Hansard — Thursday, May 15, 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


Tributes		12469
	Surrey police officer award recipients
	D. Hayer

Speaker's Statement		12469
	Rules for public bills in the hands of private members

Second Reading of Bills		12469
	Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)
	R. Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House		12469
	Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12469
	Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

Second Reading of Bills		12470
	The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)
	D. MacKay

Committee of the Whole House		12470
	The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12470
	The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

Second Reading of Bills		12470
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Hon. P. Bell
	L. Krog
	B. Ralston
	M. Farnworth
	H. Bains
	Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12483
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	J. Horgan
	B. Simpson

D. Hayer: Last night in my constituency, the Surrey Board of Trade, one of the largest boards of trade in B.C., held its 12th annual Police Officer of the Year Awards ceremonies. These awards were started by my team when I was the president of the Surrey Board of Trade in '96-97.

Last night there were 64 nominees and 25 finalists. The winners were: for the Police Officer of the Year Awards named by the community, Const. Anthony Muench; for the Police Officer of the Year named by their peers, Const. Stephanie Rogers; for the auxiliary constable, Kimberly Enns; for the Arnold Silzer Award, the child abuse and sexual offences unit; for the Police and Business Partnership Award, Erin Barber of Options; top municipal employee, Colleen Kerr; and volunteer of the year, Bill Brand.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in saluting and congratulating all of these outstanding nominees, finalists and winners for their outstanding contribution to make Surrey a safer and better place to live.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M208, Right to Know Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

The bill would be requiring expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Also, hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M209, Toxics Reduction Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Vancouver-Fairview. The bill would require an expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not be proceeding to second reading.

This is a bill to reinstate the worthy organization, the Lutheran Camp Concordia Society Corporation.

R. Cantelon: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; S. Hammell in the chair.

R. Cantelon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill Pr403, intituled The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008.

D. MacKay: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr403; S. Hammell in the chair.

D. MacKay: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008. And in Committee A, I call estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2008, now be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 43 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act will support Canadian Forces reservists by ensuring their jobs are protected when they are deployed for overseas duty or domestic emergencies. Reservists will be entitled to leave without pay from their civilian jobs while they are deployed with the Canadian Forces. This amendment will apply to all employers covered by the Employment Standards Act.

Amendments to the Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, are in addition to the treaty settlement legislation introduced last fall and are necessary to give effect to the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final agreements. Included are amendments to the land title provisions that relate to treaty first nations to facilitate the transfer of lands on a treaty's effective date and provisions that clarify how treaty lands are to be registered in the land titles office.

As well, amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act will provide a taxpayer with the right to appeal a decision of disentitlement directly to the minister. Currently such appeals are heard by the homeowner grant administrator. The amendment will enhance the fairness of the review process for taxpayers and will bring the homeowner grant appeal process more in line with other taxation statutes.

Amendments to the Local Government Act will modernize and clarify how the province can implement local government restructures, as some of the provisions in the legislation are nearly 100 years old. The amendments do not change the basic principles for local government restructures, including the incorporation of new municipalities, boundary extensions or changes to regional districts or improvement districts.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will enhance the drivers' licences available to Canadian citizens who live in B.C., allowing them to enhance drivers' licences as identification and proof of their citizenship at land and water border crossings to the United States.

Other amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow B.C. to join the Canadian driver licence agreement, strengthening the overall security of B.C. drivers' licences by requiring applicants to provide proof of their legal presence in Canada and B.C. residency. It will also help to improve road safety by holding drivers accountable for their driving offences in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will address issues raised by two key court decisions, which held that the use of a compelled statement against a driver in subsequent criminal proceedings would violate the driver's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendment will ensure that drivers must report accidents but to an agency to be identified through regulations, rather than to the police.

Additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) will support the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region. Also, amendments will allow the creation of one municipality for the town of Fort Nelson and the regional district of Northern Rockies. Consultations with local area first nations, a referendum of area electors and addressing effects for industry will be concluded before considering changing the local governance structures. The two entities already operate under an integrated and unique governance arrangement.

Amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will support the B.C. energy plan policy commitments by increasing the responsiveness of the tenure process. These amendments add flexibility to the tenure process to support B.C.'s commitment to environmentally and socially responsible development.

The amendments reflect commitments to increase engagement with communities and first nations, increased consideration of environmental values, increased exploration of new basins and increased flexibility in tenuring systems. The amendments will also support the B.C. energy plan commitment that companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge water produced by coalbed gas operations.

Hon. Speaker, changes to the Private Career Training Institutions Act will enable the Private Career Training Institution Agency to set basic education standards for all registered private career training schools. The agency will be given authority to investigate if students complain that they have been misled by their institution. If a complaint is substantiated, the student will be able to receive tuition refunds from the student training completion fund. The amendments to the act also ensure accountability of the agency board by increasing the public representation.

Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Judicial Compensation Act will fully implement the outcome of the 2007 judicial compensation process for Provincial Court judges and judicial justices of the peace. The Provincial Court Act amendments will also provide for the appointment of judicial justices for a non-renewable ten-year term on a part-time or full-time basis and will ensure that these appointments are consistent with the principles of judicial independence.

Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Supreme Court Act will increase the retirement age for all provincially appointed judicial officers to 75 and enable the reappointment of retired judges to handle backlogs.

Amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act will allow the representative to publicly confirm, if asked, that a matter is before her office. The representative will have the ability to disclose the information only after determining that the public interest outweighs the privacy concerns of the individual whose personal information is being disclosed.

Further, consistent with the representative's role as recommended by the Hughes review and other officers of the Legislature, the representative will not be compelled to give evidence in court on matters commenced under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Amendments to the Transportation Investment Act will address Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements respecting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information arising from the toll collection and enforcement function related to the province's Port Mann/Highway 1 project and will establish the legislative authority needed to enable the collection of outstanding tolls from out-of-province commercial vehicles at weigh scale stations.

The Treaty First Nation Taxation Act is amended to support the implementation of the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final agreements. With these amendments, a treaty first nation will be required to adjust taxes in response to supplementary assessments and will be authorized to take into account for taxation purposes the subdivision of land occurring partway through a taxation year.

Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow a member of the Vancouver city council who is not present at a public hearing to receive an oral or written report enabling them to vote on the land use bylaw that was the subject of the hearing. This will provide the city of Vancouver with the same authority as other governments under the Local Government Act.

Now I would defer to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to speak specifically to section 22 of the bill, which deals with the amendment to the Law and Equity Act.

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce and welcome to this House 50 grade 5 students from one of the best schools in the city of Surrey, named Hyland Elementary School. They're also accompanied by parents and teachers. Particularly, I would like to thank teacher Sonya Eusebio, who has organized this group for the young people — a nice trip to this building and Victoria. I would ask members from both sides of the House to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sure the member said the same thing about another school in Surrey–Panorama Ridge — as being the best school there just a week ago.

I'd like to take this opportunity to expand upon the purpose of the Law and Equity Act amendment. This

amendment was intended to allow government to clearly define a consistent approach for compensation for Crown land interests. It does not in any way affect private land holdings or discussions underway regarding compensation for past takings. Existing compensation schemes are also not changed, and nothing in this amendment prevents a member of the public from seeking redress in the courts.

The intention of this amendment was to provide greater certainty for tenure holders around their right to compensation and to protect the public from unpredictable claims of compensation. This amendment ensures that the Legislature is responsible for establishing a clear and fair framework for predicting and managing compensation and thereby increasing investor confidence in B.C.

However, since Bill 43 was introduced, we've heard numerous concerns from British Columbians about the intent and application of this amendment. In fact, many have expressed that it may have unintended consequences. Therefore, government will not proceed with amending the Law and Equity Act. It is the government's intention not to pass this portion of Bill 43 that is currently before the Legislature.

Government recognizes that a fair and consistent framework for managing compensation that both ensures investor confidence and protects the public purse will require input and experience from all tenure holders. To this end, the government will be consulting tenure holders to ensure that the right balance is struck in establishing a framework that is clear and allows all parties to know their rights and liabilities.

Government will not be bringing forward further amendments to the Law and Equity Act until this process is complete.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It gives an opportunity for almost every member of the Legislature to get a couple of digs in or a couple of compliments, as the case may be, depending on the wide range of the particular bill before us. This particular bill represents, firstly, from the opposition's perspective, an acknowledgment of the good work of the opposition.

I would be remiss this morning if I didn't mention the member for New Westminster, a member of the opposition, the Labour critic, who introduced a private member's bill to amend the Employment Standards Act to do pretty much exactly what the Attorney General in his wisdom this morning has brought forward in terms of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and that is to make the appropriate provision so that those men and women who make that brave choice to serve as reservists may, in fact, take unpaid leave from their employment while deployed to a Canadian Forces operation.

It's surprising that the government simply didn't accept the wisdom of the member for New Westminster, pay him the personal tribute that he deserved for raising this important issue in the Legislature and let that private member's bill pass. Nevertheless, the government has chosen, as it has in previous pieces of legislation this session, if you will, to subsume or assume or take over or take credit for legislation that has, in fact, come to this House firstly by way of private members' bills from the members of the opposition.

It would have been nice, I think, for the Attorney General this morning to have acknowledged the good work of the member for New Westminster. I'm sure that at some point, perhaps during committee stage or during closing debate on second reading, the Attorney General will do that gracious and right thing, because he's a gracious and fine man, and I'm sure that that will form part of his remarks in this Legislature.

He certainly would provide a fine example to the Minister of Health in his remarks around the anti-smoking legislation preventing the smoking of cigarettes in cars where children are present — another piece of legislation first brought forward by the opposition which the government adopted as well. I think the only act we haven't changed this year is the Adoption Act, because the government seems to be adopting everything the opposition is putting forward.

I'm sure that the government is finally coming to its senses and realizing that the opposition, actually, is full of very good ideas, many very good ideas, and that they're finally coming to understand fully that in a properly functioning democracy, the opposition plays a very important role, not just in opposing what the government brings forward and criticizing it but in also proposing ideas and bills that are important, that represent true reform and that should and do, on occasion, receive public support.

The sad thing is that this government simply can't bring itself to let a private member's bill pass through this Legislature unless it comes from one of their own members. It's a bad habit. It's a bad practice. It doesn't reflect well on the Legislature. It doesn't reflect well on parliamentary democracy in British Columbia or how it's conducted.

The fact is that in more mature parliaments and legislatures — and I'm thinking particularly of the British parliament — the role of opposition members, of backbenchers, is given far more credit. That's certainly true of our federal parliament. I would think that as this government seems to get into the habit of, as I say, adopting more and more of what the opposition proposes, perhaps they should actually step up to the plate and simply let these bills pass when they're proposed by the opposition, and if they're not quite happy, perhaps we can talk about friendly amendments.

But let us acknowledge that government, in our system, is not the only source of thoughtful legislation. Let us finally acknowledge in this place, notwithstanding its reputation as being one of the roughest legislatures in the British Commonwealth, that, in fact, good things can come from both sides of the House, that government should step forward and do it.

It was, after all, this government, when it came into office, that promised a whole new British Columbia. We've had golden promises. We've had golden decades. We've had all sorts of things that this government has

suggested. I just think that around this particular aspect of this bill, it demonstrates once again that the government's not quite ready to take that step and acknowledge not only the right of the members on this side of the House to be here but the fact that they represent their constituents and represent the views of British Columbians who didn't happen to vote for the government.

Having said that, this legislation — particularly, as I said, around the issue of the changes in the Employment Standards Act — is very important.

There is always controversy associated with military operations throughout history — sometimes less, sometimes more. Even during the Second World War, when it was clear that fascism had to be defeated, there were still those who opposed the involvement of Canada's military. There has been a great deal of controversy around the service of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and, certainly, some controversy around the failure of the government to put troops in situations where everyone agrees peacekeeping and defence, particularly in Darfur, of those unable to defend themselves would be appropriate.

But having said that, there is one thing that all British Columbians can surely agree upon, and that is that those who make that choice to put themselves in harm's way, to take up positions as reservists and then to serve this country, placing their lives at risk…. Surely, it is entirely appropriate that they not suffer some further burden and be forced to give up their employment should they make that decision to serve their country.

What is most surprising is that it has taken so long to do it. When one considers the, some will say, somewhat diminished reputation of Canada in terms of peacekeeping around the world…. Notwithstanding that, Canadians, I think, enjoy a reputation abroad for doing the right thing — for defending the weak and the helpless, for being brave and courageous when called upon. This honours, in an appropriate way — these changes to the Employment Standards Act — the dedicated service of Canadians abroad.

I think particularly of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin who has so many servicemen and -women in her constituency and of the support that she's certainly given to them on many occasions, and other Victoria members.

I think it is far beyond the time for this legislation to have been introduced. So there is no question that the opposition will be supporting those provisions of Bill 43 that in fact provide that if you make that courageous choice, you're not going to suffer some further burden.

The other sections of the bill, particularly around judicial compensation, raise a number of issues. The retirement age has now been bumped from 70 to 75 under the terms of this legislation — or will be bumped, I should say. One shouldn't anticipate, necessarily, that the government gets its way on every bill. But let us just say that, based on numbers, that seems to be a fair likelihood. That is a fairly significant change.

My understanding is that Supreme Court judges now, on average…. One of my friends, who is a retired Supreme Court judge, tells me that the average length of time they collect their pension is something in the order of three years. In my own home community we have just recently had a service, which I mentioned in this House, for Justice Ralph Hutchinson — a most distinguished jurist, lawyer, community activist and a gentleman of great renown — who didn't collect his pension for very long. So one has to ask oneself: does it, in fact, make sense to, if you will, almost encourage people to continue in judicial function until a later and greater age?

It is a highly demanding position. It requires great skill. It's an important position. It appears that, frankly, the particular stresses of that job lead to a very early demise for most people. I appreciate, obviously, that there are concerns around the issue of finding appropriate persons to do this, but I think that's something the Attorney General needs to think about very carefully.

With respect to the amendment of "justice" to include a judicial justice as well as a judge of the provincial court, this represents, if you will, a bit of further government downloading, where government is trying to save a few dollars, have what we used to call JPs in the colloquial language take on responsibilities that were formerly held specifically by provincial court judges.

This raises real issues. I need not mention at length in this chamber the great concerns about the recent releases of individuals in the last few months in British Columbia that are now the subject of a coroner's inquest — the horrible tragedy in Oak Bay with the Lee murders, or what happened in Merritt, which is, I think, on the minds of many British Columbians. The functions of those who hear the initial applications to decide whether or not an accused person remains in custody or is let out on bail are extremely, extremely important functions.

On one hand, you have the importance of the right of every individual to the presumption of innocence. It is the golden thread of our law, if you actually want to phrase it that way: the right of an accused to their liberty, to the presumption of innocence, unless they represent a significant risk to either reoffend or harm the public.

Now, with respect to these individual cases, I'm not going to comment on them in particular. But they represent examples where the public has significant concern about what happened — whether the information was relayed, how it was relayed, whether the process was appropriate, whether the interests of public safety were paramount, whether they were in fact protected appropriately.

What we do know is that certainly a JP, a judicial justice, has the authority to hold someone over until they can appear in front of a provincial court judge, at which time a better and larger hearing may be held. But they are quite rightly, as I said, conscious of their responsibilities and the rights of individuals to their liberty.

We certainly don't want to end up in a situation like our friends to the south where such a horrendous portion of their population is incarcerated. Those statistics refer, obviously, to situations where people have been convicted, but I think it fair to say, also, that it represents a number

of individuals who are held over pending trials and hearings to consider guilt or innocence.

So I think it is important that the system by which we appoint these individuals be a careful one, that we ensure — and I'm sure the Attorney General will — that there be reasonable compensation for them. Certainly, the dollars that Provincial Court judges receive seem pretty big to most British Columbians. Indeed, they're more substantial than what we pay the Premier of the province and what we pay cabinet ministers. But these individuals on a daily basis deal with the rights of citizens, balancing the enormous power of the state to charge, to prosecute and to hold in custody versus the rights of individuals to their freedom and the presumption of innocence.

There is no question that public concerns around the release of individuals pending trial is uppermost in many British Columbians' minds — as I say, most recently because of the several tragic and horrific cases. One can only imagine how family members of those who have fallen victim to horrendous crimes of violence must feel knowing that these individuals were in fact at liberty pending a determination of guilt or innocence.

It is important, I think, for the Attorney General while considering this legislation to consider the whole issue of the training, qualifications for, guidelines and process involving the release of individuals pending trial.

I do note with some interest that the provision allows the reappointment of retired judges to handle case backlogs. That's probably a good thing, notwithstanding that some judges may be elderly by the ordinary standards of the public. Certainly, some of the judges I know have performed brilliantly and ably and well, notwithstanding the attainment of significant age. There is, after all, no mandatory retirement age for politicians, and some politicians have continued to serve well into their 80s, including such historic figures as Winston Churchill and John George Diefenbaker. So one mustn't be too stringent about how we determine who gets to remain practising as a judge.

With respect to the Local Government Act, I notice that we have no less than 35 sections — 35 sections that, supposedly, as the government press release said about it, "will modernize and clarify how the province can implement local government restructures, as some of the provisions in the legislation are nearly 100 years old. These amendments do not change the basic principles or approach for local government restructures, including the incorporation of new municipalities or boundary extensions or changes to regional districts or improvement districts."

One would have thought what would have, hopefully, been in here, and there with as much enthusiasm as the government is pursuing Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, would have been some provisions around municipal elections and the funding for them. On one hand, the government has brought in legislation at one level that says that we want to severely limit public debate for 120 days prior to the campaign and the rights of persons or organizations to put forward their views on important issues, either to them or to the public generally. Yet we have nothing in this bill — and it would have been an opportune time to do so — that says we're going to do anything to control or make more publicly accessible or bring in campaign spending limits or contribution limits to municipal politicians.

One could arguably say that in terms of the possibilities of corruption, the incentive at the local government level is highly significant. The mere rezoning of a piece of land can take an asset that might be worth a hundred thousand dollars and quintuple it in terms of its value. One would have thought that if the government was so interested in ensuring the integrity of the provincial elections, it might have brought in legislation around municipal elections. After all, there are far more municipal politicians in this province than there are provincial politicians.

The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act…. Before I pass on to that, I should make a few remarks about amendments to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — 2007 and 2000. One section — section 72 — repeals a transitional section of last year's Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which isn't even in force yet.

Now, hon. Speaker, I don't wish to be overly critical of the Attorney General or the ministry that brought this forward, but it's becoming almost too regular an occurrence that we see legislation before this House that amends acts that have been enacted or passed by the Legislature, properly speaking, but not yet proclaimed and are not even in force.

Having been here once before, sitting on the government side of things, I'm conscious of the often tortuous road by which legislation gets to this chamber — back and forth, up and down, up to Legs and Regs, through cabinet, back down again for revision, comment, public consultation. We're talking about a process that is almost remarkable in its intensity, the time and effort involved in it.

Apart from issues of principle and politics — whether or not it will pass muster in the public, whether or not it in fact remedies a mischief that exists — and particularly around amendments like this that amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, one would have thought that by the time it gets to this place, they would have had their act together and we wouldn't be here in the spring of 2008 debating a bill which isn't yet in force but that was passed in the spring of 2007.

It's no compliment to the government's ability to manage its affairs that we are back here once again. Indeed, there are further sections that I know the member for Surrey-Whalley wishes to speak to.

There are further sections in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), Bill 43, before us that, again, are dealing with the same kind of problem. You've passed legislation. The Lieutenant-Governor has come in and given it royal assent. It hasn't been proclaimed, and we're amending it. It's very hard on the persons or corporations in British Columbia affected by this legislation for them to know what's happening if the Legislature keeps passing bills, failing to implement them and then amending them before they are implemented and brought into force. It's really quite striking.

I spoke only a couple of days ago to a constituent, not of mine but of one of the government members, who was very concerned about amendments to the Commercial Tenancy Act and was hoping for change and not knowing where it's at. The act has been passed. The legislation passed but has never been proclaimed.

It is a very poor practice on the part of government to continuously bring in legislation and then not proclaim it. I appreciate that there are occasions where there hasn't been enough public consultation prior to it getting to this place. That's very obvious today.

Just a few moments ago in this chamber, section 32 on page 10 of this bill — the provision that amended the Law and Equity Act, or that proposed to amend the Law and Equity Act — was pulled by the Minister of Agriculture. Now, that's one thing. You acknowledge that you didn't consult. It's very much another thing to pass the legislation and then discover you want to change it.

That represents part of the problem we face in this particular session, where you have a number of bills that have been brought forward and on which the government has already announced closure that won't get public scrutiny, as they deserve. Public scrutiny, in my language, means that we in this chamber, and particularly the members of the opposition, have an opportunity to review and scrutinize and criticize and comment on bills. That's not going to happen with a number of bills this session. The public knows it, the press gallery knows it, and the government knows it. Yet they're still going to jam it through.

Here today we have an example of where the government has listened to the mining industry in particular — very substantial contributors to the Liberal Party, I notice. The minister, in his remarks this morning around withdrawal of this section, kept saying that it's really not that bad and that it's innocuous and that it's nothing. Nevertheless, even though it's innocuous, all it takes is a small protest from the mining corporations, for the major contributors to the Liberal Party to raise a little squeak and a squawk, and suddenly it's gone. It's just pulled. It disappears — nada, not going to happen.

You have to contrast that with the government's concerns about third-party advertising in the elections act, where it appears to intend to bring in closure on a bill like that, which would prohibit the rights of the public to protest legislation, particularly during the 120 days prior to an election when in fact the budget and the throne speech have all been introduced.

The concept of money buying access to politicians is as old as politics itself. It's a sad commentary, a very sad commentary, that people have come almost to accept that it's just part of the process.

So my point around the withdrawal of section 32 is that it would appear — if I accept the words of the Minister of Agriculture here this morning, and I do — that this section is not the horrific section that the mining industry and others believe it is. If I accept the minister's words, then the question arises: why is legislation pulled so easily and quickly before it even gets debated at second reading in this chamber simply because the mining industry raises a protest?

I note, hon. Speaker, that the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, I believe, wishes to make an introduction, so I will cede the floor for a moment.

J. Brar: Again, I would like to welcome another wonderful group of 50 grade 5 students from one of the best schools in Surrey. It's the same school, named Hyland Elementary School, and these students are also accompanied by parents and teachers. I would like to ask members from both sides of this House to please make them feel very, very welcome.

L. Krog: Again, my point is this. This is the place to debate legislation. The public should have the right to lobby us around changes that are made, and particularly when you see a substantive bill like Bill 43, where you're running to literally 147 sections, the public needs an opportunity to express its views.

Now, I appreciate that governments in the legislative calendar — pressed for time, overworked, all those things — often find themselves in a position where they don't have an opportunity — perhaps, in fairness to the government — to get it into the legislative hopper as fast as they would like. I accept that. I was on the government side once. I understand that.

But when you introduce substantive legislation close to the end of a session, when you have a fixed sitting schedule, and then refuse, as this government has in the past, to have a fall sitting at which that legislation could be properly debated and considered, that is something the opposition cannot accept.

So if the government wants to run the Legislature that way, it does not enhance the reputation of politics in British Columbia. It means that the kind of cynicism I talked about earlier around the power of money over politics and the influence of money over politics — that that kind of cynicism is simply increased. As I say, this morning section 32 — gone. Not even a peep from the opposition. Not even a chance to stand up and say: "Oh, we don't like it." We didn't even have to go that far. A letter from Jock Finlayson — that's all it talks about.

I note that Mr. Finlayson's letter was quite simple, and these are wise words. Jock Finlayson will be shocked that I'm quoting him. "In general, good public policy-making requires that government not seek to implement far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such changes." And Mr. Finlayson goes on to say: "Unfortunately, this kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this bill."

So if we're going to have consultation around significant changes, I'm going to have to ask the Attorney General what kind of consultation went on around other aspects of this legislation. Does, in fact, the 147 sections represent the end result of a great deal of consultation, or is section 32 a prime example of the government's failure?

That, I think, is a question that deserves asking. If we have time to get to committee stage of this bill, I'll have that opportunity. But of course, it's very clear now that with only eight sitting days left after today, that opportunity may not in fact occur. This government has made a choice to bring in significant pieces of legislation late in a legislative term with no real promise of a fall sitting to debate these bills properly, and with the promise — I would almost say the guarantee — of closure on particularly contentious legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker on this — noting the red light, much to the relief of the members who I know are anxious to hear a few more words from me this morning, particularly on the government benches. I'm always flattered by the enthusiasm with which they receive my remarks on any particular piece of legislation.

But we're not going to get that time, and that's unfortunate. If we did get that time — and I go back to section 72, which repeals the transition of last year's miscellaneous statutes amendment act…. Perhaps if the opposition had more time to spend the appropriate amount of time examining these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be in the position that we're now in amending an act that isn't even in force. I mean, the fact is that you compound the problem.

My friend the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith often talks about the domino effect. Well, hon. Speaker, this is what the domino effect is all about. If you don't allow an appropriate time to debate legislation, you often end up with bad legislation. It means you compound the problem because you're back in some other session repealing, amending or doing something different with that legislation. That is what the result of this government's practice is.

You know, hon. Speaker, a bill like this…. It's like Joseph's coat. It's one of many colours. It covers a wide range of items, and one of them in particular is very troubling. It's around the issue of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act allowing for enhanced drivers' licences.

On one hand, you could argue that's a great thing. It will enable British Columbians to go across the border from Canada to the U.S. with a single piece of ID, and that may in fact have some merit. But there are many Canadians who are very concerned about the issue of identity theft, around issues relating to privacy, around the fact that we would even be required when we cross over the longest undefended border in the world to provide some particular identification — we who have been best friends of the Americans for literally 140 years since Confederation.

The other sections that give some pause for concern are also around the changes in the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region. Those were very controversial. The changes made were opposed by many people in the Comox Valley. This, unfortunately, represents the nail in the coffin of strongly held public views around what was imposed, if you will, on that particular part of Vancouver Island.

When you get on to changes to the Private Career Training Institutions Act, I think it's only fair to acknowledge the hard work of the member for Victoria-Hillside, who has raised the issue around private career-training institutions on many occasions in this Legislature. We know that our reputation has been damaged by what's happened with a number of private career-training institutions.

These changes — the government released promises — will enable the Private Career Training Institutions Agency to set basic education standards for all registered private career-training schools and will give authority to investigate if students complain they have been misled by their institutions. If complaints are substantiated, students will be able to receive tuition refunds from the student-training completion fund. These changes will ensure the PCTIA board will have greater public representation.

Hon. Speaker, the sad thing is that it's taken so long to get here. Hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, foreign students in particular, have been victimized by this government's failure to address this issue sooner. It is a sad commentary at a time when we're trying to promote trade with other parts of the world and become less dependent on our neighbours to the south instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, realizing that we have to significantly expand our trade opportunities with our friends and neighbours around the globe.

It's particularly sad that it took so long to finally bring about this change. Indeed, one would have hoped that the changes would have been far more comprehensive. I think every British Columbian understands the importance of ensuring that foreign students in particular, who come here to train and that British Columbians who for whatever reason can't get into one of the public colleges or training institutions have an opportunity to pursue their education.

One could argue that in this government's zeal to see so much privatized, we have expanded private career training far too much in British Columbia at the expense of students. The fact that this legislation is before the House, I would submit, is clear evidence that this government acknowledges that in fact it didn't put in place the kinds of controls that should have existed in order to protect students.

What the public may not understand is that the tuition often paid to these institutions is far, far higher than they would pay at a public institution. Of course, the students who do this often end up taking out significant student loans, end up without being able to complete their education and then have the added burden of having to repay a student loan for something they never received. They have been doubly victimized.

There is, of course, another victim, other than the students or their family or their supporters. The other victim is the reputation of British Columbia. Surely, if we are to try and take some place on the world stage in terms of attracting talent and people to British Columbia, we would want to do everything we possibly could to ensure that those who came here would receive a first-class education and be guaranteed that they would receive that first-class education and that they not be victimized by having to pay for something they didn't get.

There are other significant changes in the bill to the Representative for Children and Youth Act. As a member who sits on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I'm delighted to see the government bringing those in. I say that unreservedly. These were changes requested by the Children and Youth Representative, who — if I may say so on the floor of this House — has proved to be an outstanding public servant who has, by her ability and drive and energy and commitment and compassion, enhanced the respectability of that office.

As we all know, the creation of that office helped pull this government out of the political glue that it found itself in, having engaged in the fiasco of abolishing the office previously, which led to incredible tragedies in British Columbia for those children under care.

The fact is that the Legislature should do everything it can to ensure that Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's office receives not only the funding but of course the legislation needed to ensure that her office can carry out its duties and do it in a way that will benefit and protect the children of British Columbia — some of the most vulnerable amongst us.

I know the member for Surrey-Whalley is going to speak at some length on the amendments to the Transportation Investment Act, but I can't pass by them. We are amending amendments in Bill 14 of this session. The process of discovering the mistakes of the government is speeded up. We can at least give them a compliment for that. In their zeal to drive things through this Legislature, they're now discovering the mistakes faster. One might argue that that's a sign of competence — that they're discovering their incompetence much sooner. That is probably the best thing I can say about that.

I look forward to debate on committee stage of this bill with the Attorney General. I know he certainly does as well. I know at that time he's going to acknowledge the work, as I said, of the member for New Westminster, for the changes that he's brought about — the member for Victoria-Hillside as well — and that he will do the graceful thing in this. I look forward to that opportunity.

B. Ralston: I rise to address specific sections of this bill, sections 127 to 136, which deal with amendments to the Transportation Investment Act.

Now, we've begun this session debating this bill with the rather sorry spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands jamming on the brakes and pulling one of these sections, section 32, before it even got to this stage. It's a result of, as my colleague from Nanaimo has pointed out, representations from the mining industry and from Mr. Finlayson of the Business Council stating the very obvious process that should be engaged in when introducing legislation — consultation with those affected. That was pointed out, and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has fallen on his sword here this morning.

These sections, sections 127 to 136, illustrate even more graphically the way in which this government is jamming legislation through the Legislature. It's leading to all kinds of effects upon the process and all kinds of errors and problems that result.

Bill 14 was introduced on March 13 of this year. I spoke to it on April 17. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin spoke to it then. It received second reading on April 28. It introduced amendments to the Transportation Investment Act.

It made amendments to the Transportation Investment Act. Principally, it introduced the ability of those people, rather than being granted rights to build tolled highways or tolled bridges, to deal with the government…. It created a corporation, the Transportation Investment Corporation, which would be the agent of government, with the opportunity for the Minister of Transportation to appoint another board of directors and put some more bureaucracy and some more secrecy and some more lack of accountability between the government and those who would operate the tolled highways and the tolled bridges.

The spectacle that we are witnessing in this bill is the utter incompetence of the minister, because what's being done here is that amendments to Bill 14 are being introduced in this bill. The minister doesn't even have the jam to come to the Legislature and introduce them as amendments to Bill 14. They're bootlegged into this miscellaneous statutes amendment act which will be, I suppose, unceremoniously run through the Legislature like gravel through a sluice.

It's really rather unbecoming of the government, at the very least, and speaks to the lack of scrutiny and the lack of legislative time that's available to deal with these bills when a bill which is still before the House at second reading, Bill 14, is now being amended by amendments proposed in a separate bill.

Rather than amend the bill itself, step forward in the Legislature and have the minister introduce those amendments and explain those amendments, sections 127 to 136 — introduce amendments to a bill that's sitting at second reading.

Section 127 amends the Transportation Investment Act, the same act that Bill 14 purports to amend. Section 128 amends an amendment. Section 128 refers to an amendment in Bill 14, and that is amended. Section 129 amends an amendment, amends a part of Bill 14 that's before the Legislature. Utter incompetence by the minister.

One wonders why this bill is being amended in this way. I'd suggest it's that in his haste to make political hay and give the Legislature and the public some fictitious reasons as to why this bill was necessary and purport to stamp it with some other kind of political stamp, it made its way to the top of the pile in the legislative

Section 131 amends an amendment. Section 132 amends the same act, the Transportation Investment Act. Sections 133, 134 and 135 amend the Transportation Investment Act. Section 136 amends an amendment.

Really, it's undignified, I would suggest. If I were the Attorney General, I would be embarrassed as the government's chief law enforcement officer to be putting forward in this unseemly way these kinds of amendments to a bill that's already before the Legislature. Surely the minister has to be embarrassed.

He has, as he knows, an independent jurisdiction. He's more than a political member of the cabinet. He has a separate, independent jurisdiction to give independent legal advice as guardian of the public interest. Why isn't he doing that job? Why isn't he standing up to these ministers and advising them that this legislation is not in order? These kinds of amendments shouldn't be necessary.

I look forward to the Attorney General answering those questions if and when this ever gets to committee stage. Given the state of the legislative agenda, as we are pressed like cattle towards the slaughter here in the remaining days of the legislative session, there will be very little time, if any, to ask the kinds of detailed questions about these amendments to the amendments.

One can only hope. I suppose we're now at a stage where there won't be further amendments to the amendments to the amendments in this session of the Legislature, but one never knows. There is the opportunity to introduce further amendments by tabling them with the Clerk, so that may come about as well.

Bill 14 was introduced with a lot of political fanfare, but it's evident by these amendments to the amendments that that was a botched job by an incompetent minister. He should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which this bill is proceeding through the Legislature. I look forward at committee stage, which I doubt will come about given the state of the legislative agenda, to debating this more fully — why this tortuous process was necessary.

M. Farnworth: This particular piece of legislation is what is described as a miscellaneous statute. Government usually introduces them as housekeeping measures that really are…. When they're introduced, they amend a whole series of different pieces of legislation individually.

Government likes to say to the opposition: "Oh, don't worry about it. It's just housekeeping. Just let's debate this, and then let's get on to other pieces of legislation that we know you're far more concerned about."

Well, I've served in this chamber since 1991. It doesn't matter whether I'm in government or in opposition, whenever I hear the terms "miscellaneous statutes bill" and "housekeeping," I know it needs to be scrutinized very closely. More often than not, they're anything but housekeeping, and they're anything but miscellaneous.

In fact, their consequences can be far-reaching and often unintended, because too often they are drafted in haste. Too often they are used as a grab-bag to get things we'd like to do, but we don't necessarily want it to be in a bill that has to face full public scrutiny. Unfortunately, that is the case with this particular bill.

It's unfortunate that governments do this, because what it does is try and circumvent this chamber and this House in doing the job which we are supposed to do — from the government perspective, to bring forward good public policy and, from the opposition, to be able to scrutinize it and ensure that what's going ahead is good public policy.

This bill has too many questions that need to be asked for it to be given any sort of speedy passage. That's why we on this side have made it clear to the government that we are in no hurry to pass this particular piece of legislation, that it was tabled late in the session and that it amends a number of bills, many of them significantly.

I want to touch on a couple of those, because I think they point out exactly what's wrong with this piece of legislation. They also make the case for what the opposition has been saying about this government's attitude towards this Legislature — that it's treated more as a plaything as opposed to a place for serious debate and scrutiny of important public policy. It makes the case as to why we need to have a fall session, why that calendar should be followed.

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the learned Finance critic, has pointed out a number of sections in this bill that amend a bill that we are currently debating in this chamber — a bill that has not passed second reading. So not only is Bill 14 a bill which creates a Crown corporation to build a bridge, which we have said is not necessary…. If you want to build a bridge, build a bridge the way they've always been built in this province.

They want to bring in a piece of legislation to create a Crown corporation. The public policy and the thought content that went into that piece of legislation are so flawed that later in the session they have to, by way of a miscellaneous statute, bring in amendments to amend a bill that should have had the work done in the first place.

In their desire to try and create political mischief, they bring in a flawed piece of legislation. So their priority clearly isn't good public policy; it's to try some vain attempt to create political mischief.

Well, I understand how this place works, and political mischief is part of the stuff that happens in this place. It's politics. But first and foremost, our role here is good public policy, and it seems that the government has forgotten that. That's our first duty — not quick political cheap points but good public policy.

That means the work should be done on the bill before it gets here. Clearly, that hasn't happened in Bill 14, because now in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act we're having amendments to try and fix it.

There are very good questions as to why the government wouldn't just come forward and say, "You know what? We've got to amend that bill," and make

that case during the debate. But no, they don't. Why? Because the work wasn't done ahead of time.

There are some elements of this bill that are good, and we're prepared to support them. But again, what happens with this type of legislation is that government puts in clauses and sections that they know will be popular, that they know there is public support for and that they know the opposition will support. Then it's like: "Okay, if you want the good stuff, you've got to take the bad stuff."

Well, that's just not on. The fact that this legislation is not going to be passed quickly, the fact that this legislation is going to be scrutinized, because it deserves to be scrutinized, and the government doesn't like the pace of it….

The government has only one person or individual group to blame — and that is themselves — for failing to do the public policy work that should have been done on Bill 14, the failure to do the public policy work that should have been done on other sections of this particular bill.

I mean, one of the things about the legislative calendar is that it has that break between June and September, and it gives an opportunity to go out and consult. So if the government wanted to, they could have tabled this bill and said: "You know what? This is an exposure bill. We want to get some reaction. We want to get some input. We want to hear from the people, the organizations, the businesses that this bill will impact on. We've got the summer to do that. We'll come back in the fall, and we'll deal with it."

Unfortunately, that's not the case, and the reaction has been predictable. It has been predictable in the utmost.

I'd like to quote from a letter that Jock Finlayson sent this government. "In general, good public policy-making requires that government not seek to implement far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such changes," wrote Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of the Business Council. Unfortunately, this kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this bill.

The obvious question is: why not? Why not — on a piece of legislation that impacts some of the most important industries in this province? At a time when the government is saying, "You know what? We want to see resource developments," and when we have a forest industry that's in crisis in this province, legislation is brought forward that draws outright ire from the forest industry and the mining industry. They lobby and voice their concern, and the minister is in the humiliating position of standing up in this House today and saying that we're not proceeding with this section.

In the government's desire to not be here, this humiliation of ministers has become an all too common occurrence this session. We have seen the Minister of Children and Families humiliated five minutes before a bill is to be introduced, after they have flown aboriginal elders down to this chamber to watch the introduction of a piece of legislation that has been a work in progress for five years. They pull it at the last minute because it was flawed, because they failed to consult. They don't want to be here. Again today we see a minister have to stand up and say that this section isn't going ahead, because they failed to consult.

Well, I've got to ask some questions about that. I'm being kind here, I think. I'm in a good mood today. One minister may make a mistake — you know, incompetence and whatever, that they failed to consult. But two ministers, hon Speaker? In fact, technically it's three ministers, because besides the minister who stood up and withdrew the section, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands…. I mean, the Attorney General tabled this bill.

So I have to ask the question. I find it hard to believe that three ministers of the Crown, including our learned Attorney General, would have failed to want to consult. Or did it come from somewhere else? Did it come from somewhere higher up the food chain — that there was no need to consult? "Let's just do this."

When I see this, what I see is the hands of the Premier's office over this. These humiliations of ministers are taking place because of the command and control out of the Premier's office. Ministers are standing up and doing their dutiful business of falling on their swords, taking the blame for the consultation that should have been done by their ministries but wasn't done by their ministries, because of the desire of a Premier's office to get through a legislative agenda as quickly as possible and get out of this chamber as quickly as possible, with as little scrutiny from the opposition as is humanly possible.

I want to make it clear that from this side of the House, we will not condone the actions of this government or be complicit in their incompetence by rubber-stamping a piece of legislation that is flawed on so many accounts and could have so easily been prevented.

This piece of legislation is going nowhere fast. We will be speaking on it, and we will be scrutinizing it. The government can ram it through by closure if it wants. But if it does, it sends a message that just compounds what has already transpired — that they value political expediency over good public policy, that arrogance trumps good public policy, and that expedience and arrogance together trump good public policy.

At the end of the day, it is not the interests of the public that they are interested in, but it is the interests of the B.C. Liberal Party and their electoral fortunes and not wanting scrutiny that are first and foremost the priority of this government.

I know there are other colleagues of mine who have points they want to raise on this particular piece of legislation. But I think it's pretty clear that what we are seeing is a trend in this government that is unacceptable in this House, that is unacceptable to the public and that is increasingly unacceptable to their friends and supporters. It is good public policy first and foremost, not government arrogance.

H. Bains: I would also like to make a few comments on sections 105 to 112, the amendments to the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I think there are some serious issues, and I will be exploring those. Hopefully,

the Attorney General will be looking at those areas, and when we go to the next stage of the debate, he will be able to answer some of those questions that still exist in this amendment act and that went unanswered.

I want to start by saying that there was a report made by Mr. John Watson to cover this area. He made about 13 recommendations. Many of them are being incorporated, or they are trying to go partway in order to incorporate some of those recommendations in this amendment act.

But in my view, they don't go far enough in many areas. Those areas that they're trying to cover are not sufficient. They will not protect the students from corrupt, incompetent and unscrupulous private colleges and institutions, and that is a serious concern.

Many times these are the students who are the most vulnerable in our society. These are new students, new immigrants who come and try to upgrade their skills, and they get lured in by the flashy advertisements in the newspapers and by the use of other electronic media as well. Here are the students who come here to get a better life. They want to upgrade their skills, and they try to go into these colleges. And do you know what? The worst part is when they advertise that this college or institution is government-sanctioned.

When those folks come from those Third World countries and when they see government's stamp of approval, they put all of their confidence and trust in that institution. When they go there, there are times and cases where they find that it's not exactly what they were told. They are not exactly getting what they're paying for. So I think that part is left uncovered. That is a very, very serious concern.

I would ask the Attorney General to pay special attention to the 200 private institutions that exist out there to deal with ESL education. It is about a $1½ billion industry with 100,000 students in it. This act does not cover that part at all, as far as I could see. I hope that the Attorney General will be looking into this area and will make sure that this area is covered, because we are talking about here, as I said earlier, the most vulnerable students who are new to the country.

Many of them are trying to become productive members of our society. They want to make sure that their skills are used to the maximum of their potential so that we, as a province and as a country, can benefit from those skills as well. They are the ones who become victims of some unscrupulous and corrupt institutions that exist out there.

No one on that side can stand up and say that it doesn't happen. I have some examples. We have an institution in Surrey. Over 100 new students that came to this country were taken for a ride. They were told that they could come in, that they will qualify for government grants and that they will qualify for government loans. The process is such that they will be going into that institution knowing that this is a government-sanctioned institution.

They go in there. The first thing they sign on a dotted line is that all of those grants and student loans will go to the college or institution. After deducting their tuition fees, the remainder will be paid back to the student by the institution.

This is what happened at Barkel College. Over 100 students found out very, very quickly. They went through the process, and they put their trust in the government, because it is a government-sanctioned college. When they went into the college, they didn't see very much of education, according to these students. Many of them left because they felt they were wasting their time. Many of them instructed the college that they would not be coming back. They wanted to withdraw.

Guess what. The ministry, after receiving complaints from the students, did the audit. Good for the ministry. The audit recommended that this file should be handed over to the RCMP. The minister advised this House last year that the RCMP is investigating that college. The college is shut down.

Well, that's the job of the government. They can do whatever they wish is the right thing to do between the ministry and the college. But my take here is about the students. Now the students are getting letters and phone calls from very aggressive collection agencies. They want those student loans and grants to be paid back.

Here is the situation. They didn't get the education that they were promised, and it was a government-sanctioned college. Now they are left holding the bag, and government is going after them that they should be paying those student loans and student grants.

They didn't get the education, and the college ended up getting the fee and the student loan and the grants. The college has folded by the action of the ministry, but the students are asked to pay for those loans and grants — the money that they never received, or very little that they received. Students have said: "Look, we will pay back what we received, but go after the college, which has your money."

But I want to say this. There is goodwill on the ministry side here, and on the minister's side. I must say that. They understand that these students were basically robbed, but they cannot do anything because their hands are tied.

I would have hoped that this act would cover that part, and it doesn't cover that part either. I think that is a serious problem. Even if you look at the John Watson report, all this act does is keep the registration mandatory in PCTIA, but the accreditation is still voluntary.

How does that protect the students from those corrupt, unscrupulous institutions that I mentioned? There are many out there. I just used one example. I'm not against those private institutions that are trying to do a good job and trying to provide the service, which are honest. They're trying to deliver the education that the act asked them to do. There are many good ones out there.

But there are those that the students must be protected from, and this act fails them again. I hope the Attorney General will be paying attention to this and looking at that area. How do we protect the students from these folks?

It does talk about that a portion of the tuition fee can be refunded by PCTIA if they were misled. You know, the example that I use is a lot more than the tuition fee. It's the student loan and the grant that went directly to the college, which the student never saw. So how do you protect those students?

It is our duty, as the member before me said, as legislators in this House, that we must protect the people who have elected us and put us in these chairs — make sure we are governing for everyone, not just a few of our friends who would be helping us during the election and who are in a position to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars into the campaigns of the Liberal Party.

That's not what the purpose of this legislation is. Our job is to protect everyone, especially those who are the most vulnerable in our society. In this case we are talking about those students who are new to the country and who are trying to upgrade their skills so that they can help us move our economy in a new millennium. That's where the problem is.

The other part I want to talk about is under 6a of John Watson's report. The recommendation is that the government must consider student and aboriginal student representation on that board. There's nothing of that sort here either. The students and aboriginal representation is again ignored, as was recommended by John Watson's report.

There are many, many flaws that I see in this amendment act. This was an opportunity for the government to fix that. It's not that they didn't know what was going on in that industry. It's not that it wasn't brought to their attention. It's not that the students never complained about the problems that they were facing. It's that the students have been basically taken for a ride and robbed of their livelihood.

Many of them wasted their time and ended up paying money out of their own pocket and didn't get the education that they were promised. That's the responsibility of the minister. That's the responsibility of all of us — to make sure that we deliver what we promise, that they get what they pay for. We're not seeing that in this act. Once again I see that the students are being left out. Students are being ignored, and their needs are being ignored again.

Having said that, I hope the Attorney General will be looking at some of the areas that I have identified. I'm not standing here to just throw some rocks at them because they're on that side and I'm on this side. These are some legitimate concerns that were brought to us by our constituents. These are the concerns that were brought to the government side House members as well.

There are many, many well-published media reports on these areas, and the ministry, to their credit, has shut down many of those colleges. But you know, shutting them down and allowing that process to continue to be in existence, I think, again is abdicating our duty as legislators.

Once again I will humbly request the Attorney General to pay special attention to this area, because it also covers his particular ministry of immigration and multiculturalism. It will affect many of those students who are new, who are immigrants and who are trying to get some help through the process that we have in this place.

I know that there might be some other speakers speaking after me. I will be watching very, very closely when we come to debate this part of the bill, of the legislation, in the next debate.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Attorney General, to wrap up debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Bill 29 for second reading, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. B. Penner: Putting on a different hat, I move that this bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to speak to this bill, which contains a number of amendments to the Wildlife Act and to the Environmental Management Act that will enhance this government's ability to regulate with respect to public health and safety, environmental protection and the effective management of our wildlife resources.

As with my remarks at first reading, I would like to begin by speaking to the changes proposed for the Wildlife Act. One of the most significant changes being proposed for the act is the introduction of new provisions to enable regulation of the ownership of potentially harmful "alien species" in British Columbia. These amendments build on my commitments and on those given by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands last year to regulate alien species that may be harmful to British Columbians and to our native wildlife.

Traditionally, in Canada there have been very few legal tools that provincial governments have had to regulate the possession of alien species. The amendments in this bill will close this gap for British Columbia.

It was almost a year ago that we learned of the tragic death of Tanya Dumstrey-Soos in Bridge Lake. This young woman was attacked by a captive Siberian tiger at a privately owned zoo. There have been other troubling incidents involving alien species since Ms. Dumstrey-Soos' death. It was only a few months ago, I

think shortly before Christmas, that a young man was bitten by his pet cobra in the Lower Mainland, and only his good luck helped him escape serious injury or worse, although I believe he eventually suffered amputation of several fingers of his hand.

These incidents show that some alien species need to be regulated, if they are a threat to public safety. Potentially harmful species that are foreign to British Columbia, such as tigers and exotic venomous snakes, will be listed as "controlled alien species" in regulation under the Wildlife Act. This list will be updated from time to time as needed.

These changes to the Wildlife Act will allow the government to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements on the possession, breeding, release, trafficking, shipping and transporting of controlled alien species in British Columbia.

It is also important to recognize that not all alien species are harmful. We are only concerned with controlling the possession of those species that pose a risk to human health and safety, property, wildlife or wildlife habitat.

A limited number of alien species will be designated as "controlled alien species." Not all controlled alien species will be treated the same way but will be managed according to their level of risk. For example, cobras and tigers will be more strictly regulated than less harmful animals. We anticipate that the list of controlled alien species will be divided into three categories: prohibited, referring to the most harmful alien species; restricted, referring to those species where potential risks can be effectively reduced through correct care and handling; and monitored, referring to those alien species where there's simply a reporting requirement.

Conservation officers and police officers will have the authority to seize controlled alien species where possession is prohibited or when permit conditions or regulations are contravened. They also have authority to euthanize a controlled alien animal when there's imminent danger to the health or safety of a person or to native wildlife.

These changes are supported by organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and are in direct response to a resolution passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities last year.

Madam Speaker, I'm also pleased to speak to some other amendments in this bill that directly address compliance and enforcement issues under the Wildlife Act as outlined in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. The people of British Columbia support getting tough on offenders who violate the provisions of the act and put our native wildlife at risk. In response, we are introducing stiffer penalties for poachers and other offenders.

The amendments to the act will increase fines and jail times, and in some cases, existing penalties will be more than doubled. These increased penalties will allow the courts to punish the worst offenders more heavily. This means that killing an endangered species, one of the most serious offences under the Wildlife Act, will be subject to a maximum penalty of $250,000, an increase from the current maximum fine of $100,000. The minimum fine — and I think that this is also very important, because we know that quite often the courts are reluctant to impose anything near the maximum — is also increased from $1,000 to $2,500, and the maximum imprisonment time is increased from one year to two years. These and other new penalties are in line with other jurisdictions across Canada and makes our penalties amongst the highest in the country.

This government expects everyone to comply with the Wildlife Act and its regulations, but we also understand that there will always be some bad apples in society. For this reason, we are also introducing changes that expand the scope of park ranger powers. The amendments to both the Park Act and the Wildlife Act will allow park rangers to exercise the powers and perform the duties of wildlife officers. They will have authority to monitor fishing and hunting activities within parks and other protected areas in the province.

These amendments will allow park ranger staff to complement and assist the conservation officer service, particularly at the busiest times of the year, such as the fall hunting season. I note, parenthetically, that this year we've added a further five full-time, year-round positions to the conservation officer service.

As noted in my initial remarks at first reading, the amendments to the Wildlife Act will also introduce several measures that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation making. Regulatory-making powers concerning limited-entry hunting will be transferred from cabinet to the Minister of Environment so that these technical and detailed regulations can be more easily and efficiently amended, from time to time, in response to wildlife management issues.

Also, these amendments will lower the minimum unsupervised hunting age from 19 to 18, ensuring consistency with federal legislation and with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta.

Madam Speaker, amendments to the Wildlife Act will also facilitate business efficiencies for the guide-outfitting industry. While many guide-outfitting businesses are still family-owned, the guide-outfitting industry has changed since the act was last significantly amended more than 25 years ago. Guide-outfitters have expressed their desire for more efficient rules so that they can properly respond to changing market pressures.

Currently the Wildlife Act says that you have to be a guide-outfitter in order to own a guide territory and that only one guide territory can be owned by one guide-outfitter. These requirements are unnecessarily restrictive. We are introducing changes that will allow a guide to purchase more than one guide-outfitter territory, and we're also introducing changes that will affect investing in and holding guide-outfitter territories.

The amendments to this act will also remove the requirement that a guide must be physically present in their territory for "substantially all the time" when their

assistant guides are guiding for game. We will replace this onerous requirement with the more efficient requirement of having to be present "a majority of the time." This recognizes the fact that advances in technology, such as satellite phones and the Internet, have changed the way that guide-outfitters communicate with their employees and that a guide-outfitter can still closely supervise guiding activity in their territory without being physically present at all times.

We are also responding to other business challenges faced by the outfitting industry. The eligibility requirements for both guide-outfitter and assistant guide-outfitter licences will be moved from the Wildlife Act itself to a regulation under the act to make it easier to adjust these requirements to better suit industry requirement needs. The intent is that eligibility will no longer be based on where a person is from but will instead be based on a person's knowledge of British Columbia's natural history, wildlife, hunting and proper game handling.

Also, local governments have asked the provincial government to develop new rules that manage the feeding and attraction of wildlife and that complement existing local bylaws. This was brought to my attention last fall by the district of Sparwood during the UBCM conference. We are responding positively to this request. These amendments to the Wildlife Act will allow the Minister of Environment to make regulations to control the feeding and attraction of specified wildlife in specified areas.

This bill also makes amendments to the Environmental Management Act on two fronts. The first concerns the authority of government to take action in response to spills of dangerous substances that can be a threat to public health and safety and to wildlife and the environment.

The amendments to section 80 that are proposed in this bill will make it clear that the Environmental Management Act provides authority to address longer-term spill remediation work relating to habitat and wildlife that the government may need to undertake to deal with ongoing environmental impacts. Existing provisions concerning the authority of a director to recover costs from parties responsible for spills will be applicable in relation to the express new authority concerning wildlife and habitat recovery work.

On the second front concerning the Environmental Management Act, the amendments proposed in this bill will make improvements to the regulation-making authorities described in the act. These amendments will support the increased use of a regulation-based approach for certain sectors of waste management, including recycling and resource recovery.

The amendments will add authorities so that regulations made by the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cover the full range of waste management issues that can currently be addressed by operator-specific permits. This will ensure a smooth shift to a results-based regulation for various industry sectors.

The new authorities also provide explicit regulation-making authority to require the recovery of reusable resources through recycling or by making use of the energy potential of waste. This will align the legislative authority with government and ministry policy concerning energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction and the beneficial use of wastes.

S. Simpson: I, hopefully, will have an opportunity later to talk about this more fully. Just very shortly on this, before we break, I would say that Bill 29…. The content of this in relation to alien species, I think, is something that everybody would agree with. We need to do a better job of managing and putting appropriate prohibitions in place around questions of alien species. There are also issues related to waste management that make sense in this bill. We'll get a chance to talk about some of that.

But the most shocking thing about this bill, after all the work that's been done, is the absolute silence on any relationship to issues around species at risk — the fact that the bill says nothing about that issue. It is the single most compelling issue related to wildlife in British Columbia.

We have over 1,300 species that are at some degree of risk. That's out of a little more than 3,600 species in the province. For this legislation not to have dealt with that issue is inexcusable. I look forward to having the opportunity to expand on that as I continue my comments later, when this bill is back.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just before I start, by way of introductions, I should say that we have Les MacLaren, who is an assistant deputy minister in the electricity and alternative energy division. Behind me I have Bev Van Ruyven, the executive VP of customer care and conservation. Behind me on my left I have David Wong, a chief accounting officer for B.C. Hydro, and my deputy minister, Greg Reimer.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to once again take my place and participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

At the outset, to Ms. Van Ruyven and B.C. Hydro, I'd like to extend the opposition's sympathy for the passing of Dirk Rozenboom and Robert Lehmann in the tragic accident in Cranbrook. I would wish that she could take that back to B.C. Hydro, to the entire family there. Certainly, we'll be sending our condolences to the families directly.

A terrible tragedy, and I know that the minister and all of the staff at B.C. Hydro are grieving at that loss. We on this side of the House share in that loss. When people go to work every day, we want them to be coming home safe and sound. When they don't, that's a genuine tragedy for all British Columbians.

With that, I want to thank again, also, the many, many staff from the ministry who participate annually in this process. It's designed, as you know, to put some rigour into the work of governments in the areas of energy, mining, oil and gas, and the various Crown corporations that the minister and the minister of state are responsible for.

Again, our job on this side of the House is to ensure that questions are asked in a pointed way, and the estimates process provides us with an opportunity to put those questions and have a genuine debate. Quite often in the Legislature we have speeches. We don't have debate. Estimates is a good time for that, and I look forward to the next number of hours as the minister and I and some of my colleagues enter into that discussion.

I'd like to start with B.C. Hydro and the notion of self-sufficiency. We had legislation passed in this session. I believe we can now speak about it, since it's been given royal assent. The notion of self-sufficiency…. The minister speaks about it at length. B.C. Hydro is pursuing a course of self-sufficiency.

My first question to the minister would be: do the minister and B.C. Hydro consider the downstream benefits, the entitlement from the Columbia River treaty, as a provincial resource?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I remember the discussion well, over a number of hours, in regards to self-sufficiency. Although that electricity is generated in the U.S. — the downstream benefits — it's sold by Powerex on behalf of all British Columbians and is returned to the province of British Columbia to provide all the vital services that it does. So it will not be part of what we call self-sufficiency.

J. Horgan: Why would the government of British Columbia, in a time of apparent shortage, not consider an asset that belongs to the people of British Columbia, although generated elsewhere? This isn't a contractual obligation between two parties. This is an international treaty and an obligation that transcends traditional business relationships.

Why wouldn't the people of British Columbia expect that resource, which we own, to be considered part of a local asset?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think the member knows the answer to this question as well as I do. It's because those contracts are up in 2024. Ten years prior to when they expire, either party has to give notice to renegotiate. It's on the strength of that renegotiation that we may be able to continue to have those or that we may not continue to have those.

It wouldn't be advisable to put that into the mix, to actually call that British Columbia self-sufficient.

J. Horgan: My calendar tells me 2024 is after 2016. If the government's stated objective is self-sufficiency by that date, couldn't we achieve that within the terms of this recent negotiation with the United States?

I'm assuming, also…. I know that the minister can't be as flexible as a member of the opposition, but I can't imagine Bonneville Power Administration and the United States government not wanting to in some way renegotiate the Columbia River treaty. Maybe I'm stretching here, but if we change the terms and conditions of that treaty, the impact on Washington, Oregon and, in fact, the entire Pacific Northwest of the United States is going to be significant.

I ask again: why wouldn't we want to have that energy — I believe it's 4,000 gigawatts — at our disposal as a Crown asset to be sold to B.C. Hydro to meet the self-sufficiency requirements?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said in the beginning — and I'm sure the member is aware of this, as I am — we said self-sufficiency within the borders of the province of British Columbia. Electricity generated outside the borders of British Columbia is certainly not going to be included.

I am not going to speculate on what will happen in those negotiations as that moves forward, I hope, for the benefit of the province of British Columbia. I can only assume that Hydro will negotiate and the province will negotiate. We work very closely with B.C. Hydro on these types of issues. We will continue to negotiate that kind of power from the Columbia River treaty as something that is in response to the treaty that was negotiated many years ago.

So I'm not saying that no, they won't be there anymore. I'm saying that's a matter of negotiation, and you can't set out today what negotiation could take place in 2014. We can set out the parameters of what we'd like to see happen and what we want to see happen, but we can't actually set out what could happen.

It's very simple. If it's not generated in the borders of British Columbia, it's not part of self-sufficiency in the province of British Columbia, much as we were self-sufficient for decades before that. In fact, we were over-self-sufficient for decades before that, not even including the Columbia River downstream benefits.

J. Horgan: I don't dispute the facts — that we used to have an abundance and that now things are tight.

Maybe I'll put this question, then. The representatives from Hydro can help me. What is the average cost of the independent power production electricity that we'll be receiving and paying for in 2010? What's the cost per megawatt hour?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, let me say to the member…. We've had this discussion before, and I'm happy to have it again. I don't care whether you build new generation in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Washington — wherever. You build it in the Pacific Northwest and in western Canada. The average that we would pay for that electricity today in British Columbia from any independent power producers would be almost the same. So new generation actually costs you more than generation that was built in the '60s and the '70s. I'm sure that the member knows that and realizes that.

You can't build generation today for 2.5 cents. You just can't. I don't care where you are. I don't care where you magically are. In fact, that won't happen in Washington, Oregon or California either. The costs will be higher to build new generation.

I know that the member wants to say that we're out there paying excessive rates for electricity that we're buying from independent power producers today. I would say that that's not in fact true. We're paying what it costs to actually generate that electricity or to build those facilities and generate it today.

That would be the same as if you build Site C. Guess what. You're not going to actually generate electricity out of Site C for two cents. It's not going to happen. Site C, even though it would be built by the province, managed by the province, operated by the province, would magically cost you a little bit more than what we actually have to pay for the generation that happened and was built 30 or 40 years ago.

That is in fact true. Whether government builds it or whether the independent power producers build it, it's going to cost you more today than it did to build in the '60s and the '70s, and that's going to be reflected in the prices. I'm sure that the member is well aware of that.

I know the political route that the NDP is trying to go on this, and I appreciate that. We can stand here and argue that for as long as we want, because it costs you more to build it today than it did in the '70s. Most British Columbians that I know of understand that. When I talk to British Columbians around the province, they quite understand that.

You can't buy a 2008 Malibu for the same price that you paid for it in 1968. It just doesn't quite work that way. Now, it might work that way in some rationales and in some thoughts. Some people may think that, but that's not exactly how it goes.

On average, Hydro is paying about $60 for electricity that is has contracts for today. To extrapolate out to 2010 is, again, a certain estimate. We'll have to wait until we see what happens in 2010 — for what prices Hydro gets in 2010.

J. Horgan: Let's try this. On the revenue requirement application of the B.C. Utilities Commission, the question was asked: "What attrition is assumed for the fiscal 2006 call in fiscal 2010, and what is the assumed purchase volume and cost? If only half the volume was available and this amount was replaced by market purchases in 2010, what would be the net impact on revenue requirement?"

That was the question. That was the question put to you at the Utilities Commission, and this is the response from B.C. Hydro. I know it will be interesting to those in this place and certainly to those watching at home. This is B.C. Hydro responding, not the opposition, not radical environmentalists, not anyone else.

It's B.C. Hydro, and they say the following: "If only half of the fiscal 2006 call volume was purchased from the IPPs in 2010 and the other half was replaced by market purchases, the energy cost in fiscal 2010 would decrease by $17.9 million, with a corresponding reduction in B.C. Hydro's revenue requirements."

What that is saying is that if you used the tools available to you at B.C. Hydro, if you used the market to provide the resource to British Columbians, you would save $18 million. That's not me saying that. That's B.C. Hydro saying that.

Again, my question to the minister is: what is the average cost per megawatt hour of the independent power production that we're anticipating to purchase for 2010?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've been very clear. We're not going to depend on other jurisdictions to keep our lights on. You may want to do that, and that may be NDP policy. You may want to see those jobs and those investments happen in Washington and Oregon and Alberta, and that may be what you're advocating for.

One day you want jobs in British Columbia; the next day you don't want jobs in British Columbia. One day you want investment in British Columbia, and the next day you don't, when it comes to electricity. In the province of British Columbia we want to be self-sufficient.

The member smiles at jobs. That's interesting. That's very interesting. I hear from those members daily in the afternoon that jobs are important. Well, let me tell you that they're bloody important to this guy, and they're important to this government. So we want those jobs to happen in British Columbia.

You're assuming, when you say we should depend on the market for all of our shortfalls for now and forever…. If you look at what the expected growth is going to be in consumption of electricity in the province of British Columbia, you could be depending for maybe up to 40

Do you think those other jurisdictions are always going to be cheap? They have some cheap power today or some relatively low-cost power, just like we do. But there is a distinct difference between this government and that opposition, and it is that we want to actually be able to keep our own lights on without having to, at some point in time, maybe beg someone for some electricity to keep our lights on. If we get to 45 percent of that electricity coming from another jurisdiction, I don't think that makes good sense.

This does not curtail B.C. Hydro from actually trading electricity, buying and selling on the market, as they have done for years. But the distinct difference is…. You can run around with the numbers all you want. It's very clear. It costs you more to build generation today than it did in the 1960s.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You might say, "Wow," and you might laugh at the fact that…. You know what? If you want to depend on the United States for electricity…. If you actually want to depend on another jurisdiction to keep your lights on, you can have that policy.

You can say: "We don't want those jobs in the province of British Columbia." You can say: "We don't want that investment." I'll go back maybe to some of the quotes, without digging them out of my book. The member says quite clearly and has been on record as saying, on behalf of the NDP that of course we should be paying more for renewables. Those are your words: "Of course we should pay more for renewables."

I tend to agree, but the policy of actually depending on other jurisdictions for a good part of our electricity is not a policy of this side of the government. We actually want to be self-sufficient. We want to be able to have enough electricity, as we move forward, to keep our own lights on, and I think that's a good policy to have.

The members opposite may laugh at that, and they can go ahead and laugh at that. They can make fun of it if they want. But let me tell you that in polls that have been done, over 90 percent of the public says: "We want to be self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia with electricity." So I can't imagine why the member opposite would like to throw in all kinds of little things so we shouldn't be self-sufficient.

You can go out and have that policy. You can have that policy, a job, someplace else. I'll continue to remind you of that as we move forward if you want to continue down this path.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm not continuing down a path. I'm reading from the revenue requirement application of the Crown corporation that we're discussing right now. That Crown corporation says that if we cross our fingers and hope that the IPP attrition rate is 50 percent, the taxpayers, the ratepayers at B.C. Hydro, will save 18 million bucks.

J. Horgan: It's not me. If the cheerleader from West Vancouver–Garibaldi wants to participate in the debate, I welcome that.

My questions are fairly candid, fairly pointed. This isn't rhetoric. This is the corporation that we're discussing right now. They're saying to the Utilities Commission, the regulator, that we would save $18 million just in this call. We're not even thinking about 2016. This is right now, today — $18 million.

That's not trivial. That's not insignificant. That's not rhetoric. Those are hard numbers — not from me, from the person sitting behind you.

I ask again: what is the cost going to be to get to 2016? How much will we spend to subsidize independent power in this province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, we're not subsidizing independent power. It's a cute little term of yours — subsidizing independent power. You may not like it, but you are on record as saying that you support small projects across the province to be built now. The only thing you would rather have is that the Crown build them.

That's the total difference. When you really come down to the nuts and bolts of this, it's about whether the Crown should build them….

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to get into the discussion and you want to holler from the corners, go ahead.

The person who has the floor has the floor to speak. Can we make sure all comments are directed through the Chair, and no interruptions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have any problem arguing with this — that we should be self-sufficient in British Columbia, that building new generation today actually costs more than it did 30 years ago. The public understands that. The NDP may not.

I understand that the NDP is on record as saying: "Yes, we agree that all those small projects should be built, but they should be built by the Crown rather than independent power producers."

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to get in, you can stand up and ask some questions, Member. Other than that, usually in this room we maintain it to a back-and-forth between the critic and myself.

On one hand, you say that it's okay to build them. Let me tell you that if the Crown builds them, it's going

to cost you about the same kind of money. It's not going to be much different. In fact, it might even be a little bit more. I'm not going to bet on that, but it might be a little bit more. That same cost is going to come back to the Crown corporation. The same cost for electricity will come back as if the private sector builds those projects.

Now, I know you don't like the private sector. That's clear. That's been made clear to me by the NDP over the last 16 or 17 years that I've been here. I know you don't like the private sector. Well, maybe I shouldn't say that, because I want to go back to the '90s, when there were a number of projects built in the province of British Columbia.

There are all kinds of quotes, Member, from the NDP at that time about how independent power producers were going to generate all of this new electricity in the province. I only need to take the member to Campbell River, to the largest 250-some-megawatt plant. It runs on natural gas. That project was built during the 1990s.

The Chair: Members. Members, the minister has the floor. Everybody will get their opportunity to ask questions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In fact, if you go back to that project, the NDP…. Glen Clark — you all know Glen Clark; everybody in this room knows Glen Clark — talked about how great this would be. Dan Miller, the minister, talked about how great it would be.

I'll tell you how great it was. You wrote a letter to the BCUC and said: "We are directing B.C. Hydro to build this project." You didn't even go through a Utilities Commission hearing on that project.

In fact, it was an American company. Nothing wrong with American companies. It was called Calpine. It has changed ownership, but you negotiated with an American independent power producer to build a plant at Campbell River that burned natural gas, where you had the ratepayers take on the cost of the provision of natural gas to that plant forever.

I believe that today we're paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $90 or $95 from that plant because of that wisdom in the mid-1990s. That was something that…. In fact, there's lots of it. Paul Ramsey, the previous Minister of Finance, talked incessantly about how great this was for British Columbia and Vancouver Island.

Today you're taking a different tack. I can understand that. You were an adviser during that time. Today you're elected. Now you want to say: "Well, we shouldn't have anyone" — you're not even saying U.S.; you're saying anyone — "build any generation in the province of British Columbia other than B.C. Hydro."

That's the ideological difference between this side and that side. We actually believe that independent power producers can go out there and build those smaller plants as reasonably as the Crown can, and we have the Crown actually working on other projects.

The Chair: No? Okay. Then we'll save our comments. I just want to point out that each person has a fixed time of 15 minutes in which to answer or ask questions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you want to actually continue and you want to buy it from the United States — all your electricity, all the shortfall that could happen in British Columbia with the growth that we're receiving now — you guys can fill your boots. Not this government.

This government says that we want to generate it here in the province of British Columbia. We want the investment here in British Columbia. We want the jobs in British Columbia. You can advocate for those to be someplace else, Member. That's okay. That clear distinction I'll take out on the trail in the election any day of the week.

J. Horgan: The cheerleader is happy, so I'll ask the question again. You have staff here. You have experts in this area. We had a discussion. We were going to keep the rhetoric to a minimum. We have a short period of time, a quarter of the time we had last year, to do a lot of work.

According to the Crown corporation, $18 million this year — $18 million, if 50 percent of the call doesn't come through…. My question is simple. To meet the requirement that has been set now by statute at 2016, what will the cost be relative to what it could have been on the open market?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate what you said. Actually, I don't mind answering questions, but if we want to get into the hypothetical part of it, I'm going to take the time that's required for me to put out the difference between the NDP and ourselves.

Today the market is 90 bucks. I just got that from B.C. Hydro. The member forgets — maybe doesn't forget but doesn't want to recall — that at one point in time in California it was a thousand bucks a megawatt hour. Those are huge…. I mean, $90 isn't abnormal, but the thousand is a huge number. We don't want to get to that.

The answer is…. I'm not going to speculate out to 2016, and neither is B.C. Hydro, for the benefit of what you want to figure out. You go out and figure out what you want to, of what more it would cost to buy off the market. We are simply saying that by 2016 we want to generate enough electricity in the province, within the

borders of British Columbia, to look after our needs. We will continue to trade on the market with the U.S., to buy and sell to the benefit of British Columbians, but we want to be able, just like we were in the '80s, to have enough electricity to keep our lights on in the province of British Columbia.

There is nothing wrong with that — not a thing. If that creates jobs and investment in the province of British Columbia, which it obviously will, I'm all for that. You can actually advocate for jobs and investment in other jurisdictions. I will continue to advocate for jobs and investment in the province.

J. Horgan: Well, if the market rate today is 90 bucks, why on April 23 did B.C. Hydro say that they could save potentially $18 million by using the market? Why did they give that answer?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, magically, the markets change. Actually, I think they change on an hourly basis. They change on a daily basis. I think Powerex would tell you that they change by the minute in some cases. That's the market. That's how you deal with that.

It's the same with natural gas. One day it's one price; the next day it's another. The member knows that. It doesn't stay consistent forever for year over year. Oil just a year ago certainly wasn't 125 bucks, what it is today. Markets change.

J. Horgan: So then, the answer that the Crown corporation gave the regulator three weeks ago is wrong.

Hon. R. Neufeld: What happens is that we need to build generation in the province of British Columbia.

I'll tell you, Member, you can continue to advocate for every other jurisdiction. Last I checked, you were elected in the province of British Columbia. You should actually start thinking about British Columbia. You should start thinking about a province that's great, a province that has huge opportunity moving forward, instead of advocating for those other jurisdictions. It just amazes me that we would have an NDP member stand in this House and advocate for every other jurisdiction but the province of British Columbia when it comes to jobs and investments.

I started out this conversation saying that, yes, it costs you more to build generation today than what it did in the 1960s. And you know, every British Columbian understands that except maybe the members on the other side of the House; I'm not sure. What we will continue to do is meet a target of being self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia by 2016, and we'll meet that target.

J. Horgan: What are we selling the downstream benefits for today — the 1,000 megawatts of capacity and the 4,000 gigawatt hours of electricity?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll give you the total. For last year it was $305 million. On a daily basis…. I mean, you're asking something that would be sold on a little bit of a forward basis. I don't know. But what Powerex, and what B.C. Hydro, attempts to do for the benefit of all British Columbians is to sell that electricity at the highest price they can possibly get. It's similar to what you guys did.

J. Horgan: In 2002, responding to a question on a television program with respect to independent power, the minister said the following: "What we want to make sure is that independent power producers were out there and to get a competitive playing field out there to get enough of them bidding against one another about plants they can build. That's how you get a good price. If B.C. Hydro is in there competing against them, it seems a bit unfair that a corporation the size of B.C. Hydro is bidding against someone who wants to generate small, run-of-the-river programs."

So that was the policy thrust. That was the intent. Say to B.C. Hydro: "Don't go down this road. We want to create a market here for independent power." That's fair enough. That was the prerogative of the minister, and I have no quarrel with that.

But that was six years ago. We've had little or no input in terms of electricity to the grid from independent power to meet the needs that the minister says that we have, and I agree that we have. So I'm curious as to why, in the shareholder letter to the corporation in 2006, the minister said the following: "Through its subsidiary Powerex, actively pursue extra-parliamentary energy trading markets and explore and identify opportunities to facilitate access for independent power producers to western North American markets."

Again, my question to the minister…. I'm not being rhetorical here. I'm asking a policy question that I would like an answer to. British Columbians will benefit from the minister's response and that of the staff around him. In 2002 we set on a course to create a market for independent power. The government alleges that that market will supply our domestic needs, but in 2006 the minister wrote to the Crown, as the shareholder, and said that Powerex should find markets for export of this independent power.

So are we generating electricity on the independent power side to export for more profits for those private companies, or are we generating independent power to meet our domestic needs, or are we trying to do both?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just to go back a bit, we're not actually depending on…. I know this is the message that some have taken out there, that we're depending on IPPs for all of our growth. We are actively reviewing Site C to look at whether that's an option. It would be an interesting one for me to hear from the members of the opposition whether they would be in favour of that or not.

But in fact, we're doing that. We're in stage 2 on that. Hydro has, in the 2002 energy plan…. Although it's been said many times that they've been curtailed from

any new generation, that's not entirely true. They're actively doing one new generator in Revelstoke. There's the opportunity for another one in Revelstoke. There's the opportunity for two other generators in Mica that Hydro is actually looking at. It's called Resource Smart. It's looking at Aberfeldie. It's looking at W.A.C. Bennett dam to increase production of the W.A.C. Bennett dam, using the same amount of water, and all of those processes.

So we're looking at actually getting to self-sufficiency not just with IPPs but with the Crown actually doing what it can do. Now, Site C will come after 2016 if, in fact, it went ahead. I appreciate that. But at the end of the day, there are fluctuations in water, and the member also knows this. It happens all the time. Sometimes when you have low water to high water to medium water, you don't have the amount of electricity in your system that you'd like to have.

What we've asked is for Hydro to actually look at self-sufficiency with critical water. That means low water. That means that if we run into that problem…. If we have critical water, you can almost bet the other places that generate electricity with water will have the same kind of problems we do. What we need to do is look at that in that fashion to move forward, to become self-sufficient.

I just want to correct on the record. I quickly got a number from Hydro. The $305 million is the estimated '09-10. In the revenues from the Canadian entitlement for…. I think the member asked for '07-08. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah. It was $230 million. So there's a bit of a difference there, but that's what's estimated in '09-10.

J. Horgan: My question to the minister was: has he directed, or has his government directed, B.C. Hydro, through its subsidiary Powerex, to find markets for independent power export?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We need to actually get self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia by 2016. That's our goal. That will put us in a position, actually, of sometimes having extra electricity and sometimes not. What we want to do is make sure that we're sufficient. In high water years — and maybe I didn't explain it well enough, and I apologize for that — we'd have extra electricity, so there would have to be some sold on the market. If an independent power producer actually wanted to build a plant in the province of British Columbia and sell electricity, they may actually want to contract with Powerex to do that.

I'll take you back to a time when Glen Clark said: "We opened up the transmission lines. We've approved IPPs. If they want to build a project in the province of British Columbia, we welcome them to build that project in the province of British Columbia. We've opened up the lines. They can send the energy through those lines, and they can sell their energy wherever they want." What we're doing is actually with Hydro. With the call for electricity, they will sell that electricity to the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro has entered into load curtailment contracts with some heavy industry in British Columbia, at a cost, as I understand it, of $27 per kilowatt hour. This compares to what the Canadian entitlement would be. I'm wondering if Hydro, in its calculations with respect to these load curtailment contracts, contemplated using the downstream benefits for the entitlement to play the grid more effectively.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Of course, Hydro does enter into curtailment agreements with large industrial customers for peak purposes. That's not new. That's always done and has been done for probably as long as Hydro's been around.

They have to meet a peak. To meet that peak, if you have to curtail some large customers, you have to let them know when that would happen. They would also use the downstream benefits in those cases if in fact they couldn't curtail enough to actually meet that peak demand at that period of time.

I should put on the record that I misspoke last time. I said that the IPPs would be selling to government. That's not true. The IPPs are selling to B.C. Hydro.

J. Horgan: I'm glad that we're now into a back-and-forth here. I appreciate that, Minister, because I've got a lot to talk about.

I wonder if the minister could comment on…. Going back to the downstream benefits, because he's now used that. Hydro does recognize this as a resource that they can access in crunch times, difficult times, peak times when we may not — low water years, whatever the situation might be…. I know that that's commonsense, practical, good operations by the Crown corporation, and all British Columbians would expect that.

I'm going to go back. I don't want to get into a long discussion on this, but British Columbians need to understand that the downstream benefits belong to them. It's a provincial resource. It's a provincial asset. It belongs to us by treaty for at least the next 16 years. So why wouldn't we look at that and view that in terms of trying to keep our costs down for ratepayers? This is all about the people that are paying the bills, the people that elected you and me.

Why wouldn't we look at that asset as a provincial resource and use it to supplement and complement the desire to get to self-sufficiency by 2016, and at that time start looking at other options — you've mentioned Site C — to meet our needs? It strikes me that that's not an ideological perspective. It's a commonsense, practical perspective. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Exactly. Hydro optimizes the system to keep the rates as low as they possibly can by selling on the market, which they are not curtailed of

doing, and buying on the market. That is to actually keep the rates down in the province of British Columbia, and we will continue to do that.

But for the benefit of all British Columbians, the downstream benefits that should flow to all British Columbians, not just the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, are the benefits that come with actually selling that electricity at as high a price as we possibly can. If you use that rationale…. The member is saying that if we do that, then we should take it in at a really high price, because that's how you'd have to account for it. They can sell is on the market for a high rate.

Actually, to be perfectly candid, Member, we started receiving Columbia River downstream benefits back to the province of British Columbia in 1998-99. It goes over time in a percentage, depending on when the dams were finished, of how much comes back — but 1998-99, '99-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The previous government did exactly what we're doing — no different. They actually sold it on the market in the U.S. to get the best dollar that they could for that electricity.

I think there was a period of time where they tried a Power for Jobs issue. Actually, it wasn't a very successful process, to be honest, that the NDP tried. They were going to give really cheap power to those industries that were experiencing some kind of economic problems or some financial problems. So you were going to take that electricity…. And I know the Power for Jobs because I had to deal with it when I was appointed minister.

You didn't sell that electricity at the highest rate to keep the rates low or to keep services in the province of British Columbia. What you did say was that you were going to bring it back and sell it to a few corporations, companies, at a real, real cheap rate. What you thought they could do was produce jobs. Well, they didn't produce very many jobs, and we lost some money through that process. B.C. Hydro did.

We've said a little bit different. We're not going to do that. We're not going to pick winners and losers. We're actually going to have Hydro, through Powerex, sell that electricity, the downstream benefits, south of the border for the best dollar we can get to provide services to the people in the province of British Columbia, such as the $230 million that came through in '07-08. We'll continue to do that.

We will continue to actually look towards being self-sufficient, because if we're not being self-sufficient we'll be subject to that market, which could do anything. One day it could be low, and the next day it could be really high. We don't want to have that. We actually want to have something stable, and by being self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia, I think we can be a little bit more stable than if we depend on some other fictitious market out there, south of the border or to the east of us.

Those jurisdictions are growing too. Last I read, I think they were saying that in Alberta they need another, I don't know, 10,000 or 11,000 megawatts of electricity relatively quickly. That means that their rates are higher than ours. It's at nighttime that you can buy it a little cheaper. We'll continue to do that the best way we possibly can for the ratepayers.

J. Horgan: Well, times change. Governments come and go. Politicians come and go. With electricity, the rates they go up; they go down. Today is 2008. We're looking forward to 2016 and, with respect to the Canadian entitlement, at 2024.

So as much as I know the minister likes to spend time in the previous century…. I may well have been a government employee at that time. Today I'm the critic for this area, and I have questions looking forward. We can talk in the coffee shop or in the restaurant or in the corridor all you want about the 1990s. We can have that debate. It's counterproductive for the people of B.C. to do that.

If you want to tar me with the sins of the past, I accept them all right now unequivocally and unreservedly. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca is personally responsible for all the sins of the world before 2001, and it's been pure sailing ever since. If that makes the minister happy….

J. Horgan: The minister and I agree on that. There seems to be additional absolution required in this instance. I'll take responsibility for all the misdeeds of the past.

Let's now, if we can, Minister, in the few hours we have left, take a look at the future. In doing so, I want to look at public policy as the river that it is — flowing down, seeing new ports as it goes, new opportunities, new challenges, new constraints. The downstream benefits are an enormous resource to the people of British Columbia. It may well have been misused in the past; it may well be misused in the future.

My contention, however, is that if we're selling the power anyway, why wouldn't we sell it to B.C. Hydro? Why wouldn't we sell that entitlement to B.C. Hydro? Take the revenue from that, and put it to the good uses that it's going to now — health care, education, other programs for British Columbians. We would all benefit from that.

But what would the differential be? What are the economics of bringing it back, providing power that is ours — if not generated here, certainly a result of water flowing from this place? That's the whole essence of the treaty. It's as a result of British Columbia that the power is generated. It belongs to us.

Why not sell it to B.C. Hydro? Why not take that thousand megawatts and put it to good use? Why not do that? I don't understand why. Perhaps my question to the minister is…. Let's be flexible.

I'd like to hear the minister say that the government is prepared to look at all options to meet our domestic requirements, including the downstream benefits, including a mix of IPPs, including generation, not just at existing assets like Revelstoke and Mica, but also looking at Site C with the view to a Columbia Basin Trust model, where first nations, communities and others benefit from any of the upside of proceeding with Site C.

It's a question of common sense. I know the minister agrees with me that the people who sent us here don't want to hear us talking about all of the misdeeds of the past or me accusing the minister of some nefarious plot to destroy British Columbia. I know he's not doing that. He knows that I don't want to do that.

Let's just focus, if we can, on this valuable asset. Why are we not using it to maximize the benefits to British Columbians, not necessarily in dollars to the treasury, but in terms of trying to reduce the additional costs of buying small projects, going into watersheds where communities are disrupted?

The minister knows this. I'm not making this up. There are a lot of people out in the woods that are unhappy when the independent power producers come calling. Some are excited; some are not. There's a divided community on this question, and I'm suggesting that a safe public policy course would be having a mixed and balanced plan.

I'm wondering if the minister has contemplated that. If so, has Hydro done any number crunching to determine what the net benefit would be to bringing some of the downstream benefits back to slow down or offset the creation of some of these IPPs that, in some communities, are hostilely received?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I'd suggest we are looking to the future. At least one party in this House is looking to the future. How we're looking to the future is totally different from that side of the House. We're looking to the future of actually having enough electricity to keep our own lights on. That's not a bad future. That's actually a bright future. That's one that I think every British Columbian — in fact, 90 percent of them, in polling — said they could relate to.

I don't want to look to something that says, "I'm not sure what's going to happen, but I'm going to depend on these downstream benefits for our self-sufficiency up until 2014," and then all of a sudden something in 2024 starts changing, unless the member has a crystal ball. I mean, he says he can't imagine it ever changing. I don't know whether it'll ever change. That's a matter of negotiation.

That's like going into a negotiation about wages, saying, "Hey, I'm gonna get ten bucks," but at the end of the day you get five. I don't know. Those are negotiations that take place. Thinking about the future is thinking about actually being self-sufficient.

I've heard the member talk about W.A.C. Bennett — how great he was, thinking about the future. I've heard all of you speak in the House about how great W.A.C. Bennett was in building all those dams and actually a great future for the province of British Columbia and having all this excess electricity.

Well, we're not even just talking about having excess electricity. We're just trying to say that what we need to do is meet our own needs in a time of critical water. So that's looking to the future, Member. What we want to do also….

I mean, the fact that you say…. Well, you know, so we don't take that $230 million into general revenue that goes to all the services that the member asks for and I ask for. We're no different. Every one of us asks for all those services through government that that $230 million actually provides. It helps a whole bunch. So you have to take that out of the equation and figure out how you're going to make that up.

It's just a difference in philosophy, Member. We think we should be self-sufficient. You don't. It's that clear. We're going to move forward to self-sufficiency. That's what we've asked the Crown to do. By 2016 we want to be self-sufficient within the province of British Columbia. You can take your own route and be self-sufficient with, actually, depending on other jurisdictions, but we think that we should be self-sufficient in the province.

J. Horgan: Well, we're not self-sufficient in ferry construction, and that's unfortunate for people in a marine community like mine. Living on an island, you'd like to think that if you're going to pick something to be self-sufficient in, it might be something that would be beneficial to shipbuilders in North Vancouver and here on Vancouver Island.

But I'll move on, because it's quite clear that we disagree on a lot of stuff, and we've got a lot of stuff to disagree on before the day is done. I'll move on to the consolidated summary financial statements from the Public Accounts, March 2007.

In that document we will find — and I'm sure that the V-P is thumbing through — self-supported Crown corporations and agencies, B.C. Hydro energy purchase contracts, $28.4 billion. I'm wondering if the minister could explain or disaggregate that number for me so I can better understand where in the world we're going to get $28 billion and who we're going to give it to.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That number — the $28.4 billion — is, I'm informed, the '06 call for a total of 38 contracts that energy purchase agreements were signed with, assuming that all 38 contracts were built for the length, for the term, of their contract, which is 40 years. So had Hydro built those projects, that number probably wouldn't have changed that much at all either.

J. Horgan: Of those 38 contracts, two were for coal generation. I'm wondering if the minister could update this committee on the status of those projects in Princeton and Tumbler Ridge.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The one in the northeast…. Actually, that contract has been cancelled by the company. The one in Princeton, where B.C. Hydro is negotiating to see if that cannot be a straight biomass…. It was actually projected to be a 50-50 — 50 percent coal and 50 percent biomass — when it bid into the project. What we're trying to do is see if there's enough biomass in the area that that plant can still be built but burn all biomass. In fact, I just received a letter from the mayor asking how that project was going and hopeful that it can happen.

J. Horgan: Was there a cost to the Crown for the cancellation of the northeast contract?

J. Horgan: I'd like to move now to the procure-to-pay project that was underway in mid-2007. The minister will know that a fairness commissioner was hired to oversee the final phase of that process. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me who the winning bidder was for the procure-to-pay project and what the cost of that contract was.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Deloitte Touche. The cost is about $15 million, and it's over three years.

J. Horgan: Can the minister confirm that Deloitte Touche participated in the terms of reference for the first two portions and for the creation of the final RFP?

J. Horgan: So Deloitte Touche developed the terms of reference. B.C. Hydro hired a fairness commissioner to ensure that the process for procurement — which is, of course, significant at a Crown of the size of B.C. Hydro — was as clean as possible, as transparent as possible and without any appearance of bias.

That fairness commissioner suggested that Deloitte and Touche, having participated in the terms of reference, should have had, at the minimum, a Chinese wall between those who prepared the terms and those who bid on the RFP. That fairness commissioner was fired. Deloitte Touche was successful and gained a contract for $15 million. Is that the fact pattern?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro followed the advice. I'm going to read this so I don't paraphrase it wrong. B.C. Hydro followed the advice of this consultant "every step of the way and made changes at his direction." In fact, Mr. Asner's own report says again and again that he is satisfied with all of the steps B.C. Hydro had taken in the procurement-to-pay project.

I'll give you some examples of the quotes from his report. "This is an acceptable resolution of this pre-existing issue," and "I believe that this issue is resolved." As I understand, all of the information was available to everyone.

J. Horgan: Did the same consultants, the same individuals from Deloitte Touche who participated in the creation of the terms of reference, also participate in the final RFP?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. All the information had been made available to everyone. No information was withheld.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We don't have that exact number. I can ask the staff to get it, but I'm told that it's anywhere from three to six.

J. Horgan: Well, one would think that if you hire a fairness commissioner…. Let me carry on. Has Hydro hired a fairness commissioner to address the second phase of the outgoing commissioner's contract, that being the smart metering and infrastructure project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Ferax Consulting Corp. is the monitor on the smart meters project.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll get the exact date, and I'll forward that to the member. Someone should be writing this down so that we make sure we get it to the member as soon as we possibly can. The time frame is somewhere in the last one or two months. That's kind of an average. I don't want the member to think that's exactly true, but we will get the exact date to you.

J. Horgan: I'll move off the smart meters for a time and just go back to the procure-to-pay project. As I understand it, it was a significant undertaking — one that Hydro put a lot of resources into, in the interest of ensuring to contractors and other service providers that there would be a fair, open and transparent process at the end. As I understand the fact pattern, it didn't actually go that way.

A commissioner was hired after, in August of 2007. The project was well advanced at that point. When the consultant that was hired advised senior managers that they had a difficult situation, a potential conflict between the creator of the terms of reference and one of the bidders in the RFP, the result was that his services were no longer required.

I know that the minister is trying to digest this information, so I'll talk a little bit longer so that he can get through it. The challenge for the public is that there is an expectation that these processes will be open and transparent and will ensure that all contracts — particularly a contract of $15 million — are done in such a way that all citizens, or all those with expertise, have an opportunity to participate.

I'm told that the number of people that expressed an interest in the RFP was significant. The number of people who participated — after they learned that Deloitte Touche wrote the terms of reference and that Deloitte Touche was participating in the RFP — dwindled down to one or two. As the minister knows, the perception of fairness is almost as important as the fairness itself.

I'll ask the minister if he could get a straight answer for me on how it is that a company that wrote the terms could get the contract, with the same contractors doing both. It seems to me on the surface to be an apparent conflict. I would appreciate, and I know ratepayers would appreciate, a fulsome answer to that question.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I totally agree. I mean, Hydro, certainly the same as government, would want to go through a process that's as transparent as it can possibly be, for the ratepayers of the province of British Columbia and for all of us — both the opposition and government.

This was probably a different, not process, but…. Some other things came up here. They wanted to make sure that they included everyone that could actually give a bid into this process, so that they got the best value for the province of British Columbia but were transparent.

That's why I said earlier that Mr. Asner agreed that all the things that Hydro had done were aboveboard and that they released all the information — not only that Deloitte Touche would have had, but all the information that they would have had. It had gone to other people that were bidding into the process, so that they could be as open and transparent as they possibly could.

Media reports — the numbers, and I know staff will have this — at the time of Mr. Asner's departure suggest, through a communications…. Mr. Vanagas, who I think is familiar to government, said in The Vancouver Sun that 22 companies requested copies of the RFP. Six vendors participated in a workshop. I think that attrition rate is probably reasonable, but once those six learned that Deloitte Touche was among them, that Deloitte Touche wrote the terms and that Deloitte Touche was participating, only two companies opted to submit proposals.

I would think that that would be a cause for concern for government and for the minister responsible, that a process as important as procurement in government…. I mean, it's the whole thing. Jurisdictions around the world are hoisted for…. And I want to be absolutely clear. I'm not suggesting anything when I say this, but internationally, in other jurisdictions, procurement is usually the issue that trips up those who are inclined to be put in positions of discomfort.

I want to stress that I'm not suggesting anything when I say that, but it's a touchy, sensitive issue, and I would assume that that is why Hydro hired a fairness commissioner.

My question is: why wouldn't Hydro have hired the fairness commissioner at the front end rather than three-quarters of the way through the project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I wasn't listening to the whole question, but as I have here, 22 firms requested a copy, and six potential vendors attended. By the closing of the RFP on September 18, B.C. Hydro had received three submissions.

What I want to say, and as I said earlier, is that B.C. Hydro would attempt to do everything that they possibly could aboveboard to get the best…. I think the member agrees with me totally that they're not out there to actually increase costs for the ratepayers of the province of British Columbia. I think Hydro has always operated in the best interests of British Columbians to actually keep their rates as low as possible, but sometimes some of these things get to be a little difficult to deal with.

One thing I would like to read back into the record again for the member and also for the record is that Mr. Asner's own report — and I'm going to read this verbatim — "says again and again that he is satisfied with all the steps B.C. Hydro had taken in the procure-to-pay project."

In his report that he gave to B.C. Hydro, he, in fact, said everything was done fair and aboveboard. As the fairness commissioner… I think I take that as some comfort that actually what they did was fair. Perception is the rule, and I agree with the member there, but at the end of the day, I think Hydro came out with the best project for the ratepayers of the province.

J. Horgan: I'm going to try and say what I said earlier in a less convoluted way. In other jurisdictions in the world, a contractor who participates in the creation of an RFP and then gets the RFP certainly leaves the perception of malfeasance, at a minimum.

When B.C. Hydro was putting together this program, an important program, they were well down the road, and someone said: "Why don't we get a fairness commissioner?" They were well advanced. I think Mr. Asner was hired in August of last year, and the contract was awarded in the fall. This is a big deal. A lot of work had gone into it.

Why the delay between starting the process, bringing in a commissioner…? And then when that commissioner says, "This doesn't quite look right; you need to take a few more steps," he's fired. Why did that happen?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll not disagree that the fairness commissioner was brought in later through the process. I can only assume that B.C. Hydro was starting to anticipate that there could be some difficulty with this. So they brought in the fairness commissioner.

No, the member's wrong. The fairness commissioner did not say it was wrong. The fairness commissioner's reports all say, and I'll read it again: "In fact, Mr. Asner's own report says again and again that he is satisfied with all the steps B.C. Hydro had taken in their procurement-to-pay project." An example of the quotes from his report is: "This is an acceptable resolution of the pre-existing issue, and I believe that this issue has been resolved."

Mr. Asner did actually qualify that. I can only assume that the member's talking about what Mr. Asner tried to do later. As I understand, when Mr. Asner left, he actually called B.C. Hydro from an airport and told Hydro he had changed his mind. That was after he deposited his report. Under no pressure from anyone, he deposited a report that said what I had said earlier, that everything was fair and aboveboard.

This actually caused some alarm at B.C. Hydro — which, rightfully so, it should. What they did was refer that to a legal firm to find out just what kind of liability that presented to the Crown. The legal firm, I believe, has come back and said that the process was fair, and Hydro has moved forward.

J. Horgan: Well, perhaps we're going to require a little bit more substance. I'll request that the minister provide a chronology of events on this, because we've now heard in open forum that Mr. Asner made a phone call from an airport. I don't know what relationship that has to the facts, but it certainly has a relationship to his reputation.

I know the minister can provide this. We've asked for it through FOI. I'm hopeful that at some point something will come. Maybe a chronology of Mr. Asner's experience with B.C. Hydro — when reports were presented, when letters following up on those reports were sent — so that the public can have a clear understanding of this, because the "he said, she said" doesn't benefit anyone. It certainly doesn't benefit the corporation, and it doesn't benefit the public. So through you, hon. Chair, if I could request that, we could move on to another series of issues.

But this is important. Procurement is fundamental, in my opinion, to government activity. We have auditors all over the place ensuring that everything we do is as aboveboard as possible. Direct-award contracts are just something that doesn't happen anymore. B.C. Hydro — I believe, with the best of intentions — set out to put in place a policy that was beyond the pale, and it appears that we've missed the mark somewhat on this. A clarification of the time line of Mr. Asner's participation — when the procure-to-pay program was initiated and when the final contract was delivered — would be beneficial, I think, to the public.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will commit to do that. I'm aware now that you asked for it through FOI. Fair enough. FOI has a process that they go through to actually release that information, and I guess in the fullness of time, FOI will release that information.

This is another one where we could have saved maybe 20 minutes or half an hour in estimates that are important and short in time to do, had the member given my office a call. We could have probably got that information for him. But I'm happy that he's actually asked it through FOI.

J. Horgan: I would like to now quickly move to smart meters. We've just passed a bill in this place exempting any B.C. Utilities Commission oversight over the implementation of the smart meters program. I have, again, documentation from the revenue requirement application, questions asked with respect to this. The question goes as follows: "Please provide any preliminary benefit-cost or business case analysis that underlies the current and planned expenditures on this initiative."

So that's the business plan, in essence, for this smart meter program. The response from Hydro was: "A preliminary business case has not been finalized or approved by the board of directors, and therefore is not provided." Now that question came on April 23, 2008. We passed legislation in advance of that date. We were in the Legislature, hon. Chair, you and I, voting on a piece of legislation about an expenditure that's estimated to be $900 million to a billion dollars to realize. According to B.C. Hydro, no business case has yet been presented to the board of directors.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows full well that the legislation that we put through is something to help the B.C. Utilities Commission. It went through the Utilities Commission Act that we would like to see the installation of smart meters, the same as Fortis is actually doing right now in the Fortis supply area. The business case for Hydro is not totally completed. It will be completed, and it will go to the B.C. Utilities Commission for them to review and make sure that everything is in order.

What we wanted to do — and the member knows this full well — is set out in the Utilities Commission Act…. We would expect that to happen, but the Utilities Commission will still have a review of it to make sure that the business case and the procurement of those smart meters actually are to the benefit of the province of British Columbia or of ratepayers in the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: So we have an estimated $900 million program that has not yet been approved by the board of directors. No preliminary business case has been finalized, according to B.C. Hydro.

Here I am, the pot calling the kettle black. I admonished the minister for going to the 1990s, but I'll go back there just for a minute and remind him of the howls when a stack of business cases this high for a convention centre was not enough — not enough. That may well be true. I don't want to dispute the facts, but I just want to remind the minister of the howls, because I think he was among the howlers. "Why would you proceed with anything without a business case?"

We're near a billion-dollar expenditure. Government is committed to it through legislation, we've debated it here in this House, and I hear today in estimates that B.C. Hydro doesn't have a business case to proceed with this. I know full well of the pilot projects. The minister participated. I had invited myself to participate in the project, and I'm not….

I want to be clear. I don't want the minister to say, "Oh, you're just against this," because I'm not. He would do the same thing were our roles reversed. If I was on that side and said, "We're going to spend $900 million, and we're working on it," he would howl at me. I would say, "You're right, Minister," in the corridor.

I wouldn't necessarily say it, as he is not going to right now, but it would certainly be within my right as a critic to say: what are you thinking? Why would you want to go down a course to spend almost a billion dollars without a business plan?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again I'll go back to the Utilities Commission debate we had, where we stated that there

is a demonstrated need for smart meters in the province of British Columbia. This isn't anything new. A lot of jurisdictions around the world are actually installing smart meters for a whole array of reasons.

What B.C. Hydro has to do — and they've done some preliminary work — is put together a solid business case that they take to their board of directors. They actually get approval of it there. The direction is already there in the Utilities Commission Act, and the Utilities Commission will review that report, that business case, to say whether or not it's prudent for the ratepayers. That's the route we're taking.

Again, I don't want to go back. I'm not going to go back to the 1990s. I'm going to say that this is looking to the future. This is looking to do something that actually will help ratepayers in British Columbia and will help the Crown maintain the rapid growth that we're seeing in electricity consumption across the province.

It will probably be, in many ways, completely beneficial to the Crown and to the ratepayers. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would be doing it in numerous other provinces, states and countries around the world.

So we need to actually look at that. They need to look at it prudently. They should take the time to do that before they take it to their board for approval. Then it will go to the B.C. Utilities Commission for their approval, whether it should go ahead or not.

B. Simpson: Just some questions on bioenergy, if I could, prior to us recessing to go into the House. First of all, how many bioenergy contracts have actually been issued?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro has seven biomass facilities providing electricity to them in the province of British Columbia. You didn't ask a certain date. They can figure that out, but that's in total what they have today.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That call hasn't finished, and so nothing has been awarded.

B. Simpson: Just for the public record, we've been promised this new bioenergy process and power from bioenergy since early May in '06. So we're two years down the path of this, and we still haven't gotten any bioenergy facilities on the ground from this new process. That's effectively what I was getting at with the question.

Does the minister agree with the comments of the Minister of Forests that the potential for bioenergy in the province is equivalent to a Site C?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm told that Hydro thinks there's a possibility of up to 1,500 megawatts. Site C is 900. So that could easily accommodate what the Minister of Forests said.

B. Simpson: So why is B.C. Hydro then pursuing Site C if it's pursuing a bioenergy call that can get two and a half times what Site C could get? Why are they doing a parallel process? Why not finish the bioenergy call, get all the energy from that and put Site C on the backburner?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's been no decision on Site C. If the member has followed the discussion around Site C, there's a five-step process. B.C. Hydro is in the second step of that process, and we're in the first step of actually asking for calls on biomass from what we've put out with the bioenergy report.

B.C. Hydro asked for a request for proposals in April of '07. They have those proposals, and they intend to go out to call for a contract in June of this year from those people that hold tenure in the province of British Columbia. We'll see what that brings in.

I want to tell the member that there isn't one particular thing that's going to get us to self-sufficiency or meet the demands that we're placing on the system in the province of British Columbia. It's not just, "Let's do wind," and that's all we do — nothing else. There's nothing that says: "Let's do biomass. That's all we want to do; there's nothing else." There's nothing that says we want to do run of the river, and there's nothing else.

We need a mix of all those kinds of things as we move forward, and that's what the Crown is trying to do on behalf of you and myself and for the benefit of British Columbians to make us self-sufficient and provide the power we need.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, in the B.C. Hydro consultation process, they inform the people up there that there's more than enough energy in bioenergy, if the ministry has got their figures right, and that therefore that dam may not be required up there at all.

Anyway, moving on to something else, with respect to greenhouse gas impacts of bioenergy. Has their assessment been done? Is it publicly available? Is bioenergy actually carbon-neutral as the government claims?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the federal government has put its logo on it that it is greenhouse gas–neutral, green energy.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not the federal member; I'm the provincial member. If you went to the federal website…. I don't know which ministry you would find that in, but it's the federal government that sets up those standards.

B. Simpson: What about potential air-quality impacts and requirements for best available technology for bioenergy facilities? As the minister should be aware, there's a huge dispute in Prince George just now about siting their bioenergy facility because of airshed quality concerns. So what avenue will those communities have to ensure that any successful B.C. Hydro call does not reduce the airshed quality in communities that get these bioenergy facilities?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Those projects — and the member referred to Prince George, so I'll refer to Prince George, but it would be wherever they're at in the province — would have to pass all the standards that the Ministry of Environment has for air quality and those kind of things.

Also, if it happened to be over 50 megawatts, they'd have to go through an environmental assessment process.

B. Simpson: On this first call for proposals — that's for those who already have existing tenure and won't require regulatory changes or tenure changes — what is the price expectation that either B.C. Hydro or the government has for paying for power from bioenergy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, we'll wait and see what those prices will be when Hydro puts out the bid. I believe it's in June when they put that out, and we'll see what those prices are in relationship to what we have to pay for electricity today. Hydro is going to have to make some determinations — I believe, to a degree with government — of what we're going to do, faced with the problems that we are faced with in the forest industry.

B. Simpson: Because of time constraints, the final one is: who has done the wood supply analysis, and where does the wood supply analysis exist to make sure these are long-term sustainable ventures? We have a bill before the House for a five-year non-renewable tenure. Previous discussions were that there was going to be a 25-year renewable to secure the investment necessary to make sure that these were long-term ventures.

So is there anywhere that we have a definitive assessment of the wood supply — standing timber, wood waste — that tells us that this is a long-term sustainable business that we're getting into, before we start buying power from this source?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to assure the member that B.C. Hydro would have all of those same concerns because they have to look at this in the long term and the cost impact for the ratepayers of the province of British Columbia — how long it can sustain itself. But those questions about where all that information is should be fairly asked to the Ministry of Forests, not to me.

B. Simpson: I have scanned the Ministry of Forests website. We have asked questions of the Ministry of Forests. Nobody seems to have that information. In fact, the information suggests that maybe why we're going to a five-year contract is that there are questions about the long-term sustainability of that wood supply. One would think that if B.C. Hydro is putting the call out, B.C. Hydro or the Minister of Energy, who is responsible for the energy generation piece, would have access to that information as well.

So is the minister saying on the record that neither he nor his staff has seen a definitive study that there is a sufficient sustainable flow of wood fibre for bioenergy production up to the level of 1,500 megawatts to substantiate the claim that the minister has made today?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, we can play this game if you want. You asked me how many megawatts were anticipated out there.

You know, when I said 1,500, I don't know whether all that 1,500 will get built. How many rivers and streams are there in the province of British Columbia that you could actually divert and generate electricity out of? The member knows this. There are thousands. Will they all be built? No. That's fallacy. That's kind of someone out there trying to scare everyone in the province of British Columbia.

What B.C. Hydro will do in this initial call is find out those with tenure, those that know how much wood they have, how much pine beetle wood they have and how much waste they have, to bid into this process….

They're not going to bid into the process unless they have long-term supply. Those are business people, and the member knows this full well. They'll bid into it if they have the supply. That's why we split it up.

The second crunch will come when Hydro — if, in fact; when I'm not sure — goes out and asks for the second call. That bill is before the House as we speak — about changes to the Forest Act. I won't comment any more on those kinds of things.

Hydro will know that when these companies say they can generate X amount of electricity for a certain period of time — this is what your rate is going to be — they can comfortably accept that and move forward with that. That's how it works.

Do I magically have all of those numbers in my back pocket? No, I don't, Member. But if you want to ask the Minister of Forests — and I don't know whether or not his estimates are done yet — that would be the one to ask about how much timber is out there.

What you're saying is to generate 1,500 megawatts…. I said there's a possibility of 1,500 megawatts. I didn't say they were going to generate 1,500 megawatts. I want to make sure you understand that very clearly.

B. Simpson: First off, I'm not playing any games. This is serious business. This is serious for the communities impacted. This is a serious claim on the part of the government about what can be done.

I'm not asking the minister to pull out magic numbers. I'm asking the minister if the work was done to substantiate the numbers that the minister has given. That's not magic. That's called good homework — making sure a business case does exist.

Two quick questions, and the minister can close the debate here. What is the target, then? If it's not 1,500, surely the ministry has a target that they want to get from bioenergy through B.C. Hydro. Secondly, when will the minister table the Janice Larson report that's behind all of this, which was supposed to be tabled and revealed to the public in the fall of '06?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, no, my ministry doesn't go out and predetermine that you're going to get X amount of megawatts from wind or X amount of megawatts from biomass or X amount of megawatts from solar.

I don't think the member was available to this conversation that we had earlier — that there is not one single source that we're going to totally depend on in the province of British Columbia. We have all kinds of sources in the province of British Columbia to generate electricity. What we need to do is go out there and find out what is competitive, what makes good sense in the nature of the whole province of British Columbia, especially with the pine beetle — all those kinds of things.

There is no target that we want exactly this much from that and this much from that. You don't do that. You go out in a broad range and say: "What can we get at the best competitive price for the ratepayers in the province of British Columbia?"

I'm not aware of a report in the fall of '06, the Janice Larson report — Janice Larson is sitting here right now — that was to be tabled. I'm not aware of that.

Thirdly, I can only assume that the member thinks there is enough wood around. You wrote me a letter, and you want a biomass plant built in Quesnel. You wrote me a letter just a little while ago, and you said that you hoped one of the ones that would be built in communities would be built in the community of Quesnel.

So I guess you're comfortable with Environment and the standards they have for air quality. You're comfortable with the amount of wood, because you're asking for a plant in Quesnel.

J. Horgan: Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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.