2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 15, Number 6

[ Page 4785 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Motion Picture Industry

J. McIntyre: I rise today to inform the House and simultaneously pay tribute to British Columbia's vibrant motion picture industry.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The film and TV industry has attracted the attention of governments worldwide, and today B.C. is a competitive player. In fact, this industry has been one of B.C.'s success stories. B.C. has seen a rapid expansion in studio capacity, post-production and visual effects houses, broadcasters, suppliers, location services and supports.

The recently announced 2009 film numbers tell a great story. The total motion picture production spending in British Columbia in 2009 increased by $100 million over 2008 to $1.3 billion. Overall, the foreign production spending in B.C. totalled $641 million — an increase of 45 percent, or nearly $200 million, over 2008. Unfortunately, the overall domestic film and television activity did not enjoy such an increase, but it's still significant at about $217 million.

More than 200 motion picture projects were shot in B.C., a whole range of feature film, TV and animated series or projects. B.C. film crews, infrastructure and production companies are recognized as amongst the best in the industry and, coupled with our diverse locations, make B.C. a place of choice for producers.

The B.C. Film Commission, headed by Susan Croome, has a strong reputation for both responsive service and cost-competitiveness. The billion-dollar-plus motion picture industry in B.C. employs approximately 35,000 B.C. residents, and I believe approximately 5,000 are on the North Shore, in my region. Most of these jobs are project-based and/or freelance, but they require highly skilled professionals.

The video and interactive game industry alone, as reported by New Media B.C., is composed of almost 150 companies in B.C. now, with several thousand employees. With the convergence that is occurring between film and video and interactive game production, the Lower Mainland is fast becoming a key North American centre with a skilled workforce whose talents cross over, which further expands our vertically integrated infrastructure and strengthens the pillars that support these industries.

[1005]

Further to this, I learned recently at one of the business seminars put on by the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development during the 2010 games that Vancouver now has the potential to form a cluster for 3-D stereoscopic production and post-production, which is an exciting, growing field with untold possibilities and clean, green jobs. B.C.'s Reel Green initiative is a good example of the industry's commitment to taking a leading role in environmental stewardship, establishing the best practices to mitigate impacts.

To help keep these industries competitive, in February B.C. announced new tax incentives. Tax policies have helped to make B.C. home to the third-largest motion picture production centre in North America, after L.A. and New York.

Here are the key features: a new B.C. interactive digital media tax credit for video game development of 17.5 percent for qualifying B.C. labour costs; a production services tax credit on labour costs for foreign productions, increased to 33 percent from 25 percent; the digital animation or visual effects tax credit bonus, which I see is affectionately known as DAVE, was increased to 17.5 percent from 15 percent; and the qualified B.C. labour expenditures cap, increased to 60 percent from 48 percent of production costs.

These measures are designed to keep the industry competitive. No, they're not the most generous in North America, but we're not aiming for that. Certainly, the all-spend direction of Ontario, which has been called unsustainable by many, is not even being promoted by B.C.'s industry. B.C. has a package of attractive attributes — skilled labour force; industry size; access to western U.S. and Asia; competitive income tax regime; public health care; our B.C. lifestyle; and, of course, our spectacular, supernatural landscape.

Tax credits are only part of the equation in determining business direction locations. As a great example, we're very proud that just a few weeks ago, on April 10, Pixar, a subsidiary of Disney, announced that they're opening their first studio outside of the U.S., citing great schools that train locals, a convenient location to their California studio and our tax credits.

Here's what Amir Nasrabadi, who is Pixar's general manager in Canada, said about their decision:

"They" — meaning the tax credits — "definitely helped. I think that the most important thing for us is the talent, and the second most important thing is the geographic locale of Vancouver. It's definitely advantageous to us in terms of collaborating with our home studio in California, and of course, the tax credits really round out the package here in terms of the reasons to do business here."

That's what he said on CBC's Almanac on April 20.
[ Page 4786 ]

Then the next day, on the 21st, in the Province, he was quoted as saying:

"The studio scoured the globe for the perfect satellite office and chose B.C. for tax incentive reasons, for Vancouver's deep computer-generated-animation talent pool and for time zone compatibility with the famed Hollywood studio that has won 21 Academy Awards since 1986."

Speaking of great schools, we on the North Shore were particularly excited that Cap U secured $30 million from the recent infrastructure spending to build a new film centre on the North Shore. It will serve up to 400 students annually and will be a new state-of-the-art facility built to LEED gold standards. Their School of Motion Picture Arts is the largest in western Canada and offers a wide variety of full-time certificate and diploma programs for a whole variety of career paths.

Even closer to home we have the growing, very successful Whistler Film Festival, about to hold its tenth annual event from December 1 to December 5. Driven by Shauna Hardy Mishaw, they present a selection of 80-plus films from Canada and around the globe, including premieres from some of North America's top directors.

The Whistler Film Festival also features celebrations and tributes to distinguished film-makers like Robert Lantos, Norman Jewison and Atom Egoyan, all of which I had the privilege of attending. Of course, they have a celebrity challenge ski race, because it's Whistler.

I have every confidence that B.C. will continue to be a leading and competitive production location that contributes significantly both to our economy and to making British Columbia an attractive place to lure those who want to live and invest in a culturally creative atmosphere.

In fact, this spring the B.C. Film Commission — with the MPPIA, which is the Motion Picture Production Industry Association — has been aggressively marketing B.C. in the U.S.A., showcasing the new, enhanced provincial tax incentives. I understand they are looking forward to a busy spring and summer shooting schedule, and we wish them much success.

N. Simons: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for the information on the situation with respect to the film industry in British Columbia. I'm pleased to provide, simply, encouragement for the film industry and to agree with my hon. friend opposite about the state of affairs.

[1010]

I'd like to just point out that locally produced films need to be strengthened. The infrastructure needs to be strengthened. We've seen quite a dramatic drop in the local production of films over the past seven years.

Notwithstanding the importance of promoting the film industry — and it's the broader scale — we do need to make sure that we continue to support the B.C.-based industries. One way to do that is through support for Film Incentive B.C., which is a labour-based tax incentive that provides tax credits to Canadian-controlled companies based on eligible B.C. labour costs.

Another aspect of the film industry that is often disregarded or ignored — not purposefully ignored but sometimes overlooked — is the distribution side. I think that it's important to point out that the exhibition arm of the industry is going to be negatively impacted, potentially in the near future, by the implementation of the HST.

I say that partly because of the fact that for the first time a relatively inexpensive outing for families — going to the movies — is going to cost more, depending on how often you go and how many of your kids you bring. So the cost of tickets to go and attend films in British Columbia will be impacted by the HST, as will, I might add, the cost of the popcorn and everything else one purchases at a movie theatre. My concern is not just with promotion of the industry but to make sure that British Columbians have the opportunity to enjoy the film industry, as well, by attending movies.

The consumer will understand that the decision to raise prices for movie tickets is not the choice of the movie theatres themselves, but obviously, the people paying the price will be the consumer. The consumer will feel the effect. An $8 ticket will be going up 40 cents. The price of popcorn is going to increase. Simple arithmetic will lead anyone to conclude that the cost for what was previously accessible entertainment for families is going to be costing more.

I'm sure that while we talk about promoting the industry, which is essential for our economy — and British Columbia has so much to offer, as my hon. friend pointed out — we should also consider the impacts of policy that may have a negative impact not just on the film industry but on the consumers who actually, if we think about it, are ultimately the basic supporters of the film industry. If you price a bit of harmless escapism out of the reach of people who are struggling financially, you deprive them pretty much of the treat that would basically provide them an opportunity to not have to contemplate the other challenges of life.

I'd like to, just in summation, concur with my friend opposite and encourage the film industry. The basic importance of promoting a locally sustainable film industry would protect us from the ebbs and flows of the larger market. The tax incentives are constantly buffeting the industry, not necessarily in a negative way, but we're often in a race with other jurisdictions. The dollar has a huge impact on the viability of the film industry in British Columbia.

But if we can do things like support Film Incentive B.C. and the role of supporting local, regional and provincial organizations in promoting the film industry in British Columbia, I think that we would immunize ourselves to some of the fluctuating circumstances in the
[ Page 4787 ]
broader community that have a negative impact on the film industry.

With that, I am looking forward to the summation of my friend opposite.

J. McIntyre: Thanks to my colleague across the rows there for his comments. I think we both agree that we're clearly very supportive of the local industry and the success of the motion picture industry here in British Columbia. I do agree — anything we can do, obviously, to help support.

[1015]

As I said, there are 5,000 people living on the North Shore that are involved. A number of them are local producers, and we want to, obviously, support them in ways that we can. Hence, the enhancing of the tax incentives was a big step to help that. In fact, I'll come back to that in a minute.

I did want to put on the record, because this…. I did not think that this was an HST debate, but somehow the member opposite across did manage to spend a good part of his time on that. I do want to make sure that the House understands that Peter Leitch, who is the head of the MPPIA, the Motion Picture Production Industry Association, is clearly on record in favour, very much in favour, of HST.

But moving back — this is a non-partisan discussion, but I wanted to make sure that was on the record — let me just say that the DAVE….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

J. McIntyre: I did want to come back to the DAVE tax credits that I had mentioned, because they do help the local industry. The MPPIA had a paper out that said that the DAVE tax credit has had a number of positive impacts, contributing to the growth in the visual effects and digital animation sector.

I just want to put these numbers in the record. Some 148 productions accessed the credit in 2008, compared with seven in 2004. Employment has more than tripled during the period, to 1,100 persons from 300. The industry, as a result, has invested $70 million in new leading-edge infrastructure and technology. They say that the resulting increase in capacity and employment has created a visual effects and digital animation industry in B.C. that today competes globally, attracting projects from around the world and successfully recruiting and retaining skilled workers.

That's exactly the kind of thing that we're trying to do in making sure that we have a culturally creative and skilled workforce here in British Columbia, and I think the steps we've taken have really helped the industry move forward and be the success it is today.

Workers' Rights

R. Chouhan: Today I rise to talk about workers' rights, the right to have a safe workplace. April 28 is the National Day of Mourning. In 2008, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 1,036 Canadian workers died due to work-related accidents or occupational diseases. This represents more than two deaths every day. Another 942,478 workers were injured or became ill. Also, on April 28 we will be remembering 121 B.C. workers who lost their lives to workplace injury or disease in 2009.

The National Day of Mourning, initiated by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1984, has now become the International Day of Mourning. April 28 was recognized by the federal government in 1991 as the National Day of Mourning. A year later the NDP government passed the same motion in British Columbia. Now on this day people in over 80 countries will pay tribute to workers who died or were injured on the job. This has been adopted by the AFL-CIO and by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

On April 28 we will mark this day with great sadness, because so many preventable deaths, injuries and diseases continue to strike workers down. But we will also be pleased to note that since 1984 at many worksites joint occupational health and safety committees have been set up, through which awareness has been raised to make our workplaces safer. Every worker has the right to return home safely at the end of his or her workday. When a worker is killed or seriously injured on the job, the entire family suffers, along with the rest of the society. An injury to one is an injury to all.

[1020]

What can we do to stop this carnage? First, we must make sure that all workers are aware of their right to have a safe workplace. This will require an earnest effort on the part of the government, WorkSafe B.C. and, most importantly, the employers to ensure the workplace is safe.

Second, the time has come for all governments — the federal, provincial and territorial governments — to appoint special prosecutors to lay charges against an employer whose action or lack of action causes death or serious injury.

Let's look at the recent case of three farmworkers killed in a vehicle accident. The RCMP recommended 33 criminal charges against the driver and the labour contractor, but none of them were accepted by the Crown. If a special prosecutor had been appointed, I'm sure we would have seen these individuals appropriately punished.

Third, we must make sure we have enough inspectors to ensure that employers comply with the law. WorkSafe B.C. should have the capacity to complete its investigation into a workplace incident much more quickly
[ Page 4788 ]
than the status quo. For example, we are still waiting for WorkSafe B.C.'s report into the death of three mushroom workers and two seriously injured workers over 1½ years ago.

On April 28, when we take a moment to remember those who have lost their lives, been injured or become ill due to their work, we should also think about our friends, our families and our neighbours. Talk to them, and ask them if their workplace is safe. Tell them they have a right to refuse work if they feel it is unsafe for them or their fellow workers. They have the right to contact WorkSafe B.C. to report any violation of health and safety rules.

I hope an annual observance of this day will make more and more people aware of the collective responsibility to establish safe conditions in the workplace for all. When we mourn the dead, we must also pledge to protect the living.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to speak on the important issue of workers' rights and workers' safety in the workplace. I believe in fostering respectful and beneficial workplace relationships, but I also believe in effective laws and enforceable standards to ensure workers' rights and to ensure employer responsibility and workers' safety in the workplace.

The changes to the Employment Standards Act in 2002 increased protection for vulnerable workers through focused enforcement of employment standards rules and stiffer penalties for employers who break the law. It also made employment standards easier to understand so employees know their rights and employers properly apply the rules. B.C. now has the strongest mandatory penalties in Canada for breaches of the Employment Standards Act.

Every worker deserves to work in a safe environment, which is why our government has worked in cooperation with industry and other partners to develop safety standards that deliver real actual safety results with strong enforcement and stiff penalties. WorkSafe B.C. conducted 38,000 inspections in 2009, the highest number since 2000, and imposed $4.4 million in penalties for serious non-compliance with health and safety laws.

The lowest injury rate in British Columbia was recorded in 2009, down 41 percent, from 4.05 per hundred person-years of employment in 1999 to a rate of 2.37 in 2009. Injured worker benefit rates are among the highest in North America, which is 90 percent of net take-home pay with no waiting period. As my colleague mentioned, there were 121 work-related deaths in 2009.

My colleague mentioned the very serious motor vehicle accident that happened in my constituency a few years ago, where three people lost their lives. As a result of that, a change in employment standards regulations now requires farm labour contractors to post a vehicle safety notice in each vehicle.

[1025]

In 2009 the roadside enforcement inspections team of the Farm Workers Inter-Agency Compliance Committee inspected 235 vehicles, and 24 did not pass inspections. This team issued 35 violation tickets totalling $6,148 in penalties.

Additional regulation changes that I support make a farm labour contractor liable for the cost of alternative transportation if the government is required to transport workers, should a vehicle operated by a farm labour contractor be found to be unsafe.

The National Day of Mourning that is held annually to recognize work safety issues for workers on April 28 is one that we support, and it is important to commemorate workers that have been killed or seriously injured on the job.

The National Day of Mourning was initiated by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1984 and officially recognized by the federal government in 1991. Canada was the first country to recognize the day formally, and today, 26 years later, the Day of Mourning is observed throughout the world in about 80 countries. The Day of Mourning reinforces the critical importance of workers in the workplace.

I want to make a few comments about agriculture. Farmworkers in agriculture make a valuable contribution to our province and, like all workers in B.C., deserve safe workplaces. As a result of the accident that we've talked about, the law now requires mandatory seatbelts in all farmworker vehicles for passengers and employers. Vehicle owners and drivers can now be fined for allowing a vehicle to be operated over capacity or without seatbelts.

Legislation also now enables farm labour contractors' licences to be suspended if they violate any WorkSafe B.C. or Motor Vehicle Act regulations. B.C. has the toughest mandatory penalties in Canada for farm labour contractors breaking these employment standards laws.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. As I said in my speech earlier, it's the responsibility of all of us to make sure that we have a safer workplace for everybody. However, despite some of the laws that we have on the books, many employers are still not complying with that. We have seen the number of injuries and deaths in mines and forestry continuing as they have been in the past. Although some improvement has been made, more needs to be done.

I am very worried and concerned about the construction industry. When we see, in residential construction…. I have seen — and I'm sure many other members have seen the same way — that people who work on the construction sites don't even wear those safety harness belts, which are necessary to protect them.

What we need, at the end of the day, is a change in attitude toward safety. That's the most important part of
[ Page 4789 ]
making a workplace safer. If we work together — all of us at all levels — it will happen and it can happen. We can prevent these unnecessary deaths and injuries at workplaces.

So I again urge all of us to do whatever we can on April 28 to remember those who were killed and have been injured and that we pledge that we make sure it does not happen anymore.

Industrial Hemp

D. Barnett: Industrial hemp is one of the oldest cultivated plants in the world. During the First World War rope used by the navy and Armed Forces was made from industrial hemp for its strength. The species was banned in North America in the 1930s and in 1961 internationally under the United Nations single convention on narcotic drugs.

[1030]

Effective March 12, 1998, the commercial production and cultivation became permissible in Canada. Licences are authorized and issued by Health Canada.

The production of industrial hemp has been mainly in the Prairie provinces. In 1999 the number of licences in Canada was approximately 545, with approximately 34,000 acres in production.

It looked like industrial hemp would become a Cinderella crop for Canada, but due to unforeseen events in the summer of 1999, the demise of a prospective industrial hemp processing company in Manitoba changed the outlook for industrial hemp production in Canada. In 2005 areas licensed for industrial hemp production in Canada increased almost threefold to over 24,000 acres.

The largest increases in industrial hemp production were in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Area under industrial hemp production increased to its highest level in 2006 at 48,000 acres, almost double 2005. Prairie provinces led the country in industrial hemp production with almost 97 percent of industrial hemp area.

Again, a decrease in industrial hemp production occurred in 2007, primarily due to the lack of processing facilities for industrial hemp fibre and stock. A further decrease in production occurred in 2008, with the total number of licences issued by Health Canada down to 85 and approximately 8,000 acres. In 2009 areas licensed for industrial hemp production increased by 72 percent across Canada over 2008. Once again, major increases in area were on the Prairie provinces.

Industrial hemp production received a lot of attention in the early years, and it appears once again that there is a market for fibre to produce many products.

I am sure many here today are asking: why would I be interested in industrial hemp? In 1998, as mayor of the district of 100 Mile House, a constituent came to me with an idea for economic development in the 100 Mile and South Cariboo area. This gentleman was a teacher and had pursued this industrial hemp idea for a long time. We listened to his proposal, did a little investigating, and left it to sit. This constituent was persistent. Around 2003 he convinced us, and thus our council approved forming an industrial hemp committee.

We then began to do our research, learned what we could from websites, and saw what opportunities for our area in the production of industrial hemp…. With assistance from the provincial Minister of Agriculture, both in staff and financial, we moved forward.

We were fortunate enough to be able to obtain a gentleman by the name of Jammi Kumar, who worked for the Agriculture Ministry in the First Nations agricultural component. As our municipality had a partnership with our First Nations band, Canim Lake, we worked together and had our first research project on the ground. For the next two years, 2004-2006, we obtained two or three more producers and started a research project to determine the viability.

In order to obtain a licence for the producing of industrial hemp, there is a process. First, you must apply to Health Canada for a licence and have a police check. Your property must be identified by boundaries and a legal description and must be a minimum of ten acres. Your property must also be one mile from a school.

Through these years, 2007 and 2008, this committee struggled with research. The marketplace had finally come to us, but we were not able to produce the amount of industrial hemp needed at this time. In 2007 we applied to the federal government western diversification pine beetle fund for over $200,000 in partnership with the district of 100 Mile House and with the NDI Trust, and we were successful, finally, at the end of 2008 in obtaining the funding.

[1035]

In July of 2008, when the funds became available, a project manager was hired to support and provide activities to promote training opportunities to producers, to conduct product development and market research, prepare a feasibility analysis for primary and secondary processing, and conduct agronomic research trials and on-farm research. This, Madam Speaker, was a success.

With the persistence from the community and the industrial hemp committee, there has finally been a climate created for investor confidence in 100 Mile and the South Cariboo. The investment community has come and has offered guaranteed fibre purchase contracts to industrial hemp producers. With enough producers, the investor will consider investing over $2 million in 100 Mile and in the South Cariboo area for a primary processing plant for industrial hemp fibre.

There are many other opportunities and markets both for the fibre of industrial hemp and for the seed, but today I will leave it at this. I am proud of this community.
[ Page 4790 ]

L. Popham: Let me say, first of all, that I think it is high time that we see the B.C. hemp industry flourish. Why wouldn't we support something that, with the right conditions, grows like a weed? Let's move through the haze of confusion about this crop. With many crops we grow in B.C., the grass is often greener on the other side of the fence, but I think we can be assured that with support, B.C. could increase this budding industry, and that's not just blowing smoke, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to talk about the industrial hemp industry and what industrial hemp is. The reason why it's such an amazing crop is because under the right conditions, which are most conditions in British Columbia, it flourishes. It's a tall, leafy plant with a strong, fibrous stalk. The fibre is used in many things, like clothing and rope, and it's very quickly renewable. It's an excellent crop, and it's an excellent crop for using in between other traditional crops we use in B.C.

The problem with industrial hemp — the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin mentioned it — up until it was first licensed to grow a trial, was that it had the ingredient THC in it. Well, industrial hemp only has about 0.3 percent of THC, so it's quite a safe crop to grow. The regulation of keeping it one mile from a school, I think, is good, but I think it's mostly because of curiosity.

When we're looking at why the hemp industry in B.C. is not flourishing, I believe it's because…. I think it probably would, at this point, and I think it probably would have since 1998, but we see that there's a lack of funding for extension services in B.C. I think the government has quite a role to play there, in funding something that would allow growers to learn about it and to move into this industry. Even if they're traditionally growing other crops, it's a chance for them to intersperse crops into what they're traditionally growing, and what may not be getting a good price right now.

The price for hemp is increasing. The demand is increasing. It's also an excellent protein source. If we're looking at it for food value, it's got an excellent food value. I'd also like to note that on the organic side of industrial hemp growing, it fits perfectly with that idea, because the inputs used for industrial hemp are quite low. If you grow it in the right conditions in the right areas of B.C., we don't need to add a lot of water, and we don't need to use a lot of chemical fertilizer, because it actually grows without a lot of inputs.

At a time when we're trying to move people into this industry, we also see the extension services for organic growing being unfunded as of August 15. I would hope that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin would support the need for the return of extension services in order to see this industry grow. I'm looking forward to her response.

[1040]

D. Barnett: Thank you to the member from the opposition. I have been very involved with this project since day one, and I can say that the support is out there if you find it. I can say that the Ministry of Agriculture was most helpful in providing us with staff time, which we certainly needed to do a lot of our homework and a lot of our research.

One of the biggest issues out there is finding investors and finding the land base where people are willing to stand up and to try a new product, and that is always a concern for those working in the agriculture field. They don't know if it's going to be a success or if it's not going to be a success, but that's what business is about, and that's what the challenge is.

After our years of struggling and working and having support from provincial government and the federal government coming to the table, the community realizes now what a great opportunity we have. I sincerely hope that they carry through with it, which I'm sure they will.

Finding investors is not easy, and finding investors that will not just invest money in a plant…. It's in the securement for the growers that they will be able to sell their product.

One of the things that I didn't mention was the importance of organic industrial hemp — for the seed, which is a high-end product that produces oil and produces many health products. This is another industry that is out there and another industry that can be grabbed onto by many communities who are willing to step forward.

At this point in time I have learned that there is an overabundance of this product in Canada, so at present the dollars that are obtained for this product are not as high as they were in 2004.

I thank the member from across the floor. I think that working together, learning more about this product and communities taking initiatives is all part of what will make our province stronger and communities more sustainable in the future.

Legal Aid

L. Krog: My topic this morning is legal aid. Legal aid speaks to the highest ideals, I think, in our society. The very concept behind it is that those without the means to pay for it will still have some access to justice. They will have an opportunity to have the services of a lawyer or someone who is legally trained to assist them through whatever difficulty may face them.

The statutory authority for that is to be found in the Legal Services Society Act. The objects of the society are set out in part 2, section 9, where the first object is: "(a) subject to section 10 (3), to assist individuals to resolve their legal problems and facilitate their access to justice" — in other words, to help them, and — "(b) subject to section 10 (3), to establish and administer an effective and efficient system for providing legal aid to individuals in British Columbia, and" — where appropriate — "(c) to provide advice to the Attorney General...."
[ Page 4791 ]

The society is to be guided by several objects, or the principles: "(a) the society is to give priority to identifying and assessing the legal needs of low-income individuals in British Columbia; (b) the society is to consider the perspectives of both justice system service providers and the general public."

It's not as lofty a demonstration as, perhaps, the Declaration of Independence, but as I said, it does speak to our higher ideals, because we do understand that in our society access to justice — the ability to retain counsel, to receive assistance — is often more based on money than it is anything else.

The great French philosopher, socialist and writer Anatole France said, speaking of the poor: "They have the right. They have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."

What was the meaning of that? Fairly obvious. The rich don't have to sleep under bridges. The rich don't have to beg in the streets, and the rich never have to steal bread. But there are many in our society who, metaphorically speaking — and literally in British Columbia today — do sleep under the bridges. They do beg in the streets, and obviously many of them steal bread.

Our system is there to ensure, in the broadest sense, that we live in a civilized society. We ameliorate some of those problems that France talked about through a system of social assistance.

[1045]

We recognize that, in addition, we must provide services with respect to access to justice. That is where the legal aid system comes in, and that is delivered in this province through the Legal Services Society.

But the Legal Services Society has to be funded. Historically there has been, obviously, government funding for the Legal Services Society, interest off lawyers' trust accounts and interest off notaries' trust accounts. I think that — as many of the members in this chamber understand but maybe not the people listening this morning — the interest off the general trust accounts of lawyers and notaries in this province is collected, and a substantial portion of it goes to the Legal Services Society to assist in the provision of legal aid.

In the last few years, given the decline in the economy, the diminishing number of transactions being handled by lawyers has resulted in a significant reduction of income. Lower interest rates have had a dramatic impact on those moneys. We, as a society, have not made up the difference. What legal aid, the Legal Services Society in British Columbia, has faced has been a substantial reduction in funding, which means that those lofty goals and the principles enunciated by the statute cannot, practically speaking, be met.

Indeed, no less a person than the distinguished president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, James Bond, has said — and I believe I have the quote exactly right: "Legal aid is in crisis in British Columbia." What he means is that we are simply not delivering the level of services that we used to, and the services that we are delivering are not adequate to meet the needs.

Lawyers in Kamloops who formerly acted on legal aid matters have literally withdrawn their services in a form of protest. They are trying to call attention to what is an important issue for them — that the poor amongst us are not getting the benefit of a fulsome legal aid system and that those who need it most are not getting those services.

Now, the rich, of course, will continue to receive legal services. They can continue to afford to pay for legal services. But the poorest amongst us can't.

There's no question that we're talking about what is essentially a constitutional matter. The right to have counsel when charged in a serious criminal offence is well recognized, but there are other aspects. If you're poor and you need advice because you've got a residential tenancy problem, if you're poor because you're on EI and you need assistance with an appeal — those kinds of individuals don't have access to justice in the same way.

When we don't have a fulsome system in place that provides advice and help to those people, we are not fulfilling the lofty goals of the Legal Services Society Act. We're not fulfilling the lofty goals which led to the establishment of legal aid across this country, and that is to ensure that there is access to justice. Access to justice must not be just some high-minded principle. It has to be delivered on the ground.

Traditionally in British Columbia, in smaller communities, it was delivered to the poorest through community law offices. They disappeared in the early '90s. They were replaced in some aspect by the LawLINE. That, unfortunately, likewise is being eliminated as we speak.

So we have diminished that very access which should be the hallmark of "a just society," to quote a former famous federal Liberal, Pierre Trudeau, when he talked about the just society. An important aspect of that is legal aid.

If we cannot deliver those services, then we have failed to meet the goals we have established by statute, we have failed to meet our responsibilities as citizens, and we have failed to live up to the high-minded ideals which, I would suggest, draw most of us into public life. That is the belief that we want to correct injustice where we see it, that we want those who need help to get it.

[1050]

R. Howard: I thank the member for Nanaimo for his thoughtful comments. First, he talks about ideals, as he rightfully should. Of course, I would like to confirm that this government believes in funding legal services for
[ Page 4792 ]
low-income people because everyone has the right to representation, regardless of income.

I was actually very pleased, as well, to hear the member for Nanaimo recognize that a lower-performing economy has repercussions in all corners of society. In my many years as a councillor and here, being an MLA representing my constituency of Richmond Centre, you hear many different stories.

There are many needs for funding, and I don't know that I've heard a bad story amongst all of them. They're all good stories. They're all great causes. They all have a great desire for money, and of course, that's where management comes in. We must deal with scarce resources, being our tax dollars.

I think it is important to note that we are providing the Legal Services Society in this budget year with $66½ million to provide civil and criminal legal advice aid, as I say, in this budget year. The society provides not just lawyers for people facing serious criminal, family or immigration problems who qualify for legal aid, but they also offer assistance, publications, videos, telephone support and website services. The government and the Legal Services Society are definitely looking for more than just face-to-face legal advice. They're looking for other ways to deliver services as well.

In 2009-10 we spent an additional $30 million on access-to-justice services beyond the funding we provide to the legal aid program, including $11 million to support family justice services, such as providing mediation services to people of modest means who have family issues arising from separation and divorce.

We also ensure that legal representation of family disputes is available to eligible clients in emergency situations, including clients in financial need where the province is seeking custody of a child. Madam Speaker, 42,000 families, which includes about 75,000 children, every year are helped through family support payments, through the family maintenance enforcement program, which recovered $173 million last year in support payments for children and partners. So there is much happening.

I want to talk about some of the things that came out of today's reform, and they are attributed to the B.C. Justice Review Task Force, which actually began its work approximately seven years ago. There are some important things to note that look to simplify and lower the cost of resolving disputes.

These include containing legal processes so that they are proportionate to the value, importance and complexity of the case; limiting the sometimes excessive questioning of parties, often called oral examinations for discovery; limiting the costly exchange of documents that are not directly relevant to the case; allowing parties the option of having a judge set time limits on litigation events; providing a new fast-track process that greatly simplifies procedures when the amount in dispute is $100,000 or less or when the case can be tried in three days or less; and also providing new family rules for minimizing family conflict, promoting cooperation and ensuring that the interests of children are paramount.

Recognizing again the fact that we're in very troubling economic times, there are limited financial resources. Of course, also impacting the source of funds for the society is just the general climate of low interest rates. The trust funds that historically have generated interest rate contributions to the society, of course, in this low-interest environment are also impacted by that.

I want to talk just briefly about community courts, because we created the community court to bring together justice, health and social welfare systems to work as integrated teams and address the underlying causes of crime. The community court is one of several justice reform pilots aimed at improving the justice system through integration, problem-solving, timely resolutions and prevention.

L. Krog: I want to thank the member for Richmond Centre for his remarks. I guess my automatic response, when he described the underperforming economy, is to suggest politely to this chamber that is indeed the very time when you should be putting more resources into those programs that assist the poorest amongst us.

[1055]

When times are good, no one much cares if the people at the top have a great deal more than they need, as long as the poor are getting by. But we are truly in a difficult time. We have seen programs reduced across the board in the last 20 years in this country, which has impacted, most importantly, on the poorest amongst us. I would argue with the member that in fact this is the very time to step up to the plate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We place a great burden on the Legal Services Society by expecting them to deliver those services. To use a hockey analogy suggested to me by my friend the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, it's rather like sending a hockey team out on the ice without any sticks. Now, they may be on the ice, and they may be able to say they're in the game, but I think we know that the end result is not going to be success. That is, really, what we're asking the Legal Services Society to do.

The member for Richmond Centre talked about people dealing with serious problems. When I started articling, a member of my principal said very early on: "When someone comes into your office and they have this little problem, from your perspective, just remember that it's the biggest problem they have."

So when you're a single mother on assistance and you're facing being kicked out of your rented accommodation, that's a pretty big problem. The opportunity for
[ Page 4793 ]
access to a community law office, to someone to assist you with a residential tenancy appeal is a pretty important thing to you. That's what Legal Services and the legal aid society are all about. It is providing that kind of assistance. When we fail to provide that assistance generally, we fail as a society, as I said earlier.

These are serious problems, and these are serious issues for, unfortunately, a growing number of British Columbians. As we see the assistance rolls rise, we know that those who require access to legal aid are increasing in number, not decreasing.

It is incumbent upon us to step up to the plate; to take a stronger response; to do the right thing; to live up to our responsibilities as British Columbians; and to assist the Legal Services Society, which has a statutory obligation to run the system. If we don't, I don't think we set much of an example, because when times are bad, as I said, that is the very time when we have to be strongest, when we have to be most generous, when we have to make priorities, and those priorities mean that we look after the poor.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call private member's Motion 8.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Motion 8 is in the name of the member for Peace River North, who is not able to be present. By agreement, the member for Nechako Lakes will move the motion.

Private Members' Motions

motion 8 — SITE C POWER PROJECT

J. Rustad: It is my pleasure today to move the motion on behalf of the member for Peace River North.

[Be it resolved that this House support the Government's decision to advance, subject to environmental assessment approvals, and ensuring that the Crown's constitutional duties to First Nations are met, the development of the Site C Clean Energy Project to meet the future needs of British Columbia.]

I'd like to start by saying that the member for Peace River North would really like to have been able to be here today. Unfortunately, his flight was cancelled. That is one of the challenges as a rural MLA. When you're dependent upon air travel to be down in the Legislature, sometimes that doesn't always work.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Site C is a very interesting project that's been on the books for a very long period of time. I have to say that I had the privilege of being on the site when we made that announcement and being a part of that announcement. It's a historic announcement. It's an opportunity for us as a province to take a look at something beyond just today, to look at building the future, to look at building for that next generation and to be able to meet those needs. For me, it was a moment where I was very honoured to have that opportunity to partake in it.

[1100]

I want to start by talking about why we need Site C. What is the case for Site C? Since 1990 our population has grown by 1.25 million people. That's an increase of 38 percent. It's projected that by 2020 our population will increase by another 650,000, a 15 percent increase, and by 2030 it's projected the population will grow by over 1.2 million, a 28 percent increase from today. Just by straight nature, that means we are going to need to think about that future generation. We are going to need to think about meeting those electrical demands.

It's projected that over that period of time…. Over the next 20 years we're anticipating an increase of about somewhere between 20 percent and 40 percent on our electrical demand. Think about that — a 20 percent to 40 percent increase. That is huge.

When you think that the W.A.C. Bennett dam alone — 25 percent of the power needs comes from that area of the province towards us. To meet our energy needs as a province, we would need to build one or two more W.A.C. Bennett dams just to meet the needs over the next 20 years. Site C will meet about 8 percent of our current needs in the province. That's a huge piece of the pie, but it still doesn't get us all the way.

Think about what that electrical demand in the future is going to be. We've got an emerging market in terms of electrical cars. People are concerned about the environment. They are going to need power to be able to drive that. Those types of changes aren't even being calculated when we're saying our demand is going to increase by 20 percent to 40 percent.

We've got, of course, a huge demand in digital gadgets — everything from iPods to cell phones to BlackBerrys, all of these sorts of things. They all get plugged in overnight. Every household that has these is now continuing to increase, because of these digital gadgets….

Of course, we have new mining projects that are proposed to come on stream. They demand a significant amount of power. We've got the Highway 37 electrification. We've got the new power line in the northwest of the province. We are going to be working with the forest industry in terms of retooling, and there will be new forestry opportunities. We're looking at electrifying our ports. All of this speaks to the fact that we are going to have significant new demand for electricity.

Keep in mind that today on average we import about 12 percent of our power needs. We don't meet our own needs internally even today. For eight out of the last nine
[ Page 4794 ]
years we have been importing power. That flies in the face of, unfortunately….

Madam Speaker, you think about what the opposition's perspective is on Site C. The member for Surrey-Whalley said: "Our position is that at this point the power is not needed, so I don't see that emerging as a divisive issue within the party at all." That's a quote from the member for Surrey-Whalley from the Voice of B.C. in March of 2010. I don't know quite what their perspective is, but if you look beyond today, it's very clear that we are going to need to do a lot to meet our power needs.

What does Site C do? Well, like I say, it's going to be 8 percent of today's power needs. It's going to produce 30 percent of the W.A.C. Bennett dam at this particular point, and it does that with only 5 percent of the footprint. That's a pretty good return when you think about it.

Site C actually will impact a number of hectares. It will be about 660 hectares of private land that would be flooded. Out of that, about 140 hectares is class 1 land. That's a significant impact, but when you look at the overall benefits, clearly that impact is pretty minimal for what we are getting as a province.

Why are we even looking at this? What's the importance of this? We are looking to build the province of B.C. We're looking at building it for that future. I argue, of course, being an MLA from northern B.C., that this can be our northern decade. We're bringing in policy on mining to encourage mining. We're bringing in development projects on electricity. We've got a host of IPP projects to help meet those needs. We are doing a lot to build the future of this province, to try to create prosperity for people.

Site C will generate, it is estimated, up to about 35,000 direct and indirect jobs over the course. That's a huge amount of employment opportunities for the project alone. It's phenomenal when you look at those kinds of benefits for this province.

There are a couple of things that I do want to point out, though, just as I wrap up. I've talked about the benefits. I've talked about the need that we have in this project, but what I want to talk about just for a moment is a little bit about the opposition.

The member for Juan de Fuca has said: "Our position remains opposed." That was from CKNW, April 19, 2010. The member for Juan de Fuca also said: "I don't think you need to have that sort of megaproject drop-down in the northeast right now." That was also from CKNW, November 5, 2006.

[1105]

The NDP have called for a moratorium on IPPs. They're opposed to those kinds of projects. They seem to be opposed to absolutely everything. They've been opposed to mining. They've been opposed to virtually everything, and I suggest maybe a new catchphrase for the NDP party should be "No development, please."

However, if that doesn't quite catch on, there has been quite a talk about maybe a new centralist left party, and maybe they could rebrand their party as the CAVE party, the citizens against virtually everything.

This is a project we need. This is about building the province. This is about building our future, and I'm very pleased to be moving this motion forward.

J. Horgan: I'm not surprised you recognized me, because the bulk of the member's statement wasn't, in fact, about Site C, but it was about the member for Juan de Fuca and my views on that. I'm flattered by the attention, but again, perhaps that might speak to the real issue of why we're standing debating this question today.

We had an airlift of epic proportions. I was waiting for Charlton Heston to get out of the plane, but regrettably, it was only the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, when five airplanes descended upon Hudson's Hope — which has, on average, about zero flights per week. They haven't had a flight, I'm told, in the past 365 days. So to have five planes come in necessitated some painting of lines and trying to shoo the elk off the tarmac so that we could get King Lear in on his Learjet.

I do want to spend some of the remaining time at my disposal talking about the substance of the issue, and I know that'll disappoint members on the other side because, in fact, their intention here is not to talk about energy need, not to talk about what may or may not be in the interest of ratepayers, but instead to try and play politics with issues of public importance down the road and, also, to change the channel. The member for Peace River North I'm sure, of all members, would have wanted to change the channel this week with respect to the HST and the initiative campaign that's underway there.

With those few introductory remarks to frame and characterize the debate we're having today, I'd like to dive right in, if I could, to the substance of the matter, which I believe is of importance to British Columbians. There are a few issues that I think need to be aired just in terms of correcting some of the comments made by my colleague from Prince George–Omineca — formerly Prince George–Omineca, now Nechako Lakes. I just was so happy with the Omineca. It flowed off my tongue. Nechako Lakes will take some time.

The member talked about 140 hectares of alienated land. He did qualify it by saying that was privately held land, but the reality of the matter is that 5,340 hectares of prime agricultural land will be alienated.

Does B.C. Hydro own the majority of that? Yes, it does, but it does not for a minute diminish the important value of that agricultural land to our food security. I know that many members of this House, particularly my colleague from Saanich South, have been echoing that in my ear since the planes descended upon Hudson's Hope last week. We on this side of the House are not going to lose sight of the profound impact this project will have on our agricultural land.
[ Page 4795 ]

One of the concerns I also have, and this was informed by the member for Shuswap over the weekend…. I had the good fortune of reclining on a Sunday morning, listening to my local radio station, CFAX 1070, "Victoria's news authority." I'm sure the member can get from PAB the transcripts of his comments, but I'll remind them of some of things he said.

Aside from the agricultural land challenges that Site C proposes, or would impose, there are also the critical issues of aboriginal rights and title. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations spoke eloquently and to the point, I believe, as he always does on these matters, about the position of the treaty 8 bands, particularly the West Moberly band and Chief Roland Willson.

He said — and I'll quote three phrases that I think are vitally important: "very early in the process," "premature" and "much to work through."

[1110]

Those were the three touchpoints for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, and they ring, I think, more appropriately for policy-makers than the pronouncements from our friend from Nechako Lakes, who wanted to just talk about me and my views — which I, of course, am well aware of, and other members may want to be brought up to speed on.

The challenge we have in this place is not to always play politics, particularly when we're talking about a dollar value of $6.6 billion announced on Monday — $6.6 billion. That is factoring in some inflation from the 1995 number that I saw when I was working on these issues.

I don't know if we're going to make it at that price. I think we might be heading up towards $8 billion or perhaps $10 billion for this project. Then, of course, one has to ask: "Well, if that's the cost of this to ratepayers, what will that translate to in terms of the cost to people's homes?" A significant issue and one that I'm hopeful we'll be able to determine over the next two, three, four, five, maybe six years of discussion on this project.

People listening at home and people who will read these transcripts later on need to know that this project is not imminent. It is ten years away on a good day. Estimating that everything goes smoothly…. Of course, we'll trigger a federal environmental assessment panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act — a full, transparent panel which will provide opponents with an opportunity to make their case plainly.

They can stop the shadowboxing with B.C. Hydro, which for the past 30 years has been saying the impacts will be minimal, has been saying the costs will be insignificant. Now we have the member for Vancouver–Point Grey descending from his jet onto the tarmac telling us: "Pay no attention to the harmonized sales tax. I've got an even bigger boondoggle for you, and it may well be a $6 billion to $10 billion hydro project in the Peace country."

One of the issues that jumped off the two pages of the press release that I didn't have to go to Hudson's Hope to pick up…. I was able to get it right here off my computer. My footprints to pick this up were zero. No carbon was emitted except for perhaps the gasp that came forth from me when I read the following. In the bulk of the release it says: "As a source of firm energy, Site C will facilitate the development of clean energy projects by providing additional capacity to back up intermittent resources such as wind, run of river and solar."

That's the part that I really think we need to focus our attention on today. Aside from the agricultural challenges, the First Nations challenges, the environmental assessment, are we building Site C as an alternative to expensive, interruptible private power, or are we building Site C as another subsidy to these pirates who are on the landscape getting contracts from B.C. Hydro — licences to print money and licences to increase the cost to hydro and therefore to ratepayers? That should be of enormous concern to the people of B.C.

If this was an alternative to those sources of energy, then I think we can have a full, frank and, I would hope, transparent debate. But I regret that I believe, based on the comments in the press release and based on the comments from my friend from Nechako Lakes, that what we're doing here is providing yet another subsidy to these intermittent sources by providing firm power to shape and firm up that so it can be exported to the United States.

We go back to the sucking and blowing. I've talked about this before here. One side of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's mouth says we need to be self-sufficient. We heard some reference to that from the member from Nechako, interspersed between comments about my views on any subject that came to mind.

It's self-sufficient on one side, export on the other. I find that irreconcilable. Either we need this to keep the lights on in British Columbia, or we're doing this so that we can send it somewhere.

The opportunity that the airlift provides to legislators and to the people of British Columbia is an opportunity to have a genuine debate. We're going to have, in the next number of days, a tabling of what the government is characterizing as a clean energy act. I look forward to that, and I believe that Site C is an integral part of a discussion about our energy future, but it should be as an alternative. It should be as a last resource. We've got other opportunities. My colleagues will talk about that.

We've got the downstream benefits. We've got the Waneta expansion project — both public projects. We've got Mica. We've got Revelstoke that's already underway. No shortage of public opportunities, large-scale hydro opportunities to meet our domestic supply. There's, of course, the importance of conservation, which the government pointed to in 2007 and seems to have lost interest in that at this point in time.

[1115]
[ Page 4796 ]

Last point I want to make, and I know that my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke will touch upon this. If we are going to proceed, we need a Columbia Basin Trust model to ensure that the people in the region get full resource from this expenditure.

This cannot be the 1960s all over again. It's the 21st century. We should have reasoned debate. I'm delighted that the member from Nechako wants to spew out my comments. He now has some more to refer to.

D. McRae: I'm pleased to stand and support this motion. The issue of electricity was obviously an important issue in the 2009 election. I'm proud this government has taken the steps necessary ensure that B.C. becomes energy self-sufficient.

It's essential that B.C. relies upon clean, renewable energy today and into the future. Currently B.C. has been forced to be a net importer of electricity eight of the past nine years, something the opposition would like to ignore, but this is a reality. While we have imported this power, far too often it's been from coal-generating power plants, not even just in Canada but from the United States of America.

Why are we importing this power? Well, it's imported for a number of reasons. The last major hydroelectric infrastructure investment in B.C. was the Mica dam. That was 1973. I don't remember it because I was only three years old at the time, but that was almost 40 years ago. During this time, in case you're not sure, the population of British Columbia has grown substantially. In fact, in those 37 years to 40 years the population of British Columbia has almost doubled.

Let's talk about the average home in British Columbia. I remember as a child that a 2,000-square-foot home was considered large. Now, a 2,000-square-foot home in British Columbia, sadly, is not large at all. In fact, we see monster homes being built.

What about the number of devices we have in our homes that draw electricity? They've increased substantially. Let's think about, say, 20 years ago. How many homes had a microwave or a TV? Well, many did, but you know what? Just one of each, often. Nowadays, if you have two or three TVs in your home, it's not uncommon.

Furthermore, like my colleague earlier mentioned, what about this vampire power? We have so many devices that are…. Even though they're turned off right now, whether there's a charger in the wall or a TV that's plugged in or a DVD player, there's a little clock or a little red or a little green light that's going off, drawing electricity. We're drawing power more and more and more.

Site C. Let's assume it meets the rigorous environmental assessment approvals and, providing that Crown constitutional duties for the First Nations are met, is a key component of meeting the future energy needs of B.C. It's projected, as stated earlier — and this is true — that B.C.'s energy needs are expected to grow by 25 percent to 40 percent over the next two decades.

During this time, why is this happening? Well, the population has grown, just like it has for the last twelve years in this province, and it's expected to grow by 1.2 million people in this province. This growth means that not only does B.C. have an energy shortfall today; we also have an energy shortfall of — and let's just talk some physics here — 19,000 gigawatts of power. This is the equivalent of having ten Mica dams going.

To meet the energy needs, let's have a multifaceted approach. We've done that in 2007, and there's a five-point way of looking at it. One key component is demand-side management, known to you and me as conservation. We're having a clean power call, bioenergy, upgrades to the Mica dam. A key component of this, if it goes forward, is the Site C project.

I'm proud to say that this government has a clear, concise plan to ensure that this province will take action and ensure that the residents and businesses of British Columbia will have access to clean, renewable and affordable energy long into the future.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to speak to this motion this morning, although I think I agree with my colleague from Juan de Fuca that it is odd, after the much-vaunted press release tour that took to the friendly skies and went up north, that we would be having what is a very speculative conversation and discussion on this motion because the motion is so wordy, because it has so many riders contained in there about some huge hurdles and potential barriers to the development of this project. So that's what we're going to have to spend an hour talking about this morning — a lot of what-ifs.

[1120]

One thing you have not heard this government talk about very much so far with Site C is how they are going to assure the public that a government that has dragged its own environmental assessment process to a view in British Columbia that it is nothing more than a fancy rubber stamp…. How is this government, when it comes to a project of this scale, going to assure not just citizens of the Peace region but all British Columbians that the environmental review is comprehensive, objective, fair, free from political interference and that it has integrity?

How are they going to assure British Columbians? They should be bringing this to the table right now during this debate. They should have brought it as part of their announcement.

How are they going to prove to British Columbians that the environmental assessment that is going to occur for Site C is going to reach the highest bar, is going to involve the widest number of stakeholders, including stakeholders from other provinces, and is going to
[ Page 4797 ]
satisfy First Nations organizations that have legal claims on some of the land under discussion that is part of the project site? Those are huge issues to be managed and ones that we have seen waved away so far, as if they're easily managed, by this government.

They treated the announcement of phase 3, an environmental assessment review, as if it was stage 5 and completion. They treated it as if it was a fait accompli and a done deal, when they should have said and very carefully explained that this is a long way from a done deal and that there are some major challenges to Site C. There is nothing environmentally benign about Site C or any energy project in this province, and there are some serious challenges and some work that government has to do to convince the public.

First of all, government has no idea, on a cost-benefit-analysis basis, whether this is an economically viable project. Is it $6.6 billion? When the Premier goes and announces something — whether it's a deficit that's $495 million maximum, a convention centre that's $440 million or now a dam that's $6.6 billion.... What's the multiplier effect on that kind of estimate?

Is it twice that? We don't know. But the streamers, the balloons and the hoopla have already started without any of that information given to British Columbians. That of course affects our rates. It affects the kilowatt-hour price. It affects everything about whether this project is even feasible.

Let's look at the Site C impact on the environment. We know that there are greenhouse gas emissions that can both be avoided and incurred through a project like Site C, and that there is a climate impact regardless. Hydroelectric, once it has been built, is long-lasting infrastructure. It has a life cycle for which you would look at the greenhouse gases attributed to the project and spread it over a significant number of decades. That is all true.

There is, as I said, nothing environmentally benign about Site C or any dam project. There is a tremendous amount of land put under water, and that will contribute to methane gas release. Methane gas, of course, is something of the magnitude of 20 times more harmful in its concentration to the atmosphere than carbon emissions. That will have to be accounted for. We have 9,000 hectares that we're talking about here.

We're also talking about a 1.1-kilometre-long reservoir wall, I believe, of significant height and density. This will have to be built to an extremely high engineering standard, and we know that a tonne of cement is roughly equivalent to a tonne of CO2 emissions. These are all things that have to be accounted for.

[1125]

The ball is in the government's court, in a sense. They should be telling British Columbians that this is not a rubber-stamped project. They should be saying that there will be very special and thorough environmental considerations. They should be looking at the interprovincial aspects here, the First Nations aspects to this project.

And they should be looking — and only the Minister of Environment can do this — at a federal review panel, as an option, to undertake this very, very complicated project; to look at what the appropriate scope is; and to assure people that the panellists named in such a process are independent, objective, have credibility and will make recommendations that are absolutely free from political interference.

That is the only thing, I think, that could make up for the cheerleading that we saw last week, the blind cheerleading from this government when they know that there are so many unanswered questions on the minds of British Columbians.

D. Hayer: I am pleased to rise to support this motion on Site C. The motion states: "Be it resolved that this House support the Government's decision to advance, subject to environmental assessment approvals" — again I will say it: subject to environmental assessment approvals — "and ensuring that the Crown's constitutional duties to First Nations are met, the development of the Site C Clean Energy Project to meet the future needs of British Columbia."

It very clearly states that we will be doing all the consultation. This is phase 3 of phase 5, as we have stated. I think people want to hear what the views of the different members are, what the views of both parties are on Site C.

This Site C is all about the future. It is about creating a safe, secure and green source of energy to keep our economy going and also making sure our future generations have a lot of energy that they will need as the economy grows, as jobs are created — to make sure that we have enough power that we don't have to import dirty power from the United States or other provinces. This is a very clear decision from our side to make sure this will be done. It will make sure that clean energy and a clean source of energy are protected for the future.

Today is the time for British Columbia to come from a net importer to electricity sufficient, because currently, for eight out of the ten past years, we have been importing power from the United States.

Site C will meet those needs. It will provide enough power to light and heat our homes, drive industry, create employment opportunities and create new jobs for our future generations. In other words, in building this dam, we are ensuring the future for our children and grandchildren who are not even born yet.

We have to look at the long term. When the Bennett dam was built on the Peace, it set the stage for huge growth and prosperity in the province. Site C will do that again. Construction of the Bennett dam also stimulated growth and prosperity in the north, and Site C will also do that.
[ Page 4798 ]

Some 35,000 construction jobs will be created, and an untold number of spinoff jobs will also revitalize northern British Columbia. There will be enormous benefits flowing into the region as workers move in there, establish their families there and have ties with the communities there.

Let's face it, Madam Speaker. These will be well-paying jobs, and much of the cash flow from the construction project will be going into the businesses in Fort St. John, in Dawson Creek and many other struggling communities in northeast British Columbia.

A good thing about hydro power is that it is clean energy. It produces the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour when compared to other forms of electricity generation. It will also greatly reduce the need and use of electricity generated from other fossil fuels.

Site C will also continue the legacy that British Columbia will enjoy some of the lowest electrical rates in North America. Site C will also, through its ability to keep electricity rates low, encourage more businesses and more industry to locate in British Columbia, thus assuring significant employment opportunities and creating many jobs for aboriginals in British Columbia.

[1130]

Site C will also be a huge dam. It will be the third dam on the Peace River, and the reservoir behind it will be only 5 percent the size of the Williston Lake reservoir that is behind the Bennett dam there. Even though it's only 5 percent of the size of the Williston Lake reservoir behind the Bennett dam, it will still create a lot of electricity and still produce approximately one-third of the power compared to what the Bennett turbines create right now.

Site C, as I mentioned earlier, will not only eliminate the need to buy imported electrical power, but it will make British Columbia self-sufficient in its requirement for electricity. No longer will we have to buy dirty power from other provinces or the United States to keep our lights going in British Columbia. Coupled with B.C. Hydro's drive to ensure energy conservation and its ambitious target of achieving one-third of its resources needed through conservation by 2020….

This is a very fair statement that B.C. Hydro has made, a fair plan they have: "Site C, along with the billions of dollars B.C. Hydro is currently investing this year and next year, will ensure a stable power supply generated in British Columbia."

Because of that, because the government is determined to create an environmentally sound future of our citizens, I support this motion and support the building of Site C. Also, at the same time, I just want to add that many of the members from the opposition, if you leaf through the statements, sometimes say that they support it; sometimes they say that they don't support it. I know in the opposition there are two points of view. Sometimes some of them support it; some don't.

We have to look at what is good for British Columbia long term. If we don't do it, we will pay the price for it for many decades to come. This is a project where something needs to be moved on. This is something that we need support on. It will be done with consideration of the environmental impacts, with consultation with the communities up north and here.

I know that many other members want to speak to it, so I will sit down and give my time to somebody else. I will have more to say on it later on.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and offer a few remarks on this important issue that I think affects all British Columbians. This is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and when the public hears sort of boosterism, the types of comments that we've heard from members across the way, they quite rightly get concerned.

The public has an awful lot of questions. For example, as my colleague from Juan de Fuca so ably put it, you had a runway that had not been used, and all of a sudden jet after plane after plane with a massive carbon footprint, and delegations of people — in fact, probably more people than had been up in that area for quite some time — to make a grandiose announcement that could have been quite easily done around here. In fact, it was referred to as King Lear on his Learjet.

I think that's appropriate, because what the public wants to ensure is that this doesn't end up being a giant Shakespearean tragedy. If you look at the announcements, the reality is that it's probably much ado about nothing, given the fact that this project is not imminent, is not going to be built anytime soon, that there are a series of…. You know, there's a very rigorous — or there should be — environmental review that has to be undertaken. So there are a lot of concerns.

When you hear about the $6.6 billion cost of this project, you know that — given this government's track record, when you look at things such as the trade and convention centre — it could quite easily spiral to $8 billion or $10 billion. That's not going to leave a lot of money for anything else. So the people up my way are wondering whether, in fact, the Evergreen line is just a midsummer night's dream.

We want to ensure that while we're watching the complete works of Shakespeare being played out on the other side — and I'm waiting to see Richard III — the real issues are addressed. Those issues are serious issues. Members of the government have been up talking. The member for Nechako Lakes and others stand up in this House and somehow get all holier than thou about B.C. not being energy self-sufficient, that we have to import power. "Oh my god, we import power. Oh, the horror of it."

We've been doing it for decades in this province because it makes good economic sense. If they don't
[ Page 4799 ]
understand that right now, then that gives me cause for alarm on the direction that they're going. In case they don't understand how it works, I'll take a quick minute to explain it to them.

[1135]

Next door to us is a province called Alberta. They generate electricity using coal- or gas-fired plants. Those aren't going away. They've been there for a long time. But they have to run 24 hours a day, even in the middle of the night. They're producing electricity in the middle of the night when they have no market for it.

So what do we do in British Columbia? We shut down our dams and let the reservoirs fill up. We buy that power from Alberta at a very reduced rate, and then we sell it at a profit. What a terrible thing to do. We're importing power. That isn't going to change, because it makes good economic sense. If they don't realize that, they really don't understand the power generation system in this province.

Then in the morning the reservoirs are filled up, we turn the dams back on, and we generate power. That's a significant way in which our system works. It has worked for decades, and it will work for decades into the future. For the hon. members to suddenly say that we need this because we need to become self-sufficient, that it's terrible that we import power…. They are being extremely disingenuous with members of the public.

They also forgot to recognize and have not really talked about some of the significant improvements we need to make in our existing power infrastructure, which can meet good chunks of our electrical demand in this province. The Waneta dam, the Mica and the Revelstoke are all very important projects that are in place now and that, with invested infrastructure dollars, can generate more of the power we need.

I have heard very little about conservation. I'm not surprised, given the HST mess they're in. A lot of the good initiatives around conservation have been done away with — the breaks that we've had. But conservation — whether it's refitting of homes, refitting of government buildings, encouraging people to invest in technology such as a heat pump or solar panels in the Okanagan, for example…. All can go a significant way to help meet the power needs of this province, along with wind and geothermal and all those other technologies that are under development.

As opposed to making announcements that somehow something is imminent, which it isn't, what we need to do is address those things that we could be doing right now and at the same time ensure that the environmental review that's underway is as thorough and rigorous as possible and deals with the key issues that people want to know about, such as methane emissions from the construction of the dam, such as dealing with issues around the agricultural land issues and how much land is being taken away.

What is the impact downstream and on fish stocks? This isn't just a B.C. river; it's a transboundary river. The Peace goes from British Columbia into Alberta and up into the Northwest Territories. All those have to be taken into account. It will probably trigger a federal review. That's something, again, that the members haven't really wanted to talk about.

Hon. Speaker, I know that there are many people in this chamber who still want to speak on this, so I will take my seat. But let's put it this way. When you cut the environmental assessment budget by 37 percent in 2002 and then a further 16 percent in 2008, that really doesn't speak well to this government's commitment to a full and rigorous environmental review of this project.

H. Bloy: I just want to answer a few of the questions from my colleague from Port Coquitlam. He talked about the boldness of this government to go outside of the Lower Mainland to make an announcement. I totally disagree with him. There's more. This province is so large and diverse that it was proper to do the announcement in Hudson's Hope.

I'm also somewhat disappointed that the member wants us to rely on Alberta and the United States for our power and not be self-sufficient. I guess coal is good, when they fought every mine and every option that we've had in British Columbia. Coal is now good for heating.

[1140]

You know, one of the problems with relying on other provinces…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bloy: …and other countries to supply us with our energy and sticking to buying power is that the opposition is refusing to look into the future. If they wanted to look up the website for B.C. Hydro, it will tell them everything we're doing now to conserve energy and all the many great things that are going on in this province. We as a government are looking at our future. We're looking at our children's future and our grandchildren's future.

The question I wanted to ask the members of the opposition is: where would we be if we hadn't built the W.A.C. Bennett dam back in the '60s? I believe we would be lost in the wilderness. We wouldn't have the great province that we have today. We wouldn't have the industries. We need the hydroelectricity. We need more. We have a large film industry that's coming up — manufacturing, IT.

There is such a need for us to grow, and as our population continues to grow, we have to house the people and the industries that it's going to need. This list can go on
[ Page 4800 ]
and on for how many people, how much electricity we need and for the industries that we need.

We've been buying electricity, actually, for the last nine years. It's not for decades and decades. It's nine years that we've been buying electricity, and that's maybe because we came into power ten years ago. The province has grown so much under this government that we're using more and more electricity, and we're developing this province to lead the country.

You know, we're number one in economic growth. The province of British Columbia is in a bubble all on its own in all of North America for growth and industry, and we're in the top three of the lowest rates in North America. Our heritage rates continue to provide the lowest cost of electricity in this province compared to the rest of North America.

I don't want to speak too long, because I'm just amazed at some of the flimsy reasons and excuses that the opposition have for not building this when they can't look into the future, when they can't look at the bigger picture on what's best not just for my children and grandchildren but for everyone's children and grandchildren for the growth of this province. I support this motion wholeheartedly.

N. Macdonald: We've had the members from Nechako Lakes, Comox, Surrey and Burnaby. Presumably, I guess, next we'll get Kamloops–North Thompson. Interestingly, none of those members actually represents areas that have significant hydro development.

The community that I represent, Revelstoke…. And the member from Comox was wrong. He forgot that the most recent development was the Revelstoke dam. These are communities that know electricity and have been impacted profoundly by the developments that all British Columbians benefit from.

You have in my area Revelstoke and Mica, and you have the impact, as well, of the Arrow Lakes dams. In all of those, there were things that were done right, and there were things that were done wrong. They speak to the need to do proper assessment before you move an act, to think through what you're doing and to balance the environmental and economic impact of these projects and to think through, as well, your consultation process.

I can tell you that in the 1950s…. What people in Revelstoke still talk about is the very poor consultation process that took place. Environmental impacts were not thought through, so we have problems in the Mica reservoir that we're still dealing with. They left the forest basically whole underneath the reservoir, and you have all sorts of issues that come from that lack of thought at that time.

You have First Nations issues that weren't resolved and still exist to be resolved from those projects. At the same time, you have local communities that were moved. You have, as recently as a few months ago, somebody talking to me about access to part of Arrow Lake so they could get to a site where a graveyard that still has family members was flooded.

[1145]

We would do things differently now, I hope. We would actually sit and study and then decide whether a project was worthwhile going ahead. But what we see with this government again and again…. It's like the Premier gets up, and it's ready, fire, aim.

You know, there's no thinking before they're up saying that there's a decision to be made, and many of the members have stood up and have been factually incorrect in the statements that they are repeating from government propaganda. They're factually incorrect about what they're saying, and the story keeps changing. The story keeps changing about what the power is for. One day it is for an internal need that's not there. The next day it is for export, and it is constantly changing.

One of the things that needs to be thought through with this is that there needs to be meaningful consultation. There needs to be participation from local people, and that is what this government has consistently taken away. You did it with Bill 30. You took it away with Bill 30, and that is why people in Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere and Kimberley rejected the imposition of these private power diversion projects without our ability to have a say, because we know the impact of hydro projects in our area.

We provide the power for two million houses from the area that I represent, and we should have a say on how those projects go ahead. I'll just contrast that, in the time I have left, with what the NDP did with the Columbia Basin Trust.

If you don't come from the Kootenays and you don't know what took place there, it is a real success story that was supported not only by the NDP…. And I tell you, it goes back to Harcourt's decision, pushed by Ed Conroy and Corky Evans, enabled by Glen Clark and supported not only by NDP in the area but by Liberals, Social Credit and people from the Kootenays on the idea. It's people like Josh Smienk — the member for Shuswap will know the names — who worked to make sure that we took back some of the control we lost in the 1950s and got some of the benefit for the projects that were going on there, to make sure that we did not allow projects to go on in the future without criteria that were clear.

Those criteria include First Nations being asked and consulted meaningfully. That has to happen — that environmental and agricultural concerns be thought through and be dealt with in a fair and thoughtful way, that you make sure that you understand the cost, the real economic benefits, the impact on ratepayers…. All of those things have to be thought through.

There are good projects going on right now. I can tell you a few that are impacting positively, that my community…. I went with the member for "John" de Fuca, as he likes to say, to a number of these projects. We toured
[ Page 4801 ]
through projects that Columbia power was doing, the Brilliant dam. I think other colleagues from our caucus came through and toured that project — wonderful project, a good public benefit flowing from it.

The member for Juan de Fuca came with me to Revelstoke 5. That project there is a good project. It makes sense. The communities were consulted. They thought through the housing issues, the impact on the community. It was thought through. Mica — those projects make sense. That same rigour has to be applied to any project that you go forward with in the future.

Those aren't political debates. Those are debates where first you gather information and then make a rational decision, and that is what needs to take place with this debate — respectful of local communities, respectful of our shared public resource, making sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but that we learn from them.

T. Lake: It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House and support the motion that "this House support the Government's decision to advance, subject to environmental assessment approvals, and ensuring that the Crown's constitutional duties to First Nations are met, the development of the Site C Clean Energy Project to meet the future needs of British Columbia."

[1150]

Madam Speaker, I read the motion in full because many of the speakers from the opposition have said that we need to do a proper environmental assessment and that we need to consult. That is in fact in the motion, and yet I have not heard one speaker from the opposition rise to support that motion, which clearly says that we are going to do a complete environmental assessment. British Columbia is known to have the most complete environmental assessment in the country.

We're going to do First Nations consultation. In fact, of course, some of that has been done in stage 2 when B.C. Hydro conducted three rounds of public and stakeholder consultations and participated in 121 meetings over three rounds of consultation, including 103 stakeholder meetings and 18 open houses.

It's clear that despite what we hear from the other side, the future in energy is electricity, and we will need more of that electricity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that our energy needs are growing — 20 to 40 percent over the next 20 years — and that 10 to 60 percent of the vehicles purchased in the year 2025 will be plug-in, either hybrid or full electricity.

Where is that electricity going to come from? Well, I heard in the election campaign that the opposition would have that energy come from publicly owned power created from our low–greenhouse gas hydroelectricity. They wanted B.C. Hydro to be involved in development of clean, green energy. So it was clear that their election platform was to support B.C. Hydro, to support the creation of new clean, green energy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think that is exactly what the government is being accused of doing here today. Some people have referred to it as boosterism, but I would not consider doing the right thing and celebrating doing the right thing as boosterism, particularly if it's framed up in a commitment to do a complete and holistic environmental assessment and First Nations consultation.

We need to again outline the benefits to northern and interior communities. This project will create 7,650 person-years of work during construction and 35,000 direct and indirect jobs all throughout the stages of the development. For northern and interior communities, including aboriginal peoples, this is a tremendous opportunity for economic development, for the jobs that will be created during construction, for upgrades to infrastructure, for increased tourism through lake-based recreational activities and for skills training as well.

It's important that the local people that are affected by this decision be involved. That's why the decision was made to make the announcement in the back yard of the people that are affected — affected in a very, very positive way — albeit we know that every development has impacts and that those need to be minimized and mitigated as much as possible.

I do get a bit of a laugh when the opposition refers to this reaching out and including local people as a waste of carbon, if you like, particularly after the infamous run-of-river flyover during the election campaign, where the supposed terrible environmental onslaught or destruction couldn't be found and a plane full of the opposition members took a whole day trying to find what they certainly couldn't.

I will close by saying that we need to decide how to move forward here in British Columbia. We are looking for this House to support clean, green energy. While I can't quote Shakespeare as well as the member for Juan de Fuca, I can quote Meat Loaf from "Paradise by the Dashboard Light," which of course depends on electricity, and say: "What's it gonna be, boy? Yes or no?"

T. Lake moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175