Hansard — Monday, April 7, 2008 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Private Members' Statements		10941
	Protecting the Upper Pitt River
	M. Sather
	R. Hawes
	Growing our future
	J. Rustad
	B. Simpson
	A voice for rural B.C
	K. Conroy
	J. Rustad
	Guiding our children in a new media world
	J. Nuraney
	D. Cubberley

Motions on Notice		10950
	Moratorium on private run-of-the-river power projects (Motion 51)
	J. Horgan
	J. McIntyre
	N. Simons
	R. Hawes
	S. Simpson
	J. Rustad
	S. Fraser
	J. Yap
	G. Coons

M. Sather: Thank for that rousing welcome from my colleague and another opposition member. We're ready to start. It was just the two of us here earlier on, so I'm glad that we have a few more attendees.

I wanted to talk about protecting the Upper Pitt River. The Upper Pitt has been the subject of a fair bit of discussion lately, culminating — for the time being at least — with the decision by the Minister of Environment to revoke the possibility of a park boundary adjustment for Pinecone Burke Park.

I wanted to talk a bit about the Upper Pitt in terms of a bit of a metaphor of a wider discussion that's taking place, in the western world at least, about issues around the consumption of energy, the consumption of goods, power — be it electrical power or power of the kind that perhaps is exercised in these chambers more commonly — and conservation.

I think that what happened at the Pitt Meadows auditorium a short time ago signalled a kind of paradigm shift in our view around the issue of independent power producers' run-of-the-river projects. That one was particularly focusing on the Upper Pitt, and I was really pleased to see that in my constituency over a thousand members of the public turned up to express their opinions. It was a universal opposition, of those that spoke. I think that's pretty good for us out in the suburbs.

I was watching a program last night on the CBC called The Passionate Eye, which is my favourite program. Long live the CBC. They were talking about the suburbs. I think the name of it was Radiant City. They talked about how the suburbs are kind of dead — how not much is happening in the suburbs and how everybody is kind of isolated. There's truth to that.

We have our challenges, being the supercommuters and all that. But it was good to see the people that came from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, from the Tri-Cities, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. Some from Vancouver and other areas, too, expressed their concerns and opinions.

What motivated people to come out and express their concerns? Was it their concern for the salmon? Was it their concern about private power? Was it their concern about the grizzly bears or the beauty of the place perhaps? I think it was all those things, and something more too. I think it's about people wanting to get in touch with that elemental part of the world. Whether it be people actually going to the Upper Pitt and experiencing it firsthand or just knowing that it's there, people want to know those areas are being protected, and that was expressed pretty clearly.

Why do people want to express the opinion of preservation or protection of that area? On the opposite side, why is there such an expression of interest in the development of the area — in this case, for a power project?

Well, sometimes I go shopping at Save-On-Foods when I don't get to Langley market, which is cheaper. Save-On has some of the items that I can't get at my other store. They have a little ditty that plays at Save-On all the time. It's More, More, More. It used to bother me a lot. It kind of annoyed me, but then I came to see it as kind of hilarious, actually, in a way. It's sort of — I don't know — like "The Trailer Park Boys Go Shopping" or something.

You know, it's more, more, more savings. I'm sure that is the message Mr. Pattison wants to give. But it's also more, more, more consumption. Buy more, and that's the name of the game when you're…. Actually, right now there's a little bit of a call by the workers at Save-On stores for more, more, more — at least more than the minimum wage that some of them are getting paid right now. It's become kind of axiomatic in North America that we must consume more stuff all the time.

Part of that discussion lately is around us needing more power. On the other hand, people at the meeting at Pitt Meadows high school were talking about us having too much power of the other kind. That is power to what they would consider spoil or desecrate a spectacular area like the Upper Pitt.

This discussion will go on. B.C. Hydro estimates in their conservation potential review that by 2015 there are potential savings of electricity, through conservation and efficiencies, of 12,000 gigawatt hours a year, which would represent a decrease in new demand of 135 percent and would be an actual decrease from current total electricity demand. So I don't think we're fully using the conservation measures. We're having a discussion about smart meters which has…. I don't know — the $900 million — whether that's the best way to spend the money.

But certainly we need to look at conservation in addition to the whole discussion we have about whether in fact we need more power, whether we should be importing or exporting power and all that. What spoke most strongly to me, actually, was a statement by Andrew Tolchard, who is a councillor in Pitt Meadows.

At the presentation that was given in council about the issue, he said: "Go up there and spend a night camping

in the Upper Pitt. I think that's the best way you can understand why it's so important to protect that area." I think that speaks very clearly to the issue.

Actually, the proposed power project the member speaks about is in my riding. So I definitely have some feelings about it, as do my constituents. He's absolutely correct. This is a very beautiful pristine area, and nobody wants to see it desecrated. Nobody wants to see it destroyed. No one wants to see salmon habitat destroyed, nor do they want to see the habitat for wildlife and endangered species interfered with or destroyed.

However, there is a process to these applications, and the process calls for an extremely rigorous environmental review. That environmental review is both very time-consuming and very, very expensive for the proponents who would look at a project.

In the case of the Upper Pitt, there was a public meeting held, first and foremost, to discuss the boundary adjustment through the park, which the minister has dealt with — and a lot of people came for that — and also to talk about what the potential terms of reference for the environmental review process might be.

Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in these sorts of things, some groups — and I'll specifically say, for example, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee — will go out and form conclusions before any scientific work is done or any biological work or any environmental studies are done or even commenced. They'll draw conclusions, and they will go out and say that there's going to be the destruction of everything. The salmon will be destroyed; the wildlife will be destroyed. In fact, it's going to be the end of civilization as we know it. That's generally speaking how they'll turn this, and it scares a lot of people. Then they get a bunch of buses rented in Vancouver, for example, and they bus people out.

There was a hearing in Mission. Of those that registered in Mission, 51 were Fraser Valley residents. Something like 120 had actually come from Vancouver, and the majority of them had come on a bus after being whipped up into some kind of frenzy with a lot of what I would call misrepresentative statements.

No one knows what the environmental impact here would be without doing the studies. It could well be that everything they are saying is correct and that the environmental studies would reveal there would be damage and detrimental effect. In that case, the environmental review process would reveal that, and the project would not go ahead.

In fact, most of the proponents of these types of projects will take a look. They'll start their work. As they start it and hire their biologists and their environmental experts…. As they begin looking at one of these projects, they determine very quickly that they're not going to meet the environmental standards that are imposed on them by both the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and that they will not meet the standards that the environmental review process and the assessment process would demand. So they just stop.

They don't go on spending money on studies for what they know is going to be a conclusion that isn't going to be in their favour. So they withdraw. The majority actually withdraw.

The member talked about conservation as the way to achieve power self-sufficiency. Well, that's a great thing, and B.C. Hydro actually does move on that. Power Smart has been around for quite a while. We as a government are pushing as hard as we can to enhance and promote conservation, but I think we also have to be realistic.

We have a growing province. We have an industrializing province. We have a province that's using more and more power. You just need to look in most people's homes. When you see the flat-screen TVs, the computers and all of the phone chargers that, frankly, people should unplug…. But they don't. It's not really realistic to think that people are going to unplug their flat-screen TV every night because it draws power even when it's turned off.

There are so many things that people can do, but I don't think we would be doing a service to the people of British Columbia to say: "Let's not develop new power sources. Let's instead rely on people taking the issue for themselves and conserving energy." If we do that, I can tell you it's our kids that are going to suffer for it. It's absolutely irresponsible. In fact, it's silly.

I think we have to plan for the future. We're doing that. We're doing it through a number of steps to make sure that we are energy self-sufficient, and with green power. One of the ways we're doing that is through the IPP process.

M. Sather: Well, there were some interesting comments from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. He said that the proponent would withdraw if there were any environmental concerns or, if not, that they would carry through.

Well, this proponent didn't withdraw early on. So I guess we can conclude from that, if the member is aware of what's going on there, that they're not going to withdraw and that this issue is going to continue to fester in the Upper Pitt. So it looks like the battle might not be over. If that's the case, I'm sure you're going to see probably 2,000 people next time come out for the Upper Pitt meeting.

I don't think that's the right way to go. What we should be doing is a land use planning process where these projects are vetted to begin with not just by the proponent — and they decide whether or not they want to proceed — but by the government and the people of the province to decide whether this is the right area to have a run-of-the-river project. And it's not in the Upper Pitt.

That's why we've been calling and are calling for a moratorium on these developments until the environmental, economic and social issues around them have been decided. I think that's the prudent way to go. I

think it would save the government a lot of pain in the long run, and it would save the businesses that want to develop these projects a lot of money that they wouldn't necessarily have to waste in a project.

I'm hopeful that the government will see that this kind of valley-by-valley approach is not good to develop more power. It's certainly not good for the environment, and I don't think it's really good for them politically either.

We're looking forward to debate. There will be a motion, of course, later on this morning about the issue. I look forward to listening to that debate as well, and I'm sure we're going to hear from the Minister of Environment about some of the statements that he was just making in the House while the former member was speaking.

J. Rustad: I rise to talk about the future of our forest industry and how we can perhaps grow that future.

The forest industry has a long history in this province, and there were times when the forest industry first started up that we looked at these huge trees out in the forest, and we designed our mills and our operations around that size of trees.

Many, many years ago, when the railway first went through Prince George, I remember there was an investor that came through and said, "This area is good for nothing but growing Christmas trees," because the trees around the area were too small.

Over time things change, and as the industry developed, they started to use smaller-sized trees. Even in the 1950s, as time went on, pine trees — which have been such a focus of late with the pine beetle — used to be plowed under. They were considered to be weeds because they weren't the size of tree that industry needed for harvesting and for producing its products. Of course, over time that changed, and pine trees then became much more important to our industry.

All of that speaks to the fact that our industry changes and our industry evolves over time. What we see as the products that we need, as the products that we produce and where things go, change.

Our policy over the last number of years has been — probably over the last 50 years or even more — to try to grow a generic forest. What I mean by that is to try to grow trees that reach maturity in 80-plus years for pine trees, 120-plus years for spruce trees. We have a rotation in our land base that reflects that — around a 145-year rotation.

This policy — and it was a very sound policy in its day — is really designed because you don't know who's going to need that log down the road or who's going to need it in the future. So you need to try to grow a standard tree that could fit any of the needs that perhaps industry decides it wants to utilize.

Clearly, when you look at some of the challenges that we're facing today…. I'm not talking that we need to get by the current downturn and look towards when the industry takes its upswing. When you look at the challenges today, the question is our fibre supply for the future. What will be needed to meet the fibre supply needs of operations in the future? To answer that question, you also have to wonder what industry will look like. What type of products will industry produce?

I think there's no question that the greatest challenge we're facing throughout many of the areas is just that. What is that fibre going to look like, and how are we going to access that fibre for mills? In some areas that are impacted by the mountain pine beetle in the Interior, in my riding in particular, it's projected that there will be between a 20 percent and 40 percent falldown in the annual allowable cut. That's a very significant amount of reduction in the amount of fibre that's available. But the question is: does it need to be like that?

We are implementing, as government, a strategy around bioenergy and encouraging the use of pellets and the potential for other forest products that could extend the life of those pine trees, could extend the mill's ability to be able to utilize those pine trees and be able to produce the types of products. The question is: is there more we can do around actually creating a new forest product or creating the fibre that we need?

This begs the question: what do we need to do in terms of policy to encourage growth of fibre? We know that if we were to utilize intensive silviculture in terms of fertilization and pruning, we can get a millable tree in 50 to 60 years, perhaps a little less or more depending on the site.

We know there are hybrid species out there that could be utilized for forestry and could grow an eight-to-ten-inch sawlog in 30 to 40 years. The question is: how can we change our tenure policies to allow for those types of innovations and allow mills to be able to design their products that they want to produce based on that? Is that something we want to do as a province? And if we do want to go there, what are the implications in terms of fibre and in terms of our industry?

We also know that on the private land base in New Brunswick versus the Crown land base in New Brunswick and other jurisdictions around the world, the yield that can come off the land tends to be much higher. I'm in no way suggesting that we should be considering a private tenure model. I don't think that's the way to go for this province, but clearly we can grow a higher yield.

If we were to take, let's just say, 10 or 20 percent — maybe 15 percent — of the land base in our best growing sites and manage the land base for increasing our fibre and increasing ability on the fibre…. Think about this. If you could get a log in 60 years, you could get two and a half rotations in the 145-year rotation that we currently do in the province. That would increase the amount of fibre available by between 20 and 30 percent provincially, just by looking at 15 percent of our land base.

I think there are many opportunities we could be looking at with the forest industry and many opportunities we could be looking at to expand our fibre base,

which could actually put us in a position ten or 20 years down the road where we see an expansion of our forest industry, an expansion of opportunities in what has traditionally been the backbone of this province.

The question I have for the member for Cariboo North, who will be responding to me shortly, is: what are the ideas you may have in terms of being able to expand our fibre system? I throw that challenge out there because of the NDP's forestry plan. They came out and talked about tenure reform. I'd like you to be able to expand on your ideas around tenure reform. What is it that you see we could be doing to expand our fibre base?

I believe very clearly that the future of our industry can be very strong. I believe very clearly that if we take those steps to be able to expand our fibre base, we will see an industry that will be growing and that will continue to maintain and be the backbone of this province, particularly the backbone of rural B.C.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the challenge that the member has posed and an opportunity to speak to some of the things we have put out in the public domain over the last number of weeks. Let me address some of the things that the member for Prince George–Omineca has raised in his opening remarks.

First of all, the question of what is the future of fibre supply in the province of British Columbia is a very significant question. Any analysis of the work that's being done to date will show quite clearly that we don't know what we don't know. We are in serious trouble on the land base because we do not have the modelling necessary to even tell us what is happening in our forests. All of the figures out there about the magnitude of the mountain pine beetle challenge are predicated on data that is suspect, data that is insufficient and data that is based on satellite imagery, not ground analysis.

Because this is a very short response, I would just reference that people simply go and look at the provincial government's own documentation — their 2006 review of the mountain pine beetle. At the end, under "Conclusion and caveats," it says that the estimates contained in a document are essentially unverified. "While there is no dispute that the infestation is causing extensive pine mortality provincially, the precise magnitude of the impact is not known." It goes on to say: "There is substantial uncertainty about when and how the infestation will subside and eventually end."

That uncertainty permeates all documentation about what's happening on our land base just now. As the member for Prince George–Omineca may or may not know, there are fights between industry and the Ministry of Forests in our timber supply areas, in our forest districts, about how much standing timber is actually there and how much is available to the industry just now, let alone in the future.

First, what we must do is put in significant resources to update our inventories so that we know the nature of the falldown, we know the nature of the beast, if you will, as to what is there available to us now and we improve our projections going forward. That's the first thing, and we said that in our plan — that we have to do that.

Second, to the member's point about having the capacity to feed an industry in the future, we need to know two things. One, how do we maintain healthy forest ecosystems? In a world of climate change, anybody who has been out on the land base will tell you that it is dramatically and rapidly changing, and what we used to do in the past is not necessarily the best thing for us to do to establish healthy forest ecosystems in the future.

As the pine beetle shows us, if we don't have healthy forest ecosystems, we have nothing to work with. So we need to do that work. We have said that we need a massive green plan for our forests to ensure we have resilient, adaptable forest ecosystems that we can drive an industry from.

The second point I would make is — which the member rightly points out: what is the future of the industry? I would say, more importantly, the question is: what is the future economic activity we can get from our forest resource in a much more holistic way than timber?

I have serious concerns about some of the member's comments about intensive silviculture, because in the studies that I have done, in some of our areas, rapid turnover of our forests for timber may actually cause a degrading in the fibre qualities that may not allow us to stay in the dimensional lumber business that we're in just now, because the fibre characteristics will not be the kind that the market wants in terms of our fibre. We need to understand what the future holds and what the implications of fast rotation are.

If the science is sound, then I do not dispute that we may have to designate parts of our forests as working forests, as the member is suggesting, and embark on that. But let's do it slowly, let's do it cautiously, and let's do it on the basis of sound science — not a mad dash to support an industry as it is today.

The final comment I will make, because I know that time will be short here, is on tenure reform. We have come out and explicitly said that it has to happen. It's been a debate in this province since the 1950s, as the member full knows. We are saying that we must have a tenure system that allows us to realize the full value from our land base, not a forest licence system. The preference will be to area-based tenures, and the preference will be a tenure system that allows us to get the full value — biopharmaceuticals, the full biomass industry, ecosystem services.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for his comments. I find it interesting that when we look at the challenge we have with the pine beetle, the member for Cariboo North was suggesting that we need to do more studying. "We need to do a massive

What species should we replant? What is the industry going to need? What is the industry going to look like? What is it that we can potentially produce off our land base? Those are questions that we need….

The member says that you can't run off. You need science, not a mad dash. A massive reforestation program — a massive replanting program, as the member suggested — would be doing just that.

The forest industry does change over time. It's very evident in the process and how it goes. Clearly, what is really needed in the forest industry is a change in how we can grow our fibre. There's no question, when you look at the challenges…. You talk to anybody in the industry today, and they'll tell you that the greatest challenge they're going to face ten to 20 years out is: what is our fibre basket going to look like?

Even before the pine beetle came along, there was going to be a falldown in terms of the annual allowable cut because of the age of the trees and the way that the forest is managed. It's one of the reasons why we have the 145-year rotation on the land base currently. We're logging about 0.7 percent of our timber-harvesting land base per year.

But it doesn't necessarily need to be that way. Other models around the world have clearly shown that you can produce the fibre that the forest industry needs, that you can produce the products that you need on a faster rotation than 145 years. You can achieve higher volumes off of our land base.

The member questioned the idea of how much fibre is out there and what's available in our forests. I used to work in the forest industry for many years, and I've been in and around the forest industry all my life. Clearly, there are situations in the forest where some of our estimates in terms of our timber supply analysis have understated the amount of fibre that's available.

Having said that, though, the question is not so much what's available. That is a very important question, but the question is: what is the potential? What can we achieve as a province? How can we grow our industry? How can we take something that has been the backbone and have it be a vibrant, growing industry for many, many years to come?

I just want to conclude by saying that I believe the work the round table is going to be doing and that forestry has initiated in this province is going to be very important. It's going to identify some of those questions about the needs of industry in the future and the needs of the fibre supply, and I look forward to the results that come out of that. But I also believe that forestry in the future is going to be about growing our future.

K. Conroy: In 2007 Christina Lake, the pride of our region with a huge future in tourism, lost its jewel in the crown, the Cascade Falls. Now the Cascade Falls will be turned into an industrial site, a site for an independent power project, no longer to be utilized by the people of the area or the many visitors who have come year after year to see the incredible beauty the falls have to offer.

For years people in the area and visitors to the lake have been utilizing Cascade Falls for just what it was originally intended — to absorb its beauty and pristine surroundings and to have wonderful experiences that would be remembered for years to come. Now the community waits to see when the construction, or should I say destruction, will start.

How did this happen, especially as, since the early '90s, when the Cascade power project first began its quest for government approval, the people of the Boundary country have continually spoken out against it? Powerhouse Developments Inc., known as PDI, is a proponent of this 25-megawatt run-of-the-river project.

PDI is a wholly based subsidiary of Sea Breeze Power Corp., a Vancouver-based company, although recently, in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, it is defined as an American-controlled corporation, and the majority of its directors are U.S. citizens or residents.

In June of 1999 PDI formally submitted an application for a project approval certificate, and a project committee was formed to consider the application. In January 2000 the project committee produced specifications requiring additional information for consideration. In October of 2003 PDI submitted an additional information report in response to the project report specifications. By June of 2005 it submitted to the environmental assessment office its final response to the agency's comments on the additional information.

During all this time there were many studies and reports undertaken and also numerous meetings and submissions to the environmental assessment office by the many opponents of this project.

Once I was elected in 2005, I saw evidence of many, many concerns from virtually all of the affected people and groups. I have to say that I had one letter of support sent to my office.

During this time I also met with the Sea Breeze Power executives. At the meeting they stated that there were a lot of supporters for the project, but they couldn't provide the names as those people were concerned about coming forward. I asked them to please have the supporters come to my office. I would talk to them in confidence, and I'd receive their letters in confidence. I just needed to know if in fact I had missed something about this project. I waited and did not receive any confirmation of the company's assertions.

As an MLA, one has to represent all the constituents in one's area, and there are times that, even though we don't personally agree with an issue, we still have to work extremely hard on that constituent's behalf. My concern was that perhaps there were people — a group of people — that maybe did really believe that this project should happen and that were, indeed, fearful of repercussions, speaking out in a small community.

What I did receive was an overwhelming opposition to a project that would see minimal benefits returned to a community. The project would erect a 4.5-metre-high weir and sluice gate, build a 610-metre canal, drill a 140-metre tunnel and put in a 140-metre penstock to feed two turbines at the powerhouse.

Was there any guarantee that the electricity could be utilized locally? No. That the residents of Christina Lake, in exchange for the loss of their beautiful falls, would have the benefit of cheaper power? Not at all.

Since its inception this project has met with resistance for many reasons, not the least of which is environmental. Even though there has been a final approval from the environmental assessment office and an assessment certificate issued in August of 2006, there were still concerns from reputable professionals.

The proponents had years to assess the concerns, and one of the concerns was the response that would happen with the fish species. Those concerns weren't addressed. The speckled dace, a fish that raises special concern as it is being considered for species-at-risk status, is one of those. Many residents still feel the impacts to other animals and plants were not assessed adequately either.

To ensure that all the aspects of the project were fully evaluated, a local group contracted an environmental consultant, Patrick Yarnell, out of Vancouver to do a socioeconomic study of the project. In his report, released in September of '01, Yarnell questioned a number of PDI's claims.

Although there were short-term economic benefits with the construction, the report showed no significant long-term economic benefits. The fact that the free-flowing falls would be severely compromised seemed to be more of an issue than any proposed benefits.

The study showed that there would be very little in benefits to the various levels of government. That in itself might have not been worrisome if the project had at least provided significant benefits to the community. But the studies showed that there just weren't those benefits.

In 2005 Yarnell revisited his report and did a further detailed socioeconomic study, and the project continued to be a non-starter for the community. To quote Yarnell's second report:

I want to give people a chance to think about that — to think about the spectacular natural beauty of the falls. So I want you to picture a waterfall close to your own home — say, Brandywine Falls on the way to Whistler or some of the falls on the Pitt River. Imagine it now with an industrial site around it. Imagine the natural fall of the water being disrupted by a dam and a pipe that now takes the water away from the natural falls.

Most of us, I'm sure — except maybe the downtown Vancouver folks, but at least you can drive somewhere where you can see a natural waterfall — can imagine a beautiful body of water and then imagine the devastation to a community by a so-called green power project. Actually, I'm surprised there aren't more requests to develop the resources.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to rise to speak to a statement entitled "A Voice for Rural B.C." I kind of wonder a little bit about the West Kootenay–Boundary's submission — whether or not she decided to change her topic right at the last moment. However, given that the topic that has been raised is the Cascade Falls and IPPs, I do want to add a few comments about that. I'm actually looking forward to the debate coming up a little bit later this morning on that topic.

The crux of what the member for West Kootenay–Boundary is saying is that we need to have a balance between the needs of tourism, the needs of our communities and also the needs for electrical generation or power in this province. That's something that is fundamental to what we are trying to do in this province. When you think that more than 10 percent of our power is imported currently, just imagine what would happen if we said that for 1/10 of the day, we'll just shut off power instead of taking power from coal generation and from those types of facilities that come outside of our province.

The fact of the matter is that we as a province inherited a tremendous asset that visionaries back in the time of W.A.C. Bennett built for our province, which is the system of dams and the system of reservoirs that we have and the power generation that we have in this province. We lived on that for many, many years — those large megaprojects.

Throughout the '80s and in particular the '90s there was minimal investment in terms of new power generation. As the demands in our society grew for power and as our industry and we as consumers changed, right around the year 2000-2001 we switched over. Instead of having this asset that we had, we actually now started having to import power.

For a province as rich as ours and for a province with the amount of resources as ours, it's a shame that we are actually looking to places like Alberta and the States, to coal generation power, for importing.

We need to move forward. There are lots of people that say: "Perhaps we should go ahead with some more megaprojects and try to meet our needs." Well, there isn't a plethora of megaprojects available out there.

We have Site C. Site C is a project that needs to be looked at, that needs to work through a process. What other projects are out there in terms of megaprojects that are available to meet our power needs? Site C will only meet about a fifth or maybe even a seventh of the amount of power that we are going to need in this province over the next 20 years. So how is the member for West Kootenay–Boundary suggesting that we should produce that power?

We want to be able to have green power. We want to be able to have clean power. We need to be able to have projects, but we do need to build a balance — the needs of tourism and the needs of our communities with our needs for generation of power. That is the crux of what the member has talked about, and that's what the environmental assessment process is when these projects come forward.

Clearly, if we are going to have green power in this province, if we are going to meet our needs and be able to continue to see our province grow and prosper, we're going to need to make some decisions about how we're going to meet those needs and demands. Run-of-the-river projects, independent power production projects, are a great way to consider it.

I want you to think of this. Across the province there's estimated to be about $4 billion worth of investment that's going to come from independent power production — $4 billion worth of investment. Those are private dollars that are going to come into this province and help to build our future. There are going to be long-term agreements in place with these power producers, at the end of which the province actually gets the asset. So we need to find ways, but to just consider that this should all be done under the Crown and that we should be increasing our tax….

I want you to think of one more thing, and I'm going to give a hint about one of the things I'll talk about this afternoon. If that $4 billion was added on to our debt — to be able to pay for that, if we were to do that as a province…. What would that mean in terms of our ability to be able to provide health? On $4 billion, even at 5 percent interest, that's $200 million a year in interest that would have to come out of our annual operating budget by incurring that kind of debt.

We need to be able to encourage investment. We need to be able to meet the demands for our future, and independent power projects are a great way to be able to do that.

I don't know the details about the Cascade Falls, but I am sure and I am confident in the environmental review process — the opportunity for communities and stakeholders to be able to present their views to move this project forward. If it goes through that process and it's determined that it's inappropriate, then that finding will come.

I just want to, once again, thank the member, and I'd love to hear her comments about how we are going to meet our needs in the future for power.

K. Conroy: It's interesting to hear the member for Prince George–Omineca refer to W.A.C. Bennett's legacy, because those were publicly built, publicly owned resources that the people of the province continue to own. Now, with the programs that they have in place, they are giving away those resources so that the big corporations will now be the ones that have billions of dollars in their pocket and not the people of B.C., not the British Columbians.

That's an issue in rural B.C. How can we meet those needs in rural B.C.? The member only needs to look at what happened in the Kootenays with the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corp, where we own those resources. Those resources that are put back into the Columbia….

K. Conroy: Oh, the member says it's a hybrid. Well, thank God there's a hybrid in this province that we can look up to, and hopefully, we can all rise to that.

However, I digress. I would like to get back to the Cascade Falls, because that asset will not revert back to the community. That asset, as the member said, will not come back to the community at all. We know that that asset will be lost, and it'll be lost because of the construction of this dam site.

This is a beautiful area that's raised a lot of…. The tourism in the area is phenomenal. Cascade Falls is one of the premier tourist sites. You can hike into it from one end. You can drive in on a bike on the Kettle River Valley through the Trans Canada Trail on the other side, and you can look over at the canyon to see this site. It's an incredible site. That's going to be destroyed.

PDI has offered to build a museum, and the people in the area are rather insulted by that. They don't want a museum. They wanted the falls. They wanted to keep the falls. When I asked the minister the other day about this very project, the Minister of Environment said: "Well, the Americans were okay with this project, so we should be okay with it too."

Well, I think that's just a farce — to say that because the Americans are okay with the project, then British Columbians should be okay with it. The people of Cascade Falls, the people of Christina Lake and the area…. The entire region has vociferously voiced their opposition to this project for over 15 years. Over 15 years people have said: "Don't do this to our region for the very, very small benefit that potentially could come."

There are plenty of other places to go where we could get the power that's needed in this province. The example again — the Columbia Power Corp, Columbia Basin. We are adding on to dams in the Kootenays instead of going and re-damming or going into areas that are pristine, that should be left alone, that shouldn't have construction brought into them and shouldn't be blown up — all in the name of private power, where the people who do make it, who do get wealthy, who do get beans in their jeans…. Well, it's actually those very corporations that are doing the construction on these projects, that are building these dams.

We do need voices of rural B.C. in this House. We do need the voices to stand here and say: "You have to

listen to us too. It can't only be the people from the Lower Mainland that have the opportunity to speak out against these projects."

J. Nuraney: Recently in Burnaby I heard news that the local video store had sold a video game rated "mature" to a minor. This video game glorifies school bullying and sends a dangerous message to our children. It was rated for adults and was meant to be sold only to adults, and despite that, it ended up in the hands of a minor.

What is most disconcerting is that this game deals with a subject matter that is not of a fantasy setting. It deals with a real-world situation that many children face every day. We must consider how this affects our children.

We live in a society of free enterprise, and our democratic inclinations do not lend themselves to regulatory measures. The public would not be appeased by increasing regulations and impediments to their freedom of choice.

As government and as individual elected officials, it is our responsibility to create awareness about matters such as this one. The effect that new media has on all of us is profound. In no segment of society is this truer than for our children and youth. Young people today are more integrated with technology than any previous generation.

As I previously mentioned in the House, 48 percent of Canadian kids between the ages of eight and 15 have their own televisions, and 26 percent of them have their own computers with Internet access. The average daily time spent using media by eight- to 18-year-olds is six hours and 21 minutes, and 60 percent of Canadian boys in grades 3 to 6 play video games almost every day.

There are times when parents do not realize that the material available to their children could be harmful or against the values they wish to instil in their children. This is the case with video games and the Internet. Both of these entities are not necessarily new, but they have taken on a new form or perhaps a much worse and vast existence.

This is not always well gauged by parents, as new media is very much a generational entity and, as such, remains a mystery to some parents or, worse yet, a complete unknown. Thus, we must open the public debate through awareness so that parents and children can make decisions together about what is undesirable and harmful to their development.

In the process of creating public awareness, there are three key entities that must actively be engaged in order to ensure that information is available to make these choices. These three entities are parents, teachers and retailers.

Parents must inform themselves on what kind of material is available on the Internet and in video games. Parents must inform themselves on the ratings that come with games to ensure that they are using games which are industry-rated as appropriate for their children. They also should inform themselves on the parental control mechanism for Internet browsers so that they can ensure that their children will not view harmful material when they are not supervised.

The Internet can be an excellent tool for learning. Unfortunately, there are also many out there who wish to use it for less-than-favourable motives.

Teachers, in their conversations with parents, should make them aware of the types of materials that they are seeing their students using or discussing. Teachers have a unique position of truly seeing what is popular and most desired by children, because they spend so much time with children and youth in a social atmosphere.

Finally, retailers must exercise caution and restraint when selling and distributing video games to minors. There must be adherence to the guidelines set out by game ratings, essentially saying that when a game is not suitable for someone of a certain age, only those of that certain age can obtain these games.

In the United Kingdom Dr. Tanya Byron, a clinical psychologist with vast experience with children and youth, produced a report entitled Safer Children in a Digital World. Dr. Byron was asked to conduct an independent review that would consider the risk to children from being exposed to potentially harmful material on the Internet and in video games. Her review was focused on the needs of children and young people and on preserving their right to take risks, which are a crucial part of their development. She listened to children and youth by putting them at the heart of her review.

Dr. Byron's review correctly identifies that there is a generational gap in the use of new media, one which leaves parents without the confidence to help their children while using the Internet and video games. She also notes that while children are confident using technology, they are still developing the crucial evaluation skills that are critical in the decision-making process.

What we need in dealing with harmful materials and their exposure to children is a campaign of awareness, a collaborative approach that shares the responsibility amongst parents, children and youth, educators, government and industry. Through a partnership such as this, we can find the right solution to the problem of harmful materials. A culture of collaboration through public debate will improve the systems currently in place to protect our children and still allow for more positive learning experiences that come through using new media.

Dr. Byron said it quite well in her report. "Children and young people need to be empowered to keep themselves safe. This isn't just about a top-down approach. Children will be children, pushing boundaries and taking risks." A good example that she quoted

would be: "At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach them how to swim."

D. Cubberley: I appreciate having the opportunity to stand up and speak today on the important topic that the member has raised. I would begin by saying that I agree with him 100 percent about the gravity of the problem that we face.

Because I have an eight-year-old son myself, I get to see these forces at work in the daily life of someone who I'm with every day. I am as concerned as the member opposite, and I believe that members on this side are as concerned as the member opposite is about the direction that we're headed.

Certainly, it's not a surprise, although it remains shocking to someone my age the extent of immersion in the new electronic media that we see — especially, I think, on the part of young boys. Girls do it as well, but they don't do it to anywhere near the same extent as boys. We are not at a point yet where we understand entirely what it is that's going on.

We come back to families very quickly and the choices that families enable and endorse as being the place within which children get their leads and make their choices. If there is a culture of disengagement, a climate in which parents are not actively involved in the parenting of the child, the latitude for choice expands, and with electronic media, that frequently moves into areas that are profoundly disturbing.

My son, like many other kids his age, is very interested in Game Boy. By looking over his shoulder and doing a little bit of research myself…. A lot of the programming that's on Game Boy — while it might not be an absolutely premium use of a young child's energy, a young mind's energy — is not negative. To that extent, I think we can breathe a sigh of relief. It's not all a sewer, and it could very easily be one, especially when we look at the worst examples of the new media, whatever format they're coming to kids in.

These things tend to have a mesmerizing impact on kids as well. They're a very potent tool, and there are some writers about it who have raised an analogy with drugs. I feel free in using that analogy because in my generation it was raised about television, which has a narcotizing effect on a viewer. I still find that today, even at my great age, if I sit down in front of the television set and the program is reasonably good, I'm drawn into it to a point where the rest of the world ceases to exist for me. We see that often with kids playing with the new media that they have available to them.

I think the area of greatest concern is obviously the violent and degrading imagery that often shows up in a number of games, including the one that the member opposite referenced. That is an area where we have to be concerned because, of course, repeated exposure to violence normalizes violence. It desensitizes the viewer to the human impacts of violence and raises emotions which, unless there is a great deal of self-examination going on — there usually isn't in the context of watching these things — endorses actions of these kinds. That has to be of concern to us, because there is clear evidence that it's pervasive and that it continues to spread.

The member mentioned figures on the number of kids who have access in their own bedroom to a TV or a computer. In the United States it's close to three-quarters of all children. That is, therefore, the direction that we are headed in and, I think, another reason why we have to be concerned and that we have to be taking action.

The member raises the idea of debate and public discussion on the issue, and I think that is, indeed, a very good thing. It's a direction that we should take. I thank the member for making that suggestion. I think that if government were interested in doing it…. We are certainly interested, on this side, in promoting a debate of that kind and raising awareness.

I would differ slightly from the member in one respect — that is, his reluctance to look at regulation as a tool. I would like to put it into the context of awareness. Even if you are an aware parent and concerned about your child's direction, you need some indications out there as to the propriety of the content of material, because you literally cannot, one for one, be spending your time as a parent reviewing everything that your child sees directly, to determine whether it is or isn't acceptable. You need some guides. There is a lack of guidance out there at the present time, especially around violence.

I would simply urge the member not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the area of regulation and to look at the idea of labelling programs for violent content.

J. Nuraney: I do admire the member for Saanich South every time he speaks in the House and engages himself in a debate. He brings forth some sense of wisdom and experience, and I have always had respect for the member.

As we have seen this morning, there is no question that this new media that has entered our lives and the lives of our children is a tool which can benefit, a tool that is very advantageous in procuring knowledge, in procuring what a person is seeking in terms of information. But what is also important to notice is that there is so much information out there today that it is difficult for children to be selective and responsible.

As I said, I am not in favour of regulating, because it is easy to say that the government should regulate these matters, but the problem really lies in being able to execute what you are regulating. Today the Internet has become a worldwide open media, and it is difficult to regulate what comes in and what goes out. So it is important, in my opinion, to create awareness and to engage in a public debate as to what is good and what is not so very good.

How do we prevent, particularly, our children, who are unable to make decisions on their own…? They rely on adults and parents and their mentors and their

peers to make them understand what it is that they should be doing and what it is that they should not. I think it is very important at this stage to even involve our educational system perhaps, to advise, understand and make them see the benefits and the disadvantages of the Internet and the new media that the children are today exposed to.

Even though we may exercise as much supervision as we can, there are ways and means that our children can find to get to information, to get to sites on the Internet that are not very favourable, that are damaging. We have heard several cases of predators who have engaged young children in activities that we find so despicable.

I would like to end my statement by saying that awareness, a public debate, is really necessary at this point for all of us to be engaged in, to find ways and means of bringing the maximum awareness to the public and to the parents.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 51 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise here to speak to a motion in my name, Motion 51.

It's an opportunity to talk about a whole host of issues, and I know members on the government side will take advantage of that, as will members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It was a pleasure to hear my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows speak about the Pitt River today and, as well, my colleague from West Kootenay–Boundary talk about Cascade Falls.

I know other members may well talk about other rivers that have been affected by the independent power producer policies of the current government. The Ashlu springs to mind as, I guess, the first test of the ideological zeal of government to impose upon B.C. Hydro ratepayers power that's too expensive and not required.

A couple of the issues that we've been debating recently around energy use and energy production in British Columbia brought to mind a couple of things for me. It's been said that only Nixon could go to China. I think only a party that professes to be a free market party, a party of private enterprise, would say to a Crown corporation which provides electricity to British Columbians that they can only buy high-cost, low-value power and that they're not able to look at options and opportunities to produce publicly owned power in British Columbia.

Only Nixon could go to China, and only the B.C. Liberals would say: "Be sure to buy uneconomic power — not when you need it, when we want you to buy it." That's, sadly, the policy direction of this government since the energy policy came into effect in 2002.

One of the focuses, recently, with respect to these issues has been self-sufficiency. I want to touch on that just for a moment because self-sufficiency is a phrase that, somewhat like sustainability, over time and as a result of overusage has little or no meaning in contemporary society. For the government to say that self-sufficiency is an imperative completely distorts the debate on a complex issue — that is, how we find electricity generation for today's consumers and those into the future.

The notion of a whole series, hundreds, of independent power producers providing us electricity in the spring — when our reservoirs are at their highest and when the value of electricity on the open market is at its lowest — makes little or no sense. But again, only Nixon could go to China, and only a free enterprise party could say to a Crown corporation, "Buy high," and then force them to sell low.

The notion that somehow going from very few to over 220 companies in the independent power producer fraternity…. Seeing the number of applications for water licences for power generation since 2002 go from 136 to 667 says to me that there's a bit of a gold rush going on, and that that gold rush is being facilitated by the notion that we need power or the lights are going to go out.

Well, the reality in this complex area of electricity policy is that B.C. Hydro needs peak capacity. They need peak capacity. That means they need, at any given time, during the highest demand period of the day, to be able to turn on all the lights.

How do we do that in August when the run-of-the-river projects, the small IPPs, are dry? How do we do that? Do we take the power that they sold us at inflated prices in February and somehow put it to application in August? Only if we start managing our public reservoirs in the interests of private sector companies.

In essence, what this self-sufficiency policy, this insurance policy — 4,000 gigawatt hours more than we need, just in case — means is that we're going to be buying power in the spring, when we don't need it. What are we going to be doing in the summer and the early fall? We're going to be buying on the spot market, which has been very, very successful for B.C. Hydro. We buy low, and we give it to our customers when they need it, and the lights stay on.

The notion that somehow, if we don't meet energy self-sufficiency as defined by the Minister of Energy,

the lights are going to go off in British Columbia is patently false. It's fearmongering of the highest order.

I often hear members on the government side accuse the opposition of fearmongering. In this instance, up is down and black is white. The free-enterprisers are saying: "We're going to constrain the marketplace by forcing the Crown corporation only to buy from one sector of the community. It happens to be our friends; it happens to be donors to our political party."

But that's just an aside. I'm sure the members from the government side will be justifying their campaign contributions in due course.

The notion that this evangelical zeal for self-sufficiency is somehow going to change economics, is going to somehow change when water runs through turbines in British Columbia, is another one of these misleading mythologies that the B.C. Liberals tend to be perpetuating on the public when it comes to independent power producers.

The notion that there are no environmental impacts — it's clean; it's green — completely puts aside the requirement for road construction, the requirement for transmission lines, the requirement for potentially putting at risk our salmon, our recreation areas and the rivers and streams of British Columbia. It's just a risk that we, on this side, are not prepared to take.

That's why we put forward this motion today, in the hope that all members of the Legislature will look at this issue with a new vision, with new eyes, looking at the decision that was made on the Upper Pitt — 1,200 people showing up at a public meeting to say, "Enough is enough," and similar groups of people showing up all across British Columbia.

I know there are members on both sides of the House that have constituents who are profoundly concerned about this misguided policy of focusing exclusively on private power production. Now, this isn't mom-and-pop hydro. I don't think of GE as a small company just trying to make it in the rough-and-tumble world of electricity generation. These are big players that are coming in to buy back licences or buy chunks of corporations once they've been given power purchase agreements from B.C. Hydro.

The challenge for us as legislators is to listen to our public. The challenge for us as representatives of community is to listen to our public. I know that members on both sides of the House have been flooded with e-mails, as have I, from citizens expressing concern that our once proud, public electric company is now being forced to only buy from one source in the marketplace, to only buy at a time when we don't need it and to buy a product that is of low value.

We have many challenges in this area. It's not something that can be addressed on a Monday morning in ten minutes. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to speak, but I know there are other members that want to. I just want to leave the House with, again, the notion that just because a government minister stands and says that there's a crisis and the lights are going to go off doesn't mean it's so. Just because they want to buy power from their friends at times when we don't need it doesn't mean that this is going to somehow address our peak capacity challenges.

I have applauded the government for its conservation measures. I was given a considerable amount of ridicule from my colleagues, in fact, for doing that. But the notion that 50 percent of our new energy supplies should come from conservation is a laudable goal, and I think everyone in this House supports that initiative. But you completely throw that out the door if you start building uneconomic projects on every river and stream up and down the coast of British Columbia.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. I'll cede the floor to other members so that we can have a fulsome debate on this very, very important subject — the notion of putting a moratorium in place until the public of British Columbia has a complete understanding of the environmental, economic and social impacts of micro-hydro projects that are run — not by B.C. Hydro, as they should be, but — by private corporations focused on profit and shareholder dividends, not in keeping rates down and ensuring that the lights stay on in British Columbia.

J. McIntyre: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion which, of course, I will not be favouring. I think that in the member's concluding remarks there, it feeds beautifully into some of the comments that I want to make today. I have been studying this issue for over three years, since I first ran for election.

I happen to represent a beautiful riding that has an abundance of natural resources that can be used for alternative power energy — whether it be geothermal, wind or tidal. Of course living on a mountainside, we have an abundance of run of the river. I am very happy that we have been able to contribute.

I have eight or nine projects in my riding. I have actually visited them. I don't know if any members of the opposition have actually been to a powerhouse, have seen the turbines, have seen how it works. I know they've declined invitations to see it. But I've actually seen the success. We have first nations involvement in the Ashlu project and in one of the ones up in the north end of the riding.

I would like to take the opportunity today to debunk some of the myths, because my analysis clearly shows that this is not really about power. This has been a PR campaign funded by big labour, by the B.C. Hydro public sector unions, by Citizens for Public Power which is supported by the B.C. Federation of Labour. The NDP opposition, as messengers for their brothers and sisters, have made this debate ideological. It's not so much about power. It is about ideology, and it's about the NDP's opposition to private sector investment in building infrastructure in this province. Power just happens to be the focus of this particular issue.

There has been fear and myth, and I've actually welcomed the debate because I think we are having much more of a public debate now. The press has been fully engaged, and I think the public is finally getting

an opportunity to hear the real facts. So I welcome this opportunity, and it would be a way for the public to judge the opposition and to judge the success of this government. Private sector investment has been what's helped to turn the economy around in this province.

We inherited a province that went from first to worst. We've been able, gladly, to get it back up to the top position that it deserves in Canada by welcoming, by harnessing, entrepreneurial spirit, by harnessing and finding a role for the private sector where they can help us, because our focus has been mainly on delivering health care and education which, as many of you know, accounts for well over 70 percent of our government dollars.

As I said, this argument has become very ideological. We have seen the NDP…. I think this is very hypocritical. I've got pages of quotes here — in fact, from the Energy critic himself, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who said as recently as '06 and '07 that there is opportunity for British Columbians to be served by independent power producers that are doing these projects. He says: "Certainly, I support independent power producers. There is a role and function. There has been in the past, and there will be in the future."

The NDP embraced independent power structures. In fact, 21 of them were in operation when we inherited government in 2001. Less than 21 have been built since then. So it's extremely hypocritical for them to stand up now and say: "Whoa, we've got to have a moratorium. We don't want any of this."

They would prefer that we increasingly rely on imports from carbon-intense sources, coal-fired plants from our neighbours in Alberta and Washington. They would prefer that we rely on that to the tune of at least 15 percent of our electricity needs instead of allowing us to harness the entrepreneurial private sector who have know-how, who have experience.

I've dealt with firms like EPCOR, who actually, funnily enough, come from Edmonton. It stands for Edmonton power. It was a municipal power. It was public sector — whoa. But the opposition tries to paint some of these companies as big bad evil profiteers.

No. There are companies that have expertise and efficiency, and they're out there being able to help us so that we can spend our dollars on hospitals and schools. I've challenged the Energy critic previously in this House to tell me what schools and hospitals he would prefer not to have been built while we're spending public funds building power plants. He's never answered that question, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

So I'd like to continue on debunking some of these myths, because the member before me alluded to that very thing — that B.C. Hydro is not allowed to generate electricity, has to have new electricity from private developers. No, that's not true. They're already looking at expanding, adding a turbine at Revelstoke dam and two, I think, at Mica dam.

They've made some capital investments in several dams around the province, and they're producing electricity now for tens of thousands of additional homes. It isn't all on the private producers whatsoever. So we'll debunk that myth.

They also say that ratepayers are paying capital costs of new power projects through these agreements with Hydro and that we're paying more money. No. I don't believe so. If the member had read his own press release on January 29 and seen the article in the Sun by Scott Simpson, where he says that it costs B.C. Hydro an average $5.98 per megawatt hour for electricity. That was — I don't know — many, many years ago, decades ago. He's comparing $5.98 to $60.67 in his press release.

The last we saw, the B.C. Utilities Commission showed that a dam in southeast B.C. that's an older Hydro-owned facility just put the cost of electricity up to $62 per megawatt hour. That would be, I'd say, close to what he was quoting for IPPs.

Once again, we have NDP math. They can't even get the math straight. They're comparing something produced years and years ago up in the Peace, at prices that are no longer…. We're building new construction nowadays at much, much higher costs. He's trying to do apples to oranges, which I don't buy and I don't think the public will buy.

Here's another one of these wonderful myths. They say — and he just alluded to in his ending comments — that there are 500 or 600 of these run-of-the-river licences. Everyone's talking about the gold rush. Well, there are something like almost 60,000 claims for mines in the province. I don't think we're going to be having 60,000 new mines in the next few years.

No. Let's look at the actual numbers of licences that have been given. It's something in the range of around 80 or less. Most importantly, let's look at the numbers that are actually being built and are in operation. It's less than half of 80. It's under 40, and 21 of those, as I mentioned earlier, were in operation when we took government in 2001.

This is extremely hypocritical for the NDP to be standing up and saying: "Oh, we need a moratorium." Would that moratorium extend past 2009 perhaps? Would that be…? The member talks about donations and conferences and everything. I'd suggest that perhaps this is once again catering to their public sector union friends who are absolutely adamantly opposed to any kind of private sector involvement in infrastructure. So I think this is the pot calling the kettle black, if he doesn't mind me mentioning and showing him up for what is really going on.

It is our government that in 2003, in tune with public sentiment, legislated that all the heritage assets would be held in public hands. We put all the heritage assets — the dams, the waters, the transmission lines…. I want to guarantee, and make sure that the public is reassured, that this is in the hands of the public. These independent power producers have a rental, a water licence, that allows them to use the water to generate electricity and then the water goes back in the flow. They do not own the water. The NDP and the public sector unions have been running around trying to cause fear on the part of the general public.

It's about time the facts were out. We have two Crown corporations 100 percent owned by the public

— that is, B.C. Hydro that generates and BCTC that distributes. Those are Crown corporations. Where we see a role for the private sector is in the small-scale projects in different regions where it's appropriate, where it meets all the environmental concerns and tests. We are allowing, and see a role for, private sector investment to help us deal with the fact that we are a net importer of energy.

Energy needs are going up. People are moving to the province, not leaving the province the way they did when the NDP was in power. People are actually moving here for opportunity. We have found great successes with what is going on. What we'd like to do is make sure that the public understands the facts, that they get the real facts.

I think, in closing here, that it's pretty clear that the NDP, in their ideological zeal to support some of the public sector labour unions, would prefer that British Columbians continue to rely increasingly on electricity imports from carbon-intense coal-fired plants instead of supporting our government's clean energy initiatives and our goal to reduce greenhouse gases. They would put our energy projects on hold. I think this is crass politics, and I could never support such a motion.

I have seen firsthand in my own constituency the benefits of these projects — things like at Furry Creek, right near beautiful housing on the gorgeous Sea to Sky corridor. There are micro and small run-of-the-river projects successfully contributing and producing electricity with minimal impact.

I was at the opening of the Canadian Hydro facility, and you can see firsthand how these plants operate and how every region of the province has an opportunity to contribute to our energy needs. So I will not be supporting this motion.

N. Simons: I rise to support Motion 51: "That the Legislature supports a moratorium on private run-of-the-river power projects until a comprehensive review of the social, economic, and environmental impacts is completed."

Now, I'm not sure how it is that this government is so afraid of looking at the social and environmental impacts of these projects. What we're asking for, with this motion, is a moratorium so that we can evaluate, in the abundance of caution…. We have a resource in this province that we need to make sure we manage in such a way that future generations are going to be able to benefit from that resource.

I worry that allowing a gold rush mentality to influence government policy is going against the caution that we need to exercise as Members of the Legislative Assembly here.

Clearly, the issue we have at hand is that, yes, we need energy generation, but there is something that the member previously neglects to identify; that is, we should be developing these resources for the benefit of British Columbians, not for the benefit solely of those who stand to make a lot of money off the backs of British Columbians and their resources.

The ownership of the rivers is obviously something that needs to be considered, and the members opposite should not be afraid of asking these important questions. They should not be afraid of assessing the environmental impacts of these projects in a way that actually truly protects the future needs of the province.

We know that we're in a time of climate change, and we know that there are impacts on life of all forms in our province, including the fish and the makeup of the rivers and the streams. We need to make sure we protect that. I believe that when the environmental assessment process is acting as an assistant to the proponent of projects, we are putting the two competing interests on the same side.

I'm afraid, by allowing this free-for-all almost, that we're neglecting to consider the negative ramifications. I know that in my constituency there is a fear of hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines like a spider web across the land. I think we really need to make sure that we don't do something foolishly, with short-term interests in mind, almost election cycle interests in mind, at the expense of good public policy.

So I ask that the House support Motion 51 in order to protect the interests of British Columbians and to protect the integrity of a system that has served the province so well so that we could build good schools, good hospitals, good roads. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been missed by the members opposite. With that, I cede the floor to the next speaker.

R. Hawes: Like my colleague on this side of the House, I'll be standing to speak against this motion.

I've heard, now, two of the members from the NDP talk about why we should do an assessment of the social and environmental aspects of the IPP program. Well, let's first talk about the environmental.

The environmental process for getting an approval for an IPP to move forward is extremely rigorous. It's done with oversight from both the Ministry of Environment and DFO. So I'm not quite sure what a global environmental look, as put forward in this motion, would do. Each individual IPP application is different, each watercourse in British Columbia is different, and each one needs to have an individual look.

So to say, "Let's just have a blanket, one-size-fits-all environmental overview," I think makes no sense at all. The social part of it…. I think they're saying: "Let's have the public give a lot of input." They mentioned the hearings on the Pitt. One, the hearings were absolutely sensationalized. Two, there was a tremendous amount of misinformation there. The hearing was intended to talk about a boundary change in a park, and it changed somehow to be a complete disavowal of the process — not even the process, the project in the Pitt.

There were conclusions drawn about what the environmental impact was going to be before any studies, before any kind of work was done to find out what the environmental impacts could be. There were just conclusions drawn. The Leader of the Opposition got up there and drew conclusions. I'm terribly afraid of any leader that, without any kind of scientific information,

with absolutely no professional overview at all, can leap to a conclusion and condemn something in this province.

But it's very clear, as our member prior to me spoke, that this is an ideological thing. Joe Foy from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee brought several busloads of people to the hearings. As Joe Foy has said, he's opposed to anything that's private.

He was on CKNW radio last week saying he is not opposed to the run-of-the-river generation of power in the right places, but he is opposed unless it's in public hands. That becomes an ideological thing. It's a fear of profit, and it's to say…. I find it very insulting. The insinuation is that if somebody is in business, they are automatically going to scrap any environmental concern or any concern about their neighbours or the environment or the world we live in. It's all about profit.

That is just not the way it is. Most people who are in business — and I would suggest the vast majority — care just as much as everyone else about the environment, about their kids' futures and about the world we live in. So this is all about ideology, political ideology, and I think it's a shameful thing when they introduce that in a motion like this and hide it, guise it, in the kind of concern for the environment and all the rest of it that they're trying to do here, when the real motive is pretty apparent.

The mover of the motion spoke about the high price that's being paid for power to the IPPs. In 1995 the average price for buying power from an IPP under the NDP was $57.40 a megawatt. Today it's about $60.09. Now, do you think prices have gone up since the mid-1990s? I really do, and I don't think the difference is very big. The mover talked about the environmental impacts from roads, transmission lines, etc. Does he think that we're going to get power falling from the sky, or is he proposing, perhaps, nuclear power? What is the proposal?

There are no options that ever come forward from these people. They are against every possible thing that comes forward. They have to oppose it, and they do. Nobody knows what they're for. Where are we going to get power? They seem now to be saying, "We aren't really going to need power," that this is some kind of a myth.

Well, I think they ought to go back and research what happened in California when they had the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that these guys do. What happened is that they did not, in California…. They knee-jerked, and they said, "Let's not build anything. Let's not have power production." And now the brownouts, and they had to buy power, and the Enron scandal. All of that stuff happened because they put the brakes on looking at what their future needs were going to be, just like they're doing.

This is absolutely frightening to our province. You can't build an economy, you can't look after your kids and your grandchildren, unless you think today about what the world is going to be like for them tomorrow, both environmentally, which we do, and economically. This province does not progress unless we have sufficient energy. We think it's a noble thing to say: "Let's be energy self-sufficient. Let's not rely on dirty power from outside of this province."

They have said things like, "At the end of the contract, power will be sold to the United States," and all kinds of fearmongering things that simply aren't true. At the end of the leases for an IPP, the asset reverts back to the Crown and we have the option of renewing the lease or not renewing the lease. It's our option. It's the government's option. It will be dependent upon what the social and economic needs at the time, 40 years from now, are going to be. These folks simply want to grow government, and I think the experience from the 1990s should have shown them. They should have learned. It doesn't work.

When you have private enterprise that leaves and takes their capital with them, as they did, we lose jobs and we lose our economy. We slid to tenth place in economic results in this province, and we became a have-not province under them. It's because of a disrespect for the private investor.

You would have thought they would have learned. They have learned absolutely nothing. It is extremely apparent day after day after day in this House that they are going to carry on with the same kind of economic policies that drove us to our knees in the '90s, if they ever, God forbid, ever get power again in this province.

I'm proud to speak against this motion, and hopefully, the IPPs around the province will continue to want to invest and will want to help us attain our energy self-sufficiency by 2016.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to stand up and speak in favour of this motion.

The last speaker to this motion talked about his concern about leaders leaping to conclusions without analysis. I thought at the moment that he was going to talk about the Premier, who in the throne speech in 2007 deemed how we were going to deal with climate change and has acknowledged that it all came out of a book that he read while he was in Maui, instead of any analysis. But apparently that wasn't what he was talking about.

There is growing concern about this initiative that the government has been promoting actively around the province. We have seen this concern across the province raised by local governments, raised by first nations, raised by the environmental movement, raised by community organizations and raised by others. We saw how it manifested itself in Pitt Meadows at a meeting with 1,200 people inside the hall and 200 or more outside the hall, all raising concerns.

They were raising concerns that we have heard voiced around British Columbia. They are raising concerns that they understand. The people of British Columbia understand the value of B.C. Hydro, and they understand that this government's job is to rip B.C. Hydro apart. They understand the environmental impacts of this,

whether it be the B.C. Wildlife Federation, whether it be other organizations, or whether it be the Mark Angelos of the world who are recognized as experts on our rivers, internationally recognized experts, who stood in Pitt Meadows to say: "This is wrong, and it shouldn't go ahead."

They understand the impacts on biodiversity. They understand the impacts on the fishery. They understand that these are not benign, small projects. They understand, as experts have told us time and again, that this isn't about establishing or creating firm power. It isn't about providing the kinds of power that British Columbia does need to find sources on over the next ten to 15 years. Instead, it's about making an awful lot of money for private friends. And they understand that this isn't about a real environmental assessment.

We need to do that cumulative impact. We need to understand those impacts on these rivers. It is beyond me as to how we create this notion of more than 600 applications on our rivers, and the government sees no need to have a plan that looks at the impact of this.

If the government seems determined to ignore these concerns and to move ahead…. If they do that, then they are ignoring the public interest. They certainly are embracing a private interest. They are embracing friends, and they are embracing people who will fill their coffers, but they are ignoring the public interest.

The evidence suggests that this is really primarily about the privatization of B.C. Hydro and about moving away from a public utility that puts British Columbians first to a group of private companies that put the B.C. Liberals first. If this is not an accurate view, then I would think that the members on the other side would embrace this motion. The members on the other side would say: "We do have to have a review. We should answer these questions."

If the members on the other side truly believe that they're right on this issue, then they should embrace and encourage this kind of review, because apparently, at the end of the day it will support their position. But they're not going to do that because they know it will not support the position that the government has taken. They know that this will not…. To have this gold-rush mentality — to sell out over 600 rivers in British Columbia — will not support their position.

We do need to move forward and look at energy alternatives. We do need to deal with green energy initiatives. But the reality is that if we want to do this in the public interest, then we take the shackles off B.C. Hydro and let them do the job that W.A.C. Bennett envisioned for them and that they have done for many, many years, and we allow them to go forward and find the green alternatives and have a public discussion on those alternatives. That would be what would be in the best interests of all British Columbians.

But that's not what this government wants to do. They want to bury this like they bury everything else. The worst thing they could possibly do is actually talk to a British Columbian about an issue, because they might have to tell them what their real plans are. And this government has no intention of doing that.

The real issue here is an ideological desire by this government to put an end to B.C. Hydro as we know it. They are doing that piece by piece and bit by bit. Any British Columbian in this province who values B.C. Hydro should realize what this government is doing, condemn them for it and, with any luck, throw them out of office in 2009, as they deserve.

J. Rustad: I'm very pleased to rise to speak against Motion 51, as I mentioned earlier in statements today. I find this very curious, because it's the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca that brought this forward. I'd like to bring up a few quotes of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca in particular: "There have been IPPs for decades. The NDP signed contracts with independent power producers in the 1990s. This is not new; this is not unusual." That was from March 12, 2007, from Hansard.

The member carries on and says: "There is an opportunity for British Columbians to be served by independent power producers that are doing microprojects or wind projects, tidal projects." Once again, that was from November 9, 2006, for the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

He goes on again and says: "Certainly, I support independent power producers. There's a role and a function. There has been in the past, and there will be in the future." That was the member who moved this motion on a moratorium. By the way, that was a quote from Hansard of April 30, 2007 — just from a year ago. The opposition seemed to be supporting it, and clearly, they've flip-flopped again. I guess their leader has decided to come down flipping on another issue.

You know, I also find it interesting that the member that moves this motion was a special adviser to the NDP Minister of Energy and Mines in the year 2000, while the NDP were still in government. Do you know what the NDP government of the day said? They said: "The provincial government is restructuring water rental rates to encourage the development of environmentally sustainable, small hydro projects by independent power producers." That was from the Ministry of Employment and Investment in a news release on August 1, 2000.

The hypocrisy that has come forward with this motion is unbelievable. Not to mention…. I have heard many of the members from the opposition now say: "We want to see other options for hydro projects." Well, I ask one of them to stand up and say that they support something like Site C or that they support other large-scale projects in this province. Name one. Name one that they support in terms of solution.

They're standing here opposed to the idea of independent power. The member for Vancouver-Hastings was concerned about the cumulative impacts. Currently there are 450 licences, and you know what? If every single one of them had been issued, it would represent 0.001 percent of the B.C. streams that we have in this province.

They suggest that we shouldn't take advantage of the opportunity and the expertise from the private sector and that this sort of thing should be done through B.C. Hydro and the public sector. B.C. Hydro does not have the expertise or staffing to be able to do these independent power projects. The amount of people that would need to be involved in that scale of number of projects — 450 projects, which, I remind you, is 0.001 percent — is not what B.C. Hydro has.

What it comes down to is ideology. They believe that all power production should be Crown-owned. They also believe, according to the federal NDP leader, that all energy production, transportation, communications, etc., should all fall under the Crown scope. That's because they believe in pure socialism, and the concepts and the arguments that they're making today reinforce exactly that concept.

We need private investment in this province. We need power to be able to meet our future needs, and we need to be able to encourage these kind of opportunities. The independent power projects are a tremendous way to be able to bring power on stream. They are green. They meet what we need in this province. We need to be able to meet that shortfall, and I'm actually very pleased to see the type of quality of these projects coming forward.

First nations are supporting them. First nations are involved in them. Many small communities are looking at these opportunities for economic drivers. They're going to add power. They're going to add opportunities, and I'm very pleased that independent power production is part of what our government's plan is, moving forward to meet our future.

S. Fraser: I'll be speaking in favour of Motion 51. Despite the obfuscation that we're hearing from the government members on this, this is a wise motion. It is based on public interest and public input — issues ideological, yes, and issues that the government members do not understand.

The public interest is reflected, certainly, by what we hear at rallies like what we saw with the Pitt River proposal, but it's much more than that. It's in local governments, in municipality associations and in resolutions that come forward to this government, who ignores them. It was Bill 30, I think, several years ago, that this government brought in, that prevented local governments from having any say over these issues. It's not, as the member just previously stated, about local governments taking part in these run-of-the-river projects. They've been basically forbidden from taking part in these proposals, as has B.C. Hydro.

It's a question of public interest. Ideological? Well, maybe. I believe that we should all benefit from the water resources of British Columbia. I believe that we should all benefit and profit from B.C. Hydro. This cuts that out at the knees. It's a shock-doctrine type of tactic. The duplicity in bringing this forward as a necessary alternative, without the serious look that the public is demanding, is shocking.

We have time. Independent research has shown that the province has the time and space needed to properly assess the long-term energy requirements and needs of this province. As has been pointed out by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, these projects will largely produce power when we least need it, at the highest cost possible. That does not benefit the public in the historic way that B.C. Hydro has always benefited the public.

That relationship with B.C. Hydro has been honoured by every government till this one. It doesn't matter what the political stripes were. In this situation, why would a government abandon the tried-and-true, profitable relationship we've had with the public utility of B.C. Hydro? Well, again it's ideological, yes.

This government makes policy decisions based on who pays them. In 2005 and 2006, the IPP members donated a total of $477,395 to the Liberal Party. That was enough; that was enough. It's just like…. That was about the same amount that Weyerhaeuser provided to this party, the Liberal Party. I guess it was in 2004 or 2003, and they got 77,000 hectares out of TFL 44. So it is ideological, but it is not in the public interest. The ideology is on the government side of the House, and it is ignoring the public.

I've been to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities' annual conventions. Strong resolutions were urging the government to consult with the public on this important issue. They did not. They've just moved ahead, full speed ahead.

When I was a child, I remember seeing…. I got a little magic kit when I was a kid, and I remember seeing this magician on TV, with my friends all huddled in front of the TV. The thing we wanted to see was how he did the trick.

You manufacture a crisis in Hydro, and down here is the real thing. You collect some money in contributions, and then you say, "We must act now," without any comprehensive environmental assessments on the cumulative effect of these projects in the province. Sleight of hand is a very, very powerful tool, and I applaud all magicians that do it. When a government uses it to develop policy and to tell the public what they're not doing, it's a travesty of justice.

Now, all this resolution is about is the public interest. The public has demanded it. They've demanded it when they've come out and spoken in rallies, when they've shut down the proposal for the Pitt River, but they've demanded it through local governments who have been stripped of power — no pun intended — through Bill 30 and basically silenced by this government. If they were willing to listen to the public or the public interest on this, they would never have brought in Bill 30.

Bill 30 was designed to streamline private power production — piratization of our rivers against the public interest as stated by municipal associations and local governments. That's been stripped, and that is not

the public interest. That's the private interest running policy from this government, something we're all too used to.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to rise to speak in opposition to this Motion 51. I'd like to, first of all, touch on the comment from the previous speaker, who talked about a magic trick in his past. I suppose in the 1990s the NDP did their magic. We had a strong economy — number one in the country — and then suddenly, thanks to the magic of NDP policy, we went from first to last. That's the magic that happened in the 1990s.

Really, why we're talking about the need for investing in our energy supply today and into the future is because of the failure of that group during the 1990s when they were in government, when they did not invest in the needed energy projects so that we would have energy today and into the future.

What are they trying to do? They're trying to discount the importance of being energy self-sufficient and suggesting that it's okay for British Columbians to be dependent, as we are today, on net-importing energy from other jurisdictions where the power generation may not be as climate-friendly as British Columbians require it to be.

Our government wants to continue on a path of clean energy source to meet the energy needs for British Columbians. Today we have a 90 percent clean energy source for power generation, and that will continue. Now, the motion focuses on IPPs, independent power producers. Well, independent power producers are just one tool in the toolkit to generate power. We will continue to be dependent on the resources that are there — the major hydroelectric projects, the legacy projects that we inherited.

We will also be promoting a conservation program to handle the growing needs into the future. So IPPs are just one source, and it's nothing new. IPPs have been around for many years. As has been said, in 2001, when our government took over from the NDP, there were 21 IPPs that were either operating or about to go into operation. We're not talking about something that is dramatically new. IPPs have been around for a long time, and we are simply talking about ensuring our future energy security for the sake of the people, our economy and our future, for today and for generations to come.

I totally do not support this motion and speak against it, and I am sure that other members of the House will have an opportunity to speak on this motion as well.

G. Coons: I'll take just a couple of minutes to conclude the debate on this accountability motion. There's a growing concern in communities around the province that this Liberal government is charging forward with their drastic, environmentally destructive river power projects.

We see examples like the Ashlu River, where the character of the river has been completely changed. The residents were opposed, but this government unilaterally introduced Bill 30 and steamrolled over their concerns.

While there may be some projects that are indeed small, most run-of-the-river projects involve diversion of kilometres of rivers, clearcutting of the forests and even blasting mountainsides. We need a comprehensive review of the environmental impacts, and I'm amazed that that side of the House is afraid to confront that.

What advantage does the privatization of rivers give to British Columbia? No advantage at all. What are the costs? The costs are huge. We lose our rivers, we pay more for electricity, and we gain nothing except the certainty that we will be held hostage to corporations in the future. This government, in their chameleon green, promotes self-sufficiency with actions that endorse the opposite, which is against the public good and to the benefit of the corporations who, with their gold-rush mentality, are rushing to take over our rivers.

Overwhelmingly, people around the province want this government to step back, re-examine their policies that sell off our public resources. They want to return to local control over developments that will impact communities. They want a comprehensive review of the social, economic and environmental impacts. They want to protect wilderness value in our public power, as this side of the House wants to do.

We need to support this motion, and we need to place a much-needed moratorium on private run-of-the-river power projects.

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.