2011 Legislative Session: Third 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 9, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 3

[ Page 6739 ]

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY CREATES JOBS

J. Rustad: I am pleased today to rise to talk about fiscal responsibility and job creation. In the province of British Columbia as well as everywhere, when you think about what's important for families, when you think about what's important for the future, it's really about families, about being able to have jobs, about being able to supply and have benefits for your families and ultimately to build a future for your children.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Job creation is a key focal point in any plan going forward, I think, for virtually any government, and especially with a family-first agenda. It's very important to think about what the key components are. What is it that you need to have in place to have a strong situation, a strong environment that is going to be able to have strong job creation?

When you look at the economic cycles, you have some booms; you have the recessions and downturns. It's important to make sure that your foundations are strong so that you have that type of environment. As I speak today on this, I'm really trying to create an open dialogue about this. I'm not trying to be partisan in the sense.

When you look at Europe and at other jurisdictions around the world, particularly when it comes to deficits and debt, what you see is that there is a direct correlation between countries and jurisdictions that run large deficits, that run continuous deficits and that let their debt out of control in relation to job creation.

When you look at the downturns in economic growth, if you're coming from a position of a strong economic environment where your government is running surpluses, you can weather through that well, and you don't have as many job losses from a percentage basis as you do when you're running deficits and when you've got your debts that are running out of control.

[1005]

The reason for that, of course, is because governments have the ability to be able to inject additional cash into the economy to help smooth through those downturns. But the challenge becomes, of course, that if governments decide they want to continually inject cash into the economy, to overspend, that actually creates a risk. You get an initial bump that goes with that, but over the long term it creates an enormous risk.

I want to talk for a moment about Greece and why it matters. When you look at Greece, as it's gone through the last decade, it has never had a surplus. It has run deficits continually to the point today where its deficit rate now is running at around 10 percent, and its deficit as a percentage of GDP or a percentage of its overall spending is around 20 percent.

That kind of spending has led to the environment that they have today, which is one that is very destructive. They are having to pull back on services that people would like to see. They're having to cut back on their spending. Their interest rates have spiked up, creating huge challenges on their fiscal budgets, and ultimately what that is doing is creating an enormous pressure on unemployment. Their unemployment rate right now is over 12 percent with no prospects for it to drop anytime soon.

Fiscal responsibility is a key in that, because you can keep borrowing until it becomes a problem but no one can tell you when it's going to become a problem. For example, in Japan they have a debt rate now that is over 200 percent of its GDP, yet they don't have a problem, whereas Greece's debt is only at 140 percent of the GDP and they have a problem.

What it comes down to is confidence, Madam Speaker: confidence by people that want to invest in governments, and confidence, ultimately, in the broader community as to whether they believe that the jurisdiction has the ability to be able to service its debt but also has the ability to be able to create economic growth.

How do you influence that confidence? How do you get to a situation where you have 200 percent GDP in a place like Japan — where I think, quite frankly, they're going to be facing a problem in the future — versus 140 percent in a place like Greece which has already hit the wall?

What it comes down to is that fiscal responsibility. Even though Japan has run deficits pretty much non-stop for the last decade as well, and they're running a deficit right now at close to 10 percent, they've managed to keep their unemployment level low, whereas when you look at something like Spain, for example…. Spain actually ran a few surpluses but let their spending and particularly their debt get out of control, and Spain is running over 20 percent unemployment.

What is it that we need to be doing here in British Columbia? Back a number of years ago, just as the economic downturn was hitting, I had the pleasure of being on the Finance Committee, and we had some of our public sector unions that were suggesting we should run about a $6 billion deficit.

The problem is that if you run deficits that are that large, you never get to a place where economic growth
[ Page 6740 ]
will eventually bring you back into surplus. The cumulative effect of that over time is what will ultimately harm our job creation environment.

Fiscal responsibility is important, and another big piece of that is your tax regime. Ultimately, fiscal responsibility means how much money you're bringing in, how much money you're spending, but creating that environment for job creation is so important. It's important to recognize that the most job creation comes from small business, from those first five years of startup businesses, which is why it's so critical that you have a positive environment for doing that.

Madam Speaker, that's why we are dropping our small business rate down to zero within the next couple of years. It's also why we're keeping our…. Our corporate tax rate is going to drop down to 10 percent over the next couple of years because it's important to have that right environment, to create those opportunities and to have investor confidence so that as we go forward, when we do need to run a deficit on another downturn and we get back to surplus budgets, people have confidence to invest in the province of British Columbia.

Ultimately, the challenge of not doing that is…. I like to point out the example of the United States at the moment. They're running a deficit that's about 42 percent of their overall spending. Their debt levels are rising rapidly. They're approaching the 100 percent GDP debt level. They don't have good solutions. They're either going to have to be raising taxes, which puts a break on their economy — something that the opposition has suggested we should be doing in the province of British Columbia — or they're going to have to look at reducing spending. But I'll get to more of that after the opposition has a chance to respond.

[1010]

B. Ralston: It's my duty to respond to the representations made by the member opposite. He did reference the Finance Committee, and back in September of last year the Finance Committee, as it does every year, heard from the Minister of Finance. He talked about his view of the fiscal outlook of the province.

The member opposite has mentioned confidence, stability and predictability, but what transpired over the last six months between the two Finance ministers, the previous one and the current one, is anything but an indication of stability and predictability.

That minister, the previous minister, came before the committee and said, and I'm quoting from Hansard of September 15: "Of the $2.7 billion of net additional revenue that we are anticipating over four years of the plan, $2.5 billion of that is because of corporate income tax. But I think that as the quarterly report sets out, it still comes with risks."

Now, that basis of a projected increase in corporate revenue was the subject of the budget consultation, and the budget consultation document that went out to the public, a couple of million copies, projected available revenue, they called it: $650 million for 2011-12 and $700 million and $750 million for each of the two subsequent years. The premise of the consultation was that this money was available either for additional spending or tax reductions. Indeed, on October 27 the then Premier announced a 15 percent income tax cut costing $568 million a year in the first year, rising to $638 million by 2013-14.

So a projection of increased revenue and a decision by the Premier then, back in October, to announce a personal income tax cut. Then, surprisingly — and again, the member speaks of confidence, stability, predictability — on November 16 the cabinet decided that the 15 percent income tax cut would be suspended. Within the space of three weeks a major fiscal initiative taken by the government — completely reversed.

"How is this fiscally responsible? How did this induce confidence in the operations and the fiscal record of the government?" I'm sure many people at that time asked themselves.

Notwithstanding those projections, we now hear the new Finance Minister talking about, in relation to the HST, potential shortfalls. So while there was a very rosy picture in the budget consultation in the fall, sufficient to bring about a reduction in personal income tax, we now hear the Finance Minister expressing concern that there may well be budget shortfalls, once again related to the HST. So given…. This additional revenue did not come from projections of increased revenue from the HST. The Minister of Finance then…. I quoted it earlier; I'll quote it again: "…2.5 billion of that is because of corporate income tax."

No anticipation that the argument that's being put forward now would be available, that somehow the HST revenue was disclosed, that it went beyond what was projected — none of that took place — and that sufficient revenue was available for an income tax cut at that time.

When the member speaks of creating the fiscal conditions by a government, by its action inducing confidence among those who invest, among those who work here, among those who conduct business here, the record of the last six months, the zigzag pattern of the successive Ministers of Finance, has done anything but induce the kind of confidence that's necessary.

[1015]

It's regrettable. It's regrettable indeed, and I look forward to the member opposite's explanation of that zigzag pattern and just how it induced confidence.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Surrey-Whalley for the response. I find it interesting that when you're talking about fiscal responsibility and accumulated debts, he wants to focus on a six-month window, but that's fine. He's allowed to do that.
[ Page 6741 ]

Just with regards to that in particular, I want to start by talking about the HST and, as he had said, some apparent instability over six months. Well, we've gone through a little bit of a political upheaval in the province of British Columbia that, quite frankly, hasn't been seen for many, many decades, and it's interesting that the consumer confidence level in British Columbia is the highest anywhere in Canada.

It's clear that because of the ongoing stability that the B.C. Liberal government, our government, has been able to provide, we've been able to have that kind of stability that people have confidence in. They have confidence today, more confidence than anywhere in Canada.

But the point I'm trying to get to with all of this discussion is really around how we as a government and how we, quite frankly, as a society make sure that we protect services, that we have families at the centre of our policies and that we create an environment for job creation. Ultimately, when you look at the risks that are happening in other jurisdictions around the world, when you look at the problems they're facing, it's clear that if we do not have good fiscal policy, we put everything at risk.

You're looking at the choices that need to be made. I was mentioning the United States before we broke for the member's response. The choices they have are not good. In order to get their spending under control, they are going to have to do what they're continually doing right now, which is print money. That has huge, enormous consequences over time. They're going to have to cut spending dramatically, which also has significant impacts in terms of the services that we all come to expect, or they're going to have to raise taxes, which also creates an enormous amount of instability.

Over time those fiscal decisions put countries like the United States and others in the situation where they are going to be at risk of being able to create that stability that families want, to be able to create that environment that ultimately creates jobs. I would argue that here in B.C. we have done a very good job over the last decade of creating that type of environment. People see us and see the environment we created, and they say: "How did you do that? We want to be able to emulate that."

A key is to make sure that you have your spending under control, that you don't overtax the people and the corporations and, also, that you make sure you keep your debt under control so that you can continue to have that confidence going forward.

Madam Speaker, those are tough things to do because, ultimately, it means you have to make tough choices. It's far easier to just let the deficits go and be irresponsible in spending or crank up taxes to be able to provide what everybody wants, but the right road, the straight road, is fiscal responsibility because, ultimately, it will pay the dividends in job creation.

The Importance of
Friendship Centres

S. Fraser: I would like to enter the debate in a private member's statement today on the topic of the importance of supporting our aboriginal friendship centres. I will begin this debate by quoting from the so-called New Relationship.

"The historic aboriginal-Crown relationship in B.C. has given rise to the present socioeconomic disparity between First Nations and other British Columbians. We agree to work together in this new relationship to achieve strong governments, social justice and economic self-sufficiency for First Nations which will be of benefit to all British Columbians and lead to long-term economic viability."

Further, the first goal of the New Relationship includes:

"...to restore, revitalize and strengthen First Nations and their communities and families to eliminate the gap in standards of living with other British Columbians and substantially improve the circumstances of First Nations people in areas which include: education, children and families, and health."

Nearly 70 percent of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia live off reserve, largely in urban centres, and there is no, absolutely no — I repeat, no — urban aboriginal strategy to address the socioeconomic gaps that exist in the cities in this province.

[1020]

The Liberal government is failing to live up to the spirit, to the intent and to the very words of the new relationship. Aboriginal people rank at the bottom of almost every measure we use in Canada to gauge economic potential, health, well-being — you name it.

Now for the good news. Thankfully, B.C.'s aboriginal friendship centres are there. In British Columbian communities 23 friendship centres play a key role in the lives of over 145,000 aboriginal people living off reserve in this province. They are doing the work that the province is arguably required to do by their own mandate.

They are doing that good work with woefully inadequate funding. Over the past 20 years the annual allotment from the first citizens fund has been frozen at $720,000 — a sum that does not even come close to addressing the level of need we see in too many of British Columbia's off-reserve aboriginal populations. Unbelievably, rather than ensuring that proper funds are in place, this past year the friendship centre program fund has been reduced. This is wrong.

As needs increase and costs go up or are downloaded, thanks to this government, friendship centres are truly facing chronic underfunding. Lasting economic prosperity cannot be realized if educational, health and housing for many aboriginal people are not being met.

I raised this glaring Liberal policy failure last week with the new minister in budget estimates. The minister, unbelievably, cited these tough economic times as some kind of rationale for the government's current underfunding of friendship centres. I can't figure out if the
[ Page 6742 ]
minister really doesn't get it, doesn't even have the basic understanding of the reality for many aboriginal peoples living off reserve in this province, or if she was trying to slide one by me with a meaningless platitude.

But let me be crystal-clear. The essential work that friendship centres do is the work that is, in fact, the mandate of this government. The needs did not get less in these tough economic times. Tough economic times mean more people — many more people — desperately need those services. Tough economic times are a justification and rationale for increasing supports, not cutting them.

That is exactly why the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, after travelling and listening to the people of the province and learning of the needs of the people of the province, put forward recommendation 31, which says: "Invest additional resources annually in a long-term capacity fund for friendship centres." This cross-party recommendation didn't say: "Cut the supports." It said to invest additional resources.

The key word in the recommendation, the one that appears to go right over the heads of the Liberals across the way, is "invest." The Finance Committee got it bang on. The payback of properly investing in friendship centres is massive. Liberal philosophy seems only to recognize an investment if it benefits their universe and returns as party donations.

Excuse my cynicism, but how on earth could you explain using desperately increased needs as a rationale for inadequate supports? How could a minister and a government ignore the spirit, intent and words of the so-called new relationship? How could a minister and a government ignore the very specific directions from the Finance Committee? The cost of that committee's work could probably have gone a long way toward adequately funding B.C.'s 23 aboriginal friendship centres, so ignoring the committee's key recommendations is even more appalling.

In closing my presentation and allowing a rebuttal, in case anyone over there is unclear of my opening position, let us provide adequate supports for aboriginal friendship centres in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock. [Applause.]

G. Hogg: Thank you for that thunderous ovation, and thank you to the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim for those insightful comments and his request that we excuse his cynicism. I certainly excuse your cynicism with respect to this matter.

[1025]

Certainly, the member has outlined a number of the issues which are obviously some of our more intractable challenges within the aboriginal community and highlighted that there's over 70 percent of aboriginal people now living off reserve and that there are challenges in terms of the development of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy.

Certainly, as we look at the provision of a number of social services worldwide and the provision, more specifically, of aboriginal services in British Columbia and, indeed, other services across British Columbia, the recognition that there have been a number of fiscal challenges in terms of being able to address those….

Worldwide they're looking at new approaches of addressing these types of initiatives, new ways of looking at how we deal with some of our most intractable social programs and ways of looking at being able to address them in more efficient, cost-effective and co-creation ways of managing these types of issues.

I've had the fortune of working with the aboriginal friendship centres for a number of years on different strategies and have worked with their executive director, Paul Lacerte, on a number of initiatives. They're talking about the development of models that are called co-creation — new methods of design thinking, new methods of citizen involvement, new tools that allow us together to work at joint processes.

I appointed Paul Lacerte to our social innovation council a number of months ago and sit with him on that council in looking at strategies for managing and dealing with some of the challenges which the member has just highlighted and outlined. There is a lot of work that has been done with some of the funding that they've received in terms of looking at and finding what the metrics are. Paul told me a couple of weeks ago that the metrics, in terms of what the challenges are….

The member appropriately talks about the savings which could be generated as a result of appropriate funding models that looked at and enhanced the types of services that are being provided. The member, again, highlighted a number of the challenges with respect to children and youth and unemployment and health issues with respect to the aboriginal people who are off reserve. Certainly, those are statistical and undeniable in terms of our ability to look at those.

Social innovation or social entrepreneurship is a model which is being looked at worldwide, and we have a council working with that. The aboriginal friendship centres see this as a possibility, with the development of the metrics that we now have, the ability to look at and measure the outcomes and the potential for the savings to be generated in that. Some models, and particularly the models out of England now, are showing great potential for doing that.

If we're able to actually look at the savings that can be generated and quantify them — and Paul tells me that they're very close to being able to do that — with the quantification of the savings that can be generated, we can actually look at and generate new methods of being able to address those. Those models are just now in their embryonic stages.
[ Page 6743 ]

In England they've got the first social impact bond. Social impact bond is where you're able to show through metrics the savings that are generated and to take those savings and go to Treasury Board and say: "Look, we can generate these savings. We're able to quantify it. We're able to show what the measurement of those are and then get a contract to do it."

The Treasury Board, the state, shifts the risk away from the state in terms of outcomes. They then go and are able to raise the money and take that money and provide those services, provide the money — to the aboriginal friendship centres, in this example — to be able to provide the services necessary and then go back when the services have been provided, show the outcomes of those and then have the state pay the money, because they've been able to show that the savings have been generated.

We've talked with Clyde Hertzman about this in terms of early childhood development and the potential that exists, with Shawn Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations in terms of the potential. So there is great potential for us to look at this.

The great work the aboriginal friendship centres have been able to do in terms of developing the metrics to be able to actually look at and measure these, I think, provides great opportunity and potential for us to be able to address some of those challenges that we face in terms of the challenges which the member has so eloquently outlined with respect to the aboriginal challenges off reserve.

Certainly, I am optimistic that we can move into that type of model to provide and address the challenges the member highlighted with respect to the challenges that we face, not just with aboriginals off reserve but, certainly, around the world in terms of the delivery of those services.

[1030]

I thank the member for his comments, and I hope that we can optimistically look forward to changes with respect to those types of challenges.

S. Fraser: I'd like to complain about the government members picking the member for Surrey–White Rock to debate this. I actually believe he gets it, and I very much respect his positions here, but he's missing the point, or he's being forced to miss the point, Madam Speaker, which is probably more likely.

There's a recommendation from the Finance Committee. One of the key…. The most basic first step in addressing the needs that friendship centres provide for is to fund them adequately. That's not in my words. That comes from the bipartisan, non-partisan Finance Committee. The member is nodding there, so I appreciate that.

The ministries — this is from the ministry's own website. It says: "Strategies." "Objective 4: Build stronger relationships with urban and off-reserve aboriginal peoples." The strategy is to "work to ensure that provincial initiatives to close social and economic gaps address the distinct needs of urban aboriginal peoples, including First Nations, Métis and non-status Indians; support coordinated and collaborative approaches by provincial ministries, the federal government and aboriginal organizations" — like friendship centres — "that seek to address urban aboriginal social and economic issues."

I mean, the mandate is there for the ministry. It's not being met. They're not even listening to their own Finance Committee, which says specifically to adequately support friendship centres. They're not listening to their own mandate. We already established in the opening that they're certainly not listening to the spirit, the intent and the words of the so-called new relationship.

The member for Surrey–White Rock referred to international solutions, and I tend to agree. I think thinking out of the box is important, so I'm going to go right to an international solution. This is the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, something that this government refused to endorse after we repeatedly urged them to do so. It has now been signed; we're the last nation in the universe to do so.

However, we should be responsible for the articles within this UN declaration. Article 21: "Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security" — the things that friendship centres provide for every day of the week in this province today, in spite of the fact that they are woefully underfunded by this government.

It also states: "States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions," which falls right into order with the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would submit that the province of British Columbia needs to develop a specific and targeted strategy to address the needs and realities of urban aboriginal people. That must include friendship centres, and it must include adequately supporting them.

PUTTING FAMILIES FIRST

M. Dalton: I'm happy to stand here today and to discuss with the House how the government is putting families first. Our new Premier has placed families as a keystone to our policy framework. In Roman architecture, both sides of an arch in a lot of buildings put their rest on a keystone. Without that keystone, the structure would be unstable and collapse. We recognize just that importance of the family. This cannot be overstated: it's the primary support structure of society.
[ Page 6744 ]

The traditional family is mom and dad and their biological children. The majority of British Columbian families are traditional, but there are hundreds of thousands of single-parent families and blended families. As a government, we want to support and help strengthen all families, because when we support families, we support individuals, and every person has great value.

You've heard of the term "nanny state." We don't believe, as far as the government, in being a nanny state. We can't take the place of parents, but we are there to support families and to help. We recognize that parents are the primary caregivers and educators of children — the nurturers.

[1035]

I was raised in a traditional family. My folks had six children, lived on military bases all across Canada, and I'm very thankful for my parents' love, support and encouragement.

When I was older, my parents split up and divorced. Mom had two children at the time at home, and she struggled with poverty in spite of my dad supporting her throughout that time. She struggled with mental illness. I've seen the blessings and also the pains of being in a family, like we all have.

I have three older children — Marlene and I. Every family faces challenges, and the Premier is saying: "How can we help? What can we do to support families?"

It disappoints me sometimes when I hear the other side mocking the Premier's commitment to this, as if it's some grandiose scheme, sugar-coated political rhetoric. I believe that it is more than that. I believe we are making concrete steps that are being taken.

I was a teacher for quite a number of years, both at the high school and elementary levels, and on occasion we would discuss decision-making and choices. I'd ask students for some volunteers, a couple volunteers, to come up to the front, and I'd make an angle with my fingers. The students would be side by side, and I'd say: "Okay, stand here, and the other student stand there." Then I'd say, "Follow the direction of my finger," and they would go right to the other side of the classroom, one student, and the other student would go in the other direction. Though they were close together initially, by the time they reached the other side of the classroom, they were right on opposite sides.

So those small steps, those small decisions, those small acts as a government we make to support families…. Though they are small initially, I believe that in the long run they make a very significant difference.

One of the things that the Premier has done is set up a cabinet committee on families first. Here's the purpose, as far as the framework. The recommendations of the cabinet committee on family first will play a critical role in assessing government policy and legislative requests and considering their impacts on families. The committee will work to ensure that families are positively affected and strengthened through government actions.

I'm part of this committee. We're examining laws and legislation coming forward, and looking at how this impacts families. I think that's great. It's a family-first lens.

Some of the illustrations happening lately with regards to families are, for example, lifting the day-parking fees at our provincial parks. The fees were modest compared to going to downtown Vancouver, but nevertheless, it did impact families struggling with income, raising kids, and it kept some families away. So this is a way for opening up our parks and allowing them to come and enjoy it and to enjoy the outdoors together.

Also, there's been a lift in the funding to charitable organizations that support children and youth. Friends In Need Food Bank is one of the organizations in my community, in my constituency, that is making a difference in supporting families that are struggling. There are also numerous Girl Guides and scouting troops. North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association is an association that really helps out children and youth that are struggling with disabilities, and they've seen that lift. Also, service clubs like Rotary, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus.

Another important lift was PAC funding. Initially it was $20 per student. Actually, prior to us being government, every school had to apply for this funding. This way we allocated the funding to each school whether or not they had a strong PAC, so every school has been able to benefit. It did go down to $10 for one year, and it's been restored to $20 and now lifted to $25 per student.

That's significant. That does help kids. That helps bring in new computers, resources, gym materials, library books. I know that that goes a long way.

The Premier just announced, a few days ago, funding of over $13 million to Ronald McDonald House. This is a new state-of-the-art house in support of B.C. Children's Hospital. It will allow five times the number of families to come and to stay there as were there beforehand.

[1040]

We have invested over $80 million per year to allow full-day kindergarten. That's optional full-day kindergarten. Some parents don't feel their child is ready, and they're able to work with the principals and make an adjustment. I think that's very positive, and that's in spite of a very significant decrease in enrolment.

StrongStart is another initiative that is very important. There are over 300 StrongStart programs in British Columbia — seven in Mission and eight in Maple Ridge — and it's been very positively received by parents and families. At this moment, I will allow the next member to respond to this.

C. James: Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for raising the issue of putting families
[ Page 6745 ]
first. I couldn't agree more that we should put families first — that, in fact, families in this province need the supports. They don't expect government to take care of it all, but they don't expect government to make it more difficult for them. They, in fact, are looking for a hand up, not a handout, when it comes to supports for their families.

The member raised the issue of the new cabinet committee that has been put together and that its job is to look at legislation and to assess government policy to ensure that families are positively impacted. I think that's a very important goal, and I thank the member for raising it. But I have to say that I believe that the people — and the families, in particular — of this province would hope to see action — not words, not more meetings, not more opportunity to discuss what the public knows and what research has shown, which is that we need to make sure the resources are there for families.

I just want to run through a few facts that I believe are important. I certainly would hope the member, if he is committed to this agenda, would take these issues back to the cabinet committee.

One of the most important facts that I believe everyone needs to look at, particularly government, when addressing the issue of family-first policy is the child poverty rate in British Columbia. Seven years in a row we have had the highest child poverty rate in this province. Children don't live alone in poverty; families live in poverty.

We are not going to address putting families first until we address the issue of child poverty in this province, and that means putting together action and measures and clear reporting out to the public to ensure that that happens. This should not be a partisan issue. There are governments of all political stripes across this country that have taken on measuring child poverty.

In fact, if you take a look at Newfoundland — one of the first governments that acted — that government has more than 15 indicators around the issue of child poverty, reports out independently on those indicators on a regular basis and ensures that they're being looked at. That would be a first start, if this government is really serious about taking on the families-first issue.

The other important statistics to take a look at are the stats that come out of HELP. I'm sure the members across know the human early learning partnership and the statistics that they do on a regular basis. They talk about vulnerability for children.

The most recent stats in 2010 said that the young children's vulnerability index in British Columbia showed that more than 30 percent of young children in British Columbia are at risk, on that index. In fact, in some neighbourhoods, we have more than 50 percent of children who are in vulnerable states. That again is a statistic that has to underlie any kind of strategy that's being put together to put families first.

So where do the priorities go? Where should the money be spent? Well, a good start would be, as I said, addressing the issue of child poverty — begin to measure it, put an action plan in place. Let's invest in child care — affordable, accessible, quality child care. That would be a huge start to addressing the issue of putting families first.

Education. We've seen schools close across this province. How do you ensure that you're putting families first when rural communities and urban communities are losing the very infrastructure of a families-first agenda — a good quality neighbourhood school in their community? If we saw more investments and support for students with special needs, those vulnerable children, school meal programs, community schools, school librarians, counsellors, wouldn't that be a start to addressing the issue of family first?

[1045]

Wouldn't that be a statement about this government being serious about this agenda, rather than simply putting words down — but actually putting an action plan together to address it?

The issue of housing — a huge cost. We have one of the highest costs of living in this province — a huge cost to families. An affordable housing program once again in this province would show that the government was serious.

I can't finish off without, of course, mentioning the HST. Again, if we're looking at additional costs for families…. A report came out from the government's own independent panel last week that stated clearly that families are paying more — in fact, up to $350 more — when it comes to the HST. How does that put families first?

So while I appreciate the member opposite, and I've been glad to have the opportunity to be able to respond to putting families first, I really believe that it's time to put action in place, not words, and serve the families of British Columbia.

M. Dalton: I want to thank the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill for her comments. She may or may not be aware that regarding child poverty, since 2003 the child poverty rates have actually dropped by almost 50 percent — 46 percent. We right now have the lowest child poverty rates in this province since 1980. Also, I know that Ontario was mentioned as an example. Last year their child poverty rates went up. We're interested in results, not just a plan, and that is happening under this government.

The minimum wage was lifted. That is supporting people that are working immigrants, perhaps working in agricultural communities, and low-income earners. That's very important, and just that there are now only 35,000 children living on the welfare rolls. In the 1990s there were 135,000 children. So there are great changes, and that goes to illustrate that the priority of this govern-
[ Page 6746 ]
ment is jobs, is the economy. Why? Because it's families that have jobs. It's families that benefit from a stronger economy. It's not just the strong economy and jobs, but it's tax rates.

The tax rates are down by thousands of dollars. If you look at a person making $50,000 now as opposed to the previous government, you're looking at approximately $2,500 in income tax being spent — provincial income tax. If you're looking at someone making $80,000, which is what I made as a teacher before being an MLA, we are looking at a difference of about $4,000 to $5,000 per year.

That $4,000 to $5,000 can help to take care of a child that is going through university — their tuition. It can help to provide savings for a house. After five years you can actually pay for a car. That is a big difference, and we're making that difference, as far as the government.

I'm pleased to support this government. I'm pleased to be a part of this government. I'm pleased to see the difference that it is making to families and its demonstration that we are placing families first.

TOURISM LEADERSHIP

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm pleased today to speak about leadership in tourism. I'm speaking about leadership in tourism because, first off, it's a hugely important industry for my own constituency of Vancouver–West End. Anybody who's ever had the pleasure of visiting the West End will know it is a place you have to bring visitors back to again and again and again. Certainly, we see that in Stanley Park with some of the most visited sites in all of British Columbia.

It's vitally important for our hotels, and we have many great hotels in the West End. Of course, people will know the historic Sylvia Hotel, the Buchan Hotel, the Coast Hotel, on and on and on. I could list them all for you. Chances are people in this House and people at home may have stayed there because we are certainly a place where people come to first when they arrive in British Columbia. They want to see the fabulous English Bay.

[1050]

But I'm speaking about leadership in tourism because tourism is a vital economy for all of Canada and all of British Columbia — indeed, over 129,000 jobs in British Columbia. We're hoping to add more — jobs in small communities, jobs in large communities and jobs, in particular, in communities where they may be challenged, where there may not be a huge economic base but because of their beauty, because of their culture, because of their wonder, people want to come visit them.

But it's an industry that's struggling. We know the American tourist visits to British Columbia have declined over the last decade approximately 40 percent. Other markets certainly have been challenged. We know that today in a number of our key tourism markets, we still have fewer visitors coming to British Columbia than we had in 2008 and 2007.

When you talk to the small business owner, they are feeling it. Certainly, some businesses are doing very well, but many businesses are just struggling to stay afloat. So I think it's important that we spend some time considering why this has come about and some opportunities to make a difference.

So what do we have here? We've got British Columbia. "Super, natural B.C." — a brand that is known around the world and is admired around the world for the incredible attributes our province has. But marketing that brand is very, very important, because certainly you can't rely on marketing done 20 years ago to get somebody to come here today when tourists are now being targeted all over the world to come to different places. Indeed, the opportunity to travel to different places in the world has increased.

So when marketing is one of the key issues, what have we done in our province? Well, unfortunately, we got rid of Tourism British Columbia, the industry-led, independent, formula-funded marketing agency for British Columbia, and brought it back in-house.

Now, why is it important that we have a formula-funded marketer for the province? Well, one of the key reasons is that the demand for money in government is high. Everybody has a different project where money could go to. Indeed, I know that in speaking with the minister, one of the justifications for why we don't have formula funding was because health care, education — all of those groups — want the money.

Well, marketing a province when you bring more people here quite often leads to more tax dollars than you would get when you expend the small amount that you end up putting into marketing. Indeed, the studies show that increases in marketing dollars quite often lead to even greater increases in dollars for a provincial budget, which can go to health care, education and so on.

We've seen the marketing budget for tourism in B.C. It's going to remain flat for the next three years is the proposal — this when other jurisdictions are massively increasing their budgets and trying to eat away at our market share.

Another reason why Tourism B.C., that sort of a model, is vitally important — and I understand the minister is reconsidering the former minister's decision to get rid of the independent, formula-funded marketer in B.C. — is because you don't get situations where partisan politicians try and direct funds to their favourite pet projects.

Instead, you get industry leadership, people whose livelihoods live and die based on how well they do their marketing. They are the ones doing the leading, rather than a politician whose career lives and dies on whether or not they can associate the success of the Olympics to
[ Page 6747 ]
their own political party — as indeed the other side of the House tried to do with its "You gotta be here" campaign, as was documented in marketing documents from the ministry.

You also don't end up having special Premier-focused promotions which the government tried to do to associate the success of the Olympics with an unpopular Premier. Probably not the best use of tourism marketing dollars, I would say. We have many wonderful attributes to sell the world. I probably would disagree with the government that the former Premier was not one of them. Indeed, I would rather market Barkerville or some other such place than the former Premier.

Cultural tourism. This is a huge opportunity for us in tourism, but it's also a huge challenge. We know that many festivals, many arts organizations in B.C. have either shut their doors, moved or are just struggling to stay above water because of massive cuts to cultural investment in this province — the deepest cuts in B.C. history.

[1055]

We know that they struggle on because they believe in what they're doing. They believe in the vitality of community and the importance of creativity. I mentioned Barkerville, but I think of other folks up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area that I've met with. I think of Wells, B.C., right outside of Barkerville, and Cariboo north and what they do with ArtsWells to get people to their town, build that town and keep their economy alive. I think of Bard on the Beach in Vancouver, which brings people from all over North America — the people who love Shakespeare.

I think of the Heritage Tourism Alliance of B.C., which is working to keep our heritage properties alive but also to get people to visit them, and the incredible work they do for small towns. I think of the Grist Mill. I think of…. Of course, I could go on and on and on about heritage, because it's such an exciting aspect for a province as young as ours to embrace.

I know there's a challenge in culture because, for a time, the former minister wanted to focus on spirit fests over existing festivals. I understand my time is coming up for my colleague across the way to have a say, but I will continue on with challenges and opportunities we have shortly.

K. Krueger: I thank the member opposite. It is nice to see his pride in his constituency. Like probably most British Columbians, I love Stanley Park. It was great to see Aboriginal Tourism B.C. build Klahowya Village in Stanley Park last summer and to know they're going to do so again. The collaboration with First Nations in tourism in this province is tremendously beneficial for all concerned.

We know that tourists who are looking at travelling to British Columbia are more interested in cultural tourism than any other aspect, and they're particularly interested in aboriginal tourism. It's a real pleasure to work with the CEO, Keith Henry, at Aboriginal Tourism B.C., and Chief Sophie Pierre, who is the chair of the board. There's been a tremendous collaboration with the ministry, with the government, for years and certainly leading up to the Olympics. They were a gigantic part of their very successful staging of the Olympics.

It's also good to see that the member, although he represents an urban riding, is fully aware of the value of tourism to the economy and to constituencies and the people that live in them all across British Columbia. Tourism is absolutely vital to our economy. It's our fourth-largest export. We consider it an export because it brings in money from outside of our borders. It's also a very green industry and tremendously eager to show leadership in being a green tourism industry.

We're reviewing operations at Tourism B.C. The member commented on the changes to Tourism B.C., and the Premier, Premier Christy Clark, has said that she is certainly willing to look at an evolution of the model. We have been talking about that for quite some time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We were very successful in combining the forces of the ministry staff and the Crown corporation staff in that, presently, virtually all of the same people are still working together in the ministry. Of those who worked for Tourism B.C. at the time that the shift was made, almost all of them are still with us. I heard the member canvass that with the minister just last week.

We've been talking about a potential hybrid model for some time. We certainly need the ongoing, constant and thorough input of the industry, and we'll continue to work collaboratively with it to align goals and objectives. One of my tasks presently is working with the minister to speak with tourism operators all around the province and gather their input through the Small Business Roundtable.

We've built very successfully on our Olympic exposure with a wide variety of marketing approaches, including campaigns throughout North America, Europe and Asia. In fact, our focused, creative 2010 campaign won eight awards in November, including one for the virtual B.C. Experience in San Francisco, which generated nearly 500 news stories.

A few weeks after that opportunity concluded, I was in an elevator in a hotel in Vancouver, and a woman and two children stepped on and we talked on the way up in the elevator. She was from California, and I said: "Well, great to have you here in Vancouver." She said: "Oh, we went to the event down in San Francisco, and we just loved it and thought we'd come up and see the province." It's anecdotal, but our statistics demonstrate that all of those approaches have been very successful. We're getting results.
[ Page 6748 ]

The latest Stats Canada data on overnight visitors, comparing January 2010 — just a month before the Olympics — with January 2011, showed a rise of 3.2 percent in U.S. overnight visitors to British Columbia. That's a very significant number when one realizes that U.S. visitors, in spite of their recession, accounted for 62.6 percent of all overnight international visitors to British Columbia.

[1100]

So it's great to see that very significant component of our overnight visitors increasing by those rates even over the Olympic year.

There's also growth in visitation from Asia-Pacific countries. The number of visitors from China rose 22.8 percent, from Hong Kong by 52.6 percent and from South Korea by 7.8 percent.

There have been some remarkable increases, as well, in visits by people from Europe. People in Europe are tremendously interested in Olympics, and they took a huge interest in our Olympics. They've been increasing their attendance here by double-digit numbers since the Olympics.

In March 2010, as the member mentioned, Tourism B.C. launched an integrated North American advertising campaign building on the games message "You gotta be here." That campaign included the virtual B.C. Experience in San Francisco that I just referenced, with a zip line across Embarcadero Square, B.C. images in subway stations, 3-D chalk art and an interactive storefront.

Glad you're more on side than you were last year, Member. Looking forward to hearing the rest of what you have to say.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm glad the former minister is more on side with the idea of an independent, performance-based, funded tourism marketer than he was last year when he got rid of it. It's good to hear, and I hope that comes about very shortly, as we in the opposition have been calling for ever since the government got rid of it.

I was glad that the former minister, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, spoke about aboriginal tourism. Certainly, we had a great time at the Klahowya Village in Stanley Park, but I also think about opportunities across B.C. Keith Henry is very able at speaking about them. Whether it's in Anahim Lake and the grease trail that I was introduced to when I was up there or in Alert Bay and the U'mista Cultural Centre, we certainly have incredible culture, and our First Nations in B.C. have incredible cultural experiences to share about their nations and their territories.

One of the great opportunities we have in B.C. — and we've done well, I think, but certainly it's challenging — is ecotourism. I think of the Broken Islands chain. I was up in Comox, Campbell River, Port Hardy and Port McNeill recently, with the member for North Island. What an incredible place it is up there.

But there are incredible challenges too. As somebody put it, whether it's shooting things or shooting pictures of things, sometimes the interaction between those doesn't go so well. So somebody wants to go to a river to get a beautiful photo of a bear, for example, but finds that somebody else has shown up with a boat and lifted the engine out of the water so that they would be in compliance with guidelines so that they could shoot the bear. Not exactly a fair fight when the bear is eating salmon from the riverbed.

Anyways, that is one of the challenges. The tourist who has come from Germany is expecting a pristine, natural environment, but they have found instead something different. So the conflicts between uses, I think, will be with us forever, but I can't understand why we don't have a more integrated approach to get the groups to sit down with each other and develop a plan so that they're not stepping on each other's toes all the time — land tenure conflicts.

The Wilderness Tourism Association, of course, is very able in speaking about these issues. I hope that they get an open ear from the current minister, so we can get moving on those issues that particularly deal with rural British Columbia.

The other challenge, of course, with ecotourism is our parks. We've got great parks and many of them, but as we've seen, the budget for parks has been cut about 50 percent in the last ten years — ten park rangers full time in all of British Columbia. I think we saw today in the news much discussion about the fact that they couldn't even get toilet paper into a number of the parks — other issues.

So let's focus on tourism, and we'll build our province.

Hon. P. Bell: I call private members' motions, Motion 5.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

[1105]

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 5 — CLEAN POWER AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOgies

P. Pimm: I'd love to move Motion 5.

[Be it resolved that this House encourage the government to continue to spur innovation in renewable energy technologies and clean power generation to reduce carbon emissions and provide family supporting jobs in British Columbia.]

Hon. Speaker, our potential of the green economy and green energy is substantial — green and clean energy. B.C. has some of the greatest clean energy potentials in the world.
[ Page 6749 ]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

For the first time ever, private sector innovation is being freely applied to clean tidal, geothermal, wind, run-of-the-river, biomass and natural gas projects right across our province. Our B.C. energy plan has facilitated the private sector to invest more than $5.4 million in clean, renewable power projects in B.C. In 2005 we introduced incentives to support the development of wind power projects, and B.C.'s first wind power project began operation last year in the Peace country — the first one of its kind. We certainly are going to have more of those wind projects in the future as well.

Clean, renewable projects along with the aggressive conservation and B.C. Hydro's own projects are certainly going to help us meet our growing electricity demands. They're going to help create jobs for B.C. families. It's also going to help keep our electric prices low. That is a key factor — keeping our prices low, keeping our economy, our industry, at a position where they're going to be able to be competitive in this market as we move forward. It's certainly one that we have to be very aware of.

Developing a reliable supply of clean power in B.C. will help us become electricity self-sufficient by 2016, while keeping our rates among the lowest in North America.

In my area of the province we're pretty darn lucky, I've got to say. We've got more energy up there than you can shake a stick at. We've got natural gas. We've got hydro, obviously. We've got huge wind potential. We've got Site C up there as well. Site C is estimated to create 7,650 direct construction jobs and 35,000 indirect jobs throughout the project.

What I want to talk a little bit about today is our abundance of natural gas in our area and the possibilities for natural gas. B.C.'s Horn River and Montney gas plays are part of a massive increase in North American natural gas supplies. Many regions of North America share this wealth of clean-burning energy. One thing that we have to make sure of is that B.C.'s huge natural gas supplies, while further away from the markets than many of the other supplies…. We have to make sure that we have an equal opportunity to play a role in North America's low-carbon economy.

Natural gas is meeting our energy needs today and will be a foundation fuel in our future. So let's build on B.C.'s energy successes with clear regulatory processes that create certainty for ongoing investment in B.C.'s natural gas sector.

Did you know that natural gas is 45 percent cleaner than coal, 30 percent cleaner than oil? Natural gas is also the best backup to wind and solar when Mother Nature isn't looking after her part.

The thing I want to talk about a little bit is about the natural gas vehicles and the potential for the market for the natural gas. Transportation is British Columbia's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions — 36 percent of the total, 45 percent of which come from large trucks. Natural gas used as a transportation fuel is approximately 25 to 40 percent cheaper than gasoline or diesel. You can put it in the pumps at about 72 cents compared to $1.30 or so, and that's something that we have to look at.

Natural gas vehicles produce approximately 20 to 35 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline or diesel-equivalent engines. If biomethane is used, natural gas vehicles can be carbon-neutral. Worldwide interest in natural gas vehicles is growing, especially in the U.S., where domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel helps them address their huge supply concerns. Obviously, they have large supplies in the United States, as well as we have large supplies in Canada. It's going to create problems in the future.

A couple of the biggest problems that we are facing are natural gas development to include incremental costs of the natural gas engine compared with conventional equivalents and also the lack of adequate fuelling stations.

[1110]

Some of our natural gas producers are looking at that concept right now — transportation highways and putting fuelling in. That's certainly being looked at in a big way as we speak. FortisBC has developed a natural gas market penetration strategy which would see 6.5 percent of the heavy- and medium-duty vehicle penetration rate by 2030. This strategy would replace 17 percent of the diesel demand in British Columbia and create systemwide benefits for FortisBC ratepayers — estimated savings at $33 million to $104 million. I think that's something that we need to support in a big way.

One last point. Converting just one heavy-duty truck from diesel to natural gas is equal to taking 325 cars off of our roads.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to be rising in the House today to talk about energy issues. It was, gee, only ten months ago when we had the Clean Energy Act before this place. Hon. Speaker, you might remember it. It was passed with closure after about five or six hours of debate — $10 billion worth of infrastructure at B.C. Hydro exempted from Utilities Commission oversight.

So I'm delighted today, ten months later — after we've had an opportunity to assess the impact of the Clean Energy Act, which was passed by closure without any debate at all — to see that we will have members of the government side on their feet today talking about energy issues.

It is interesting to note that we were talking about renewable energy technologies in the motion, and yet I heard the member for Peace River North talk about natural gas as a renewable energy source. We must be
[ Page 6750 ]
killing more dinosaurs every day so that we can have that natural gas.

He also said — and I don't like to lecture people on these issues — that natural gas may well be a better backup than anything he could contemplate to wind generation. I'm thinking: "Boy, here's a fellow who comes from the Peace where we have one of the largest reservoirs in North America, where water falls from the sky, fills that reservoir so that we can have a nice fit with wind." That strikes me as renewable.

However, the important thing to remember is when we use our publicly owned reservoirs to backstop privately owned wind generation, we are taking some of our public wealth and transferring it to private hands. Now, I know members on the other side of the House excel at transferring our money into the hands of other people.

But I would think, after having ten months to contemplate, that to think about energy issues, we would have a little bit more depth, if I could say so, in the discussion today. But we have renewable energy being discussed in the form of natural gas, rather than talking about the comparative and competitive advantage British Columbians have with our publicly owned, water-driven utility, B.C. Hydro.

I also want to talk, if I could, just for a moment about the wind farm just south of the member's riding. It's in the constituency of the member for Peace River South. He talked about family-supporting jobs in his introduction, and it's actually in the text, in the body of the motion. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the Finance critic, and I visited the Dawson Creek site. Although we weren't allowed access by the company, we did manage to find someone who was a member of the co-op that has a 3 percent ownership, the Dawson Creek co-op, in that wind farm.

We did take a trip up to the ridge to look at the turbines, and we came across two young engineers that were working on the site — two young engineers, young fellas. They were excited to talk to us. However, they had to use a second language; they had to speak English. They came from Germany. They were German kids that were hired to ensure that the wind farm was in working order, and that's family-supporting jobs in Germany. I'm thinking to myself: "My goodness. They're taking a page out of David Hahn's book. They're transferring public wealth — now to German hands."

I'm okay with that. My son studied in Germany last year and brought home a German Fräulein, who is delightful. I have no issue with the people of Germany. I'm a bit concerned, however, that we are again taking our wealth and creating family-supporting jobs in Germany rather than here in British Columbia.

Nonetheless, I have only a few minutes at my disposal to talk about an issue that I feel very passionately about, and that is public electricity, public power here in British Columbia.

Now, I've had the opportunity to review the list of speakers that are coming up, and for those who are deciding whether to go for a walk or maybe go out in the garden or stick around for the energy debate today, over the next 45 minutes you're going to be hearing a lot of stuff about how great it is that we're buying energy at $120 a megawatt hour from private companies and selling it back to our shareholders, the people of British Columbia, for about $50 a megawatt hour.

[1115]

Now, I know that we don't know how to run the economy over on this side of the House. I'm sure we're going to hear about that over the course of the next 45 minutes.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: There you go.

Now, this comes from a government that's kicking tax policy around for 24 months, creating uncertainty in every corner of the province, in international markets. And they are the ones that can manage the economy?

They're now going to stand up…. My good friend from Whistler is probably going to bat cleanup on this, and she's going to get up and say the power of the private sector has been unleashed, and we are going to have this fantastic new day dawning when we buy power….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: This is the new Liberal approach — the wall of noise. If you can't debate the issues, just clap louder. That's what they do on that side of the House. Just make a lot of noise.

The member for Whistler is going to stand up and say, "Somehow, miraculously, the world economy has been turned upside down, and in British Columbia we will rejoice, as B.C. Liberals, that we are transferring public wealth to private hands. We're buying power at 70 bucks a megawatt hour, more than it's worth, and that's good economics, and that's good business" — on that side of the House. For me it's inconceivable. For me it's absolutely appalling.

The last point I want to make…. My good friend from Peace River North talked about renewability — how we could use natural gas, a renewable energy source. I don't know quite how you do that. But an interesting aspect of the gas plays in the northeast is this notion of fracking and the amount of water used to break up the rock and release the gas.

They're taking that water from the Williston reservoir. They're reducing our ability to generate clean, green electricity, and they're taking that water to extract dirty fossil fuels. That's the environment in the eyes of those on that side of the House.
[ Page 6751 ]

I know my colleagues have much more to add to the debate. I'll take my seat. Before I do so, though, I just want to thank the Minister of Jobs for his resounding support for a buy high, sell low strategy. Only the guy who's tasked with creating jobs can ship them to Germany and think that's a good thing.

R. Howard: It's my pleasure to rise today in this House and speak in favour of the motion brought forward by our member for Peace River North. It's also been, again, a pleasure to listen to the member for Juan de Fuca, who does remind us of the differences in the two sides of the House.

We live in a world that they don't seem to get: low tax, low regulatory environment that encourages private sector, encourages innovation, encourages job growth. They just don't seem to get it. We're here to remind them of that.

What is renewable energy and clean power? We are talking about tidal, geothermal, wind, run-of-river and biomass projects across the province. Why is that important to us? Well, because the potential of the green economy is valued at $5.2 trillion globally. That's more than four times the GDP of Canada. So this is a remarkable-sized sector of the economy, and it's something that we are well positioned to continue to play a leadership role not just in the country but in the entire world.

I think it's also important to note again the differences in the two sides of the House as highlighted by the previous member's comments. We do believe that the private sector — by us creating an open playing field, a fair playing field, an uncluttered playing field for the private sector — will, in partnerships versus alone, bring the creativity, the drive, the force and innovation to this sector that will lead the way. I see no reason that as the industry grows, B.C. should not be seen as a world leader.

Clean and renewable power projects, along with aggressive conservation and B.C. Hydro's own projects, help to meet growing electricity demand, keep electric prices low and create jobs for B.C. families. Let's not forget that made-in-B.C. clean and renewable projects generate over 1,000 jobs in cities and small towns all across the province. According to industry, these companies have already invested $5.4 billion in B.C., and this sector could attract another $25 billion.

[1120]

I'd like to talk just about a couple of sectors within the sector that I think are sometimes misunderstood. The first is IPP. We hear that there has been a sell-off of provincial assets, and I just want to go on record and read into the record with clarity on that. Run-of-river water licences typically last 25 to 40 years, and at the time of the expiry of that licence, the water rights and any improvements to the land — those assets and the right to occupy — revert to the Crown. There's not a sell-off, as is sometimes put forward.

There are currently 34 run-of-river power projects operating in B.C., I think, with an additional 28 or 30 under development. I think it's also important to note that in total, run-of-river projects impact 0.03 percent of B.C.'s rivers. That's three in 10,000 rivers that are of sufficient size to support this kind of development.

I think it's also important to recognize that all clean, renewable energy projects in B.C. are subject to a very rigorous regulatory process. In total, a typical run-of-the-river project will require more than 50 permits, licences, approvals and reviews from 14 different regulatory bodies, including federal, provincial and local governments and First Nations.

I also want to talk just briefly about geothermal — a very exciting sector within a sector, one which my city is very actively engaged in. It turns out that the soils in Richmond are moist and very conducive to the geothermal exchange. I think, when we look again — as partners with cities, partners with First Nations, partners with developers even, who are building a grid in various cities all across the province that will tap into this — we have probably one of the cleanest renewable sources with next to no greenhouse gas emissions.

I will just close, then, reminding this House that we've just heard before me the member for Juan de Fuca — who I think used the word "junk" in reference to this file, which was a very disappointing term. We believe that we have every reason to be positive, if not excited, about our future. In this great province, led by our government that understands that partnerships and engaging the private sector is key to our success, we are very pleased to take a positive approach to this file and recognize that every morning in this province, under the leadership of this government, the opportunity alarm goes off. We're very happy to respond to that as an alternative to the opposition.

D. Donaldson: Well, I don't question the intent of the member for Peace River North about this motion, but unfortunately his government doesn't act like they believe in two of the important concepts that are included there. There's a credibility gap, hon. Speaker. They're saying one thing and doing another.

They talk about supporting families in this motion. Well, does supporting families mean closing schools? That's exactly what they've done. Many say it's the direction set by the current Premier, who was Education Minister in the early part of the decade, which has caused this.

Does supporting families mean charging the $350 more per year, as the HST panel revealed last week, that families will pay under the HST? All MLAs on that side supported the HST. They supported charging an extra $350 for families per year. So there's a disconnect there.

As far as clean power and carbon emissions that this bill addresses, let's look at the record of this government
[ Page 6752 ]
on one of the biggest clean energy carbon emissions topics in this province, and that's oil usage. They're saying one thing and doing another.

They will not come out against the Enbridge project — the pipeline project from the tar sands that's connecting the tar sands to the port of Kitimat, the proposed pipeline that will go 1,170 kilometres across this part of the province and across northern Alberta.

[1125]

Despite the fact that 80 percent of all British Columbians support a crude oil tanker ban for B.C.'s northern coastal waters, this government will not come out against the Enbridge project.

The Enbridge project does not support renewable energy, it does not support clean power, and it does not support air, water, fish and wildlife on which families depend in the northwest part of this province. On the other hand, we on this side of the House are for clean water and for wild salmon, and this government is for oil spills by not coming out against Enbridge.

Let's take a look at pipelines. We just had a spill of 28,000 barrels of crude oil in northern Alberta. That was in the Peace River watershed just a couple of weeks ago. It went publicly unreported for four to five days. Even though the technology was there — the line was scanned every year — they still had this spill.

Enbridge, an oil pipeline company, had a spill in Michigan last year of 3.3 million litres that went on for 18 hours before the company actually responded to warnings from locals. Again, it's not technology that's going to be the answer.

In Wisconsin, Enbridge had to pay over a $1 million fine for 117 outright violations of permits to do with wetland and waterway protection — over $1 million. So we have pipelines that could fail quite easily in the northwest. We have oil tankers on the coast that 80 percent of the people in B.C. do not want. We've had examples of human error with large ships on the coast. We had the Queen of the North just a couple of years ago and the Exxon Valdez a couple of decades ago.

Technology cannot overcome the probability of a catastrophic oil spill — that this government refuses to come out against the Enbridge pipeline. So the risks versus the benefits are not worth it. We have over 60 First Nations, coastal First Nations and Interior First Nations, that will be impacted by the pipeline, and they've said no. They've done their due diligence. They've said no to this project.

It is a provincial issue, and what does the current Premier say? She says the process is underway, and that's the reason for this government's silence on this project. Well, consider the process. There's a joint review panel. It has three people on it: two from Alberta, one from Ontario. Even the Mackenzie pipeline had four people from the Northwest Territories on it, so at least there was a voice for the local people on that project. B.C. has no voice on this joint review panel, and yet this government says they don't want to come out in favour of or opposing the pipeline. We need a B.C. voice on that review panel, and this government should come out against that process because B.C.'s voice is not heard on it.

Finally, hon. Speaker, this government says they will not come out against Enbridge because the process is underway. Yet in Prosperity, what did we hear from the current Premier? She said in her meeting with Prime Minister Harper shortly after she got elected: "I told him I'm interested in making sure we find a way to get that mine going in British Columbia." This was before Prosperity had even submitted their second application to the review process.

So in one case she feels they can intervene on a review process. On another case, where it means much to the people of the northwest, much to the entire ecosystem — that is, the Enbridge pipeline — she won't intervene in the process, and this government won't come out against Enbridge.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to say to the member that I recommend he withdraws this motion until his government makes it clear that they are not in favour of oil spills and stands with us in support of wild salmon and clean water by strongly stating their opposition to Enbridge and supertankers. Then he can reintroduce this motion in a genuine manner after that.

R. Lee: I am pleased to speak in support of this motion put forward by the member for Peace River North. I base my support of this motion on the following three reasons. First, I believe that the government has a critical role to play in spurring innovation and creating jobs. Second, British Columbians in general are very supportive of reducing carbon emissions. Third, the development of renewable energy technology and the generation of clean power are good for the future of this province.

Let me expand on these thoughts. While no one will oppose more job opportunities for our citizens, some may be skeptical about the ability of innovation to create jobs. Is there a direct correlation between innovation and job creation? An article in The Economist published ten days ago on April 28 has an eye-catching title. It says "Still full of ideas, but not making jobs." Well, it's referring to the U.S.

[1130]

It's observed that the U.S. "ability to innovate and raise productivity remains reasonably healthy," but "the problem is that the benefits of that innovation and productivity have become…narrowly concentrated…." The key is to provide government incentives aimed at strategic manufacturing sectors. Those are good observations indeed.

Let's consider our situation in B.C. Over the last ten years the B.C. government has well recognized the re-
[ Page 6753 ]
newable energy sector as one of the most important sectors that we should focus on. The government incentives are necessary to spur innovation in renewable technologies.

To capitalize on the global estimated $5.2 trillion green economy, as mentioned by the member for Richmond Centre, our province has built up a strong base in clean energy technologies. They account for over 150,000 full-time jobs. While the Americans are waiting and still talking about it, British Columbians are actually doing it — creating jobs with the green economy.

Investment in innovation should not be the privilege of governments. Governments cannot do it alone, and should not do it alone. Ideally, the government just provides a bit of stimulation and lets the private sector do the heavy lifting.

B.C. has invested $60 million in the ICE fund, which has been successful in stimulating B.C.'s private sector in investing in renewable energies. Another $35 million investment was put into the B.C. bioenergy strategy, which also helped to produce clean energy products such as wood pellets and biofuel research.

Many projects around B.C. benefit from this investment, including Burnaby. The Lignol biochemical demonstration plant just south of BCIT is converting lignocellulosic biomass into fuel, ethanol, lignin-based products and other biochemicals. Lignol is currently working with industry and various government agencies to escalate its commercialization process. Ten days ago, April 28, Lignol began sales of high-performance lignin for industrial trials.

Our province is blessed with plenty of natural resources, especially wood fibre. It's incumbent on British Columbians to effectively and efficiently utilize it for our future. We need more bioenergy innovations, such as the new biomass facility at the SFU Burnaby campus that converts construction waste and waste energy into heat and hot water for students, residents and facilities throughout the community. It will eliminate 11,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas every year.

Many clean energy companies are actually located in Burnaby. For example, Day4 Energy, which designs and manufactures high-performance solar electric modules that deliver high power density, has headquarters and manufacturing facilities right here in Burnaby.

Ballard Power Systems, Xebec Adsorption, Azure Dynamics, Tekion Solutions and Xantrex Technology are familiar names. They have attracted much attention from the international community interested in technologies, and put out products for clean energy production. Ballard is a catalyst, as you know, for companies to locate in Burnaby — for example, the fuel cell centre of excellence for Daimler and Ford, and also the Mercedes-Benz manufacturing facility for fuel cells.

Xantrex has a joint venture with Shanghai Electric, in fact, to market advanced power electronics for the renewable energy market in China.

[1135]

Countries like China that depend on fossil fuels now are increasingly turning their attention to clean energy. Last year I had the opportunity to visit Ming Yang, the largest non-state-owned wind turbine manufacturers in China. In five years it has grown to 3,000 employees, including 400 R-and-D jobs within and outside China. It's making the 1.5-megawatt and also the three-megawatt turbines. A six-megawatt model is currently under development, which I believe is the highest-power model of wind turbine in the world.

China has been moving very quickly to take on renewable energy projects. You may know that China actually is the largest manufacturer of solar panels and has also become the world's largest maker of wind turbines. Last year China reached the capacity of 25 gigawatts of wind power production. Researchers from Harvard University and Tsinghua University have found that China actually could meet all of its electricity demands from wind power by 2030. Bye-bye, coal.

The whole world is moving rapidly toward renewable energy and clean energy power. Our province is uniquely positioned to take full advantage of this movement to create more jobs for our families.

Government policy is important in this regard. The NDP's record shows that they don't support the bioenergy strategy. They don't support biofuel production. There was not a single wind power project under development in this province under the NDP. I certainly hope that they can support this motion for a change.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the member for Peace River North for submitting the motion for debate this morning. We are fortunate to live in a province where unproductive debate about the existence of climate change is not a feature of public life.

British Columbians know full well the impact of changing regional temperatures in our lives — the impact on forest health, invasive species, drought, flooding and all sorts of things — that match the imperative to listen to the world scientific community, address greenhouse gas emissions and make steep emission reductions, which we are now a signatory to in world agreements — 80 percent by 2050.

Unfortunately, B.C. isn't making enough progress. We also know that. Despite lofty green rhetoric from this government, we were the only province out of ten, unfortunately, in the last reportable year by the federal government to see greenhouse gas emissions rise in British Columbia, when it declined or stabilized in other jurisdictions in this country.

The government likes to talk about a low-carbon economy. I was curious that the introducer of the mo-
[ Page 6754 ]
tion this morning actually talked about the incredible potential for fossil fuel development in B.C. rather than renewable energy, at least in the bulk of his remarks.

We have a new Premier in this province who cheerleads "low-carbon projects" like the Alberta tar sands pipeline for export to other parts of the world. She wants to break a moratorium that has existed for 40 years, through all kinds of governments of different political stripes in British Columbia and Canada, on our northern coastal waters. She wants to break that. She supports — and indeed has, right in the Premier's office, helping her transition into the job — representatives from the highest offices of the oil and gas sector, who enjoy lavish subsidies in the billions of dollars annually in British Columbia. That's this government's so-called commitment to the low-carbon economy.

The question, really, this morning is: how does B.C. score in its position to take advantage of emerging, new renewable energy types — solar, wind, geothermal, tidal? I want to cover that a little bit in the couple of minutes I have remaining here.

Unfortunately, British Columbia is not among those countries that were early adopters in wind technology — countries like Germany, Denmark, even the United States to the south of us. They have already captured much of the manufacturing market on sophisticated wind energy turbines, and we are in a position where we are trying to play catch-up. We're not a leader in wind energy.

We have every advantage, as the Energy critic this morning illustrated, of being a strong wind producer, aligning that with our fantastic legacy of hydroelectric reservoirs, keeping those assets and solving the problem of intermittent wind energy with a reservoir that holds back water and making those complementary to one another. But we do not have that. That's because this government is obsessed with dismantling the legacy of public power in British Columbia.

[1140]

The reason we can't have wind and our hydroelectric resources complement one another is because there's a different set of shareholders. When the wind blows and the energy can be sold and put on to the grid and we could hold back the water in the reservoirs, suddenly you've got two sets of stakeholders that have competing economic interests, one public and one private.

That's why we are a laggard on wind energy despite having tremendous capacity to be a wind energy leader. That's because B.C. Hydro has been prohibited under this government's energy plans from being a player in the development of wind energy and indeed any type of renewable energy outside of the hydroelectricity legacy that it maintains and manages.

When Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, came knocking on this province's doors in 2006 to set up a manufacturing facility in Squamish, guess what the government said? Not interested. We turned down the biggest wind turbine manufacturer that would have created jobs in British Columbia in an economically depressed region in Squamish when the forest industry was slumping and told them to go away.

Our deep-water ports. "We don't want your steel, we don't want to machine those parts, and we don't want to create turbines in British Columbia." That's what this government did. So we don't have thousands of green jobs in the wind sector like they do in Colorado and Texas and California and now Ontario.

Our so-called Clean Energy Act has no requirements for wind energy companies to source and make parts here in British Columbia. Ontario's does. Some 30 percent of a wind turbine has to be made in Ontario. B.C. does not, despite our cluster of aerospace companies and manufacturers, which could grow if we had the right amount of incentives in place in B.C.

Ontario requires 60 percent of solar energy installations to be made in Ontario. B.C. forgoes pursuing a green jobs strategy that could bring manufacturing jobs here for solar. That's why we have so little to show the world in solar energy. Germany, with Canadian know-how, has installed 400,000 solar installations in buildings in that country. In British Columbia, by contrast, solar-energy-supplied buildings number in the hundreds, with only 30 homes in British Columbia actually selling into the grid.

B.C. is not well-placed by the B.C. Liberal government to develop geothermal energy despite having one of the most bountiful potentials for the cleanest and most stable supply of electricity possible on the continent. It is estimated that there are over 5,000 megawatts of potential geothermal energy here in B.C., enough to light over a million homes, yet the Canadian, federal and provincial governments have not even invested in mapping studies in British Columbia to further examine that potential.

We have not provided the early-stage financial support for emerging geothermal companies. That is why the United States, which does fund those initiatives, is now the world's biggest supplier of geothermal energy. Ironically, a third of the U.S.-based geothermal energy comes from Canadian engineering and investment companies operating in the United States. They cannot get the work here in British Columbia.

Finally, tidal — around the world since the 1960s; in the Maritimes, moving ahead in Nova Scotia; in Scotland; but nothing in British Columbia. In fact, B.C.'s first commercial tidal energy plant off of Campbell River and the Discovery Passage has been shelved by the B.C. Liberal government because they consider the technology still unproven while the rest of the world moves ahead.

Fundamentally, the problem in British Columbia — to fail to become a leading producer and manufacturer
[ Page 6755 ]
of renewable energy sources and clean technology — is that there is no link between British Columbia's carbon tax and renewable energy, none whatsoever. The non-renewable fossil fuel economy should, by existing royalties and taxes, support the development of clean energy in our economy, but instead B.C. subsidizes oil and gas to the tune of billions of dollars annually and supplies no support to the clean energy economy in British Columbia today.

M. Stilwell: I rise to speak in favour of the resolution, "Be it resolved that this House encourage the government to…spur innovation in renewable energy technologies and clean power generation to reduce carbon emissions and provide family-supporting jobs in British Columbia" — two goals important to all British Columbians.

Before I do talk about renewable energy, I think it is important to talk about natural gas — it's important to B.C. and our economic future — and to talk about what has been described as the natural gas revolution and how we will use natural gas as a bridge to a prosperous, low-carbon future.

[1145]

I am happy to see the member for Juan de Fuca back because he left me with the impression he thought natural gas was made out of dinosaurs.

Anyways, we are all aware every day that energy need and usage escalates exponentially every year, and the costs of producing it do too. Of course, that makes us even more aware in B.C. of the importance of the vast increase in so-called unconventional sources of gas reserves not just here in B.C. and North America but in fact all over the world.

A new joint report on the shale gas potential of the northeastern Horn River basin more than doubles the previous assessment of gas resources within the province. The report was released on May 6 by the National Energy Board and British Columbia Minister of Energy and Mines. As the minister said, "This report should provide British Columbians with a sense of optimism about the future," and indeed it does. We are joining the natural gas revolution described by John Deutch in his article entitled "The Good News About Gas" in Foreign Affairs, January-February.

Referring back to the word "innovation" in the resolution, of course it was significant technical innovation that has allowed extraction of shale gas to be possible and economical. Those innovations were the invention of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Much is unknown about this resource, how it is formed and how it can be exploited economically without harming the environment, providing a rich incentive for future innovation here in B.C. There is worldwide interest in providing affordable energy that emits less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, and B.C. can be a strong and credible partner in this.

As has been made clear recently, with more sources of natural gas available in the world, B.C. will have to compete to sell its gas into the market and, like all natural gas exporters, will likely be seeing lower prices for it. We are going to be challenged to ensure that we are the beneficiaries of the natural gas revolution. This makes innovation all the more important.

The recently published MIT study called The Future of Natural Gas pointedly reiterates important considerations, including that natural gas availability will aid increased use, particularly in electricity production around the world; and in a carbon-constrained world, natural gas use will increase its share of energy use in the U.S., which is a big market for us where they also currently have a large domestic supply. Importantly for our future revenues, the global gas market will change dramatically.

The report from MIT emphasizes the need for research, development and demonstration projects to advance the field that are worthwhile. The recommendations speak clearly to the need for more basic science and applied science with commercialization of new and innovative technologies that engage universities, colleges and industries.

Importantly, however, the report also says that it would be a mistake to let natural gas crowd out research on other low- or no-carbon energy sources. And so we come to the clean energy race. The race must ensure, of course, that clean energy becomes the best choice by virtue of low cost and low carbon.

While we justifiably take pride here in B.C. of our environmental policies, the big and emerging economies like China and elsewhere are working rapidly and making huge investments in clean energy. Our investments in clean energy innovation here in B.C. and Canada need to be dramatically and immediately stepped up if we want to be partners in the energy world of the future.

According to Michael Levi in an article called "Globalizing the Energy Revolution," China is currently following the same pattern in the clean energy sector as it has in other sectors, namely making incremental process changes based on innovation developed abroad. The Chinese are also described as having a limitation that we, too, in Canada have, mainly having difficulty moving the ideas from laboratory to the marketplace, which is certainly food for thought when we talk about innovation.

Further, the author suggests importantly that major scientific advances are still most likely to occur in the developed world. The fact is that we are one of those countries, and B.C. is a place where we can make sure this happens.

You know, some people think the energy economy is separate from the resource economy. I don't see it that way. Knowledge-based companies and sectors create value from knowledge, intellectual creativity, ingenuity and inven-
[ Page 6756 ]
tion of new technologies. The reason Canada was an early leader worldwide in telecommunications, for example, was because miners in the north had to communicate with the bankers in the south. We need to remember this and use opportunities like this region's natural and knowledge-based resources to grow the economy there.

[1150]

Specifically, our investment in post-secondary system infrastructures like Northern Lights College can secure our place and its place as the best educational facility in the world when it comes to creating the knowledge and the people that the energy sector needs.

Why wouldn't we be the best place in the world to learn, teach, research and develop innovation, not just in natural gas production but renewable energy technology as well? This region can be a place where people come from all over the world to gain the knowledge and skills they need to work in the energy sector, as well as become the region that fuels the economy of this province through the export of natural gas.

The clean energy race will be won by highly functioning partnerships, and B.C. has much to bring to that race and be a winner.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to speak to the motion. Reducing carbon emissions is obviously essential for us to do. However, the way the government is proceeding with it leaves a lot to be desired.

The member opposite talked about some of the renewable energy technologies in his constituency. I've talked to entrepreneurs who depended upon the innovative clean energy fund to get their businesses up and running, but the government has whacked the funding on that fund, and now it's wandering around in the wilderness somewhere, not accepting any new applications.

The home retrofit program was cancelled by this government in 2009. Talking about being green and renewable and sustainable, that's a step backwards.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Some have talked about the independent power producers and the run of the river. One of the members, actually from Richmond Centre, talked about how this government depends on a low regulatory environment. Then he went on to say how strong the regulations were vis-à-vis assessment on the power projects. They're certainly not.

There's no cumulative effects assessment on these projects. There's no land use planning, as there was in the '90s, as to where these kind of projects should go, and the restrictions they're putting on the back country is a concern to recreationists in this province.

B.C. Hydro is required to pay hyper-inflated values, driving up hydro costs to consumers. A member from our side talked about that earlier.

We know about the whole nest of insiders and donors and the independent power producers with this government. Certainly, the public cannot have a lot of faith in that project.

Site C was mentioned. They're planning to run over half of that power up to the shale gas fracking operations. It's interesting that the members opposite talk about natural gas as being renewable. No, it's not dinosaurs, but they're not making diatoms either. So it's certainly not renewable.

The companies involved want to send a good chunk of that gas over to the tar sands because they need a lot of natural gas energy to get that dirtiest of all energy in the world out. How does that become a clean energy project? Hardly.

The coal industry, dirtiest of all…. The government is saying: "Great we are. We're not going to have any power plants driven by coal." But at the same time, we're shipping tonnes and tonnes and megatonnes of coal to China, and we've got to think about that. How does that work in terms of cutting carbon emissions? We may be cutting carbon emissions of coal here in British Columbia, but what are we doing….

Interjection.

M. Sather: Well, the issue is cutting carbon emission, I think. The member opposite is not seeing the big picture on this.

The fact of the matter is that the government does not have a cogent plan, nor do I see any commitment on behalf of this Premier currently to reduce carbon emissions in the province.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted…. As the member for Juan de Fuca correctly guessed, I would be speaking on this motion about clean power generation. We've exchanged many conversations on this in the past.

I think it's pretty clear that the potential of the green economy, which is what we're really talking about here…. We know it has a value of over $5 trillion globally, which is about four times more than the GDP of our entire country.

[1155]

To capitalize on this, British Columbia has established a very solid base in clean technology. It accounts now for 1.2 percent of our GDP, growing all the time, and employs 166,000 full-time jobs. That's significant.

We know that we have facilitated private sector investment to the tune of over $5 billion in clean, renewable power, and that's very significant. It's something, obviously, that the NDP — members on the other side of the House — would turn away simply on the basis of ideology. It reminded me of that Saturday Night Live skit many years ago, if I could put it in NDP terms: private sector bad, and only public sector good.
[ Page 6757 ]

I'm surprised, actually, to hear the member for Victoria–Swan Lake before me talking so effusively about our opportunities for green power generation here in British Columbia because heretofore it seemed that members on the opposite side of the House could not support any kind of power generation — again, based on ideology. All they could do is focus on imports of dirty coal, dirty power, which is not something that British Columbia really wants to be reliant on.

I just wanted to take a moment. I know I have to truncate my remarks today, unfortunately, but I did want to get a couple of things on the record, because there was an excellent article in the Sun a few weeks ago by Moura Quayle at the Sauder School of Business, along with John Richards at the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser.

They are urging, as the member for Vancouver-Langara before me was talking about, that B.C. does need to even step up our efforts to produce and develop a green economy. We need to get to the next level. They have said that we have an emerging clean tech sector that's supported by some of the most progressive energy policies on the continent, policies that are creating real jobs and opportunities today.

They go on to say that, of course, this doesn't appear overnight, but basically British Columbia has enabled the right market conditions to make sure that we've made the right moves to continue on this. They have said that this policy environment in the province has allowed the clean tech sector to raise billions in equity from outside the province, and that rolling these policies back — as the NDP would have us do — would send entirely the wrong signal to the investment community.

Again, the member from Esquimalt guessed correctly that I would like to speak on the whole subject of independent power production, particularly on run of the river, because it's something we debated a number of times.

But I'd like on the record to say that there are over 1,000 jobs in cities and towns all around this province that have been created by this, and we've, as I said, invested over $5 billion. We have just over 40 run-of-the-river projects in the province, not the hundreds and thousands that the NDP in their fearmongering tried to make British Columbians believe.

I do want to just close my remarks by saying that the member for Juan de Fuca has consistently talked on this. He again refers to this, about junk power. There was an excellent quote in Hansard from his debate on the clean energy bill that he was referring to earlier where he said right away that this production from spring freshet is junk power, plain and simple.

I think that just sends a terrible signal to the world that under the NDP British Columbia would not be interested in attracting investments and jobs. Even in his leadership race recently, he wanted to put a moratorium on all new run of the river, he wanted to review all existing power purchase agreements, and he wanted to put increased Utilities Commission oversight on all private power productions and capital spending by B.C. Hydro.

That's from a gentleman who was part of a government who previously took B.C. Hydro right out from underneath the oversight of the Utilities Commission. Now he's singing a totally different tune.

I just wanted to say that he admitted that the NDP were wrong on the carbon tax, that they had gone offside on policy. I'm just hoping that they will come around to their senses and begin to support renewable power production in this province.

J. McIntyre moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175