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, May 31, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 4

[ Page 5959 ]

MONDAY, MAY 31, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have two special guests in the House today. These two people are invaluable to the office of Saanich South. Please welcome Samuel Godfrey and Linda Carter.

R. Lee: I would like to introduce some guests of mine who are in the gallery with us today: Ken Law, president of the B.C. Wushu Association; Lizen Liu, vice-chairman of the Global Women Federation of Commerce of Canada; Yi Xin, member of the Shandong Natives Association of B.C.; Songlin Zhang, deputy director general, administration of sports, Shandong, China; Jie Hu, president, Shandong Province Wushu Association; Renjun Xu, deputy dean, Zhe Jiang College of Sports in China.

Also with them are Fei Wang, Peiyuan Sun, Guangiang Du, Wei Li, Junfeng Sun, Jianjun Shen, Te Yu, Di Wang, Zhuqian Ye, Dandan Dai and David He. Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

[1335]

G. Coons: On behalf of my colleague from Stikine, I would like to acknowledge a group of students who were visiting the precinct this morning from Dease Lake. Yes, that's right, Dease Lake — 1,774 kilometres away from the capital and not only one of the best schools in the province but one of the furthest away from the capital.

I met with them this morning. There were 21 students, grades 4, 5 and 6, from Dease Lake School. They are on a ten-day fantasy trip throughout the province with seven chaperones and their two teachers, Amanda Bartle and Kristen Johnston. They had to fundraise $30,000 from their population of 350, an amazing feat. So please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature this morning and wishing them well on their educational journey throughout British Columbia.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce guests with and affiliated with the Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation, Murray Goldberg and Jim McEwen from the B.C. chapter. They're here today with nominees and their spouses for the Ernest C. Manning Awards.

This foundation is a national body that celebrates and awards Canadian innovation in any human endeavour. It is an award program established almost 30 years ago and modelled after the Nobel Foundation and its prizes. It awards a $100,000 principal award, a $25,000 award of distinction and two $10,000 innovation awards based on intellectual achievement, uniqueness, originality and level of benefit to Canadians.

I would like to introduce the nominees and their spouses: Bob de Wit, Christopher Ryan and his wife Catherine Ryan, Rob Wilkins, Don Mavinic, Dick Gangnon and his wife Christine, Carolyn Cross, Jack Pacey, Vickie Cammack, James Olson and Gayle Birkeland. May the House please make them welcome.

A. Dix: It's my honour to introduce Ron Winter. Mr. Winter is visiting us from the United States, and he presented this week in Victoria and Vancouver on his latest book, Granny Snatching: How a 92-Year-Old Widow Fought the Courts and Her Family to Win Freedom. This is a timely topic, as June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Mr. Winter is an author, public relations executive, college professor and award-winning journalist.

He's joined by Lyne England, a family council member from Saanich Peninsula Hospital, and Lois Sampson from Greater Victoria Seniors. I ask the House to make all of them very welcome.

T. Lake: It's a great pleasure for me today to introduce my constituency assistant, who has been in the office since February. Kirsty Morris is visiting the Legislature for the first time today. Of course, as we all know, our constituency assistants help us each and every day and make the difficult job of being an MLA that much better. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Kirsty to the House.

J. Horgan: In the press gallery today we have a birthday, the hardest-working woman in television — assigned here by A Channel, in any event. Shachi Kurl has a birthday today, as well as the august member from Nanaimo. Would the House please wish them both a very happy, happy birthday.

N. Letnick: A few weeks ago I extolled the virtues of motherhood, just in advance of Mother's Day. I actually believe my mother is watching this today, but more importantly…. Not more importantly — sorry, Mom. Oops, as I put the other foot in my mouth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my mother-in-law, who is here, Theresa Liberte. She's here with my wife, Helene Letnick, and my daughter Melanie Letnick, and together we're celebrating her 85th birthday.

N. Simons: It is a pleasure today to introduce two guests from the beautiful district of Sechelt. I have Sherryl Latimer and her daughter Madeleine, who are visiting. It's Madeleine's first time here, so would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]
[ Page 5960 ]

L. Reid: I would like to join my colleagues in talking about imagination and stamina today. They are found in the body of Dr. Jim McEwen, president of Western Clinical Engineering, adjunct professor in the department of orthopedics at the faculty of medicine and adjunct professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering in the faculty of applied sciences at the University of British Columbia. He typifies the imagination to take the idea to the marketplace and the stamina that's required to do that. I would ask the House to please make him very, very welcome.

N. Simons: I just wanted to wish a happy birthday to a constituent of mine. I went to her birthday party on Thursday. Mrs. Mary Moroze turned 108, so would the House please wish her all the best. It was a wonderful party. The staff there was friendly, and it was a most welcoming event. Happy birthday to Mary Moroze on 108.

Hon. S. Bond: Today I would like to make an introduction on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. This guest is actually a virtual visitor to the Legislature. Apparently, he tunes into question period almost every day.

His name is Dave Griffith. Dave is actually a deck officer for B.C. Ferries. I know that he's met a number of MLAs on the course of their travels back and forth, and at a very recent visit a number of his colleagues came up and said: "Dave is the best deck officer we've ever had." He's been a deck officer for 40 years. He tunes in to question period. He says that he does it for information but, most importantly, for entertainment.

Dave, today's QP is dedicated to you. We hope you enjoy it, and thanks for a great service to B.C. Ferries.

P. Pimm: In the precinct today I have a group of grade 11 students from North Peace senior high school in Fort St. John. They're here with their teacher, Miss Tracey Hoff. I would like the Legislature to give them a warm welcome, please.

G. Hogg: The city of White Rock, like so many communities in this province, is honoured and blessed to have many volunteers and ambassadors. Today we are joined in the Legislature by the ambassadors for White Rock. They are Robin Freiheit, Christine Johnson, Lydia Waiz, Michelle Flandin, Debby Chen, Shandis Harrison, Sarah Li, Megan Ferguson, Wendy Mo and Grace Lee.

They are accompanied by two volunteers who do an enormous amount of work in our community and are their adult leaders: Debbie Ward and Donna Beaudry. The member for Surrey-Panorama and I had the privilege of having lunch with them today and hearing their enthusiasm and excitement for their community, for our province and for our country. Would the Legislature please make them feel most welcome.

Statements

DEATHS IN AHOUSAT
FLOATPLANE ACCIDENT

Hon. G. Abbott: On a sadder note, I think all members of the House would be aware that on the weekend there was a tragic crash at Ahousat in which four people lost their lives, a pilot and three members of the Ahousaht First Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we all want to join with the member for North Island in passing our condolences and concern along to the Ahousaht First Nation, knowing that they are going through a remarkably difficult time.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following: an interim report of the Merit Commissioner for the fiscal period 2009-2010 and Elections B.C. Service Plan 2010/11– 2012/13.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Species at Risk
Protection Act, 2010

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Species at Risk Protection Act, 2010.

R. Fleming: I move first reading of the Species at Risk Protection Act.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables British Columbia to join with eight provinces in Canada that currently have stand-alone legislation protecting critical habitat for endangered species at risk of extinction. B.C. has long been recognized as Canada's most biodiverse province, but our province is also noted for lacking an explicit legislative framework that ensures B.C.'s unique and rich habitat is not lost forever from human impacts that can be better managed.

[1345]

Research supported by the Law Foundation of B.C. established that B.C. is host to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent of its freshwater fish species and 60 percent of its conifer species, yet only 4 percent of B.C.'s 600 species at risk are listed under existing provincial laws.

The provincial government is aware of recent reports about the levels of endangerment of wildlife, including our iconic orca whales. It's growing more severe each
[ Page 5961 ]
year of each decade. To quote that report: "Without immediate action, British Columbia's biodiversity is vulnerable to rapid deterioration, especially in light of climate change."

The bill will greatly expand upon the narrow jurisdictional protection offered by the federal Species at Risk Act. The bill will enable independent scientists from respected bodies like the Royal Society of Canada to identify species and ecosystems under threat and create recovery plans.

In determining and implementing necessary actions, government will benefit from the best scientific knowledge available as well as aboriginal knowledge and will be able to balance long-term protective measures with economic and social considerations.

To create a sustainable B.C., this legislation intends to strengthen conservation agreements our province already has in place to help our province's biodiversity adapt to climate change and recover and restore the health of species and ecosystem from decline and disappearance.

Eight years ago the United Nations declared 2010 the Year of Biodiversity, with the intent of achieving significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity lost at the global, regional and national level.

B.C. ecosystems we all recognize — including coastal Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and grasslands — are part of the land base regarded as critically imperilled or vulnerable. We need legislative tools to guide our action. This bill offers our province a means to protect species at risk and the rich biodiversity of our province for future generations to come.

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

Bill M207, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WORLD NO TOBACCO DAy

N. Letnick: Imagine a world where people focus on health and not addiction and where people don't have to worry about secondhand smoke exposure. We can start now, because today, May 31, is World No Tobacco Day.

World No Tobacco Day was created in '87 to encourage a 24-hour period of abstinence from all forms of tobacco consumption. According to the World Health Organization, tobacco use is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced. Tobacco is a risk factor for six of the leading causes of death in the world, including cardiovascular disease, lung disease and several types of cancer.

The WHO attributes one in ten deaths worldwide to tobacco use, which equates to 5.4 million annually. By 2030 they estimate that the number of tobacco-related deaths each year will have risen to eight million people.

This year the WHO theme is gender and tobacco, with an emphasis on marketing to women. It includes an ad campaign focused on women with the theme "Smoking is ugly."

In British Columbia fewer women smoke than men, with approximately 12.5 percent of women and 17 percent of men. B.C. continues to support British Columbians in quitting smoking with tobacco-free incentives, initiatives and cessation programs like the B.C. Lung Association's QuitNow services, which can help.

Since 2001 we have mostly seen a decrease in our provincial smoking rate, which is more than 5 percent lower than it was ten years ago and is the lowest smoking rate in Canada — 14.7 percent, or approximately 540,000 smokers.

Eliminating tobacco use is one way we can lead a healthier lifestyle, and we all need to play a role in creating a healthier British Columbia by supporting our friends, our family and stopping smoking.

GREATER VICTORIA COALITION
TO END HOMELESSNESs

C. James: Today I rise to recognize the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness. It's estimated that there are 1,500 people in the capital region without homes. Unless action is taken, that number is expected to quadruple in the next five years. The coalition was established in response to the 2007 Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness. The committee has been hard at work ever since.

Last November they announced their Street to Home initiative, based on a similar program in Toronto. This project begins with the belief that everyone has the right to a home. Their support-based approach draws from clear evidence that people who move from the streets directly into homes will cost the system less and will need fewer health care and law enforcement services in the long run.

[1350]

With funding from the United Way of Victoria, the city of Victoria and B.C. Housing, this initiative brings together not-for-profit agencies, outreach workers and landlords to help secure rental housing, help clients get the proper access as well as provide the follow-up support so that they can stay housed.

I'd also like to welcome a new individual to the coalition team. Debbie Thompson brings a wealth of knowledge, commitment and passion to her new position as executive director.

Homelessness is everyone's responsibility. I congratulate the coalition and their partners for stepping up to
[ Page 5962 ]
the plate on behalf of our community to tackle one of the biggest challenges we're facing today. I would urge everyone, including all levels of government, to provide their support to this critical work.

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

L. Reid: It was in the late 1970s that I first taught children with a diagnosis of autism. These youngsters were part of a provincial program called Laurel House in Vancouver, and I was then exploring a variety of treatment options. My passion for children and their families experiencing a diagnosis of autism propelled me into further study, and I continued to do graduate work with this population.

I spent eight years as minister, co-locating and integrating services for young children, so imagine my delight when I was invited to tour Monarch House in Burnaby. Monarch House is a calm oasis of innovative, competent individuals serving countless British Columbia families and their children with autism.

I continue to seek out the best science and the best interventions. Without a doubt, we all want the best outcomes. I'm in awe of parents who experience the diagnosis of autism with respect to their child. Parenting is challenging; parenting a child with special needs, extraordinary. I respect the choices parents make, and I know there are many talented, dedicated professionals supporting these families today. I salute them all.

Ucluelet on the west coast of Vancouver Island is home to an array of co-located, integrated services. The brand-new Ucluelet community building is home to the council chambers, the public library, the theatre school and stage, the dance studios and, best of all, an amazing child care centre.

To Abby Fortune and her team, congratulations. After all, it is about the babies.

Speaking of the babies, many of you will know that Atira Women's Resource Society is committed to the care of women and their children. In 2005 Atira and the Maxxine Wright Place Project for high-risk pregnant and early-parenting women opened its doors, with health care and with housing. In the next few weeks they will open the doors on a brand-new child care centre I had the privilege of visiting — another amazing example of co-located, integrated services for families. My heartfelt thanks to Janice Abbott and her team.

British Columbia is better for the excellence of all three of these fabulous service providers. My thanks to them all.

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

L. Popham: Today marks the first day of the 16th annual Bike to Work Week here in Victoria. The rain came down this morning, but that didn't stop all the cyclists, new and seasoned, from making their way to work and participating in one of the most successful events in Canada that transitions people from automobiles to bikes.

The smiles and chatter that were evident at the Selkirk Trestle celebration station almost made you think it was sunny out. Getting soaked and having messy hair didn't stop these happy cyclists. In fact, messy hair is so not a problem. I've seen messier hair at 2:30 in the morning in this chamber than I've ever seen at Bike to Work Week.

Last year Bike to Work Week in Victoria attracted 7,000 riders on nearly 700 teams. About 40 percent of them were women, which is double the national average. Over 1,000 of those riders were cycling to work for the very first time. It's an incredibly supportive environment, much like getting a pat on the back for a job well done.

One thing that motivates riders to keep commuting is the fitness gain from 30 to 60 minutes a day of cardio respiratory exercise. They begin to lose weight, and they gain muscle tone. People who cycle daily are more likely to enjoy good health and get sick less often. This reduces the strain on our health care system.

One of the most exciting events this week will be the commuter challenge, a friendly car-versus-bike battle. Teams consist of a driver and a cyclist starting together from a point of their choosing and then racing, following the rules of the road, to View and Broad streets. Last year more than 50 percent of cyclists beat their car-driving counterparts. For the teams whose car beat the bike, the car arrived only four to five minutes faster, but the cyclists were inevitably happier.

As Bike to Work Week wraps up at the end of this week, the society will be laying off employees, and they will be struggling to find funding for next year's event. Let's hope that common sense prevails and that they get the support they need.

MICHAEL STEVENSON

H. Bloy: This summer classes will wrap up for many post-secondary students at Simon Fraser University, but this summer is a little different. The president of SFU, Dr. Michael Stevenson, will be wrapping up his esteemed career with the university.

[1355]

For the past ten years Dr. Stevenson has served SFU as president and vice-chancellor, helping to bring much acclaim to the university. The school has become the top-ranked university in Canada, and the people of Burnaby and British Columbia have Dr. Stevenson to thank for this.

I have seen this progress taking place over the past decade, and I am amazed at how the students of SFU from all over the province and worldwide have such pride in their school and the reputation it holds as the premier school learning institution in Canada.
[ Page 5963 ]

Simon Fraser University has expanded under the leadership of Dr. Michael Stevenson. A new campus in Surrey is now busting at the seams for more expansion. The joint effort with BCIT, UBC and Emily Carr, led by Simon Fraser University in the design digital media for interactive arts and technology. The new SFU location at Woodward's centre. The school for contemporary arts.

In ten short years Dr. Stevens has extended SFU from the Lower Mainland to all reaches of the province. He has led the expansion of SFU to an international level, with courses and partnerships offered all over the world. Dr. Stevenson is recognized as the leading educator in the province, if not all of Canada, for his amazing success. He will be missed not only for his leadership in academia but for his wit and charm and his true love for Simon Fraser University. I want to wish my friends Michael and Jan all the best in the future.

CROSS-COUNTRY BIKING FUNDRAISER
IN SUPPORT OF SMOKING REDUCTION

J. Brar: Just a few hours ago and a few kilometres from here, in Beacon Hill Park, Mr. Errol Povah, one of my constituents, and his volunteer team with Airspace Action on Smoking and Health embarked on a five- to seven-month, 6,300-kilometre journey for a tobacco-free world. The journey will raise funds for their work and for the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation; Variety, The Children's Charity; and Toronto's SickKids Foundation.

The journey is an immense undertaking, and like the start of Terry Fox's run across Canada, it is starting out modestly and needs our support to grow. When it comes to combating tobacco, a great deal of wonderful work has been completed over the last half-century, yet it continues to be the leading cause for disease, disability, premature death in this province, in this country and indeed in the rest of the developed nations.

In B.C. nearly 9,500 British Columbians will die from cancer this year, lung cancer being the biggest cancer killer. Mr. Povah feels that the governments of the world — in particular, those in developed nations — must start tackling the tobacco pandemic much more aggressively. Mr. Povah has been working on this issue for the last 30 years, and his organization, Airspace B.C., was instrumental in fighting for the development and enforcement of WorkSafe B.C.'s no-smoking regulations.

I urge all members from both sides of this House to join me in endorsing Mr. Povah's journey from Victoria to Montreal. I invite the citizens of B.C. to support his efforts to improve the health of British Columbians and all Canadians in tackling tobacco.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: During the election campaign the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association issued a questionnaire inviting all parties to share their position on the HST. The official B.C. Liberal response was: "A harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform." That's an answer that can only be interpreted as against the HST.

The government response again today is: "Many say the B.C. Liberals promised there would be no HST. Such a promise was never made." So my question is to the Premier. Who does he think he's fooling?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the questionnaire pointed out, it was not contemplated in our platform, as we mentioned on a number of occasions.

[1400]

We did not start to even consider the HST till following the election. When we did consider the HST, the potential for a harmonized sales tax, we were motivated by two things: (1) driving jobs in British Columbia — helping forestry, mining, energy, agriculture, small business in this province; and (2) being able to live up to our major commitment in the campaign — that we'd be stronger coming out of the economic downturn than we were going in. And that's exactly what is happening in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The B.C. Liberal position on the HST was clear before the election. They told the voters they didn't bring in the HST. They weren't going to bring it in. After the election they turned around and betrayed the voters and the public in British Columbia.

The homebuilders association president Peter Simpson said: "The Liberals indicated they did not support harmonization." The homebuilders took the B.C. Liberals at their word. But like all British Columbians, they were betrayed when only three days after the election, B.C. officials entered into talks with Ottawa on the HST.

So again, my question is to the Premier. How does he expect anyone to believe his spin when it's so clear that the B.C. Liberals betrayed their HST promise to the voters?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important for us to think about how we build the economy in British Columbia, in every single region of this province. There is no one that will benefit more from a strong economy than homebuilders in British Columbia.
[ Page 5964 ]

But let's get the facts straight. Not one existing home in British Columbia will be touched by the HST. In fact, in working with the homebuilders, what we did was that we raised the rebate level up to $525,000 for a new home so that we will continue to have a strong home-building industry. More importantly, we will have people in jobs who can afford to buy homes in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: British Columbians know the truth. They know that the B.C. Liberals betrayed the voters on the HST in this province. That's what the voters know. This government's attempt to twist their way out of this promise is just an attempt to duck accountability. It's an absolute insult to the public in British Columbia, and it will only further inflame the public anger that's out there.

So today I'd like to ask the Premier: will he stand up in this House, will he apologize to the public, and will he get rid of the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: What this government has done has eliminated the PST, which was called for, for year after year after year from small businesses across the province of British Columbia — a saving of $150 million across British Columbia to small businesses.

We said that we would come out of the economic downturn stronger, and we are coming out of the economic downturn stronger, according to the chamber of commerce; the Council of Forest Industries; the Retail Council of Canada; the Mining Association of B.C.; the B.C. Lumber Trade Council; the Business Council of British Columbia; the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association; West Fraser Timber; Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; the B.C. Road Builders Association; the New Car Dealers of B.C.; the B.C. Agriculture Council; Telus, British Columbia; the Motion Picture Production Association of British Columbia; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; and the B.C. Construction Association. [Applause.]

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Member.

B. Ralston: Well, from the sound of the applause, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has succeeded in convincing at least half his caucus to support him on this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Finance Minister has tried to disown B.C. Liberal answers to the homebuilders' questionnaire. He attributed those answers to individuals working out of the party headquarters, but Mr. Simpson, the CEO of the homebuilders association, rightly points out that those answers were printed on official B.C. Liberal letterhead with the B.C. Liberal logo at the bottom of the page. He rightly concludes: "To me, that indicates an official party line."

Is it any wonder that no one in British Columbia accepts the explanation that the Premier is advancing yet again today? Why doesn't the Premier just admit that B.C. Liberals broke their word to the people of B.C. on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let's go back to last year, when in fact what we said was that we were going to make sure that we kept British Columbia strong, and we were stronger coming out of the downturn than we were going into it.

Let me be very clear. I do not hesitate to take accountability for the decisions that have been made by this government. They've been made in the best interests of the forest industry, the mining industry, the energy industry, the agriculture industry, the retail industry and small businesses across this province. They've been made in the interests of workers across this province so that, we're told, there will be tens of thousands of additional jobs, 113,000 jobs, and $11 billion in additional investments. And that means good news for British Columbians and their families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Premier's answers and his wriggling are really quite lame. I think everyone in the province agrees with that. In fact, the refusal to confront the issue is almost Clintonesque. When will the Premier admit that his government betrayed the public of British Columbia by breaking its promise on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: What we have always committed to British Columbians is that we will work hard to make the economy stronger, to encourage investments and to encourage job creation. That's why we ran on a campaign that said, "Keep B.C. strong," and the opposition ran on a campaign that said: "Take B.C. back." The opposition ran a campaign that said: "Take us back to a have-not status." We said we're going to keep forward and build British Columbia's economy and strengthen Canada.

The opposition has voted against every single move meant to put more money in British Columbians' pockets, which is why across the board in B.C., the average taxpayer is paying 37 percent less in provincial income tax, and that means one thing, hon. Speaker. That means
[ Page 5965 ]
jobs for British Columbians, 400,000-plus new jobs since 2001.

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The people of British Columbia remember the last election. What were they promised? They were promised there would not be a degradation of education and health — strike 1. They were promised that the deficit would be $495 million, guaranteed — strike 2. They were promised the HST would not be introduced — strike 3. Here we have….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Is the Premier seriously standing in this House and suggesting that, in the future, when B.C. Liberals are asked specific questions and answer unequivocally in writing on official letterhead, it means absolutely nothing?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I didn't hear a question there, but I'm glad to provide an answer that I'm sure the member, who is the Forests critic, would like to hear.

Every single major association in forestry says adopting of the HST is important. Every trade organization says adopting the HST is important because it makes our forest industry more competitive.

That critic opposite should understand this. Because they don't get the forest industry. The forest industry is all in favour of what this HST will do for them and for jobs in Canfor and West Fraser — the small producers across the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The Premier shows how completely out of touch he is with rural B.C. when he goes, as a defence, to B.C. Liberal forest policy, with 30,000 jobs gone and 71 mills shut on his watch. That's his defence. The Premier stands here and trivializes the commitment that the B.C. Liberals made. How could it have possibly been a clearer commitment?

There were direct questions. There were written answers with reasons on official B.C. Liberal letterhead. Even former B.C. Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor recognizes the public's repugnance of this government's double-cross on the HST.

The HST is a betrayal, pure and simple. When will this government do the right thing, accept the truth and scrap the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, in terms of the forest industry in British Columbia, I think if the critic took time to talk to the Coast Forest Products Association or took time to talk to the B.C. Lumber Trade Council or took time to talk to West Fraser Timber or took time to talk to the B.C. Pulp and Paper Steering Committee or took time to talk to the Council of Forest Industries or took time to talk to the Truck Loggers Association, what he would discover is….

To an organization, they would tell him that the adoption of the HST and the elimination of the PST is the single most important thing we can do to make them more competitive in this international marketplace. That creates investment, and that creates jobs in every region of this province.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: Before the election the homebuilders association had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth. Clearly, they hadn't. Before the election the B.C. Restaurant Association had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth. Clearly, they hadn't. Most importantly, millions of British Columbian families across this province had thought the government had taken the time to tell them the truth about the HST, and clearly, they didn't.

The Premier can stand and list off all the names he wants, but I can tell you that millions of families have done the math across this province, and they know that the HST hurts them every single day, whether it's a restaurant meal, a haircut or buying a house in the Lower Mainland. So why doesn't the Premier recognize that they didn't tell the truth to the public and scrap the HST?

Mr. Speaker: Premier, just take your seat for a second.

Member, I want to remind you that, in the last part of your statement, you do not direct questions to a specific person.

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important to note that a number of steps have been taken not just to strengthen our economy but to strengthen job opportunities for families across the province and, in fact, to cushion any of the negative challenges that may come from the adoption of an HST.

The reason that we increased personal deductibility by $1,600 was so that we could help cushion families from any negative impacts. The reason there is $230, at least, going to an individual who may be on low in-
[ Page 5966 ]
come, which represents literally over a million British Columbians, is to cushion the impacts of HST.

Most important, what we said to families is that we would do everything we could to make our economy stronger and to move us forward in British Columbia. That is exactly what this government will do, and it's exactly what this government stands for.

HARMONIZED SALES TAX ON BICYCLES

L. Popham: This week is Bike to Work Week. Thousands of people around the province have been tuning up their bikes and even buying new ones to prepare for this important event. The whole purpose of Bike to Work Week is to motivate people to make healthy, green choices about how they get to work.

However, repairing bikes and buying new ones are going to cost more once the HST is implemented. To the Premier: why is he making it harder for people to make green, healthy choices by imposing the HST on bicycles and repairs?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no government that has done more to improve bicycling infrastructure in the province of British Columbia than this government. We have committed tens of millions of dollars to improving bicycling infrastructure in community after community after community and in working with all retailers in British Columbia.

The reason the Retail Council of British Columbia believes in this HST is because there will be savings of $150 million in compliance costs across the economy in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Our health care system is stretched, our climate is changing, and this government continues to pretend to support cycling. Instead of creating an incentive to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, this government is doing the opposite by implementing the HST on bikes and repairs.

Will the Premier admit the HST is bad for our health and bad for the environment and scrap the HST?

[1420]

Hon. G. Campbell: I always like it when the opposition pretends they care about the environment, having voted against every single initiative to protect the environment and deal with greenhouse gases.

More important, on this specific issue of providing safe, secure bicycle networks in community after community, where we've been able to invest in bicycling networks in over 50 communities in the province — investing $128 million in bicycling networks — they have voted against every single action.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO OIL LEAK
AT CHEVRON REFINERY IN BURNABY

R. Fleming: I always love it when the Premier pretends that he cares about the environment too. Here's the Premier, in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, who's the only leader in the Pacific Northwest who still supports offshore drilling on our coast. This is the Premier who wants to break a 40-year moratorium against supertankers on our coast. That's the kind of environmentalist he is.

Last week we learned that oil from a Chevron refinery has been leaking into Burrard Inlet for more than a month. Not only did he hide this from the public, but now, instead of playing any role in stopping the leak, they're leaving Chevron in charge.

My question is to the Premier. Is it the government's policy to let companies that pollute our waterways self-monitor their own reporting on the extent of the damage? Is that the state of environmental regulation and enforcement in British Columbia today?

Hon. G. Campbell: For this member, who voted against a cap-and-trade system, for this member, who voted against the carbon tax, for that opposition, who voted against the carbon tax day in, day out, month in, month out…. They said no to reducing greenhouse gases. They say no to the Clean Energy Act. They say no to independent power. This is an opposition that couldn't care less about the environment unless it meets their expedient political agenda.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I would almost forget that this is the Premier who led the only province in Canada to see greenhouse gas emissions actually increase last year. It's Premier Tar Sands.

My supplemental question is this. This government is responsible for ensuring that companies follow the law, but right now Chevron is continuing business as usual while oil leaks into the Burrard Inlet. As of today, it wasn't the Ministry of Environment that was on site at the refinery taking samples and looking at the damage. It was a group of concerned environmentalists and concerned scientists that were there on the ground.

My question is to the Premier, again. Where is the Ministry of Environment in all of this? If the source and extent of Chevron's oil leak can't be responded to properly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you say the environment can be protected from bigger spills?
[ Page 5967 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite should know, because the Solicitor General actually pointed it out to him last week, that from the day that we discovered this situation, we used our information to go out to find out exactly what was taking place. That remains the case.

The Environment Ministry, as well as the emergency preparedness group, are out there working on this. It will be cleaned up. Chevron will be held to account, and we will continue to make sure we monitor their progress as they go through.

[1425]

S. Simpson: This is the Premier who presided over the slashing of the Environment Ministry's budget, slashing it to the point now where across British Columbia environmentalists, wildlife federation leaders and retired employees of the minister are questioning whether this ministry still has the capacity to do its job to protect our environment. This is reflected in the government's inability to deal with this leak and the Chevron situation.

British Columbians expect leadership from this Premier. They expect the government to be on the ground on this site. Will the Premier tell us how many Ministry of Environment staff are on the ground dealing with the Chevron site — on site?

Hon. B. Penner: The NDP references Burrard Inlet. It's the first time they've spoken about it, really, since they came out in favour of ramping up power production from Burrard Thermal — totally in keeping with being opposed to the carbon tax and cap-and-trade, voting against low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. Then they turned around and came out in favour of ramping up Burrard Thermal while opposing clean energy production. It's a little bit hard to take from this NDP opposition.

In terms of what's happening at the Chevron site, I can advise members that ministry staff…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: …have been to the site, and they'll continue to monitor what Chevron's doing. Chevron will have to comply with our environmental regulations, and under our laws they will be accountable for paying the costs of all cleanup.

I can confirm for the House that the Ministry of Environment has 15 emergency spill response officers that are specifically trained to this, as well as 30 other experts in the ministry that provide support.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This is a government that has abandoned its responsibility and leadership on issue after issue in this province. Clearly, this minister has abandoned leadership on this issue and handed it over to Chevron and to volunteers.

My question is to the person who's supposed to be in charge of this government. My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us how many people are on the ground from the ministry doing the job, and if the minister won't do it, will he direct the minister to do his job?

Hon. B. Penner: It's becoming obvious why the NDP is so slow at learning. It's because they don't listen. I just provided the answer to that question in my previous answer. It's because they don't listen that they oppose the carbon tax, that they voted against cap-and-trade legislation, that they voted again low-carbon fuels, and that they're now voting against the Clean Energy Act in British Columbia, of all things. This is an NDP party that's opposed to even looking at Site C and pursuing more renewable energy production in British Columbia.

Our side of the House is clear. We're going to hold Chevron accountable. They have to follow our regulations. Ministry of Environment staff are going to be there to monitor what Chevron is doing. At the end of the day, taxpayers will be protected because Chevron is fully responsible under the law for the cost of fully remediating that site.

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

J. Horgan: My question is also for the Premier. In light of the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf, and in light of the spill in Burrard Inlet that can't be contained by the Ministry of Environment, will the Premier today advise the federal government that the province of British Columbia is no longer interested in lifting the moratorium? Will he do that today? Tell the Prime Minister we want it left in place.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've canvassed this question numerous times in this House. We have said that we are obviously all watching this environmental disaster unfold in the Gulf of Mexico with grave concern. I know the federal government is as well.

We have no offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. We have said, when we were looking at this and when we would want to pursue it: only if it could be done in a scientifically sound and environmentally safe manner.

[1430]

I think it's quite safe to say that with what we're watching happen in the Gulf of Mexico today, that brings into question the ability to do it in the manner of which we
[ Page 5968 ]
would only extract resources in British Columbia, if that could be followed.

We're going to continue to follow that. The federal government has a moratorium in place, and the federal government, I know, is watching this disaster, as well, to make sure that whatever is learned from this can be adapted throughout the world.

[End of question period.]

A. Dix: I wish to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

A. Dix: It's a petition from 309 British Columbians to restore bariatric bypass surgery funding to British Columbia.

N. Simons: I'm presenting a petition from approximately 250 people in Gibsons who are asking that a particular road be paved.

L. Krog: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: He's probably the person least likely to appreciate being introduced in this chamber — he's a modest man — but he served the province of British Columbia well for many years as the member for Nelson-Creston. I'd like the House to welcome Corky Evans.

Reports from Committees

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the second session of the 39th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make a few comments.

Certainly, it's a challenge in the apparent dichotomy in the title of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It certainly was a challenge to the committee members. I would like to say that the committee members faced that challenge well, on both sides, and in basically and generally a very non-partisan way put their talents and analyses to the various submissions.

I want to compliment the public. We received 22 presentations personally as well as 118 written submissions. I would say that the personal submissions were very moving in terms of how misuse of information or privacy can affect a person's livelihood or well-being. So we were very alert to that and very cognizant of that as we moved forward with our recommendations.

I think one of the most important things that all parties, through the committee, recognized was that it's important to make information available as soon as possible, using the electronic media. We're all familiar with Google and Facebook and many electronic ways, and it would be of great benefit to the public that routine information that is not really subject to any privacy concerns be made available as quickly and openly as possible. So we urge the government once again to consider that.

I'd like to particularly thank Josie Schofield and Kathryn Butler, who served this committee so well in analyzing our machinations and putting them to paper in this very good report.

I therefore move the adoption of this report.

D. Routley: I enjoyed the privilege of sitting on the committee as vice-Chair, and I would also like to thank all the committee members for their input into the process. The stakeholder groups who presented to us were so well prepared and well versed in the dynamics and nuances of the bill we were confronting that we were given great assistance by their input. But most of all, of course, we need to thank the citizens of British Columbia who took the time to participate in democracy by attending and addressing our committee meetings.

The opposition members of the committee do have concerns about the report. We witnessed a 2004 review committee report that made strong and bold recommendations for the advancement of the purposes of freedom of information and privacy protection in B.C., but we've seen little action over the years in addressing the recommendations of that committee, so we have grave concerns about the prospects of the committee recommendations here being adopted.

[1435]

It's true that we endorse most of the recommendations that the committee has made, but there are some substantive disagreements that were expressed at the table that I'd like to briefly cover now. Our submissions to the committee covered the range from exorbitant cost of freedom-of-information requests to extensive delay in those fulfilments.

We heard of a sophisticated culture of evasion from providing freedom of information from one particular group
[ Page 5969 ]
that presented. So we on this side of the committee support a move to routine disclosure. It will greatly reduce the number of requests. It will greatly reduce the cost of freedom-of-information requests to government.

We support the recommendations bringing the corporations owned by public bodies under the scrutiny of the act. We believe that a public dollar is a public dollar, so organizations which are contracted to perform services for government need to be under the scrutiny of the act.

We believe in the principle of anonymity, that who requests information shouldn't matter to the outcome of the request. We agree that there needs to be a stronger definition of "public interest" in the override clause of the act, and we agree that privacy impact assessments need to be more routine and structured at the beginning of data-sharing initiatives.

But we do not agree that consent from an individual should allow the public bodies to share their personal information. There is a power imbalance in the relationship between the person being asked to consent and the person asking for that consent, and that is not fair to the person who is asked to give consent for their information to be shared. You cannot unring a bell once that bell has been rung.

We would like to see section 13, "Cabinet advice," extensively modified so that the exemptions that have been claimed by government in this area can be reduced. We would like to see the Document Disposal Act under the purview of the commissioner, and we would like to see a duty to document.

Our former commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, was a very brave and courageous officer of this Legislature. He said that the record of the government when it comes to freedom of information and sharing information with the public put the historical record at risk. We hope that the new commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, will reflect the courage that Mr. Loukidelis showed, and I have every reason to believe that she will.

The fourth president of the United States, Mr. James Madison, widely considered to be the author of the U.S. constitution, said that a popular government without popular information or the means of accessing it is but a prelude to farce or tragedy or both.

Mr. Speaker, we endorse the report. We have significant objections to portions of it, but we do know that this province needs to move on with a process of open governance and functional democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Parksville-Qualicum closes debate.

R. Cantelon: Yes, it's quite clear — nor did we expect there to be unanimity on all the issues — but as the member opposite observed, we did collectively, unanimously support the report without consent.

I'd like to make a couple of comments. Firstly, we did not come to this committee as parliamentary representatives of the government side of the caucus. We had an initial orientation meeting to basically describe the task before us, but as true parliamentarians in a non-partisan environment. I encouraged people to bring their own thoughts, their own analysis and their own courage to speak, on behalf of their constituents, their minds with respect to the issues before us.

Indeed they did, and I respect that, by and large — not by and large, but entirely — the members opposite engaged in a conversation in a constructive manner. There was not agreement on all issues, but the tone of the debate was, I think, very useful to achieving advancements for the good of all of the people of British Columbia.

With consent. Yes, the majority held that consent was essential to forward the social problems to enable citizens to receive better access in an integrated way with various ministries of the government. They should be able, as they can in the personal information privacy, to give consent for programs that are for their benefit.

Once again, I would like to thank everybody who participated, the staff who so ably formed this report, all the presenters and both sides of the House in moving this report forward.

[1440]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, and in Committee A, the estimates of Intergovernmental Relations followed by Aboriginal Relations.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — CLEAN ENERGY ACT

(continued)

C. Trevena: I am very pleased to stand here this afternoon to take my place in the debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act. I've got to say that I think my first question…. I know it comes…. When we get to committee stage, it's always the last question — whether the title is going to be accepted. I think that for many people, the whole concept of a clean energy act is the idea that there will be some teeth behind it.

I've got to say that the naming of this act is very troubling, because while there is obviously a reference to clean energy, what it simply forgets is that B.C. has been blessed with clean energy for many, many years.
[ Page 5970 ]

I grew up in a community where we had coal-fired power. That was not clean. I lived for a number of years in Kosovo, where the coal-fired plant power was so filthy that you got a film of oil on absolutely everything all the time. It was extremely bad for the health. That is not healthy. That is not clean energy. You need to have clean energy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When I came to Canada, I was very pleased, having, as I say, grown up in communities where we had coal-fired power and in other areas where there was nuclear power. I first moved to Ontario, and there was Ontario Hydro. I thought: "This is fantastic. We actually have hydro, and hydro is good because hydro is water-powered electricity." I felt very comforted by that, until one of my friends told me that I should watch out for the nuclear power stations on the golden horseshoe and that much of the power in Ontario was not hydro power.

But in B.C. we have had clean power for many years. I represent the north Island, and at the moment B.C. Hydro is involved in a massive seismic upgrading and restoration of the John Hart facility, the Strathcona dam. These were built in the late '40s, early '50s and actually provide approximately 11 percent of Vancouver Island's power. Obviously, with 11 percent you've still got to find another 89 percent, but 11 percent is created locally through a clean system, through a system of dams that is there, that is effective and that is clean. That is clean energy.

One of the aspects of the dam system that we have in Campbell River, and I know my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about it previously, is that it gives you the capacity to store water. You can see the levels of the lakes going up and down. If you're driving past it, you can see the levels of the Upper Campbell Lake and the Campbell Lake system change.

Storage is vital to the system of clean energy, and I repeat: it's the system of very clean energy that we have now. That idea of storage and the concept of storage is really what differentiates what we have here in B.C. and what's been very effective in B.C. from almost every other type of electricity generation. That's what's gives us the advantage in B.C. of really having very cheap, very clean power. We can store power — store the water, store the power and use it when we need it.

You don't get that with wind generation. You don't get that with the new river generation, which is euphemistically called run of the river. I think I'll take challenge to that, because run of the river is an industrialization of our rivers.

So when I see the title of this bill, Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, I guess what is being talked about isn't clean energy, because we have clean energy. We have hydro. We have a good system of hydro that has powered B.C. for a long while. So what I would say that this act is about is a different renewable energy.

[1445]

I would also say and have been saying to people who ask me about it that it's the energy-for-export act. That's what I would call it. I wouldn't call it the Clean Energy Act. It's definitely an energy-for-export act.

I'm going to, in a few minutes…. I just want to talk a little bit more about the concept of renewable energy, because we're not opposed to renewable energy. I think it's very important and that it's safe. Hydro has been a good source of clean energy and renewable energy. Let's be straight about this. Renewable energy is very important.

We've seen the crisis — the absolute, terrifying crisis — of our dependence on fossil fuels with what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico at the moment. The fact that we're having thousands and thousands of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf, causing massive degradation because we have this lust after this fossil fuel…. Yes, we need to have renewable energies. We need to find new sources of generating power or else we have no future. I think we've all got to be honest about that.

But this specific bill isn't going to wean us off fossil fuels. What it is going to do is make some people very rich, and it is going to mean that many people in B.C. are going to be a lot poorer because of not just the fact that their hydro is going to cost more but the essence of what they have had as a heritage. Part of their commons is the access to our rivers, to our Crown lands. That is going to go under this energy-for-export act.

So as I say, I'm going to go back to that point in a moment. I just wanted to talk briefly about renewables. This act doesn't really talk about it. Essentially, on renewables, we're talking about solar, and I noticed that we have new solar communities. Campbell River has been noted as a solar community. That's really important. It's important to be able to take in solar energy. I'm pleased to see that as part of the grid.

In Germany every piece of new construction has to have solar panels on it. That feeds into the grid. It feeds into heating systems. That is because Germany has, actually, an energy plan that is really effective, unlike B.C., which is doing energy for export and energy for people's independent wealth, I believe.

I think the fact that places such as Campbell River…. I know that one or two other places, Invermere and others, have been noted as solar communities. You don't need constant sunshine to have good solar power. I remember being in Israel a number of years ago — far too many years ago, actually; I had just left high school — and couldn't understand solar power because I had cold showers the whole time. All the water was heated by solar, and it was just cold the whole time.

Nowadays solar panels are very highly developed. They work very effectively and can be built in, for individuals
[ Page 5971 ]
who want to start generating a bit of their own electricity to be able to put some back into the grid in some fashion. That's renewable. That's great. It's not here in the Clean Energy Act. There's no way that that could happen.

Tidal — another great renewable. Where is the research going into tidal power? Where is the support going into tidal power? Again, in the Campbell River area we've got the Canoe Pass tidal energy project. Fantastic. We have some of the strongest tides and some of the strongest currents that go through between Campbell River and Quadra Island and all around the Discovery Islands.

There is a huge amount of energy there. If we were enhancing that for local use, Vancouver Island would be pretty well self-sufficient. Again, I'm going to come back to this concept of self-sufficiency, but that's renewable. That's clean energy. It's renewable. It's different from what we're talking about in this bill.

Again, wind. I know that people have different views of wind energy and were very concerned about wind turbines a few years ago. There was a plan for a project off the south end of my constituency, just off the south end of Quadra Island, which would have involved wind turbines. People were very concerned about the impact that that was going to have. I personally think wind turbines are quite beautiful. You see them in Spain, along the ridges. You see fields of them in Denmark. You can even see them in Alberta, the home of dirty energy. You see wind turbines.

We've got to be able to look at renewables because, as I say, unless we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we have a crisis of monumental proportions. If we depend completely on…. Whether it's the tar sands or the Gulf of Mexico, we really have a huge crisis on our hands. So yes, we have to be looking at new ways of doing things. We have to be looking at ways that we are developing energy that come back to our communities — that have community control. That isn't in this bill.

[1450]

If this was a bill that was looking at the bigger picture of where we need to go, of how we can really take control of our energy — where communities can be involved in power generation and where it can be feeding back into the grid to support community power…. That is very different from what we are seeing and what is really envisaged in this bill, which is really the industrial projects — the industrial projects on our rivers and the industrializations of our rivers.

Near my constituency — it's just across the way — and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. We have three major projects, two of which are planned and one of which is on hold at the moment. Those are the Toba Montrose project, the East Toba project, and the Bute Inlet power project, all of which are run by Plutonic and General Electric.

Now, the Toba Montrose and East Toba are going ahead at full steam. Luckily, the Bute one is on hold at the moment. But this is the massive industrialization of our rivers for profit, for export. That's what's very clear in this act — that this is happening. Our rivers are being literally sold, industrialized in a way…. That is being done without consultation, without public involvement, for private profit.

It's very interesting. One of the government members — when we were talking about big companies and big corporations and how this side of the House has the big bogeyman of the big corporation being involved in our energy production — asked: "What are these big corporations?"

Well, one of the big corporations is General Electric. I think that is a big bogeyman to have looking after our rivers, running our power for the export market, because General Electric is, under everybody's terms, a big corporation. General Electric is the fifth-biggest corporation in the world.

Energy production and distribution is fundamental for any economy and fundamental for any society. I think it's a recognition of that. It's a recognition of some progress — that we as a society…. If we want to live in a place where everybody has some equality of opportunity…. It's equality of access to electricity. That was agreed many years ago. The electrification of rural B.C. made a huge difference.

Electrification in Third World countries. As soon as you get electrification, you get better health. You get better health outcomes. People can go to school; people can study.

It's not strictly stuck by that kerosene light that could have harmful environmental and health aspects. As soon as you start electrifying, you get better outcomes for everybody in your community. It is essential to be looking at electricity — electricity production, electricity generation and electricity distribution — for the good of a society as a whole, not for the good of those companies that are going to effectively be making profits from it.

It's one of these things that is taking it really into the realm of good governance. It's like saying: "We want people to have equality of education. We want people to have equality of health care." Well, we also need to make sure that we are looking after our public utilities and that public distribution, public generation of hydro, is part of that. The profit motive, which this bill allows for, isn't the essential part of an electricity plan. It shouldn't be an essential part of an electricity plan. It shouldn't be the central part in an energy policy.

It's fundamental that we look at energy for the public good, and Bill 17 certainly does not look at either the generation or the distribution of energy for the public good. Bill 17 looks at the generation and distribution of electricity for profit, and I think that that really is a very concerning aspect.

I have community meetings around my constituency. Every time we have a break week or when we get
[ Page 5972 ]
to go back next week, I'll be going back into the community. I have community meetings — sit down, town hall meetings. Anybody can come along and ask whatever they want, and I talk a bit about what's happening in the Legislature. I was talking, in my last round of town hall meetings, about the HST. I know that this is something that has really engaged a lot of people in my community.

[1455]

But when I started talking about Bill 17, people got really terrified, and I'm not overstating it. They were terrified. The conspiracy theorists among them — and I'm not sure, really, whether that is fair, because I actually have some credence to this — asked whether the HST was being brought in to cover for this bill, that so much concern among people would be raised about the fact the HST was being brought in that nobody would notice that this bill was being brought in.

As soon as I started to explain what this bill was about — that it was about the export of our energy, about the loss of oversight for the B.C. Utilities Commission, about the fact that we lose the public control not just of our energy production and distribution, but we lose the public control of our rivers and our lands — people rightly got very, very worried.

I know that my colleague from Juan de Fuca, the Energy critic, mentioned right at the beginning that this whole concept of the privatization of energy and the concept of what's happening in our rivers — I've cited a few — were really central during the last election campaign. It was. I have one of the constituencies where this was, no question, a vote-determining matter.

It has got people so outraged that their rights to the commons are being undermined in this way, that private companies are going to be allowed to take control of the generation and the export of our electricity. It was the number one issue.

Again, people in argument and in discussion, — because it came up in doorstep discussion, came up in the all-candidates debate — would say: "Well, it's okay, because the government has told us this is for self-sufficiency. We are going to be self-sufficient in electricity. We need that."

Well, I live on an island. It's an island off an island. There's a real sense of the need for self-sufficiency. We've got concerns about food security, and we cannot be dependent on big oil anymore — that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that we have to be doing this. We have to be looking at self-sufficiency — creating power that we can use.

As I say, this is an opportunity to really have a look at how we create power and how we feed power into the system in our communities and different ways of doing it. Instead, people have been lulled into the sense of self-sufficiency. What we get here is, instead of being told that yes, we're going to be creating power for self-sufficiency…. We get very clearly that this is a bill for export.

I mean, one of the things when the bill was first being introduced, the Minister for Energy and Mines said: "Export." This is not self-sufficiency. This is for export.

I've got to say that it's really, really very troubling that under this act, B.C. Hydro is being forced, effectively, to buy power from private producers for the export market. It's extremely troubling that whether or not we need this power — and we don't — that power that is fundamental to our ability to be a province with its own control is going to be lost, because there is going to be this real rush for privatization.

What happens? We have the concept of self-sufficiency. At the window, we are very aware that this is power for export. Who's going to be exporting it? What's going to be happening?

Just for the people who may be new to this whole debate and may live in downtown Vancouver and not be aware of it, what is happening is that B.C. Hydro has the dam system. The system has been working very well and producing very good energy for a long while. Now we have the opportunity for, effectively, friends of the governing party, the friends of the B.C. Liberals, to get very sweet deals to export our power.

I say this without any sense of concern, because it's very well known that the companies that have been involved in this…. Plutonic Power was mentioned earlier today. As I mentioned, Plutonic Power is the company that's dealing with Toba Montrose — and particularly, for my constituency, Bute Inlet — and has been a big donor to the B.C. Liberals.

During the campaign my Liberal opponent did say, "What do you expect? They're going to be giving it to you?" which was fair enough. Basically, friends of the B.C. Liberals are coming in, getting very sweet deals to take over our rivers for 40-plus years — to industrialize them, to allow for every environmental degradation there — and to sell the power that comes off them so that Californians can keep their air conditioners running in the summer and help them in their golf clubs and keep their courses green.

[1500]

I think that that alone is terrifying — that we have here a system that can allow for the privatization and, as I say, the industrialization of something that we can't get back. When you have a dam built, we have the whole question of damming and what's going to be happening.

When somebody comes in to create power, it makes an impact. There is an environmental footprint. None of us are fools. We all know there is an environmental footprint. I mean, I talk about Strathcona dam and the dams on the Campbell system. We have dams there. We have changes to river patterns. We have lakes where the height of the lake goes up and down. There is an environmental impact.
[ Page 5973 ]

What we're going to be seeing with the increased industrialization of our rivers — I cannot use the term that is coined by the companies; I'd call them ruins of the rivers and the industrialization of our rivers — are the massive industrial works along many areas, which may or may not be wilderness areas but have for many years been left untouched. There has been logging there, but what we're going to see at Bute Inlet are up to 17 dams, river diversions. These aren't small streams; these are big rivers.

This is being done for the companies that have donated to the governing party, the B.C. Liberal Party. Plutonic Power, as I say, is a major donor. General Electric, the other company involved in that, is the fifth-largest company in the world. This, we're being told, is being done for the public good.

Madam Speaker, I simply cannot accept that. We, as representatives of the people, are the voice of our constituents here. It's our duty to stand up and talk on behalf of our constituents about these issues, and it's vital to stand up and talk on behalf of our constituents about these issues because our constituents aren't being consulted.

We, as individuals, may go around and have town hall meetings or discussions with groups who are interested, but if the Minister of Energy and Mines came into my constituency, sat down at a public meeting and started to talk about this plan, he would hear very clearly the anger and the concern about the loss of our heritage, the loss of our environment and the loss of our rivers.

So the government decides not to consult the general public. The government says: "Well, it's okay." In the election campaign it's, "We're going to go for self-sufficiency," and then when the election's over: "It's going to go for export."

The government does have a legal requirement to consult with First Nations. I'm sure that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations have seen the letter from the cross-section of First Nations who want to delay this bill until there has been adequate consultation, adequate accommodation.

Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has actually warned that this could cause conflict if the government doesn't delay on this. He is accusing the government, saying that it's bogus, absolutely bogus, that any consultation took place. He says the government is "riding roughshod over the legal duty to consult with us."

From my own community there were a number of signatures to that letter, including Dan Smith, on behalf of the First Nations Summit. Dan Smith is very well respected, from the Campbell River band. From the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs there's Robert Chamberlin, who represents First Nations up from Gilford Island — again, a highly respected chief. On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations there's Jody Wilson-Raybould, from Cape Mudge.

All of them are, as I say, highly respected First Nations representatives from First Nations in my community. They are all calling for this bill to be delayed until there is adequate consultation and accommodation. I think that's really important, and I'm very pleased that they are doing this.

[1505]

It would be very nice if the government respected everybody and would give everybody the right for consultation on this. As I say, that's why I'm standing up here — because people in my constituency don't feel that they have been consulted on it.

As people see their power and their commons being sold for many years and the ability to have any control over hydro disappear, the public control over hydro disappear in this energy-for-export bill, there is the added, I think, level of concern. The public watchdog, the B.C. Utilities Commission, is really having its teeth pulled, its nails declawed.

The B.C. Utilities Commission didn't like what the government was doing. It didn't like the fact that the energy plan was going ahead without any input. It didn't like the way that we were getting to see these big private power projects go ahead because of whoever was donating to the government side.

What happens instead of the B.C. Utilities Commission being listened to is that the government basically takes control, removes all oversight possibilities from it and puts the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission into the hands of cabinet and into the minister's own office. The B.C. Utilities Commission cannot comment on projects and really can only oversee rates.

It's estimated that by removing this oversight from the B.C. Utilities Commission, it's actually going to cost. Not only are we going to have the loss of oversight and the loss of control and of the important role that the BCUC has had, but it's also going to cost people of B.C. approximately $9 billion by excluding these from a number of projects, including the northwest transmission line, if that goes ahead; Site C, if that goes ahead; Mica, in Revelstoke. If those go ahead, it's going to effectively cost $9 billion. I mean, where is the sense in this?

I've got to say that this act is one where I shake my head. Where is the sense in it? We've been talking for a number of years about energy production, energy distribution, and I think that we are all aware that we need to do things differently, that we need to be saving energy, conserving energy. Of course we need to be producing energy. Nobody accepts that you can have a very complex society without producing energy. But where's the plan, and where is the sense of the public good?

This is one of the really troubling things. It's the role of a government to look after not just the dollars and cents, not just look after the economic bottom line, not just look after social bottom line — I would hope that
[ Page 5974 ]
the government also looks after the environmental bottom line — but it's also the role of a government to look after the public good.

What is needed for us as a society, not just today and not just three years or five years down the road but in the longer term, is to look out for what is going to happen in 40 to 50 years when we're not around. How is the public good going to be protected then? I think that we have a duty to be very cautious about how we look after that trust and ensure that we are thinking with foresight.

This bill which allows our energy to be exported, allows private companies — not just small-scale private companies that are going to do nice little projects in nice communities and little rivers around places but large companies, these large corporations such as General Electric…. It allows General Electric to come in and take over our rivers and our inlets so that they can make massive profits for their shareholders and provide energy for California and for Nevada or wherever it is where they're selling energy. That is wrong. That is what is so dangerous about this bill.

[1510]

I would hope…. The government does have an opportunity. We're at the end of our session. After today we have three more days. We're only in second-stage reading. The government has an opportunity to stop and to think, to stop and to listen.

If they won't listen to the opposition, and I have every expectation that they won't listen to the opposition…. If they won't listen to the people from my constituency and other constituencies who, in the last election, said, "We don't like your plans," or from those people who are now finding out about the plans — that it isn't just for self-sufficiency, and they're worried about that…. If they won't listen to that, they have a call from First Nations to hold off until there's been full consultation.

The government has an opportunity now with just three days left, when we're still so early in the bill, to say: "Okay, we're not going to move forward on it. We are going to take the public interest into account. We're going to stop, we're going to think, and we're going to make sure that B.C. Hydro remains in the hands of the B.C. public."

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a great pleasure for me to rise and to join the debate on Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act. I certainly want to say at the outset that I unreservedly support this piece of legislation. I think this is a piece of legislation that will go far to define our very bright future in the province of British Columbia. I am very, very pleased to be able to rise and support it.

It is also a bill, I think, that tells us a lot about the government and the opposition and what they're thinking. I think it's particularly fascinating, because we don't always have that many opportunities to look into the world of NDP thinking in these matters, and this is one of those debates that helps to define the parties and helps us to understand what's going on in the minds and the thinking of the NDP. So that's really useful. We don't hear that much policy from them typically. It's in debates like this where often, in the process of critiquing the legislation, we actually learn a little bit about the character of the NDP mind.

There have been a number of themes that have been repeatedly articulated by the NDP side in this debate. I think it's worth reviewing them, because it does tell us something about the future. There is a possibility, I understand, that the NDP may be elected as government in 2013. That's not something we like to think about a lot, and it's certainly not something that I'm sure the great majority of the public would ever want.

But it's good that we should be thinking. We should be trying to understand what it is the NDP would mean to British Columbia. What's the kind of rhetoric that one might hear in an NDP province? I think we know that from the themes that have been articulated in this debate.

We know, for example, that big corporations are really bad, and they should give me a hand for that. Big corporations are really bad. The NDP aren't clapping for that. Why is that, when over and over and over in this debate we have been hearing from the NDP…?

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, no. Now the members are trying to…. Imagine this, Madam Speaker. The NDP don't even like now to hear their own words back to them about big corporations because, "Oh, that comes way too close to a policy position, that we might not like big corporations. Let's deny that," even though the rhetoric they have used in speech after speech after speech in this Legislature was condemning the big corporations and all of the bad things that are implied in big corporations. So it's interesting.

I found the last speaker, for example, talked repeatedly of General Electric, that apparently the prospect of General Electric investing in this province…. That would be a terrible thing if a big corporation like General Electric were to invest in this province.

[1515]

Oh, now we're getting them excited on that side. They're now getting very excited that a big corporation like General Electric might have the audacity to create jobs, to make an investment, to pay taxes in the province of British Columbia. But big corporations are really, really bad, apparently.

So it's good. We learned that from the NDP over and over in this debate. Big corporations are bad. I know we can start there — except, apparently, a big public corporation might not be quite as bad.
[ Page 5975 ]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: There, we've got them fired up again. The member for Yale-Lillooet or Yale-Nicola or whatever it is now is very excited, because apparently, a big corporation, when it's public, is not entirely bad.

Theoretically at least, from the NDP perspective, B.C. Hydro could be a good thing, although apparently they oppose the reunification of B.C. Transmission and B.C. Hydro. It's never been clear why in this debate they would be opposed to that. Perhaps it's because it would make it a bigger corporation. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is explaining some of the finer details. They're back and forth on it. They're saying that it may be okay, but it's something to talk about in a speech over 30 minutes.

It's interesting, as well, I think, that a big corporation can be okay as long as it's a public corporation, and that's good. I am always delighted when I hear of anything that the NDP can support. I often feel during the debates in this House that there is no single form of human enterprise that the NDP can endorse. Sometimes I feel like there's nothing they can endorse. So if they can endorse B.C. Hydro as a big public corporation, that's a small step forward at least — that there is one form of enterprise that might be supportable.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now I've prompted all manner of debate in this House, I think, in an extracurricular way here.

They are opposed to the privatization of energy. I'm not quite sure what they mean by the privatization of energy, but it would be a fascinating thing to explore, no doubt — the privatization of energy. Apparently, anyone undertaking an energy project in the province, except that big public corporation we call B.C. Hydro, is a very bad thing. That, in the NDP world, is privatization of energy, and any work undertaken by an organization other than B.C. Hydro would be, by definition, a bad thing, because it is undertaken by a big corporation. That is interesting.

Interesting, though, as well, is that it seems that pretty much anything the big corporation we call B.C. Hydro would undertake is a bad thing. The member has just said that she's opposed to the northwest transmission line. Wow. Why would anyone oppose the northwest transmission line? The northwest transmission line is going to be important not only for itself but I think way more important as an opportunity for subsidiary economic activity all up and down the corridor that will be served by the northwest transmission line.

It is difficult for me to understand why the opposition would oppose northwest transmission, but I think they oppose that. That's certainly one of the major undertakings of B.C. Hydro.

I understand that they oppose Site C, although I look forward to clarification on that point from subsequent speakers. The member from Revelstoke said that they're maybe here or maybe there on that one. They'll hedge their bets a little bit around Site C. It's certainly not something we hear a lot of, but I'm sure the NDP speaker following me will be all fired up about this and will tell us just exactly what their position is on Site C. I'll look forward to that, and I'll listen for that as we move ahead.

I know one thing that is very clear from the comments of the NDP members in this House is that they are opposed to independent power projects. They have made that clear in a hundred ways. It's not just that it's part of the privatization of power by the big corporations. They are opposed to independent power projects. In fact, the Energy critic, the member for Juan de Fuca, characterized independent power as junk power.

[1520]

Now, can you imagine, Madam Speaker, this pretend, would-be government across the way…? Could you send a more powerful message to the world about what kind of government you're going to operate and what kind of investment climate you're going to create than to characterize independent power projects as junk power? There could not be a more destructive way of characterizing it, I would suggest to the opposition.

Again, it's important that the public understand what might be part of the NDP's emerging ideology with respect to power production. Apparently, IPPs have no part of it. The member is confirming what I'm saying — that IPPs are terrible, that IPPs are junk power. They don't care if anyone invests in British Columbia. They're not concerned about what's going to provide the schools, the hospitals in our province. Apparently, they are self-sustaining in an NDP world. It's fascinating to know that.

Junk power — I can't imagine what was in the member's mind as he articulated that position. Was he deliberately trying to undermine the world's confidence in British Columbia as a destination for investment? If he was, he couldn't have done a better job of it by taking such an unfortunate characterization of what is an entirely legitimate and welcome enterprise in the province of British Columbia.

I also heard from the last member. It's an enduring theme among the New Democrat contributions here. I heard persistently an opposition to power exports in the province. Again, if the NDP speaker following me takes exception to this characterization by me, I'd love to hear it, because I am fascinated by where they're going on this from a policy perspective. I understand entirely, from her comments and from previous comments, that the NDP is opposed to power exports. "Only create power for self-sufficiency," appeared to be what the NDP speakers were saying. Again, I'd love to hear it if there's something other than that.
[ Page 5976 ]

On the balance of things, one is either a power importer or a power exporter. On the balance of things, why wouldn't we want to export power? I'm fascinated to know why we wouldn't embrace the export of power — just as we embrace the export of forest products, we embrace the export of minerals and we welcome the export of technology. Why wouldn't we want to see the export of surplus power?

I am fascinated to know why we would oppose that. Again, perhaps the answer to the question is that you have to create a facility to generate power in order to export it. Again, we go back to, I suppose, all those residual themes about big corporations and the evil character of those big corporations and why we should minimize the power production in British Columbia so that, I guess, we manage to find that magical point where we are hovering between exporting and importing power. It's a fascinating proposition.

What I also have been hearing from the NDP — and this is a good thing, so I want to give the NDP credit for this — is that retroactively, they appear to be saying that they can now embrace existing dams: "That's okay. That brings us power when we turn our light switch on in the morning." They're prepared to do that.

But no new power projects. Apparently not from B.C. Hydro. Apparently not from independent power projects — or big corporations, as we like to say in NDP world. But it's curious, again, that they would really oppose all of the infrastructure, the electrical power infrastructure that, I think, can make British Columbia an even better, more dynamic society, economically and socially, for decades to come.

I want to say a few words about that, because one can get incredibly depressed, as well as well-informed, by listening to too many NDP speeches on this subject.

[1525]

I think the Clean Energy Act is a very positive thing. It is an act which will help British Columbia become an energy powerhouse in the 21st century. I think that's a great thing. There is nobody in this nation or on this continent who believes that there will be any diminution of the demand for power in coming decades, and British Columbia can be a leader in that area. British Columbia can benefit by being a powerhouse and serving the needs of British Columbia, Canada and other customers in the decades ahead.

I think that's an exciting thing. I don't think it's a negative thing. The NDP can articulate that position if they want, and I hope they remember it when they're fighting the next election. We'll certainly be reminding the voters of the junk power thesis that we heard from the opposition, and I know people will listen.

This is an act that adds tools to expand and diversify both the production of energy and the distribution of energy in this province. It is enormously important that we do precisely that — expand and diversify.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

British Columbia is a jurisdiction which even today is the envy of the world. We have been blessed by more resources than, I think, any other jurisdiction on the face of the earth. When you look at our strategic location vis-à-vis the Asia-Pacific, the United States, we have a great opportunity going forward in the 21st century, and we have the resources to match our location.

We have boundless forests. We're seeing some recovery in the forest industry, and we'll see the forest industry back operating on all cylinders again in just, I'm sure, a year or two. We have great mineral wealth, and we've barely scratched the surface in terms of the opportunities we have around building mineral wealth in this province. We have oil and gas, particularly in the northeast of British Columbia but elsewhere in the province as well. That can be a powerful resource for us in the future, and currently keeps many of our schools and hospitals open in British Columbia — the oil and gas industry.

We have fabulous landscapes right across this province that can make us a mecca for tourism for, again, decades to come, particularly as we see the emerging Chinese market for tourism.

We have this remarkable asset in our clean energy, which the Clean Energy Act, Bill 17, is aimed at increasing and, hopefully, maximizing in the years ahead. Not only is that clean energy something that will help meet the ever-growing domestic demands that we have in British Columbia, but I think it also will allow us, through appropriate management, to be a net exporter rather than be a net importer of power in British Columbia. I think that is an exciting thing, something we should embrace.

Why should we welcome new investment in clean energy power production in the province of British Columbia, whether it's the independent power projects — which have been so repeatedly criticized, disparaged, by the opposition — or even the major public sector power project, the Site C, the next major project, along with the northwest transmission line, of the B.C. Hydro corporation?

Well, I think there are a number of reasons why we should welcome incremental power production, which is going to be supported by all of the elements in this bill. Among them, it's an opportunity to create jobs. Again, any time we have an opportunity to expand and diversify our economy in British Columbia, it's an opportunity to add jobs.

It means that for young people in Sicamous or Smithers or Fort St. John or any other corner of British Columbia, they have an opportunity to work near their home where they grew up, rather than being forced to go to another corner of British Columbia to secure employment.
[ Page 5977 ]

It expands and diversifies the province. Expanding our power production, as well — and I've mentioned this specifically in relation to the northwest transmission line — gives us an opportunity in British Columbia to build a whole lot of subsidiary jobs. Having power production can mean that mills can produce more lumber products.

[1530]

I was up in Williams Lake last weekend and met with the Chief of the Ulkatcho band. He talked to me about how important it was that they build some power production in their community so that the mill that they and three other bands around Williams Lake own would be able to get away from diesel in the manufacture of wood products.

Diesel makes them uncompetitive. Independent power would make them competitive, would get their folks back to work more quickly, would get them producing jobs and revenue and wealth for their First Nations communities. It's hugely important from a job creation perspective.

Secondly, it ensures that we will have power when we turn on the switch. Again, we have this wonderful legacy of W.A.C. Bennett from 50 or 60 years ago. When we turn on a power switch in British Columbia, the power always comes on; the lightbulb always comes on. That's not something that every jurisdiction in the world enjoys.

In fact, power is very precarious in many locations, but in British Columbia we can create power. We can be the powerhouse, and we need to be that powerhouse and ensure that we have the power we need not only for our domestic home purposes but for our construction jobs, for manufacturing, for all of those parts of our economy — our growing economy — that need to have power to make them work.

Expanding green energy also allows us to diversify the economy. If there is a lesson that we should learn from the last couple of years of recession and a lesson we should learn from the last 50 years of economic history in British Columbia and Canada, it's that we're always better off if we have a diversified economy.

If we have a downturn in the forest sector, we can hope that oil and gas or mines or green energy continue to have strong production and strong export values so that, again, British Columbia's quality of life will not be diminished at a time when one of the sectors in the economy is in downturn. I think it always makes sense to diversify the economy.

I think, as well, it is important to acknowledge that tax revenues are important. Again, there has been no end of talk about big corporations and how bad they are in British Columbia. Apparently, we don't welcome them anymore in the province, and that's unfortunate, because they produce wealth and produce tax revenue. They provide us with the tax revenues that allow us to have the best health care system and the best health care facilities in the entire nation of Canada and, indeed, some of the best health care programs and facilities on the face of the earth.

We also are able through those tax revenues to have some of the best schools in Canada and on the face of the earth, as well, and social services that everyone expects and demands in this province. I know the member from Powell River wants to get up and actually support what I'm saying, and it's unfortunate he's locked into that other side of the House where he….

N. Simons: I'll be up in half an hour.

Hon. G. Abbott: You'll be up in half an hour. There's a note for our viewers on Hansard television. The member from Powell River is going to be up soon.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: There. He's going to clap for himself already. You should clap retroactively rather than prospectively, but….

I know the member agrees with me. I'm sure he's not going to say anything about big corporations when he speaks, because he must be on the moderate wing of the party and, hopefully, won't beat the anti-capitalist drum as so many of his colleagues have.

Tax revenues are vital for all of those — health, education, social services. They are vital. Whether they come from big corporations or others in the province of British Columbia, we need them, and we need more economic development that feeds those additional taxes to our government in the province.

A final point, and I think this is hugely important. The Clean Energy Act will also provide new opportunities for First Nations in the province of British Columbia. Bill 17 does two things — at least two things — that have never been done before in respect of First Nations, and they're very important.

[1535]

One is the First Nations business equity fund. That is hugely important. We are building a fund that will allow First Nations to take an equity stake, an ownership stake, in power projects in the province of British Columbia. That is hugely important and something which I hope even the opposition might welcome, although they've not said, I don't think, whether they do or not.

Second, it also contemplates revenue-sharing on water and land rental revenues to First Nations. Again, I think this is a great step forward that we would share government revenues with the First Nation on incremental power production. Again, I don't know what the NDP's view is on that.

Perhaps it might be simply said that if there's no new incremental development, there is nothing to share in the
[ Page 5978 ]
way of incremental resource revenue. I suppose that's the logical extension of opposing all of the new power production — to also not have to worry too much about how to share the revenues, because there won't be any revenues to share if the NDP vision here was embraced.

These very important provisions in the Clean Energy Act will help us to build on some of the extraordinarily promising partnerships that already exist between independent power projects and First Nations in British Columbia. I'll give you a very good example of one, and I hope the NDP will listen to this. It's important that they appreciate that just because a big corporation is involved, it ain't necessarily bad.

Now, that's a dramatic, powerful statement that that could be so, and I know I've got the members' attention. They're all watching me with rapt fascination now. To think that a corporation, a big corporation, could be involved in the construction of a win-win between a First Nation and industry…. Here's an example. Plutonic Power, which I think has some relationship to General Electric, so I'm sure are inherently bad from the opposition's perspective…. Junk power, as the Energy critic would say.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, he's clapping for his "junk power" comment, which is fascinating in itself.

I'll bet there were a couple of discussions about that characterization among your colleagues. Or maybe it was a perfect expression of the NDP's contempt for private investment, and if it was, then they should all have clapped for you rather than just yourself. But I wouldn't want to be driving any wedges among you and your colleagues.

Let me say this. The Klahoose partnership with Plutonic involves employment. It involves contracting opportunities on roadbuilding, on land clearing, on the operation of the entire worksite at Toba Inlet. It also involves some skills training in a partnership with North Island College.

How was it that a big corporation like Plutonic Power was to enter into what appears to be such a beneficial partnership with the Klahoose First Nation? The answer is that, in fact, it is a beneficial partnership. It is only when we take very artificial constructs, like big, evil corporations, and apply them to an area of economic endeavour that one reaches entirely irrational conclusions — like the NDP do — about the partnerships with First Nations. The Klahoose-Plutonic partnership is a good one, but it is one that we can build on, and we will see.

Let me just say in conclusion, because I see the green light is on…. Time flies. It's amazing how quickly it flies. It certainly does. We have many challenges ahead, but we need jobs, we need investment, and we need tax revenue. We need new opportunities, and we particularly need new opportunities for First Nations and for new Canadians, and green energy is one of the ways to build that.

[1540]

We have an unparalleled, unprecedented opportunity in British Columbia in 2010 to extend an opportunity for equality of opportunity that we have never seen in any jurisdiction anyplace in the world before. We have that in British Columbia. We've been richly blessed. Now is the time for us to build the partnerships. Now is the time for us to undertake the bold investments that can make the 21st century British Columbia's century.

British Columbia is a great province. With the Clean Energy Act, with the very appropriate, exciting, bold investments that will follow from Bill 17, we will make British Columbia the greatest jurisdiction on the face of the earth.

M. Sather: It's indeed my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 17, the so-called Clean Energy Act.

You know, it's always fun to follow the member for Shuswap. Hey, it's a beautiful place that I had the opportunity of visiting recently. The flowers are looking great there in Salmon Arm. I didn't happen to see the minister around. I didn't see the member around, though, and I guess B.C. Liberals aren't going out in public that much these days.

I mean, obviously the member might have had the chance, if he dared to go out today amongst the people, to talk to them about the HST, or he might even want to talk to them about the Clean Energy Act, because there are a lot of fishermen in his area. I've talked to a lot of fishermen. They're not happy with the arrangement that this government has with the private power producers.

They're not happy about what's going to happen and what is happening to their access to their fishing spots. They're not happy about the loss of sovereignty — that's what it amounts to — over our rivers and streams.

I don't know if he wants to talk to them about big corporations. He can do that too, I guess, but the main thing is he ought to go out and talk to them about how they feel about what this government is doing around the private power producer act, which is essentially what this is.

It's the consummation of a long relationship between this government and the private power producers. They have been in bed for a long time. The money keeps rolling in; it keeps rolling in. That makes them happy, as long as those donations to the B.C. Liberals are coming in, and they must be, because it seems that the minister is very pleased. And so it goes on and on.

But knowledgable observers have called this the worst legislation in the last decade, and I think they're absolutely right. It's simply a giveaway to private power producers being disguised as a clean energy bill. It's anything but a clean energy bill.
[ Page 5979 ]

Speaking of large corporations, the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, which represents all of B.C. Hydro's largest customers, had the opportunity to make a submission to the government's Green Energy Advisory Task Force. They calculated that the export plans — yes, this is all about export, and we'll talk about that a little bit more, I'm sure — are going to cost British Columbians $450 million per year in money-losing sales transactions.

Now, the previous speaker talked about, "Well, you wouldn't want the NDP in, spoiling relationships with corporations" — making the case, I guess, in a roundabout way that they're good managers of the resource. But how can they say that when they have put out a bill that the largest customers of B.C. Hydro say will commit B.C. Hydro — force B.C. Hydro, under this bill — to pay private power producers twice what their power would fetch on the open market?

Now, there's a good deal. There's a really good deal. It's a good deal if you're a private power producer, for sure. But what does it do for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[1545]

It sticks them to it — 120 bucks per megawatt hour to buy and about $60…. That's what the people that are the biggest customers of B.C. Hydro say they'll get — probably about 60 bucks, for 20 years. Over 20 years, at $450 million, that rounds out to about $9 billion. That's a lot of money that this government is giving away to their friends in the private power industry at the cost of taxpayers. It's really quite shameful.

I do hope that the member for Shuswap, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, does go out and talk to his constituents and to all British Columbians about this bill. I know we did — a lot — during the last election, and as my colleague said, people are not happy with what this government is doing. They certainly won't be happy with this bill and aren't happy with this bill, even though they are perhaps more focused right now on another bit of legislation that was just recently passed by this government.

You know, the Energy Minister said: "Well, we have the right to pursue our agenda." I think that says it all. This government feels that they have the divine right to pursue their agenda, whether or not it's in the best interests of British Columbians, our environment or our energy supply. They have a divine right to pursue their energy. That's what the minister said, and they did that.

Obviously, we know they did that with the HST — the same. There was the divine right, and they continue. The Premier was up earlier today pursuing that agenda, albeit futilely. Nonetheless that's his right to do that.

I want to talk a little bit about B.C. Hydro because this act, Bill 17, forces B.C. Hydro to buy power for export and seek out new export opportunities. Why, in fact, would the government have to have a directive towards B.C. Hydro? It seems that they don't trust B.C. Hydro that much either. We know that recalcitrant group from the B.C. Utilities Commission kind of stepped out of line a little while ago, and so they got whacked good.

I think the government is sending this hard message to their "partners" B.C. Hydro: "Don't you dare get independent. Don't you dare have any thoughts on your own, or at least if you have them, don't express them."

Who is doing the directing here? What we're seeing is the cabinet taking over the role that the B.C. Utilities Commission used to have, that B.C. Hydro used to have. But then I guess the brain trust — the Premier and his cohorts — know more about electricity than B.C. Hydro, and they should just go out and tell them how to run the business.

That's what they're doing through Bill 17. They're absolutely centralizing control of our energy future in the cabinet. Given the lack of confidence that right now, at least, is being expressed by the people of British Columbia about not only the cabinet but the whole government, I don't know if that's a very good idea.

This export plan by private power producers. Yes, we have had export before, but this one is lined up, albeit with very poor financial reckoning behind it, very nicely for the private power producers. California is obviously one of the destinations, one would think, for the power. They're not particularly receptive. In fact, they're not receptive at all to power from projects that are larger than 30 megawatts, and most of them or a lot of them out there…. That's just what they are. They're much larger than that.

Again, how is the government going to sell this power that we the taxpayers are going to have to pay for? I wonder.

[1550]

Another one that's really interesting, which Bill 17 brings in, directs B.C. Hydro to shape and store power. This is what opponents of the private power movement aided and abetted by this government have been saying for several years was going to happen. Now they're out in the open about it.

What they're going to do is use the heritage assets — the dams that we've had for years like at Revelstoke, like on the Peace River — for the benefit of their friends in the private power industry.

There's a government backgrounder out there that says that any expenditures associated with exports are not included in domestic rates. The minister referred to that in his opening speech, but that's quite frankly baloney. This is a subsidy for private power producers.

These heritage dams that the citizens of British Columbia own could be producing relatively cheap power for domestic use, but instead they're going to be holding back their water and their power to allow private power producers to export more power. That's what this shape-and-store is all about. That's what it's all about, and it's totally unnecessary.
[ Page 5980 ]

If the projects they were doing could stand on their own…. But they can't. Thus they're getting these massive subsidies from this government. I don't know what B.C. Hydro is going to do if they don't have much capacity in their dams for this shape-and-store movement. If the dams are almost full, I guess they're just going to let the water run by the generators so that those who are friends of the government and support them financially and otherwise can have free rein with our power. Certainly, there's no B.C.-first policy in this province — not at all.

The private power producers will be using B.C. Hydro staff and expertise to get this work done, and they've already been doing that for a long time, actually. A lot of the run-of-river euphemism…. It's not run of river. It's dam and divert rivers and streams in British Columbia.

A lot of that work of finding those places in this province was already done by B.C. Hydro before the opportunistic folks from the private power industry came on the scene. So they've had lots of subsidy, and they're going to have more subsidy while they have B.C. Hydro as their agent doing shape-and-store and then being out there finding the market for them and delivering it to them. It's all one big happy ball for the private power industry and this completely complicit government.

We're already paying. Our hydro rates have gone up 18 percent since 2005. Lots more much worse news to come. They're going to go up 9 percent more this year and 29 percent compounded over the next three years. Somebody has to pay. Just like the HST, it's the regular taxpayers that will be paying for this misadventure with the private power producers of British Columbia.

The government talks a fair bit — or they did, and they still are, interestingly enough — about self-sufficiency. In fact, that's all we heard for a long time: "Oh, we've got to have more private power for self-sufficiency." Of course, at that time they were still in the closet, and they weren't talking about private power for export. But now at least, they're right out there about it. This bill brings them right out there about it, and shamefully so.

But when the government…. They spun this web of us being dependent on imports for power, and the whole thing is…. I don't know what other word to use in a sham. It's a sham. They don't talk about the power that's produced by Alcan or Teck Cominco or Fortis power. They provide 20 percent of our power needs in this province, but those bits of power don't get to be part of the equation of whether or not we're importers or exporters. Remember, the government has had that long discussion over the past few years before they came right out with it, to develop this bill for their friends.

[1555]

Then there's the Columbia River treaty, where we provide the capacity for the folks south of the border to produce power, or we can — in which, of course, we get paid for what we do for them…. On the other hand, we have the capacity through the agreement to take that power and use that power ourselves, but we don't do that. That's not considered, either, in the whole miscalculation about self-sufficiency that's been going on with this government.

The Columbia River treaty downstream benefits, if realized, would provide over 10 percent of our current need. We would be, if we did that, in a 5.1 percent surplus position rather than a 1.5 deficit regarding electricity in this province.

The fact is that over the last 32 years, there have only been five years in which B.C. actually brought more power into the province than we sent outside the province. But the government has been carrying on this…. They like to talk about misinformation with the HST, but they've been carrying on this misinformation for a long time, and it's an inconvenient truth — the reality of it.

I think it was the Environment Minister who earlier today talked a little bit about Burrard Thermal. B.C. Hydro has to assume that Burrard Thermal really doesn't exist, even in extreme low-water years. On the other hand, it has to be maintained, because all of that private power that they're trying to get out there just might not be out there fast enough to provide for the needs they have at the time.

You know how the government is always berating Burrard Thermal? It's not like it's running on dirty coal. It's actually running on natural gas. The government in some respects is very fond of natural gas, but not in the case of Burrard Thermal, which produced in 2008 less than 1 percent of B.C. Hydro's power.

The minister, the previous speaker, wanted me, wanted us to talk about Site C, and I'm glad to indulge him on that. Site C — now, there's an interesting example of, again, a miscast group, including the Premier, that went traipsing by airplane up to Hudson's Hope recently to basically announce that they were fully embracing Site C, that it was the best thing since sliced bread, and on and on. "So what if we haven't done any environmental assessment yet. So what if we don't have any consultations done yet with First Nations. Nonetheless, we're foursquare behind it." So they want to talk a lot about that.

Again, they don't need this energy for so-called self-sufficiency. They want it for export. It's interesting where some of that export would go. There is in the works now a pipeline to the northeast shale gas deposits in this province.

The final destination for a lot of that gas out of the shale gas deposits is going to be the tar sands in Alberta. Talk about clean energy. There's no clean energy coming out of the tar sands. That's the dirtiest energy you can get on the planet, and yet it's being sold as clean energy. So there's no way that we can take seriously much about Site C.

Speaking of natural gas, the government recently approved of the massive Cabin gas plant in the Fort Nelson
[ Page 5981 ]
area. That one is to process the very gas that comes from the shale gas deposits, but the company has said, "You know what? We can't really do the carbon capture-and-storage process up there" — EnCana, to wit. And this is going to be a major polluter, actually one of the major polluters. In fact, by the time all is said and done, the gas plants up there are going to be producing more pollution than any other source in British Columbia.

[1600]

Yet the Premier runs around talking about how green he is, and he has a green energy plan and a bill that's supposed to be green. It's anything but green.

There are actually other facilities up there. Spectra gas is actually going to employ that technology, and they have been working for the past 20 years on reducing their emissions. But that doesn't count for EnCana, I guess. The Premier said with regard to that particular bit…. They talked about contributing to a net overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on a continental scale.

Well, it's interesting how interested the government now seems to be in what's going on in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but not very much interested, clearly, in terms of their action and what's going on with greenhouse gases in our country.

B.C. Transmission Corporation. Bill 17 shelves — essentially guts — B.C. Transmission Corporation to pave the way for B.C. Hydro to be the complete service agent for the private power producers. That's what it does. It's shameful, but those are the facts. They don't really need the power they're calling for. It's up to 8,000 gigawatts per year. There was a cost too, which actually Will McMartin mentioned in an article about closing down B.C. Transmission Corporation, at $65 million, but that's chump change for a government that says they're so efficient and they're looking out for the best interests of British Columbians.

Well, the B.C. Transmission Corporation, according to the minister, still has power. Hey, they can set domestic rates, but they can't oversee the price of private power if they did. In fact, they did do that, and that's exactly the reason why they no longer have much power at all.

They told the government in their clean call, their long-term acquisition plan, that we don't need all that power. "You haven't made a case for it." They were quickly given the shaft by the government, and the minister says: "Oh well, BCTC gets to vet the energy purchase agreements." I don't know what "vet" means to the minister, but I expect it's going to be the old rubber stamp. That's the only vetting they're going to get to do — to say yes and say it often.

So no public oversight of power-for-export at all. It's lost through the virtual elimination of the B.C. Transmission Corporation. The minister can go around in his constituency and talk to his constituents about that, and I'm sure he's going to find out that they're less than amused. It's part of the deregulation agenda that this government is so fond of.

One of the win-wins for the government too, by having everything private, is that citizens don't get to know what's happening. In fact, the Canadian Newspaper Association's annual audit of Canadians' access to government-held information found that B.C. has the worst access in the country. Not very surprising to us on this side of the House, but I think it might be pretty disappointing to the citizens of this province.

That's the way it is. It's a win-win for the government. They privatize our power, and then people can't find out the details of what's going on. It's the privatization, deregulation and secrecy agenda that this government is pushing through with this legislation. They really ought to, as has been mentioned by my colleague, go back to the drawing board and think again.

If the HST hasn't driven the B.C. Liberal Party's fortunes completely into the ground, this bill is going to finish them off. Really, this is bad legislation that the people of B.C. won't like at all.

[1605]

It doesn't matter how long the minister goes on about big corporations. It's the lack of transparency. It's the lack of respect for public assets. We see it in the fish farm industry, and we see it through Bill 17 with regard to energy.

You know, it's the same idea with harmonizing the environmental assessment — the one project, one process that the government has come out with. At least those PAB guys come out with some pretty catchy slogans. I'll give them that. They've got to get paid for something.

Again, it's deregulating and lessening the environmental oversight, not increasing protection at all. We had a bit of that in the discussion in question period. When it comes to a leak from a gas-processing facility, there's just no concern of the government to get out there on the ground and do something. Really they should, but that would be interfering. I guess the government feels that would be undue interference with a corporation.

"My goodness, we wouldn't want that. After all, we're the government," they say, "that got rid of all the red tape." It would be red tape if you go out there and start asking questions of all these private power producers and those in the energy industry.

The Premier made it clear that he's certainly not going to live up to any greenhouse gas reduction strategies when it comes to EnCana or when it comes to offshore oil and gas. What did the minister say about offshore oil and gas? People were asking, of course, about what's happened down in Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico. He said: "Well, they don't know yet what caused it." That was his response — that we don't know yet what's the cause of it, not that this is a real clear indicator that we should have some concerns. No.
[ Page 5982 ]

I think one of my colleagues said earlier it's the only government in the west that's pushing offshore oil and gas. Where is the clean energy in that? None whatsoever. The government has a lot of audacity to come out with this bill and call it the Clean Energy Act. There are a lot of uncomplimentary names, and some of them have perhaps already been used. But clean energy is not what this is all about.

You know, in my community it's interesting to watch the discussion around incineration in the Lower Mainland. I think it was in the throne speech that the government said they weren't going to allow the Lower Mainland to export their garbage. This sounds like a laudable deal. I mean, you should look after your own garbage. That's a good idea. But I didn't believe it, and the more I see of it, I don't think that's their motivation at all.

These incineration projects are going to be private power projects. You watch. I asked the folks from the regional government, from Metro Van government: "What's going to be the nature of these? Are they going to be owned and operated by Metro Vancouver? Are they going to be private?" He said: "Well, we don't have a business plan for that yet."

Wherever they can find an opportunity to privatize, this government does so even when it's an issue of our rivers, when it's an issue of our birthright, when it's an issue of protecting salmon and other fish.

This government doesn't care. First and foremost, they want to privatize and invite in bad deals that have to be propped up by our public resource to even make it work at all. I remember the private power producer in my back yard saying at the open house: "Oh yes, we intend to sell this power locally." They never intended to sell locally. It's always been intended for export. It's always been a bad deal for British Columbians. It continues to be a bad deal for British Columbians, and I will oppose it all the way as long as I can.

[1610]

Hon. B. Stewart: It's a pleasure and an honour to rise in the support of Bill 17. I just want to have a chance to tell some of the members about how excited I am to see that we're moving ahead in terms of our, I guess, reduction in terms of our dependency on dirty and other sources of energy that sometimes have to supply British Columbia. I think that that's really one of the reasons that this act is the Clean Energy Act.

British Columbia is a world leader when it comes to clean, renewable energy options, and Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, will further cement our province as being one of those global leaders. We've remained committed to our goal of energy self-sufficiency by 2016, with a path to realizing that that goal will be through this new act.

I don't know if the members opposite are aware of the fact that energy demand continues to rise in British Columbia, as much as we've tried to introduce conservation measures. I think the reality is that we're being prudent in terms of trying to make certain that we are domestically self-supported when it comes to energy.

Demand for energy in British Columbia is expected to grow by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years, and B.C. Hydro is working to ensure that we have secured clean sources of supply to meet that demand as well as have the infrastructure needed to reliably deliver energy and electricity to homes and businesses.

I can't help but think about a few years back when, by an unfortunate set of circumstances, the province of Quebec, which is another big clean energy producer, had the ice storms, and so many of its transmission towers were taken down, and how long the province was without power during a critical winter period.

I think that aging infrastructure is something that we have to recognize and recognize that it's like an investment. It's not going away, but the reality is that a lot of these assets are being improved through the Clean Energy Act, and the call for this to move forward is about making certain that we secure those assets and that they're properly taken care of.

British Columbia's energy objective is to generate at least 93 percent of all the energy in British Columbia from clean and renewable sources, to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that electricity. B.C. Hydro will help to meet the province's ambitious target of meeting 66 percent of the incremental demand for electricity through demand-side measures — which I'm going to speak to a little bit later — conservation and energy efficiency by the year 2020, an increase from the current target of 50 percent.

This act is going to help the province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. by 33 percent less than the level of 2007 emissions by the year 2020. The act also provides B.C. Hydro and other utilities the tools to offer programs and incentives that allow consumers to use energy more wisely.

Our new act will set out the foundation for a new future of electricity self-sufficiency and job creation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, powered by unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy across the province.

It was just this past February that PricewaterhouseCoopers reported that independent power producers could grow B.C.'s economy by as much as $9 billion by the year 2020. Construction of these projects would support 87,000 person-years of employment in British Columbia over the next decade and more than 9,100 full-time jobs for their operations and maintenance.

The BCUC, in the Clean Energy Act, will continue to regulate B.C. Hydro's domestic supply and rates. It will also continue to regulate the safety and reliability of the B.C. Hydro system as well as regulate the operating, management and administrative costs and
[ Page 5983 ]
handle complaints from ratepayers regarding B.C. Hydro service.

[1615]

One of the things that's really important about clean energy opportunities is the environment. I had the opportunity last August to visit the Bear Mountain wind farm. I can tell you that, having visited many of the heritage assets in the province and seeing this firsthand, the first time, the sensitivity in terms of which the proponent was working, in terms of with the environment, in everything from issues around cattle and the generation of the noise from the wind turbines to making certain that birds were not flying into the blades….

We had a chance to listen to them firsthand and see them up close. Environmentally, they're going to be re-landscaped as they were being erected. They're seeding the hill and putting trees back in. The blade span of these things is 82 metres across in diameter. The reality is that at a maximum speed of 19 revolutions per minute, they are very quiet. You almost cannot hear them operating when they're running.

I have to tell you that the extent…. That was probably the most impressive thing, besides the size and the magnitude of these — the actual environmental mitigation tactics they had taken to install these in that manner to address concerns from ranchers and people that were environmentalists that were concerned about birds. Frankly, having seen the desert filled with wind machines of a different era down in the southern part of California, I can tell you that we have had the opportunity to learn from those experiences and not have a cluttered landscape with a bunch of noisy little wind machines.

The fact is that the province is very serious when it means that we're going to have a stronger Environmental Assessment Act as part of this. That's to specifically provide for the assessments of cumulative environmental effects. In addition, the development and proposal of energy projects in parks, protected areas and conservancies will be prohibited by law.

I think the other thing that's important to note is that we enjoy the benefit of many important rivers and waterways in the province, and this act protects the fact that we are not necessarily looking at other areas to put power generation on.

The act is going to enshrine in law B.C.'s historic two-river policy. As the member for Columbia River–Shuswap would know, the fact is that the Revelstoke and Mica dams are in his particular area. The Waneta dam and that particular network was built many decades ago. The fact is that the Peace River was originally set up with two projects, with several other ones envisioned at the time.

The fact is that we have learned a lot from the fact that we went into an area where things were maybe not done in the most sensitive way — the way that we would look at it. But we can assure the people in the Peace River the fact is that we take the environment seriously, and we are going to make certain that we do our best to mitigate every possible environmental impact that can be done with what we know today.

So the two-river policy prohibits future development of large-scale hydroelectric storage dams on all river systems in British Columbia, such as the Liard River system. It will also preclude further dams in the Peace River system other than Site C.

It really was, I think, a vision. I think this is something that members opposite really need to talk about. This is one of the reasons why I'm so proud to serve in this government and under our Premier. The vision the government has is often compared to former Premiers, like W.A.C. Bennett, who had a vision — long before there were 4½ million people living in British Columbia — that we would need power.

Hydroelectric was a way to harness that energy and be able to store it and be able to provide power so that the jobs…. The reason the population has more than doubled in the 40-year period since those first dams were put in is because of the fact that we had the ability to supply an ongoing supply of power to companies that have come here and enjoyed the benefit of working with our resources and continuing to reinvest, whether it's pulp mills or it happens to be sawmills or it happens to be something that is a new industry.

We happen to have a new one that's going into Kamloops. Prior to the Olympics I had no idea about the amount of power consumption. We have a new data centre that the government is working on in partnership with EDS Solutions in Kamloops.

[1620]

I discovered one of the reasons why we could be a place where people come to from around North America, to come and be able to settle in British Columbia, to store large amounts of data, which we're all using more and more in terms of technology. It's the fact that these data centres consume huge amounts of power, generate a lot of heat. The reality is that with them properly placed and with the fact that we have a long-term supply of steady — not intermittent — power, we're going to be able to attract those businesses.

Those are new businesses that are attracting high-tech jobs, of people that are running those data centres. The reality is that's just one of those opportunities that I believe came out of the Olympics.

It's because of past government investment in these types of heritage assets throughout the province that British Columbia continues to enjoy some of the lowest energy rates in North America. I believe that we're the second lowest in North America, benefiting ratepayers and our provincial economy.

B.C. Hydro has embarked on a major reinvestment and expansion of its infrastructure to ensure that these
[ Page 5984 ]
benefits are in place for future generations of British Columbians. B.C. Hydro is currently investing $1.8 billion this year and over $2 billion next year in the province's aging public generation, transmission and distribution systems.

You know, I can't imagine, from my background, being in business, that…. We have a certain maintenance program that we have to maintain — and complain…. I know that the members opposite have raised the issue about rising rates, etc. The fact that we still have some of the lowest rates in North America, and to be critical about reinvestment and what Hydro is expected to do, as any type of business would, to reinvest, and that it has to maintain those assets in a condition that is prudent and that they continue to operate, that they upgrade when technology and efficiency becomes available….

I know that we're adding new generation in terms of being able to use all of the available storage in these dams that we currently have. But that still is not enough to meet the energy demands of British Columbia today, and we are still a net importer.

B.C. Hydro is now moving forward with the third stage of Site C. That third stage is part of a five-stage process which will include a full environmental review and also adding the new turbines at Mica and Revelstoke. Also, the purchase by B.C. Hydro of one-third of the Waneta dam will help ensure a source of clean, reliable and competitively priced power for decades to come.

Now, by law, the new low-rate benefits that will come from B.C.'s existing and future heritage assets will flow exclusively to British Columbians and will not be used to subsidize export power sales, contrary to what we've heard earlier today.

The fact is that we're enjoying rates currently that are some of the lowest in a decade, but we can't forget that in 2000 the rate was 12 times the going rate — over $1,200 a megawatt back in 2000. People seem to think that hydro rates are static. They change based on demand and what's happening in other markets.

The act ensures that existing prohibitions to sell and dispose of heritage assets are also strengthened by adding a number of new heritage assets to the existing B.C. Hydro–owned generation and transmission and distribution facilities.

The act clearly separates exports and ensures that ratepayers do not bear any of the risks or costs associated with long-term export sales. I think that this is another important aspect. It also ensures that the benefits of export revenues flow to the ratepayers and taxpayers.

What do we know about export sales? We're being criticized for it today, yet Powerex, under the former government, also had a…. I think that we've still got an outstanding receivable from the southern United States of $300 million that's never been paid, and that was sold in those periods where hydro rates were going through the roof.

The fact is that today most places in the United States, especially in California, are having to pay two and three times what the rates are here. But they're still looking for that opportunity to buy clean, green, renewable power.

British Columbia's new export policy will reduce the risk for British Columbia ratepayers by ensuring that long-term export power agreements are secured before issuing new calls for power. We're leveraging the assets of B.C. Hydro and renewable power producers and the firming and shaping capabilities of the hydro system so that B.C. Hydro can seek to earn the greatest value from its resources for the benefit of the ratepayers.

[1625]

The Clean Energy Act will also consolidate B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation to provide a single entity that will plan and deliver the clean energy required to meet British Columbians' growing demand for electricity while fostering job creation throughout the province and helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The British Columbia Transmission Corporation was originally created in 2003 in response to directions in the industry calling for increased independence of transmission and the development of regional transmission organizations. Regional transmission organizations did not develop in the Pacific Northwest, and the movement towards greater independence for transmission was halted. This presents an opportunity to consolidate B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Transmission Corporation to increase the alignment and the efficiencies of both those organizations.

The act will integrate the two companies into a single organization, with one board of directors and executive, and will transfer the B.C. Transmission Corporation assets, liabilities and employees to B.C. Hydro. But B.C. Hydro will continue to be owned by the province and, with public ownership of B.C. Hydro's assets, will remain protected by legislation. British Columbians will benefit from a unified, publicly owned entity that will capitalize on the proven strengths and trusted service both organizations have to lead the development of clean, reliable and affordable energy for generations.

The northwest transmission line, which B.C. Hydro will be moving ahead on, is part of a growing list of these assets that we're talking about — heritage assets. I can't help but think that if I was living in a sector of the province where there were no energy options other than dirty, diesel-generated power, it's going to limit my opportunities in terms of what jobs we can create there and the opportunities for other people to move there, unless they can find access to good, clean, renewable power that is not intermittent.

The northwest transmission line is going to electrify Highway 37, a corridor that I've actually driven through. I know how much opportunity there is there. I can tell you, from people who I have met that have mining op-
[ Page 5985 ]
portunities in that area, who I met recently in the last few months, that several of the mine projects are thrilled by not only the fact that we are coming up with the HST — which is a game changer, in their words, to being able to develop a $3 billion mine where the extension of this Highway 37 northern transmission line is going to be — but the fact that we're putting power up there so that they can connect into it.

These are game-changing events. The fact is that people in these areas, whether it be Stewart or Dease Lake or other places north of that, are going to be able to benefit from the jobs that are going to be created by that.

It adds a high voltage transmission line to the grid from the region. The project will also provide a secure interconnection point for clean generation projects, supply clean electricity to support industrial development in the area and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by connecting communities that are now relying on diesel generation to the grid. I guess I can't help but think that if there's no power, there are no jobs, so I think that's the most important part.

The northwest transmission line will consist of a 287-kilovolt line that will run 335 kilometres from the Skeena substation near Terrace to the new substation that will be built near Bob Quinn Lake.

The proposed northwest transmission line is still subject to a rigorous environmental assessment process, the same as we mentioned with Site C. Its cost has been pegged at $404 million, of which $130 million has already been pledged by the federal government of Canada.

The northwestern part of British Columbia has a 2,000-megawatt potential of green energy and will help create new opportunities for renewable power producers to connect their clean energy to the grid and deliver electricity where it's most needed in many of the ridings that we all depend on and live on here in the province.

The northwest transmission line will result in a major boon for mining in the region, as I previously mentioned. Currently there are 11 proposed projects in the region with $15 billion as the potential investment and up to 10,000 jobs and $300 million in annual tax revenue.

[1630]

The Site C clean energy project will be the third dam and hydroelectric generating station on the Peace River in northeast B.C. Subject to approvals, Site C will be a source of clean, renewable energy for more than a hundred years.

Site C will help meet B.C.'s future electricity needs by providing 900 megawatts of capacity and 4,600 gigawatt hours of electricity each year. It will provide enough electricity to power approximately 410,000 homes per year and will be a publicly owned heritage asset for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Site C is currently in the third stage of a five-stage process. Stage 3 is the regulatory review phase, which includes an independent environmental assessment and consultation with First Nations.

I couldn't help but think about…. Earlier today we heard about the opposition's concerns over the environmental disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. The fact is that if they're concerned and if they really believe in their concerns about the environment, then why wouldn't we support something that goes through a full environmental review process which is one of the most rigorous anywhere in North America?

The fact is that we are not advocating changing anything. We're saying that we will meet those demands. But the fact is that this is an opportunity for them to support something that is environmentally clean — green energy that will bring sustainable, clean, green energy to the province for decades, centuries.

Site C will produce among the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour when compared with other forms of electricity generation. As a third project on one river system, Site C will generate 30 percent of the electricity produced by the W.A.C. dam but with only 5 percent of the reservoir area.

Site C will contribute to the local and provincial economy by creating an estimated 7,650 direct construction jobs through the construction period and up to 35,000 direct and indirect jobs through all stages of the project.

While we're talking about environment, let's talk about smart meters for a second. The environment around us is changing every day. Technology is transforming the way we do things not only here in our lives but in government. B.C. Hydro is taking a device that has been around for decades and updating and modernizing it so that it fits into the upgraded electricity grid, the metering system.

This replaces all of B.C. Hydro's 1.8 million customer meters with digital, solid state, smart electricity meters. Smart meters deliver real-time data to customers to manage their electrical consumption.

This program is crucial for us to meet our energy objective on the demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective of reducing Hydro's expected increase in demand for electricity by the year 2020 by at least 66 percent.

I can tell you that I can speak firsthand from having an industrial operation that had to pay demand-load charges to B.C. Hydro. I understand exactly what it is when you have a surcharge go on to your bill as an industrial user. It really just means using energy smartly. So the real-time metering, for those that haven't looked into it, is the opportunity for you to run that load of laundry or wash the dishes or do things at a different time just to be able to help save energy.

The fact is that real-time metering gives you an option of being able to use it smarter, being able to use timers when it's efficient. It's about educating consumers
[ Page 5986 ]
on how to understand how to better save money. Rather than just changing lightbulbs and all the things we already know as part of our Power Smart program, this gives them the direct, hands-on ability to change it right in their own home.

Together, B.C. Hydro's smart metering program and the initial smart grid program will provide some of the foundational infrastructure for smart grid. The programs will deliver a positive net present value of approximately $500 million, helping to keep rates low.

[1635]

B.C. is not alone in seeking out the benefits of this great technology. Currently there are over 150 jurisdictions globally and 116 utilities in North America alone that are moving forward to install smart meters and put smart grids into place.

The term "smart grid" refers to a modern, automated, intelligent power delivery system that supports additional services and benefits to customers, the environment and the economy.

B.C.'s smart grid will also feature benefits such as integrated two-way communications between the customer and B.C. Hydro, automated outage detection and notification, automated meter-tamper alarms and support for theft detection strategies. It accommodates distributed generation and semiautomated restoration and, eventually, self-healing as well as many other features.

Is there any reason to not embrace and support technology? I can't help but think of the fellow that's running around in the B.C. Hydro truck checking all the meters. The fact is that smart grid may end up reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of that half-ton truck running around collecting meter information but, on the other hand, creating opportunities for that same person.

It's like what I spoke of when I was at the Bear Mountain wind farm. The fact is that we don't have enough hydro linepeople or experience to be able to train people to do that job. The fact is that the entire crew had to be brought in from the Philippines to do the hookup to the grid because we didn't have those people available in British Columbia. But that's the opportunity that is in front of us — for us to be able to add those jobs as we build capacity to be able to create a bigger business opportunity out of the clean, green energy that B.C. Hydro is presented with.

B.C. is not alone in seeking out the benefits of this great technology. The term "smart grid" refers to a modern, automated, intelligent power delivery system where customers' demand for electricity will be adjusted by the customers as they continue to use it and become educated.

The grid continues to need to adapt to the customers' changing needs, the increasing demand for multiple clean sources of electricity and to ensure reliability. For years B.C. Hydro has provided the domestic electricity demand as well as a short-term trade that provides benefits such as lower electricity rates and hundreds of millions of dollars towards provincial revenue, which in turn helps to fund government programs such as health care and education.

Many states and provinces are now seeking to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by replacing electricity generated by hydrocarbon-based fuel sources. B.C. is actively pursuing that and is uniquely positioned to offer clean, green, reliable power at competitive prices, which in turn can result in new investments and job creation opportunities across the regions of the province. B.C. has a growing renewable power production sector which has the expertise in building and delivering clean power from wind, run-of-the-river, geothermal, solar, tidal and biomass projects.

The Clean Energy Act also includes the export of electricity as an objective. B.C. Hydro has the opportunity to partner with renewable power producers to actively seek opportunities to sell reliable electricity to neighbours in Canada and the U.S. B.C. Hydro will be able to secure long-term export power sales to jurisdictions seeking clean energy. To achieve that, B.C. Hydro will work to secure economically viable export contracts and partner with renewable power producers to generate need and to meet the contracts without risk or cost to B.C. ratepayers.

B.C. Hydro will be able to secure long-term export power agreements at market rates that make the best use of our available clean energy. B.C. Hydro will fill those contractual energy needs with clean power calls that produce new power from renewable power projects in all regions across B.C. Let us be clear: ratepayers will not be subsidizing export power sales. In fact, the Clean Energy Act….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[1640]

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I'll wait for the thunderous applause to die down. Oh, it did already.

It's my privilege to speak to Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act — the so-called Clean Energy Act. As is typical with pieces of legislation that are introduced in this Legislature, the name of the title doesn't always give you a good idea of what's going to be in that particular piece of legislation, but for the benefit of those in the gallery today, what we're doing is we seem to be alternating speakers from the government side supporting this act and from the opposition, who find numerous flaws in this act and would probably like to see many aspects of it changed. Ultimately, we would not support the act in its current state.

I'm going to point out some of the reasons why I believe this act is not right for British Columbia. It's full of major flaws, and it does a lot of things to our current system of regulatory oversight, the things that guard our
[ Page 5987 ]
environment and protect the interests of the people — protect not just in terms of what we pay for our hydro but in terms of ensuring that the concerns of the citizens are adequately addressed.

To begin with, I would just say that it seems to me that government is intending to find ways of removing the oversight processes that through history have become those which we rely on in British Columbia. We have ways of monitoring projects so that we can ensure the protection of the environment. We also have ways of ensuring that the pockets of B.C. taxpayers, ratepayers and citizens are protected.

I don't always like to use the term "taxpayers and ratepayers." We're talking about future generations as well. We're talking about children. We're talking about people in various conditions in this province who may or may not pay taxes. It's for the people of the province that this legislation has been presented, and it's for the people of this province that this legislation should be vigorously debated.

I should point out right off the top that there are some very, very serious problems with this bill, as identified by First Nations. Just to start with First Nations, a letter was received by government, I think within the past week, and 47 chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations indicated that they believe that this process has been flawed, how this legislation came into existence.

Just to recap, back in November the government decided to appoint a task force to look into clean energy or into the future of energy production in the province. Within two months they received what they considered adequate consultation, 290 submissions. Within another month they had the legislation in all its fulsomeness, approximately 36 pages long.

It looks to me like the process was designed in order to achieve a certain result. I'm not saying it was predetermined. I could certainly say that the approach this government usually takes to legislation is that they know what they want to do, then they try to find enough people to say this is a good idea, and then they go forward with it.

In this particular case, it's clear that the proponents of this type of legislation are those who will benefit the most financially from it. I'm concerned about it, because what happens when…? The corporations people were talking about it earlier. There's nothing inherently wrong with…. Well, there are serious problems with corporations, but what they do and what government doesn't do or shouldn't do is gouge the public for as much money as possible.

We see corporations who are large donors to the government side, and then we see legislation that seems to reflect the interests of people in the sectors that are often the largest contributors. We see it coming through in legislation, and the legislation, I believe, is contrary to the public good. I believe it contradicts public policies that have been well established in this province that protect the public, and for that reason it should be defeated.

My hope that it is defeated is tempered by the fact that they've got 46. We've got 33 or something like that, and then there's an independent — 35. We have an imbalance in this House. They won because of their election and what they promised in the election, and they were elected. We found out later that that wasn't always the same thing — what they said before and after the election. That's a bit of an aside. If I was writing this down, it would be a footnote.

[1645]

But the footnote is here — that when the government says they're going to do something and then they decide to do something, it should be based on what they said they were going to do and based on what would be best for the people of the province.

My main concern with this legislation is essentially the elimination of the Utilities Commission. You know, there are ways of getting rid of oversight bodies that are more subtle than just taking away all their responsibilities but, in this particular case, we have the B.C. Utilities Commission that is no longer permitted to oversee projects in terms of whether or not they protect the public interest.

I have to say that at the same time as government here in British Columbia is reducing oversight on projects that have an impact on our province, our communities and our environment, we see the federal government doing the same thing. It's almost as if they have come together, put their heads together and decided that really what they think is in the way of wealth creation is regulation, and I would beg to differ. I say it's regulations that have protected our environment. It's regulations that have, in the past, protected the public interest, and numerous examples exist to illustrate that point.

I would like to just speak basically about the bill in question, Bill 17. Essentially, what it does is put forward government's objectives, and they've changed the law in order to make government objectives paramount at the expense of the public oversight that I mentioned earlier. This independent body, the Utilities Commission, used to review projects and used to listen to expert testimony. They used to be open to public input, and they'd be the regulatory body that would determine the relative merits of various projects.

Prior to becoming the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said: "What we support is an open, honest, public review of all these projects." He was referring to energy projects, I mention just in passing. "When they're successful, we will know that they're right for the province of B.C. and that we'll support them, as a government that actually starts to tell the truth to consumers." That was the end of his quote.
[ Page 5988 ]

The Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, harangued government about their stance on the Utilities Commission. They said: "We don't want politics interfering with this independent body. We should stay out of the B.C. Utilities Commission's business." Yet here we are, not that long since that time, where we have a government that basically takes the Utilities Commission and doesn't just change it. I think the baby is thrown out with the bathwater here.

To me it's troubling. It's troubling because it represents to me a pattern of getting the public and the interests of the public further and further from government policy. I think that the cornerstone of democracy is adequate consultation with the public, input from the public. When opportunities for that input are degraded or removed or weakened, what we see is less of a connection between the needs of the citizenry and the legislation and regulations passed by government.

The member previous to me, the minister, was talking about some of the things that he thought were good about the Clean Energy Act. You know, I don't intend to take him up on every specific issue, but if the government was comfortable with the legislation they were proposing and if they were comfortable with the direction they were going to take, why is it that they seem so bent on removing the oversight, the neutral oversight that can determine whether these decisions of government are good or bad?

[1650]

It just leads me to think that there might be something hidden. I don't want to accuse members of the government of doing anything stealthy. Far be it from me to accuse them of such a thing, but there seem to be other people who are more likely to find the connection between saying one thing and doing another. That's not always stealthy, but what we have in this particular piece of legislation is the continuation of a policy of privatization — privatization of our rivers, privatization of our resources, to benefit particular companies that have mostly offshore stakeholders.

That troubles me, because I think that the province of B.C. needs to embrace its resources and steward those resources in a way that benefits us now and benefits future generations. When we off-load that responsibility to bodies like corporations that are primarily or solely interested in the bottom line, then we forget about the importance of protecting the public interest.

I can speak on this particular bill. We can talk about processes that already occur, that actually have demonstrated clearly how the public has been kept out of decisions that impact them. The environmental protections are part of, well, not the history of B.C., but there are environmental regulations that were fairly steadfast and sound. Those regulations have been whittled away. In my riding there's been an outcry over one of the companies in particular, Plutonic, the building of their Toba Montrose project.

There's mention of some joint agreements with school districts and such, and there are some benefits for skills training, but what we have now is a situation in my riding where the public can no longer go to places where they used to be able to go to camp or to fish or to look at birds or to observe wildlife or just to enjoy the outdoor wilderness. When you see government policies allowing private companies to restrict access to Crown land, we have a fundamental problem.

Why is it not the public that gets to enjoy the public's land? We own it together. What we have in this act — and previous legislation, obviously — is the reduction of our stake in that ownership. We lose, as the people of British Columbia, through this act. I would prefer to see an act that retrenches the importance of public ownership of public resources for the benefit of the public. We won't see the return on investment, because shareholders other than myself are going to be reaping the profits.

The B.C. Utilities Commission at one time oversaw a number of projects, a number of aspects of different projects. Earlier today we were talking about smart meters. It's a billion-dollar project to install meters in every house — approximately a billion dollars. Am I wrong about that? I don't think so. It's a billion-dollar project.

You know, without getting into the merits of the smart meter program, there should be confidence in the people of the province that this is a project that is value for money and will have a positive impact on our consumption of electricity. Now, why wouldn't we ask an independent regulator, one that is staffed and qualified to investigate neutrally and objectively the benefit of such a program to the people of the province? Why would we specifically remove the right of the regulator to do that? It makes me suspicious. It makes me question: are there ulterior intentions?

[1655]

I don't think that being in this position necessarily makes me more skeptical than others. I think it's a fair question for people in this province to ask: why is government so driven to reduce objective oversight?

Now, there are obviously many regulatory processes that protect the public interest, and the B.C. Utilities Commission is one agency in that process. But the question remains. If you take away their authority and you basically take their teeth out, you're not going to have an agency that has much of a bite. Maybe this is due to the fact that the Utilities Commission came down hard on the government in the past. Maybe they took personal offence and decided to remove their authority to do anything. But it certainly seems to me that the government has made it their goal to eliminate any potential criticism or push-back on their goals.
[ Page 5989 ]

At the same time that this government is eliminating the Utilities Commission, essentially, we have a federal government that is also reducing the regulatory oversight for significant projects. So the Utilities Commission here in British Columbia will no longer have the authority to review large projects. Now, the federal government at the same time is enacting legislation hidden in their budget bill that will remove the environmental assessment process, or parts of it that have been helpful.

I think that we should do a better job of applauding, recognizing and acknowledging the work of regulatory agencies. They're not often the ones where they get a lot of pats on the back or thanks, but when they're robust and when they're adequately resourced, they are there to protect the public interest. We know that there's been damage to the environment because the government didn't undertake an environmental assessment.

Well, they set the rules up so that a project of the size I'm referring to, which is Tyson Creek, wasn't subject to an assessment, and what happened? The company drilled a hole in the bottom of a glacial lake in order to feed a penstock. Surprise, surprise. Some silt managed to get into the lake, the water going directly into the river — a siltation event. Hazardous material entered the stream. I would point out that the Tzoonie River has been traditionally one of the major salmon spawning river systems.

You have a lake with basically a drain in the bottom. Imagine your kitchen sink. There's a drain in the bottom. You can't plug it. There's water going down, no matter how dirty it gets. Most of us think you put a strainer in there to catch all the things. Well, they came up from the bottom and blew a hole in the bottom of the lake. The water went in.

The environmental assessment process didn't catch that. This is engineering. This is the highest standard, supposedly, and it missed what appears to be, perhaps, a situation that can't even be corrected. I'm not calling it a Gulf of Mexico type of incident, but we're relying on the same people to do these kinds of projects — the same people who believed that you can drill a hole in the bottom of a lake, and you don't anticipate any silt getting into that lake.

You draw the lake down. The water drains the lake like that sink I was thinking about. It drains the lake. Well, if you've got stuff stuck to the side of that lake, after you drain the lake, it's going to fall in. That's what happened. That's exactly what happened, which reminds me that I have to do the dishes.

[1700]

So you have a situation that is very serious, and you have slow but responsive authorities dealing with it, an order: "Don't pollute anymore." The problem is that this water that's coming out of the lake to generate electricity would otherwise have gone into a stream. The stream gets 5 percent of the water on a mean annual flow — 5 percent in that stream. That water is required by law. The law requires 5 percent of the mean average flow into that stream.

So the water comes through the pipe from the bottom of the lake. There's another pipe that goes back and does the stream. It doesn't go directly into the stream because the lake's too low. It won't directly go into the stream, so the proponent has to put the water back up. Well, what happens? The water is full of silt. You've got 5 percent flow, but it's all containing silt.

Either, it seems to me, the project will be able to run with a certain degree of acceptable pollution, or it's not going to work. If I were the proponent, I'd be pretty upset. You have technology. You have oversight, such as it is, and yet you have situations that result in problems that are going to be very, very difficult to fix.

We have these people and others like them — the renewable energy sector members, the private power companies — going around proposing these projects using the same technology, the same engineering and with the same people, and the government is reducing regulatory oversight, reducing the ability of people to have an impact.

People called for studies of the lake bottom. They said, "You've got to think about potential disruption of that water body," but it wasn't done. When it isn't done, you get mistakes, you get problems, and you get potential destruction of fish, our wild fish.

This morning we had a discussion about fish farms and aquaculture and open-net fish farms. I'd like to talk about what we are going to do to make our wild salmon viable. What are the things we can do? One of the things we can do is rehabilitate our watersheds.

To me, clean energy implies that it doesn't destroy fish habitat. Clean energy, to me, implies that it doesn't take far wider swaths of trees out of transmission lines — hundreds of kilometres of new transmission lines. Clean energy, to me, doesn't include the increase of the amount of pesticides and herbicides we use. Clean energy, to me, does not mean putting weirs on massive river systems so that we can sell it to California for their air conditioning.

I think about the Bute Inlet. There are 17 rivers going into the Bute Inlet, 17 proposed penstocks, 17 proposed transmission-generating stations and hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines. We're talking about sensitive environment. We're talking about wildlife habitat of the marbled murrelet, rare mountain goat range.

Clean energy sounds good, but then you read the Clean Energy Act, and you realize it's basically an attempt to pursue a single-minded goal — the single-minded goal of benefiting certain companies at the expense of long-term British Columbian interest. To me that's a problem. When you start reducing the regulatory requirements, you get problems.
[ Page 5990 ]

Let me just read a little quote. "It came to light that the U.S. Department of the Interior exempted British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon project from an environmental impact study."

[1705]

Now, there's one way to get around environmental legislation oversight, and that is to exempt it. This government has done enough to the environmental regime, the protection of our environment, to not give me a lot of hope for now, but they're removing an entire regulatory oversight body. They are not exempting…. Well, they are. They are removing, basically, what is the core of the Utilities Commission, giving it less of a mandate and, essentially, selling out the interests of British Columbians.

I would say that there are many opponents to this legislation. I think it was probably in the works for some time, long before consultation took place. I question the mandate the government has or thinks it has in doing this. It's another step in the privatization of our province. It goes against what I believe is my responsibility as a legislator to protect the public interest.

It's too bad that this place seems to generate opinions that are all on one side or all on the other. I think it was likely possible that there could have been a way of actually making this less of an ideological bill and more one that actually contemplates good future stewardship of our environmental resources, but it isn't. It isn't, and it should have been.

Another thing that the Utilities Commission won't be able to do any more is even get involved with the export plans — B.C. Hydro's export plans. I'm looking over to a minister. When he nods, I know I'm right on track. I think that when you take away the responsibility of these decisions from the Utilities Commission and say that it's now just a member of cabinet, a member of the government that can make decisions on their own, in the privacy of their own large and well-decorated offices, I don't think that's in the public interest.

It's clear that the act was designed specifically for the interests of the independent power producers, a few of whom I know. I have no quarrel with them. I don't think what they're doing is in the best interests of the province, but they're doing it under a government that sets up a regime that allows it, and therein lies the problem. The government is making laws that strengthen itself and weaken the agencies that give us confidence in that government.

I'm sorry to be here to debate a bill that I think is not in the public interest. I do my part to speak against it. I'll be relaying the information that I have about this legislation to the people of my constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. The day will come where public interest will be once again the foremost concern of government, and I look forward to that day. With that, I take my seat.

D. McRae: I stand today to speak in favour of the Clean Energy Act.

As always, I'm impressed with the resilience of the opposition. They continue to speak against pretty much everything, even things they end up voting in favour of. At the end of the day, I must applaud you on your consistency of being negative about every government policy that we could possibly bring forward.

Before I dive into specifics, I want to bring to the attention of the members present today an article I read just recently in the Times Colonist. The article was entitled "B.C. Will Be the Fastest-Growing Province." When you look through the article and you look at the estimates they put forward, they say that the population of this province, which is currently 4.5 million people, could rise to as many as seven million people in British Columbia by the year 2035. That's obviously very substantial.

[1710]

Back in 1973 the population of this province was 2.3 million. Basically, in the 37 years since, we doubled our population. Well, we will more than double our population in a similar length of time.

When we see population growth, it comes with a lot of challenges that politicians at the federal, provincial and municipal levels have to deal with. Some things we deal with are things like sprawl. We deal with transit, protection of the environment, general quality of life.

One challenge that we have the ability to deal with in this Legislature is how we deal with our future power needs both for the citizens of today and in the future. People in this province are rightfully proud of our heritage assets and the ability of this province to maintain some of the lowest electricity rates not just in Canada but in the developed world.

Now, we're able to do this because of the investments that were made by people in this chamber who came before us — people with the foresight, the wisdom and the fortitude to recognize that B.C. has been blessed with geographic advantage and clean water and that we can use those to our benefit. But for many reasons this province has not seen any substantial investment in its electricity generating capacity since the early 1980s. Yet the need for electricity is greater today and greater in the future than we've ever noticed.

Earlier I mentioned population growth. It is inevitable. We see it coming. It is happening in British Columbia. It is happening across Canada. More so, it is happening in the United States of America.

We also see the advent of larger homes. If you look back in history, in the 1940s the average family home in British Columbia, in Canada, was about 800 square feet. Well, I'd be hard-pressed to find a single-family home that's 800 square feet today. Today what do we see often being built? Homes that range from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, and sometimes there are only two or maybe
[ Page 5991 ]
three people living in those homes. But they're substantially larger and consume much greater energy than ever before.

We see a change in the number of appliances that people have. If you remember back in time, perhaps when you folks were children, the idea of having one TV was, maybe, very, very luxurious for some families. I remember when colour TV came in when I was a child, and that was rather impressive. Nowadays we see two, three, four TVs. I remember that as a high school teacher, we'd talk about energy use in our society. I had one child who said his family had seven TVs in their house. That's a choice they made. It's a choice that takes a lot of electricity.

We also see things that perhaps a long time ago we never even anticipated in the average house: portable air conditioners, microwaves, video games. These all consume electricity. With electricity, we see aspects of things called vampire power. Right now across this Legislature and in our homes we have things plugged in that are turned off but are still warm and consuming power. It might be a charger for a cell phone. It might be a PVR. It might a video game. They're turned off, but the little red light is still on, and they're consuming power. Not very much, but when you consider the number of those items that we have in our homes, it consumes and consumes.

The reality of our consumer world that we live in is that I don't see the number of devices decreasing in the future. They're going to get more and more. Through awareness, we can make sure that people understand the impact of what they do, but I think the reality is that we need to make sure that people are aware.

We also see new technologies in the future. The electric vehicle is coming. Obviously, we see things like the Volt that's going to be released next year. The number of people on our streets that actually plug their car in at night to charge, to drive around their community, is almost nonexistent right now. But I challenge that in ten or 20 years it will change dramatically, and again, that will be another demand on electricity in this province that we don't see today. Perhaps there are things that we haven't even foreseen that we need to be challenged and prepared for.

Now, members opposite may challenge this number. I'm prepared for it because they often do so, but the facts speak for themselves. We continued to import power into this province for the last eight of the nine years. On average we import between 10 and 12 percent from outside sources. These are often inefficient, electricity-generating coal plants. They're not in British Columbia. They're in the Midwest. They're back in the eastern part of Canada. The reality is that they continue to belch smoke into the environment and cause pollution.

We can ensure that we remain energy self-sufficient, and we can continue to supply our domestic needs and sell power across North America, because we have this ability through dams to make sure that we can. After all, we're not the only jurisdiction that has seen its power needs increase, but we're one of the few jurisdictions that have the ability to control its electricity and power future.

[1715]

As I sit across from the members opposite, I often listen and question their rationale to basically vote against this bill. There are many, and sometimes their logic isn't what I would agree with, but I know in the end they will find reasons to disagree with it, raise alarm and vote against it. But the reality is rhetoric does not help save the environment. We need action today.

For example, the legislation before us strengthens this province's goal of being energy self-sufficient by 2016. We're not energy self-sufficient today. The status quo isn't good enough. We need to keep investing into our future to make sure we achieve this goal.

Depending on the year, we keep on importing power. We want to make sure that we don't become reliant upon this. The power we import is not environmentally friendly. The power that is used by other jurisdictions is not environmentally friendly. We can do better. We have the assets to do so.

Furthermore, the number of British Columbians that are so proud of the power rates we pay…. Oftentimes I don't think they realize, until you live in other provinces, the high expense of power costs in places like Prince Edward Island or Ontario. The reality is it is much more expensive there than it is here.

Being able to provide cheap or low-cost electricity allows our residents a better quality of life. They can invest in things that they want to. It attracts investment in terms of having industry and commercial operations move here and become more viable and create more jobs, which is what we want to do in this province.

But let's not pretend that the rates that the power generated from our 40-year-old hydro infrastructure — and 40-year-old is being friendly — will be sufficient to meet our infrastructure improvements that we need to do to become energy self-sufficient.

The Clean Energy Act has the ability to help these other jurisdictions and governments and individuals across North America who now recognize the importance of buying clean and sustainable electricity.

This province can become a global leader in creating clean, green power from many different sources. We are seeing the advent of wind power in the northeast. The run-of-river power, geothermal, solar, tidal and biomass are all elements that we can basically embrace in this province.

Not only do projects like these meet the environmental tests of today and in the future; they also indeed bring much-needed jobs and investment to areas of the province that need it the most. The areas I refer to are rural British Columbia.
[ Page 5992 ]

Rural B.C. has had lots of challenges in the last 20 years, challenges that are brought on by changing world economics, by changing world needs, by new competing markets. These areas need our assistance, and things like the IPP projects allow them to be reactive to it.

Now, I look at my riding, the riding of Comox Valley. There are no approved independent power projects and none on the near horizon, but there are some that are close. In Port McNeill there's a run-of-river project where a company has partnered with the local First Nations. They have a plan, and the project will generate 183 gigawatts a year. There's no storage dam, and the project relies on the natural grade and flow of the river.

The north Island once had a vibrant forestry, mining and fishing industry, but it's struggled with the changing resource realities. They need investment — investment that will benefit its residents in the north Island.

The member opposite talked about Powell River. They were once a very, very rich forest industry town. I grew up on Georgia Strait and was able to look across and see the mill and the steam it produced every day. It definitely, as I aged, did not produce the same amount of pulp and paper that it once did. The number of people working in that mill is substantially less than it was ten, 20 years ago.

They need jobs. They need investment. In Powell River there's another project they're talking about on the Toba Inlet. This project, again, does not require a dam but again relies on the natural grade and flow of the river. It will create 214 gigawatts of power — of clean, renewable power. Again, this project will bring investment and jobs to rural B.C.

Not just in Powell River as well. I've met people in my riding of Comox Valley, across Georgia Strait, who have seen benefits of projects such as this. They plan to work on them, and they know that the businesses in the Comox Valley will benefit as well. I'm not prepared to let political ties prevent much-needed jobs and investment basically come to areas that need it the most.

One of the keen aspects of this act which I'm so proud of is smart meters. You think back to the meter on your house. I know we all have them. They haven't changed in my lifetime. Why? Because they're basically 20th-century technology.

[1720]

Chances are the house that you bought in 1968 has the exact same meter that they use today. They served B.C. Hydro well. They're incredibly well made. In fact, in my parents' house, where they lived a long time, I never saw anyone come and do servicing on it. It was impressive.

Before the days of cable TV, I was sometimes bored and there was nothing else to do. You'd just sit there and watch the meter run around for a couple of seconds. Why? Because we only had two channels. The Tommy Hunter Show just didn't do it for me.

Times and technology have changed. By 2012 all of B.C. Hydro's 1.8 million customers will have this new digital technology. This technology and this investment are not just for looks. Smart meters will provide real-time data to manage their electrical consumption. For example, it will allow some users, by process of elimination — it'll take a bit of work on their part — to identify where their power is being consumed and make appropriate choices.

I wonder when I leave my house sometimes how much power is still going. I don't leave the lights on. My wife doesn't like that. We try to be very, very energy conscious. But when I actually walk out of the house, when we just leave it and no lights are on — obviously, we have some things that are plugged in — how much power is being consumed?

Is there any incentive to replace the fridge in my kitchen? It's not overly old. But do I know how much power it consumes every day? I don't. You know what? With things like smart meters, you can actually start identifying where the power consumption is in your home. Smart meters will also allow B.C. Hydro to better identify when and where electrical theft is taking place.

It's not as newsworthy as it was several years ago, but marijuana grow shows were very popular in the news not too long ago. One of the aspects of marijuana grow shows in houses, and they can be in any neighbourhood in this province, is they basically see people stealing power from B.C. Hydro. They're stealing power, and it's very difficult for B.C. Hydro to determine where this is happening. Well, smart meters make it much, much harder for this to happen.

The more we can basically reduce the amount of grow shows and grow homes in our communities, it makes life safer. It makes life safer for the fire department. How often do we see stories where a grow show was discovered because a fire broke out because of faulty wiring — maybe the wiring that was basically being used to steal electricity? The fire department shows up, they come running in, and there's a grow show there. Sometimes they have been booby-trapped, and there's a danger to the firefighters or the police officers who may go in.

The more we can do to reduce those kinds of aspects basically makes sure our safety officers are better prepared and are living safer lives.

Smart meters will also, in the future, enable homeowners who produce excess power — perhaps through solar panels or through some level of wind generation — to sell some excess power back onto the grid. This even helps B.C. become more self-sufficient, helps customers save money and gives more incentives for them to make investments in safe power.

One of the things that I've heard about for a long time in my life that's also addressed in this bill is Site C. This is a project that's been talked about for a genera-
[ Page 5993 ]
tion, and in the past the time was not right. Well, times have changed. This dam will bring much-needed investment and jobs to rural B.C., and like the other dams that were created, it will create infrastructure that will last 100 years in this province.

Now, let's not put the cart before the horse. It still needs to meet environmental assessments and also make sure that consultation requirements have been met. But if it passes these, it will result in 7,500 direct construction jobs and up to 35,000 indirect jobs through various phases in the Site C construction project.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The other impressive aspect of this project is that the footprint the reservoir will create is much smaller than the other two dams on the Peace River. It will generate 30 percent of the power of the W.A.C. Bennett dam but will use only 5 percent of its space. Once it's complete, it will be a publicly owned asset. It'll be a heritage asset for ourselves to enjoy, our children and grandchildren to enjoy. It will be publicly owned, and it will benefit the residents of British Columbia for generations to come.

When I went to university many years ago, I was very fortunate to have several roommates who went into the mining industry. Growing up in the Comox Valley, I wasn't that familiar with the mining industry. I know it's very important, and I watched basically their companies and their families benefit from the mining industry.

One of the key components of the Clean Energy Act is the construction of the northwest transmission line, the line that will electrify Highway 37.

[1725]

Currently the communities and mines or potential mines in this region must rely on diesel generation. Diesel power is obviously expensive, and we all remember a year and a half ago when the price of diesel and gasoline basically pushed to $1.40 a litre, and some communities and industries were brought to their knees. Well, it's incredibly expensive, and it is also dirty power.

The transmission line, though, will bring clean power to the region. The transmission line will run 335 kilometres from the Skeena substation near Terrace to a new substation near Bob Quinn Lake.

This project does not come cheaply. It will cost $430 million. But the good news is that industry will contribute, the federal government will contribute, and it will allow this region to become more economically viable.

According to the Northwest Power Line Coalition study, this project has the potential to do the following. It will have the potential to service 11 new potential mines in the region, which will bring up to $15 billion in potential investment to an area of this province that needs it most. It'll bring 10,000 jobs potentially to the region. It will also bring as much as $300 million in annual tax revenue — revenue that could be used for health care, for education, for social services and not come on the backs of the taxpayer.

It will also give reasons to expand ports — the Port of Stewart and, obviously, the Port of Prince Rupert. These areas are areas that need more economic growth, and allowing mines to be developed in this area and their product to go through these ports will bring jobs and investment that will encourage other people to use these ports as well.

Now, this project is currently in the environmental assessment process as of April 14, 2010, but the 180-day clock is ticking, and we'll see how the regulator makes his or her decisions.

The other thing we've got to talk about is the expansion of the Mica and Revelstoke dams. The Mica generating station basically began operation in 1977. At the time, with great foresight, it was built, basically, as a sixth generating unit facility, but they only put in four generators.

The other one was the Revelstoke generating station. It began operation in 1984, and again, only four of six generating stations were installed. But by 2010 their sixth unit will be installed, and the last turbine will be working.

It is hoped that Mica will be at full capacity by 2015 and, currently, meet its full energy capability.

The Clean Energy Act will also direct B.C. Hydro to meet 66 percent of the province's future energy needs through efficiency and conservation by 2020. Power Smart has been around for a very long time — since 1989 — and it has introduced obviously numerous conservation programs basically to meet the needs of residents, commercial and industrial sectors of our society. When it comes to consumers, it has helped them save $150 million in that time, basically the equivalent of enough to power 168,000 homes in this province.

They've led initiatives that have caused us to change the way we think. For example, in 2004 only 50 percent of B.C. homes used a CFL bulb. Why? Well, they were expensive. They were new. We weren't too sure about them. But through, basically, awareness and education, we changed our ideas, and by 2008 up to 77 percent of all B.C. homes were using CFL bulbs to some degree, and it's growing and growing. They last longer. They're more efficient. They provide a great quality of light and help save the environment.

It's a long way off — just don't tell my daughter that — but Christmas is coming in six or seven months. You know what? How many of us still have homes that have our Christmas lights on today? We're not plugging them in, but they might be sitting up there.

Hon. P. Bell: I took mine down last weekend.
[ Page 5994 ]

D. McRae: Did you? You're a good man. The funny thing is that some of these Christmas lights are like, basically, family heirlooms. They've been sitting around the house for generations. Maybe dad had them before we had them. They are incredibly energy-inefficient.

But you know what? The new bulbs, these LED bulbs, consume 95 percent less energy, and they'll last ten times longer. That means in the case of the Minister of Forests and Range, he could leave his bulbs on the house arguably for 30, 40 years at a time.

Now, earlier I talked about the benefits of smart meters to help people manage their power consumption. Through programs like the LiveSmart program, we've also committed $35 million over the next three years to help residents basically take advantage of conservation programs.

[1730]

Lastly, I want to talk about how saving electricity creates jobs. The Power Smart initiative creates 6,400 jobs each year. These are jobs that are going to be sustainable. They help make the quality of life in this province far better.

At the end of the day we take a look at what we have. One of the things in government is that it's easy to sit and talk and do nothing. This is one of the great problems. Doing nothing, sending things to committee, having studies done — you know, it may make some people feel good inside, but eventually you have to take action.

One of the things about being a member of this political party is that there is not a fear of taking action. The B.C. Clean Energy Act is one of those elements. It allows us to basically take the steps necessary now to make sure that our children and our grandchildren have the means to meet the clean, green energy we need in the future. It is so important that we do action today. The action we are making, I believe, is the right action.

The opposition will stand, and they will criticize and cast doubts. I'm sure that's what they do in the back rooms there. But at the end of the day I have not heard of an alternate course of action. Studies do not meet the needs of this province forever and a day.

This act is a strong act. It's a good act. I applaud the minister for bringing it forward. With that, I take my seat and will give the opposition a chance to speak their piece.

G. Coons: I rise to speak on and oppose Bill 17. The government refers to it in the order paper as the Clean Energy Act, but frankly, it's anything but. We should call it the privatization and deregulation energy act. This is where most people I have talked to believe this government is headed with the introduction of this piece of legislation.

There's no question. It's really a dirty energy act. It's not clean at all. When we peel back the onion of this legislation and start looking at the layers, you start to see what's underneath: how the deals have been done and are being done, how the money flows into certain areas of government and who's scratching whose back. This has nothing to do with being clean.

I have to say it's really quite a repulsive act. It's probably one of the most foul pieces of legislation that's been presented in this House, and there are many reasons for that analysis. There are 30-some pages in the bill, in this so-called green energy act. There are multiple sections, probably about 72, and I'm positive that when we get to the clause-by-clause committee stage we'll lay out some of the precise concerns and get some answers on where this government plans to go.

It's dressing up this green energy legislation, dressing it up and making it out as something else. It's not what it really is. Many feel betrayed by this government, this Premier. We've heard it from the Assembly of First Nations, many environmental organizations, and I certainly know that there are users, citizens, ratepayers who are going to see their rates skyrocket and go through the roof as a result of this piece of legislation.

It's interesting that many on the other side of the House who have stood and talked to this piece of legislation haven't clarified exactly the benefit to British Columbians. It's the same rhetoric that we hear from the minister and the echoing rhetoric from the members. This bill needs to be withdrawn.

My constituents continue to tell me that they believe that in a democracy it's government's purpose, when they're elected, to act in the best interests of the people. In my mind, a government has to serve the people and ensure that any legislation that is brought forward benefits the public.

On Saturday — speaking of concerns about the environment and some legislation that basically has a lot of risks and no benefits to British Columbians — I attended the Solidarity Gathering of Nations in Kitamaat Village. Very similar to this bill, Bill 17, there are major concerns from the Haisla, the Gitga'at and dozens of First Nations about the Enbridge project.

[1735]

When I was at this gathering in Kitamaat on Saturday along with the member for Skeena and Nathan Cullen, the Member of Parliament, we heard from people — their concerns about all of the risks and no benefit coming to communities, to First Nations or the public.

Again, this bill before us, Bill 17, has the same type of feeling. When you peel back that onion, it starts to smell, and the last thing I think British Columbians want to do is take a bite of that onion. But that's where this piece of legislation is going.

You know, at the Solidarity Gathering of Nations there were many speakers. There was David Suzuki, Guujaaw, Art Sterritt, Rick Steiner, Dr. Riki Ott, Norm Hann. They brought forth the concerns of democracy, due process, looking after the environment and ensur-
[ Page 5995 ]
ing that whatever legislation, whatever decisions are made by governments, both at the provincial or federal level, benefit British Columbians and are in the public interest.

This piece of legislation before us is bad policy. It's bad legislation. There are major flaws. There is no public oversight. It's an attack on democracy and due process.

I do have to mention Norm Hann, who was a speaker at the gathering in Kitamaat Village. He paddleboarded the route of the tankers. He saw the concerns from First Nations on government policy, whether it's dealing with, I suppose, a green energy plan or the possible project being approved that would bring pipelines and dirty oil and tankers onto the coast.

He paddleboarded 385 kilometres to raise awareness. Again, these are people who I met with, a thousand of them, who also see this bill as an attack on democracy and due process. But in British Columbia we have a government that has rejected the concept of due process and democracy, and this bill highlights how we've seen them do this. It's named the Clean Energy Act, but it represents a dramatic escalation and increase in the government's privatization and regulation agenda.

Bill 17 will gouge ratepayers. It will damage the environment, violate the principle of government accountability and transparency, and it will undermine the public interest. There are so many bad policies, it's hard to begin. What we see in this bill is a direction that began back in 2002 which opened the door for private power production. We've seen that across the province — the power grab, the gold rush, 800 rivers and streams being staked out by independent power producers who are waiting to jump on the bandwagon of this Bill 17.

This bill ensures that private power companies can make massive profits while shifting the risks onto the backs of ratepayers, of British Columbians. Again, we look at the risks and the benefits, and all of the risks are on the backs of British Columbians with this bill. There are some being built that don't make economic sense. They've signed agreements at above-market rates and backed up by B.C. Hydro's assets, but all of a sudden we have this gold rush mentality, and we're seeing the results of this. Who's going to benefit is basically hard to determine. We haven't heard from the other side of the House yet on that.

Now, this bill eliminates the B.C. Utilities Commission's oversight of any power project intended for export. This follows the removal of local government's ability to decide on whether or not private power projects on local rivers or streams are appropriate for municipalities.

[1740]

Who will now decide what power project should go ahead? It now rests with cabinet — the Premier and his appointed ministers. Now, again, many may say: "Is this a smart decision to sort of skirt around due process and democracy and skirt around the public interest?"

Then there's been talk about smart meters. I believe that it should be mandatory for government to perhaps have implanted a smart meter to ensure that legislation they put forward is smart. Obviously, the members on that side are missing the smart meter concept of the bill before us. I think British Columbians see through what they are doing as far as their privatization, deregulation, of our public resources.

For decades B.C. Hydro has been an excellent example of how a Crown corporation can serve the people of the province, providing low-cost energy to ratepayers and providing profits to the Crown to pay for such things as health care, as education. Protecting the viability of B.C. Hydro is clearly in the best interests of the people and in the best interests of British Columbia, but this legislation skirts around that significantly.

That's not the way this government works. That's not the way these B.C. Liberals work. They're concerned about what's best for…. If they were concerned, they would look at this bill and ensure that due process, the democratic principle, is taken into effect. What this bill is doing is giving exactly what independent private producers want and what they asked for.

Now, when we look at some of the sections of Bill 17, there are a few in here that raise concerns. If we start looking at part 1, section 2, these are British Columbia's energy objectives. One of them is: "to achieve electricity self-sufficiency." Now, when we look at that and we look at the experts looking at how this may happen, it's seen as a needless cost and will have tremendous environmental impacts.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Well, this is far from going to do that. The member from Comox talked about how we're using, using and using and that we need to produce, produce, produce. That's the problem. We need to conserve, conserve, conserve. Under this legislation, what we are doing is just giving a green light to the privatization of our public resources and shipping and exporting off our electricity.

Now, when we look at other sections…. I was surprised that in section 2, when we look at some of the energy objectives, (l) looks at fostering "the development of first nation and rural communities." I'm surprised that when the Minister of Aboriginal Relations had his chance to stand tall and talk about this, he failed to mention the concerns that First Nations have. You would have thought that that would be the first concern when the minister stands up — to look at the First Nations concerns.

The First Nations leadership, on May 26, put a joint statement out regarding the proposed B.C. Clean Energy Act. They say that it was constructed without First Nations involvement and no consultation prior to the introduction of the bill. They put together a motion that they sent to the Premier and to the minister. They say:
[ Page 5996 ]

"Whereas aboriginal title and aboriginal and treaty rights continue to exist in B.C.; and whereas the First Nations never surrendered jurisdiction…the 2005 new relationship statement agrees to establish processes and institutions for shared decision-making about the land and resources and for revenue- and benefit-sharing. It agrees to a new government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition and accommodation.

[1745]

"Whereas the…government has recently held first reading of the Clean Energy Act. This act represents the future direction for green energy production and exports. This act was constructed without First Nations involvement, and there was no consultation prior to introduction of the act. We are told the act was guided by a Green Energy Task Force, however, upon review of the legislation, it is clear that the majority of the First Nations recommendations were ignored.

"Whereas the Clean Energy Act exempts significant major hydro and transmission projects from oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission; and whereas the provincial Crown has unilaterally implemented these sweeping changes, ignoring the court-recognized legal obligations for meaningful consultation and accommodation in the development of Clean Energy Act.

"We, the assembled Nations from across British Columbia, speak with one voice to say…."

I'm surprised. I'm surprised that those on the other side haven't brought up the concerns of First Nations throughout the province, especially after the big hurrah about the new relationship — again, a complete failure. I'm surprised the minister didn't echo in this House when First Nations said:

"We call upon the B.C. government to amend the proposed act and incorporate all recommendations that support First Nations involvement in clean energy opportunities.

"We call upon the Premier and cabinet to immediately engage in a discussion with First Nations leaders to work out a solution to incorporate our recommendations.

"We call upon the government to delay the bill until adequate consultation and accommodation with First Nations occurs."

So I find it rather shocking that we have members on the other side, including the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, not even acknowledge the concerns of First Nations. That's shameful. But again, that's what happens with this government as they push forward their agenda of privatization and deregulation.

On the weekend I was with Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. He was at the solidarity meeting in Kitamaat Village. I can say on record that there are concerns for First Nations, and this government is not listening, and they need to.

He says that the proposed act clears the way for dozens of independent power projects as well as the huge Site C dam on the Peace River in northeastern B.C., exempting many from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip warns of trouble ahead. "We are deeply and gravely concerned about the Campbell government riding roughshod over the legal duty to consult with us and everything that represents, and we're heading down the road towards further conflict and confrontations."

Now, with the Clean Energy Act just days away, Chief Stewart Phillip "warns of conflict and confrontation both in the courts and on the land." I would think that the government, the members on the other side, would have major concerns with a resolution and sort of the line drawn in the sand by First Nations, but no acknowledgment at all from that side of the House, no acknowledgment from the minister responsible.

Now, there are some other interesting components out here. In section 9 of part 1 it refers to "Domestic long-term sales contracts" — you know, just a gold rush to export our public resources. It provides no public oversight of power for export, and it puts the risk back on British Columbians.

I think that as we go through this debate and as we look at what this bill before us actually means and means to British Columbians, we will see that it needs to be withdrawn and re-evaluated and have public consultation.

Section 7 looks at the exempt projects, programs, contracts and expenditures. "The authority is exempt from sections 45 to 47 and 71 of the Utilities Commission Act…with respect to the following projects…." We talked about the northwest transmission line, which, again, is something that is vital for the northwest.

[1750]

Again, British Columbians don't want a project that's going to be exempt from an environmental review. They don't want projects that do not meet the smell test for British Columbians and is not done with due process and through the democratic process.

Other projects. The Mica units 5 and 6, looking at the Mica dam, Revelstoke unit 6 — these projects are exempt. Site C — exempt from any type of oversight from British Columbians or from the commission. So as we move forward, we can see that there are many concerns with what is in this supposedly green energy act.

Now, John Calvert had a few comments about that. He's an associate professor in the health sciences faculty at SFU, Simon Fraser University. He teaches public policy. He was a member of the 2005 B.C. Hydro integrated electricity planning committee. He's on the board of B.C. Citizens for Public Power. John Calvert says:

"Bill 17 is arguably the most damaging piece of legislation to be brought forward by any B.C. government in recent years. A better name for the Clean Energy Act would be an 'Act to take B.C. citizens to the cleaners….'

"There are many other elements of the new legislation that bear further scrutiny, but the big picture is clear. The government intends to charge ahead with its misguided private power policies. The impact on B.C. Hydro will be profound. It will be used — or rather misused — as a vehicle for shifting the benefits of B.C.'s electricity system into private hands at the expense of ratepayers, the environment and the broader public interest. In sum, Bill 17 is the most damaging piece of legislation to be brought forward."

You know, we move forward and we look at some of the concerns that are out there. West Coast Environmental Law did an analysis. They did a backgrounder of the energy act, and they see it as an attempt to find a way forward in the renewable electricity sector. That's where there has been lots of heated debate and community opposition. The opposition, they say, comes
[ Page 5997 ]
from the "absence of credible, transparent and inclusive planning."

"While the act sets forth a basic framework to conduct electricity planning, West Coast Environmental Law is concerned that the act as currently framed will not ensure inclusive and comprehensive energy planning, will not…avoid unnecessary environmental impacts and will not ensure that the scaling up of renewable electricity generation achieves the social licence and broad public buy-in to create certainty…by industry."

Some of the issues that we see in this Bill 17 are highlighted on this side of the House, and we're bringing that forward. That's our duty when there is a bill before us. In particular, some of the concerns with Bill 17 from West Coast Environmental Law are these. It "fails to commit the province to achieving its energy objectives with the lowest possible environmental impact." This bill in front of us that we're looking at "fails to ensure a transparent, inclusive and comprehensive planning process."

They see the act as not guaranteeing "meaningful public consultation in the planning process." They see it as eliminating "independent oversight of energy planning and many major projects." It "does not require regional planning to identify the best options for development." And as we see the gold rush for rivers and streams throughout the province — over 800 of them staked out by independent power producers whose major shareholders are foreign — we can see the problem. West Coast Environmental Law sees the act as short-circuiting the planning process by "predetermining critical policy questions."

They also acknowledge and recognize that this bill in front of us "does not respond to the need that was identified by First Nations." You know, I just referred to that. First Nations need "greater involvement in both renewable electricity decision-making and development in their traditional territories." Not even mentioned by those on the other side.

[1755]

You would think that a press release that came out, a concern by a significant group in the province would be mentioned by one member on the other side, including the minister. But no, just sloughed aside, pretending it doesn't exist.

The government and the Legislature must work quickly in consulting with First Nations, conservation groups and the public to ensure that deficiencies are addressed through amendments to the Clean Energy Act. I'm sure, as we go through committee stage and individual sections of Bill 17, that we will look at the appropriate amendments to ensure that we do have a public resource and we maintain control of our B.C. hydroelectricity.

Now, I find it interesting. Just the other day I got a letter from the Friends of Hecate Strait. This is Margo Hearne, and they are in Massett. They had concerns about the Clean Energy Act. They wrote to the Ombudsman because they were concerned and wanted to draw to the attention of the Ombudsman about — and this is a quote from their letter — "the number of B.C. government and Liberal Party friends and donors who are now employed by the independent power producers promoted by this government."

They've attached a list. There's a list of, oh, probably two dozen friends and contacts and insiders and big donators, I guess.

So the Friends of Hecate Strait were concerned about this magical tie, all of these IPP friends with this government. Margo Hearne, who is a member of Friends of Hecate Strait who wrote the letter and sent it to the Ombudsman and sent me a copy, talks about understanding that the Ombudsman's office exists to uphold the democratic principles of openness, transparency and accountability.

That's what we're talking about with this bill before us — the lack of the democratic principles of openness, transparency and accountability, and the lack of due process brought forward by this government in this Bill 17.

She goes on to say: "We believe that the new Clean Energy Act will undermine the work of the B.C. Utilities Commission. In their report published last summer, the BCUC reported that many new IPP plans were 'not in the public interest and should not go ahead.' The Clean Energy Act will silence the BCUC, and we are of the opinion that government insiders may profit under the new act."

That's a concern from constituents of mine up in Massett, the Friends of Hecate Strait. They want the Ombudsman to look at their concerns and ensure that this act before us is in the public interest.

Now, as I said before, this bill before us is bad policy. It's bad legislation. There are major flaws. There's no public oversight. It's an attack on the concept of democracy and due process. It's a sell-off of our public resources to the corporate powers to be. It's an escalation of this government's privatization and deregulation scheme. The only green in this legislation is the colour of U.S. currency.

David Schreck says an appropriate name for this bill should be "flood valleys for export" act, because that is some of the concerns that British Columbians have. This is not in the public interest. It's not for British Columbians. It's for the benefit of independent power producers and their shareholders.

This legislation goes far, way too far, when it exempts new energy projects from the scrutiny of the commission. Again, British Columbians take all the risks, and there are no benefits.

Now, there are quite a few things in this bill that I'd like to talk about. I see I'm getting close to the end of my time.

[1800]
[ Page 5998 ]

The recommendations came from the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute, the Watershed Watch Salmon Society and West Coast Environmental Law. They looked at six basic recommendations that the government should take in clean electricity planning and development: ensuring energy conservation and efficiency, as the highest priority; as clean, renewable and low impact as possible; maximizing public benefit; reforming water licensing; and developing an informed consensus about the conditions whereby renewable electricity could be exported from B.C., if at all.

I believe that when British Columbians read through this act, when they listen to the debate, they will ask this government to look at this bill and pull it from the order table. Hon. Speaker, I am opposing Bill 17.

R. Howard: It is my great pleasure to stand today and speak to the Clean Energy Act, Bill 17, and I'll do my very best to emerge from the doom and gloom of the member for North Coast.

This is a very exciting time for our province, and I think this act represents some of the very best opportunity for a prosperous and sustainable future for this province. Of course, this debate is yet again an opportunity to compare and contrast the differences between government and the opposition. I often try and do that when I speak, because I think it's important for us to make sure there's a clear understanding of the differences between government and opposition. I think the public has the right to know, and I think they want to know.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations, in fact, put it well, and he is much more experienced than I. He thought this was a rather unique opportunity to try to understand what the opposition thinks on this very important policy matter, and an opportunity to learn not just what they think but how they think.

As I have listened to this debate so far, I have heard terms such as "junk energy." That term came in reference to the IP producers in this province, a rather remarkable statement from the member for Juan de Fuca that hits at the plexus of the people in the industry, the leaders in our province who have taken enormous risk and placed significant investment at risk in the name of building a stronger B.C., a self-sufficient B.C., who take great care to protect the environment because they understand sustainability.

They understand they need to protect the environment in order to first be approved. But more than that, to continue their projects, the environment has to be there. It has to be sustainable.

I've also heard the term "environmental degradation." That came, I think, from the member for North Island. We've all heard stories of the plane ride that our Minister of Environment took with an environmentalist to view this environmental degradation, and guess what. They could hardly find the project. We are told that but for a small red roof, this IPP was very difficult to find — not environmental degradation, as had been suggested.

I've heard the question: "Where is the public good?" Well, sustainable, clean energy is in the public good. That clean energy enabling us to become energy self-sufficient is in the public good. I've heard the member for North Coast ask repeatedly, "Who is going to benefit?" suggesting he hadn't heard from the government side who he thought would benefit.

Let me be just as clear and summon up all the conviction I can that all British Columbians will benefit from this new act. They benefit from jobs. They benefit from clean energy. They benefit from economic activity and sustainability.

As I and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations were thinking this debate would give us some understanding of not just what the opposition members were thinking but how they were thinking, I must admit that I'm left still wondering how they think, because these three or four comments seem representative of their thought. I must admit that I could not disagree more.

[1805]

I think there are few topics which would interest, engage and excite British Columbians more. This is an opportunity which fits our province like a glove. Our province is a world leader. We live in a province graced with an abundance of mountains, wood, rivers and ocean. Just like we harvest trees as a renewable resource, so should we reap the benefits of water as a renewable resource.

Let us please look at a couple of the facts. Demand for electricity in B.C. is expected to grow by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years, and B.C. Hydro is working to ensure that we have secured clean sources of supply to meet that demand, as well as the infrastructure needed to reliably deliver electricity to homes and businesses. We have remained committed to our goal of electricity self-sufficiency by 2016, and the path to realizing that goal will be through this new Clean Energy Act.

British Columbia's energy objective is to generate at least 93 percent of the electricity in British Columbia from clean or renewable resources and to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that electricity. The act will help the province to produce greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. at 33 percent less than the level of 2007 emissions by 2020. The act provides B.C. Hydro and other utilities the tools to offer programs and incentives that allow consumers to use energy more wisely.

PricewaterhouseCoopers reported this past February that independent power producers could grow B.C.'s economy by as much as $9 billion by 2020. Construction of these projects could support 87,000 person-years of employment for British Columbians over the next
[ Page 5999 ]
decade and more than 9,100 full-time jobs for their operations and maintenance. As I've said, this is a significant opportunity for clean, green and sustainable power.

I think it's important to note that the Environmental Assessment Act processes will be strengthened to specifically provide for assessments of potential cumulative environmental effects. In addition, the development or proposal of energy projects in parks, protected areas and conservancies will be prohibited by law.

We could talk about our heritage assets just for a minute, because when we look at our past, we see that because of past governments' investment in heritage assets throughout the province, British Columbia continues to enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America. That benefits ratepayers, and it benefits our provincial economy.

B.C. Hydro has embarked on a major reinvestment and expansion of its infrastructure to ensure that these benefits are in place for future generations of British Columbians. To replace our aging infrastructure, B.C. Hydro will invest $1.8 billion this year and over $2 billion next year in the province's aging public generation, transmission and distribution systems. B.C. Hydro is moving forward with the third stage of Site C, which will include a full environmental review and new turbines at Mica and Revelstoke.

By law, the low-rate benefits that come from B.C.'s existing and future heritage assets will flow exclusively to British Columbians and will not be used to subsidize export power sales. This act clearly separates exports and ensures that ratepayers do not bear any of the risks or costs associated with long-term export sales and also ensures that benefits from export revenues flow to ratepayers and taxpayers.

This new act will consolidate B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation to provide a single entity that will plan and deliver the clean energy required to meet our growing future demand for electricity, while fostering job creation throughout the province and helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

B.C. Hydro will continue to be owned by the province, and public ownership of B.C. Hydro's assets will remain protected by legislation. British Columbians will benefit from a unified, publicly owned entity that will capitalize on the proven strengths and trusted service of both organizations to lead the development of clean, reliable and affordable electricity for generations to come.

Just for a minute on the northwest transmission line. The northwest transmission line will electrify the Highway 37 corridor by extending B.C.'s high-voltage transmission grid to the region.

[1810]

The project will provide a secure interconnection point for clean generation projects. It will supply clean electricity to support industrial development in the area and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by connecting communities now relying on diesel generation to the grid.

The proposed northwest transmission line is still subject to the rigorous environmental assessment process, but its estimated cost is pegged at $404 million, of which $130 million has been pledged by the federal government.

The northwest transmission line will result in a major boon for mining in B.C. Currently there are 11 proposed projects in the region, $15 billion in potential investment, up to 10,000 jobs and $300 million in annual tax revenue — a significant opportunity.

On to the Site C energy project. Site C will help meet B.C.'s future electricity needs and will provide enough electricity to power approximately 410,000 homes per year. It will be a publicly owned heritage asset for the benefit of all British Columbians. Site C will produce among the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour when compared with other forms of electricity generation.

I'll talk just for a minute about smart meters and smart grids. I'm reminded very much of my time as a councillor in the city of Richmond. I chaired the public works committee. We installed water meters in the city, and they were just a remarkable success. People really, I think, like the idea of conserving, but they like the idea of monitoring as well. We saw in my own house…. It became a bit of a contest, you know, how low we could drive our quarterly meter reading and consumption.

I look forward to smart meters being installed on my homes, and I know others that feel the same way. I think that by looking a little closer at how we consume, we become more aware, and we become more responsible as a result.

I think there are lots of other benefits that will come from the smart metering and smart grid, and I'll speak to them just briefly. B.C. Hydro is automating, modernizing and upgrading its electricity grid and metering system. This includes replacing all of B.C. Hydro's 1.8 million customer meters with smart electricity meters. These meters will deliver real-time information for customers to manage their electrical consumption.

This program is crucial for us in meeting our energy objective on demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective of reducing Hydro's expected increase in demand for electricity by the year 2020 by at least 66 percent. I'm going to repeat that, because that is a very significant and a very challenging benchmark. We're looking to reduce Hydro's expected increase in demand for electricity by 2020 by 66 percent.

B.C.'s smart grid will feature benefits such as integrated two-way communications between the customer and B.C. Hydro, automated outage detection and notification, automated meter-tamper alarms and support for theft detection strategies. There are many other features.
[ Page 6000 ]

I want to switch for a minute, if I could, to pursuing export opportunities. I spoke about this when I first started: the very real opportunity for this province to take steps forward in pursuing the export of power. It's something that the province comes by naturally, and it just makes sense that we treat it as a wealth generator.

For years B.C. Hydro has provided for domestic electricity demand as well as short-term trade that will provide benefits such as lower electricity rates and hundreds of millions of dollars towards provincial revenue, which in turn helps us to fund government programs such as health care and education.

Many states and provinces are now seeking to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by replacing electricity generated by hydrocarbon-based fuel sources. B.C. is uniquely positioned to offer clean, reliable power at competitive prices, which in turn can result in new investments and job creation in regions all across the province.

[1815]

B.C. has a growing renewable power production sector which has expertise in building and delivering clean power from wind, run-of-river, geothermal, solar, tidal and biomass. This is an important sector when it comes to the future prosperity of this province.

The Clean Energy Act includes the export of electricity as an objective. B.C. Hydro has the opportunity to partner with renewable power producers, to actively seek opportunities to sell clean, reliable electricity to neighbours in Canada and the United States.

B.C. Hydro will be able to secure long-term export power sales to jurisdictions seeking clean energy. To achieve that, B.C. Hydro will work to secure economically viable export contracts and partner with renewable power producers to generate need and to meet those contracts without risk or cost to the B.C. taxpayers.

B.C. Hydro will be able to secure long-term export power agreements at market rates that make the best use of our available clean energy. B.C. Hydro will fill those contractual energy needs with Clean Power Calls that produce new power from renewable power projects in regions all across the province.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to be clear. Ratepayers will not be subsidizing export power sales. In fact, the Clean Energy Act explicitly requires the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that any expenditure associated with export is not included in the domestic rates.

The new Clean Energy Act is another step by this government to secure a prosperous future for us, for our children and for our grandchildren — for all British Columbians to enjoy a secure future, a sustainable future.

Before I wrap up, I just wanted to talk again about the record of the opposition, because I always look for opportunities to contrast, to demonstrate to British Columbians how the two parties differ on some major philosophical points. We have a couple of quotes here. The NDP opposes B.C. to be energy self-sufficient. I quote the member for Juan de Fuca…

Interjection.

R. Howard: Yes, I do. That's right.

…who said: "The notion that we need to be self-sufficient in electrons seems to run hollow in my mind." Well, that sounds pretty clear. The member doesn't think British Columbia needs to be energy self-sufficient.

Interjections.

R. Howard: That's okay. It's just a difference of opinion.

The 2009 opposition election platform said to cancel the $1 billion smart meter project and use the money to expand conservation programs and control rate increases. They wanted to cancel the smart meter program.

Again, if I can quote the member for Juan de Fuca, he said: "In principle, that sounds like a pretty good idea for grow ops." So we have a remarkable difference between our two groups in how we proceed with metering, monitoring, electricity. I'm talking about the difference in how government thinks the smart meter program can work. It can benefit all British Columbians as we monitor and regulate how much power we consume.

Another quote from the member for Juan de Fuca: "We would impose a moratorium on new projects. We believe that contracts are contracts, and if they could be renegotiated, perhaps we would."

[1820]

So this, again, speaks to the point of this government looking at the IPP industry and believing that it is a source for clean, green renewable energy sources, and the opposition, which just does not believe that.

There are many more quotes. I guess I could go on and on, and demonstrate the difference. I'm mindful of the time, so I'll close.

I want to be clear. As I said, I'm proud to take my place and stand. I believe very much that this is a legacy opportunity for this province. This new act will form the foundation for a prosperous future for British Columbia.

It's an intelligent use of our natural resources. It's an intelligent use of smart metering, a smart grid. It'll provide jobs and economic benefits for years and years to come. I'm proud to be part of a government that has the ability to look into the future and recognize those benefits and to take action and create legislation that enables existing heritage assets and existing new industry to come to the front economically in this province and drive us forward.

I'm pleased to support the act. I'm pleased to support Bill 17, and I will now move to adjourn the debate for this afternoon.
[ Page 6001 ]

Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat, Member. We're awaiting the committee report.

R. Howard: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member?

R. Howard: If there are a few minutes left, I'll keep going, because it's an important day for me to stand here and address such important issues. We know that again, in terms of differentiating between the government and the opposition when it comes to clean power, there seem to be some remarkable differences.

One last quote came from the member from Revelstoke. "The B.C. energy plan is intended to serve private interests, and many of those private interests are very close to the B.C. Liberal Party. It does not serve the public interest to compromise that."

I go back to where I started. I did my best to emerge from the doom and gloom of the opposition and talked about one of the most exciting acts to be introduced in this Legislature in some time. I think our children and our grandchildren will benefit from this act for years to come — jobs, energy and a clean, sustainable economy. We'll continue to lead the world.

R. Howard moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,711,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates for Intergovernmental Relations.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I first wanted to introduce the staff who are with me today. To my right, Lorne Brownsey, deputy minister corporate initiatives and intergovernmental relations; to my left, Pierrette Maranda, assistant deputy minister for intergovernmental relations; and behind me, Debbie Fayad, executive financial officer.

[1445]

I look forward to today and discussing B.C. intergovernmental relations programs. As Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations and on behalf of the Premier, I work closely with regional, national and international partners to expand relationships that create opportunities for British Columbians.

My additional role as minister responsible for francophone affairs allows me to represent the provincial government in its relations with the francophone community. This part of my mandate relates directly to Canada's national unity, and I do this in two ways: first, through implementation of the cooperation agreement with the government of Canada on official languages and, second, as the provincial representative to the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie. I have been honoured, actually, to have been, for the past year, co-chair of the ministerial conference, a position which I will relinquish at the next annual meeting, in Yellowknife.

British Columbia's intergovernmental initiatives support the government's plans and actions to keep our economy strong, to improve the lives of British Columbians and to take advantage of extraordinary opportunities for the province. In this coming year we will build on previous investments and on the momentum of the Olympics as British Columbia takes important steps towards establishing itself as a global leader in a number of key economic sectors.

B.C.'s future lies in building strong relationships regionally, nationally and internationally. A commitment to new partnerships in every avenue of intergovernmental relations is essential to unlocking B.C.'s full potential.

In this coming year, I and the staff of the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat will continue to support the Premier and the government in enhancing our current relations, including with the federal government in developing strategies to advance B.C. priorities.

We also, with all Canadian provinces, lead our cross-ministry delivery of commitments flowing from an engagement at the Western Premiers Conference, Council of the Federation and the Ministerial Conference on the Francophonie. We'll also work with the provinces
[ Page 6002 ]
of Alberta and Saskatchewan under the new west economic partnership and other initiatives arising from regular joint cabinet meetings.

We'll also work with the State of Washington, delivering results out of the memorandum of understanding and other subnational partnerships as a result of ongoing annual joint cabinet meetings. We'll also work with our U.S. regional partners through the Premier's representative to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region and the Pacific Coast Collaborative.

We'll work with other international partners in Asia-Pacific and through the Consular Corps representatives from countries around the world based here in British Columbia. We'll also work with our francophone stakeholder organizations.

We believe that there is an important and vital link between sound intergovernmental and international relations and the health and vitality of the province's economy. The secretariat will also be working with ministries on their intergovernmental priorities to ensure cross-government coordination.

As well, I'm responsible for the office of protocol, which manages protocol activities, official honours and awards, and conferences and events. In the coming year the secretariat will work to strengthen domestic and intergovernmental relations and to positively influence the policies and programs of other governments that affect the interests of British Columbians.

The Chair: Just before we start. I'm sure that the committee would allow you to stay seated if you'd like, Minister, while answering questions.

Member for north Delta. Delta North. I apologize.

G. Gentner: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. We do get it mixed up once in a while. Everybody back home calls it north Delta, but according to the Election Act, it's Delta North.

I'd like to thank the minister for providing the information to the general public at large. I wish her a speedy recovery. I know that it's been a tough, tough go, and I concur with the Chair that if the hon. minister wants to sit down and, hopefully, find a speedy recovery by doing so, hopefully she will.

I want to talk…. My questions will be based primarily on the minister's statements of accountability. I know that the ministry is about $2.5 million, a subset of the close to $10 million of the Premier's office. It may seem as though it's a small ministry, but it is by no means a non-important one. It's a ministry that in today's world of globalization functions with many different governments, jurisdictions — internationally, provincially, federally and also with our friends south of the line.

I want to just start off with the mundane. Before I get going, just to give a framework of where I'm heading today — I know that we have very limited time — I'll talk briefly and ask questions relative to the budget and the service plan.

[1450]

We do want to talk about the new west agreement, procurement, climate change. I want to talk a little about the protocols relative to the Olympics, federal-provincial agreements, Open Skies Summit, border and maybe even get down to some protocol if we have a chance. I mean, it's sort of like a lot of housekeeping here, but it's important that we cover some of those issues.

To start off, first of all, with the…. Let's talk about the service plan. When you go on to page 13 for the progress on intergovernmental relations key issues, I can't see how this can actually track performance if the benchmark is so vague. It talks about progress on key issues, and the targets are the same, so why even include this graph? It seems like it's redundant and really doesn't seem to have any substance.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As you indicated in your introduction — and you seem, actually, quite well versed on some of the issues with respect to intergovernmental relations — the issues that we deal with in intergovernmental relations are often long-term issues. They don't span a convenient annual timetable, and as you also indicated, it's very, very important for B.C., in order to succeed, to build on our relationships. Those are, frankly, difficult to put numbers to or quantitative numbers to.

What I can tell you, though, is that this business plan keeps us focused on the important job, which is developing deep relationships with our partners, whether they be south of the border with Washington State, with the Pacific Coast Collaborative or with PNWER. I understand that with the framework on your estimates discussions today, you'll be delving into those, and we could address each one of those separately.

G. Gentner: Well, would not the ministry, if it's going to put forward a business plan, consider a performance measure that actually lists the key priority and state what has been achieved, whether it's a long term or a short term?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We do have a business plan. What you're looking at there, or referring to, are our objective and goals. We have a detailed business plan, and it actually is available. We can make that available to you. We are accountable to the business plan in our annual report at the end of the year.

[1455]

G. Gentner: How many full-time-equivalent staff hours were dedicated to meeting with lobbyists? Does the minister meet with lobbyists or staff, and if so, can the minister provide me the names or numbers of who she met with relative to those lobbyists?
[ Page 6003 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the best of my recollection, I have not met with any lobbyists, and we don't have any staff in IGR that are dedicated to meeting with lobbyists.

G. Gentner: In '09-10 the ministry was budgeted for $2.9 million, while its actual was $2.472 million, a difference of $429,000. Where did the surplus go?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm not aware that we actually did have a surplus.

G. Gentner: Again, I'm looking at the budget for '09-10, and there seems to be a big shift from what was proposed before the election and, of course, what happened after. Was a major decrease found in the other budget in September? I mean, this transition is an interesting one. I'd just like to know how it shifted and why.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The bulk of the difference between the two figures that the member opposite indicated has to do with a transfer of about $300,000 to Shared Services, which was the centralization of Shared Services, and a reduction of administration.

G. Gentner: Just looking at the supplemental, we're seeing quite a decrease in salary and wages. Between last year and this budget, how many FTEs have been let go? Or what's the difference in the amount of employees?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There has been a reduction of one FTE.

[1500]

G. Gentner: The external recoveries are the same year after year — $700,000 — yet there's a decrease in the budget. How much of the ministry of state is now financed…? What's the percentage from the federal government of those external moneys coming in?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The only external recovery we have is from the government of Canada for $700,000. That's for the agreement we have, Canada's official language agreement.

G. Gentner: I just find that the budget is decreasing substantially over the last year, yet we have a static income coming in from the federal government. It seems to me that as the ministry decreases its revenue stream and its expenditures, the same amount is still coming from the federal government. We can leave that for a while.

The new west agreement — of course, it's quite topical. It's in the news. It seems to be a flagship of the Premier's office these days. The western economic partnership was announced pre-election — a March 19, 2009, joint cabinet meeting with the three different Premiers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and, of course, British Columbia. I just want to get an understanding of what role the minister of state played in the new west agreement.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My role, the secretariat's role, was really to…. It was an interministry coordination role. As you can imagine, this partnership deals with the sectors that span across many areas of government. It was our role, Intergovernmental Relations' role, to coordinate the team effort so that team B.C.'s goals and objectives were coordinated.

G. Gentner: Can the minister describe what the main distinction is between the new west agreement and the TILMA agreement?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The main difference between the new west partnership agreement and TILMA is that it includes Saskatchewan.

[1505]

But there are actually three other areas that the new west partnership includes. One of them is to agree on collaboration with respect to international trade, and we just saw the three Premiers go over to Asia.

The new west partnership also includes an area on procurement and includes an area where we've agreed to collaborate on innovation. So it's a little bit larger than TILMA, but the internal trade agreement is essentially TILMA.

G. Gentner: Can the minister describe to me…? The reason behind the new west agreement is to break down the barriers. What barriers were in the way in the first place?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There were actually a few barriers to doing business in the three provinces. One of them that we're overcoming is the business licences. A small business or any business, if they have a business licence in B.C., can now do business in Alberta and Saskatchewan without having to apply for and pay for a business licence in the other two provinces.

A good example of a practical solution that was plaguing our transportation system — in particular, trucks crossing from B.C. to Alberta to Saskatchewan — is that you'd have weigh stations in each jurisdiction. What we've done now is agreed to a common set of regulations. Trucks now don't have to stop in all three provinces, so we're saving truck drivers time.

Then one of the bigger issues is labour mobility. We're allowing somebody who is certified in perhaps nursing or teaching to now move freely and work in other provinces. We've agreed to acknowledge the certification of professionals.
[ Page 6004 ]

G. Gentner: The geography and terrain are quite a bit different in British Columbia as opposed to the Prairies. So are the regulations relative to trucks. In Alberta, for example, truck trains are quite a bit larger.

I just want to cite the example. We saw how the federal government, or should I say the change from the purchase of B.C. Rail by CN…. They went by Canadian standards, regulations, and we had a major derailment because of it.

Is the minister suggesting that by evening the playing field on regulations for trucks, we'll not be compromising safety in British Columbia?

[1510]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, you're correct. There are certainly differences in terrain between the three provinces. So what the transportation departments of the three provinces have agreed to do is to put all the issues on the table. Where it makes sense, we will come together to make the rules similar, but we will not compromise safety. This was actually brought up in some detail at our meeting in Regina.

G. Gentner: Well, we'll see. Not one glove fits all, and I'm not going to canvass this any further. Maybe I'll be sending some letters to the minister to try and clarify this, because I do have a concern about it.

The most recent figures on bilateral trade from 2006 show that Saskatchewan bought $419 million more from B.C. than it sold to B.C. So with this agreement, can the minister tell us how much more British Columbia will gain with business from Saskatchewan?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The new west partnership will create and generate more opportunities for British Columbians, and we've just seen that with the recent trip to Asia by the three Premiers. The communities in Asia that our Premiers visited were really impressed that British Columbia has moved into a partnership that increased their market up to…. I think we've now got nine million people in the three jurisdictions. If TILMA is any example of the success of this, I think we estimated that TILMA generated a couple of billion dollars of extra economic activity to the provinces of B.C. and Alberta.

G. Gentner: Well, we've always had nine million people doing business between Saskatchewan and Alberta and among British Columbians. Frankly, I don't know how these opportunities are really going to change.

I want to ask the minister this. Are we not abandoning the federal tools in the toolbox? Has the ministry not failed its order to persuade Canadian foreign affairs to advocate on the west's behalf?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is right. Yes, we've always been a collective jurisdiction of nine million people, but now we're a single market with barriers removed. As I mentioned previously, it's something that our partners in Asia appreciate.

[1515]

Contrary to what the member opposite suggested, we actually are working jointly with the federal government. The federal government is very supportive of the new west partnership. In fact, we'll be increasing our work with the diplomatic corps abroad. Federal minister Stockwell Day was in Asia with the new west partnership promoting Canada and the new west partnership.

G. Gentner: Well, the barriers have been removed, but the HST is not something that you're going to see in Alberta. With the very different tax structure, I can't see how you're going to have an equal playing field.

On the cooperative side with the federal government, in the recent trip to Asia, how much money did Ottawa provide to the junket, and how much assistance money-wise did Ottawa provide during the whole trip to China and Japan?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I take issue with the description of the trip that the member opposite used. This was an extremely legitimate trade mission to Asia — a very successful one, in fact. We believe that B.C.'s prosperity and future growth depend on us building global relationships — in particular, targeting the Asia-Pacific region.

The federal government provided the provinces with the use of their trade offices for meetings while we were in Asia. They offered the use of their embassy staff and offered the network of contacts that they have already developed in Asia.

G. Gentner: Now, the new trade office that's being built in cooperation with the other three provinces…. I think it's the Shanghai trade office. How much did that cost B.C.? How much is the federal government contributing towards it?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Perhaps this question and details of the trade office in Shanghai could be directed to the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

I will address the issue with respect to how important the collaboration of the three provinces was in establishing the trade office in Shanghai. In fact, it does fulfil one of the objectives in the new partnership agreement. It was a very good use of resources, and the expenses were shared amongst the three provinces.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

G. Gentner: Well, I do know that Saskatchewan is going to pay $255,000 annually for the new office. I'm
[ Page 6005 ]
suggesting that if that's the case, it would be shared by B.C. and Alberta.

I'm just curious, though. I mean, I don't know why the minister hasn't been able to respond yet to the amount of money or investment the government of Canada put in. I would have thought that this was a partnership as well.

Could the minister say at least that there would be a cost-benefit analysis relative to how much output went from B.C. and the other two provinces and Ottawa's share? I mean, I agree that we should be in Asia, and I agree that we should be using those markets in order to stimulate and bolster our economy, but I'd like to know what the real partnership is. What is the cost to B.C. relative to Ottawa's contribution?

[1520]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect to your request for the budget for this trade office, again, we would ask that you direct that question to the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. I think the important issue here is that this is an integrated effort that the three provinces have established, and like all programs in government, this one will be reviewed for its effectiveness.

G. Gentner: Sort of a sidebar to this. I just want to ask a question. The Pacific gateway program, which is something that's negotiated between British Columbia and Canada…. The province secured about $365 million for the South Fraser perimeter road, even though the total costs are $1.2 billion capital plus an anticipated additional $1 billion in operating and maintenance.

Since this is in the national interest, is this office engaged in more negotiations to find further moneys from the federal government to complete the project?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The lead for this is not Intergovernmental Relations; it is another ministry. I believe that's the Ministry of Transportation, and I'm positive that they're including the federal government in their discussions if more money is thought to be required.

G. Gentner: I'm slowly beginning to unravel what the ministry does and doesn't do. My understanding was a major liaison between the federal and provincial government. I would have thought that, as the minister said earlier, it does work in cooperation with other ministries, but obviously Intergovernmental Relations here doesn't take the lead in this particular subject.

I'm a little dismayed by that because I would have thought, particularly with the involvement of the Premier's office, that it would have taken some leadership to try and find the extra money since this project is in the national interest per se. We are only seeing perhaps 15 or 20 percent of the capital and operating costs.

However, we'll move on, and we'll try a different topic that perhaps the ministry is involved in. Maybe I should go back to the recent trip to Asia.

"The first major undertaking of the new west partnership" — and I'm basically quoting a press release — "will be to have a joint mission to China and Japan in May." This was when it was announced. "Together three provinces will promote trade and commerce opportunities for Canada's newest free trade region and draw attention to the new west's global leadership in clean technology, natural resources and agrifood and agriculture."

[1525]

How does the Premier's meeting with the Japan oil, gas and minerals company and the China Investment Corporation have to do with leadership in clean energy and technology?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The meetings with the Japanese companies, like most of the meetings, were to promote B.C. and, in this case, probably to promote the green technology that B.C. is world-renowned for. In fact, B.C. has the third-largest green technology sector in the world. All industrial sectors have a need for green technology, and Japanese companies are no different.

G. Gentner: Well, before heading off to Asia, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said that Saskatchewan produces 440,000 barrels a day of crude oil, about 14 percent of Canada's total production. The Premier of Saskatchewan said that with his colleague, the Premier of Alberta…. They both said that this trip was more about selling oil to Asia. Therefore, I have to ask the question again: how much is this agreement, the new west agreement, tied into marketing crude oil to China and other markets?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I've mentioned before, this was a business promotion trip. But you know, in spite of the fact that three provinces went together, we all actually have unique and individual strengths. In B.C.'s case we were there to promote our green technology sector. Other provinces had their own agendas as well.

G. Gentner: Well, a partnership is an agenda; it's a collaboration. It's interesting that a week before the trip, China dug into its $300 billion sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation, and they dropped $817 million Canadian or $796 million American to buy nearly half a joint venture in Alberta to develop the costly-to-produce mixture of clay and sand and bitumen known as the oil sands.

A month after the Olympics China's biggest oil refiner, state-owned China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, or Sinopec, bought 60 percent of another Alberta oil sands project.

[1530]
[ Page 6006 ]

How is it, therefore…? You know, according to the press release, the Premier did meet up with companies that, strangely enough, got tickets to the Olympics — a lot of tickets to the Olympics — particularly the Japan oil and minerals corporation. How is it that the provincial government here can sort of wash its hands away from the view that their so-called partners are dipping their hand into crude oil investments, with markets that are certainly looking for Canadian tar sand crude oil to find its way to Asia — vis-à-vis through British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Again, the goal of this trade mission to Asia was business promotion, and as I mentioned before, each of the provinces has our own competitive advantage. We know that increased business and growth leads to jobs, and that's what's important to us, but our B.C. agenda is to promote the clean energy technology sector that we have in British Columbia.

I'd just like to remind the member opposite that the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat isn't responsible for the oil sands development in Alberta.

G. Gentner: Unfortunately, I disagree with the minister. Obviously, when you're having new partnerships with two major oil-producing provinces and you're going to try to find an even playing field, you're going to try and facilitate the export of that product through your province whether you like it or not. I'm not saying it's going to be bad or good. I guess the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.

Again, the Premier participated "in bilateral trade meetings to promote Japanese investments in oil, gas and minerals sectors in western Canada." It wasn't as though it was strictly Mr. Wall from Saskatchewan or the Premier of Alberta, but it's our Premier who also invested time in that. There are many other things, of course, he should be there to try to promote, and one, of course, is a needed improved wood industry.

I'd like to ask the question, therefore, that…. The Premier of Saskatchewan is on record as suggesting — he was in China — that the partnership he was representing was there to try and promote 100 percent of their own uranium in Saskatchewan.

I'd like to ask the minister: what type of agreements is the government going to be involved with? The minister has just suggested that there will now be an open playing field relative to the movement of goods through transportation. How is the government wrestling with the notion of moving uranium not to, of course, Ontario — which is as it is today — but to the new market, to Asia, as proposed by Premier Wall?

[1535]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect, I'm not actually sure that that question is relevant to IGR estimates and our plans for the coming year. Just in a general sense, whenever Alberta, B.C. or Saskatchewan can increase their growth, the economy, it helps the other jurisdictions.

As I mentioned earlier, the agenda for the three Premiers was to deepen our relationships with our key Asian partners. British Columbia was particularly focused on exposing to our Asian partners our incredible green technology sector. As I mentioned, most industrial sectors are interested in that technology now.

G. Gentner: Well, I'll concede that. I'm not going to pursue any more questioning on this one. It's clear that the ministry here is not, I don't think, up to speed on what the real agreement means relative to the agenda to deepen the market in oil between the west, through British Columbia to Asia. In many ways, that is part and parcel of the cousin of TILMA, we'll call it — the new west agreement. Time is of the essence.

I want to talk about procurement now. Under the interim agreement between Canada and the United States, B.C. is the only province that failed to exempt a single municipality or provincial agency from the terms of the agreement. Why is that? I'm talking about the agreement that was signed, I think, in February.

[1540]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: B.C. has always prided itself, or ourselves, on being an open economy. Under the agreement on internal trade, the AIT, B.C. does not exempt municipalities. Neither does TILMA nor the new west partnership, so we are consistent on that.

I'd just like to add that with respect to the buy-American provisions, B.C. has joined with the other provinces and the Council of the Federation, and we do all have the same position on the framework going forward.

G. Gentner: Well, I have here in my hand the agreement with the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America on government procurement. The other members of TILMA have a very different position than British Columbia. British Columbia's position in this agreement regarding procuring entities, covered by this appendix, has got eight words.

It says: "All Crown corporations and all municipalities are covered under this agreement." But when you go to the TILMA partner, Alberta, it says: "All Crown corporations are covered except…." It lists them all: the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation, the Alberta Capital Finance Authority. And I can continue to list them all. These Crowns are exempt from this agreement.

Unlike British Columbia, which says that all municipalities are covered, it lists the municipalities here that are covered, and the municipalities are covered. There are seven of them. These are the large municipalities be-
[ Page 6007 ]
cause the original agreement between Canada and the United States was that any city or village or township under the population of 50,000 would be exempt.

I can go through this with all the cities in all the other provinces that have townships that are under 50,000. They're exempt. But the words here for British Columbia state that all municipalities are covered. Why is that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've mentioned before, and I'll say it again. B.C. believes that our open borders and open trade policies remove barriers. For British Columbia to succeed — and our future prosperity, I believe, is relying on this — we need to ensure that we have open borders, that we are open to trade. This is philosophically something that our government believes in.

[1545]

The member opposite is suggesting that this is not good policy, and I think that's where we fundamentally differ.

G. Gentner: Fundamentally different we are, but British Columbia is very different from that new bastion of free enterprise called Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, interestingly, all Crown corporations are covered except SaskEnergy Inc., Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation, Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Saskatchewan Transport Co. All of their villages are exempt except for the large cities of Regina and Saskatoon.

Obviously, B.C. Hydro here is open for unfettered bidding, and the minister suggests that we are an open market. For whatever reason, all the other nine provinces seem to sympathize with my position. It's quite an anomaly that British Columbia has put itself in. I suppose my question is: how can you have an even playing field and a partnership with two other provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who have different procurement policies than British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I guess we will agree to disagree on this. We agree that open borders will lead to growth and prosperity for British Columbia. We're talking open borders just between the provinces right now. But you know, TILMA was the catalyst for the shift in power to the west. Our GDP has outpaced the GDP growth in the rest of Canada. Other provinces now outside of the new west partnership are looking at interprovincial procurement and labour mobility, and we have seen that other provinces look to TILMA and the new west partnership as a model to go forward to their future prosperity.

G. Gentner: I'll try again to the minister. How is there a level playing field on the new west agreement when both other partners have a different procurement policy within the northwest than British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think the member opposite is confusing the trade agreements within the new west agreement and the AIT. With the new west agreement, it's just the trade within the provinces, and all three provinces have the same position with respect to interprovincial trade.

[1550]

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain how much B.C. suppliers will have access to what's left of the U.S. stimulus program, the recovery act, versus American suppliers that have now open access to all B.C. programs and infrastructures?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe that the member opposite has posed a question that's based on a false assumption. B.C. was an open economy before Buy American. We are an open economy now.

Intergovernmental Relations' roles and responsibilities with respect to this were just to coordinate the B.C. ministries as we approach various trade agreements. We firmly believe that an open economy will lead to the future prosperity and growth of British Columbia, and we haven't changed from that.

G. Gentner: Well, we're talking about an ideology here that's got lots of fluff and talk, but so far I haven't seen any figures. How can you justify it, hon. Minister — that this open market is successful? I mean, how can you say that, in light of the fact that U.S. suppliers now have open access to a wide range of provincial and now municipal infrastructure? Is there a comparison done with what B.C. contractors will receive with what's left of a recovery act, the stimulus program in the States, whereby already most contracts have already been let?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We're leading down the road to a philosophical debate on trade policy. I'm not sure that that is relevant to IGR estimates, but again, I will reiterate that B.C.'s position is that an open market is beneficial and integral to our future growth and prosperity.

G. Gentner: Well, let's leave the philosophy on the side for a second. Let's talk about the facts. What is the ratio between procurement in contracts of U.S. companies operating in B.C. versus B.C. contracts working in the United States? I mean, obviously the homework was done in order to sign this agreement.

[1555]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think these questions would be best redirected to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. Our role in IGR is to establish relationships and identify appropriate relationships. I believe the information that the member opposite requires would be best asked to STED.
[ Page 6008 ]

G. Gentner: Okay, the philosophical part is something that's done ideologically. Agreements made, I guess, from IGR and the rationale behind it, I would hope, would be more than just ideological. It would be based on some facts. The minister is suggesting I go chase the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. I just want it on the record. What role did this ministry actually play in this inequitable agreement?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Which agreement are you referring to?

G. Gentner: I'm referring to, of course, the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America on government procurement.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Our responsibilities and roles with Intergovernmental Relations was to work with the federal government, to understand each federal government's position with respect to Buy American and to work to develop a united Canadian position to go forward with.

G. Gentner: So the minister can nod. In other words, you had a say in this agreement — correct? Yes. Okay.

I still don't understand why B.C. municipalities are not part of this agreement, while the U.S. municipal governments aren't under the GPA.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We've canvassed this for the last ten minutes or so. Our position is still the same. B.C. believes that we're stronger with an open economy.

G. Gentner: I'm going to move on. Obviously, there's a different view south of the line. There's a different view in Alberta and Saskatchewan. There's a different view in every other province and the 37 states who are somewhat involved with a lot of the different agreements.

I want to quickly move on to climate change. I know it is part of the statement within the ministry's jurisdiction. I'm sure it's shared with, of course, the other state ministry relative to climate change.

I want to ask the question regarding the new partnership on it, though. How can you have a new partnership between the three provinces that will create equal opportunities and similar regulations when Alberta has not entered into the Western Climate Initiative?

[1600]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: You know, there are a lot of opportunities for collaboration that are independent of whether or not Alberta has joined the Western Climate Initiative. We are still three distinct jurisdictions, and we will have differing views on various matters. But again, the point is that we have come together to work collaboratively in the best interests of each of our jurisdictions.

As a collective, this is an example of a partnership that is being looked at by other jurisdictions in Canada. Our economic growth in western Canada has far exceeded the rest of Canada, and I think we're on the right track.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the junket to Asia was not about clean energy at all. If you have a member, or two…. The other member was sort of quasi there — Saskatchewan. Alberta certainly isn't in agreement with the introduction of looking at new means of dealing with the carbon issue.

My question, quickly, is this. Again, putting aside the new west partnership, how does this dissimilarity — or distinction, as the minister would suggest — interplay with the agreement in TILMA and the AIT?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Under the new west partnership one of the items that we agreed to share is research and development and developing centres of excellence that don't overlap in terms of responsibilities or sectors.

[1605]

In fact, Saskatchewan is a leader in carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology. It's something that B.C. hasn't delved into as deeply.

It's a good example of where Saskatchewan may take the lead in the partnership, in continuing to be the centre of excellence for carbon capture and sequestration. In B.C., because of our innovative forest sector, we may decide to take the lead and become the centre of excellence for innovation in forestry. Alberta may have another area where they'd become a centre of excellence.

Although we may have differing positions, in areas where we can collaborate, we will so do so and share the benefits of our research and excellence.

G. Gentner: Well, the partnership certainly isn't on board when it comes down to regulating greenhouse gases. I know that the minister just mentioned sequestering in northeastern B.C., where there's also a major sequestering apparatus in place, and improving as we speak.

But I want to know about what assurance this ministry is giving relative to the Western Climate Initiative, where it's now falling apart. I'm sure the minister is aware that Utah has now stepped out of it because of lawsuits. The environmental improvement boards cannot regulate greenhouse gases without setting ambient air quality standards, which is a problem now through all of the western and northwest United States.

Can you assure this House that this agreement will remain in place? Tell us what the future will be.
[ Page 6009 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Consistent with what IGR has done in the past and will continue to do, we gather information and we provide advice to the various ministries involved in specific issues. With respect to the Western Climate Initiative, I don't have a crystal ball. I can't see into the future, but our position, B.C.'s position, hasn't changed. We are doing our due diligence to provide advice to the appropriate people and departments in B.C.

G. Gentner: I can harken back to the beginning of our conversation relative to the need for some measurement of performance. I will certainly look at the business plan. The minister suggested that she will provide me a copy of it, but I certainly didn't see it in the service plan.

You know, I just don't know how you're able to weigh these statements. I understand that there is no crystal ball, but it's quite worrisome to me that when we're seeing such things as questionable ambient air quality standards in the northwest, the agreement's now collapsing. It'll be very interesting to see in the next couple of years whether or not we will actually be going forward with the Climate Registry or even the Western Climate Initiative.

As the sands of time continue to go by, I want to talk briefly about the Olympics. The ministry is on record. In the previous accountability statement the ministry stated: "To extend our economic and social partnerships…in preparation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games."

Today, of course, the accountability statement is to try and harness in on those opportunities and "to engage the federal government on policy outcomes and the equitable distribution of federal spending for the benefit of British Columbians" in social and economic priorities.

[1610]

A deal was struck relative to the need for security at the games, and the province decided to forgo its claim of a significant amount of infrastructure money — $165 million. In exchange, the federal government would fulfil the shortfall of moneys — it's $252.5 million from the province — to put forward a successful games with successful security.

I suppose my question to the minister responsible for liaising between the province and the federal government regarding such agreements is: what mechanisms were in place to ensure that B.C. received value for money in this deal? Did we get a good deal?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: IGR didn't have anything to do with the security arrangements for the Olympic Games and was not responsible for securing federal funding for security. You may want to redirect that question to the Solicitor General's office.

G. Gentner: Well, as I go down the list, I'm finding that it's a very short list of what agreements the Intergovernmental Relations office actually does amongst intergovernmental agencies. I just find it amazing that there is no commitment.

Just for the record…. I'll leave it at that, but can the minister expound her views on whether or not the games were successful relative to the trade-off of infrastructure for security at the games?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: What I can do, and very proudly, is speak to the success of the Olympic Games and the involvement that the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat had with the games. But before I do that….

Although we weren't directly responsible for the security of the games, you don't have to be an expert or someone involved to recognize that these games were highly successful, in part due to the fact that security wasn't an issue. People felt safe. There wasn't any major security incident that compromised the games or people's enjoyment of the games. I think that we have to thank all levels of government who brought their security forces in a coordinated effort to put on these games. That actually includes Washington State as well.

The success of the games? The Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat has never been so busy. Our roles and responsibilities during the games had us hosting and entertaining the various dignitaries and business people.

We were there to tell the world that British Columbia is open for business; that we have a competitive tax environment; that we have highly trained and highly skilled workers; and that if they're interested in green technology, clean energy, the film industry, new media, education or agriculture, British Columbia had something to offer.

[1615]

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned that this is now under the auspices of the Solicitor General. Does the minister know when there'll be some oversight or review of the security? If so, will she be speaking to the federal authorities relative to that, or will her ministry have nothing to do with it at all?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would ask that the member opposite direct that question to the Solicitor General.

G. Gentner: Let's talk about the Olympics and the participation of this ministry. I'd like to ask…. I want to talk about ticket allocations. It's been some time, of course, in the media in the last month or so relative to what the report was all about. At the opening ceremonies in the so-called box or suite sitting by the government, could the minister explain who made the decision whereby the Premier of Prince Edward Island
[ Page 6010 ]
got those preferential tickets, whereas the Premier of Nova Scotia was on the outside looking in and sitting in the nosebleed section?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The Olympic Games — a very, very successful event but very complicated in terms of protocol and seating. We had limited resources — our limited seating capacity for VIPs and special dignitaries. The ticketing allocation was something that was led by three senior B.C. bureaucrats. They, through their experience, decided on where the Premiers sat.

I'm not aware that the Premier of Nova Scotia wasn't sitting in the special section that you indicated, but we made every effort to include the appropriate people in the appropriate places. In some cases, especially the prime events, it wasn't possible. As you know, Premiers carry with them security that take up space as well. I don't recall the actual number of seats that were available for these dignitaries, but there weren't enough to accommodate everybody.

[1620]

What we did try to do was to include Canada, to include the provinces, in the Olympic Games. Right from the start our Premier said that these are Canada's games. The successful torch relay — I think the longest torch relay in Olympic history — was executed across Canada to certainly engage Canadians during the Olympics. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, space and capacity didn't…. We weren't able to accommodate everybody's request.

G. Gentner: Well, I'd like to know the criteria these bureaucrats used to decide that the Premier of Prince Edward Island and his guests got to sit in the suite box at $2,640 each, whereas Premier Darrell Dexter of Nova Scotia wasn't worth it and got the $1,100. I mean, who made that decision, and what's the criteria?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We made every attempt to include all the Premiers in the opening ceremonies, and as I mentioned, we weren't able to accommodate all the Premiers in the same suite. The decisions were made by the senior bureaucrats.

You know, I don't know the specifics to this. It could have been something to do with the number of people, perhaps, that the Premiers were travelling with and that it was just easier to accommodate some Premiers in one area and not the other. I'm not sure of the details of this. But again, every effort was made to include all the Premiers, and as far as I know, we haven't had any negative response from Premiers on this issue.

G. Gentner: The bureaucrats and the deputy minister signed off on the report, so he's therefore, I assume, the person responsible to make a decision on who gets to sit in the box seating and who gets to sit in the nosebleed section.

I'd like to ask again: how is it that the Minister of Transportation got inside the suite and had the best seats in the house, whereas the former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had to sit, also, up in the nosebleed section? I mean, how do you ascertain, and what were the criteria to decide, that a Prime Minister who served this country for so many years sat in that nosebleed section, while the Minister of Transportation got to sit in the fancy suite?

[1625]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Most of the seats…. I know all the experiences during the opening ceremonies were absolutely fantastic and memorable. Again, I don't know the specifics to those questions that you asked, and there were extenuating circumstances.

For example, a Premier, a dignitary, might say, "You know what? I actually want to sit with my family. I don't want to sit on my own," and we couldn't accommodate all those extra tickets. I don't know in this case, but it was a very complicated procedure.

In B.C. we worked with the protocol offices, various governments — and quite well, actually. But if you've ever planned a wedding, you know how difficult it is to sit people around tables. Magnify that by a hundred times.

G. Gentner: I'll take that to the Premier of Nova Scotia, the New Democrat Premier of Nova Scotia, that the seating order of any wedding depends on your political stripe, perhaps.

There were, if I am right, about 4,600 tickets allocated by various ministries — in part, of course, by Small Business and Economic Development. How many of those 4,600 tickets were actually allocated from this office, from this ministry?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: IGRS didn't have a specific allocation of Olympic tickets. What we did do was to ensure that our Lieutenant-Governor and his counterparts in other provinces….

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We've just talked about the Premiers from other provinces. Government leaders, international dignitaries, U.S. governors that we are developing partnerships with or deepening our relationships with were accommodated. These were suggestions and added to the list of business leaders that STED came up with, but IGRS was not specifically allocated a number of tickets.

G. Gentner: I still haven't received kind of the number. Let's talk about VIPs. VIPs represent, really, a notion of a government, what is deemed to be important, and obviously the importance…. This government shows over
[ Page 6011 ]
and over that it was going to be involved in handing out tickets to the so-called green energy sector, and many of those tickets that were awarded or let out, so to speak, were not given to what I would call green energy technology at all. They went to many oil and gas companies.

But can the minister assure me that she or her ministry had nothing to do with the allotment of tickets for business? It was strictly relative to hosting those who were of government and ministries — MLAs and, of course, deputy ministers.

[1630]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: IGRS provided input into who we thought tickets should perhaps be distributed to. They included visiting dignitaries, heads of state, heads of mission, consul generals, ambassadors. The report is over 200 pages long. It's an incredibly transparent report, which the member opposite may have. If you were to go through that, every single ticket has been accounted for. I would be pleased to go through that report with him at a later date.

The Chair: I have two members standing.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, I'm not leaving, because I still have duty.

I still don't understand. The large suite — you would allocate tickets. I did read the report extensively, and I know that the consul general for Italy got tickets and that the one from Great Britain was again on the outside looking in.

But I'd like to know: what were the criteria for allotting tickets to ministers and deputy ministers? I mean, what were the criteria? Obviously, there are some ministries that were deemed far more important to the games than others. There had to have been some sort of criteria in allotting these tickets.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect to criteria for allocating tickets to ministers, we had a policy we followed that one minister and one MLA at maximum — so a total of two — could attend any event and that no deputy ministers could attend a ticketed event.

G. Gentner: Well, I beg to differ. Deputy ministers did attend the host program. How was it determined which deputy minister could attend? I can go through it. I can pretty much tell you it was in the opening ceremonies, and there were other ones here where various deputy ministers did attend Olympic venues. I'm not going to say it's right or wrong. I'm just going to say it happened. Again, there are some MLAs that attended more events than others. How was that determined?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I should have been clear in my last answer. No deputy ministers attended any ticketed sporting event that cost the government money. Deputy ministers did attend the B.C. Day ceremony, but those tickets were provided at no cost to B.C. from VANOC.

[1635]

With respect to which ministers and MLAs were asked to host the various delegations, we looked at ministers' and MLAs' availability, and we looked at who would best represent British Columbia in that particular circumstance.

G. Gentner: I'd still like to know why there were some ministers that were awarded more tickets than other ministers. What were the criteria to make that decision?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I thought I answered that in the last question. We looked at which ministers were available, which ministers or MLAs would be best able to represent the sector. If you look at our various theme days, we used the Olympics to promote new media, so our Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts was certainly quite busy during the Olympics and the Minister of Children and Family Development less so. Again, it just reflects their roles and responsibilities and the various delegations that came to the Olympics and who we wished to target.

G. Gentner: I'm going to pretty soon wrap up and allow my colleague here to ask some questions relative to federal funding and aboriginal relations, which I believe your ministry does deal with.

Open Skies. The ministry of state is involved with action on Open Skies. The Open Skies Summit was held on, I believe, September 24 and 25 and was sponsored in part by your ministry. Or was it strictly done by the Ministries of Transportation and Small Business, Technology and Economic Development?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The Open Skies conference was a collaborative effort. It involved at least four ministries: STED, Transportation and Infrastructure, IGRS and the Ministry of Tourism.

G. Gentner: I'm just trying to figure how the procedure works. Who picks up the tab?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: IGRS did not provide financial support for the summit.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the Premier played a very big role in that. He was there. I would just suggest for the record that I think the costs were deferred to another ministry on this one rather than…. Well, let's just call it downloaded onto another ministry.

I want to talk about the federal government's cancellation of the Forbes convention. What role did the
[ Page 6012 ]
province have in the attempt to rescue it when it was cancelled by the federal government?

[1640]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We did provide advice to the federal government suggesting that this Forbes convention would actually be beneficial to the province and Canada.

G. Gentner: Obviously, advice was not taken strongly enough to rescue it. I bring this up because exactly today we are seeing in Toronto a multi-million-dollar conference on Canada's government technology events, sponsored by the federal government. So the federal government is involved very much in sponsoring conferences and conventions.

I'm just wondering. Did the ministry receive any letters back from its inquiry relative to trying to save this convention? Or was it just sort of an oral objection on the phone?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We didn't write anything. We didn't write a letter, but we had several informal discussions with our federal counterparts to convey our support for the Forbes convention.

G. Gentner: Without documentation, there's no follow-up. I know how it works. I remember there's a former adviser to the Premier, Mr. Dobell, who said: "Whatever you do, don't use a BlackBerry, because it could come back to you."

Last question, and compliments to the minister for putting up with yours truly as long as you have today. I want to talk about the Canada-U.S. border issues, just one question. I know that before the Olympics the minister stated that she was hoping to have what's known as a family Nexus card introduced. What's been the progress on this? Are we going to call it the "Stop the HST" express card?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The province is working with CBSA to ensure that we actually have a very efficient border process. Our experience during the Olympics certainly proves that when we have the right partners talking and our efforts are coordinated, we can actually do good things.

The Nexus pass is definitely one area that we're continuing our talks on. The enhanced driver's licence that Washington and B.C. actually first implemented and that has now spread across Canada is another example.

What we're trying to make sure we do is ensure that people who are crossing the border have a pleasant and easy experience, and the focus now will be to sustain the efforts that were created and developed for the Olympic Games.

[1645]

B. Simpson: I just have a few questions for the minister, partly on how her ministry works with relation to activities that the provincial government may be engaged in or trying to engage the federal government in. I've tried at two different ministries now to understand, for example, the current status of promised funding from the federal government for mountain pine beetle initiatives. The Ministry of Forests punted us to the Ministry of Community Development, which said that it really wasn't within their bailiwick to do that.

Let me ask a general question. Does the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations track correspondence? I know one of the mandates is to facilitate ministers' meetings with federal counterparts or federal ministries and also to deal with issues that cross other provincial ministries but are dealing with the federal government. So as a general question, does the minister's ministry track any and all initiatives undertaken with the federal government and the kinds of correspondence and the kinds of meetings that provincial entities — ministries, ministers, etc. — will be having with the federal government?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In general, yes, we do track the intergovernmental meetings that we have across ministries. But we have, in Intergovernmental Relations, just over two dozen people, and there are hundreds of thousands of meetings that go on. What we need to do is focus on those areas that are priority areas for British Columbia. For example, the mountain pine beetle is one of the areas that we focus on and where we ensure B.C.'s priorities are heard with the federal government.

B. Simpson: Given the minister's admission that the mountain pine beetle is one of the priority areas, can the minister inform us what the nature of the dialogue is with the federal government about getting more resources to mountain pine beetle initiatives?

For the record we were promised, by two successive Prime Ministers, a billion dollars over ten years. At best, we can track somewhere between $200 million and $400 million, depending on how you account for the dollars. But we certainly haven't secured all of the money.

I know all communities involved in this, including First Nations communities, are asking what the nature of the agreement is with the federal government to secure whatever the remainder is. Whether the remainder is $800 million or $600 million doesn't matter. It's a lot of money that we could use access to.

I wonder if the minister could inform us of what is going on, if anything. What's the nature of the discussions? Are there formal discussions underway? And should we continue to hope that we'll see some of this other money?

[1650]
[ Page 6013 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: You're absolutely right. There were federal commitments made. We haven't seen the balance of the commitments come to British Columbia, which is why we're working to keep our federal minister responsible for British Columbia aware of the disaster that the pine beetle infestation has caused. We continue to raise this at every opportunity.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's candour on this, because it's the first time that I've actually got an admission that there is a balance outstanding.

One of the questions that has been raised…. Former federal minister Emerson, when he was a Liberal and before he became a Conservative minister, indicated that one of the problems with giving more money to the provincial government was that no plan had come from the provincial government stating precisely and explicitly how the provincial government would use those funds.

In the past, for example, forest and range development agreements. We've had two of them and secured significant federal dollars on a matched basis. It was always the provincial government that actually put a concerted plan in front of the federal government. One of the things that we always had to show was how what the provincial government was going to do was incremental to normative Crown obligations, because the federal government doesn't want to pay us to do what is within our jurisdiction and within our legal obligations or budgetary obligations to do.

I wonder if the minister could tell us again, for the record: did British Columbia ever put a concerted year-over-year plan — it was supposed to be ten years — in front of the federal government to secure the promised federal $1 billion?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My understanding is that the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry of Community Development have worked with the community and the sector to come up with plans to deal with this devastation. IGRS is not the primary ministry or secretariat that deals with this, so I'm unable to answer that any further.

B. Simpson: Except the minister indicated that her ministry was involved in this as a priority issue. It does fit within the ministry's mandate that the minister is on the record saying. That's the reason I went down this line of questioning.

Again, I've already canvassed the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Community Services, neither one of whom indicated that there was a formal plan being put forward. They were both hoping that the federal money would come.

Let me ask the question in a way that the minister may be able to clarify. Has there been any formal correspondence that the minister is aware of to the federal government requesting the federal government to clarify either whether the money is coming or what is needed to secure the money that remains from that $1 billion promise?

[1655]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm actually not aware of the current status of the correspondence between the federal government and the other two ministries I mentioned, but it is a priority for the IGRS, and we'll undertake to follow that.

B. Simpson: I want to correct the record, as I was corrected. It was $1 billion, not a million-dollar promise. We've exceeded that target; it's $1 billion.

I just want to clarify what the minister offered, whether the minister indicated that what she is going to do is to go and find out if there is any formal correspondence and make it available. Just let me make sure that I understand that that's what she said.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, my intention was to follow up with you.

B. Simpson: If I could, I've just got a couple of other quick things to pursue before we move on to the next estimates. I see that staff is here, waiting with bated breath.

There's another issue that has come up recently. It's related to mountain pine beetle but actually stands somewhat distinct. That's the First Nations funding that they believe they've been promised for interface fire work, fuel management work. The First Nations Forestry Council has raised this issue.

I'm wondering again if the minister is aware of any formal discussions that the province is having, or correspondence to the federal government, around this particular issue of protecting First Nations communities against the threat of wildfire.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just reflecting back on the previous question, this is, again, in line with our desire to protect our forests and deal with the devastation of the mountain pine beetle. It would seem that following up with this line of questioning — I could do that with you as well. Right now I don't have an answer to that question.

B. Simpson: Fair enough. I do want to distinguish between…. There's an increased fire threat in the mountain pine beetle–impacted areas, which is about half of the First Nations communities, but all First Nations communities, particularly the reserve-based communities, are in the interface. It doesn't matter if they're on the coast or the south or up north. It's a general issue.

It is a promise, again, that the First Nations believe they got from the federal government. I can't find who has the lead and is raising that flag in Ottawa on behalf
[ Page 6014 ]
of First Nations, so I appreciate the minister's offer to try and clarify what's going on there.

The final two questions are more just trying to understand where we're going. One is, very quickly: does the minister engage in treaty discussions? For example, we're waiting for a response still, a more fulsome response, from the federal government around common table response, etc. Is Intergovernmental Relations involved at that level at all?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No.

B. Simpson: My final one is whether or not, because under the guise of the new relationship…. Because we are securing treaties and are actually having another government take place in British Columbia — whether that's Tsawwassen, the Maa-nulth, the Nisga'a or whatever — will Intergovernmental Relations be playing a role in facilitating ongoing dialogue with those governments and helping those governments access Ottawa?

[1700]

It is an interesting dynamic that we're creating, and if we're more successful with treaties, we will have more governments in British Columbia than just local governments, provincial government and the federal government.

I'm just curious whether or not this ministry has had any internal dialogue about whether it can play a facilitative role in trying to help these newly formed governments move into the broader sphere of federal-provincial relationships, as well as international relationships, which is in the purview of the minister's file.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The short answer is no, but it is a very interesting proposition that you have just alluded to. It's something that we could consider, but no, currently we haven't had those discussions. Right now the relationship building with the federal government is left with the Aboriginal Relations ministry.

The Chair: Okay. Well, that concludes this portion of estimates on the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, Vote 10. We'll take a five-minute break, and when we come back, we'll discuss Vote 11.

The committee recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $29,905,000.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to recognize at the outset here that we do have the honour of being present on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I'll be joined, at different points, by senior officials with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — among them, Bob de Faye, deputy minister; Julian Paine, assistant deputy minister; Steve Munro, assistant deputy minister; Arlene Paton, assistant deputy minister; Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister; David Hoadley, executive director; Michael Lord, director of finance; and John Harper, director.

The estimates, I think, will provide a good opportunity for us to bring the Legislature up to date with respect to important topics in the area of aboriginal relations. Much has occurred in the just almost 12 months now that I've had the opportunity to be Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

A year ago we were still talking about the recognition and reconciliation discussion paper, and of course, we've seen much change since that point in time. We remain, as a government, committed to the principles that were articulated in recognition and reconciliation, but we've moved to try to see them implemented through a variety of paths to reconciliation.

Treaty remains important, and I'm pleased to advise that the Yale treaty will, in all probability, go to community ratification later in 2010. That will be an important step for them. We are very close to the handshake and signing of the Sliammon treaty — again, an important step forward.

But we've also seen, beyond treaty, some new steps forward that we've not seen before in the province: the reconciliation protocol with Haida First Nation, which was the subject of debate in the Legislature — last week, I guess it was. We've also had the honour of completing a reconciliation protocol with six northern coastal First Nations. That was, as well, exciting.

These bring new economic opportunities to those territories and also introduce a way of achieving some decision-making on the land base, which will work for both First Nations and for the government. And a strategic engagement agreement with the Nanwakolas is, again, an additional path to reconciliation which we are committed to exploring.

[1710]

There is much work being done in many corners of the province. We have an opportunity for incremental treaty agreements, interim treaty arrangements — agreement-in-principle in one case at least with the Tla-o-qui-aht. We believe we're on the cusp of an agreement-in-principle for yet another treaty, so there's much great work being done.

We work in partnership with our colleague ministries — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and others — to try to develop economic and community development agreements. Those are an exciting way for the province to commit to revenue-sharing, to hopefully
[ Page 6015 ]
bring into play some new economic opportunities in our province among our First Nations that might not otherwise be able to proceed.

I'll keep my comments brief at this point. I know time is a bit of a factor for us in terms of time available in the balance of the legislative session. So I'll take my place now and welcome questions from the opposition and others with respect to Aboriginal Relations.

B. Simpson: I'd like to know who those others are, before we start off.

I, too, would like to recognize that we're on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I have a few opening comments, and then I had indicated to the minister that we would do treaty today. Of course, we're starting later than we had intended, and we will then reconvene on Wednesday. So we've got a truncated period of time.

In terms of the opposition and the government in this case, I've said many times on the public record that I get tired of the perpetual electioneering and the fact that there are governance issues that we have to be involved in some way, in particular with respect to First Nations, on a number of fronts, the critical one being the socioeconomic gap that exists and the need to address that.

That is something that each day impacts the future potential of aboriginal children to participate in our society. It's not something that is simple to address, because it is tied up in all kinds of rights and title issues and various levels of government. I think we can agree that that is something we are both committed to. Historically, I think that from the Social Credit government on, governments of all stripes have struggled with it.

The second thing I'd like to say for the public record — and I stated it with respect to the Haida bill — is that I think the government is attempting, through reconciliation agreements and some of the incremental treaty work, to do some things with First Nations to advance them engaging in some of the economic benefits from the resources that are available, and trying to move beyond talk and log, which was the old way that we used to do things.

Having said that, of course, I've got some areas that we will canvass where it does appear as if we're continuing the same old business. Certainly, that's the way that First Nations feel.

The third thing that I would like to address is the whole sense that we may be at a cusp here on a number of fronts. I'll canvass it over the next few hours that we've got, and that is what the reconciliation act did in terms of the First Nations and the government's ability to deal with the First Nations as an entity and what it did to the leadership council, the questions it raises around the new relationship, the transformative change accord, etc.

That's an area that…. I hope it's not small-p politics I'm playing. I hope that it's reasoned questions and that it's seen as reasoned questions about how we're going to get by some of the issues that are out there. Whenever the minister feels that there's a legitimate role for us in opposition to facilitate that, then I'm happy to make sure that our caucus is apprised and plays a legitimate role.

I want to start just very high level on two critical issues and then get into treaties since we don't have lots of time. First and foremost, if the minister could inform us of the current status of any discussions that the province is having with Ottawa about getting Canada to sign on the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Again, the First Nations of British Columbia have indicated that they want that signed off by Canada. They want Canada to take a more proactive role. If the minister could inform us as to where the province is in any dialogue they have with Ottawa about doing that.

[1715]

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of Canada signing on to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people has been an issue, I think, for about three years. The member will recall, I'm sure, that Canada — along with, I believe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand — was among the four that initially indicated that they would not be signing on to the declaration because of constitutional concerns, which the federal government had.

The position of the province of British Columbia, as reflected through the comments at that time of the then Aboriginal Relations Minister, was that we encourage the federal government to sign on, to reconcile the constitutional issues and to support the declaration. It appears that the federal government is attempting to move in that direction.

I think the member will recall…. I think it was in the most recent throne speech by the federal government that the Governor General, reflecting the views of the Prime Minister and federal cabinet, indicated that, in fact, that's exactly what they were going to attempt to do, which was to move towards adoption of support of the declaration on the rights of indigenous people, subject to resolution or consistent with Canada's constitution and practices.

B. Simpson: That's how I understand it as well, but British Columbia First Nations have felt that the federal government hasn't actually acted upon the throne speech promise.

My question to the minister is quite specific as to whether or not, either through the Minister of Aboriginal Relations or through the Premier's office, British Columbia has taken a more concerted position and has had formal entreaties to Ottawa to recognize this, based on the fact that British Columbia First Nations have been calling for this to get recognized. Has there been any formal dialogue with Ottawa about this? If so, in what form?
[ Page 6016 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal Speech from the Throne on March 3, 2010, states: "We are a country with an aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Our government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada's constitution and laws."

That is where the federal government has indicated that it intends to go in respect to this matter. We have not had any formal discussions with them about the declaration since the March 3 throne speech in which they set out that intention to endorse this aspirational document.

[1720]

B. Simpson: Has the B.C. government ever taken a formal position endorsing the UN declaration or asking the federal government to do that? Again, British Columbia First Nations are unanimous in their desire to see this declared.

I understand the federal government's reluctance and their commitment to try and resolve it, but the question is: has British Columbia ever taken a formal position that they would like to see this signed off on? Other jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions, have begun to add their voices to First Nations, saying that yes, this needs to be done and Ottawa needs to get on with it. Has B.C. joined that voice?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue has been discussed in our Legislature. I don't believe that any formal correspondence has gone on from either the current ministry, which I hold, or former ministries in respect to this. However, I would note that British Columbia is on a Canada-wide officials group that is looking at the question of recognition of the declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples.

B. Simpson: Again, just to pin the minister down a little bit, will British Columbia be supporting Canada doing what is necessary to sign that declaration at the UN?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, that's always been the position of British Columbia and continues to be the position of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification.

The next, simply because it is a time-sensitive issue, has to do with the HST and First Nations related to HST. The minister will be aware that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has an HST committee that they have struck. They've been asking for some form of consultation with respect to HST implementation, and I wonder if the minister can state for the record what the nature of the dialogue is that he's had with First Nations about the impact of HST on their members and their communities.

Hon. G. Abbott: To my knowledge, and to the officials' knowledge, we've never had any request from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip or any other leader of the First Nations requesting a meeting of our ministry or me. They may have requested meetings with the Finance officials. We don't know that, but they haven't, to our knowledge, requested any meeting with ourselves.

The Finance Minister did note, in respect of this question — I presume this was earlier in Finance estimates: "There are agreements in place with regard to the treatment of…goods and services…as it applies to First Nations communities around British Columbia. The same agreements will be honoured — there's no change — and the same provisions would be applied to the entire HST."

[1725]

So to the best of our knowledge, there is absolutely no impact on First Nations in British Columbia by the HST that wouldn't apply to any other group or peoples in British Columbia. That is different than Ontario. I know that in Ontario there has been considerable angst among the First Nations because the HST's application in Ontario's case does change some of their exemptions and so on, but that's not the case in British Columbia.

Chief Stewart Phillip may wish to oppose HST for a variety of reasons. But its specific impact on First Nations…. We don't know of any reason that there's anything special or unique about the application of HST to First Nations in B.C.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point that concerns about HST have been directed to the Finance Ministers, both federally and provincially, but I would assume that somebody in the minister's office is scanning the First Nations sites, trying to look at hot-button issues and trying to be ahead of where issues are arising. The minister has already effectively admitted in his comments that it certainly has been no secret that the union has taken a concerted stance on this.

With respect to ascribing it only to Chief Stewart Phillip, I think that that is an error, given that it was a unanimous resolution of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, duly constituted and signed off by all of the appropriate entities that make that a resolution of the union, of which Chief Stewart Phillip would just be a spokesperson. Having said that….

The role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations is to facilitate the new relationship, defined as, the minister's own service plan says, "practical and measurable actions the ministry will undertake" to achieve that, aside from treaty.

The union is quite clear that they believe it does impact First Nations individuals where HST will impact
[ Page 6017 ]
regular consumers, in that if they go off reserve to restaurants or they're buying coffee or newspapers, etc., they're going to end up paying more in that tax. That's their understanding.

The fact that there may be a disagreement or a misunderstanding is one of the reasons why the union has asked for the government to work with them on two fronts. One is to make sure that information packages regarding the application of HST to First Nations are developed and made available to First Nations and within First Nations communities, and the second — and I have to admit I don't understand all of the implications of this, and I'm not sure if this is only an Ontario issue — has to do with the non-derogation language regarding the preservation of section 87 in the Indian Act, and that might be the Ontario piece.

The First Nations in British Columbia, of which a large number belong to the union, have a resolution in which they state their concerns about HST and HST impacts on First Nations. So my question to the minister, as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations responsible for facilitating the new relationship, is: what steps will the ministry be taking to try and make sure that good information is made available — these information packages, for example — so that First Nations clearly understand the implications of HST on them as citizens of British Columbia?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I did not intend to suggest in any way that concerns re the harmonized sales tax were unique to Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Undoubtedly, there are others who may have concerns, but if they have those concerns, they have not relayed them to me during the many, many meetings that I have had with First Nations groups, including today, about a range of subjects.

[1730]

I've met with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, I think, three times now since assuming the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations position. It is not an issue which they have raised with me, and I'm not entirely surprised that it would not be on their agenda.

There are many other important issues that have probably greater application to the relationship between the leadership organizations and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations. I would not be at all surprised if those issues had been canvassed with the Minister of Finance rather than with me or with our ministry. But we've had no request for meetings on HST to this point in time. If there was a request, I'd be delighted to sit down and talk about it.

Where issues have been raised, we have worked with the Ministry of Finance to provide whatever information packages were necessary to deal with questions that came up. Certainly, whenever it's requested, we'd be glad to provide all of the information that we have available through the Ministry of Finance to any First Nations group or individual or community that had residual questions about HST.

B. Simpson: I'll take the minister at face value. I understand the nature of the discussions that First Nations leaders would have with the minister, and not all agenda items are on the table at any given time.

My understanding from talking to members of the union is that they are looking for someone to champion the fact that good information flow occurs on this for First Nations. I would just ask the minister if he would take it upon himself to ensure that when the Ministry of Finance…. I understand that they are going to issue some public education documents about HST, post the initiative, once that's out of the way. This call for some specific materials for First Nations actually be prepared and made available — if the minister would take that upon himself?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the Minister of Finance has recently written a letter to Grand Chief Stewart Phillip in response to a letter that the Grand Chief sent to the minister, so presumably that discussion is ongoing and continues. At any point, if there are concerns that are raised by First Nations, we'd be glad to work with the Ministry of Finance to try to get the best possible answers we can to the questions that are raised.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister.

Moving into treaty then, I'd like to start off by asking the minister just to clarify for me…. I'm having trouble reconciling what's in the service plan about treaty and what's in the Treaty Commission document and what's being said about the status of the common table. So I want to take a little bit of time just to lay that out and then ask the minister to reflect back on how he sees the current status of treaty negotiations in British Columbia.

In the service plan on page 3, under the minister's signature — and good-looking, albeit younger, picture — it states: "In 2009 the treaty process gained momentum with the implementation of the Tsawwassen final agreement and the signing of the Maa-nulth final agreement." Yet in the 2009 annual report from the B.C. Treaty Commission, the chief commissioner indicates: "However, there is a growing perception by many that the treaty process is off track. Of particular concern are the longstanding barriers to progress that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of all parties."

The chief commissioner goes on to say: "Regrettably, the opportunities identified to break down the barriers preventing progress are slow to materialize." Later on in her opening comments she talks about: "Failure to act in a constructive and progressive manner will result in
[ Page 6018 ]
more litigation, confrontation, economic uncertainty and potentially the dissolution of the treaty process with no viable alternative."

I want to emphasize that this is from the chief commissioner of the treaty process, saying that failure to act just now could result in the dissolution of the treaty process with no viable alternative.

There are some recommendations in here that I want to get into later on, but certainly, the chief commissioner's comments about the current status of the treaty process seem at odds with the minister's reflection that the process is gaining momentum.

[1735]

Then the addition that I would make to that is that the spokesperson Robert Morales, chief negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group, and spokesperson, I believe, for the common table, which we'll get into, stated to the effect that — and this is a paraphrase — with the majority of First Nations unable to accept the unfair conditions of settlement imposed by B.C. and Canada, it does not appear that the land question in B.C. will be settled anytime soon and — again to paraphrase — through the treaty process in particular.

I wonder if the minister can reconcile his comments about gaining momentum with those who are vested in the treaty process and their feeling that we've stalled and the treaty process is actually at risk.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I think that the first point about trying to reconcile the different statements is that these are two different documents. They have two different authors, and they reflect, I guess, two views about the treaty process. I think the chief commissioner has done an excellent job. Sophie Pierre, the chief commissioner, has brought exceptional new energy and, I think, vision to the role of chief commissioner. We fully endorse her efforts to bring more success to the treaty process.

I think first, though, in terms of the service plan, we are very pleased that we now have treaties being implemented at Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth. Treaties have been slow to come to fruition in British Columbia. The longest-standing treaty is, I guess, the Treaty 8, and there are some Douglas treaties. But treaties are generally a long time between one another.

The Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth were the first treaty since Nisga'a. They did constitute a breakthrough, and I do believe they were indicative of some momentum in the treaty process. I mentioned in some of my initial remarks the confidence around Yale as a treaty that may be embraced by the community relatively soon. It's possible that the Lheidli T'enneh in Prince George may be taking their treaty offer back to community consideration. The Sliammon is very close to handshake. So you know, we believe that we can start to see more successful treaties.

That having been said, the pace of treaty-making still is much slower than I'd like. I know that it's much slower than Chief Commissioner Sophie Pierre would like to see. I think that everyone — and I know that the member shares this view — would all like to see more and more rapid success in the treaty area. Treaties are probably the most important decision that any band or community ever makes about its future, so not surprisingly, these things take some time. But I think that the commissioner in particular….

I suspect that the comment that the member raises was a concern about fish and, particularly, a resolution by the federal government — in particular, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — about bringing some clarity and resolution to fish issues. Own-source revenue has been another important issue from a federal perspective. So those things, I think, are among the issues which have tended to dampen the progress on treaties.

I think the chief commissioner was quite rightly attempting to put some fire underneath the federal government, in particular, around those issues and to try to see a more rapid move to resolution of those outstanding treaty issues so that, in fact, we could get more treaties under consideration by communities and hopefully get some even greater momentum behind the process and the progress of treaties.

B. Simpson: Simply because of some time constraints, I want to just get into sort of the overall treaty. Then one of the members of the opposition has some specific questions, but we are going to have to carry some of this over to Wednesday.

[1740]

I want to be very clear that in my discussions with the chief commissioner and in the report from the commission, the chief commissioner is not suggesting in any way that the treaty process is dead in the water, but there is a reflection here that we are at a critical juncture. In fact, again reading from the annual report, the commission makes a definitive statement that the treaty process "still holds the promise of comprehensive reconciliation."

As the minister is indicating, one of the issues is the pace, but the Treaty Commission document was crystal-clear. Again, it's in contrast to what the minister is indicating. The minister indicates in his service plan that the treaty process gained momentum, while the commission document says: "The hoped-for momentum from the implementation of the Tsawwassen treaty and the completion of the Maa-nulth treaty is yet to be realized."

They're completely contradictory statements, where the minister is saying, "We've got some momentum," and the commission's saying: "No, you don't." That's what I'm trying to understand.

The minister has indicated that time is one and fish is the other. I wonder, for the public record, if the minis-
[ Page 6019 ]
ter could reflect for us what he thinks some of the other issues are that are spinning out there that prevent us from getting on with treaties, from his own reflection.

Hon. G. Abbott: We can debate this fascinating point, I'm sure, at some length. I think it's fair to say, though, that both statements are accurate. When you've had one treaty in a hundred years and ten years later you get two more, it does indicate some momentum, particularly when there's a whole lot of work going on to get many more treaties in place.

I should note for the member that there've been nine treaty offers made in the last couple of years by the government, so there's lots of effort going on.

The member's quote, I believe, from Commissioner Sophie Pierre was that the momentum of Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth had not yet been realized, or words to that effect. I think that's true as well. The commissioner was disappointed. Certainly, we're disappointed.

Fish has been the big stumbling block in terms of trying to get an earlier resolution of Yale, of Sliammon, of In-SHUCK-ch. Now, I don't want to appear to be critical of the federal government. DFO has many, many challenges that they are attempting to deal with, but there's also no question that it has been very difficult to finalize treaties. The principal barrier to that…. There may be several others, but the biggie is fish, and it continues to be so. Now we have the Cohen Commission underway, and that's probably going to slow the resolution of fish down once again.

I think we all would like to see more treaties completed more expeditiously, but it is enormously challenging, and the principal challenge has been and continues to be resolution of the fish issues in those treaties.

B. Simpson: Without question, fish is a particular stumbling block. But as I've read through the various documents that are available to try and understand treaties…. I have to admit that this is a new area of knowledge for me. I'm on the bottom end of a very steep learning curve, and I'm trying to understand it.

[1745]

The reason for my questions is more to try and understand what the government is trying to do to address some of the systemic issues with the treaty process. As I have read through all of the documents that are available, it's the claims that the treaty process has not kept pace with legal decisions that have occurred, that the process itself doesn't take into consideration legal findings and the implications of that on treaty settlement.

The finances. The Treaty Commission report points out that many offers have been rejected because they simply do not meet First Nations desires for resolving it, either in the size of the land that's being offered or the finances. I sat in on the NStQ offer, and that kind of blew apart the day after. All the excitement went out of the negotiators the morning after, when the First Nations came back and said, "You've got to be kidding," relative to what was offered to them.

Overlapping claims. In all discussions that I've had with the commission and with others, overlapping claims…. The minister knows that Yale is immediately into that situation of the Stó:lô, saying, "We don't think so," and significant issues with that, which may end up in court in terms of what's being offered to Yale.

I would argue that a $320 million cut to natural resource ministries as a result of fiscal constraints in the province is going to limit the amount of work that the natural resource ministries have to do to contribute to facilitating treaties — the mapping, the referral processes and all the things that have to be done to allow everybody to participate with the same knowledge base.

A piece I want to get into very shortly is the debt load for First Nations, particularly the accruing debt load of smaller First Nations that may end up getting an offer at the end of the day that barely cancels the debt that they have accrued in just trying to participate in the process.

The Auditor General's report on the province, about using breakthrough tables and that issue of only resourcing tables where the government thinks it's going to have some success and, therefore, withdrawing resources from other tables….

Then finally, overarching all of this is the call of Chief Sophie Pierre. It's a long-winded way to get to a question, but it's a call for revitalizing the treaty process, for updating it and bringing it up to date with all of the factors that I've put in play here, in particular working with the federal and provincial governments on a renewed mandate.

I wonder if the minister can speak to that. What work is actually going to be done or is in play to revitalize and renew the treaty process and bring it up to date? It has been in place for some time. It's come from the Social Credit government, which initiated the treaty task force, through the NDP government and now into the Liberal government. But really, as I said, we're at a critical juncture. What work is going to be done to refresh the process, update it, get new mandates and get it back on track?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has asked quite a number of different questions and made quite a number of assertions. I won't attempt to deal with them all, given the time, and I'll try to get to the final question that he posed in the discussion.

To begin, the offers. The negotiation that goes on between a given First Nation or group of First Nations and the provincial government and the federal government typically revolves around the two areas of land and cash. The land selection and quantum is generally a responsibility of the province. The cash tends to come from
[ Page 6020 ]
the federal government, but there can be some mix of those elements, depending on the circumstance and depending on the First Nation.

I think the NStQ, the case the member referenced, is from my experience — and my experience is only a little bit greater than the member's in terms of this area…. The sharp division between the offer from the federal and provincial governments versus the response of NStQ was unusual. They're dramatically different, and the big question I had was: how do we move from a framework agreement to these vastly different expectations about land and cash? There clearly were vastly different expectations.

[1750]

That is not a typical situation, and there are many discussions we are having that are far more promising in terms of the gap between the offer and First Nations expectations being much narrower. But this is a negotiation, and as is typical in negotiations, negotiations move along just as quickly as the parties are able to move them. If expectations and offers are vastly different, then not surprisingly, the pace of success will be slowed down.

There are many instances, I think, where we're confident that we are going to be able to move forward. NStQ, based on what we've seen to date, may not be one of those, although I understand that the most recent meeting was a more promising one than we had perhaps anticipated.

In terms of overlapping claims, yes, that's an issue, but again not a game stopper. Overlapping claims are something that the commission has done a lot of work on and will continue to do a lot of work on.

In the case of the Yale and the Stó:lô, yes, overlaps are a part of it, but there is also a fundamental belief by the Stó:lô that the Yale are a part of the Stó:lô Nation, should be part of the Stó:lô Nation and should not have a stand-alone treaty.

We have taken the position as government that First Nations will self-determine who they will be a part of and when they will be a part of them. We are supportive of the Yale First Nation and their right to self-determine, and we are supportive of their opportunity to go to a community ratification of the proposal that we have put in front of them.

I agree that the Stó:lô have a different view, and we respect that view. The Stó:lô may wish to take litigative steps to try to resolve it. That's up to them. But we are supportive of the Yale and their opportunity to proceed to a treaty on a basis that they've set out, not anyone else.

In terms of breakthrough tables, I still think that is the right way to go. I think it makes all the sense in the world to focus on the tables where we're getting some movement and moving more quickly to treaty arrangements. There is considerable value there.

To answer the final question that was posed by the member, the purpose of the treaty revitalization table is to examine process issues that may be impeding progress under the B.C. treaty process.

The treaty revitalization working group agreed that the topics for discussion should be dealt with in the following order of priority: financing treaty negotiations — and the member referenced that, a very important issue; capacity to negotiate and implement treaties; process for addressing overlapping claims; shared territories; interim measures; incremental treaty agreements; streamlining — i.e., negotiation processes and confidentiality agreements; and the role of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Those are all elements in the proposal to attempt to revitalize the treaty process.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations. I want to focus specifically on the Te'mexw treaty table.

As I start, I want to commend the minister's staff for a very, very capable public meeting two or three weeks ago in Metchosin in my community — a very difficult crowd, handled very capably by the council for the Scia'new people as well as the provincial staff. Regrettably, no federal participation at that meeting. A whole host of good reasons for that, all of them outside of our ability to deal with tonight.

I want to follow up on my colleague the opposition critic's concerns about processes stalling. I've talked to the minister about this privately, and I want to get some of these issues on the record for the benefit of the people in my region.

Firstly, with respect to Scia'new. If you look at a map, Minister — and I know your staff have done this on your behalf — there is an abundance of federal Crown land; there is a sparse amount of provincial Crown land. So addressing the land selection question is made very difficult for the province. It has not been rendered any less difficult by the federal government.

I'm wondering: firstly, can the minister advise what the state of discussions is with the federal government with respect to surplus federal lands in and around the Beecher Bay table?

The second point — because I want to get both of these questions on the record so the minister can respond and the critic can get back to his line of questioning — has to do with the T'Souke Nation. Again, with land selection, the minister will know that the breaking up of tree farm licence 25 provided an unprecedented opportunity to add to the provincial land bank for treaty resolution.

[1755]

There are a number of pieces of property — which are still, as I understand it, on the real estate market by Western Forest Products — that have been identified by the T'Souke First Nation as important to them, poten-
[ Page 6021 ]
tially, for treaty resolution or even as a stopgap for some form of interim measure.

The two questions I would have for the minister are: firstly, can he advise on what the state of discussions is with the federal government to free up that Crown land that would, I believe, really advance the Te'mexw table as it affects the Scia'new? Secondly, what status can he offer up on the Western Forest Products lands, the private lands that are up for sale and have been identified by the T'Sou-ke Nation as important to their treaty aspirations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's comments and questions. There's a little bit of complexity around this one, and the member may wish to follow up with additional questions, if I've missed any of the important points that he raised.

First of all, I do want to thank the member for acknowledging the efforts of staff in the public meeting that was held recently. All the reports I've received, as well, is that it was a very good and constructive meeting and difficult subject matter but very valuable in terms of working through, apparently, to greater satisfaction some of the issues and concerns in the Te'mexw treaty area.

The member is right, as well, that one of the biggest challenges in terms of the Te'mexw treaty group is the land increment. We do not have a lot of provincial Crown land that's available on the southern end of Vancouver Island. Land is always an important issue in treaty negotiation, and in this case the quantum of land available is limited. Most of the available Crown land has, in previous decades, been converted to park or to other uses, so it has left only a pretty small increment available for treaty in land processes.

The federal government and some of its land, as the member's question implies, is also important here. The Beecher Bay First Nation, who now, I understand, describe themselves as the Scia'new First Nation…. There are discussions ongoing with the federal Department of National Defence, and of course other agencies of the federal government as well, around some federal DND lands.

To date we haven't been successful in getting the kind of access to those lands for treaty purposes that we would like, so the discussion is ongoing with the federal government with respect to the status of those lands.

[1800]

The T'Sou-ke First Nation — again, another one where we have some challenges around the quantum and availability of Crown land for treaty settlement purposes. I am meeting with Chief Planes — I believe it's later this week — to discuss this issue. Undoubtedly, we'll be discussing the TFL 25 lands, otherwise referred to as the former Western Forest Products lands.

We do want to work with all parties around this. As the member knows, there has been some recent movement of land in respect of acquisition by the CRD. We are still working our way through the issues and implications of the CRD purchase.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate the minister's answer, and I believe that the primary reason for the successful public meeting was that most people in my community, in the Juan de Fuca electoral area, recognize that the Douglas treaty issues are not sufficient and that this table provides an opportunity for two of the three bands on the west coast to have some resolution to longstanding grievances.

When the public attended the public meeting, we had an opportunity to look at a map. It's as clear as the nose on our faces that there's a lot of land that doesn't belong to the province. There's cash available. The mix is not right for this table. This goes to my colleague from Cariboo North's point, and the minister has touched upon it in previous answers.

If we are going to make progress, we have to look at opportunities, I think, on a one-off basis. The Te'mexw table provides, I think, a great opportunity because of the abundance of federal lands, which I believe could be rendered surplus without too much difficulty, and the private land that has so recently come onto the table.

I appreciate that the minister is meeting with Chief Planes, and I'm in regular contact with him. I know that his office is always available to me, and I appreciate that. But the challenge is that federal cash is useless to us if we can't crack the nut with respect to Beecher Bay.

This is a fundamental problem within the municipality. The staff are very well aware of this. The reason the meeting calmed down after the initial bluster was that everyone could look at the map and see that the reserve lands are surrounded by federal lands, and the provincial Crown is some distance away. That has almost been taken over as a municipal park, which is another issue that is secondary — but actually at the core of the problem, from the non-aboriginal perspective.

Again, I'm wondering if the minister is contemplating discussions with his federal counterpart to take a look at situations like south Island and say: "You know what? Your land is more valuable to us than your cash, and perhaps some way of swapping might be a solution."

I appreciate the minister's time.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't disagree at all with the member and his characterization of the challenge. We have a very different situation on the southern tip of Vancouver Island than we have, really, in any other corner of British Columbia, in that virtually all of the provincial Crown land has been alienated in one way or another over time, much of it through parks. Everyone celebrates and cherishes those parks and would not, I don't think, happily contemplate their conversion to treaty settlement lands. So it really does leave much of the residual avail-
[ Page 6022 ]
able Crown land being federal Crown lands rather than provincial. It's quite a unique situation.

What we're attempting to do in terms of resolving that…. Again, the successful treaty settlement, when it's arrived at, will be some combination of cash and land. The cash doesn't necessarily always come from the federal government. The land doesn't always necessarily come from the provincial government.

So to the member's question: are we engaging with the feds on their land and potential available land for treaty purposes? Absolutely. Because if we're going to find land, that's pretty much where we're going to find it. Now, the Department of National Defence doesn't always easily part with their lands, and that is certainly true in this case, but the discussion is still continuing.

The other thing that is a probable element in any Te'mexw resolution or treaty resolution in the future will be that the quantum in terms of cash might be higher, with the acknowledged purpose of utilizing that fund to make purchases on a willing buyer, willing seller basis that then might be added either to reserve or just utilized as economic development opportunities, which are very important for all these nations as well.

[1805]

I think that the member is correct in terms of his characterization of the challenge around the federal lands, and yes, we fully intend to continue to work with the federal government to try to get resolution of that.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for the direct answers to those questions. I just want to go back again — we probably have ten minutes or so today — to the minister's comments, because it does feed into where I want to go.

The minister indicated that he didn't think overlapping claims were necessarily a big issue in the list that I gave, yet in the Treaty Commission annual report, the Treaty Commission offered, as a way forward, three areas that needed attention, the third of which was to resolve territorial issues among First Nations, and indicated that most First Nations have been unable to resolve these issues, thereby creating significant risk and uncertainty.

It's a requirement of the B.C. treaty process that First Nations make best efforts to resolve territorial overlaps with the assistance from the Treaty Commission. In the NStQ case, for example, the Nazko, at the very last minute, came in and put an overlapping claim after, I think, seven years of negotiations. The minister has already indicated the Stó:lô and the nuances. It's more than an overlapping claim there. It's a question of who has rights to negotiate. Again, I'm learning as well, but certainly, overlapping claims, wherever I go, come up as a sticking point, and it's one of the pieces of work that needs to be done.

The local government consultation group, the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee, also issued a document to the government, updated October 2009, in which shared territories were seen as a significant stumbling block for local government engaging First Nations as well.

Let me go to a question that comes from the minister's last answer. He talked about a treaty revitalization table. One of the things, of course, that seems to be floating out there that I can't get a good handle on is: where are we at with the federal and provincial response to the common table?

Even the Treaty Commission's most recent report indicates that they're still waiting for a detailed response. I haven't been able to find a detailed response from the province. I was able to find a response from the federal government that's more "This is what we heard" than "This is what we're going to do about it." I note that the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee has indicated they're still waiting to see whatever the response is from the provincial government.

I wonder if the minister could just clarify: has the provincial government put forward a detailed response to the First Nations involved in the common table?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I appreciate that complex issues are raised by the member's question, and I may not fully explore all the dark corners of these important issues that the member is raising.

I think what I said in respect of overlapping claims was not that it's not a challenge, because it is. There's no question that it is. What I said, I think, was that it was not a game stopper. It's not a game stopper largely because the B.C. Treaty Commission has done some very good work in terms of trying to facilitate better understanding between First Nations with competing claims to an area.

Beyond the Haida Gwaii area, which everyone believes and considers an area of exclusive occupation by the Haida for thousands of years, there's a variety of claims and sometimes multiple overlapping claims on areas, so it is a big challenge.

I don't want to diminish that challenge in terms of treaty process, but the Treaty Commission has done very good work in terms of facilitating resolution of those, so I don't believe they are a game stopper.

[1810]

In terms of the common table and the work on all the issues that were identified by the common table, I've been very pleased, and I think that Minister Strahl, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, has been pleased with the officials-level discussion that has been going on in the officials-level working group.

They have been looking at all of the important issues that were raised at the common table — financing arrangements, own-source revenue, constitutional status of land. All of these are different issues, and we are at
[ Page 6023 ]
a kind of assistant deputy minister level of the governments and senior officials of the leadership organizations provincially. We're attempting to work through some of those.

Again, they're not simple issues to address. Some of them, perhaps, are more promising in terms of their early resolution than others. They're complex issues, but I think we're getting a good and constructive level of discussion through the officials-level working group.

B. Simpson: Chair, I do recognize the hour, so maybe what I'll do is ask if the minister could actually be explicit with relation to my question. As the minister well knows, the common table convened in August 2008. There was a lot of work done. There was a lot of hope built up that there was a common agreement in areas that needed work, and there was a promise by both the federal and provincial governments to give a detailed response as to how the treaty process was going to be revitalized, given that common set of areas of concern.

Again, my understanding is — and I'm open to be disabused of this understanding — that the detailed response promised is still forthcoming from the federal and provincial governments. The Treaty Commission document actually states in it that First Nations were not satisfied with the initial response from the governments of Canada and British Columbia with respect to the common table. They expected and have requested a detailed response that would give First Nations the necessary information to determine their future prospects in treaty negotiations.

I think that's the reason I'm really asking the question. As the minister well knows, we've had First Nations beginning to withdraw from the treaty process. I've had First Nations articulate to me that they would like to withdraw from the treaty process because of the accruing debt load and because they do think they're stymied, particularly because they're not a breakthrough table. They feel like they're getting under-resourced. Yet some are actually exercising good faith because they're still hoping that if the governments respond to the common table, they may get a sense of what the lay of the land is.

I wonder if the minister could be explicit. Has the province of British Columbia given a detailed response to the common table as they had been promised?

Hon. G. Abbott: It feels like such a short day when it's only 6:15, but I know it's important that we rise and report progress.

Again, we have met with the common table now a couple of times, and I think we've attempted to articulate a provincial response. Now, whether that response has entirely or even partially met their favour is another question.

But we've responded, and we have said that we're prepared to have further discussions at specific negotiating tables on four of the common-table issues. Those include shared decision-making, resource revenue-sharing and fiscal arrangements, governance and, as appropriate, fisheries. We've said yes, we're prepared to talk about those things.

[1815]

I'll try to conclude on this point. The treaty process is not going to be one which every First Nation is able to move forward, because sometimes it may not work in their economic or other interests to do so.

As an example, the Westbank First Nation, which I expect the member was referring to when he mentioned a First Nation leaving the treaty process, told us about maybe eight months ago that they proposed to leave the treaty process and gave notice of that. Their concern was that the rules with respect to own-source revenue were not consistent with or appropriate to the economy which the Westbank First Nation has developed over time through leasing to many people — the opportunity to live on Westbank First Nation lands, and so on. They see the own-source revenue rules as being inconsistent with a treaty for Westbank, so fair enough.

We have since resolved, after a very good meeting up in Kelowna, to work with the Westbank First Nation towards potentially even a reconciliation protocol. But it's difficult in my mind to construct a scenario whereby we could retain the existing rules around own-source revenue and taxation by First Nations and reconcile that with the circumstance that faces the Westbank First Nation.

We're certainly glad to keep working with them, and we are, through the discussion around reconciliation protocol. It's not that anyone is right or wrong here. It's that there's a collision of economic interests, really, around treaty rules versus the particular circumstances of that particular First Nation. But we believe we can work with them, notwithstanding that, and we look forward to that.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.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