more often and speak about the good news associated with B.C. Hydro, the good news associated with our energy systems in this province and the good news that is Bill 85. I rise to support it today, as I know my colleagues will, and I thank you very much.

D. Chutter: I, too, am pleased to speak in support of Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. The reason I am pleased is that once again this government is fulfilling commitments made to the people of British Columbia. The commitment fulfilled is simply this: B.C. Hydro's core assets will not be sold. Ownership of B.C. Hydro will continue to remain with the public, and electricity rates will remain among the lowest in North America. Along with the fact that B.C. Hydro will not be sold and rates will remain low, we are also committed to a secure and reliable supply of energy, more private sector opportunities and environmental responsibility, which includes no nuclear generation in B.C.

The people of B.C. own B.C. Hydro, and Bill 85 ensures that the people of B.C. benefit from their investment. As well, Bill 85, the heritage contract, will lock in the value of existing low-cost generation assets for British Columbians for an extended period of time. There will no longer be an argument about ownership of B.C. Hydro, because the fact is this: under the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, B.C. Hydro's electrical division assets cannot be sold — period. Now, to allow for the day-to-day business to continue in the interest of British Columbians,

the independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission, has the authority to approve facility disposition or decommissioning. Maintenance and upgrades of facilities is good business. For the B.C. Utilities Commission to fulfil their mandate to ensure electricity rates are fair, just and reasonable, and in the best interest of British Columbians, good business practices will continue.

The heritage contract refers to our promise to preserve the value of B.C.'s flexible, low-cost hydroelectric resources. The way this will work is that the cost of new power will be offset by the low cost of heritage power to keep rates as low as possible for British Columbians. It is obvious that the cost of generating new power will be higher than generating old power, no matter who produces it, but the higher cost of this new power will be balanced with the lower-cost heritage power to result in rates as low as possible.

The good news to the people in my riding with respect to new power generation opportunities to supply power to B.C. Hydro is that the private sector is very active in Yale-Lillooet. Three approved green energy, independent power projects are in the planning stage in my riding. These projects were selected because they offer the lowest-cost energy while minimizing the impact to the environment. Two of the projects are located near Hope, and both are to be built by Princeton Energy. Berkey Creek is a 1.5-megawatt facility, and Hunter Creek is a 2.4-megawatt facility. The third project is located near Boston Bar and is referred to as Spuzzum Creek, a 29-megawatt project. These new power generation projects will continue to ensure that future power requirements are met and that generation is as environmentally friendly as possible.

Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, is great news for British Columbians, ensuring public ownership of B.C. Hydro and low rates for power. For these reasons I fully support Bill 85.

J. Les: It's a delight for me, frankly, to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. For starters, this fulfils a commitment we made never to sell the core assets of British Columbia. We are locking that in legislation and making it abundantly clear that these assets are not for sale and that for as long as this legislation remains on the books — as long as our government is in place, they will be for at least all of that period of time — those assets are going to be held by the public. They're going to be preserved in public ownership for the benefit of the residents of British Columbia.

There's been a lot of cynicism sown about the province in the last number of months about government's intentions, and as other members have already pointed out, there's certainly a lot of misinformation out there. Just in the interests of clarity, I'd like to read the list of facilities that are included within this legislation. These facilities are all going to be maintained in public hands for the period going forward.

These facilities are the following: Aberfeldie, Alouette, Ash River, Bridge River, Buntzen/Coquitlam, Burrard Thermal, Cheakamus, Clowhom, Duncan, Elko, Falls River, Fort Nelson, G.M. Shrum, Hugh Keenleyside Dam, John Hart, Jordan, Kootenay Canal, La Joie, Ladore, Mica, Peace Canyon, Prince Rupert, Puntledge, Revelstoke, Ruskin, Seton, Seven Mile, Shuswap, Spillimacheen, Stave Falls, Strathcona, Wahleach, Walter Hardman and Whatshan.

These are all of the facilities specifically included in Bill 85 that will remain in public ownership. I'm not sure how much more definitive our government can be in making it clear exactly which facilities are included and will remain in public hands.

Now, I've heard several references to the B.C. Citizens for Public Power this afternoon and the fact that they are nothing more than an NDP farm team, but they certainly have been very active in spreading misinformation around the province. More recently, they are fundraising in relation to this as well. They're trying to jack up people's misapprehensions and anxieties, building it all up toward a fundraising campaign, and they say they are going to launch a class action lawsuit.

I would hope that all British Columbians would look at this with a high degree of skepticism, as this certainly is nothing new. We've seen environmental groups for many years using these kinds of anxiety campaigns as a wonderful vehicle to raise funds and then, of course, put them towards other uses. I think that after this bill has passed, British Columbians will be convinced that this legislation fulfils our commitment to retain the assets of B.C. Hydro in public ownership.

Frankly, the NDP farm team, the B.C. Citizens for Public Power, can turn their attention to other issues, because this simply will not be an issue any longer. The assets of B.C. Hydro, as we've known them for many, many years — ever since they were assembled and built upon by W.A.C. Bennett — will be safe. They will be secure, and they will continue to contribute to the B.C. advantage that is inherent in the ownership and operation of these assets.

That advantage is not to be taken lightly. Our neighbouring province to the east, Alberta, has talked about the Alberta advantage for quite a number of years. Indeed, Alberta has its own advantages that underlie their economy. We in British Columbia have this enormous resource, this hydro power resource for the most part, that is very cheap to operate and allows us to operate a power utility in a way that other power utilities cannot.

Water behind the dams is a great way to store electrical power. Many other jurisdictions do not have this ability, and it is almost unique to British Columbia and other jurisdictions such as Quebec. In the Pacific Northwest and in western Canada, at least up to Manitoba, this is a unique ability we have. It is, in the future — as it has in the past — going to be able to help us attract new businesses to British Columbia that rely on predictable power supplies at a reasonable price.

The hydro power-generating assets we have in British Columbia have been in place for many, many years, and the capital cost of replacing them today would be many times higher than what they historically were. Although under the previous government the debts of the B.C. Hydro power utility were allowed to be run up, under the more responsible and reasonable management of our government, I am sure we'll be able to get that down over time, again contributing towards our ability to provide fair and realistic and low power rates to the power users of British Columbia.

We've already seen the major advantages of the reorganization we've undertaken with B.C. Hydro restructuring. We've now created the B.C. Transmission Corporation to wheel power between different areas of the province and from the province to other jurisdictions that would like to buy our power. The independent power production community has certainly seen the wisdom of what we have done. They have come to the table in response to a recent proposal call by B.C. Hydro and very enthusiastically proposed about $800 million worth of power production facilities. These will move forward in the next short while to the contract stage. B.C. Hydro will sign contracts with these independent power producers and bring those new sources of power on line to be part of the power production inventory of the province. One of the beneficial aspects of this is that the power sources in British Columbia will become more distributed and, therefore, build in a greater degree of inherent reliability of the system.

I think this is an extremely healthy trend that we observe, and there is no doubt that the private sector, on a competitive basis, is prepared to come forward with a lot of additional power supply proposals. In essence what we have here in British Columbia is the best of both worlds. We have about 8,000 or 9,000 megawatts worth of electrical generation capacity, most of it generated by hydroelectric dams — supplemented on an as-we-need-it basis in the future — going forward by private sector sources, which, by the way, also seem to be developing in terms of very environmentally friendly power sources as well. Previous speakers have already outlined what some of those sources are.

We've got the best of the public sector; we've got the best of the private sector. In terms of the public sector contribution, it's now going to be locked in legislation that these assets will remain in public ownership. B.C. Hydro has been a huge asset to the province in the past, as well as being the same in the future. It was rather sad, in the decade of the nineties, to watch the steady deterioration of B.C. Hydro.

It has been said previously, and I will repeat it once more, that the only capital project undertaken by B.C. Hydro under the stewardship of the NDP government was a power plant in Pakistan. To this day, I have never been able to understand at all what the logic was behind that investment, and of course, we lost all of that money. Some of the dealings that went on there, I think, have never been properly scrutinized, at least not in any way that I have been able to draw any reasonable conclusions. In any event, that was the only major capital initiative undertaken by B.C. Hydro as it was then manipulated by the NDP government.

We have a looming power supply shortage on Vancouver Island, and only now are we able to get a handle on the situation to ensure that brownouts are not going to be part of the future of Vancouver Island. It is, again, regrettable that the previous government took no concrete realistic steps to ensure that power supplies would be secured for Vancouver Island in a reasonable way. I'm looking forward to the proposals coming forward in the next six months so that residents and businesses on Vancouver Island can be assured that their power supply will be there for them when they need it as we move forward in the future.

We have a deteriorating transmission asset, as well, in B.C. Hydro. Again, the previous government failed to invest in B.C. Hydro in terms of its transmission assets as well. Everybody understands that with those kinds of assets strung out all over the province, as they necessarily are, proper investment needs to be undertaken from time to time to maintain those assets. We're going to have to invest extra money going forward to ensure that those assets are brought back up into reasonable condition.

All of that, of course, will be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission as B.C. Hydro makes application for rate increases in the years ahead. Rate increases, of course, will always be unpopular, but I believe that every British Columbian understands that a utility like this encounters increased costs as time goes on. The cost of doing business in any undertaking is always in the upward direction. Thankfully, we don't have the same inflationary pressures we had in the 1980s, for example, but the fact of the matter is that cost increases today are still in the range of 2 percent or 3 percent.

What has happened with B.C. Hydro, however, is that there was a rate freeze in effect under the previous government, and that has been very detrimental to the business of B.C. Hydro. That was simply an artificial freeze. It had nothing to do with economic realities. It was simply political manipulation for a hoped-for political gain. Thankfully and ultimately, that political game never panned out, but we still are left today with having to sort out the economic damage that occurred to B.C. Hydro as a result of that political manipulation.

One of the commitments our government made in the election of 2001 was that we would re-regulate B.C. Hydro, and that has been done. B.C. Hydro is now fully under the supervision of the B.C. Utilities Commission, and the B.C. Utilities Commission will have to approve any proposed rate increases B.C. Hydro might propose. Those discussions are now just starting between B.C. Hydro and the Utilities Commission, and we will be, I'm sure, interested in following that discussion.

The B.C. Utilities Commission will take all factors into consideration and will have to justify the rate-increase requests B.C. Hydro might put forward. I think British Columbians can be assured that the days

of political manipulation by government of this extremely important utility are over, that the utility remains in public hands and that it will be run on businesslike principles and not off the back of a political envelope.

In summary, I want to underline again and emphasize again that what this bill does is fulfil a commitment of our government that the assets of B.C. Hydro would remain in public ownership. It ensures that we will be able to maintain the B.C. advantage in power pricing in the years ahead. It, frankly, puts the lie to the misinformation campaign that has been going on for some months now about the intentions of this government to privatize B.C. Hydro.

I think it goes without saying that Bill 85 is a tremendous piece of legislation that will be looked upon in the future as having been a significant turning point in restoring economic health to the power supply industry in British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: I rise with pleasure, as well, to speak to Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act of 2003. I'm going to make a few comments on this new bill. Actually, I'm feeling really old tonight.

D. Jarvis: I know I'm looking old too, but it was actually about 44 years ago that I was sitting in that visitors gallery when the then Socred government under W.A.C. Bennett was putting through a bill to take over B.C. Electric. I sat there for about four hours and listened to the Socreds and the CCF/NDP over on that side of the House arguing about the fact that…. It was under Strachan, I believe, at that time. He was the Leader of the Opposition. I listened to them talk.

You know, the irony was that we had our godless socialist party over here, which didn't believe in free enterprise, supporting independent power — B.C. Electric — and this free enterprise party on this side of the House, being the Social Credit Party, was now doing a socialist act by taking over a private company. The irony was that the world is changing, and here we are again sitting in the House some 44 or 45 years later with the B.C. Liberal Party still saying that it's the best thing for British Columbia to maintain a public power, whereas the NDP across the floor are saying that we are doing bad things and that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing.

This is the bill that actually introduces the legislation that creates the regulatory framework to establish that B.C. Hydro will not be sold. This is the bill that will secure public ownership. This is the bill that will retain public ownership of British Columbia Hydro and provide low-cost electrical generation assets. This is the bill that secures that B.C. Hydro electric division assets cannot be sold.

This bill also puts a heritage contract in place to preserve our low-cost power. We have old power, which is the dams that were created through the Bennett regime years ago, versus what we're going to have now — asking for additional new power to come through under the IPPs and environmental power to come through. This is what this bill is calling for: power for the citizens of this province at a cost of somewhere around 2.5 cents per megawatt.

I wish I could say all our power will remain the same, but it can't and it won't. For almost 25 years now, we've had no new power generation in this province. No new power really has been created other than what the member mentioned a minute ago about Raiwind in Pakistan.

I can remember, during estimates of '93-94, asking the minister in charge of Hydro, who later became Premier — Mr. Clark — why the government had bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. He said, "Oh, that's a very good question," and talked for about 15 minutes around the subject but never came out with an answer. So we knew at that time there was truth to the thought that they were doing something that was amiss and building something in Pakistan, and it was providing a little bit of a benefit to many of the people who were associated with the organization at that time.

There really hasn't been any new power whatsoever created in British Columbia, and yet industry grew in this province. Now our population has grown to such a point — almost doubled over that period of time. No government really saw fit that we needed to put more power, new power, into the system. Not only that, the previous government failed this province in not producing new power and also neglected to do any really proper maintenance to keep the aging infrastructure up to par.

B.C. Hydro made a lot of money, so why didn't the previous government build new electrical systems or keep the repairs to the existing systems? Why? Well, they were basically bankrupt of any new ideas and forward-thinking, and they needed money during the nineties to run their system of welfare subsidies and failed ideas like B.C. Ferries and the Grand Cayman–Pakistan debacle — and on and on — so they robbed British Columbia Hydro, the star of our Crown corporations. They robbed British Columbians of their future, and they used B.C. Hydro as their cash cow.

Hydro's debt went up as they used the surplus dollars for their failed programs not just one year but also every year that they were in government. During all that time, B.C. went from the number one province in Canada to the number ten spot. The previous government — that socialist government, we mustn't forget — ignored the concept of free enterprise, free business, and destroyed British Columbia as a viable economic player in this country as we went from number one to number ten.

In 2001, in our New Era document, we said we would turn this province around, and part of this was securing low-cost power to this province for our industry and the people that live in it. We would secure publicly owned power, and this is what this bill, Bill 85, has done. It has secured that we will have public power in British Columbia for years to come.

How do we do this if the province's power infrastructure is in such an aging condition? Well, we have to secure and build new generation, both independent and public power, and this is what this bill calls for. Now, there's no question that we could provide cheaper power, but that would also result in building more dams and nuclear power. We can build cheap power through those aspects of it, but the public does not want more dams built.

It may happen down the years that we have to build a dam as our population and our industry increase, but we certainly don't want nuclear power, which is cheap power. They want clean power, and that's where the independent power producers are coming in. We've asked them to go out to look at building power systems that we can put onto the grid in this province, whether it be wind or water. They are looking into it, and that's where we get into the private end of it. The private end of it is more than pleased and has been wanting to get into the electric producing business for years. They feel they can do it as efficiently, if not more so, as government can do it.

There's insufficient power at this time to satisfy the increasing populations and the increase in business. We know that. How do we balance the demand when our supply has been held back due to the previous government's lack of business acumen? This bill, Bill 85, will ensure a rebuilding of British Columbia. Power is the mainstay of a developing province, and that's what we want British Columbia to become again. Secure, uninterruptible power is necessary to have a developing province with industry moving as it used to.

B.C. Hydro was, as I said, started by the Socreds some 45 years ago. During that time, when we started to put a new power system into British Columbia and expand it, business was good. That's where we are today, ostensibly because of that.

This bill is the pivotal point in the restructuring stream of our pro-business and forward-thinking economic measures that are rebuilding this province. It's part of the design to get the economic indicators and this province moving again. As I said, we were number ten in Canada just over a decade ago, and through a lack of understanding or business acumen, this province had a catastrophe with the government we had, and we went from number one to number ten in Canada.

This bill is part of the design to get the economic indicators and this province moving again. Industry is the greatest user of power in this province, and in order to encourage industry to come to British Columbia, we have to provide them with uninterruptible power. For example, Highland Valley Copper Corp. up in central B.C. — well, almost central; the Minister of Energy wouldn't think that — uses millions and millions of dollars of electrical power per year. Right in my own constituency there are Canadian Occidental and Sterling Pulp Chemicals, two firms that employ a lot of people on the North Shore. They use so much power that we could light every house and every business from Deep Cove all the way up to Whistler.

The cost of doing business in British Columbia is high, and electricity is one of the highest things in that cost factor. We have a duty on us, if we want to encourage businesses to come to this province, to provide them with reasonably cheap power. We're not going to fail these companies or the workers they employ.

I stated earlier that 2.5 cents was the base. As new power comes on, it will be blended and balanced with the heritage costs in order to keep the public rates as low as possible for British Columbians. The signal in this bill is that there are going to be low rates in this province. Rates have been frozen for the last decade, but the need for new power is necessary. That means we have to pay for new power. At today's costs, though, we will take that cost — say 5 or 6 cents — and blend it with the price that we are now using from the dams and transmission lines that were built and paid for as many as 25-plus years ago by the citizens of this province.

It is quite simple, and it is logical, but it's perhaps too far out for our socialist friends to really understand, as they keep saying that we're trying to sell out B.C. Hydro to the private enterprise. They would like us to continue with the freeze but still build new power sources regardless of their cost and just increase the debt and taxes. We now pay over $7 million in this province every day of the year in interest on our debt to the U.S. banks — every day of the year — and the NDP still feel that's a good way of doing business — just pile up the debt and make our children and our grandchildren pay for it. It's quite obvious that that was their attitude, because they never did come up with any other good revenue ideas in this province except for maybe…. Well, there's the fast ferries. They tried investment there, and they lost about $600 million. Skeena Cellulose — I think they lost anywhere from $400 million to $500 million on that. On and on, this previous government, with a lack of proper business acumen, spent the taxpayers' money and put us further into debt. Now we want to change that. We want to increase the population of this province. We want people to come to B.C. We want industry in this province to provide good jobs. In order to do so, we certainly need that good power.

There was a choice by British Columbians a couple of years ago, and they voted overwhelmingly not to bring back the previous government — not to go with the NDP. But this group of people, the NDP, still hold on to a rather antiquated philosophy, and we still are seeing this attitude today in the guise of B.C. Citizens for Public Power. Even the opposition member over here from Omineca supports the Citizens for Public

Power, people like Ms. Cohen who feel that we are going to sell B.C. Hydro. Yet when the word got out that we really weren't going to sell it, she quickly dived out of that sort of advocacy group, and we have not heard from her lately. The reason is quite evident. She knew that she was wrong all the time. But they kept on saying and the member from Omineca said, when asked what this bill was all about, that we were using weaselly words and they know we're going to sell B.C. Hydro. Well, what he's talking about has turned out to be and will be utter nonsense. Regardless of what they say or print, these naysayers are nothing but false messengers and out to scare the public, out of their own self-interest. We said in November 2002 that British Columbia Hydro was not going to be sold. It has not been sold, and it's not going to be for sale.

This bill, without question, ensures that this government has committed to this province to retain low-cost electricity rates for industry and for the people of British Columbia. Rates in this province that have been enjoyed over the past half-century have been rather low, and we are not prepared to abandon B.C. Hydro just for the sake of bringing money into the coffers, as the previous government did.

B.C. Hydro is going to stay as a public company. I say to those purveyors of false messages out there: it's time to give up. As an old friend of mine that just passed away the other day said: "Chill out." It's something they've got to get over. I hope they realize that this bill, Bill 85, is ensuring that we're going to have secure power through a publicly owned B.C. Hydro and they won't start putting more false words or messages or conspiracies into what we're saying in the bill.

It makes me sort of laugh when I think that every time the members from the opposition get up, they seem to change all the words to the way they want to think, as though we are the big conspirators over here and we're out to get everyone in this province. We are the same as they are in the sense that our duty is that we are elected people, and we are here to make sure that the benefits of this province go back to the people in this province.

I would ask why we would even want to disband the star Crown corp of this province. I say to them to try to understand the logic before them. It's clear, and it's very concise. B.C. Hydro is not going anywhere. It's going to remain here in British Columbia as our Crown corporation.

Just before I sum up, I want to reiterate some specific facts on Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. With Bill 85, the government has introduced enabling legislation — and that is what this is — to create a regulatory framework needed to establish the BC Hydro Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. The heritage contract will essentially lock in the value of the existing low-cost generation assets for British Columbia for an extended period. In December, B.C. Hydro is expected to submit a revenue requirement and a rate application to the Utilities Commission. The heritage contract will form an integral part of B.C. Hydro's application and the future business they're going to do in British Columbia.

It's clear as mud. No, that's the wrong expression to make, isn't it? Pardon me. Maybe I can retract that. It's very clear before them. It may be mud to the opposition as they try to struggle through it. B.C. Hydro is not going anywhere. It remains here in British Columbia as a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill and close by saying that at the day's end, Bill 85 is about protecting B.C. assets, and that will be good for the regrowth of this province.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 85, the Minister of Energy and Mines closes debate.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me to close debate on Bill 85, the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. We've listened intently to a lot of different positions about this bill. We've heard positions from a few members of the House that tend to want to scare the public, that want to actually refer the public to some kind of ulterior motive by this government to do something different than what it says it's doing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a wonderful system in the province of British Columbia. We have a system called B.C. Hydro. It has actually provided reasonable, very cheap electricity for the residents of British Columbia for many years and will continue for many years into the future to provide low-cost energy to the people of the province.

Now, you know quite well that I live in the Peace River country. The largest single dam in the whole system is located in the Peace River country. It is the backup to the whole system. There's a huge lake behind the W.A.C. Bennett Dam that actually maintains the whole system as an integral, well-run electrical system. We then go to the Columbia, where there are a number of dams. There are two in the Peace and quite a number of dams on the Columbia system that generate electricity for the province of British Columbia, all feeding mostly into the lower mainland and having connections both into Alberta and into the Pacific Northwest.

We have had those connections for as long as we can remember and have, with the system we have, been able to trade electricity. That means, with the wonderful system of dams we have, they can store energy — electricity — in the form of water in the dams during the nighttime and the middle of the day, actually release some water early in the morning and late at night when the peak is up, and sell it south of the border or into Alberta, and import back electricity during the nighttime.

It's a wonderful system that's been designed. In fact, I'm thankful for the people who stood in this House and debated that very thing, as the member just talked about — so many years ago when B.C. Hydro was created. People across this province respect and

love B.C. Hydro. They want B.C. Hydro to continue to deliver the cheap electricity that it has well into the future.

To do that, we had to do a number of things. The world has changed in the last ten years, and it actually has changed dramatically since 2001 for the better in the province of British Columbia. But the world has changed. No generation was actually built in British Columbia since the mid- to late eighties. That's a long time. So we did have a huge surplus of electricity, but slowly, as our province grows, as more people move here and hook up to electricity, as more industry comes here and starts consuming electricity, the surplus we have reduces a whole lot.

With the change in the snowfalls and the rain in both the Columbia and the Peace system, they certainly have a dramatic effect on how much electricity B.C. Hydro can produce in any given year. The person or whoever it is upstairs that actually figures out whether or not we should have rain or snow plays a huge part in whether we're self-sufficient or whether we're net importers.

We need to have an integrated system that works well for all British Columbians. We need to have a system that continues to have postage-stamp rates across this great province of ours so that we can continue to encourage people to live here, to come here, to want to live here because the rates are low — people who want to come here with their industries and invest their money in this great province, looking forward and creating the jobs that are needed by the private sector so that we can all continue to receive those great services that we continually ask for on a daily basis. That's good education and great health care.

To do that, we need some economic growth. What we've done after lots of consultation, across the province…. I want to tell you it is an awful lot of consultation from the time we were elected until the fall of 2002, when we released our energy plan. I was proud to release that energy plan, because we had consulted with British Columbians on a broad basis in developing the plan and looking forward that next ten or 20 years into the future and even further with this great asset we have called B.C. Hydro. In fact, the energy plan has four cornerstones: low electricity rates and public ownership. That means exactly, if you go to the dictionary, what it says: low electricity rates and public ownership.

We do want to move forward with that. We also want to move forward with a secure, reliable supply, because energy is not just electricity in the province. It encompasses coal, as the member from the Kootenays talked about. It encompasses oil and natural gas, coalbed methane and a whole host of energy sources that we use in our everyday lives along with electricity, regardless of who we are, what party we're affiliated with or what group we try to represent. We need those services on a daily basis in this province if we're going to survive. They are the bare bones that we need to create the jobs in this great province.

We wanted more private sector opportunities. We wanted more private sector opportunities in the oil and gas industry, in the coalbed methane industry, in the coal industry and in the electrical industry. We wanted to encourage those that wanted to go out there and build projects across this province. You heard lots of members talk about it — $800 million worth of clean energy projects signed up by B.C. Hydro just recently to provide energy into the grid for British Columbians.

I think it's super-good news and says that the process that we went through in developing an energy plan in the province is actually working. It's actually working because people feel confident. Industry feels confident that they can actually invest in the province, actually receive a profit — there's nothing wrong with that — and provide well-needed energy for people who live in British Columbia.

We didn't shirk on our environmental responsibility either. Not one bit did we shirk. Under the previous administration, it was 10 percent of the incremental supply that they required B.C. Hydro to get from clean sources. We moved that. We moved that goalpost way out there, and we said: "What we want you to do, B.C. Hydro, is that over time you get to at least 50 percent of incremental supply from clean sources for the province of British Columbia." We're moving in that direction. We're moving well in that direction. As I just said, the $800 million of contracts that were just signed are representative of that.

Under this administration, we've actually been trying to have new generation in this province, unlike the last administration, who didn't do anything about generation while they were in government. All they did was take money out of the Crown corporation. They never put anything back into it to maintain it the way it should be maintained to actually build generation. In fact, they were very happy in building generation in other countries. They were actually quite happy to instruct B.C. Hydro to break the law and go and invest in other countries. B.C. Hydro can't do that. But the last administration didn't wince one bit to tell them to do that. That didn't do one thing for generation of electricity on Vancouver Island.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, it's interesting. The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I know where the Kootenays are or if I know where the Peace River is. I live in the Peace, and I've been to the Kootenays more times than she ever has been or probably ever will be.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair: we do have a system, and we do have an energy plan that this Premier envisioned in this province to take us out there the next ten or 20 years — an energy plan that will

build on the private sector, will build on government ownership of B.C. Hydro and will build on low electricity rates and public ownership of B.C. Hydro well into the future.

This bill is fairly short. It's interesting. It's six sections, including the transitional section. I want to read into the record around some of the debate about what this bill is doing. In the definitions, section 1: "protected assets" — we actually say protected assets — "(a) those generation and storage assets identified in the Schedule to this Act."

We put in the act a schedule that lists the generation and storage assets commonly known as the following: Aberfeldie, Alouette, Ash River, Bridge River, Buntzen/Coquitlam, Burrard Thermal, Cheakamus, Clowhom, Duncan, Elko, Falls River, Fort Nelson, G.M. Shrum, Hugh Keenleyside, John Hart, Jordan, Kootenay Canal, La Joie, Ladore, Mica, Peace Canyon, Prince Rupert, Puntledge, Revelstoke, Ruskin, Seton, Seven Mile, Shuswap, Spillimacheen, Stave Falls, Strathcona, Wahleach, Walter Hardman and Whatshan. We listed them in a schedule to the act.

Secondly, subsection (b) says: "equipment or facilities for transmission or distribution of electricity…." That's what we've said are protected assets. Let me read to you out of the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act that we're actually getting rid of, which the members opposite talked so highly of — how it protected the assets of B.C. Hydro. Let me read you the one sentence that was in that act, and it's section 2. It says: "Electrical division not for sale." That's how it's titled. "Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale of the authority's electrical division, nor any part of the authority's electrical division." That's it. There's no schedule. There's no nothing — nothing at all. I think that under this description, this protects the assets of B.C. Hydro and the assets we have said would be protected — its dams and transmission and distribution — forever, well into the future. I want to assure the public and all those out there who are being told things that aren't quite true that B.C. Hydro is not for sale.

The Leader of the Opposition can continue to say it's for sale, but it is not for sale. She should read that in her dictionary. It would probably be the same dictionary I have, and it clearly says this in Bill 85.

With those few short remarks about the wonderful system that we have in the province and that this Premier is taking forward in development for the benefit of all British Columbians well into the future, I move second reading.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract 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.

J. Bray: I'm definitely pleased to be able to rise this evening in support of Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. It's interesting, having heard the Leader of the Opposition speak on issues like this. As I open my comments, it strikes me that one of the reasons why the members of the opposition across don't have a lot to say about this in specifics is because, in fact, they are realizing that as a government we con-

tinue to put forward our service plans, our three-year planning model, and then we actually work on implementing that model.

I think, from their perspective, from a legislative debating standpoint, they find it quite difficult because, of course, they were used to doing policy by press release and policy by panic. Therefore, the debates they could have were interesting on both sides of the House because policies and legislation came up out of nowhere and didn't seem to have much of a coordinated approach or much of a plan in place, and therefore it meant lively debate.

If I might, as I narrow in on Bill 75, I want to remind the members of the opposition that as we introduce pieces of legislation like Bill 75, we've been signalling these types of issues for a long time. We've been talking about them for a long time, and in fact we've been letting the public know about how we're proceeding.

I'd be pleased to provide the members of the opposition with a copy of this. If they don't have it, they should. It's available on the Web….

I'd be happy to provide the members of the opposition with a copy of this. For their edification, I want to cover a few things, because they'll understand where Bill 75 comes from if they just take a look at the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise service plan. It actually lays out the genesis for acts like this.

I'm going to start with the ministry overview. I'd like to read into the record the very first paragraph: "The Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise is the primary provincial agency responsible for initiatives and programs dedicated to creating a strong provincial economy in British Columbia. Activities within the ministry are focused on building a competitive business environment, which gives the private sector the confidence to invest, generate opportunity and create jobs throughout British Columbia."

What always amazes me is that everything the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise does actually falls out of that first paragraph. I wonder why the members of the opposition stand up and are so critical of things on a very narrow focus. What I realize is that to some extent, their constituency diminishes the more successful the provincial economy is. Those that they want to attract to their party are those that somehow feel that government must always provide for them.

When this government continues to improve on its record of creating jobs, bringing investment and people back into this province, it actually weakens their political position. The arguments that the members of the opposition provide in this House, like on Bill 75, are actually political arguments rather than substantive arguments on any issues in the bill.

It sort of occurred to me in listening to the Leader of the Opposition that that's actually the concern. In fact, if we are able to attract large projects here with large capital investment, which are going to employ hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people, that actually is good for the province. If it's good for the province, then it affects their constituency and those they are trying to attract to their party.

Certainly, nobody in the NDP leadership race right now would actually stand up in the leadership debate and say: "What would be good for British Columbia is if we found a coordinated way to ensure the review process, which happens at different levels of government, works in a coordinated and streamlined fashion so that we can actually get people working, infrastructure built and the province moving forward." That's certainly not what you hear from those who are seeking the leadership of the NDP, because that's not what the NDP stands for. It's interesting that somehow, I guess, the NDP doesn't support what the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise is all about, and certainly I find that a sad commentary.

I move forward because that, of course, is a general statement, and you can sort of apply general statements to anything. Let me go to the goals and the core business, which is: "Establish a competitive investment climate." I look at some of their objectives and the strategies they are going to bring in to achieve these things, and one of their objectives is to improve physical and human infrastructure, which encourages growth. I look at the number of strategies that the ministry identified they would employ to achieve that. One of them is: "Champion provincial interests in key economic infrastructure projects such as ports and airports. Ensure a coordinated approach with partner ministries."

In other words, let's actually work together. Let's actually make sure that the systems we put in place to review these large provincial-scale projects serve their function on the environmental side, on the due diligence side, but also let's do it in a coordinated process so those investors don't get tired and walk away. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano gave an excellent speech in this House in a previous week where, given his 30-plus years in private sector industry — in mining in particular — he detailed perfect examples where the non-streamlined, cumbersome, cross-purpose mechanics of the review process actually drove investment out of the province.

When that investment left the province, jobs left the province. The opportunity for towns to survive in the heartlands of this province left. They disappeared, and it wasn't because the project was good or bad. It wasn't because there was anything that actually came out of the review process signalling something was wrong with the project. It was the review process itself. I actually think the members of the opposition should be standing up and applauding when the ministry sets forth goals, strategies, objectives and measurable outcomes and is now, in Bill 75, delivering on them.

Here's another one of the strategies: "Take full advantage of all economic opportunities throughout British Columbia inherent in the 2010 Olympic bid." Now,

I know the members of the opposition support the Olympics in general, but the type of opportunities for solid employment, year after year; for companies to actually pick up their operations from Calgary and Toronto and Seattle and move here, because we're creating opportunities for long-term infrastructure growth in this province, large-scale projects where they actually want to hire people in this province…. They want to move people back to this province to take advantage of those opportunities. I don't know why the members of the opposition wouldn't be standing up and cheering that.

I certainly can't understand why leadership candidates in the NDP aren't standing up and applauding that, but that's what we had in this House. What Bill 75 does is clearly signal that the province recognizes that for large projects, where you have several layers of review and different agencies…. We want to make sure that on those projects that have provincial significance, there's a system in place to ensure that the review process enhances the investment opportunity, enhances the job opportunities and enhances the promotion of B.C.'s economic interests.

The last thing I'll talk about on the service plan is one of the objectives that the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise put forward: "Increased regional and sectoral economic development." A couple of the strategies: "Aggressively pursue northern and regional interests in development of economic activities." In other words, recognize that the province plays a role to ensure that not just Vancouver and not just Victoria have this sort of large-scale economic activity, but that every single region in the province has that.

Now, I never heard the NDP talk about aggressively pursuing northern and regional interests in development of economic activities. In fact, they spent ten years driving those activities out of the province, absolutely decimating the heartlands. In part it was because they did not understand the needs of large-scale investors, who are prepared to make large commitments in the rural and, in some cases, remote parts of our province. Instead, they set up all sorts of bureaucratic measures that in their silo made good sense but in application across the board actually stymied that investment and sent it other places. What went with it was the jobs and the ability for a community to sustain itself.

Another one of the strategies was to — and this is very important, because this goes to the heart of Bill 75 — "lead a coordinated response across government to priority projects in support of regional economic development." Even as we were doing our service plans, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise and the Minister of State for Deregulation said there was a role for government to play to actually lead the process in certain areas. Out of that — those general strategies and the work the ministers have done out in the communities, talking to mayors, talking to community partners and talking to investors about how we move forward — came Bill 75.

There certainly are always issues when you bring in legislation that changes the day-to-day practice or potentially can. There are questions. I think the minister has done a good job of answering some of those, and certainly I will add to that debate as well.

What is Bill 75 actually doing at the end of the day? What are we actually trying to achieve in this bill? We are actually trying to ensure that in situations like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano illustrated, large investors with large opportunities don't leave the province because the review process is so cumbersome. We're making it easier for investors to do business in British Columbia by removing unnecessary red tape — not by removing regulations or environmental protections, not by running roughshod over municipalities, but by ensuring that we are providing an opportunity that allows for quick decisions and sound decisions.

A good decision isn't one that has to take two years or three years. In fact, quite frankly, investors would rather have a "no" in a month than a "maybe" in two years, because time is money, and that's what drives investment to other places. We want to make sure the process protects the environment, protects communities and protects regions but also ensures that we get timely answers.

Certainly, this act does allow for cabinet to assign special status to projects that are significant to the whole province and to ensure that they're completed in a timely manner. You know, on the one hand, people want their governments to get on with things and make decisions, but the members of the opposition, at the same time, somehow suggest that elected officials aren't the people that should be making those decisions. It should be out in the field somewhere, perhaps, with a regional manager in one ministry having the ability to say yes or no, or a regional director in another ministry being able to say yes or no.

At the end of the day, the only people who are accountable as we move the economy forward are in fact the elected officials, are in fact government, are in fact the executive council. If people don't like the decisions they make, they can remove them and bring in somebody else. That's called democracy. At the end of the day, British Columbians want their politicians to be able to make some decisions. They don't want them to micromanage and don't want them to ignore things, but in cases of large important projects, they want them to actually make those decisions.

The act ensures that projects important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province will not be jeopardized by unnecessary delays or contradictory conditions imposed by different approval agencies. It's not changing their decisions; it's not ignoring their role. It is to ensure that the process works to the benefit of all British Columbians, to the investors and to the project at hand.

I can't understand why the members of the opposition are so against that. My only conclusion, as I said earlier, is that the more successful our economy is and the more successful British Columbians are, the smaller their constituency becomes, and they fear that. They

need to have people who aren't succeeding so that they have somebody they feel they can represent.

Some of the questions that come up from my constituents are: "Well, okay, we'll accept that as a philosophical basis, but you're talking about cabinet designating projects. If we've got a $5 million project in Victoria–Beacon Hill and there are some environmental concerns, or there might be some development concerns or zoning concerns, does that mean the government is going to come charging in and override it because on that particular day they felt like supporting that project?"

J. Bray: Unlike the member for Chilliwack-Kent…. There actually are specific guidelines in place to ensure that when cabinet exercises this authority, it really is for those large-scale projects of provincial significance and certainly of regional significance.

I want to read into the record, again…. For the members of the opposition to understand how this act works, rather than just the rhetoric that they put forward, let's talk about how projects would be eligible for this designation. Projects "should be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province," so the little $5 million project in my riding, although important locally, does not necessarily fall under that category.

"Have impacts and benefits that extend beyond the project's location." Clearly, a large-scale mining project that's going to employ people from around the region, that is going to have large suppliers and that is going to have the kind of capital infrastructure investments might be one.

"Contribute to the furtherance of the province's key economic development interests." In other words, it actually has to match the way we're moving forward in our economy. It has to enhance competitiveness, and this is critical. It actually has to enhance our competitive nature in the global marketplace. Rather than giving an advantage to one company or another, this actually has to be a project that enhances the province's competitiveness.

"Encourage the involvement of the private sector in financial arrangements, including but not necessarily limited to joint ventures, joint-financing arrangements, cooperative alliances, P3s, hybrid arrangements and power purchase agreements." In other words, it has to be a project where we are in fact seeing that private sector investment, where we're actually seeing money, wealth — the things that pay for health care and education — come into that project either from within or, in many cases, from outside British Columbia. That's new money that comes in to employ people, new money that comes in to generate the wealth that actually pays for the public services we all value.

Then the project would "be designated and decided by cabinet," and it would "be on a scale that would warrant the additional management effort required." In other words, if cabinet does this designation, it's not sort of the stroke of a pen and it's all done. It then requires government to actually put resources to the process to ensure that we're achieving that streamlining process and that we're making sure we don't have contradictory review processes, delayed rulings and other activities that actually harm that investment. It's also going to be a project in which the province is prepared to commit some resources to help that process along.

At the end of the day, in many parts of this province the types of things that communities in rural areas need are not the same as it is in urban areas. In urban centres like Victoria and Vancouver there's lots of investment that comes in on a daily basis for all sorts of things. One project, generally speaking, that may or may not go forward doesn't impact the regional economy because there's enough happening; there's enough diversity. In some parts of the province, especially ones that were devastated by the policies of the NDP during the nineties, one major investor can make a huge difference for the region. I want to relay to you a perfect example of these intangible real measures and what a major project can do to a region.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this government has brought in a lot of initiatives and a lot of work around oil and gas. We've seen the results this year in the Peace River district, where we had the largest single sale of drilling leases in the history of this province — $418 million in one day. I happen to be a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I was up in Dawson Creek, and part of our process of public hearings is that we also did some site visits. I was at an oil and gas conference being hosted up there.

They had a trade show, and in the trade show they had a large crane outside, a 150-foot crane that was taking people up and down for rides. Myself and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca hopped in there, and we were strapped in. As the crane was taking us up, there was this young fellow who was riding up and down. He worked for the company, Laprairie Crane. I asked him how old he was, and he said he was 23. I said: "Are you trained to work for this company?" He said: "Oh yes, I've got my full crane operator's ticket." I said: "How long did that take?" He said: "Three years." I said: "Are you pretty excited about what's happening here with all the new activity?" He said: "Oh yes, it's absolutely fantastic." I said: "Are you getting lots of work?" He said: "Since I finished my school, I haven't had a day off." I said: "What kind of money can you make as a fully ticketed crane operator?" He said: "Well, my best year so far is $80,000, but it's generally between $70,000 and $80,000 a year." I said: "Do you see long-term prospects here in the Peace country for you as a young person starting out?" He said: "Oh yes, I've just bought a house, and my girlfriend is going to school."

That economic activity allows that young person to become a homeowner, to set down his roots, to enjoy a lifestyle that is the envy of many parts of the world,

and it is solely because there's the kind of long-term sustained economic activity that supports a young person who has invested in his education and now has a trade that will serve him well. He's going to be making very good money, paying very good taxes and doing a lot of consumer and recreational activities up there. That's what we're trying to achieve in this province.

I would love to be able to go to every community next year, when I'm on the Finance Committee, and hear stories about young people who are encouraged about their communities and their regions, who see hope into the future, who say: "You know what? We're actually going to stay here. I'm actually going to buy a house here, because I can see that we've got an economy that's going to be sustained in the long term."

One of the things in some of those regions will be some of these large projects that might be able to provide that kind of certainty. Certainly, the NDP did a great job of killing things like Windy Craggy by drawing a circle around a map and saying: "Three billion dollars of investment — we don't want it here." Tatshenshini is a wonderful part of the province; nobody doubts that. They had no policy framework with which to make any decisions, yes or no, on those types of things. That project could have sustained the northwest significantly. Instead, it's gone forever and with it the jobs and the kind of incomes that could support health care in that part of the province.

Bill 75 brings in a tool that I suspect won't be used particularly often but a tool that will be significant to allow the province to move forward, to allow the ministry to achieve its objectives through its service plan that it's been talking about for a couple of years, to ensure that the process by which government and government agencies review these large-scale projects works to the benefit of the province and doesn't work at cross-purposes. Those things are incredibly important with respect to how we move forward.

Of course, the members of the opposition…. I now understand their jargon. Every time they stand up and say, "You haven't consulted," that's really their code word for: "We don't like what you're doing." The question on something significant like Bill 75 always is: has there been consultation? I know there's been consultation with the business community and there's been consultation out in the regions. In fact, there's consultation going on continually with the UBCM and city councils, because the goal of this is to ensure that the province enhances economic activity in the province. We're not there to change our relationship in a negative way with municipalities. In fact, with the Community Charter and the way we've empowered school boards, we're actually trying to ensure that we put more authority to those more closely elected to the constituents they represent.

We also want to make sure that municipal review processes and provincial, federal and regional districts all work to ensure that a project that's going to get a yes gets the yes quicker and that a project that's going to get a no gets the no quicker. That's good for British Columbia; that's good for every part of the province.

I am pleased to support Bill 75, and I also would like to congratulate the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise for continuing to follow through on their service plan, which is aggressive, which is bold. We're already seeing the results in all the new jobs that this province has created, in the investment intention we're seeing globally now, and that's because we have a service plan. We're following through, and Bill 75 is another important step towards that.

B. Bennett: It's my absolute delight to speak in favour of this new piece of legislation this evening, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. As MLAs we often have lots of draws upon our time, and this evening I could have been over at the Empress Hotel at a dinner put on by I'm not sure who. But compared to being here with you, Mr. Speaker, and my other colleagues, talking about the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, there was really no choice.

British Columbia has earned the reputation honestly over the last decade, not over the past two and a half years. During the period of time that the socialists were in charge of the province, the province earned a reputation of being a very risky and very unfriendly place to invest. It seems to be something that the socialists, at least here in British Columbia…. They seem to get it in other places a little bit more, but here in British Columbia it seems to be something that the socialists just don't understand. If you keep insulting someone or you keep pushing them away or you keep stealing from them and lying to them, eventually they get tired of bringing their money to that jurisdiction. They just decide to take their money someplace else, which is what has happened here in this province over the decade that I referred to.

This piece of legislation is one of our government's ways to address the reputation that the province unfortunately gained over that decade. There are many other things, obviously, that we have done, not the least of which is several different kinds of tax reductions — not only the personal income tax reduction but the corporate income tax reduction and the elimination of sales tax on machinery and equipment in the resource industries. We've done many, many things like that to prove to investors around the world that B.C. now is a friendly place to come and invest your money.

This piece of legislation, I think, fills a gap in the effort we have made to date in the last two and a half years to create the right kind of investment climate here in British Columbia. This piece of legislation allows our government to recognize…. When we have a provincially significant project — something that's going to impact not just the place of the project but at least the region, if not the whole province — then we can raise the profile of that project through this piece of legislation, put it on somewhat of a fast track and help the proponents work with local government, if that's a situation that needs addressing, to jump through the various bureaucratic hoops and get the project to completion.

This piece of legislation, when passed, will allow cabinet to assign special status to a project deemed to be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of B.C. The designation imposes a discipline on both provincial and local approval authorities to streamline processes and work cooperatively in making decisions in a more timely way. Designation does not affect provincial environmental assessment, the agricultural land reserve process or aboriginal rights and title. It also respects the autonomy of local government. It does create an innovative framework for dialogue between the proponent, the provincial government and local government where applicable. Where necessary, the act provides for the appointment of a facilitator to assist in those efforts.

How will the legislation work? If a minister believes a project is provincially significant and is or may be subject to an inefficient process, the minister may recommend to cabinet that the project be designated. Designation requires all approval authorities to expedite their reviews. If the reviews result in a decision that the project is to proceed, then all other actions necessary to bring the project to completion and intended operations would also be expedited. If a project is impeded or otherwise interfered with, the proponent must try to resolve the problem with the approval authority. This isn't a situation where we're going to encourage proponents with ideas that are not fully worked through or perhaps not even all that useful. Maybe they're not good ideas, and this is not a piece of legislation that's going to help those kind of folks. They're still not going to get their approvals if their project doesn't measure up.

Where the project does measure up and is running into unreasonable obstacles, a facilitator may be appointed to assist in the efforts. If the approval authority is being unjustifiably unreasonable, the minister responsible will be authorized to make orders within a scope that's determined by cabinet. The orders that I refer to would not change provincial or federal environmental health or safety standards.

When the legislation is passed, my understanding is that guidelines will be developed to determine whether a project should be designated as provincially significant. To qualify for that type of designation, projects would, in the view of cabinet, have to be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province or a region. They might enhance competitiveness or otherwise the well-being of the citizens of British Columbia.

We all have projects in our ridings that fit that description — not very many, frankly. I know I have one in my riding. That's the expansion of the Cranbrook Airport, which will have a huge economic impact on the whole region — not just the Cranbrook area or the Kimberley area but the whole Kootenay region. It's a project that actually has been supported formally by all the municipalities in the Kootenay region. Yet it is a project that with as much support as it has locally, as much support as it has from this government and from the federal government, we have not been able to move forward as quickly as we would like. Perhaps that would be something that would fit within the parameters of this new legislation.

To be eligible for the designation…. I've covered most of that, but there were a couple of things I wanted to mention. The project should contribute to the furtherance of the province's key economic development interests. It should enhance competitiveness. It should encourage the involvement of the private sector in financial arrangements, including but not limited to joint ventures, joint financing arrangements, cooperative alliances, P3s, hybrid arrangements and power purchase agreements. It must be of a scale that would warrant the additional management effort required.

Projects that could be considered for designation might be such things as major transportation infrastructure projects which are traversing multiple municipalities. It might be an independent power project delivered by private or local government interests, with support from the province. It might be regional sewage treatment or water filtration plants that require a number of municipal government mandates to plan, design and build, and it might be major resort developments.

I know in my short time as an elected official, I've run into situations where…. Well, one that just culminated successfully very recently was with the regional district of East Kootenay, trying to get some work done with their waste management plan — communities attempting to find locations for solid waste disposal and transfer stations and that sort of thing. In the case of East Kootenay, they were a dozen years in trying to put together a regional waste management plan, and had they had the benefit of this statute, perhaps it could have been reduced to a lot less than 12 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the legislation. I think we'll have some work to do in terms of explaining to municipal governments, our friends in municipal government, what the purpose of the act is. I know we already have support, written support that I've seen from various mayors around the province. I think those who take the time to look at this legislation and talk to us and realize the benefits of working together on these major projects — because, obviously, it's going to benefit the same people that we are, as elected officials, accountable to — will be in favour of this.

In summary, this legislation makes it easier for investors to do business in British Columbia by removing unnecessary red tape. Approval processes will be streamlined under this legislation to reduce the time it takes to receive approval for eligible projects. This will show, once and for all, that B.C. is open for business. This legislation will bring new opportunities for all British Columbians, which is the most important aspect of this legislation, and that's why I support it.

B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am taking time away from another engagement just so I can spend some

I'm here to support Bill 75. It's a bill that I'm actually very enthusiastic about supporting. I know that the minister responsible for this bill worked many long hours in order to bring this bill forward, and I appreciate the fact that he was willing to receive input from a broad spectrum of people in British Columbia, including Members of the Legislative Assembly. I was certainly pleased to provide my comments to him prior to this bill being brought forward.

It will come as no surprise to members of this Legislature that I have a significant interest in how this bill may help facilitate greater investment and development of electric development projects in the province. I spoke only a few hours ago, with respect to Bill 85, about the fact that British Columbia is now a net importer of electricity. This year alone we will be importing about 10 percent of our domestic needs. Yes, that has something to do with the fact that the weather patterns have not exactly been optimal this year, but in fact if you look over the last number of years, B.C. has been a net importer now more years than not. So, clearly, we have to get on and develop more projects in British Columbia.

Traditionally, B.C. Hydro has been very good at building and managing very large, very capital-intensive and also, some would say, very environmentally intense projects, such as large hydroelectric dams. What is now happening in British Columbia though, because of our new energy policy, is a significant number of small hydroelectric facilities known as run-of-the-river projects. These projects, rather than requiring a large dam to flood enormous amounts of land, just divert a small portion of water from a mountain creek, put it through a penstock, run that down a steep hill and into a powerhouse where there's a turbine that converts that kinetic energy into electricity, and it helps keep the lights on. Well, at least that is now what's happening. It wasn't the case under the NDP government, but now we are starting to see that kind of ingenuity and investment in environmentally responsible electrical production in the province.

Why that is also so important is that B.C. Hydro wasn't interested, in and of itself, in developing those projects. They're a large corporation that, frankly, thought that these smaller projects were just not worth their while. But on an individual basis and then when you add them up collectively, they can help meet a significant portion of our future electrical needs in the province.

So what does this have to do with Bill 75? Well, a very significant number of these new, small run-of-the-river projects — small hydro projects — have been developed or proposed in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. Particularly in the areas around Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton, a number of creeks have been identified as being a great potential source of electricity for British Columbia.

Now, unfortunately, what's developed is a practice locally known as amenity agreements, where in addition to any property taxes that these projects will have to pay — and taxes to the provincial government in terms of income taxes for the employees, income taxes for the business itself, water rental rates that they have to pay to the province for the use of that water, even if it's just for a few moments as it goes through the turbine before it's released back into the creek…. In addition to all of those taxes, these businesses are now being hit up for what are known as amenity agreements — in other words, contributions to the regional district in order to achieve their zoning, in order to be given permission to go ahead.

I'll give you an example here. I'll quote from a Vancouver Sun article dated November 7, 2003. The headline: "Small power projects 'blackmailed' by local districts." In there they describe a project that I've been to near Pemberton, Miller Creek Power, which is a 26-megawatt project that was one of the first successful, modern, private sector power developments in B.C. They had to agree to a $175,000 one-time payment plus payments of $40,000 per year for 40 years to gain the zoning they needed in order to proceed.

So it's $175,000 up front plus a commitment for another $1.6 million over 40 years, and that's in addition to the taxes it has to pay, including property taxes. The article goes on to point out that these projects themselves really don't have much of a draw on local services. They don't impose much in terms of demands on local parks, local sewers, local services that you would think projects would be taxed for locally. Not surprisingly, a number of the investors who were looking at these projects are starting to balk at them.

They're saying: "Why are we being hit up for what some may say is essentially ransom?" I'll quote from Mike Geoghegan, who is president of the B.C. Construction Association. He says: "One of the barriers to growth, particularly in non-urban areas, is that you have some districts essentially holding projects up for blackmail. When it comes to IPPs in the Sea to Sky corridor, you've got half a billion dollars' worth of construction, and then you have situations where someone says, 'Provide funding for our rec centre, and only then will we green-light your project.'"

You see the situation that has been arising, Mr. Speaker. Now, I know there are a number of projects planned in the area I represent in the Fraser Valley regional district, and I've certainly conveyed to them my view that the regional district should not be hasty about following the precedent established by the SLRD. Why is that? Because, frankly, there's a greater interest at stake here. It's the provincial interest. It's the interest that all of us have.

If people are watching this debate tonight or if they're reading it later through Hansard, through our website, then they're relying on electricity. We all have become extremely dependent upon electricity in British

Columbia. Clearly, electricity is in the provincial interest, and as I've already noted, we're now importing up to 10 percent of our electricity needs in B.C. I don't like being vulnerable like that. I don't like being dependent upon somebody else.

That's why I'm so pleased that our energy plan calls for the aggressive development of new energy sources in the province, but I'm worried. I'm worried that the provincial commitment — that identified clear need that we recognize — may inadvertently get held up, be stopped by some of these developments, some of these initiatives that local governments, particularly at the regional district level, have embraced in at least some parts of the province.

That would not be in the provincial interest. That would not be in anybody's interest. In fact, it wouldn't even be in the interests of those particular regional districts to see that investment get scared away, because of the jobs it brings — not just the electricity, the jobs — and the ongoing local property taxes that these projects will pay. Sometimes it's possible to ask for too much. Sometimes it's a bad thing to get what you ask for.

With these amenity agreements, I think they've just gone a little too far. I'm not speaking for the government or for the minister on this, but I hope this bill will help signal to regional districts that they should perhaps reconsider the approach they've taken to date about trying to extract enormous sums of money up front from what are typically very small projects in order to get approvals at the local level.

It's fair enough to say you have to pay taxes like everybody else, fair enough to say you have to meet our zoning requirements, fair enough to say you have to hold public meetings and demonstrate local support and prove you've met all the environmental conditions the province and the federal government require these projects to go through.

I think it's asking a little much of some of these proponents, who are in some cases father-and-son teams who have scraped together their last penny in order to bring a project to fruition, to then say: "You know what? We think your project meets all of our standards, but here's the kicker. You have to come up with more money."

I'll give you an example. "Operators of the 32-megawatt Rutherford Creek project" — and I'm quoting again from the Vancouver Sun article dated November 7, 2003 — "had to pay $200,000 to 'a community benefits fund,' plus $50,000 to an administrative fund, plus $40,000 per year for the life of the project." Let's just call it what it is. That's unacceptable.

B. Penner: I heard one member here refer to it as extortion, and maybe that's a little strong. I can understand how governments and agencies at all levels are eager to get their hands on money, but there's a right way and there's a wrong way. I just think that this kind of an action on the part of some local governments is maybe being a little too zealous. Again, let's not lose sight of the provincial interest, and I haven't even dwelled on the fact here that these projects are very environmentally benign.

It's renewable energy, zero emissions — well, unless you talk about the water that comes out of the turbine at the bottom, which I like to refer to as the emissions: clean, cold, drinkable water. Those are the emissions from these projects. I can't think of anything more environmentally benign or, frankly, anything that makes more sense in a province like British Columbia, considering that most of the time the good Lord makes sure we're well endowed in terms of precipitation. With our mountains giving that vertical drop for the water and giving it kinetic energy, it just makes perfect sense for us to harness that potential and do it in a way, as I've already mentioned, that is environmentally responsible.

I think it would be very unfortunate if various initiatives at the local level would undermine this provincial interest in developing more electricity for the province in a way we can all benefit from. I've noted there's been some concern expressed by the opposition and maybe a few others outside of this House with respect to this bill. However, I note that the mayor of Surrey, Doug McCallum, has spoken out very forcefully in support of this initiative, saying that British Columbia needs to send a signal to the private sector to bring more investment to our province.

I'm pleased to say that the mayor of Chilliwack has said very much the same thing. Chilliwack is a pro-business community. We know that our people want good jobs — good-quality, high-paying jobs — that they can build families around. You don't get that kind of investment and you don't get those jobs unless you make the province have an environment that is receptive to that kind of investment and those kinds of jobs. It doesn't happen by magic.

One of the failings, I think, of the NDP's overriding philosophy is that in their world, British Columbia is at the centre of the universe, and in fact the rest of the universe doesn't exist. So in their world, it's a very self-contained model. There's no competition. People would just naturally want to invest in British Columbia, regardless of any other factors.

Well, I agree British Columbia is a great place, and it's certainly the centre of my universe in terms of my thinking and planning. But I'm very cognizant of the fact that there's actually a pretty big world out there. There's some pretty stiff competition for investment dollars, and those dollars, during the NDP's era in government, were leaving British Columbia. Individual citizens were leaving British Columbia in order to look for jobs and opportunity elsewhere.

So it's not a given that we'll necessarily be extremely prosperous. We actually have to work to accomplish that. It's not just the work of people in factories or plants or out in the forests in British Columbia or in the mines. It's the work that we do here as policy-makers that's going to help set the table, help set the playing field to make sure that those investment dol-

lars come to British Columbia to help make sure we have the opportunities we want for our young people.

I'm very pleased, then, that one of the companies that's been breaking incredible ground in terms of developing these small hydro projects has responded as follows to this bill, Bill 75. I'll quote from John Johnson, who works for Cloudworks Energy Ltd.:

I'm pleased to get that kind of feedback, and I'll tell you why. We are competing for investment dollars. Those investment dollars come from big pension funds or insurance companies. They can put that money anywhere in the world, and they will and they have. During the NDP's era we saw that demonstrated to our detriment. That money left; it went elsewhere.

Right now that money is starting to come back. As further evidence, I can report to this Legislature that a few weeks ago I had the honour of speaking to the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C. first-ever conference. Yes, the first conference they've held. Why is it the first conference they've held in Vancouver, British Columbia? Up until just over two years ago they only had 22 members. For the entire association in British Columbia they had 22 members. As of today they have 175. That's a very dramatic and graphic demonstration of how much interest in this industry has grown.

What does that mean as evidenced by these other projects I've already referred to? It means jobs, it means revenue, and it means electricity for British Columbia. At this conference, attended by approximately 400 people from throughout Canada, including some places in the United States, there were people from Bay Street, people from Montreal and people from New York looking for places to spend money, to invest money in British Columbia.

They see the potential, and they now see that there's a government in office that wants to make projects happen, not because we want to benefit people outside of the province but because we need the electricity, we need the jobs and we need the revenue. We've set the floor. We've maintained significant environmental standards. All these projects have to go through a detailed review process. But now that we've signalled that we are actually welcoming this investment and that we're not going to tie them up in bureaucratic red tape forever, these people are actually here seriously looking to spend some money.

Now, do I have any evidence to back this up? Well, anecdotally I do. I was stopped in the hallway after my presentation by a representative of a major oil company that has invested billions of dollars outside of British Columbia. He told me that he is now under direction from his executive board to put money in British Columbia and to look for a wind power project to invest in, in this province.

Just over two and a half years ago, around the time of the last election, he made a trip, and the board said: "It's too soon. We need to see tangible proof that things really have changed in British Columbia. It was so bad under the previous government. Let's just wait a little while and make sure that changes actually take place." The good news is that this individual is back, and he's under clear, explicit directions from his board of directors to find a project in British Columbia that they can invest in that will be clean, will be renewable and will produce electricity for British Columbia. That's a clear reward for British Columbians from the policy initiatives this government has put in place.

I know there are other people hoping to speak tonight, and I don't want to get in the way of that. Again, I know the minister will say this bill will be used judiciously. In fact, the hope is that the government will hardly have to use it at all, but the fact that it's there sends a signal. It sends a signal to the provincial bureaucracy and sends a signal to other agencies: "Get in line. Don't hold things up. Do your job diligently, but please try to move expeditiously."

I suspect what we'll start to hear within the next six months or sooner is: "If only the federal government had a similar bill. If only the federal government put the same discipline on themselves as we've put on the province, then we really could make things happen in British Columbia. We could really start to see prosperity return to our province."

I don't mean to dwell on this for long, but the federal government is a whole other kettle of fish. I'm not picking fights with the federal government, but that's a labyrinth. We've heard debate here about DFO and their difficult process for approving gravel removal from the Fraser River and elsewhere. I think we will once again be leading the way in Canada when we pass this legislation, as I'm confident we will. I'm confident the members of the Legislature will support this bill, because it makes so much sense.

I'm confident that once we put this bill into practice, it will become an example for the rest of the country, just like our fixed election date is now being cited in other jurisdictions, just like balanced-budget legislation that we have passed is in place in other provinces. I'm confident that other jurisdictions in Canada will look to what we've done. Other provinces may well adopt it. It's my sincere hope that some day the federal government will adopt this and put some discipline on

themselves in terms of the approval process for various projects that are clearly in everyone's interest.

R. Visser: I've been giving a considerable amount of thought to this bill over the weekend. Certainly, back in the riding last week I had the opportunity to talk to quite a few of the folks up there and get a sense of their feelings about streamlining government operations in terms of significant projects. I got a good sense from them of what it is they want the provincial government to accomplish.

You know, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in her comments on this bill, and I think she said some interesting things. One of the things she said is that the emperor has no clothes and that we should all rise up and shout from the rooftops that this is a bad piece of legislation. She suggested that mayors and councils from around the province would do the same. I think that's inappropriate.

I think the Leader of the Opposition is fully clothed. She's fully clothed in rhetoric. She's fully clothed in innuendo, false assessment, cynical interpretation, gross oversimplification and a contempt for trying to make an economy in a small community.

You know, I went home…. I know that in terms of Bill 85 and a number of other bills, we've talked about independent power projects. We've talked about trying to open up the heartlands. Certainly, I have talked about northern Vancouver Island and some of the projects we want to undertake there; some of the things that are on the books; some of the contracts that have been signed; some of the projects that are in the process of being approved, of winding their way through this labyrinth — this byzantine process of approvals that we have in the provincial government.

I went home, and I talked to bunch of my mayors and talked to a bunch of the councillors. I said: "What do you think about this?" They think it's a good idea. They think it's a good idea because they know on the north end of Vancouver Island that they can be disciplined. They know that they'll be able to hold up their end of the bargain. They know that when somebody comes and knocks on their door and says, "I have a significant project. I have a significant investment to make in your community. How can you help me?" they say: "What can I do? What do you need me to do to make this work?"

What they don't agree with is that the provincial government's going to be disciplined, that we're always going to get it right, that we're always going to keep their best interests at heart, that we're always going to be there for them when they need us, that we're always going to be there making sure we get sign-off through the process and that we are judicious in our ability to see these projects through to the end.

It's not about circumvention. It's about discipline. This act is about discipline. It's about instilling an environment of cooperation. Those communities want to work with us.

Take the wind power projects. One has been accepted in the green power initiative in B.C. Hydro on Vancouver Island in Holberg. There's another one on the drawing boards — they're going through the environmental assessments and other things now — just outside of Holberg in Knob Hill or closer to Port Alice. Both are in the Mount Waddington regional district. If you combine the two, it's a huge investment. If you combine the two, it's a lot of jobs. If you combine the two, it's a part of the future of Port Hardy, of Port Alice, of Winter Harbour, of Holberg, of Coal Harbour.

They know what they need to do to make these projects successful. They know what they need to do from a zoning regulation. They know what they need to do from anything within their purview. They know how to reach out to the first nations, the Quatsino first nation. Both the proponent and the local government know how to make it work for them in their communities.

They want to work in an environment of cooperation. They want to know that the provincial government is going to be as disciplined as they are. I think that's something this bill provides: some assurance to them that we could do it if we're capable, if we're able and if we are successful in having projects like that designated as significant.

I know that most of the consideration around this bill, the rhetoric out there — the fear that the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues try to instil in all of the citizens of this province — is based on innuendo and mistruth. Nowhere in this act does it say that it circumvents freedom of information. In fact, in this act it says that it explicitly adheres to environmental considerations and the agricultural land reserve. Nowhere in this act does it say that it circumvents health and safety regulations. Pure information that's not entirely appropriate. It's unfortunate, because this is the kind of thing that governments need to do. This is the kind of attention we need to pay to how we behave, how we act and how all of us view significant projects.

We've gone through a decade of turning our backs on rural British Columbia and those heartlands. We've gone through a decade where the mining industry…. Active mines in British Columbia fell by half. In Campbell River we have two mines. Quinsam Coal is the province's only underground coal operation, and Boliden Westmin is an underground zinc-copper mine.

In Boliden Westmin the average wage is consistent with the average wage of the mining industry in the province of British Columbia. It's about $80,000 a year. Roughly 300 people work there. Those are significant projects. We need more of those in small communities throughout this province, whether we're in Atlin — which the Tulsequah Chief is adjacent to — or we're in Smithers or we're in the Peace or we're in northern Vancouver Island. Small communities and the citizens

of those communities and those first nations need to know that the province is going to be disciplined, that we're not going to turn our backs on them, that we are going to pay attention to their needs and that we are going to push though these proposals they bring forward.

We are going to subject them to the rigorous regulatory environment we have, the rigorous protections for the environment, for health and safety and for land use. But in the end we're going to shorten time frames, and we're going to make these projects work. That's what those people in those communities count on: investment. We're talking about hundreds of millions of foreign investment — hundreds of millions of dollars that we want people from around the world to come to our province and risk in our small communities. That capital needs to know that we're timely. That capital needs to know that we will take their interests to heart, that we will advance them and will give them the yes-or-no answers they need — the certain answers they need in timely ways. That's what this bill does.

I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about this. I'd much prefer to be out there in the communities acting on this. I'm going to go back up to the north end of Vancouver Island. I'm going to talk to the mayor of Port Alice, and I'm going to talk to the mayor of Port Hardy, and I'm going to talk to the mayor of Port McNeill, and I'm going to talk to the regional directors in the Mount Waddington regional district, and I'm going to talk to those first nations. I'm going to say to all of them that we now have a piece of legislation in the province that can make us behave the way that you want to behave. We can discipline ourselves just as you discipline yourselves, and we can help you achieve some of the goals you have and the stable employment that's filling up those schools again, that's putting those kids in the swimming pool, that's putting ice in the ice arena and building those communities.

This is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to being, hopefully, one of the first jurisdictions, one of the first ridings in this province that gets to take advantage of it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House tonight to voice my support for my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale for bringing forward Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. As speaker after speaker has said in this House today and in previous days, what could the member for Vancouver-Hastings or the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant possibly have against having jobs created in their communities and throughout the province?

The equation is very simple. British Columbia must have a competitive investment and regulatory climate to attract investment capital. Investment capital can and will locate throughout the province and create jobs. Both the company and the workers will pay taxes. These taxes will actually pay for a world-class health care system and the best education system we can have and that taxpayers deserve.

To have a world-class health care system and a world-class education system, we must have a world-class economy — an economy in which those who want to risk their capital have some kind of certainty and who know, when they come forward with significant projects, that they actually are going to get done and that they have an opportunity to get done. Our government, under the leadership of the Premier, is committed to rebuilding the economy of British Columbia by having a globally competitive investment climate. Our commitment — a commitment we've made, and we're going to work very, very hard at it — is paying off, and it is paying dividends to British Columbians today. And that's in less than two and a half years, Mr. Speaker.

We've attracted global leaders like PeopleSoft, eBay, J.P. Morgan Chase, EDS, Microsoft. I've had the pleasure to talk with these companies about why they're investing in British Columbia. They told me very clearly that it's because they sense a new era of doing business in British Columbia. They sense an investment climate where they can get things done. This bill before the House today is about making sure that we further increase our competitiveness with respect to investment and the regulatory climate.

Over the past decade British Columbia garnered a reputation of having one of the most difficult and lengthy approval processes for major projects in North America. We have to compete with other jurisdictions, so we have to improve our review process for significant projects. That's what this bill does. It sends a very clear signal to potential investors that we have a framework that projects will be dealt with in a timely, responsible and disciplined way. They know that when they hear yes, it'll be yes. They know that when they hear no, it'll be no. We're going to take out the word "maybe."

We're going to take out all of the uncertainty those members over there have injected into the processes in British Columbia, where it's review after review and study after study after study. What happens is that communities throughout British Columbia are suffering. Young people are suffering; families are suffering. This bill goes another step in creating an investment climate we can be proud of.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been travelling extensively. In the last month and a half he's been to California, he's been to Texas, he's been to New York, he's been to Washington, he's been to China, and he's been to India. The message that he's sending and telling people is that British Columbia is open for business. When we send those messages, we have to make sure that when people respond to our messages — and they come and they look and see the unbelievable opportunities in British Columbia — we can then actually get the projects done.

In these past few months I've been to California and Texas myself. I've also just come back from Korea and Taiwan. In Korea I was greeted by the Korean chamber of commerce, where they said: "It's so great to see the

entrepreneurial spirit returning to British Columbia. It's nice to see that British Columbia once again is open for business."

We've just signed an agreement which approved the construction of homes in Taiwan to be built with wood frame construction using our building codes. That is great news for British Columbia. As we move forward and provide these exports and these opportunities to Taiwan, we're getting the attention of investors from Taiwan wanting to invest back into British Columbia. But they're going to want certainty. They're going to want to know that the time frames are reasonable. People aren't looking for shortcuts. They're not looking for ways to get around the laws. They're not looking to break the environmental stewardship that we have such a great record with here in British Columbia. They're not looking for that at all. They're looking at entering into a process that they know has clear goals, that they know when it's done, it's done, and that they can get on with investing and creating jobs throughout all parts of British Columbia.

Delays in achieving project approvals are often caused by conflicting requirements from multiple ministries and local approving authorities. Such inefficiencies can affect the viability of public and private projects, regardless of whether the project is sponsored by the local government, the province or the private sector. I hear the members over there and their fearmongering and their playing with the facts for their unfortunate selfish interests in politics.

Shouldn't we listen? Shouldn't we listen to the mayor of the second-largest city in the province and one of the fastest-growing cities in the country? He said: "I want to see governments work together, while being held accountable for delivering decisions in a timely manner." That's what the mayor of Surrey said.

Investment capital has lots of choices, and the Significant Projects Streamlining Act will ensure that approval authorities will work together to expedite the decisions needed in an increasingly competitive world. We should listen to the mayor of the fastest-growing community in British Columbia. There's a reason that it's growing and growing so fast. It's because they have an environment in their community that invites and welcomes investment. What are they doing? They're creating jobs. They're creating investments in their communities.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act allows cabinet to assign special status to a project deemed to be important to the economic, social and environmental well-being of British Columbia. It's about getting things done. It's about attracting investment. It's about creating jobs. It's about getting on with it.

This designation imposes a discipline on both the provincial and local authorities to streamline their processes, to work cooperatively in making decisions in a more timely way. This is not about causing conflict or taking over someone else's turf. This is about actually working in partnership, working for all of the taxpayers of British Columbia, no matter which communities they live in.

We live in a democratic province and society, so if there are communities out there and there are mayors or councillors that actually don't want economic development within their area of responsibility, they should have the courage to stand in their councils, to stand before their citizens and say: "We don't want economic development here. We don't want jobs here. We want our children to have to move away. We don't want our best and brightest to come back."

Mr. Speaker, that's not what I want. In this past year I've been blessed with a new grandson. I have two daughters. One of my daughters had to move away from Penticton, where I live, so she could get work to pursue her career. There's nothing more I would like than to have that daughter come home to Penticton if, in fact, the field she's in would have opportunity. That way, selfishly, I'd have my grandson there. You know, that's going to happen throughout so many different communities in British Columbia, where our children can stay in their communities, where the families that are having difficulty today are going to have opportunities.

This is about us working together; this is about building partnerships. It's about getting on with it. You know, Jerry Lampert is the president of the Business Council of British Columbia. He says: "This act is a very important tool for potential investors wishing to invest in this province. It sends a clear signal to the investment community that processes and red tape will not get in the way of investments, jobs and opportunities that are significant and beneficial to all British Columbians." That is what this is about.

You know, the members over there put out fear and, unfortunately, distort the facts, but the minister that tabled this bill, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, has been very clear. There are guidelines for designating projects. It has to be important to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the province. The project has to have impacts and benefits that extend beyond the project's location. They have to contribute to the furtherance of the province's key economic development interests. They have to enhance competitiveness, encourage the involvement of the private sector. This is about having joint ventures, joint financing arrangements, P3 hybrid arrangements, power purchases, etc. It has to be designated and sponsored and decided by cabinet. It has to be of a scale that would warrant the additional management effort required.

Projects that could be considered are — but not limited to — major transportation infrastructure projects going through several municipalities and, in fact, several regional districts; or an independent power project, as our colleague from Chilliwack talked about earlier; or regional sewage treatment or water filtration plants that require a number of municipal government mandates to plan, design and build; or major resort developments. We have a very aggressive, ambitious plan to create and develop them and have them prosper in our all-seasons resorts plan.

You know, I was thinking as I have had the opportunity in my portfolio to travel around almost all parts

of British Columbia. The part that has always impressed me is what we all have to work together most on, from my perspective. It's not my own riding; it's not Okanagan-Westside. It's what I call the Highway 16 corridor in the north and the northwest.

Just think. Not too long ago a major company put out its intentions that it's going to look at a major pipeline from the heavy oil sands through to Prince Rupert. They want to look at and study that. The government of Alberta has sent to the government of British Columbia signals that it wants to work together to develop transportation hubs and links in the north. Just think of a major pipeline like that going across so many communities and so many regional governments. Wouldn't it be beneficial to Alberta, and wouldn't it be beneficial to British Columbia and all of our citizens to have such a pipeline go across, done in an environmentally sound way, to help develop and expand the port of Prince Rupert and to create jobs in that region and right across the entire 16? I think that would be very good news. I can see this bill being able to possibly support such a project.

But our friends over there from Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seem to take comfort that they were part of the government of the day that in ten years created lengthy delays, scared investors and business people away from British Columbia, lost jobs and lost opportunities for all parts of British Columbia. Now what this bill does is give us the potential of removing the red tape and making it easier to do business in British Columbia — making it easier for investors in British Columbia, across Canada, North America, from around the world — because while we are protecting our environment and our safety, we are removing unnecessary red tape. Approval process will be streamlined to reduce the time it takes to receive the approval for eligible projects. This legislation sends a very clear message that British Columbia is open for business, and it will bring new opportunities for all British Columbians.

As I said earlier, this is not going to be managed off the corner of someone's desk. We're talking here about significant projects that are going to require a sponsor. They're going to be decided and assigned special status at the cabinet table. These projects and cabinet decisions are taken very, very seriously. They're taken to ensure that all parts of British Columbia benefit. Cabinet will authorize a minister to make orders on development or operation of the project. This act ensures that projects important to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the province are not jeopardized by unnecessary delays or contradictory conditions from different approval agencies, municipalities or regional governments.

This act is about moving forward in British Columbia. It is about reaching and striving to reach our potential. One of the most exciting days in my life so far was on July 2 of this year when Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, was awarded the 2010 Winter Olympics. You know, we are going to have the eyes and the ears of the world watching and listening to what's happening in British Columbia. We are going to have opportunities that we never dreamt could ever have come our way. We have to make sure that we have an investment climate and an approval process in place that can welcome the world. The world will respect our environmental guidelines. The world will respect our other laws and regulations we have in place to protect our safety.

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association is saying this act could not come at a better time, especially as we embark on a wide range of projects in preparation for 2010. I've said that the mayor of Surrey has said many times…. I am pleased that he's taken such a leadership position when he states very clearly that investment capital has lots of choices for where to go in this world.

I'm pleased to see that the mayor of Prince Rupert, who is working very hard in his community…. We're working hard with the member from Prince Rupert and the mayor and his council to try to get economic development going in that region of British Columbia. He made the statement: "There is no doubt that this will send a positive signal to industry while continuing to protect the values of British Columbia. It's also encouraging to those of us trying to make things happen in the heartlands."

That's what this bill is about. It's about making things happen. What did the mayor of 100 Mile House have to say? "Many economic investments have been lost by communities due to excessive time it has taken in the past to process project approvals. To have an act that ensures projects important to our economic, social and environmental needs are not jeopardized by delays or contradictory conditions imposed by many different approval agencies will, I believe, encourage investment once again into rural British Columbia."

The president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, John Winter: "This is a bold and creative solution to address this province's need for economic investment."

Some have argued from the other side of the House that this is not going to put people back to work. Well, actually, for the first time ever in our history, we have over two million people at work in British Columbia. This is going to potentially create opportunities for the members of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. This is about creating more opportunities for their members so that they have ongoing work all over British Columbia.

This bill has the support of so many British Columbians, so many mayors, so many business people, so many workers. This is a good bill. This is a very, very good bill. I just want to, as I get close to wrapping up, make sure we get the facts out on the table here and we get rid of some of the misinformation that has come from some members of this House.

For a project to be designated as significant, it should, at a minimum, meet these requirements: be important to economic, social or environmental well-being of the province; contribute to the progress of the

province's key economic development interests; have impacts and benefits that extend beyond the project's location; enhance competitiveness; encourage the involvement of the private sector in financial arrangements, public-private partnerships, etc. It will have to be designated and decided by cabinet — those decisions aren't taken lightly; they're taken very seriously — and be of a scale that would warrant the additional management and effort required. We are committed to ensuring that review and approval processes for projects that are designated as significant can be completed quickly and efficiently. I look forward to working with communities throughout British Columbia, entrepreneurs throughout British Columbia, investors from around the world as they come to British Columbia to understand the potential that we offer. Since December of 2001, British Columbia and its private sector have created 131,000 new jobs — over 53,000 this year. In October of this year, last month, 30,100 jobs were created — new jobs in British Columbia. That is more than any other province, and it is the largest monthly increase since 1976.

There is so much more we can be. We have so much potential. British Columbia is on the upswing. This bill is only going to improve the investment climate in British Columbia. It's only going to improve the economic opportunities for communities and regions throughout this entire province. This is good legislation, and I am very proud to stand in this House and support Bill 75.

M. Hunter: I'm pleased to rise to support Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. I'd like to express why I support this in a number of ways tonight, but the first thing I want to say, and the thing that grabbed my attention when I read the legislation, was that it reminded me of the urban myth — maybe it's not so much urban, but an international myth — about the investor from Frankfurt who got on a plane in Germany one afternoon to come to western Canada with some plans to invest in this growing, exciting part of the globe. He was in a private plane because he was a fairly rich guy. As his plane came over Hudson Bay, he asked his secretary: "Please make a phone call to Edmonton. That's where the government of Alberta has its seat of government for the province, and I want to know what goes on, what gives. Are they interested in my money?"

The phone call was made, and the person at the end of the phone in Edmonton said: "We're the Alberta investment office. We're here to help. How can we help you, sir?" He said: "Well, that's pretty good, but we better check out British Columbia too — nice place, mountains, sea, good people." So a phone call was made to Victoria, and in Victoria there was a tape-recorded message: "Sorry, the office is closed. Call again on Monday." That's the myth that's out there. That's the myth about British Columbia that grew during the sad decade, the lost decade, of the 1990s.

I use that because, in my mind, that summarizes why this legislation is important. We have a lot of catching up to do, and I would certainly be the first to say, amongst all my colleagues on this side of the House, that this province is open for business. I am extremely pleased with the measures we have taken — regulatory measures, legislative measures, tax measures — that have put British Columbia's shingle out on the street again to say: "Yes, we really are open for business." But having done all that, to keep doing what we are starting to see some success from clearly needs an extra push, in my opinion, and that's what this bill attempts to do.

I can recall when I was first elected in May 2001, not very many weeks after that, a group of investors came forward in my part of the province in Nanaimo to look at the idea of generating electricity. It seems to be a subject that gets a lot of attention around here. They wanted to generate some electricity by actually gasifying and incinerating garbage from a whole area of the mid-Island. The project perhaps wasn't mature enough at the time. Perhaps we weren't mature enough at the time, but one of the issues that drove that proposal away was that the estimated amount of time for environmental and other regulatory hurdles to be cleared was something in the order of four years, if everything went okay.

Other speakers have said in this debate that what investors need is an answer. It's better to have a "no" tomorrow than a "maybe" two years or two months down the road. Clearly, in the experience that I had — that first real big project that came to my attention in my own community as an MLA — that reaction certainly stuck with me. I have to say that we have come some way since then in terms of expediting processes through changes we've made to legislation, like the Environmental Assessment Act, for example.

I think the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection deserves a great deal of credit, along with her colleague the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, for understanding and moving to make sure that some of these delays and some of the processes have been acted upon. But I would say we're not there yet. We are indeed open for business, but we can't just say it. We've got to do everything that we possibly can to walk the walk and not just to talk the talk, to use the vernacular.

It's a cliché, I know, but it's nevertheless true that we live in a global economy. There are some members of this House who perhaps say the words "global economy," but I don't think they really know what it means. The members of the opposition proved that in the 1990s, when the global economy was starting to drive a lot of the things that we do and things to which we have to respond.

One, just one, of the elements of a global economy is that money and investments move at the speed of

light — the speed of e-mail anyway. Decisions that are made by large investment groups like the teachers pension plan in Ontario, like Caisse Desjardins in Quebec, the major banks in Canada, large insurance corporations…. They are a small part of the world economy. There are decisions being made in London, in Frankfurt, in New York, in Boston, in San Francisco, in Tokyo. I mean, name your capital in the western hemisphere, and there are people who are looking at investment opportunities. They can decide literally in the blink of an eye whether or not a particular set of conditions or decisions or processes in one part of the world suits what they're looking at.

I think all of us on the government side of the House would agree that money moves fast and that government has to move equally fast and respond to that need for investors. The last government didn't do it, and we intend to. This bill is not the entire answer. It's one more plank in getting British Columbia to welcome investment in a way that will make us and help us stay competitive in this new world that we all learn something new about every day. The bill adds to important work that has already been done on deregulation as well as the taxation measures and regulatory and other legislative measures we have taken.

You know, we use the term "red tape" all the time, so I tried to find out where it came from. Why do we call all these things that happen in government — and not just in government, because it happens in big organizations too — red tape? You'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that it's the lawyers that are to blame for red tape. The term was formally used, and it came from the habit of binding legal documents in England with red ribbon, so we know where the problem is. Maybe this will start to solve part of the problem.

I also found a little more serious definition. Red tape is defined by Webster's dictionary as "an official routine or procedure marked by excessive complexity which results in delay or inaction." I had to double-check that I had looked up red tape, not the New Democratic Party, when I saw that definition. Red tape is official rules and processes that are unnecessary and that delay progress and decisions. This bill is important as another part of our plank in not just opening British Columbia for business but opening it in a way that removes unnecessary regulatory hurdles, and I think it's a very important piece of legislation in that respect.

I know some of the critics of this piece of legislation have said this is one more example of how the B.C. Liberal government is going to destroy the environmental standards in this province. Nothing could be more wrong. We are not destroying environment in this province. We are actually improving it through a whole host of measures we have taken, but I don't want to get into that debate tonight.

What I do want to point out to those who have these concerns, and I know there are people out there who are spreading all this misinformation…. They spread it about B.C. Hydro. They spread it about health care and how seniors are being taken care of. They spread it about Pharmacare. You know, there's an awful lot of misinformation out there. It's mischievous. It's wrong, and it upsets people in this province unnecessarily.

The fact is that this bill does not change any standards. It simply addresses the processes by which applications and necessary regulatory roadblocks that are there for good purposes are going to be met, so it doesn't change environmental standards. It doesn't change health standards. It doesn't change safety standards. It has nothing to do with the substance of those very important subjects. Those standards are not prejudiced by this legislation.

What this legislation does, though, is make sure the decisions on significant projects are going to be expedited so that the investors who are interested in these projects, who are putting these projects forward, can actually get answers in a time frame that makes sense in the money capitals of the world.

Other speakers have noted, and I think it is worthwhile stressing, that the designation of projects is a formal step that must be taken if this legislation is actually to be implemented with respect to a particular project. The decision to designate a project is going to be made by cabinet. You know, cabinet is more than just a bunch of individuals. It's part of our governance structure. It comes with a whole host of rules, regulations, protocols. This is not something where a minister can walk in on a Wednesday morning and say, "I think this is a great project, so let's do it," and everybody cheers and says: "Oh yeah, that sounds wonderful."

That's not what this legislation does. It sets up its own set of processes to ensure that designations are, indeed, going to be what they are intended to be. They are intended to designate projects that are of special importance to the province, importance that goes beyond the physical location in which the project might exist. There are lots of safeguards to make sure the kind of devious designation of projects that the opposition suggests would happen is just not there. I certainly wouldn't be supporting this bill if I thought there was any chance that somehow we were going to play coy with important decisions of this nature.

I think, as well, there's some fear around how this legislation is going to interact with, interface with, local government authorities. The way I read the legislation — and I know the intent of the minister and the cabinet — the objective is cooperation with local governments. Having provided autonomy to local municipalities, they need to be involved in large-scale projects of provincial interest. I think it's the nature of local government, and indeed we elect our local governments in order to take care of local issues.

There is a tendency for local governments to not just pay attention to local issues but be focused on those issues to the exclusion of broader provincial interests. The member for Chilliwack-Kent spoke about this quite eloquently, I thought, earlier this evening in this debate with reference to regional districts. I certainly have concerns in my own region about how the regional district of Nanaimo, in my case, tends to focus

on growth management rather than economic growth. I think there are areas where provincial interests and regional interests are sometimes somewhat at odds.

This bill doesn't override what regional districts or municipalities are there to do. When a project is designated, that's a clear signal to other levels of government that British Columbia sees a provincial interest in a project that has significant benefits and opportunities for all of us. It's a signal to local governments that they need to pay attention and get their heads up from the important local issues they are there to manage and help us, as part of an effort in the province, to build the province together. I think that is actually not something new, because the Community Charter had, as part of its background, similar objectives. But with respect to economic activity and investment opportunities, it does give another perspective on how the province and its local governments, which are creatures of the province, can work together.

There is no question that over the history of this province, there have been many occasions where transboundary issues have caused great problems. By transboundary issues I mean issues where more than one jurisdiction, usually local, has a particular interest in a project. I think this legislation is an important piece of legislation, both substantively and as a signal. When my investor from Frankfurt arrives and we have attracted him to British Columbia, he doesn't want to know that the regional district of Nanaimo is arguing with the Cowichan Valley regional district, who is arguing with Comox-Strathcona — or pick your assortment of neighbouring interests. They want to know that there is actually something in place where all of these legitimate governance interests are working together.

This is extremely important, given how local governments and — I would have to admit — even provincial governments, in a different environment, can sometimes take a position that is quite difficult. We simply have to get over that. I think this bill and the minister deserve a great deal of credit for introducing the concept that no, this isn't about a fight. This is about building opportunity together.

Critics of this bill have also said: "Well, you know, a project gets designated. That's it. You just override everything, and our particular interests, whatever those local interests might be, aren't going to pay any attention." That simply isn't true. What we should be clear about is that when the cabinet designates an economic development project, that does not mean project approval. That's not what it means at all. It means there is a certainty that there is a process in place that will provide an answer — yes or no, or why don't you look at it another way, maybe amend it a little bit — in a very short period of time.

I've talked about how this is about cooperation with local governments. Also, it's important to remember that this bill sends a signal to the government of Canada. I think many of us who have witnessed life in Ottawa, the activities of the federal government, are believing that maybe there is a new dawn available for us to grasp at the present time. We don't know how long that opportunity might last, but I think we need to be frank and say that some of the developmental opportunities in this province are within the ambit or the influence of the government of Canada.

I am pleased that there seems to be a change in attitude with respect to the importance of western Canada and our place in it. This bill says to the to-be-crowned new administration in Ottawa that we want to rebuild British Columbia as a contributor to the national economy. I think that message has been very clear for the last two and a half years. This, again, is just one more plank in a very ambitious and aggressive program by this government to work on British Columbia with British Columbians and with Canadians to make our province the investment capital of Canada.

This bill means that British Columbia can offer a real advantage to people and corporations that are interested in creating jobs and wealth right here in our own province. I know that some jurisdictions have taken different approaches to this whole issue of how you deal with government silos and getting approvals when, quite legitimately, different ministries have different responsibilities. How do you interact and make sure you can get answers? I know that for some jurisdictions — I think California is one — and certain environmental activities, there are time limits for responses to proposals. It's an interesting concept. You know, if you put a proposal to the ministry of X and they haven't responded to you in 45 days, well, away you go.

I think this approach in Bill 75 is more intelligent than that. What it does is require a special treatment be put in place — a special process to deal with special, important projects — rather than having some kind of artificial review and time limits that could see standards prejudiced. There is no risk of prejudicing environmental health and safety standards under what this bill proposes. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This bill guarantees the maintenance and protection of those environmental health and safety standards that we've worked so hard to put into place and improve during our term in office.

This is another piece of the puzzle. It addresses part of the deregulation problem, the problem of having a swath of paper with words written on it that really don't mean very much to anybody anymore. I do want to urge the minister, as this bill moves forward, to keep his focus on that problem of deregulation. To my mind, it's keeping a balance between process, the regulatory burden, the tax burden and the opportunities and financial regulations we have so that we together provide that basis for building B.C. as the investment capital of Canada.

The bill represents huge progress, in my view, in helping to weave that fabric in dealing with government organizational silos, in saying to investors that this is a place you can come where we have time for you and are going to help you. I really look forward to the day when my friend from Frankfurt overflies Hudson Bay, makes the phone call to Victoria, and some-

body says: "Welcome to British Columbia. We're here to help you." This bill is going to help us get there.

D. Hayer: Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for this very important bill, Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Whenever I meet with my constituents, they tell me that one thing that will get the economy going and will revitalize investment in this province is for the government to get out of the way when it comes to making wise business decisions. I am not saying that there do not need to be some controls, but until this bill is enacted, business development is hamstrung by some of the bureaucracy.

The strange thing is that government has always had the ability to make quick decisions. It just had not bothered to do it. This bill will make it the rule, and that is a good thing. The cabinet will make the final decision after taking everything into consideration in the best interests of British Columbia.

My constituents and so many other business people I have met during my travels throughout this province keep telling me that what they would like to see are simple, quick decisions. If a project is wrong, they want to know it right away. If it is right, they want to know it as soon as possible too, because delays in decision-making do nothing but cost money — and lots of it. This bill will answer those questions. It will allow business people to get definitive answers quickly, and that will save them time, save them money and encourage them to invest in British Columbia to create jobs, provide security for workers and strengthen our economy.

You should know that the mayor of Surrey, the second-largest city in British Columbia and one of the fastest-growing cities in this country, supports this bill. Mayor Doug McCallum is on the record as saying he wants to see the governments working together. He wants to see government being held accountable for delivering decisions in a timely manner. Mayor Doug McCallum has also gone on the record as saying that investment capital needs this act and that it will expedite the decisions needed in an increasingly competitive world. In other words, what our mayor is saying is that together we can find solutions, solutions that work in a timely fashion.

I heard these words over and over during the many years I served on the board of directors of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, during the time I spent on the chamber's executive and as its president in 1996 and 1997. As well, I served as a district director and director-at-large for the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. During all those times I heard the same things: "Government has to fast-track these decisions. It takes too long. We will continue to lose business, lose investment, to other parts of the country like Alberta and Ontario."

I was not elected to serve the business interests and the people of Alberta. I was elected to represent the constituents of Surrey-Tynehead and the people of British Columbia. I want to ensure that our people benefit through a vibrant economy based on an efficient decision-making process from our government. This act will take the politics out of decision-making. It will make decision-making quick and easy.

If a project is right, it needs to proceed without dragging things out endlessly. If the project is wrong, the proponents need to know that, too, and quickly, so they don't waste a lot of money and a lot of time. What we are talking about here is making government effective, efficient and responsible, and that is a positive. Because of that, this bill makes sense. I give enthusiastic and complete support for Bill 75.

R. Hawes: It's a pleasure to stand and, like my colleagues, add my support for this bill. My congratulations to the minister for bringing this bill forward. It is very innovative and clearly, as the previous speakers have said, very necessary.

I spent a lot of years in my life as a banker. One of the lessons I learned as a banker…. Some of my colleagues didn't, and I'm sure there are members here in this House who have run into people like that in the banks. They didn't learn how to say no. What would happen if somebody applied for a commercial loan or to get something from the bank is that they would be asked for some updated financial statements, maybe some interim statements. Then they would be asked for a little more information about their company and some more personal information. They would have the person running back and forth to their accountant and spending all kinds of money, when the banker knew upfront the answer was going to be no, because the client didn't comply with the needs of the bank to accommodate the request, but for one reason or another just didn't have the gumption to say no.

I think there are a lot of people who probably can relate to that, who have been run around the pole at a bank or a lending institution. Only after doing all kinds of running around and gathering of information have they got a no in their company or their business. I learned really early as a banker that the first no, a quick no, is actually the best thing to do when you're dealing with any kind of request that you can't accommodate, and it's respected when you give a quick no.

I've also learned, in my years that I spent in municipal government, that there are municipal governments — and there are quite a few of them out there — that have the same problem. They just don't like to say no. Whether it's the council or it's administrative staff, they just don't seem to have the ability to deal upfront with a request, and so they keep asking for more information, more studies — ask the staff to go back and review history, get another staff report, perhaps get the proponent to hire another consultant. And it goes on and on.

I'm sure anyone who's spent any time in local government has seen that phenomenon more than once. For the proponent it's a dreadful treadmill to be put on, particularly if they've made an investment and are trying to get an answer to either move it ahead or get out

of the investment, if they can. A lot of times I've seen proponents being told to go and get information that's not relevant to the decision that needs to be made, and yet they're supposed to spend a bunch of money on engineering or some technical aspect of their application that has no relevance to a yes or a no. Yet they're making this investment, and often somewhere down the line, after a lot of money is spent, they're getting a no.

That's the kind of thing that gives a black eye to our province. It gives a black eye to the municipalities that are involved. I could list a number of municipalities that act in this way, because the word gets around. If you're working at the local government level, you soon find out who the cities are that do this kind of thing. This legislation shoots a bit of a shot across the bow of municipalities that would delay and keep seeking more information that's not necessary. There's a bit of a shot across the bow to say: "Get on with it and make your decisions in a timely way."

This legislation does not in any way create new power for the government that really doesn't already exist under other statutes. I'm sure that the minister, when he closes debate here, is going to confirm that. The government has override provisions today that aren't being created here. They are being stipulated here, but they aren't being created for the first time. These are not new powers for the provincial government. This is not a complete override, as the Leader of the Opposition has talked about, or creating a banana republic and all of the things that she said. Quite the contrary.

I just want to mention for a minute what happened in the mid-nineties. I'm getting a signal here from my colleagues who are suggesting…. I'm not quite sure what they're suggesting.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, I think I've only been speaking for five minutes, so….

In the mid-nineties the previous government brought in an act called the regional growth management act. It forced regional districts to operate their planning processes in cooperation with each other.

When they did that, they said if there couldn't be agreement between the regional governments, there was an arbitration process put in place whereby the regional government could go to the provincial government and ask for an arbitrator to be appointed, which just happens to be what's in this act. It's very interesting what the parallels are between what the previous government did and some of the things that are in this act.

I notice here that there are a number of people who do want to speak to this, so all I wanted to say is: this is a good piece of legislation that does pave the way for the government to create a business atmosphere that gives a little more certainty to those who come here and want to just get on with it. It does assist this province in creating an economy and the jobs that we all know are highly necessary.

With that — and I know there's a list of people who do want to speak — I'll just wind it up right there.

B. Lekstrom: I rise this evening in the Legislative Assembly to voice my opposition to Bill 75, not out of disrespect for my colleagues that sit in this Legislature, but I do see this bill in a different light. I believe that, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers previously, the provincial government did have jurisdiction to pass under section 874, I believe, of the Local Government Act, overriding legislation that could overrule a local government bylaw.

What I see, coming from the background that I do with local government, is a lot of good work by local governments. I know that thought is shared by my colleagues. But the ones that are using delaying tactics, and so on, aren't the local governments that I think are the norm in British Columbia. I think most local governments come from an aspect that we're here to do business, we're here to make the communities grow, we're here to make our regions grow, and, particularly, we're here to make our province grow and grow our economy together.

I think it would be somewhat selfish of me if I was to stand and vote no on a piece of legislation without giving some reasons as to why I cast my vote that way, so I rise today with all due respect to the minister and my colleagues to oppose Bill 75.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act is about trying to make our province a better place — easier to do business in — but I think there are different levels of participation. I think local governments have a role to play in that, and I believe they play a good role, a quality role, and have done a good job in the past. The Community Charter is a piece of legislation that we're allowing the autonomy for local governments to operate under. I know that I share many concerns with many of my constituents when I see the federal government stepping into jurisdictions that we feel are provincial. I recognize this bill in a similar light — that we're stepping into jurisdictions that I believe wholeheartedly should remain within the realm of local governments and those bodies to act upon. I can't reiterate enough that the majority of our local governments, both municipal and regional, are governments that want to streamline processes and make it work in an acceptable manner for all.

I could go on at some length, but I think I've laid out the gist of the reasons behind where I'll be casting my vote. I have a great deal of faith in my colleagues. I disagree on this piece of legislation, and I think that's what's great about democracy. That's what's great about the B.C. Liberal government, with the issue of being able to come down here and represent your constituents — what's in their best interests — and then stand up at the end of the vote and go out and, whichever way that vote goes, make it work.

With all due respect to my colleagues, I will not be supporting Bill 75 for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I believe the local governments we have in British Columbia are second to none, and I believe they do their hardest work and are elected by their people to do the job in their constituencies.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm informed the Lieutenant-Governor is in or near the precinct. I would urge members to stay in their places, and I will ring the bells to call the rest of the members to the chamber.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia over the last decade we have listened to voices from virtually every sector of the business community, voices that have been pleading with government to come to grips with the challenge we face in British Columbia. Projects that are provincially significant, which could have important social, economic or environmental benefit are held up, frustrated or thwarted by regulation both at the provincial level and sometimes at the local level.

I'm reminding folks that since the late 1990s we've seen over 30,000 British Columbians leave British Columbia for Alberta. We've seen over 500 corporations pick up and move to Alberta. We've heard stories firsthand from these companies that it was the approval process in British Columbia that drove them to make the decision to move their companies out of British Columbia. Clearly, we have a job to do here.

We've listened as far back as 1998 when the B.C. Business Summit came forward with recommendations to deal with the unwieldy approval processes that we have in B.C. We heard the same message on the red-tape reduction task force 2001, where representatives from all different kinds of chambers of commerce and business communities pleaded with the government to make changes on how we approve projects. Just recently the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services heard from the Business Council of British Columbia, asking — indeed, pleading — for legislation that would impose some disciplines on the government — not for certainty of outcome but certainty of process so that we would not allow process to get in the way of frustrating projects that could be important for British Columbia.

This follows years of hearing of project after project not moving forward. I have listened to countless rural resource mayors that have given me story, chapter and verse about the challenges they've faced trying to get major investments happening here in British Columbia and often having to see those go across the border to neighbouring Alberta.

This bill, Bill 75, creates a tremendous opportunity. It is perfectly consistent with both the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, which under sections 2 and 4 state very clearly that nothing in the act takes away from the right — indeed, the responsibility — of the province to act in the best interests of citizens generally. That is our responsibility in this House and in this Legislature. Bill 75 will do that in a way that cooperatively works with local government.

For all those people out there who try to say that this is going to cause us to override government, everybody give their heads a shake. We already have those powers under section 874. Government has had

the ability to do that for at least 30 years in British Columbia. What this bill does is recognize that when we designate a project as provincially significant, we put together a cooperative manner in which all levels of approval authority, provincial and local, can work together to get through the review and decision processes so that we can get fast answers to individuals that are looking for some certainty and timeliness around a project.

Hon. K. Falcon: Ladies and gentlemen, if people like the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is chirping in the background, would actually take time to read the bill, they might realize that this is a tremendous opportunity for both levels of government to work together. That's why we have leaders and mayors like the mayor of Surrey — the second-largest city in the province, the fastest-growing city in the province — saying that this is a positive thing. It shows how government can work together to attract investment capital which — the members of the opposition have never understood — actually has choices. Capital doesn't have to come to British Columbia. We need to welcome capital in British Columbia, and that's exactly what this bill will do.

I am pleased and proud to be able to stand before you, Mr. Speaker, and move second reading on this bill. It is an important bill. It is particularly important for rural resource British Columbia, and it's an important part of our heartlands economic strategy. I'm proud to be able to add another tool to the arsenal to make sure we can get and revitalize that important part of our economy and that important part of the province.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining 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.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 62

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Harris	Brenzinger	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Bennett	R. Stewart
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan


	YEAS — 55

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Masi	Lee	Murray
Plant	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan


	YEAS — 27

Falcon	Hogg	Halsey-Brandt
J. Reid	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Masi	Thorpe
Murray	Plant	Stephens
Jarvis	Harris	Long
Chutter	Trumper	Hayer
Christensen	Bray	Bhullar
Wong	K. Stewart	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Lekstrom