Hansard — Monday, March 12, 2007 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6045
	Security Services Act (Bill 15)
	Hon. J. Les

Private Members' Statements		6045
	The Evergreen line
	H. Bloy
	D. Thorne
	Land use planning
	N. Simons
	B. Bennett
	The importance of arts and culture
	J. McIntyre
	N. Macdonald
	Housing affordability indexation
	R. Fleming
	L. Mayencourt

Motions on Notice		6055
	Independent power producers (Motion 4)
	J. Rustad
	J. Horgan
	J. Yap
	S. Simpson
	J. McIntyre
	C. Wyse
	R. Sultan
	R. Austin
	R. Hawes
	B. Bennett

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, today is Commonwealth Day, and I'd like to draw your attention to the message from Her Majesty the Queen that is at the desk of each member. The theme of this year's Commonwealth Day is: "Respecting difference, promoting understanding."

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Security Services Act.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce today the new Security Services Act, which replaces the 26-year-old Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act.

The security world has changed dramatically since the current act was introduced in 1981. We have seen extraordinary growth in the private security sector, with new businesses offering a range of safety and security services that were never previously contemplated. The security world of 2007 is also far more complex, demanding and knowledge-based, as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, legislative changes, new case law and jurisprudence have changed the dynamics of the industry.

Private security workers play an important and fundamental role in our society, and we need to ensure that all aspects of the industry are covered by regulation and therefore operate with oversight and accountability, with security clearances and with standards of training. The new Security Services Act will address these and other issues.

First, the legislation will extend to segments of the industry that are currently not regulated. Amongst others, this will include the corps of commissionaires, armoured-car guards, in-house security guards, bodyguards and bouncers at licensed liquor establishments.

The new act will enhance public safety by ensuring consistent and appropriate standards across the industry. The new act will also introduce a public complaint process, something that was not included in the current legislation. The new act also provides the authority to further develop the complaint process, and we will ensure that it is transparent and enhances conduct and accountability throughout the industry.

In addition, the new Security Services Act will provide direct licensing of security workers, also known as portable licensing. This will allow security workers to move freely between employers and/or work for more than one employer, but the impact on business will be minimal.

Finally, the new act will provide an additional 5,500 screened, trained and licensed security workers available for work within the industry in this province.

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

Bill 15, Security Services Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

H. Bloy: Just before I start my statement, I guess I'll mention for the first time today that we have a new Canadian champion from British Columbia from Simon Fraser University. The women's Clan basketball team won the championship over the weekend.

I rise today to highlight the importance of enhancing our transportation system in my community. I have been working hard, meeting with all levels of government — mayors, councillors, MPs, fellow MLAs and Minister of Transportation — to ensure that the Evergreen line is built.

There were many options proposed for this new transportation line — various routes, alternate technologies. Despite this debate, the mayors, the provincial government and the federal government representatives are all in agreement that it is time to move forward. The Evergreen line is important to the residents and will bring many benefits to our communities.

The Evergreen line will feature 12 stations over 11 kilometres, linking the neighbourhoods of Coquitlam, Port Moody and Burnaby with Lougheed Town Centre, where they'll get connecting buses to SkyTrain and also have opportunity with the West Coast Express. Our government has committed $170 million to this project.

This light rail technology will feature high-capacity, driver-operated, quiet passenger vehicles travelling in embedded rails in streets or exclusive rail rights-of-way. The light rail transit system provides fast, efficient and reliable service.

The communities of the northeast sector of the lower mainland are experiencing a period of rapid growth. This is putting increased pressures on our roadways. From 1991 to 2005 the northeast sector population has grown by 48 percent, while the average growth in the lower mainland has been 35 percent,

with many residents in my riding of Burquitlam facing a long, frustrating commute to work, experiencing gridlock on a daily basis.

The Evergreen line will not only give residents more time with their families and less time commuting to and from work, it will get them out of their cars and using public transit. It is estimated that the Evergreen line will convert 1.9 million annual car trips to transit soon after it opens, growing to 3.6 million trips per year by the year 2021.

As our province embarks on an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our public transit system is more important than ever. Providing residents of the northeast sector with a viable, convenient public transit option in the form of light rail transit will help us meet our goals in tackling the challenges of climate change.

I'd like to talk a bit about the financing of the Evergreen line and voice my support for the delivery of this project as a public-private partnership. We've heard a lot lately about public-private partnerships or P3s, and I would like to set the record straight today.

At the 2006 UBCM conference it was announced by the Premier that all provincially funded capital projects over $20 million will be evaluated by Partnerships B.C. to look at how the project might be built as a public-private partnership. I can tell you the reasons for this. P3s save money. That's the bottom line. They transfer risk and add great value through design, innovation and the private sector.

Our government is committed to ensuring that transportation projects are undertaken in the most efficient and fiscally responsible manner. That is why the Minister of Transportation proposed a new governance structure for TransLink this past week. The new governance structure would clearly define the roles and the responsibility of the council of mayors, the TransLink board and the independent commissioner.

Despite the misgivings of Burnaby's mayor, Derek Corrigan, this structure and the proposed funding for framework will actually give TransLink the ability to generate the additional revenues, allowing them to proceed with their long-term plan, which includes the construction of the Evergreen line. With the proposed new governance structure of TransLink, the province's $170 million commitment and the option of a public-private partnership, the Evergreen line is moving forward.

Since our government launched the public-private partnership initiative in 2002, we've either started or completed $4.7 billion in new P3 projects. The results and the benefits are evidently clear to everyone. We're getting at least $131 million in additional benefits on the Sea to Sky Highway, at least $92 million in additional benefits on the new Canada line, $39 million in additional benefits on the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre, $17 million in additional benefits in the $95 million out-patient hospital in Vancouver, $10 million additional benefits in the Britannia mine water treatment plant, and $25 million in additional benefits in the new William R. Bennett bridge in Kelowna. That's $310 million in added benefits.

Despite the misgivings of big labour and their supporters, P3s are the future of capital development in British Columbia. They have a proven track record of providing better value, on-time and on-budget projects.

British Columbians are already seeing the benefits of transportation projects that have been undertaken as a public-private partnership. There's the $30 million Kicking Horse Canyon project. Another example is the new five-lane William R. Bennett bridge crossing the Okanagan. Closer to home, we have two major public-private partnerships in the lower mainland: the Sea to Sky Highway improvement and the Canada line.

The private partner will design, construct and partially finance and operate the line for 35 years — that's the new Canada line — under an operating licence from the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. The partnership agreement is expected to result in $92 million in value for taxpayers' dollars over the life of the agreement.

B.C.'s Auditor General reviewed the value-for-money report and concluded that it fairly represents the project and the results to date. The GVTA will own the line, collect all fare revenue, and set transportation policy and fare levels. The private partner will only be paid during the construction period and after achieving specific milestones. During the operating period payments to the private partner will be made based on the achievement of performance measures such as train frequency and safety.

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

D. Thorne: I'd like to thank the member for Burquitlam for pointing out how much we need rapid transit in the Coquitlam–Port Moody area because that will save me having to do that. However, that's about where…. Oh, no, there is one other thing that I agree with Mr. Bloy on that he pointed out.

He certainly is right that P3s will be the future in British Columbia if this government gets its way. I do agree with him on those two points.

However, where the member and I disagree is that I was actually there for all of the votes, all of the studies, all of the work that's been done up to this point. I was actually there voting, and I know exactly what happened and what the real situation is.

On Coquitlam council we had signed an agreement with the GVRD to build in Burke Mountain the second-largest development in the history of this province, second only to the British Properties. We were well on the way, had spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to fulfil our obligations, and we

Well, it just didn't come, and we were moving ahead. In 2003 when I was sitting on the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver regional district, the Canada line reared its ugly head, then known as the RAV line.

I can tell you that this was the most raucous debacle that has ever been seen at the GVRD. In the end, after TransLink does its work, it has to come to the GVRD board for final agreement. We had vote after vote. We had meetings that were extended long after meetings were to be held. Finally, the Canada line was voted yes by one weighted vote. To put that into some kind of context for those people who are not familiar with the GVRD voting process, that means a community the size of Lions Bay, Belcarra — 500, 600, 700 people.

One weighted vote made the decision to build the Canada line. We knew then, those of us who were worried sick about this line, that the province was pushing it. They wanted it through for the Olympics. We knew there were federal dollars they didn't want to lose, but we also knew that every single transit dollar for this region would be sucked up by the Canada line.

What would happen would be that we would lose the Evergreen line to Coquitlam, which was SkyTrain at that time, and always was…. Again, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent studying technology for the SkyTrain to get it down the mountain and through Port Moody and into Coquitlam….

Well, let me tell you that nobody could believe that that small a vote was going to allow the Canada line to go ahead. However, it's a democracy, and the line went ahead. So what has happened now was exactly what was predicted, even though at that time we were guaranteed in Coquitlam that the line would be concurrent. They would build the Canada line and the Evergreen line at the same time.

Most of us in our hearts, even some people that voted for it, knew it could not happen. There was no money. It couldn't happen, and guess what. The Evergreen line has been postponed again because of lack of money. For the last year everybody has been concerned there isn't going to be enough money. The province won't put any more in. TransLink doesn't have any money.

Of course, now it's resurfacing with the new TransLink plans as a P3. Well, the new TransLink plans and the P3 model are once again going to override municipal rights to zoning and land use. The livable region strategic plan will not be involved. Once again we're going to have transit planning that's not connected to land use planning — this, with a government that says it's going to be involved in climate change. It's worried about the environment.

We're going to take a sensitive region like the lower mainland of British Columbia that is already starting to see environmental degradation, and we're going to once again separate land use planning from transit planning. One can hardly believe that this is happening. There are so many things that a person could say about this, about the new plan and about the Evergreen line.

Now, as far as the Evergreen line is concerned, there is no doubt that we need rapid transit very badly, and we have been promised it for a long time. So we do look forward to getting it, but we are very apprehensive.

H. Bloy: Thank you very much to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for putting her thoughts forward. I just wanted to correct a few of them. When they first started the concept of the Evergreen line, it was proposed…. There was a Millennium line that was going to continue. It was proposed by the former NDP government, which only proposed it — never had the money for it, never had any fortitude to finish it and did nothing — unlike our government that came ahead, looked at it and said: "We are going to do something, and we're going to work with TransLink."

We also talked about the Canada line. The member was there on different boards and voting. Yes, they voted and they voted, and they flipped and flopped. They went backwards and forwards. They went nowhere.

One of the main reasons for a review of the governance of the TransLink system was because it was dysfunctional. When you get that happening, no one moves ahead.

We talk about climate change and what we can do for the environment. Here's an opposition who voted against the throne speech and the budget speech. They didn't vote one word for climate change at all. I find it hypocritical the way that they can stand up here and talk about climate change and vote against everything that's happening.

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

H. Bloy: Everything that we've said, we've proceeded on. We're moving ahead for the betterment of everybody in British Columbia, not just for a select few, like the opposition has.

Let's look at a couple of public transportation projects from the '90s, unlike the P3s, that were not delivered on time, nor on budget. The NDP announced in 1993 that the Island Highway project would be built at a cost of $1.06 billion. By 1995 the project had gone up $150 million.

H. Bloy: The cost overruns were caused by soaring labour costs. Paying workers way more than the average rate of the day caused the project to not even be finished

yet and to be reduced in all areas. In order to compensate for the out-of-cost labour costs, the completion date originally scheduled for '99 was pushed back to 2001. In the end the project came in $310 million over budget.

Then there was the SkyTrain system, the new Millennium line. The cost rose by $2.6 billion. The government was going to finish in 2001. It didn't finish until September 2002. The Millennium line lost $17 million in their first year and continued to use money on a regular basis until TransLink started to put in more commuter buses in the northeast sector to feed it.

I say it again. Public-private partnerships save money. They transfer risk and add great value through design, innovation and private sector. I would agree and urge everyone in this House to support the Evergreen line as a public-private partnership.

N. Simons: I gather my composure after the outburst from the member for Burquitlam. I'm thinking that his discussion was on the Evergreen line, but I think I heard him say it once.

I'm very pleased to stand here and speak in favour of what I believe to be a process that is needed by the communities that I represent. That is land use planning.

I have a number of concerns. The minister may know that a land and resource management plan was originally planned for our area in 1996, a step after the protected areas strategy, and again in 2001. Now we have a commitment from the Premier recently, in the newspaper, speaking very eloquently in favour of such a high-level plan for the coast.

My feeling is that there has been enough delay. My constituents are adamant that it is time to get on with higher-level strategic planning. That is partly because there have been so many conflicts in our area, many of which have been unnecessary and could have been avoided through intelligent long-term planning.

My constituents also know that in the past, many resources have been poorly managed. We're anxious to see a reasonable approach to resolving some of these old issues as well as the ones that we're facing in the future.

I'm sure that the minister is aware that it is often necessary to spend money in order to make money. Likewise, it is often necessary to invest resources in order to reap benefits. In this situation investment in planning is necessary to get the broadest possible benefits to the province as well as to my constituents.

Times are changing, and challenges are emerging that we haven't seen before. We can't do things in the simplistic way we've done them in the past if we wish to create a prosperous and a good future for coming generations.

One of the purposes of land use planning is to put all the public and private stakeholders together and to support them with the best currently available social, economic and scientific information to be used for them, to help them to foster an intelligent approach to sustainability and harmony between different communities, first nations and the various economic sectors in our communities.

It costs money to get beyond the stage of just doing the right things and getting to the point where we're actually getting things done. The minister will probably know that I'm apprehensive about the plan around the Sunshine Coast and the Sunshine Coast forest district because I haven't seen any strong indication, besides our discussions interpersonally, that would indicate that funding is forthcoming for a comprehensive plan.

As we know, planning for the Sunshine Coast is important. I hope that the minister is aware that the need is underscored by the lessons that we've learned in the past and the resulting impacts on our environment that have been created by not having adequate planning.

Many rivers in my constituency once produced salmon runs numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These fish supported jobs, and they supported the livelihoods of communities and thousands of people for thousands of generations. We're talking about a fish resource that has sustained communities and cultures for generations, since time immemorial.

I'm talking about rivers like the great Brittain River, the Deserted River, the Hunaechin River, the Skwawka River of Jervis Inlet, the Tzoonie at the head of Narrows Inlet and many others, like the Homathko, the Silvergate in Bute Inlet and the Toba River at the head of Toba Inlet — the vast majority of which are in long-term decline. Hundreds and hundreds of small salmon runs have entirely disappeared.

I think the minister should consider these issues and the need for strategic land use planning to bring the massive potential wealth back to the province. Maybe the minister will consider that, instead of a piecemeal approach and granting aquaculture licences, we need to get our priorities straight and make sure that our focus is on the enhancement, support and regeneration of the wild population. A fully funded land and resource management planning process would help us ensure that the wild fisheries and the aquaculture enterprises do not conflict.

I believe also that the minister is aware of the global climate change issue which is facing us. The people of Powell River and Sunshine Coast would like to be the first in the province to create a land and resource management plan that will actually consider how to cope with these new and unavoidable changes resulting from climate change. People in my riding are prepared to face these kinds of challenges. I hope the government will support them in investment in this LRMP strategy.

There are many more issues that need to be addressed. I hope that the government, and the minister in particular, knows that a good land use plan will ensure that geoduck farms aren't placed in front of residential neighbourhoods — and such a proposal is on the table before us — and further to the issue of geoduck farms,

maybe the public has a right to expect that the best currently available, peer-reviewed scientific evidence is brought to bear on the question. Before projects such as those are planned, the community, the stakeholders have a right to have some input into that form of activity.

B. Bennett: I want to thank the member for the opportunity to discuss land use planning here in the House and also for the opportunity to say some nice things about where he happens to come from. I've spent a little bit of time up in the Sunshine Coast, and it is indeed a beautiful, beautiful area.

I offered to speak this morning to the member's statement because I've had a fair bit of experience at land use planning in my own part of the province in the East Kootenay. In fact, over the past six years I've been engaged in land use planning in my region, probably some days more than I would like. It's a very challenging exercise.

I agree with the member that it is the right thing to do. It is very much necessary in areas, particularly like the Sunshine Coast, that have a lot to offer in terms of natural resources and that are close to the big city of Vancouver. It is seeing lots of people move up there to retire and choose a different lifestyle.

I was up in the Sunshine Coast about a year ago, actually, with the member. I flew over the peninsula with a helicopter. I took a boat ride with the member up the Sechelt Inlet with a number of his constituents and then went to a meeting after that on the mainland side of the inlet and met with several of the member's constituents and really got an appreciation of how important it is to the people who live there to maintain the natural environmental integrity they have. That includes things like the view and clean water and just, frankly, to not see as much industrial activity as what a lot of them saw when they lived in the various cities across the country.

I do think it's fair for me to point out that the minister responsible here, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, has in fact made a very sincere commitment to land use planning on the Sunshine Coast. His ministry has just completed a comprehensive scoping exercise for the Sunshine Coast which included stakeholders, regional governments, local municipal governments and of course the four first nations. As I say, it was a comprehensive exercise, and the ministry is now working with the four first nations to try and determine how to go forward with this land use planning process.

I would suggest — and I'm sure the member agrees with me — that it's not possible today and not desirable, either, to proceed with land use planning without having the resident first nations completely engaged in the process. That will no doubt take some time, but it's important that that happens. Again, I'm sure the member agrees with me.

I note that the member said that back in 1996 there was some discussion at that time about land use planning and that the government of the day put that off. I think, Madam Speaker, that you'll see this government pick up the challenge and get the job done there. The one advantage of a bit of a delay to the member's constituents is that now we can see the future of the Sunshine Coast. I think that when you go up there now and look around, you see what it's going to be like over the next 50 years, frankly.

Again to the member, the exercise won't be easy. You'll find that once the land use planning process starts, the member has some constituents up there who still would like to make their living in the mining industry and in the forest industry. Many of the people that move to areas like the Sunshine Coast and to areas like mine, frankly, in the East Kootenay go there with a pocket full of money. They don't need to earn their living from the local economy. What the member will find is that there is some conflict between the folks who move there from the city and the folks who have lived there for a long time and make their living in traditional ways.

Again, land use planning is the right thing to do. It's just bad business, bad government to proceed with economic development unless you have a vision for what your region should be like 20 or 30 years down the line. That's what the member is asking for. I think it's an eminently reasonable thing to ask for, and I support him on it.

N. Simons: I appreciate the member for East Kootenay and his comments about land use planning. I think we agree that, yes, in fact, possibly to prevent some of the conflict that exists in communities, the hard work of sitting down at the table and hashing out issues in the long, potentially conflictual process ultimately leads to better certainty for the entire community.

Some of the other reasons — and I'm glad that the member opposite agrees…. I believe that his government is coming along to actually go forward with this land and resource management plan or at least a higher-level plan for the Sunshine Coast forest district.

I would say it's no more urgent than now because of some of the significant developments that are being proposed, including some mining where large-scale mining has not traditionally taken place, including community developments that are taking place close to watersheds, including run-of-the-river hydro generating projects that will involve transmission lines going in various directions across the entire forest district.

Some of the intelligent land use planning in this area could go a long way to ensuring that we have the benefits of these power projects without compromising the needs of the economic sectors that rely on environmental and visual quality for our landscapes. It's a job we need to get on with, Madam Speaker — with respect.

I could speak of many land use conflicts in my riding. Every day I spend in Powell River–Sunshine Coast I'm approached by people who find themselves drawn into

conflicts unexpectedly, and people are sometimes outraged by some of the proposed plans that are taking place.

I would just like to reiterate the importance of planning and the importance of engaging with the first nations community in this process. I believe that the first nations in my constituency also see the benefit in order to protect the resources that have been under their stewardship for a millennium. I believe that we can actually come together and work cooperatively for the benefit of the environment and for the benefit of the economic stability of the region as well.

With that, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to emphasize the importance of supporting and promoting arts and culture in communities throughout B.C. According to a 2002 study, 75 percent of Canadians consider the arts essential to their quality of life. Residents value access to arts and cultural events, and a strong arts and cultural sector is critical to building healthy and vibrant communities. A thriving arts and culture sector also contributes to tourism, public education, diversity and tolerance. People are attracted to cities and regions that are open and culturally diverse. They choose these places to live and work and vacation.

British Columbia is a ferment of creativity, innovation and artistic expression. In a recent national survey that measured artists as a percentage of the workforce, seven out of ten of the most artistic small communities in the country and six of the ten most artistic large cities were located in this province. Our largest city, Vancouver, has an artistic concentration three times the national average.

Some of the leading innovators in North America's video, media arts and digital technology industries are located right here. Our writers, painters, musicians, singers, photographers, dancers, playwrights and architects are celebrated internationally. We are well poised to take advantage of the opportunities that will be presented in the new imagination economy of the coming decades.

Overall, B.C. holds great promise as an international centre for collaborative innovation and imagination, with cultural activity taking its place alongside economic, social and environmental considerations as an integral element of a provincial culture of prosperity, literacy, health and sustainability.

Our government supports arts and culture through the funding of several programs and organizations — the B.C. Arts Council, the Spirit of B.C. arts fund and 2010 Legacies Now, to name a few. Last year the province increased the B.C. Arts Council budget by $3 million, to approximately $14 million. Since its inception, the council has provided over $130 million in funding to assist artists and arts and cultural organizations.

The $20 million Spirit of B.C. arts fund supports increased arts and cultural activity leading up to the 2010 games. On top of this, $12 million has been allocated through 2010 Legacies Now for Arts Now funding, which strengthens and enhances the creativity capacity of organizations and communities throughout B.C.

The establishment of a $25 million B.C. arts renaissance fund will also help to support arts and culture, and just last week the $6.5 million arts partners in creative development program was announced. This program is a partnership between the provincial government, the city of Vancouver, Canada Council for the Arts, Vancouver Foundation, VANOC and 2010 Legacies Now. It will enable B.C. arts and cultural organizations to create artistic works that achieve a high level of excellence by allowing them up to 90 percent of their development or commissioning costs up to a maximum of $300,000.

The successful arts and culture sector really is dependent on partnerships. When government is committed to making investments to further arts and culture and when communities come together to promote the arts, we can achieve great things.

Nowhere is this more evident than in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. I'm incredibly proud of the partnerships that have developed in the Sea to Sky corridor. Cultural activity helps define the character of a community or a region and, through shared experience, enhances social relationships and helps harmonize interaction among diverse cultures.

Last November I attended the Sea to Sky cultural alliance forum, which I'd been a fundamental partner in. We brought together stakeholders from throughout the corridor, led by Max Wyman, mayor of Lions Bay, to discuss cooperation and collaboration in promoting arts in our region. We were there with well over 120 people who participated to show our dedication to cultural enhancement in the corridor and to find ways to develop critical mass.

The dedication of the community is evident in the numerous events that take place in the corridor throughout the year. I just attended the Wild at Art Festival in Squamish. This festival is a celebration of the abundant artistic talent in the local community, featuring everything from sandblasting, glass workshops, musical festivals, fashion shows to concerts, film nights and poetry readings.

Wild at Art is an annual event. Each year it runs longer than the previous year — this year up to ten days — and is committed to run the full 17 days of the Olympic Winter Games. The 2010 Legacies Now is committed to involving all British Columbians in the opportunities arising from hosting the Olympics. The Wild at Art Festival is just a great example of a community seizing the opportunities presented by the games.

I also attended events at West Vancouver's second annual WinterSong festival last month. WinterSong is a wonderful two-week celebration of the human voice and the joy of music. West Vancouver has a long history of embracing the arts, and our community continues to support and strengthen the arts sector today.

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

resident Kay Meek and the tireless efforts of local groups to help make that dream come true. West Vancouver's dedication to promoting the arts earned it the designation of cultural capital of Canada for 2006, an honour bestowed upon only five communities each year by the federal government.

The arts and culture sector creates healthy communities, and it also drives our economy. It employs nearly 80,000 people in our province and contributes over $5 billion to the economy. There's a mutually beneficial relationship between business and arts and cultural organizations. By partnering with the arts, businesses are able to enhance their brand image, their profile. They can gain valuable advertising opportunities and can count on increased tourism dollars as a direct result of promoting cultural events.

Investment in arts and culture encourages economic growth. It attracts and fosters the skilled and imaginative workforce that the new economic forces demand and, thereby, strengthens our national and international competitiveness. At the same time, it reinforces the social scaffolding that supports vital and healthy communities. It is of material benefit to our health and justice systems. Cultural activity deepens and reaffirms our sense of identity, sharing and belonging.

With the Vancouver 2010 Cultural Olympiad, B.C. has a special opportunity to promote arts and culture across the country. Beginning in the host cities of Vancouver and Whistler, with activities that highlight our local cultures and creative artists, the Olympiad will extend across the country to involve a full range of Canada's creative communities and national cultural institutions, culminating in a five-week Olympic arts festival.

But we don't have to wait until 2010, because another major opportunity for celebrating our heritage and culture is B.C. 2008, the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the founding of the colony of British Columbia. Major plans are underway for celebrations throughout the province to highlight our distinct cultural heritage and 150 years of progressive change. It will be a time to showcase our rich arts and culture, to celebrate our diversity and to explore our cultural roots, including first nations.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to thank the member for the opportunity to talk about arts and culture and its importance to all British Columbians. There are parts of the speech that I'm going to agree with. Certainly, the sentiments expressed by the member are sentiments that I think everyone in this House would agree with.

The importance of arts and culture is evident to all. The value to communities of all sizes, whether it's an international city like Vancouver or small communities like Revelstoke, Kimberley, Invermere and Golden…. All communities find arts and culture important.

There are dedicated volunteers and professionals throughout the province that will struggle under any conditions to provide opportunities for people to act and to perform and for people to watch performances. They will make sure that there are chances for people to learn about arts and culture and that there are places for people to display their work. There are people in every community that are committed to preserving and displaying our history.

What they need from us in this Legislature is funding, and that's where I'm going to differ with the member. With funding, it's a case where a modest increase can make a significant improvement because there are so many people who are there ready to work with an infrastructure that you set up.

There should have been money in the last budget for arts and culture. It should have been talked about in the throne speech. It was not. In every meeting of the Finance Committee there were arts and culture groups from the various communities, which hosted public meetings of the standing committee, to push the point that there needed to be additional funding. They were specific in what they needed. They made solid explanations for what the government needed to include in its budget, but the government did not accept any of those recommendations.

Now, the committee members understood that the provincial Standing Committee on Finance, with representatives from both parties, recommended a significant increase to core funding for arts and culture. The recommendations from that committee were not perfect, but on that point they got it right.

For three years the government has promised funding increases, but despite the talk, there has been no additional core funding from the province. I'll just give one example of the program the member referred to. There was Arts Partners. My understanding from e-mails I received is that it does not actually include any new money from the province. It is money shuffled around to create the impression of provincial increase rather than an actual increase.

There has also been no new provincial money put toward infrastructure. The ministry service plan talks about the need for infrastructure investment for arts and culture, but where is it? With culture, we can broaden that to include our heritage and the very real needs of museums, especially the smaller community museums, to have base funding. I'm hearing consistently that programs and needed funding are being eroded, so there are funding issues to be addressed there.

So as I come to the end of the time that's allotted to me, it really achieves nothing to make announcements or to make commitments unless we are willing to follow those words with real resources.

Arts and culture, as the member here agrees — and as I agree with how she said it; I hope I can say it as articulately — is a key part to our success as a society. It gives us quality of life, a quality of life that each community strives for. I want arts and culture to thrive in metropolitan areas. I think it does, but it needs our support. I also want it in the small rural communities that dot the interior and where I come from, and there clearly is a need for more government involvement.

I'm going to push with members in my caucus — and I will raise it in estimates with the government repeatedly — that there needs to be more funding. That is clearly what we are hearing from the arts and culture community. The provincial government has failed to provide adequate funding and needs to improve dramatically if it is to be credible on the issue.

With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this, and I thank the member for raising this issue. It is an important one, one we should talk about as often as possible.

J. McIntyre: I must say that I'm very pleased that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke agrees with my sentiments. At least we agree on the importance of arts and culture and the direction. I guess we may have a fundamental disagreement in terms of funding.

I think that for anything in any situation, there's always more money, and I know that arts groups — and I have lots of empathy and sympathy with them — always want more funding. We are doing the best we can, given all the other demands we have with the galloping health care costs and everything else. We try and balance all of this.

I was able to report…. Maybe what's happening is there may be some confusion about some of the funding because the funding is being given out and meted out in different ways now, perhaps through Arts Now and things like that. But there are very, very generous programs that are connected to 2010. The Arts Now grants, the B.C. spirit week activities where we fund cultural festivals, the WinterSong I described in West Van — all those festivals have received significant funding from the province. The 2008 150-year celebration I'm talking about will have an arts celebration and, also, what I referred to in my notes about the $6.5 million that it's doing in conjunction with VANOC.

What happens, maybe — and the arts community has to keep up with this — is that there are different programs and different ways of supporting arts. The point I wanted to make today, essentially, is that I have never seen British Columbia so engaged in arts and culture, and I've been following this for some time. We have the Spirit of B.C. Week activities happening every year, the Arts Now grants I was talking about and all the other funds. This government set up a brand-new ministry for it in 2005 when we were elected — the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I think there's no question that this government gets it.

I also wanted to speak a few more moments about first nations, because I think one of the things that hosting the 2010 games has really given us is an opportunity to focus on our cultural heritage. First nations and their component of the bid…. My understanding is that a very important part of our being awarded the bid was our emphasis on first nations culture.

I was talking about the opportunities…. We now have an aboriginal tourism blueprint, a model for all of Canada. I have in my very own riding the Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre that will be opened. The government has put $6 million towards that centre.

We're going to have all sorts of opportunities to look at our cultural heritage, and I just think there's no doubt that taken together, the cumulative impact of cultural activity — personal, social, educational and economic — makes a vital contribution to the sustainability of the society in which we live. This B.C. government not only gets it, but we support it.

R. Fleming: I welcome the opportunity this morning to briefly speak about housing affordability. It's an issue of critical importance to the well-being of my constituents, a major challenge to the quality of life of residents of this region and a significant source of anxiety in cities, towns, communities and households across British Columbia.

I want to speak specifically about how we might retain and increase the stock of affordable housing during times of rapid real estate valuations by indexing the corresponding growth of windfall surtaxes received by government with an appropriate level of reinvestment in affordable housing.

Despite a sustained global boom in housing construction and steeply rising values of residential property of all types, conservative governments around the world — and I include B.C. in this — have been reluctant to look at innovative policy interventions that might help low-income — even moderate-income — individuals and families get into the housing market. That is because right-wing governments believe that the market can never be wrong.

But the evidence all around us points to a housing market that is more and more exclusionary, where British Columbians in ever greater numbers pay a greater share of their monthly incomes to housing. It is not uncommon in the capital region or the lower mainland for an individual or a family to pay 40 to 70 percent of their income to housing.

Major housing developers in B.C. and Canada will candidly tell you that there is market failure or an inability by private investors to make money and create a supply of new rental housing at rents that people in the demand of such housing can afford. It is simply not being built.

Another symptom of the housing affordability crisis is the wait-lists for public and non-profit housing, which have grown by 50 percent since 2001. The fact is that today in British Columbia there are fewer housing choices for those who are left outside and left behind by the real estate frenzy. Rising rents, strata conversions and demolition of good rental accommodation have made the rental market more expensive and much tighter. The vacancy rate in the capital region is an extremely unhealthy 0.5 percent.

Public and non-profit housing developments slowed to a trickle after programs like Homes B.C. were cancelled when the B.C. Liberals took office. The family and at-risk housing programs that were eliminated

signalled a shift of B.C. Housing's mandate to now assume Ministry of Health duties to coordinate seniors' residential care or assisted living.

The staggering growth of homelessness in this province and the great difficulty that low-and even middle-income British Columbians are having finding suitable and affordable housing suggests that we must take action or the situation will worsen with unknown consequences. Unfortunately, the government's response after six years was the disappointing Housing Matters, recently tuned up and recycled in the mischaracterized 2007 budget.

This government's failure to build the promised 5,000 residential care units has been commented upon widely elsewhere. Another time, perhaps, we should examine the lessons from Alberta's mistaken attempt to save operating dollars by shifting to a cheaper care level of assisted-living residence without aligning this housing type to the actual needs of seniors.

Historic drops in mortgage lending rates began apace around 2000. They have stayed low in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. This drop in interest rates initially was a tremendous help for millions of first-time home purchasers, but with the massive rise in housing costs, it is more and more property investors that are the target market of choice as modest-income first-time buyers are priced out of reach.

Statistics Canada has recently reported on one by-product of the new housing reality. The percentage of those between 26 and 34 years of age living with their parents has more than doubled with this generation. Calling general income tax cuts an investment in housing is totally disingenuous. There are no lines that connect the two. The fact is that what people spend their individual income tax cut on is completely discretionary.

In the case of this budget, the amount returned to the net income of regular working families is so slight that it will be consumed by paying for the additional fees for public services this government increased since 2001. MSP premiums were raised by 50 percent for all British Columbians. Young people in B.C. who borrow to pay for high tuition fees in university now have the second-highest debts in the country — almost $27,000. This is the start they are getting. This is the first mortgage-sized debt they must now repay.

While credit may be cheaper than it has been in 40 years, the size of household debt has crept from higher mortgages and grown incredibly. Modest tax cuts of a few hundred dollars per year make little difference to those making payments on a home and even less to those who can't qualify to borrow for a home in this crazy market.

The federal, provincial and municipal levels of government accept as good public policy the idea of directly earmarking gasoline excise taxes and fuel surcharges of all kinds and linking that to transportation infrastructure and public transit operations. Why then not link the various surtaxes on housing sales to a reinvestment in building affordable housing for those being left out of the market and for those whose needs keep growing in British Columbia?

Progressive governments are looking at carbon taxes on emitters to fund alternative energy programs and other green conservation programs. The irony is that during the past six years when government did so little here for housing affordability, their coffers grew much fatter from the massive growth in the province's property transfer tax.

In the 20 years of the PPT's existence as a surtax on the sale of property in B.C., it has raised $7.5 billion in revenue. Over $4 billion of that revenue was taken in just in the last six years. The B.C. Liberal government has dined out on the property transfer tax in recent times.

The concept of linking the property transfer tax revenues into affordable housing programs is something that is supported by the UBCM. In fact, in its 2006 report, the task force on communities that was presented to the minister responsible, there was a direct recommendation on page 14 to use the property transfer tax to provide ambitious housing programs of all kinds and work with municipalities to do that. I understand it was quite a battle to keep that recommendation in the final report, but it stands.

The realtors of B.C. are also calling for reinvestment of the property transfer tax into affordable housing programs. I think that homebuyers would feel much better about paying a tax that can easily add $10,000 to the closing cost of their home if they knew it was going to good housing programs in their community rather than the black hole of government general revenue.

L. Mayencourt: Thanks very much to the member from Victoria for raising a very important issue and that is about housing affordability. I was glad that he was able to link the property transfer tax. I wasn't sure what he meant by the title of this presentation, which was housing indexing — so grateful for that.

Housing is a great issue for all of us to be thinking about. You know, British Columbia's experiencing a great economy right now, and that economy has caused all sorts of historically low unemployment rates and really solid economic growth. That strong economy has allowed us to sustain programs and services that are very important to people, but at the same time, it has placed extra pressure on people for home-ownership and such. That is why our budget is dedicated towards housing.

Now, it is true that that is a discretionary kind of decision, something that an individual would be able to make a decision about. But if his premise is that most people in the capital regional district or Vancouver are putting 40 percent to 70 percent of their income towards housing, then this tax benefit is of benefit to those individuals. I don't like it when people in this House sneer at the fact that we've left more money in people's pockets, which can be used towards more housing affordability.

Another important part that government put forward was a $250 million endowment for innovative housing projects. I really think that's a good sound investment, when we have a bit of surplus, to be able to put that away. In Alberta they've put it in the heritage trust and others. I think everybody that sees government saving money in a specific pot to do a specific task…. People like that, so I'm very grateful for that.

One of the things I hope the member will comment on is that when you look at housing matters, one of the issues we face with entrenched property is that individuals who do not get into the housing market — in other words, they don't get to buy an apartment or buy a condo or a house — are the ones that really suffer over the long term.

If a person were to buy a house, say, in 2001 and today continued to own that home and had paid the mortgage on it, typically they've raised something like 50 percent in value. That's a great thing. Housing is a great way for people to catch up and get inside of the economy and avoid poverty.

That's why I've been working with SEDI, which is creating a program called HomeSave. HomeSave is a program that I am really pushing on this side of the House. I hope the members opposite will do so as well. It's a pilot project in which individuals can create a development account towards the purchase of a home. It allows people to learn to save. It gives them budgeting information. It helps them with all their financial planning for the next five years.

This innovative program would see individuals put away a set amount of dollars every month. That money would be matched by the province, by the federal government and by a civic government so that we allow people to save more rapidly. It gives them tremendous incentive to do that. It teaches them the budgeting skills. What it does is get those people the opportunity to put a down payment on a house.

I believe that probably the best thing we can do for people living in poverty is get them involved in home ownership. It really does make a difference. I mean, I am certainly a huge supporter of social housing, certainly a supporter of innovative housing projects. But really, if you want to get people out of poverty, you've got to get them into their own house. It is an important decision, but I believe that we have the creativity here in the province to be able to do that.

We've also done a lot of things in terms of raising shelter rates — the first time in decades. I'm really proud of that. We'll continue to do that. I'm also really interested in what the member brings forward. I think it's innovative, and it's a solution that we should possibly discuss — such a good idea that maybe what you should do is sit down and meet with the Housing minister to see if there's some way of synchronizing that great idea you have towards public policy in the province. We're always welcome to talk about those things, so I would encourage him to do that.

I think what we've done is try to build a housing legacy for British Columbians where every family will have the opportunity to buy their own home as a way of securing their future, not just in terms of their housing but in terms of their net value or their net worth.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his comments, because I know he represents constituents who perhaps more than any other in this province are concerned with the loss of rental accommodation that we've seen over recent years and who face some of the highest housing prices in the province today. I know that it's a major concern of his constituents and that he represents them on those issues as part of his daily duties as an MLA.

He suggested I canvass it with the Minister for Housing, and in fact I would like to assure him that I indeed did that at this time last year during Housing estimates. I welcome him to look at the Hansard transcripts, because unfortunately the minister dismissed it, basically, out of hand. We will look at that in Housing estimates again this year and not take no for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, if only a minority portion of the property transfer tax were earmarked for housing expenditure — and I throw out, say, 35 percent — we would have accumulated almost $1.5 billion for housing over these past six years. Such a policy could lay the foundation for the kind of ambitious housing reinvestment strategy that B.C. needs to be a truly inclusive society in the 21st century.

Such a reinvestment in housing could begin to realize the significant downstream savings that housing the homeless, addicted and impoverished would have on our health care and criminal justice systems. With that kind of reinvestment, we could actually build thousands of affordable units each year across B.C. for low-income working families and at-risk populations.

We could join other jurisdictions such as Portland, Oregon, in boldly vowing to eliminate homelessness within ten years, instead of seeing it continue to spiral out of control like we do in B.C. We could look at creating social housing programs administered by the non-profit and municipal sectors that help tenants achieve equity to transfer to homeownership or own the units they rent — an idea that the member apparently supports, as he just mentioned.

We could help ensure that the thousands of co-op units and CMHC transferred properties in this province will not be lost due to inadequate maintenance funds, but be properly repaired or redeveloped. We could have programs that work with municipalities and developers and give incentives to make possible density-bonusing projects aimed at providing mixed income housing.

By linking a portion of the windfall surtaxes with an actual reinvestment in housing, B.C. could help better address many of its worst social problems, improve the quality of life and commerce on the streets of its downtowns, and be a much more humane and progressive society.

Failure to link the benefits of the housing boom to a necessary reinvestment in affordable housing has left tens of thousands of vulnerable people behind and without a home. It's made life much harder for the working poor in our communities, who work in jobs that are necessary to keep the economy growing. It has made B.C. a less inclusive place that sends the wrong message to the millions of annual visitors to this beautiful place who ask: how did this happen in Canada?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

B.C.'s economy has been booming, but it's creating more than just jobs. It's also creating a huge demand for electricity. Now, it's very unfortunate that we didn't have foresight back in the '90s to look at this future need as we saw the need for electricity and the demand for electricity continually increasing, and yet there was virtually no investment under the NDP.

IPPs are a very cost-effective way of meeting our future needs. They have been proven to be efficient, reliable and supportive approaches to building capacity in B.C.

An NDP solution, from what I've heard, is that they believe government could be better at building power capacity. It's really a shame that in the 1990s instead of seeing the need for that capacity, they went and instructed B.C. Hydro to go off and look at Pakistan for power generation instead of B.C. But let's not go there, Mr. Speaker.

In other words, instead of having close to $4.4 billion worth of investment in IPPs and much more to come, the NDP would rather have us as a province balloon our debt and take on that — basically, selling our children's futures in order to support more of an ideological perspective. When you look at ideology, it's clear to me that what they're really going after is following what their federal leader believes, Mr. Jack Layton, and his socialist manifesto that he co-authored. He believes that public ownership of decisive sectors of the economy — in particular, resource, finance, manufacture, transportation and communication sectors — is the way to go.

Clearly, private investment has created many successful entities in B.C. It's private investment that created our booming economy. It's private investment that is helping to build our future, and it's private investment that will help meet our electricity needs well into the future through IPPs.

IPPs do more than just meet our demand for electricity. They create jobs. In particular, they create jobs in rural B.C. in places where we are in great need for it.

I want to talk for a second about bioenergy and the opportunity and the call we just had, particularly for IPPs in bioenergy. The advantage in utilizing wood fibre is phenomenal. In particular, it can be a huge part of the solution of meeting the challenges we have with pine beetle throughout the interior of this province. Instead of that necessarily being a challenge, what we're looking at is creating that as an opportunity.

There is a potential from just the waste that is along the side of the roads and that is left in the woods from logging for more than 4,000 gigawatt hours. It's estimated that just in the Prince George area alone 1,700 of those gigawatt hours are potential, and that's just from the wood waste. When you also look at the pine beetle itself and the potential for using the raw wood to generate power, it could potentially be a huge solution for a problem, quite frankly, that came from neglect in the 1990s.

Independent power production is all about bringing that investment. It's all about sparking the entrepreneurial spirit that helped to build this province. It's about trying to meet our needs through innovative processes instead of having to rely on government to be able to try to provide this. Government and B.C. Hydro are very good at producing large-scale projects, but they've never really been in small-scale projects. It's really through that small-scale work through IPPs….

In my riding we have quite a good project, a good example that Canfor helped to build in terms of independent power production. Those kinds of examples are why I'm so happy to be able to bring forward this motion today in support of IPP.

Quite frankly, I think the NDP should be up celebrating the success of this motion wholeheartedly. It speaks to the basic principles of self-sufficiency and the spirit that helped to build this province. I ask the NDP to put aside the political philosophy for the good of the people of B.C., to stand up and support IPPs in this House. Show the people of B.C. that you really learned the lessons of the 1990s and that you support steps like IPPs that help to build a brighter future for the people of this great province.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in discussion this morning on the member from Prince George's motion with respect to IPPs.

In the interest of clarity for those who may be watching at home, I think the ideological statements

that were made by the member should be rebutted. That wasn't my intention, but whenever the member and I get together in debate, I feel compelled to respond, and he knows that.

I think we need to go back to the 2002 energy plan. That was the "It wasn't broke, but we're going to fix it anyway" plan. B.C. Hydro, of course, has been the crown jewel of Crown assets in British Columbia. It has provided us with among the cheapest energy anywhere in North America. It is clean. It is green. Of the energy produced in British Columbia, 90 percent comes from our hydro systems in the Peace, in the Columbia and in the Bridge River system behind — the member from Garibaldi will know — the Seton dam and the area around Lillooet. It has provided us with energy that's publicly owned, publicly funded and, from that, a public benefit.

The challenge I think we have with this motion — certainly I do, and we'll have many members speaking today — is that there are a couple of flaws in the logic of the member. I think that government benefits from confusing the public on what the real state of play is with respect to our energy resources here in British Columbia.

First and foremost there's this notion of self-sufficiency. In most homes if someone said, "You know, you need to be self-sufficient," people get that. They understand that. But if the language is used inappropriately and it's used unnecessarily, then the public is led to perhaps a conclusion that may not be in their interest.

Certainly, the notion of self-sufficiency is one we all support, but picking a date artificially…. These are the market-force people. These are the people who say that the market will determine where we go. They are dictating that by a certain date, we should have something done. That sounds like heavy-handed government to me.

J. Horgan: Oh yeah. I hear an "Oh, oh," from West Vancouver. My goodness. At least the heart is working. That's good to see.

The notion of self-sufficiency is an important one, but having an artificial date of eight years out makes no sense at all — unless, of course, you want to prop up the independent power industry. The bulk of my remarks will be on that issue.

In 2002 the B.C. Liberals said to B.C. Hydro: "You can no longer generate electricity to meet the needs of British Columbians." It was clear; it was unequivocal. Any new generation would be purchased from the private sector. That was the direction from the B.C. Liberals.

It wasn't: "We need balance in the marketplace." It wasn't: "We're going to assist IPPs to get going in British Columbia." There have been IPPs here for decades. The NDP signed contracts with independent power producers in the 1990s. This is not new; this is not unusual.

What is unusual is for a government to say to a Crown corporation that has been extremely successful: "Put one hand behind your back, and put your other hand behind your back, and now go forward and buy power from our friends. Buy power from the people in the private sector that we will send to you." That's what they said, and that's what they did.

I want to focus just on the water aspects here, the independent power producers that are doing micro-hydro and run-of-the-river projects across British Columbia. These are innovative projects, not rocket science. It's not rocket science to create a headpond above some rapids and run water down beside that river, run it through a penstock and then run it through a turbine at the bottom. This isn't rocket science. This isn't innovation. This is basic and fundamental, and it's been happening for centuries. The private sector didn't invent this process. The private sector is benefiting from this process at the expense, I would argue, of the people of British Columbia. As I go through my remarks, that will become clear.

When the Ministry of Energy had nothing better to do with its time in the 1980s, it did an inventory of all the river systems in British Columbia. They earmarked the best locations, the premier spots to generate electricity from micro-hydro or run-of-the-river hydro. In 1983 they started this process, and in 2000, B.C. Hydro entered the fray and said: "Where is it that we can go with our expertise as dam builders? We've built some of the best dams in the world here in British Columbia. With our expertise, where would we go to build these micro-hydro projects?"

We had an inventory. It was computerized. It was a data bank. It was there and ready to go for the public sector to build public resources — public energy using public water. That wasn't what the B.C. Liberals wanted to do. Instead they said: "We're going to take that public information. We're going to open it up to our private sector friends and say: 'First come, first served.'"

What do you think happened, hon. Speaker? Do any of my colleagues want to know what happened? I can tell you what happened. Since 2002, 495 water licences have been given to independent power producers — 495. There are only 600 in the whole province, and virtually 500 of them since 2002. A gold rush. It's a gold rush. "How do I make money off a public resource — better yet, a water resource?" We gave it away.

The result is that if you are a B.C. resident or a B.C. registered company and you are first in line at the registry office, you too can get into the independent power business. No risk there. We've already done the research for you. We've already found the best rivers. All you've got to do is be first in line. Good gig, really good gig. So we identified the sites, and we provided the water.

Now, what is it that we pay for that water? If you're an independent power producer, what's the cost to you of getting in the game? We've already given you a line on the best spots, and now what do we need from you? We need a water licence — a modest fee. We need a water rental — another modest fee — and a capacity charge. That's it. That's all it costs to get in the game.

The market price, just for those who are keeping score at home, is $55 a megawatt hour on the spot market — 55 bucks right now if you have a megawatt and you want to sell it. That's what you'll get, unless you're in British Columbia and you've got B.C. Hydro with two hands tied behind its back having to buy power from you. Good deal. Really good deal — $87 a megawatt hour. That's what they set as the benchmark.

"Well, there's risk," says the private sector. "There is risk involved. I mean, we have to do the research." "No, wait a minute. You don't have to do the research. I forgot about that. The research is already done." "Well, we need a product. We have to put something through our turbine." "Oh, right. We gave you the water. So that's already done."

"Well, we've only got a 40-year contract. What are we going to do with that? It's only $30 a megawatt hour more than the market price. There's risk involved here."

I can see that. I see my banking friend from Chilliwack…. If I go into my bank and say, "I've got a 40-year contract. I'm only making $30 a megawatt hour over the market price. Can you lend me a couple bucks so I can get started…?" I think that's a pretty easy deal.

Yes, they play a vital role. I don't want to diminish for a minute those entrepreneurs who took advantage of misguided Liberal policy. That's not their fault. I would have done the same thing had I only known they were going to open up the registry, show me the best rivers in B.C. and then give them to me for 40 years. Good deal. You had to be a B.C. resident to get that water licence, but you don't have to be a B.C. resident when you flip it. That's my biggest concern, and that speaks to the self-sufficiency question.

We've got a 25-year contract. Some of these guys have only got 25 years to print money, which I assume is quite disappointing for them when their colleagues got 30 and 40. But let's say 25 years from now that contract has been flipped several times, and now it's held by a California company. The contract with B.C. Hydro is up. I've got ten megawatts. What am I going to do with it?

I've got the river in perpetuity. I'm paying the water licence. It's almost 3 percent of the value of the whole process. I guess I'm going to say: "Who wants to buy my power? B.C. Hydro, do you want to buy my power?" They say: "Of course we do. We need to be self-sufficient because the B.C. Liberals made a misguided date back in 2007, and they gave us this river. We need to buy your power."

The company, which now is owned by Californians — Orange County Inc. — says: "Well, I'm sorry. You're not offering us enough. We're going to sell it to our friends in Los Angeles instead."

Where's our self-sufficiency now? It's out the door. It's gone. The California company has taken the B.C. water and the B.C. energy, and they're shipping it to Los Angeles. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his 97th term as Governor, stewed in steroids, is going to say: "Thank you very much, government of B.C., for allowing us to buy your rivers in 2002 so that we can now provide electricity to California."

The challenge for us is not whether or not IPPs play a vital role in our economy, because of course they do. They did before these guys got here, and they will after these guys go away. The challenge for us, however, is that in an era of climate change, the public wants some confidence that someone is in charge. Over the decades people have been comfortable with B.C. Hydro. I certainly have been comfortable with B.C. Hydro. My neighbours have been comfortable with B.C. Hydro.

With this IPP policy that's been put in place by the B.C. Liberals, B.C. Hydro won't exist 25 years from now, because all of the new energy supply — everything they do from this point on — must be through the private sector and cannot be generated by the Crown corporation unless directed by cabinet.

Well, isn't that delightful? We erode the ability of this Crown corporation to serve the people of British Columbia. We put one hand behind their back. We cut the company in half. We've got a transmission company now, and we've got a generation company. We've privatized all the backroom work and given it to Accenture, another U.S. company. They're monitoring all this for us, and what do we get out of it? Overpriced power for a defined period of time, and when that defined period ends, the power is going straight south. I guarantee it.

Write it down. On March 12, 2007, the member from Malahat said that when these contracts are up, every single one of them is going to go to the highest bidder, and it won't be B.C. Hydro.

I have many colleagues who want to speak to this issue, so I'm going to leave my remarks for now. It's unfortunate that we only have a short time to debate this issue, because since 2002 we've had very little opportunity to discuss the end of B.C. Hydro as we know it. But that's exactly what we're doing right here. That's exactly what's happening. The benefit to the public of giving away our water resource will not be returned to us over time. It will be returned to someone else.

Those on that side of the House are responsible for it. I'm hopeful they'll be accountable for it in the future. With that, I'll give the floor to members opposite and my colleagues.

J. Yap: It's an opportunity and a privilege to rise to speak in favour of this motion. I'm grateful to my colleague the member for Prince George–Omineca for bringing this motion forward on a very important issue.

Before I go into my brief comments, it's always a delight to follow the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Today he didn't disappoint again with a presentation that included not just a whole bunch of fearmongering, but he also inserted some insults to a government that is leading the way in the United States — the government of California — and one which we in British

Columbia, our government, will try to not just emulate but do better than in leading climate change in North America and indeed the world.

We also heard very clearly some private sector bashing by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Somehow it goes against the principles of the NDP to look at how the private sector can bring innovation, creativity and efficiency in providing what we all need here, which is a source of power, part of our energy program in the years to come.

We in British Columbia, we all know, have been blessed with great natural resources, including the ability to generate clean hydroelectric power. Thanks to the vision of past governments, our province has seen our ability to generate clean hydroelectric power at the rate of 90 percent. Ninety percent of our power is from clean energy sources, and we want to keep it that way. We want to have the majority of our power, our energy, generated from clean sources.

We also have an energy plan, as was mentioned, that will see us energy self-sufficient as a province, and we have a date as a goal. By 2016 we want to be a province that is self-sufficient. In spite of what my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca might say, that is a worthy goal: to have a target date to work towards to achieve energy self-sufficiency — and not just to be energy self-sufficient but also to have all of our energy generated from clean sources which do not pollute, do not generate carbon emissions.

We have an energy plan that includes a number of initiatives. Conservation is a major part of the energy plan. The need, the priority, to try and tap into alternative sources of power generation using independent power producers as a way to deliver this energy effectively over the long term, whether it's from wind power or biomass…. These are the ways our energy plan, using independent power producers as one of a range of initiatives, will help our province achieve energy self-sufficiency.

In this regard, I strongly support this motion put forward by my colleague the member for Prince George–Omineca, and hope that other members will also support this motion.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and speak to this issue around alternate power and independent power. Let me start by saying that on this side of the House we have a long history of supporting green power, of looking at alternatives, of developing those alternatives and promoting those alternatives — unlike the government side. As early as last fall, when we had our little three-day session here, we had the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Environment standing up and campaigning for coal-fired power.

Now their position changed, of course, after the Premier had his revelation in Maui, but they were campaigning for coal-fired power up until that time. Now we've had a change in that position, of course, as we saw in the throne speech.

The real issue with this is the public interest, and we need to look at what the public interest is in this. There are two areas that I'd like to talk about. The first one really is the interest around self-sufficiency and around ownership and water rights. What we know, as my friend from Malahat–Juan de Fuca talked about, is that essentially the government, through the IPP process, is giving away British Columbia assets in terms of water rights in perpetuity to independent power producers. As we heard, in return for that, we're getting something less than $10 a megawatt, and they're selling that to B.C. Hydro for about $87 a megawatt. So it's a pretty good deal, I'd say.

Now, when we talk about it in terms of the long-term public interest, the problem with this, of course, is really around the self-sufficiency question. The member for Richmond-Steveston talked about the goal of 2016 for self-sufficiency, and we'd all like to see that. The problem isn't 2016. We might see self-sufficiency in 2016. The problem is what happens in 2025 and 2030. That's when the issue arises.

The expectation is that upwards of 40 percent of our power will be provided by independent power producers. What happens after those contracts expire? They go to the open market, and they go to the highest bidder. They end up being sold elsewhere. Clearly, we know that California is not waiting around for 2016.

On March 1 we saw the California Utilities Commission give $14 million to Pacific Gas and Electric explicitly for them to look at building transmission lines, the feasibility of transmission lines, to British Columbia and the feasibility of acquisition of green power. They've said that 33 percent of their power has to be green power in California by 2020. They want to get it out of Canada and out of British Columbia.

They're very clear. Their intention is to look at acquisition of British Columbia green energy companies. Then there won't even be a discussion about whether we get to keep that power here. They'll just move it south as soon as those contracts expire. That's the plan. So it's in 2030 as to what kind of self-sufficiency we'll have, not in 2016, but this government is not looking there.

The other issue that I want to touch on very briefly is the issue around sustainability. What we know is that we saw the Squamish-Lillooet deal. We saw Ashlu. We've heard it discussed here — the 60 projects where there are water licence applications in the Squamish-Lillooet area. What do we see with the 60 projects? No planning and no looking at which rivers are appropriate for this and which aren't appropriate. It's a Wild West show out there.

The Squamish-Lillooet regional district asked for planning. This government said no. They gave them Bill 30 instead and crushed their rights as a local government. That's what this is all about.

As my friend, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca said, this isn't about bashing independent power producers. It's about bashing a government that ripped up local rights of local governments. It's about bashing a government that can't see past 2016. It's about bashing a government that doesn't care about the future of

energy self-sufficiency in this province as much as it cares about giving money to its friends who pay for its campaigns.

That's the problem here. This isn't about the future of the province. It's about trying to ensure the future of the Liberal Party, and that's wrong.

J. McIntyre: It's very hard to just sit here and listen to what's coming down the row here in terms of speaking out against $4.4 billion of private sector investment in this province in green energy resources.

I'd like to know which hospitals and schools and infrastructure they would forgo while we divert $4 billion to infrastructure when we have an ability to leverage the taxpayer dollar here in British Columbia and move forward with these kinds of projects. I just have to shake my head. I just see an opposition that's so ideologically opposed to anything that the private sector would do or could do for our province in partnership. I just can't believe it.

They'd rather stop these projects and have us import less-than-green power. Anyway, I don't want to get too far into the overall benefits. Others have spoken about the benefits of these projects.

I also have to say that I can't go much further and not comment on the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca being opposed to a fixed date for energy self-sufficiency. I am in just absolute disbelief. He would be the first person on his feet in this House to complain if it we didn't have a fixed date for our plan. No, I can't believe it. They just love the vague promises. Anyway, I'm not going to say more on that either.

I want to talk about the projects in my riding. In the wonderful, beautiful riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, we do have and are disproportionately blessed with a riding that is basically built on a mountainside.

We have the opportunity to do small run-of-the-river projects, as we drop precipitously into the ocean. We have a number of projects — up in Furry Creek, the Mamquam, Brandywine — all of them very successful projects that have involved first nations and are actually getting the job done.

But I want to spend some time on Ashlu. I see that the hon. member who spoke before me would like to hear what I have to say. I hope he is listening, because I want to talk about some of the facts. It's been a sore point in this House. It's constantly raised, and I want to get the facts into the record.

Ashlu was, as the member spoke earlier, mentioned and identified in the '80s and '90s as one of the ideal spots for a run-of-the-river project. It's taken far too long — 20 years or so — and millions and millions of dollars and environmental assessments and consultation to bring this into service. It's a project that is 49 megawatts. It will power 23,000 homes. It will support up to 60 full-time, high-paying construction jobs for 2.5 years to construct the project. An estimated $10 million will be spent locally in the community.

They partnered with the Squamish First Nation. I must say and must point out that at the end of this 40-year contract it will revert to the Squamish First Nation for a dollar. Is that being sold to the Americans? I don't think so. No. I wish they'd get their facts straight.

Residents of the upper Squamish are going to be receiving revenue from the Ashlu green power project for community projects — $400,000 to start and $80,000 a year for the next 20 years. Once it's constructed, it will be inspected by Hydro to ensure it's complying with their environmental green criteria. The project will be an EcoLogo-certified project, which is a Canada-wide recognized certification that's applied to projects or products that meet specific environmental guidelines.

Also, there will be no new transmission lines down the upper Squamish valley as a result of this project. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are not produced by this clean source of energy is equivalent to moving 21,000 cars from the road each year.

So I believe this is a great example of a significant project helping B.C. reach our goal of energy self-sufficiency and producing more electricity in an environmentally friendly manner — a win-win.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up here to bring some more facts to this House on this particular motion. The first fact that I bring forward is that the NDP do favour clean, green public power as provided by a comprehensive energy plan.

The second fact that I'd like to also bring in front of this House is that as a member of city council back in the '90s…. That city council brought forward the first biomass cogeneration electrical plant here in British Columbia. As a result of the waste material being required to be brought in and used by the mills and whatever industry was available….

Underneath those sets of rules and regulations, the city of Williams Lake was able to convince both the province as well as B.C. Hydro to change the rules and regulations to make biomass economically profitable for industry and, at the same time, use waste material, which had previously not been able to be done.

That is within the style that I also want to bring some facts to this House. The way the Liberals do business…. In September 2004 the Liberal government signed a memorandum of agreement with the UBCM on how IPPs would be provided.

There were four points that were contained in that agreement, and they were: fostering cooperative intergovernmental relations, recognizing the jurisdiction and accountabilities of both orders of government, facilitating the responsible development of clean renewable energy sources to meet the energy needs of British Columbians and, finally, providing efficient and effective IPP review and approval processes for both orders of government.

About a year later, 2004, the Liberal government passes Bill 30, section 56, which guts that agreement — guts it. This section established two points. The IPP "is not to be superseded or impaired by anything in or

done under the Community Charter or Local Government Act." Regulations for ministerial order M-22-0205 ordered June 6, 2006, reduced regulations of IPPs to include an exemption from local government zoning bylaws.

When I have a look at wind power generation up in the Peace country, the noise that would be done by that particular method of developing power will now be dropped right next door to residents without any input from local government and how it affects their residents.

Coalbed methane — no effect upon water supplies and how it will affect the residents of local government. The input I've already mentioned on biomass — no effect, again, on local government and how it will affect their residents.

I wish to close. On April 1 of '07, this government, in enacting the agreement of TILMA — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — will have completely emaciated any control that local government would have upon anything that affects investment, trade and labour mobility. It is within that style that this government has processed and bullied through how they do business — not a particularly good record.

R. Sultan: My ears perked up when the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca listed all these wonderful installations which he referred to as the jewels in the crown: Seton Dam, Bridge River, the project at Lillooet. He could have thrown in Kemano hydro power plant as well. What made my ears perk up is that I worked on all those projects, probably before the member was born.

The other thing that sticks in my mind is that when we built those wonderful, efficient green plants — which we are still benefiting from, extremely reliable — they were built by the private sector. They were built by the B.C. Electric Co., which I worked for. It was only after they were completed that the government came along and expropriated them. So these were not products of government enterprise.

Now, I did a little bit of homework in very limited time. What's going on currently? I called my friend Mike Burns. These are my friends. I'm proud of that. The NaiKun project, the $1 billion wind farm up on Rose Spit in the north end of the Queen Charlottes. It's 50-50 owned with the Haida. The Haida have bought into this deal. It will pay $400 million in taxes over its 30-year life. At full capacity, in fact, it could satisfy our current import deficit on energy.

I called up my friend Donald McInnes who runs an interesting little company called Plutonic Power. He has 22 run-of-the-river. He's probably engaging that feeding frenzy which was described a moment ago — a 200-megawatt capacity in the first phase. It's estimated that 34 percent of the electrical revenues will be going back in the form of local, provincial and federal taxes.

I also attended a presentation by Dr. John MacDonald, one of the founders of MacDonald Dettwiler — not an insignificant company — one of the leading satellite manufacturers. John is convinced the answer to energy long-term is photovoltaic. Who knows whether he will be proven correct or not.

The point of it is that we have this outpouring of creative alternative solutions here, and it is attempting to address the supply deficit that accumulated in the '90s under this presumably very wise, thoughtful, creative government-owned enterprise. They left us importing 15 percent of electricity from the Americans and from Alberta.

You talk about a market price of 50 bucks. Yeah, it probably is about that. If you want to buy dirty coal-generated power at the border, that's probably what we could get it for. To go green, a self-sufficient, environmentally friendly supply is going to cost us money. Let's be honest enough to admit that.

I think we should congratulate the playing field which has been turned by this government from one of essentially government monopoly to one based on competition. I'm personally convinced the competition will provide the innovation and the economies and will keep the price honest in the long run to satisfy the future energy needs of this great province.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure to respond to the motion: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes the vital role of independent power producers in our goal of becoming energy self sufficient and our goal of producing more electricity in an environmentally friendly manner."

As the MLA for Skeena, I have grave misgivings about certain aspects of this motion, and they revolve around two things. Firstly, what constitutes an IPP? Secondly, are we putting in place appropriate water rentals on our rivers and streams so that we can capture the monopoly rentals on these public resources and not end up giving our rivers to private companies at prices that don't benefit British Columbians in the long run?

As many people are by now aware, there is an ongoing dispute in northwestern B.C. concerning the role that Alcan is playing in terms of the use of its water licence. For over 50 years Alcan has been a great corporate partner in this province which, after a major capital investment in Kemano, has built a hydroelectric power source that has used publicly owned water to good use in creating an aluminum industry here in British Columbia.

This investment over 50 years ago has generated millions of dollars of profit for the shareholders of Alcan, while at the same time generating industrial production in a part of the province that previously relied solely on forestry and was looking to diversify.

This was a visionary agreement at the time but one that would never be contemplated today, as it would be hard to value an entire watershed and negotiate a deal that returned a fair rate of return to a global company while still giving a return to the owners of that public resource — namely, the citizens of British Columbia.

The 1949 Industrial Development Act was very specific in its language. It is a two-page document that is available and easy to read, even for those of us who are not lawyers. It explicitly states that the province of B.C. was exchanging water for industrial production, specifically an aluminum industry or other industrial purposes, in the vicinity of the Kitimat Works.

It was never intended that Alcan would be able to use the power generated from that public resource to make profits by selling power on the grid at the expense of production at the works. It is astonishing that this B.C. Liberal government has not fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility to uphold that contract in the interests of British Columbians.

Since 2001 this government has attempted to change the intent of the Industrial Development Act by allowing Alcan to turn itself from an aluminum company to an IPP which happens to also make aluminum. This has had a negative impact on the economy of the entire region, as selling power and cutting production and therefore jobs has hurt a region that is already undergoing an economic transformation in the downturn of the forestry industry.

This motion refers to a new power and to self-sufficiency. There is not one megawatt of new power being created by Alcan in this deal. It hardly helps the province to reach self-sufficiency. All this is doing is removing power that was designated for industrial production and, therefore, generating jobs in a part of the province that desperately needs them and transferring this power to the grid, where it can be used for residential purposes.

How does turning off the lights in Kitimat and laying people off help us to reach self-sufficiency? This is an example of bad public policy and is a way to transfer wealth from the citizens of B.C., who own our rivers, to the shareholders of a private company, who owe us nothing.

I don't blame Alcan for taking full use of this opportunity to increase their bottom line. Why would any company decide to operate a smelter and make a return on its capital of between 20 percent and 30 percent when it could turn around and make over a thousand percent by selling our own river back to us as electricity?

When it comes to our rivers being used by private companies, we need to be very wary and realize the enormous wealth that these rivers represent. This province was built on cheap hydroelectric power, and our rivers have benefited all British Columbians by providing cheap electricity both for industrial purposes as well as for residential use. Let us remember that our cheap hydro has enabled us to pay for other things, such as schools and hospitals, which in many other countries have to come second to paying for a basic need like electricity.

By allowing industrial users to make windfall profits off our rivers, we are losing all the revenue from these rivers which, had they been created by a public utility, would have gone back into government coffers to be used for these vital public services.

Finally, let us demand of this government that it uphold the current water agreements with companies like Alcan and Teck Cominco to ensure that they are turning water into aluminum and zinc and not into gold.

R. Hawes: In the very short time that I have, I just wanted to address a couple of things that my NDP friend from the Malahat said earlier. As the Energy critic, I'm sure he didn't mean to mislead or state some inaccuracies. So let me just straighten out a few of the things that he said, which I'm sure he didn't intend to say.

First, on price. He talked about $87 as the price being paid to IPPs. I'm sure what he meant to say is that actually the price is in the low $70s. Delivered in Vancouver, after taking off the power loss in transmission, it's $87, perhaps, compared to the spot price paid at the border of $55, he said.

Of course, then you need to take off the power loss for that, so the price delivered in Vancouver — to make an apples and apples comparison — would be somewhat higher. But I'm sure he really meant to say that.

He didn't say that here we're talking about coal-generated power at the border, rather than the green power — which is more expensive, of course — that we're talking about with the IPPs. So much for the NDP's global warming plan. It apparently applies only within British Columbia. What goes on outside of the borders couldn't matter less to them.

Let's talk about tenure. He talked about the giveaway, that we're giving these in perpetuity, and it's a great gift, etc. The fact is that most of these IPPs are on licences to occupy or on leases which, at the expiration of the lease period, may be renewed. Of course, terms at that point would be negotiated.

Who knows what the terms would be at that time? If they're not negotiated, there is a requirement on the IPP to return the land in the same condition that they got it, which would mean they have to remove the infrastructure. Or if the government wanted, they could be gifted to the province. So much for that.

The other thing that I think was a gross error on the member's part is when he talked about the benefit to British Columbians. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano did touch on the fact that 34 percent of the money generated from the sale of electricity does come back to the province in the form of taxes in one form or another, which is a tremendous return. There's also a very good return to the province on water rentals during the period of operation.

So when he spoke about selling power into the United States, etc., the fact is the power has to be sold into the B.C. Transmission Corp. It can't fly to the United States through the air mysteriously. It's got to go on a transmission grid, which is of course owned by B.C. Transmission Corp, which is of course owned by

the people of British Columbia. This is just an absolute inaccurate statement that I know the member didn't intend to make.

I think that the fearmongering and gross misstatements really are just indicative of a political bias on their part that everything should be operated by the government and nothing should be operated by free enterprise where profits generate jobs, and jobs actually are what pay the taxes.

B. Bennett: It's my honour to get up and support the member's motion. This really is a quintessential debate between the socialist point of view and the free enterprise point of view, and it's interesting. It's been illuminating. I'm glad that it's all on the record. We'll let the people of British Columbia sort out which vision for the future of British Columbia they care to support.

The first thing that I want to say is not actually so much related to the motion as it is to a statement made by the critic for the opposition for Energy and Mines. He insulted the Governor of California in this House this morning, and I think he should consider apologizing for that.

J. Horgan: I take the comment from the member for East Kootenay very, very seriously, and I withdraw the comments that I made.

B. Bennett: First-rate response from the critic. We all sometimes put our foot where our teeth are supposed to be, and as long as we're prepared to admit that and apologize, I think we can carry on.

The motion refers to the vital role that independent power producers will play in terms of B.C.'s electricity self-sufficiency, so I'm going to focus on that. I do want to get on the record, first of all, by stating unequivocally that the opposition — when they were in government, in fact — were the first government to start talking about the importance and the usefulness of independent power projects.

There were a number of NDP leaders who were on the record. Premier Dosanjh is on the record. Premier Harcourt is on the record. In fact, the critic for Energy and Mines for the opposition was a special adviser to the Ministry of Energy and Mines and minister responsible for northern development — that was Mr. Miller at the time — who oversaw the management and development of independent power project policy.

That was between March of 2000 and November of 2000. So it's odd that he and his colleagues would now indicate here this morning that they don't support the use of independent power projects.

I think it must be troubling, in fact, for some of the opposition to stand up in this House and oppose something that some of their most respected leaders thought just a few short years ago was an excellent idea.

I do want to mention, as well, that I think it's talking out of both sides of your mouth when you suggest that you believe in the concept of electricity self-sufficiency but you do not believe in establishing a target or a goal for achieving that self-sufficiency. It's not a surprising position for the NDP to take, because their history, when they are in government — which hopefully won't happen for a very, very long time, and I suppose, hopefully, never — in terms of how they manage the economy is just like that.

They'll say: "Yeah, we believe in such and such, but we're not sure when we're going to get there. We sure don't want to establish a target. We wouldn't want to put a date in there. That would impose too much discipline on us, and we might not make the date. So we'll just say that we believe in it, and we won't establish any sort of a target."

One of the other aspects of the opposition's approach to this policy of IPPs is to take the position that B.C. Hydro can build power projects more effectively and less costly than the private sector. I note that the NDP has supported Furry Creek, or at least some of the members have. But they've said that it's too bad that B.C. Hydro didn't or couldn't build that project, because they could build that project for half as much as what the private sector could.

I would recommend to the critic, specifically and with all due respect, that he should go have a visit with his colleague from Nelson-Creston, who's been around this place for quite some time and was here in the 1990s. In fact, I think as an MLA he was quite engaged with Columbia Power Corporation when they built the hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River in the Kootenay region.

I don't know for sure, but I think that if the critic does that, his colleague from Nelson-Creston will tell him that, in fact, pretty much everybody on both sides of the political fence realizes that Columbia Power Corporation built those dams and created those hydroelectric facilities for a whole lot less money than B.C. Hydro ever could have built those facilities.

I think the evidence, in fact, is that the private sector can build and operate these facilities, probably for less money than what B.C. Hydro can.

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