Hansard — Monday, May 7, 2007 a.m. — Vol. 20, No. 1 (HTML)

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


Private Members' Statements		7571
	Forest health and forest industry health
	B. Simpson
	J. Rustad
	Housing
	H. Bloy
	D. Thorne
	Affordable housing
	D. Routley
	L. Mayencourt
	Opening our doors
	J. Nuraney
	L. Krog

Second Reading of Bills		7579
	Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act, 2007 (Bill M201)
	J. Horgan
	R. Sultan
	A. Dix
	C. Puchmayr
	R. Hawes
	G. Gentner
	C. Wyse
	J. Rustad
	L. Krog
	M. Farnworth

B. Simpson: It gives me great pleasure to stand this morning and speak about the health of our forests and the health of our forest industry.

Before I embark on that, I would like to make a couple of comments about the response to my last private member's statement with respect to carbon sinks. I found the response quite interesting.

The member for Prince George–Omineca actually suggested that, as a result of my comments about forests and carbon sinks, I didn't like forests and that I was against reforestation efforts. That was echoed in part by the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, who made the claim that I was attacking our forests and that I wanted to go back to clearcutting.

The phrase "go back to clearcutting" I found quite intriguing, given that the members of his association are clearcutting in a way that we have not seen in this province since the mid-1980s, and I challenge the CEO accordingly.

I want to be clear, before I talk about the state of health of our forests and our forest industry, that I actually love our forests, love being in the forests and love our forest ecosystems. What I would like to see is the Crown similarly caring for our forest ecosystems and acting as stewards of our forests.

I would like future generations of British Columbians and people from all over the world to enjoy our forest ecosystems in a state of health that is far superior to the state that we find them in today.

The second thing that I would like to say about my previous private member's statement is that I get to say: "I told you so." It's quite pleasurable to stand in this House and say, "I told you so," because at the time I was suggesting that the government's feeling or belief that we could take our forests as carbon sinks and have them as a credit against actually reducing emissions targets was fundamentally false, both in logic and principle and based on science.

Subsequent to my statement with respect to carbon sinks, the Canadian Forest Service failed to declare Canadian forests as carbon sinks under the Kyoto protocol. The reason they chose not to register them is because they are uncertain as to whether they are in fact carbon sinks or carbon emitters.

Because of the extent of the threat of fire and because of the extensive threats of pest and disease, our forests may actually be contributing carbon emissions overall as opposed to acting as carbon sinks. Therefore, the Canadian Forest Service chose not to register our forests and took quite a backlash for that. If they are in fact emitters of carbon, if they contribute to the overall carbon in our atmosphere, then we should register them because that gives a greater impetus for us to get our other sources of greenhouse gas emissions down in a more accelerated fashion.

That's a little clarity and a bit of context for what I want to speak about today. I want to speak very briefly about the health of our forest industry, and then the fundamental aspect of what I want to speak to today is the health of our forests.

The CEO of West Fraser, at their annual general meeting and in subsequent press comments, has indicated that our forest industry is going to be facing a very extensive recession, the likes of which, he stated, he has never seen. West Fraser very seldom posts quarterly losses. In fact, the CEO could not remember the last time they posted a quarterly loss, and yet in this first fiscal year they did that.

He has named railcars, the collapse of the U.S. housing market and a whole bunch of factors for that, but he also named the softwood lumber agreement as a major constraint on the health of our forest ecosystems. West Fraser and Canfor, two of the largest producers of softwood products in Canada, have also indicated that the health of our forests and the state of the mountain pine beetle fibre are troubling to them and may cause them to go into an even more severe recession.

There is another major threat to our forests, and we saw that play out this weekend at the annual general meeting of Canfor Corp. when the board changed hands and they removed the shareholder protection for Canfor being subject to a takeover and potentially going from a public company to a private company. Why should that bother us? Because there's a company involved there called Third Avenue Management that is quietly but surely going around and buying up the forest sector in British Columbia.

I asked the minister about this in estimates debate, and the minister stated quite clearly that he is not concerned about that and that if he is concerned about it, he will act. How will he act? He will act by removing licences after the fact. Well, hon. Speaker, I don't believe that to be the case because, as we know on the coast, we have a monopoly on Vancouver Island. We have a monopolistic situation on the coast, and that was not acted on. The minister did not intervene even though the legislation allows him to do that.

Communities in British Columbia are at risk of further corporate consolidation. They are at risk of companies that are more interested in their New York shareholders than they are in the communities of British Columbia. They are at risk of a creeping takeover of our entire forest industry in a way that will see further rationalization

and further reduction in benefits to British Columbians and British Columbia communities.

Ultimately, our forest industry is dependent upon the health of our forests, and so I want to turn my attention for the next few minutes to the interior of British Columbia, where we have the most successful group of forest products companies — successful at least up until this last 18 months or so.

That group of companies is dependent upon the forests that are under the most severe attack by mountain pine beetle and other pests and diseases. We are seeing a forest in transition on an order of magnitude that we've never seen before. We are seeing the fact that our forests are becoming unhealthy to a degree that we have never seen before. In all of this, the government is failing to respond in any strategic way.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for his opening comments. I'd like respond a little bit, initially, to his comments around the carbon sink issue, as I had the pleasure of debating him the last time around on a member's statement with regards to this issue.

It seems to be a fundamental flaw — and the one thing that I just can't quite understand — that the member for Cariboo North seems to think that trees cannot be counted as a carbon sink and that the Canadian Forest Service has come out and said that they were debating as to whether they should or shouldn't add it in.

The issue is that a mature tree — a tree that has already grown to 100, 150, 200 years old — does not absorb as much carbon as a young forest does. We are in a situation — particularly with the pine beetle epidemic — where, as we replant our forests…. Those are young trees; they're vibrant trees. They will be absorbing up to a tonne of carbon dioxide over their life. They are an important component of fighting greenhouse gases.

More importantly, one of the top ten things that virtually every credible scientist around the world says to do is to plant trees to try to help reduce the carbon emissions. So I find it interesting that the member still seems to think that trees are not part of an equation when it comes to our fight on greenhouse gases.

The main issue we're here to discuss today is really forest health and the health of the forest industry. The member says that the industry is facing an extensive recession. I'd like to say, Madam Speaker, that it is always darkest just before the dawn.

There is no question that our forest industry is facing a transition. There is no question that when you're looking at prices of $230 per thousand board feet for lumber products, particularly from the States, that is a very challenging situation.

I'm feeling it directly in my riding, and so are my constituents. There is a mill in my riding that is facing a potential closure. They're looking at taking a very long shutdown period, and they may never be able to come back out of this. That, to me, is a very unfortunate situation; that, to me, is the situation that is going to impact a community.

But one of the things that we have to realize is that the world does change. Nothing can remain static forever. There is going to be a transition. What we're trying to do on this side of the House is actually help the forest industry through that transition. We have an epidemic right now with the pine beetle that is unprecedented.

At this stage the best thing we can do is…. We need to be able to try to utilize as much of that fibre as possible, get those forests planted and get those young trees growing so that the period of time that we have the gap — where we have the falldown in annual allowable cut — can potentially be reduced.

We also need be looking at other things we can do with our forest industry. We need to be looking at other types of products, whether it's pellets, energy or remanufacturing. We need to be looking at what else we can do with our forest industry to be productive on the land base, to be able to provide the kinds of jobs and the kind of future that this province needs.

That's one of the reasons that we had the call for using bioenergy, for using forest products to generate power. There is a huge potential, with what has currently been considered waste, to develop an entire new industry for the forest industry.

I want to reflect a moment on that particular component because 50 years ago pine trees, which are now such an important component of our forest industry, used to be considered waste. They used to be plowed under and burned. It's only through changes in technology, changes in utilization, that those pine trees become such an important component of our forest industry. I see the similar types of transition that are going to be happening in the communities.

We have work that's being done by the Cariboo Beetle Action Coalition and by the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition. There's research being done at UNBC. All of those point to the opportunity for new technologies to develop and to change or help to change our forest industry — to be able to create a more competitive and a more robust industry going down the road.

Will there be changes? Will there be some difficulties? Yes, there will be. But I'm also confident that industry is up to the challenge, that our communities will be up to the challenge and that our government is up to the challenge to help transition our forest industry through this difficult time and to actually have it emerge as a much healthier forest industry, a much more robust forest industry and one that will continue to offer long-term employment opportunities and long-term benefits for communities and — quite frankly — to stay as the backbone of our economy.

I'm pleased with what we're doing with the forest industry, and I know that those jobs — although there is going to be transition; there are going to be some challenges — will be there for the future.

B. Simpson: I am not as confident as the member for Prince George–Omineca is that the government is up to the challenge, and I think the data proves that. Since 2001 we have been doing less silviculture, which

is the forest restoration, planting, preparation and so on, than we have since the mid-1980s. At a time when our forests are under assault from every manner of pest and disease and we have fires the size of which this province hasn't experienced for some time, we actually have less activity in that regard.

The minister stood up in estimates debate and took full pride in the fact that they're going to plant 180 million seedlings this year. We've been over 200 million seedlings since the mid-1980s. In fact, we were up to 250 million to 300 million seedlings for a very long time in this province. We have dropped down at a time when our forests are under assault.

Much of that is going into restoration for the fires of 2003. That's not going into the mountain pine beetle area. We are doing less pruning and less fertilizing and less thinning. We are in fact doing fewer forest health activities now than we have done in this province for almost two decades.

To put it in context, the government's so-called mountain pine beetle action plan states that initial assessments suggest that a total of approximately up to $1 billion will be required to carry out the work — that's the forest restoration work — and that the province has allocated $161 million. That's 16 percent of what it says it actually needs to do the restoration work.

They said they're going to go to the federal government for the rest. Well, we know what's happening with that. The federal government isn't even coming to the table.

My whole premise here is that the government is proving that it is not up to the challenge. I am not confident in that, and we are doing a disservice to our forests and to our forest-dependent communities.

What we need to do is change the mountain pine beetle emergency task force — which still doesn't have an active website, which we still don't have terms of reference for or an action plan for — and we need to elevate that to a forest health task force. Give the chief forester the tools that he needs, the mandate that he needs, to restore our forests to health. Without a healthy forest, without healthy forest ecosystems, we will not have a healthy forest sector in this province — and forest-dependent communities as well.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and talk about housing in Burnaby and Coquitlam and what our government is doing to provide more options for seniors and families in those communities. Just a week ago I had the opportunity to announce the Swedish-Canadian rest home. The ScandiaCare Society will be building 27 new subsidized assisted-living units in Burnaby as part of Independent Living B.C.

The proposed facility is a three-storey building to be built at 1800 Duthie Avenue, which will provide its residents with easy access to important services and amenities in the area. The association will now move forward with the municipal approval process, and I look forward to seeing the completion of this building soon.

On a personal note, I've lived next door to this facility for over 21 years. The one building has sat empty for about eight years now. I had the opportunity to meet the King and Queen of Sweden when they came to visit there as part of a scouting.

In this proposal there are going to be the 27 subsidized housing units as well as 37 new private units. These new units are great news for Burnaby-area seniors who wish to live independently while still having access to the level of care that they need. This facility will also run an outreach program with a community kitchen and an adult day care.

The driving force behind this for the last number of years — and I've worked for over five years to help them get to this point — has been Margaret Douglas-Matthews and her board of directors. They've done an amazing job. They are experts in Burnaby, running three care homes from the Scandinavian countries — Norwegian, Danish and Swedish rest homes. They do a great job.

I wanted to tell you that on this past Friday it was announced that the Vancouver YWCA has been selected as a proponent for proposals under the provincial homeless initiative. They won the bidding process to build a 36-unit housing development for low-income single mothers and their children who are at risk of becoming homeless. The organization will now put together a detailed design and concept, and they'll have to go to the municipality.

I really want to congratulate the mayor and councillors so far for putting this up and putting the land forward, unlike a number of other cities that have not helped at all with housing in British Columbia. I do want to congratulate the mayor and council for what they've done. I know that the YWCA has an excellent track record for assisting single women and will do an outstanding job of delivering this service when the housing development is completed.

Something I'm truly disappointed in is NIMBYism — not in my backyard. You know, the YWCA won this, and some people in the area have come out against it. In fact, I believe they're presenting their proposal to council tonight. They want the space to become a green park.

Well, this has been a vacant lot for a number of years. The city of Coquitlam has owned it, and they put it forward for housing. There are a few groups that have come forward. They don't talk about the housing proponent; they only talk about turning this into a green space. Some of the people in the area have said: "Why would you want those sorts of people in the area? I find it disgusting." Another person says: "Why don't you move it to Riverview lands?"

I said that that's a park. That's what we protect. That's a vacant lot that was owned by the city of Coquitlam and is now being put forward to house people truly in need.

I can tell you a story about a young mother that I helped. While young, she has three children, all in high school. She makes $25,000 a year. She makes too much

money to get any sort of subsidy from the government — she is beyond it, and you can imagine what her food bill might be like — and is coming from an abusive situation. We found people to help her get an apartment and to help with her deposit. She works full time and wants to work. This is the sort of housing that would help people in a situation like this. I am very supportive of this housing in Coquitlam and in Burnaby — what our government is doing.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the two buildings that were purchased at Alpha and Beta by our government on April 3. These are another 38 two-bedroom units for supportive housing. We did this so that we could protect rental housing before it would be developed or redeveloped or put into conversion units. This was part of the $80 million program that our government invested to purchase 15 buildings in Vancouver, Victoria and Burnaby that contain just under a thousand units in total.

There is a wide variety of different situations with varying needs that sometimes need a helping hand and assistance from the government with housing. A $1.7 million pilot project that will provide 20 units for assisted living for young adults with disabilities is presently under construction. The province, Fraser Health and the Howe Sound Rehabilitation Services Society are all partnering on this very valuable project, one of two of its kind currently underway in the Fraser Health region. The units, when completed, will provide residents with personal care, meals, housekeeping and laundry, recreational opportunities and a 24-hour emergency response system. I think this is a tremendous concept that will provide another level of care between home support and residential care for seniors and people with disabilities.

This innovative project is slated for completion in August 2007, and I am one looking forward to seeing how effective this type of facility is in delivering quality service to those British Columbians who need it.

In total our provincial government funds 1,500-plus social housing units for families and 2,160 units for independent seniors in Burnaby alone. There are also 886 units specifically for adults with mental and physical challenges. In total there are 687 households in Burnaby who receive the SAFER rent supplements and 109 families currently receiving rent supplements under the rental assistance program, which you may recall had its threshold recently increased.

Overall, the provincial government currently provides $10.6 million annually in housing subsidy for Burnaby residents. Coquitlam has 670 housing units for families, with 30 additional families assisted through RAP. There are also 252 units for independent seniors and 327 for other seniors currently receiving SAFER rent supplements plus supportive and assisted-living units for seniors, including 209 special needs units.

D. Thorne: I'm very pleased to respond today to the member for Burquitlam, and I'm very pleased that he has talked about the new housing that's going to be built in Coquitlam through the YWCA — the announcement that was made for, I think, 36 or 39 units for single mothers and their children. I'm especially pleased because I was on the city council that put aside that land for just such a purpose.

It's wonderful and gratifying to me to see that it's finally being used. I certainly hope that the NIMBYism that was referred to by the member previously does not become a problem for city council in okaying this finally — the final okay on this land.

The other reason I'm really pleased about this is because I'm trying really hard to remember if there has been any other new family housing built by this government specifically for families in the last five years. Since 2001, when Homes B.C. — the provincial housing program — was cancelled, there has been an emphasis on other kinds of housing.

We have had lots of additions to assisted living. We've had some social units — 750, I think — that are going to be converted this year into supported housing. Unfortunately, we'll be losing those as social housing. They are becoming what I would call health care spaces to backfill this government's broken long-term care promise.

Now we're taking social housing out of family housing and turning it into supported housing so that we can use it for seniors and assisted living. My memory is that that was always under health care. So, I'm a little alarmed that we are losing so many of these units. So to see even a small step forward in the city of Coquitlam for actual family housing is a good thing.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the rent supplement program that was also referred to. The member previously talked about assisted living and seniors housing and, you know, we all know that that is where the bulk of money and certainly the attention of this government is going — into that kind of thing.

My particular concern — and many other people are also concerned about the same thing — is the lack of family housing and the growing wait-list at B.C. Housing. I thought it was up to about 14,000, but I think the statistics from B.C. Housing itself now has it running at about 15,000 people waiting for family housing. The list is growing daily. The rent supplement program, although…. Certainly the intent is good, and it is one of the tools in a tool box which nobody would deny is something that can work very well, particularly if you have a lot of units available, if you have a good supply…. Unfortunately, in British Columbia we have a supply problem. That means that we also have a problem with the uptake on a rental supplement program.

I know that if you look at the statistics under B.C. Medical, there are probably close to 100,000 people in British Columbia that should be eligible for a rental supplement. If the government were to send an application out through B.C. Medical to all of the people who are making less than $28,000 a year, who have a child at home and who actually meet the fairly stringent requirements of the rent supplement program, then I suspect you would get a lot more.

Unfortunately, unless you're already in an apartment, you cannot take advantage of the rent supplement

program because there is a 0.3 vacancy rate or 0.5 at best in most of the urban areas in British Columbia, even in the north.

We have the latest statistics from B.C. Housing because we've just gotten them. Including applications being processed, there are not quite 2,000 people who are actually taking advantage of the rent supplement program. One of the reasons is because they probably don't know about it. They're not able to access it because of language difficulties or whatever, or they just can't find an apartment to make them available to the program.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for her remarks. I truly hope that she'll come out and support this project and encourage council to support it. I hope that all my colleagues from the Tri-Cities will come out and support it.

We can talk about many things, but I'm a positive person, and I want to talk about going forward and what our government has done. To continue to go backwards doesn't do any good at all. I would like to talk about the many housing initiatives of the balanced budget of 2007 that helped not only my constituents but all British Columbians.

Our government is concerned about the short-term and long-term planning, which is why a new $150 million housing endowment fund has been created. The fund is expected to generate approximately $10 million a year for the government of the day to invest in housing developments that may not fall under other programs. By prudently saving money today, there will be more funding available for housing developments in the future, and that's looking forward.

An important policy change we made was to increase the eligibility annual income threshold for the rental assistance program to $28,000 a year, meaning nearly 6,000 additional families will be eligible to receive up to an additional $563 a month to help with their housing needs. In total, up to 20,000 families across the province could be helped by this valuable program.

Balanced Budget 2007 also increased the shelter rate for people on income assistance by $50 a month, making our shelter allowance assistance rates the highest in the country for employable singles and couples and single parents.

We are also providing increased funding for those in need. The budget included $38 million in one-time funding for projects that provide housing for British Columbians who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

We are also committed to spending an additional $27 million over three years to increase the number of year-round shelter beds. This 30-percent increase will help to keep people off the street and provide support services and some stability to help get them back on their feet.

British Columbia is the best place on earth and is currently experiencing a booming economy. One of the side effects of that is we have a steady rise in the price of real estate in our province. So we have acted to help British Columbians to be able to buy their first home and to keep seniors in their homes.

The first-time-homebuyers program has been enhanced to exempt first-time homebuyers from paying property transfer tax on houses up to $375,000, saving them approximately $5,500. The homeowner's grant has been extended to include all lower-income seniors, regardless of the value of their homes — another positive step forward by the Minister of Housing.

D. Routley: On the heels of this previous debate, I get to rise and add my voice to the issue of affordable housing in B.C. It is my honour to speak after hearing our Housing critic the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville describe so accurately the challenges facing working families in B.C.

In British Columbia, the reality of the housing issue is that we have an agency called B.C. Housing which has shifted its focus and rended it in two, from addressing the housing needs of the broad population of British Columbians to addressing assisted living and independent living — these health care issues — in order to cover up and paper over a promise of 5,000 long-term care beds that was never met after the 2001 election.

This rending of B.C. Housing has gone to address that broken promise and rental supplements, which are a weak, weak addressing of the poverty issues that face working British Columbians.

The other housing reality in British Columbia is one of poverty. In this province, with a booming resource economy, we see a reality that includes this province leading the country when it comes to child poverty. It's been well said in this chamber by many that children don't live in isolation in poverty; children live in families that live in poverty. Children live in families that are challenged to address their housing needs on the most basic level. Children live in families who occupy a wait-list for housing that now stretches 15,000 long.

That 5,000 long-term care bed promise has never been met. As a result, B.C. Housing has been forced to divert federal housing dollars, to the tune of $89 million in the last year, towards these health care–oriented needs — all of this at the expense of those ordinary British Columbians who struggle with low incomes to address very highly inflated housing costs in British Columbia.

The housing reality, in terms of policy, is again one of wait-lists. Rural community development is greatly impaired by the fact that young families can't access housing. How can we expect to address a skills shortage and draw young families, working families, to our rural communities? How are we going to draw young nurses into the health profession in rural communities if we can't offer housing that's affordable?

Housing and housing policy is not a tap that can be turned off and then turned back on five or six years later. This five- or six-year gap has lost great ground — ground that should have been occupied, that should have been excavated and upon which housing for British Columbia's working families should have been built.

The policy outfalls are great. The homelessness rate in B.C. has tripled. We see working families as the second-largest growing group amongst the homeless. These are directly related to housing. Throughout North America very conservative local governments in many of the big cities have realized that housing first is the answer. Housing first is the answer when it comes to poverty, to addictions and to mental health. Yet this government has turned off that tap, and we have lost that ground.

So many policy areas of this government have affected the rate of homelessness and the difficulty in accessing housing for all sorts of British Columbians, particularly aboriginal peoples. The cutbacks that were made in the city to the social supports and housing supports for aboriginal peoples…. That cup has overflowed into the reserves, so that now the meagre federal housing resources on reserves are greatly overtapped by those coming from the city back to the reserve because they cannot find housing.

These are bad effects. The result of that we see in reactive measures. The purchase of the SROs was a reactive measure. After five and six years of completely ignoring the housing needs of ordinary British Columbians, this reactive measure was a desperate attempt to slow down the pace of growth of homelessness in time for the Olympics.

We now have to ask ourselves: what is really required in British Columbia? What is required is real commitment, and real commitment needs to equal real action. Real commitment does equal real action, or it becomes meaningless. It becomes empty and sloganistic.

We've had enough study of the problem. We know where the shortages exist. We know where the deficiencies and the deficits in housing in B.C. exist, but the government hasn't been prepared to act.

There is no time for excuses. It's time to build. There is no evasion of responsibility. The municipalities, the Co-Operative Housing Federation, the non-profits — all the partners — are ready to work, but the government isn't there.

I call on the government to not just mimic empty phrases like "going forward." Yes, we all want to go forward, but not at the expense of accountability. "Going forward" comes from a government which chooses not to look back at the legacy that it has created, particularly when it comes to housing and homelessness.

Go forward? Yes, go forward and build housing for British Columbians. Go forward and stand up to the broken promises and the deficits created by policies that have let down working families. Create housing that will address the needs of British Columbians. Do it now. All the partners are there.

It's time for the government to shed its ideology and to realize the full benefit of all the partners in housing that are prepared to act and stand with the government. It's time for them to shed their ideology which has paralyzed them from having a strategy and a plan.

Some of the housing developments that have been so poorly characterized by the Housing Minister himself in the downtown east side of Vancouver are world-renowned. The executives of B.C. Housing tour people through those housing developments with pride. They are award-winning housing developments.

The solutions are in our own communities. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, and we can provide affordable housing for the working families of British Columbia throughout this province.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to rise today to respond to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith's comments on affordable housing. There is a lot that can be said about it, but I want to make a point of what was not said. In that member's riding this year we are making a $1.3 million contribution to housing — right in his neighbourhood. He didn't even mention it.

There are a lot of things that we can do in this province. One of the things that we've done as a government is we have had a firm, dedicated, clearly articulated policy on housing in British Columbia since 2001 that has resulted in, from 2001 to 2006, 100 units of social housing built each and every month in British Columbia.

It is true that in addition to those 100 units of social housing, we've also been building Independent Living B.C., and we've been building assisted-living units all across this province. I'm proud of it. I am deeply saddened that members on that side do not recognize the value of the contributions that this government has made, particularly when their government, when they were in power, could put together about 45 to 50 units of housing a month. That's like half of what we put into it each and every month.

I can't believe that members opposite could talk about a housing program that was cancelled when, in fact, it actually doubled the amount of housing that was built in British Columbia, specifically for the homeless.

Just this past month our government, recognizing that there was a shortage of affordable housing in the downtown east side, went out and, as quickly as they possibly could, snapped up and bought 12 single-room-occupancy hotels. It's something that that government didn't even think of. As someone who has worked in the downtown east side and has worked on housing policy and mental health issues — all of that sort of stuff — I've got to tell you that the purchase of those hotels means stability in that neighbourhood. It means housing, it means affordable housing, and it means safe and clean housing for people who are very vulnerable. I'm ashamed that members opposite don't seem to know about it — 1,100 units of social housing last month, and they don't even know.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, I know they get a little bit worked up over this sort of stuff because the truth of the matter is that when you measure the B.C. Liberal response to homelessness in British Columbia against the NDP record of homelessness initiatives in

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the facts are the facts are the facts. This government has committed — through the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions — hundreds of millions of dollars to housing and to making sure that people get the SAFER grant. As a matter of fact, for the first time in 20 years, seniors got an actual raise from this government to subsidize their rent. I didn't see anyone on that side saying it was a good idea or a bad idea. It seems to have passed their attention span.

Now we've brought in the rental assistance program in British Columbia that makes 15,000 families in British Columbia eligible for rent supplements so they can come off the B.C. Housing waiting list.

You know, we just heard from the member for Burquitlam. Just in his own riding — one little riding in British Columbia — he talked about 1,557 social housing units, 2,160 for independent seniors, 886 units for adults with special mental or physical challenges, 687 people that are getting SAFER, 109 that are getting the….

D. Routley: No amount of bluster or desk thumping will cover up six years of inaction when it comes to social housing. No amount of hyperbole from the members opposite will make up for the great deficit they have created in the housing market of British Columbia. This is just more evidence that this government feels it can just turn on the tap and turn off the tap.

D. Routley: No amount of bluster will cover up six years of inaction. The member points to social housing, but he includes shelter beds in that. Homeless shelter beds are not social housing. Nor is assisted living; nor is independent living.

They have turned off the tap. They have closed the gate of the wait-list to those working families who struggle in poverty. As they try to address their target groups — those homeless, addicted and disabled, who they have ignored for five and six years — they continue to ignore the needs of working British Columbians and those who live in poverty.

Yes, Madam Speaker, a shelter is not a social housing unit. Nor is independent living; nor is assisted living. The member talks about…

D. Routley: …a raise to the seniors of British Columbia, and yet we see seniors as the fastest-growing group amongst the homeless. This is despicable. This government can't possibly be proud of that.

Yes, some shelter beds have been built, but meanwhile, the rates double and triple. New solutions are out there.

D. Routley: In Montreal Avi Friedman, a world-renowned designer of housing, created the Grow Home. When it went onto the market in Montreal, the average price was $175,000. These units went on the market for $76,000 apiece, a full $100,000 under the average price. None of these kinds of ideas are being adopted by this government.

They are addressing and papering over broken promises by dismantling and dissecting B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing is meant to address the overall housing needs of this province, and it is failing.

This government needs to address one particular issue to overcome all of that, and that is poverty — poverty — and the great gaps that it has allowed to grow in our society through its ideological cuts to supports for the working poor. This government has created this mess. This government must face up to its legacy.

The legacy of the B.C. Liberals is poverty, homelessness and rural communities decimated by their policies. It's time this government faced up to the fact that it turned off the tap five years ago, and it's time they faced up to that with real measures that result in bricks and mortar and housing for British Columbians.

J. Nuraney: Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see such a vibrant House this morning.

I rise today to bring forward signs of a looming crisis in our labour force. In the past five years we have witnessed an unprecedented growth in our economy and investments. The economic pundits tell us that we will need a million new workers to fill the anticipated demand in the next 12 years. In the past five years we have created an astounding number of jobs — approximately 356,000.

Today employers in public and private sectors are experiencing a real shortage in the labour market. This situation is expected to get worse, as we have an aging workforce that will retire in the next few years, and the number of graduates from our school system joining the workforce is much less than what is required. We now enjoy the lowest unemployment rate in the history

of our province. The traditional methods of attracting workers, like increased wages, will not work. We not only have to invite new workers to our province, but also we have to bring up to par underutilized workers, people with disabilities and provide skills training to meet the demand.

Our government has several initiatives in place, like Skills Connect, 10 by 10 and increasing approvals under PNP, the provincial nominee program. The PNP initiative has already recorded a 100-percent success rate. I am told that everyone who applied and qualified under the criteria was successful.

Since I was elected in 2001, my efforts have been directed towards credentialing. Our professional organizations and associations have not acted fast enough to help foreign-trained professionals like doctors, engineers, architects and the like. It is my opinion that there should be some legislative pressures brought to bear upon these organizations. It is not only the question of increasing our productivity through recognizing their credentials; it is also the question of having these immigrants regain their sense of dignity and appropriateness. On the federal level they have begun a temporary foreign workers program to ease the immediate need.

Whilst this is a good step, we must also be conscious of the fact that this action should not deprive our domestic workers from opportunities. It is also important for us to minimize exploitations by unscrupulous employers and contractors who supply this labour. Regional prerogatives for import of this labour have been established.

We have created new federal-provincial working groups in both British Columbia and Alberta to speed the identification of existing, emerging skills shortages and to determine the best ways for the foreign workers to come and help these shortages.

The application process for foreign workers has been simplified, and the employers required to resort to this find the exercise very useful and easy to conduct. Since it was launched, the program has granted 7,000 work permits. As we move forward in these matters, it will also become increasingly incumbent on the employers to offer better working conditions to retain their workers.

We all need to do our part to help attract skilled workers into this beautiful province. We need to bring in at least 30,000 new workers with specific skills each year. If these measures are not taken, there is a risk that our forecast economic growth will suffer, and we will not be able to meet our goals with the resulting reductions in our revenues.

Our efforts to attract this workforce continue. Our government has launched the WorkBC program as a way to draw people back into our province. Under this initiative, we will keep the workforce that we have, develop skills and also require the new existing workers to increase their level of expertise.

Our province is a success story of its own. Many successful British Columbians have come out in support of attracting more people to our province. People like Jimmy Pattison, John Fluevog and Lui Passaglia are now taking part in the campaign called B.C. Is Calling.

My final point is towards our educational institutions of higher learning. The future of our next generation will depend on the expertise in their fields of endeavour. Globalization will bring in its wake meritocracy. Our children will have to compete with the best, and it is therefore important that our institutions keep abreast with the modern technologies and shifting priorities.

The title of my statement this morning is "Opening Our Doors," and it is my fervent hope that we will ensure this happens, not only in physical terms, but also in spirit.

I've tried this morning to highlight some of my concerns, and I look forward to comments from my colleagues on the opposite side.

L. Krog: I want to thank the member for his remarks this morning — very timely remarks.

As the member is well aware, one of our own members on this side of the House has introduced a motion around this issue.

There is no question that — I will call it — this North American–centric view of the world has prohibited professionals and qualified people from around the globe from fully occupying the positions of respect in professions that they rightfully deserve in this country. It is frankly shameful that governments and professional organizations have not moved quickly enough to employ the talents of so many who have made Canada their choice.

Most of us in this chamber, by accident of birth, enjoy Canadian citizenship, but there are hundreds of thousands — indeed, millions — of Canadians who have made the choice to become Canadians, to join what I think is the greatest country on the face of the planet. To me, there is nothing more shameful and wasteful than to refuse to give opportunity to those who bring their skills, their education and their incredible backgrounds to this country, to refuse to give them the opportunity to benefit every Canadian by the provision and delivery of those skills and talents.

The member is quite right. I do, however, want to exercise a note of caution. We talk about continued growth and the great economy and the expansion of that economy and how things will continue to get better and how we will need all of these workers. It's interesting this morning to note that the man who manages the Vice-President of the United States' money, Jeremy Grantham, says: "From Indian antiquities to modern Chinese art, from land in Panama to Mayfair, from forestry, infrastructure and the junkiest bonds to mundane blue chips, it's bubble time."

We may not in fact need all of the people that the member talks about. But certainly, those who come here, who bring the requisite skills, and there are many…. We need to get them into the mainstream of Canadian life as quickly as possible.

I mean no criticism of any of the, perhaps, occupations in our community that require fewer skills than others. But to have a trained physician essentially working as a greeter at Wal-Mart is not the sign of a healthy economy or a healthy community.

It would be my sincere hope that members on both sides of this House will ensure that the professional organizations in British Columbia and others get the message from this Legislature on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, and that is that we want to make this a model nation in the world for the recognition of the incredible educational experiences that others receive in other parts of the planet.

For us to continue to believe that only a North American education or a European education is somehow the best is absolutely outmoded, dinosaur thinking. It's time we caught up with the rest of the world, and I look forward to a British Columbia where we will recognize, the way we should, that the rest of the planet is indeed equal in every sense to what we are in British Columbia today.

J. Nuraney: It is really very encouraging to see that we are in agreement on both sides of this House on this very important matter of our working force.

There is no denying the fact that Canada is built and continues to be built on the labour, sweat and blood of the people who come to make this country their home. It is again important that we recognize those people that we are talking about, who have professional qualifications and are not able to practice their profession of choice because of certain credentialing that takes a long time and, perhaps, some barriers have been created by the different organizations and groups of people to not enable them to practice their skill and their art and their profession.

This is a matter of great importance to me. As I've suggested before in my earlier statement, maybe it is time that government should look at some form of legislation to make these associations become a little bit more inclusive, helpful and supportive of these people who belong, after all, to the same practice and profession that they are so ably wanting to protect.

I think it is time that we all look at the opportunities that are offered in our province and make it truly, truly a province and a country of opportunities.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill M201, intituled Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

It's a pleasure to rise in this place here in May, two and a half months after tabling the Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act. I had hoped — I had an expectation, in fact — that the government would recognize the public concern with respect to rising gas prices and would have responded with a bill of their own.

I've had numerous discussions with members on the other side, those in executive council as well as government backbenchers, and enthusiasm has been muted. So I'm quite looking forward to the debate today. I'm anxious to hear what the government's response is to overwhelming public concern about escalating prices and the apparent gouging that we are all experiencing at the hands of large multinational oil companies.

I want to start by saying that when I tabled my bill, gas prices in the lower mainland were at about $1.03 a litre and $1.01 a litre in Toronto. World crude prices were at $62 a barrel with an expectation that that price would remain steady for a considerable period of time. Well, two and a half months have passed, and indeed, the world crude price has stayed fairly constant. I believe at this morning's opening, crude prices were at $66 U.S. a barrel.

The challenge, of course, for us now is that although the crude prices have stayed flat and profits continue to rise in the oil and gas sector, at the pumps in Vancouver today it's $1.28 a litre, and in Toronto it's $1.04.

What we have in British Columbia today is a phenomenon whereby British Columbians are paying 25 cents a litre more than their fellow Canadians in southern Ontario. Certainly in my constituency, and I would argue in constituencies right across the province, consumers have had enough. They're fed up. They're being gouged. They're being hosed at the pumps, and they want their legislators to do something about it.

I talked about profits. I want to touch a bit on the windfall profits in the oil and gas sector. As many members in this place and those who are listening at home will know, ExxonMobil had the largest corporate profit in history last year, declaring — admitting to, confessing to, having — a profit of $39.5 billion; Royal Dutch Shell, a profit of $19 billion; and Chevron, $15 billion.

At the same time that these windfall profits are rolling into the coffers of boardrooms and shareholders right across this continent and in fact around the world, for consumers in our jurisdiction — the only place that should matter to legislators in this place — prices have gone through the roof. It's time something was done about it, and that's why I tabled this bill. It's time someone stood up for consumers, and that's why I called this bill today in private members' hour.

It's regrettable that there are so many members of this place, on both sides of the House, that want to speak to this important issue so that consumers in their constituency will have a better sense of what they're doing today and every day to reduce the costs of living in this great and wonderful province.

Everybody knows that when we go to a gas station, we are compelled to put gas in our automobile. That's what we do. I've heard people say: "Well, we want to reduce consumption. The price point will dictate what

we do in terms of our fight against climate change and reduction of greenhouse gases." I fully endorse that. However, the last time I checked, ExxonMobil wasn't contributing to the Canada line in Vancouver. Last time I checked, Royal Dutch Shell was not helping finance commuter rail here on Vancouver Island. The last time I checked, Chevron was doing nothing whatsoever to ease the burden on ordinary British Columbians right across this province.

Windfall profits going directly to shareholders, bypassing consumers, is wrong, and that's why we're in this House today debating this bill.

I want to say briefly that the intent of the bill that I put before the House is to regulate gasoline prices through the B.C. Utilities Commission. This isn't creating a new bureaucracy. This is an existing commission that has served British Columbians well with respect to other energy products. We regulate electricity prices in British Columbia. We regulate natural gas prices in British Columbia. There's no earthly reason why we couldn't do the same with petroleum products.

In fact, when I raised the issue with the Minister of Energy, his response was: "Well, it's complicated. It's a complicated process and, quite frankly, we should just leave it to the market forces to determine what our consumers pay." On most days I'd be inclined to agree with the hon. Energy Minister that the market does a reasonably good job of protecting consumers, but not when there's a near monopoly — and that's certainly what we have here in British Columbia today; not when we have prices that are set uniformly across the board, community by community; not when we have prices that are 25 cents higher than in other jurisdictions in Canada.

The oil companies will often say that instability in the Middle East, the volatility of world crude prices, pipeline challenges in Nigeria, refining capacity challenges on the Gulf Coast…. All of those issues are pleasant and wonderful, and it's a good idea for the sector to put those out in the public domain, but it has absolutely no bearing on northern Alberta. Where do we get our oil and gas products from in the lower mainland? Northern Alberta. I haven't seen instability in northern Alberta recently. In fact, it's one of the more stable jurisdictions in North America. I don't think they've changed the government since 1932. What could be the disruption there? What's the unrest in northern Alberta? It doesn't exist. There's a one-party state there.

The other place where there's a one-party state is Venezuela, and the price today was four cents a litre — four cents a litre in Venezuela. In other jurisdictions around the world the prices are going in different directions. But here in British Columbia, it's out of hand. Someone needs to do something about it, and that's why I've tabled this bill.

Consumers, constituents and people back home listening to this broadcast today are going to want to hear from every member of this House. It's regrettable that we've only got the one hour before us today. I know that all members on this side, of course, want to speak to the issue, and there are a number of people on the government side that will give some justification, I'm sure, for leaving supply and demand at play in this particular sector.

Supply and demand used to mean one thing. What it means now is that the big oil companies have the supply, and they demand we pay whatever sticker price they put on the pump. That's unacceptable to British Columbians, and it's unacceptable to people on this side of the House.

I have just a brief period of time left before I give the floor to other members so that we can all get on the record today speaking in favour of consumer protection legislation. I'll just touch briefly on the bill, and what its intention is.

Other jurisdictions in Canada regulate gas prices, most notably in the maritime provinces. The intent of that regulation is to stop the wild fluctuations. We all know that when the spring holiday comes or a long weekend is upon us, gas prices will go up. Under this model, with the Utilities Commission regulating prices, they would be set for a two- or three-week period.

The industry would have to come to the commission, a panel of experts already in place. These are not new bureaucrats. This is the commission that we have today. They'd look at the evidence, weigh the pros and cons, and say to the sector: "You can't justify those wild increases. The price remains the same."

This is a reasonable approach for us to take. I think that as we look at oil and gas production here in British Columbia, we want to benefit all British Columbians from that. We get revenues from that activity that come to the provincial coffers. We get revenue from the pumps that come to the provincial coffers, but ultimately, the lion's share of the $1.28 we're paying in the lower mainland is not going to improve transit. It's not going to reduce greenhouse gases. It's going to shareholders who just want more and more and more. CEOs get their bonuses based on how much money they send out of this province somewhere else.

It's time that stopped. It's time that the people in this Legislature stood up for consumers, stood up for the people back home who are tired of getting up, going into their car, going to the gas station and sending money straight to ExxonMobil.

D. MacKay: Joining us today from Smithers — the first time in a number of years I've had some students down here to introduce in the chamber — I've got 25 grades 6 and 7 students from the Lake Kathlyn Elementary School, accompanied by a number of chaperones as well as their teacher Miss Beamish. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome to Victoria.

R. Sultan: I rise to comment on Bill M201 submitted by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, a bill which seeks to control the price of gasoline in British Columbia. Although it pains me to use such language against such an esteemed colleague, I must declare that the proposed law would be unable to achieve its objectives, for it encapsulates socialist ideals at their most unrealistic.

The bill proposes to prescribe wholesale prices for gasoline. The bill proposes to set maximum retail prices for gasoline. The bill requires each gas station in the land to keep records of its gasoline prices for six years on pain of a half-million-dollar fine for non-compliance.

The motivation for such a bill is plain enough. On this I can agree with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Gasoline prices heading north from $1.25 a litre are quite a shock for someone like myself. I didn't have to go to Venezuela. I can remember paying the equivalent of a nickel a litre for gasoline in the good old days, a long time ago. I have to confess sticker shock when my Visa card was dinged for $70 when I made my last fill-up at the Caulfeild gas station.

The market is displaying quirky geographic price differentials, as the member has also pointed out. The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine recently gloated to us over the fact that the gasoline prices in his constituency in the far north are lower than they are here on the lower mainland, not to mention somewhat lower prices which prevail elsewhere in Canada.

As the member has also pointed out, we can hardly say the major oil companies are suffering when ExxonMobil reports global profits in the $30 billion–plus range — about the magnitude of, if not even larger than, the annual budget of the British Columbia government. You stand back, add up the evidence, and it's bound to make the most forgiving socialist a little bit suspicious and acutely aware of all those votes waiting to be recruited at the gas pump.

So what indeed is going on here? Well, let's start with the issue of geographic price differentials. Last month, according to the data I have — and it diverges somewhat from the 25-cent figure just cited — average prices were about 15 cents lower in Toronto than in Vancouver over, presumably, a 30-day period measured on a broad sample.

How can we account for 15 cents? Well, higher taxes in B.C. — almost six cents — and higher refining costs and marketing margins in B.C. — over eight cents — account for the difference. Incidentally, that six-cent tax represents both transit charges and provincial taxes.

A recent Ministry of Transport study of highway congestion on the North Shore, in my riding, in connection with the Lions Gate Bridge pointed out what we should have realized all along: we must rely more and more upon mass transit to make our way around metro Vancouver. So it's really hard to conceive of any meaningful tax or price relief on that front.

Set taxes aside, and consider the marketing margins. Why do we have higher marketing margins in this part of the world? Could a possible explanation be found in the jaw-buster term used in this House a week or so ago by the member for Nelson-Creston — oligopoly. Not monopoly as the member has asserted, but oligopoly.

Many scholars have studied conditions of competition in the gasoline market — and I include myself in their number — at the Harvard Business School. One early definitive work which inspired my own research into oligopoly and pricing in oligopoly had the catchy title of Gasoline Pricing in Ohio by Professor MacLean. You could look it up in the library, particularly if you have trouble going to sleep at night.

For that matter, my publisher informed me that there were more than a few unsold copies of my own book still sitting there in the warehouse. I encourage you all to rush out and order your copy without delay.

You might say the topic's been well studied, and it often boils down to suspicions, hard to prove, of parallel behaviour in the marketplace — the stuff of oligopoly. You know, when I was a student of economics, oligopoly was very much the rage, but it turns out that the theory of oligopoly had its heyday when markets were more sheltered, more contained and market turf more exclusive than is the case today.

Today the supply of refined petroleum products is global in character, and one cannot really analyze the supply and demand locally. One has to look across provincial boundaries, across international boundaries — indeed, globally.

Therefore — and again, the member has alluded to some of these events — for the recent spike in gasoline prices, flawed presidential elections in Nigeria are offered as an explanation. In addition, the arrest last Friday of 172 terrorists planning to blow up oilfields in Saudi Arabia.

Traders in petroleum futures pay attention to this stuff, and we are not going to get very far in understanding the price gyrations of gasoline at the local gas pump unless we understand the price gyrations of crude oil at one level. As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca might reply — has indeed replied — all the more reason for the government of British Columbia to intervene and override: let's simply set our prices by law and regulation, and let's not worry about those terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Can it be done? Let's look at other provinces which have gasoline price controls today, and they do exist in other provinces in Canada. In Quebec, for example, every three years the Régie de l'énergie determines the minimum retail margin for gasoline and diesel that is required to cover a retailer's operating costs in Quebec. Retail prices must be maintained above this minimum level. Oops. In Quebec they seem more concerned about price-cutting than about prices which are too high.

Let's move right along to Prince Edward Island, representative of how they do things in the Maritimes, where this type of approach is common. The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission supervises wholesalers and retailers and decides when and how

often prices may change and also fixes the retail price margin. Retailers must apply for permission to increase prices and show that the proposed new price is fair.

How often might one apply for a fairness decision? One clue is the historical experience in the United Kingdom. Their Anti-Inflation Board set out to control prices between 1967 and 1970, and by the government's own estimate — the U.K. government — there were nine million eligible price changes during that period, of which in fact only 2,100 were filed for permission as required by law and of which only 1,800 were actually approved — 1,800 versus nine million. Incoming Prime Minister Edward Heath mercifully killed this Labour government fantasy.

We can go back further in time. For a while the Soviet Union fixed the price of bread for the masses — surely a noble venture. Unfortunately, resistance to price increases eventually made it more economical for farmers to feed their cows on loaves of bread instead of hay. The cost of the bread subsidy threatened to break the government, and the scheme ultimately collapsed.

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau, famous for many things — economic understanding not particularly being one of them — introduced wage and price controls in 1975. Three years of price and wage controls didn't seem to have any discernible impact on high rates of inflation. Economists came to realize that inflation was heavily influenced by government deficits and monetary policy.

Today the Bank of Canada successfully manages growth in the money supply. Responsible governments, starting with this one right here in British Columbia, shun deficits.

Given that little history in price control as tried elsewhere, could we expect the apparatus of price control to actually achieve lower prices? Well, the report card in P.E.I. and the report card in the other eastern provinces where it's actually operational is no. There's no discernible difference in the price in the marketplace, despite this elaborate apparatus in the background. One might, I think, reasonably ask, "What's the point?" — if you end up at the same price at the end of the day.

Indeed, I would remind the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca that I understand he participated in — certainly, I would assume, closely observed — two studies of the potential for gasoline price regulation when he was a ministerial aide in the previous government. Both studies, as I understand it, reached the conclusion that it wouldn't work — a nice idea but it wouldn't work — and the NDP government did not proceed.

What it all boils down to, I would suggest, is this reality. The price of gasoline is determined in British Columbia, as elsewhere, by the fundamentals of supply and demand. Western Canada is, to a small degree, a net importer of refined gasoline from the United States. Any hiccup in refinery operations south of the border, we soon learn about it at the gas pump as the U.S. refining industry, like our own, struggles to respond to tighter environmental regulation. Supplies are finely balanced. Periodic shutdowns are not uncommon.

It's conceivable that the worst is yet to come because, as I understand, the normal seasonal inventory buildup, preparatory for the summer heavier driving season, is not being achieved. They do not have that surplus to build up the inventory in anticipation, which is worrisome.

We've got all this oil in Canada. Why couldn't we just build more pipelines to Alberta and build more refineries here in Vancouver and — in the mode, I think, which is inherent in the advice of the member — become more self-sufficient? Well, tell that to the neighbours of our refinery on Burrard Inlet.

Consumers seldom make the connection between how and where gasoline is made and its availability. Instead, we get this kind of delicious quote from Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers Association of Canada, noting that consumers are frustrated with industry explanations of low supply, high demand and refinery problems. "At this point, it doesn't even matter anymore what the reasons behind the price rise are," Cran said.

Now, that's an interesting perspective. Don't tell me about demand. Don't tell me about supply. Let's just get on with fixing prices and pass a law. I would suggest that that is not really the way markets work in the real world.

In conclusion, let me say to those facing a $70 price shock, as I did at the gas pump, that there's a greater law which can come to the rescue. It's called Mother Nature. At the end of the day buck-and-a-quarter gasoline reflects $62 oil.

Way back in 1956 Shell Oil geophysicist Marion King Hubbert, known as the father of the peak oil theory, forecast the peaking of U.S. oil production. Many would say the same phenomenon is occurring in global supply today.

You don't have to believe in peak oil, however, to appreciate that oil is getting more difficult to find, more expensive to produce, and high pump prices for gasoline are the inevitable end result. High pump prices for gasoline are also the biggest motivator in the search for a more economical substitute.

It's no accident that our present B.C. government is investing heavily in the hydrogen highway. It's no accident that responsible figures in our energy industry, such as John MacDonald, believe that our energy future will have a large place for solar power. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, promoted by my friend Janet Benjamin, promised the equivalent of 20-cent-per-litre gasoline to power our vehicles. Many smart people are working hard, motivated by buck-and-a-quarter gasoline.

Here's the conservation conundrum presented to us by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Prices indeed change consumer behaviour, and I suspect David Suzuki would say generally for the better. Meanwhile, in another context, the member opposite asks a good question: how do you change public behaviour if you're going to keep electrical prices so low? Very good question. He could have asked the same question about gasoline prices.

In conclusion, I believe that the marketplace, not government, will provide the solution to unreasonable and unaffordable gasoline prices. Citizens should be skeptical of those who promise glibly that government

can legislate prices in a global marketplace. Surely, even socialism has moved beyond such simplistic solutions.

A. Dix: I find the comments of the member opposite quite extraordinary and his definition of socialism quite extraordinary, because for a century governments that are not socialist governments — we think of Theodore Roosevelt in the United States — have taken action to protect consumers from monopolist practices by industry. This is normal practice, according to the view presented by the member from West Vancouver — W.A.C. Bennett, socialist; Theodore Roosevelt, socialist.

In fact, what we know is that there is an obligation on government to protect consumers against rapacious practices by industries, whether they be oligopolies acting as monopolies or monopolies acting as monopolies — to protect consumers against such practices. What have we seen in terms of gasoline prices at the pump? In 1998, 53 cents; 2000, 73 cents; 2003, 90 cents; 2007, $1.28. All through that period we've seen dramatic increases in oil company profits.

What do they say is the reason for those dramatic increases? Let me quote from one of them: "Increased margins on the sales of petroleum." As gas prices have skyrocketed so have oil companies' profits. Consumers are simply being hosed at the pump. There is little, if any, competition between oil companies in North America and, except for the occasional local price war usually launched by independent gas stations, there is little competition at all.

The proposal put forward by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca is in the tradition of trust-busting. It's in the tradition of protecting consumers against monopolist practices. It is in that sense anti-socialist, not socialist. It's protecting consumers and insisting, in fact, on competition.

I ask members of the House opposite, who are here today apparently standing in defence of the oil and gas industry and its outrageous profits at the expense of consumers, to take a second look.

A. Dix: The member for Vancouver-Burrard calls his protection of oil company profits an environmental stand. He says it's an environmental stand. It's not, hon. Speaker.

What they're doing is protecting private interests over the public interests. We are standing in the great tradition, I think, of governments in North America — not socialist governments, but governments of all political stripes — who have protected consumers against the rapacious and inexcusable activities of monopolist industries.

C. Puchmayr: Our time is limited here, so I'll get right to my point. B.C. is one of the biggest petroleum-producing…. Per capita we produce more petroleum than probably anywhere else in the world, and we're paying the highest cost for that — the absolute highest cost for that.

The world prices certainly dictate what the prices do. I think it has got to such a point, when you look at the enormous profits being made by the oil companies, that something has to give here. We are paying way too much at the pump.

I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard says that's his way of dealing with the environmental issues. I just came back from Trail, from the interior, and people up there cannot afford to drive. They cannot afford to drive into the cities to do their shopping. It's getting to such a point where rural British Columbia is going to suffer from the gas prices that people are forced to pay.

The other thing that is suffering…. The government on the other side is putting a lot of their eggs into the tourism basket. B.C. is a beautiful place to visit. B.C. is a place that we were driven to, to visit. We stayed here when I came out in 1961. It has beautiful potential and opportunity for tourism. Who is going to come here and enjoy British Columbia, pulling those trailers from the United States? They're not going to go to British Columbia. They're not going to cross the border and pay the fuel prices that we are paying here in British Columbia, which are the highest fuel prices in Canada. The absolute highest fuel prices in Canada are right here on the lower mainland. That is absolutely wrong.

I know that in 1975 there was the energy crisis in the United States. The oil companies said the same thing there. They said: "Oh, our refineries are depleted, and there's a shortage of oil. The world is running out of oil."

Here it is 30-some-odd years later, and they're telling us the same thing. They're saying that the refineries are dilapidated. They're not.

The refineries were built many years ago, but they are constantly modernized. Like every other industry in B.C. and in North America, you constantly modernize. You bring in new technologies that are more productive, that produce more. For them to say that their refineries are old is absolutely untrue. It's misleading, and it is creating some of this insecurity that is happening here.

The member says there are issues in other parts of the world that are causing fuel prices to escalate. Well, why is Toronto so much different than British Columbia? Do they not read the same newspapers that a member across from us is reading? Are they not understanding that these crises are happening everywhere in the world? We have unsustainable, high fuel prices here. Rural B.C. is suffering, goods movement is suffering, and tourism is suffering, and they sit on the other side and say: "Let the market dictate what the prices should be."

You know, the profits that were made last year — $19 million by one oil company, one fuel company — could buy the remaining shares that were sold off at Petro-Canada — the entire remaining part of the company, one-fifth of the company, on one year's profit of a fuel company.

There is something inherently wrong with that, and I hope the members on the other side wake up and support our motion so that we have some control on the future of our economics through our fuel prices.

R. Hawes: This debate makes pretty good entertainment, I guess. It's certainly good radio talk show material, and it is very good political expediency. But this kind of a motion really doesn't go much beyond that, and it certainly does not reflect either the realities of marketplaces or of how the world actually operates. If regulation like this were something that was going to work, I'm pretty sure we would see this across the United States, across Europe, across the entire world. Internationally, actually, oil prices and gasoline prices are at record highs.

Let's talk first about 2006, average fuel prices in major markets across Canada. The Vancouver average for 2006 was $1.037, that's unregulated; Montreal, $1.016, that's regulated; Saint John, $1.03, regulated; Halifax $1.039, regulated; Charlottetown, $1.034, regulated; and St. John's, $1.08, regulated. Hmm. It doesn't seem like regulating works all that well.

The month of March, in Vancouver, $1.079 average, four-week average, unregulated. Montreal, $1.09 — oh, a bit higher — regulated. Halifax, $1.087 regulated — oh, a bit higher. Charlottetown, $1.083 regulated. It doesn't work, and the members opposite know that. That's why this is political expediency.

Let me just read this from the September 1996 British Columbia Inquiry into Gasoline Pricing, commissioned under the Inquiry Act and chaired by Mark Jaccard. It concluded at the end that regulation will not work. Conclusion under the NDP's study: market forces should be allowed to govern the industry. Gosh.

November 1999 report on gasoline prices in Ontario. A legislative committee consisting of two NDP MLAs and Jack Weisgerber….

Deputy Speaker: May I remind all members of the House to allow the speaker to make his presentation. He has the floor. Thank you very kindly.

R. Hawes: The NDP report in 1999 concluded that the market in Vancouver and the lower mainland is extremely competitive. It says that developing price controls is a potential option. It is an option but not recommended. Market forces should regulate.

Who was a part of that government, working with the ministers in that government? Why, the member that makes the motion today. And surprise of surprises, it's a senior adviser to Premier Glen Clark at the time these reports, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who gets up today and pontificates on how setting price controls today is going to save the world. That part of political hypocrisy and political expediency is really quite shameful.

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano…. I'm reminded of a quote of a few years ago from an eminent economist in this province who spoke against our government, the current government. I'll just paraphrase that by saying that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is a PhD economist, a former professor of economics at Harvard University, a former chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada. And after all, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca is a former ministerial assistant in the NDP government. Of course, that would make this all right. Why would we listen to a PhD economist who actually has done some real work in this field?

R. Hawes: I was very happy to hear that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has had an epiphany. He did say that the B.C. Utilities Commission regulates energy and does a good job. We all recall the mid-'90s, when the pricing of electricity in this province was taken away from the BCUC and put into the Premier's office so that prices could be set politically. Who re-regulated electrical prices in this province? Why gosh, it was this government who put it back under the BCUC.

We look at the price of gasoline, and what is the upside of high prices of gasoline? Is there one? Frankly, there is. One is….

R. Hawes: Oh, and before I get to that, these are the same members who speak so vehemently against British Columbia taking a look at offshore oil and gas exploration, which if it were done in an environmentally safe manner, would produce more oil and gas in this province and might have a modifying effect on prices. They're opposed to looking for new sources of oil and gas, yet they come with this politically expedient private member's bill.

One of the upsides of this is that high gasoline prices actually provide an opportunity for various groups out there to spend money on experimenting on alternate sources of energy. That's an expensive proposition. If gas prices are very, very low, there's no payoff in making that kind of investment. So if there is an upside, that would be it.

One of the things that is being pushed as a potential solution as an alternate is in the ethanol field: E-85 fuel produced from cellulose, which is actually going to cut greenhouse gases. If there were a distribution system, in talking to the automobile manufacturing industry, they are saying they have the technology ready. They can put it in the cars at no extra cost. It's very good for the environment. It actually will help farmers, as they can sell wheat straw for something, to produce ethanol.

Maybe we should be talking instead about things that have some reality to them. This, frankly, has no reality, as reflected in the decisions made by the previous NDP

government, when they were thinking less about political expediency and perhaps at times more about reality. Today's NDP, apparently, is only for the politically expedient.

G. Gentner: I want to quickly address the notion that high prices are because of refineries — refineries that are owned by the same oil companies that control the extraction and supply of oil. Oil prices fall while gasoline prices rise after a series of refinery problems reported throughout the U.S. We hear that refinery problems create tight gasoline supplies in the lower mainland.

The province, meanwhile, is involved in the expansion of the old Trans Mountain Pipeline to increase supply, but will this create greater supply of gas for the B.C. motorists? The answer is no. Traders are concerned about the glut of oil building up the supply chain of refineries and about a shortage of gasoline being produced by the facilities. We hear how the price of light sweet crude continues to fall, brent crude drops a dollar a barrel in a single day, yet gas prices soar. On the other hand, gasoline futures rise. As one analyst insists, it's basically talk of refinery outages that is moving gasoline prices higher.

Another blames it on extreme weather upsets and other upsets and security threats to refineries. Another says: "The wholesale prices in Canada for gasoline are tied very much to the U.S." Jon Hamilton of Petro-Canada's refining retailing division notes that Canadian companies are forced to match prices with the United States out of necessity. "Our prices have to be competitive with the U.S. prices because if they see that our prices are much lower, they are just going to come across the border, and they'll buy up our gasoline and head south," says the expert from Petro-Canada.

Could you imagine Americans coming across the border to buy our cheaper gas that was extracted, produced, refined and piped through British Columbia? We can't have that. What a cultural shock it would be to Point Roberts and Blaine. Can you imagine our American friends with passports in hand, pumping up on this side of the border, while also spending a few little dollars on retail and tourism?

Now does this House know what is the largest capital project in the province? It's Terasen's Trans Mountain Pipeline, the $1.6 billion to $2.5 billion expansion project between Edmonton, Burnaby and refineries south of the border. The stages evolve from an initial increase of 75,000 barrels per day to over 625,000 barrels a day. Its main transport will be from the oil sands crude from Edmonton. Is this expansion going to bring down the increase at the pump for British Columbians? The answer is no. It's not built for our consumption. It's built for California refineries.

We're building a pipeline that will go down to Burrard Inlet. They'll take new tankers under the Lion's Gate Bridge to Stanley Park, and it's all been given a green stamp by the Vancouver Port Authority.

To wrap up briefly, speaker after speaker has talked about the ills of regulation. Yet the ICBC monopolistic nature forces it to present its basic insurance rate increases to the BCUC. The oligolopic nature of oil companies must be treated the same way. Until there is competition within the oil consortium, I will support this bill.

C. Wyse: In the order of brevity, I'm going to return to the actual intent of the Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act.

Simply, what this proposed legislation does is allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to regulate retail gas prices. What that will do is protect consumers from being charged exorbitant prices for gasoline. It will establish an independent commissioner to ensure that the entire regulatory process is fair and above board.

In rural B.C. alternate transportation is often not an option. However, we also need to remember, in support of this legislation, that four provinces already have such regulatory regulation governing such a thing. In rural B.C. prices vary widely as you drive throughout that area, and often the question comes up: "Are we being gouged or not being gouged?"

In the order of brevity, I ask all members of the Legislature to support this needed piece of legislation that will give protection to consumers here in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for bringing forward this bill, because it allows us to really talk about a few significant issues in terms of differences between socialism and capitalism, where you believe in either a free market society or you believe in a controlling-the-market society.

As some of my previous colleagues have said, when you look at regulation, when you look at what it has done, quite frankly, it hasn't made any difference. As a matter of fact, the prices are, on average, significantly higher than what it is we have here.

I recognize the political perspective that this comes in. Everyone wants to complain about higher prices, and it's frustrating when you go to the pump, you fill up and you have higher prices. There's absolutely no question that that is a challenge, and that is what people get annoyed about. But is regulation really going to change that?

I would say that it will, as a matter of fact, do the opposite. It will create more challenges in the market than it will solutions. I mean, if you really want to talk about trying to get cheaper gas prices, what you really need to do is support things like offshore oil and gas. You need to be supporting things like expansion of oil and gas exploration in the interior. You need to be putting more of those sorts of products on line. You need to be increasing refinery capacity, and you need to be…

I don't know. Perhaps the members of the NDP here would like to argue that particular case, but it hasn't seemed to be the case so far. They seem to be opposed to everything that is going to actually try to increase the ability to have extra gas supply on line to reduce prices.

You know what? From an environmental perspective, I can't quite figure out how they're squaring this equation. For example, they're saying that they want lower gas prices, but they want to reduce emissions. They're saying that they want to be able to have people drive around in inefficient vehicles, but at the same time they're saying that they're concerned about the environment. I'm not quite sure how you do that.

When you have the prices that we currently have in gas prices…. I'm not a fan of higher gas prices, but as the market carries forward and balances things, and where you see slightly higher prices, that means that we now have biodiesel options. That means we have additional options for farmers in terms of producing fuel. There's potential with the pine beetle wood to look at biofuel options. There's a whole host of things that have now become a reality.

It's interesting. For example, interests like hydrogen and the ability to able to use hydrogen, the ability to be able to have that as a fuel source which runs clean, depends on how competitive it can be within the market. If you try to fix prices, you suddenly lose some of those competitive abilities and also our ability to be able to meet some challenges in terms of greenhouse gases in the environment.

When the member brought forward this bill originally, he came and asked me whether or not I'd be supporting this bill. I said that I would take a serious look at it, I would go into depth, and I would actually give it a good read and see what the analysis is. I can say that when you look through that analysis, there's no question that it is about socialism. It is about controlling prices and controlling the market, trying to keep things static rather than….

J. Rustad: It is really about wanting to control the world that goes around.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, when two times this issue came up under the NDP government, he was a senior adviser. What was the recommendation? Gas price controls do not work, yet he stands up today supporting the bill. I'm not sure how he justifies that.

He also brought up the fact that Roosevelt, back in the '30s, actually introduced controlling measures on prices. When you go back and look at history, that was one of the things, through those protectionist policies, that actually helped to worsen the Great Depression and helped to lengthen the Great Depression instead of having market economies take care of things. Yet he seems to believe that that's the right thing. I don't understand the revelation, the thinking around that.

There's no question in my mind that when you look at controlling prices, what you're talking about doing is creating artificial environments. You are talking about creating more challenges in what should be the free flow of our society in terms of how goods move and how things work.

Yes, we could use extra refinery capacity here, yet I bet you that there isn't a single one of them that will stand up and say that they want a refinery in their backyard so that they can reduce gas prices. I will also bet you that not a single one of them will stand up and say that they need more pipeline capacity. The member for Delta North stood up and said that he's actually opposed to the idea of more pipeline capacity. All of those factors lead into the gas price and the factoring in around that.

I'm very pleased that this came forward so that we're able to have a sensible debate on this, but it's very clear that the reasoning and the rationale behind bringing this forward is purely about politics. It's purely about the positioning that they have in the polls. They feel that they need to try to do something to try to regain some of their support.

Clearly, this sort of thing is all about politics. It is not about the reality of the market conditions.

L. Krog: I have never heard so many contradictions from so many speakers on the government benches in such a short space of time I've spent in this chamber for the last nearly two years. It's really quite simple. The government's in favour of big oil, and we're on the side of consumers. The government's on the unrestricted right to rip off taxpaying British Columbians who work hard for every dollar, and we're on the side of the taxpayers.

No one is opposed to reasonable profits on this side of the House — no one. But we are not going to stand idly by on our side of the chamber while big oil once again makes excessive profits to pay executives excessive salaries that drives further the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. That's absolutely unacceptable.

For the life of me I can't understand why the members opposite would take such a ridiculous position on what would be a fairly obvious proposition, and that is that we regulate something that every consumer in British Columbia depends upon so that the taxpayers and the workers of B.C. can be protected. If that isn't a reasonable position, I don't know what is.

Sorry, Hon. Speaker, I hesitate. Given that we do have a couple more minutes, I want to yield the floor to my friend from Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: I just want to make a few comments. I listened with interest to the comments of the member

for Prince George–Omineca. He and his colleagues may be on the side of the big oil companies, but I want to make one thing clear.

Guess what? George W. Bush even recognizes there's a problem. If he recognizes the problem, why can't they recognize there's a problem? The fact is…

M. Farnworth: …British Columbians want to know why they are paying more than any other province. They are fed up with being ripped off. They are fed up with being ripped off every time there's a long weekend. They are fed up with being ripped off every time the price goes up a dollar, $5. The price shoots right up, and when it comes down, the price doesn't come down quite so fast. Even people on that side of the House, outside of this chamber want to know why that is. If this bill addresses that, that's a positive thing.

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.