2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 16, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR
HEALTH COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That John Rustad replace Bill Bennett as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

PREVENTATIVE HEALTH STRATEGIES

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam. [Applause.]

M. Farnworth: Monday, after two weeks off, and first thing you do is get applause when you're on your feet. God, we'll see how long this lasts.

[D. Black in the chair.]

It's my pleasure this morning to talk about preventative health and preventative health strategies, because preventative health is going to become one of the key issues that we, as legislators, and British Columbians are going to have to be dealing with over the coming years as we seek to improve our health care system and deal with some of the cost pressures that we face on our health care system. Many of those costs are diseases and conditions that are associated with an aging population, sedentary lifestyles, all of which lead to health complications over the long term. In many cases, they're very easy to address.

Some obvious ones that come to mind…. Smoking, as we know, has long-term consequences, lung cancer being one of the key ones, emphysema — diseases and conditions that cost the health care system literally millions and millions of dollars yet are easily preventable if, for example, people stop smoking.

As we know, in this province we do have one of the lowest rates of smoking in the entire country, if not the lowest rate. But there are still disturbing trends — for example, amongst teenage women, where there is…. We have seen increases in the number of teenage women smoking. This is going to have significant consequences down the road.

[1005]

So preventative health is measures that can be taken to prevent diseases or injuries, rather than curing or treating their symptoms, and that's important.

Other conditions that we can talk about that are important, that we can deal with, I think, in a relatively easy way, are issues such as exercise. I mean, I think all of us have seen examples of people…. People know that, you know, they come home from work, they sit on the couch, and they don't get the exercise that they necessarily should. You watch an expanding waistline and the longer you do it, the more the problems appear over time.

Some people, I notice, are looking at me, and I am not singling out anyone in particular or anybody in this chamber. But I think I'm talking about what all of us recognize is a fact.

All of us can think back to when we were kids and compare 20, 30 years ago to today. The trend, the increasing tendency to obesity in youngsters is something that's particularly disturbing. It's something that scientists and physicians are already telling us. They are already starting to see increases in kids with significant cholesterol issues, people in their 20s and 30s having heart issues, and these are related to a sedentary lifestyle. They are related to improper diet. They are related to a lack of exercise.

Those are things that we as a society need to take far more seriously than we have been doing. We need to ensure that healthy lifestyles start at a very early age. So it's not just proper smoking, or sorry, eating. That was a slip of the tongue. It's definitely Monday morning.

An Hon. Member: Cookies and brownies.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the member says: "Cookies and brownies." Well, in moderation, they are.

As we've noticed, when we were kids, most of us, when our mothers made cookies or cupcakes or whatever, they tended to be of a certain size, quite small, as opposed to today where everything is supersized and the caloric intake of just one is often 500 or 600 calories, which is significantly more than what's needed and what is healthy.

So programs to encourage healthy eating, healthy eating choices, are crucial if we're going to get a handle on some of the long-term consequences of preventable conditions and preventable diseases.

Childhood diabetes is far more prevalent today than it's ever been in the last 30 or 40 years. In part, it's related, again, to unhealthy eating, to lack of exercise — all things which, as I said a moment ago, are easily preventable and easily dealt with.

Ensuring that kids get an hour of physical activity every single day will go a long way to improving the long-
[ Page 10622 ]
term health outcomes of the people of this province and will have a significant impact on health care costs.

With that, I look forward to the response from the member from Kelowna.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker. [Applause.] Applause of one, now two, three, going up to six. That seemed to get their attention.

I'd like to thank the member opposite for bringing up such a very important topic. I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said, and I guess now we can just sit down and move on to the second piece. But I won't do that. I'll just continue to add to what he said.

Something that we can do as a society is to make sure that we protect ourselves when we're out and about. A lot of the issues that impact the health care system are things like car accidents. If you look at the difference between North American use of health facilities and Japanese use of health facilities, for example, you will find that they have safer driving than we do — fewer car accidents per capita.

So it's something that we have to look at. How do we engage the health system, and how do we, ourselves, provide for preventative strategies so we don't have to tax the health system as we continue to move into a new paradigm of having people with chronic issues? One of those things is to make sure we take care of ourselves.

[1010]

When we're riding our bicycles, we have to make sure we wear our bike helmets. When we're on the ski hills, especially if we're young…. I say "young" because I always make sure my daughter wears her helmet, and sometimes I'm not a very good example for that. But wear the helmets on the ski hills.

Anything we can do to protect ourselves, especially our brain, as we move through our life, will go a long way to helping us as we get older. My daughter is 4 foot 10 inches. She's 18, so she's not going get much bigger. But she was a player in the B.C. Games on her rugby team. So you can imagine this little girl. She's full of piss and vinegar. I'm not too sure if I'm allowed to say that, but I just did.

She was out there fighting for her team. But at the same time this last week, she came home saying that she had a headache, and it's because she had a mild concussion. She hit the ground pretty hard.

These kinds of things we have to watch out for. We have to make sure we protect our youth, yes. We have to get them out there and active for that hour a day, as the government has put forward. But at the same time, we have to make sure that we advise them on how to protect themselves, whether they're playing or driving or anything else that they're doing.

I'm very pleased to say that, to date, our government has done a number of things, a number of initiatives that help with preventive strategies — things like $68.7 million in the healthy families B.C. strategy. This is the most comprehensive health promotion program anywhere in Canada. It includes new policies, guidelines, public awareness campaigns and education programs to help British Columbians make healthy choices.

We have, for example, the $24 million prescription for health program. The first program launched under our initiative gives B.C. doctors additional tools to conduct medical assessments and to develop a health promotion and illness prevention plan tailored to their needs. And fee-for-service is playing a role in that.

As part of this commitment, our commitment to healthy families, we're also investing $15 million in B.C.'s smoking cessation program, which offers smokers the choice of nicotine replacement therapies or prescription drugs.

We also have initiatives to complement other public awareness strategies we've undertaken, including an informed dining program. This new program promotes restaurants that provide nutritional information to their patrons when asked, allowing consumers to make informed menu choices when eating in restaurants.

Together, these initiatives increase consumer knowledge, ensure healthy food and beverages are available to British Columbians. Making the healthy choice is the easy choice.

Just last month, I believe, we also added prohibition on youth going to suntanning booths. This is another way to make sure that we continue our fight against cancer. Our government has substantially increased investments in cancer care and control, with expenditures to the B.C. Cancer Agency — over $517 million in 2010-11. That's an increase of more than 151 percent, or $206 million, since 2000.

As you can see, hon. Speaker, not only is it important to prevent, but it's also important to treat and educate. And I would say that this government is taking a leadership role and has done so over the years since 2001.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to respond to my colleague across the way. And I would just like to point out that I think the proper parliamentary language would be that the individual in question was full of a combination of uric acid, fatty acids, mucins and acetic acid. I think that would be the proper parliamentary term.

N. Letnick: Google.

M. Farnworth: The age we live in.

Anyway, the member does raise some good programs that are in place, programs in place over many, many years that governments on both sides of the aisle have supported, the smoking one being an example. But I think there's a lot more we that could be doing to
[ Page 10623 ]
deal with preventive illnesses in the province of British Columbia.

Key amongst them this is poverty reduction plan. That would go a long way to helping deal with some of the issues associated with ensuring proper diets for many, particularly kids, around the province of British Columbia. Seven of the provinces have one; British Columbia doesn't. That would be something that would be worthwhile.

When it comes to cancer, one of the biggest killers is still colorectal cancer. And if we want to make real progress in that area — and again, I think, save the health care system significant dollars over the long term — and it's something that's extremely preventable, it would be a provincewide colorectal screening program.

[1015]

Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba have moved in that direction, and if British Columbia were to follow in that direction, not only would we save many, many lives, but we would prevent some very serious debilitating cancers that cost our health care system significant amounts of money over the long term.

Those are some initiatives we could continue to do and put in place that would advance the cause of improving the health of the population overall, helping to contain health care costs, and that would prevent some significant illnesses. With that, I will take my seat and look forward to the discussion of other members.

INNOVATION AND CHANGE
IN HEALTH CARE

N. Letnick: I'm going to talk about change and innovation in health care. After much study I've come to the conclusion that the health care system in British Columbia can accommodate increases in spending due to general price inflation and our growing and aging population, given a reasonable level of economic growth. However, it cannot sustain the continued rise in spending due to increasing utilization, inefficiencies in health care provision and inflation in prices specific to a health care sector like pharmaceuticals.

In light of this, discussions surrounding the sustainability of the system can move beyond the burden of an aging population and focus on finding ways to improve population health, reduce the need for medical interventions in the first place and improve their outcomes when they are required — and overall, curtailing spending increases so that they do not continue to grow faster than the general price inflation of population growth and aging combined.

It is true that as we age we tend to use more health services, like doctor and specialist visits, diagnostic imaging and lab services, prescription medications, home health care and residential care services. As well, there is an increasing need to consider the impacts of frailty, dementia and other health issues on seniors and their families and focus on providing appropriate care, enhancing quality of life and supporting a healthy aging community.

But some of those cost pressures are avoidable. Physical inactivity and unhealthy eating have made B.C.'s population more overweight and obese, which is related to rising rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other diseases. Other unhealthy behaviours, such as tobacco use and problematic alcohol and substance use, also contribute to the burden of chronic disease.

Providing care to an aging population and managing care for those with chronic conditions is becoming the greatest demand on our health system. However, the current health system, designed over two generations ago, is not well structured to meet the needs of these patients in the most effective way. Too often care is managed is an uncoordinated and fragmented manner, leading to an eventual crisis and hospitalization.

In addition, physician practice cultures, preferences and decisions drive, by some estimates, over 70 percent of all publicly financed health spending. Their organization, culture, performance and productivity are inextricably linked to the accomplishment of three critical objectives: (1) improving the health of the population, (2) enhancing the patient experience of care and (3) reducing or at least controlling per-capita cost of care. These are commonly referred to as the Triple Aim.

For the system to achieve the Triple Aim goals, it must reward its members for achieving these outcomes instead of simply focusing on more outputs or services. Focusing on outputs promotes more service utilization, frequently irrespective of the impact on health or value to patients. Focusing on outcomes promotes more health with the least possible amounts of service.

The challenge is: how do we reward the desirable non-event? How do we go from a system that rewards more tests, more callbacks, more referrals, more procedures, more hospital beds, etc., to one that rewards appropriate care and health?

It will require a comprehensive strategy that supports providers, especially physicians, and politicians to create and embrace a new culture. Easier said than done, especially when to be successful, this means doctors will have to examine their incentive systems to realign them with the Triple Aim goals, and politicians will need to better educate themselves and their public that more is not always better. It may require a generation to realize transformation, but there are many examples from around the world to emulate.

Looking at high-performing systems, some recurring themes emerge. Physicians are integrated within larger health care organizations and consider themselves to be part of the whole and not independent contractors. There is a strong, well-supported physician leadership team whose goals are aligned with the overall system — less
[ Page 10624 ]
"us versus them" and more "we." Performance is measured, results are shared with peers and quality improvement is rewarded. Lastly, accountability is instrumental. Accountability is instrumental to improving practice, helping patients and increasing job satisfaction. Without accountability, performance goals are unachievable.

[1020]

Achieving the Triple Aim will require system-level changes. Some initiatives currently being led by government include: addressing health prevention issues such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer through the healthy families B.C. agenda; using lean projects which re-evaluate everyday hospital processes to make them more efficient and improve patient care. For example, in VIHA acute care bed days have been reduced from 7.4 down to 3.9 bed days for patients designated to move from the Nanaimo regional hospital to a residential care facility with rehab services.

Families B.C. is reducing chronic diseases and obesity levels by making the healthier choice the easier choice. In just the first three months of B.C.'s smoking cessation program, over 63,000 smokers have called 811 for free access to replacement therapies.

Government is also looking at ways to harness health authorities' purchasing power by combining buying power through health shared services. Health authorities have earned nearly $200 million in savings in the first five years alone.

Also, the Centre for Surgical Innovation at UBC Hospital was launched in 2006 to help clear backlogs using a specialized hip and knee surgery unit. As a result, since then 124 percent more knee replacements and 62 percent more hip replacements have been done.

We also have the distal extremities surgical project at St. Paul's, lowering referral waits and increasing the number of distal orthopedic surgeries. It has also helped physicians see an additional 3,700 new referral patients per year.

Lastly, to help British Columbians aged 65 and over with increased independence, Budget 2012 created a B.C. seniors home renovation tax credit, a new, refundable personal income tax credit to assist with the cost of permanent home renovations. The new tax credit will make it easier for seniors to stay in their own homes longer.

The ministry's innovation and change agenda is intended to create system-level fundamental change through strategies that are organized into four principal areas: (1) providing health promotion, prevention and self-management to improve the health and wellness of British Columbians; (2) meeting the majority of health needs with high-quality primary and community-based health care and support services; (3) ensuring high-quality hospital care services are available when needed; and lastly, improving innovation, productivity, and efficiency in the delivery of the health services.

I will be pleased to speak more about these after I hear my colleague comment on the first part of my speech.

M. Farnworth: It is not my intention to monopolize the response time today, but the comments of the member are so interesting that I just can't help myself. Anyway, the member raises some interesting points around innovation and Triple Aim and statistics and a whole bunch of things, and all of them in their own way are valid. But to me, I think one of the key issues that we have to deal with is to recognize that we're moving from an acute care system to a chronic illness management system.

What that means is…. It's not about Triple Aim. It's not about statistics. It's about how we make our health care system work better and how we make that transition. One of the key ways we do it is by making sure that all members of the health care team feel valued, that they're all part of developing the innovative solutions that we need to make those changes.

It's not pitting nurses against nurse practitioners against physicians. It's not pitting HEU workers against physicians or anybody else. It's about ensuring that everybody is part of that health care team, that in the acute care facility everybody is valued and that we ensure that we are all able to do our job and that we've got the resources necessary to be able to do our job. When that's not the case, the health care system is undermined because the public feels and loses confidence in it, and that does not create a culture of innovation.

An example is some of the recent challenges that we faced in the Burnaby Hospital around the C. difficile outbreak. A report had been in place that outlined a number of things that needed to be implemented. Some could have been implemented relatively easily. Others take a much longer time. But what it requires is commitment. When that commitment is there and people feel involved, then innovation is one of those things that can be achieved.

The other area that we need to recognize is that we need to make changes in terms of how the public approaches health care. To the public, health care is very much the acute care hospital. That's what they think of when they think of our health care system.

We need to recognize that that's always going to be the case, but we need to broaden that definition of health care so that the public is more aware that it also means preventative health care — that they have a role to play in that, along with government.

[1025]

That comes back to what we were talking about in our first statement around preventative health care and prevention as treatment — recognizing the importance of exercise, recognizing the importance of a healthy diet, recognizing the importance of a poverty reduction strategy, identifying those key things that early on lead to either bad habits or lead to systemic problems in terms of
[ Page 10625 ]
illnesses and conditions that manifest themselves later on.

Whether it is smoking, whether it is too much alcohol, whether it is poor diet, whether it is lack of opportunity to exercise, whether it's a lack of the ability to just even access a soccer ball and kick it around on a soccer pitch or a baseball as a kid, those things are important. Those things are just as important in terms of our health care system and our ability to deal with the pressures on our health care system, as is high technology and all the jargon we like to use, which confuses people, when much of the innovation that we need in our health care system is right there and can be dealt with at the ground level with some very simple changes and initiatives that focus very much on preventive health care.

With that, I'll take my seat and look forward to the comments of the member from Kelowna.

N. Letnick: It's indeed a pleasure to be standing again in response to the rebuttal.

In large part the member is correct. It's really a matter of a comprehensive strategy to make sure that we continue to have a strong, sustainable, publicly funded health care system as we move forward, especially as we continue to see increases in expenditures on the provision of health services outstripping those of the natural growth of the economy.

Something needs to change to reduce the cost curve. That can only happen if the population is doing it with us — as opposed to government and services that are being offered that are doing it to people.

I understand when the member brings up the issue of making sure we have preventive strategies, making sure people understand the impacts of millions and millions of individual decisions, how it impacts not only them but also the sustainability of the system.

But at the same time, we also have a responsibility as legislators, as people who write laws and people who lead the province in many areas, in this particular case in health care, to make sure we have the best system possible so when people do fall between the cracks — do get hurt, injured or, through cumulative decisions that they've made in their lives, whether it's through their lack of exercise or other lifestyle issues, or in many, many cases when it's not related to any of the decisions they've made but could be genetic or could just be unfortunate contact with a disease that they had no part in doing — they know they have one of the best systems in the country, if not the world, to take care of them.

Of course, that means we have to continually innovate. We have to look for better ways of doing things, for improved ways of doing things, because change for change's sake obviously is not what we want. We have to do that in collaboration with our partners, with the doctors, with the nurses, with all the other allied health care providers who fundamentally are there to do the same thing that we are here for, and that is to improve the lives of British Columbians and to make a difference so that they can have a better life for them and their families.

Evidence suggests that primary and community-based health care are best suited to provide that kind of care that we're talking about here, the care for chronic illnesses. It can play a critical role in improving health and reducing the need for emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

It's important for us as legislators to look around the world, to work with our Ministry of Health, our professionals and to make sure that we work with the public to bring them on side as we move forward in changing the dynamic, changing the way we actually offer services. Instead of going through episodic care and ending up, in a lot of cases, in crisis at the emergency department, we have an opportunity here to make sure that we work with people to reduce their need of care in the first place.

REVENUE SOURCES FOR
CAPITAL PROJECTS

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and speak a little bit about capital projects and, specifically, to link this to the situation we see as it relates to transit in the Lower Mainland and to TransLink very specifically and some options and notions we might have about how we get to a better place in terms of supporting transportation and transit in the Lower Mainland.

[1030]

As everybody in the House who has been following the proceedings as we've seen them will know, whether it's been the discussions of the Mayors Council, whether it's been comments of the minister, whether it's been comments now of the commissioner…. It is becoming very clear that TransLink as an entity is beginning to fall under its own weight. The challenges, in terms of both operational funding as well as capital funding, which is a very significant issue, particularly when we look at the very real demands south of the Fraser for improved transportation infrastructure there….

Whether it be light rail, which we know a number of the mayors and the communities have talked about, whether it be expansion of SkyTrain, whether it be options around improved and enhanced bus service…. What we all know is that as south of the Fraser grows — it's our quickest-growing part of this province — we need to improve and enhance the transportation infrastructure there, and we're facing real challenges. As we've heard from the Mayors Council, they're not sure that that can be supported.

In Vancouver, where I'm from, we face exactly the same situation on the Broadway corridor, where there's significant discussion about a corridor out from the Broadway and Commercial area — where there's a hub there now, a SkyTrain hub out to UBC — supporting all
[ Page 10626 ]
of the activity along that corridor, including the major medical and health precinct in our province related to Vancouver Hospital.

All of these are very, very expensive, regardless of which model you use in terms of transportation. Whether it be SkyTrain, light rail or whatever, they're all expensive. So we know this challenge is very, very real. The question is: how do we get to a situation that is an improvement over what we have?

One option, for example.... This is only one, and there are many out there that need to be explored. There's always the conversation that goes on around stations and the ability to enhance the value of property around stations through density, through proximity to stations, which are very appealing places for commercial development and for residential development for people who don't want to own a car. That's going to increase that value greatly, and there's room there, potentially, for a fair portion of that value to go into investments in transit and transportation to support the creation of more infrastructure.

However, as we know, that only happens if we have meaningful collaboration between all levels of government as well as the private sector in making that happen. That really brings us, I believe, to the situation we have. We have a partnership right now between local government and the province that clearly is starting to fail. It's a partnership that is no longer working. It creates a very, very difficult situation. The headline today in the newspaper suggested where that problem might lie. The newspaper headline said: "Provincial Meddling Derails TransLink Planning."

Now, the reality of that has to be: how do we get past that? If that is the reality of the problem, how do we in fact get past that situation? It means the partnership needs to be rethought and rebuilt. What we know is that in 2008 the government made a choice. The then Minister of Transportation made a choice to restructure TransLink and to remove a significant amount of the authority that rested with the elected officials who made up the TransLink board at the time. It created a board appointed primarily by the minister, a majority appointed by the minister, that makes many and much of the operational decisions, and then a Mayors Council, which gets to approve the funding.

Well, what we know with that is that has created an alienating situation in terms of the mayors. I think that's reflected in what has been an adversarial situation that has now arisen about how we pay for things — the mayors' reluctance to add to property taxes in order to pay for transportation, the reluctance of the government, on the other hand, to approve other revenue sources, like gas taxes and such or a local carbon tax, in order to pay for those services.

[1035]

We have the two parties at loggerheads here to some degree, so I would make the case that the very first thing we need to do is have some acknowledgment that, in fact, that structure has not worked. It's time to increase collaboration and sit all these parties — local governments and the province — back at the table and look at a governance structure that will allow the kind of collaboration to happen — that will allow for some common positions to be developed, because there's common interest in how we fund some of these capital projects, and ensure south of the Fraser starts to get the transportation that it requires and that other projects can move forward.

I think that will also lead to discussions around how operational funding moves forward. I would hope that we can have that conversation. I hope the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and all sides can come together, along with the mayors and Metro Vancouver, and begin to find a new and collaborative way that allows TransLink, in whatever form it takes, to move forward and meet the very real transportation needs — and very expensive needs — in that region.

For that to happen, I think there needs to be an acknowledgment that the structure we have today, the governance system put in place in 2008, has failed. It is now time to move forward and put a system in place that in fact will work for all British Columbians and will get the buses running, get the SkyTrains and the light rail running and find some revenue streams to help pay for that, that aren't being explored now or aren't being looked at.

R. Hawes: Thanks to the member for raising the topic. Maybe I'm not the one that should be speaking the most about TransLink, because I don't live in an area that's serviced by TransLink. I live just outside of the border of TransLink. The Fraser Valley regional district is not a member of TransLink. However, the riding I represented before a change in boundaries was half in and half out of the then GVRD and TransLink.

I want to just go back to when TransLink was first formed. At that time the critic for Transportation on the opposition side of the House was Doug Symons. He said at that time, when the change was made to move transportation funding into local government: "Beware. You're buying a pig in a poke. This is going to lead to a lot of problems for you." Well, he was accurate. It has led to a lot of problems.

In the Fraser Valley — this is a point that often gets overlooked — and in the rest of British Columbia, 40 percent of the capital cost of all hospital and health care capital projects are paid by the local taxpayer on their property taxes. That was the trade-off. The government assumed all hospital costs for everyone forever in the GVRD in exchange for the GVRD taking on transportation.

That gets forgotten too often. So if there's a reluctance to raise property taxes…. Well, gosh, when we need a new hospital in the Fraser Valley, we pay for it with our
[ Page 10627 ]
property taxes. It just seems to me it almost makes a fair trade-off.

Now, the member talks about: "Where should we get money?" The Crilly report just came out. It has pointed a direction. It has pointed to a number of inefficiencies within the system, places where funding can be found for operations and, perhaps, some capital funding.

The member, I think, very correctly pointed out the kinds of developments that can take place around stations. There can be a substantial amount of money. I know there are trade-offs that can be made with the free enterprise world and the development world around those stations.

It makes sense to densify around the stations, because that does move people onto transit, and transit only works when you've got a mass of people, a big enough mass of people, that are going to jump on — whether it be SkyTrain or buses or whatever. Funding empty windows to ride around does not make any sense. You need to have people there to drive the system.

Moving density to the stations makes all the sense in the world. Moving the commercial opportunities, etc., around that, then, would create, I think, substantial revenue back to local government and help drive the capital costs of some of these projects.

Recently we heard about what transit police are getting paid and the number of fare evasions. It just seems to make a lot of sense to put in some kind of a gate system so that people, first and foremost, are paying their fares to get on.

[1040]

Also, we've got to be out there collecting the fines. There's a substantial amount of fines that are uncollected. Frankly, I don't think anyone knows how much in free rides, in people who are scamming the system by not buying their tickets…. I don't think anybody knows accurately the number of people, but I suspect it's quite a few.

I think there are sources of funds within the system now and the amount of money that's being spent right now. The Crilly report really, I think, needs to be looked at hard. I think the audit that this government has now said is going to take place for TransLink, a full audit, is going to point the direction to where a lot of these inefficiencies lie. Hopefully, it's going to come up with some sources within the existing funding streams that will pay for not just operations but also some of the capital projects.

I think just to be equitable, and the member did mention…. Just quickly, I'll say carbon tax. Carbon tax has had, through legislation, every cent go back to reducing taxes — corporate, small business and personal income taxes. Unless one wants to take the cash flow from the carbon tax and raise personal income taxes and other taxes, there is no money available from the carbon tax to fund things like transportation.

That was a choice the government made, to say, "We want to offer people lower income taxes and move to a consumption type of tax," which is what the carbon tax is. "You want to buy gasoline. Fine. You're going to pay extra money. If you choose not to drive a vehicle that uses a lot of gas, you'll pay less. But you'll get a lower income tax rate, and so will the corporations. So will small business." That was the trade-off. That money has been used.

Madam Speaker, I'm looking forward to hearing the rest of the member's response, and thanks for the opportunity to say a few words about it.

S. Simpson: As the member says, his particular constituency sits just outside the boundaries of TransLink. But I'm sure he would agree that as all those communities grow, the day where…. They have transportation needs now, and those will just grow, and his community, like most communities in the Fraser Valley, will be looking for increased transportation support, because that's going to be required more and more.

In terms of the comments that the member made in regard to the Crilly report, I think it is an important report. It did talk about options, and it did talk about efficiencies. It talked about maybe as much as $40 million to $60 million of overall efficiencies it thought were there. I think we need to look hard, and hopefully, TransLink is going to look for those, as has been directed by the commissioner.

But I would note, also, that one of the things he says in his report is the problem is that because of the structuring that removed accountability from local government and local mayors on this, by creating this administrative board that has most of the power, the costs have gone up exponentially since 2008. That's where we've had the increased administrative costs, identified by Mr. Crilly, that have in fact come since that new structure was put in place.

I think what we need to do is look at some of the fundamental questions here. There are lots of options to look at as to how we fund things. But as long as you have the government saying no to what the mayors and the local governments think are the appropriate approaches to take and the local governments saying, "We're not interested in property tax as an increased way to pay for this because our property taxes are too high now," we're not going to get at the solution.

We need to get to the core issue here, I believe, and the core issue is the governance structure and how we create a collaborative role. Now, I'd be the first one to say the pre-2008 TransLink model was far from perfect. But what was put in place in 2008 in fact took us to a worse place than we were before, in my view.

So now it's time for everybody to take a breath and say it's time to find a collaborative model that in fact will make sense, a collaborative model that puts the appropriate responsibility and accountability in the hands of
[ Page 10628 ]
both local governments and the provincial government and challenges both sides to be there to find the solutions — wherever those revenue streams are and whatever innovative ideas are in front of us — to find those streams that allow us to generate the money through different land use planning, through density, through new urban centres and through a whole variety of things that can create those opportunities.

But it is not going to happen as long as you have this significant alienation within the system that the 2008 model unfortunately created. I'm hopeful that as we learn more about this, in time we will end up fixing that situation.

[1045]

IMPORTANCE OF HUNTING
TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

B. Bennett: I'm speaking this morning about the use of hunting as an essential tool in the management of wildlife. For those who did not grow up with hunting and other consumptive uses of nature, such as fishing, berry- and mushroom-picking, and trapping, hunting may seem anachronistic or perhaps even barbaric to some. Interestingly, there is no such bias against First Nations hunting, but those of us hunters who are not First Nations are apparently not supposed to feel the same instincts or possess similar spiritual connections to wildlife and to the land.

Some critics of hunting, such as the urban-based opponents of the grizzly bear hunt, claim that hunting threatens the future of that species, and that's something I'm going to focus on here this morning. In fact, hunting in North America has not threatened a species in the last century.

Hunting and hunters, not environmentalists, are largely responsible this past century for expanding wildlife populations and enhancing wildlife habitat. Men like Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot and President Teddy Roosevelt got involved a century ago and created the conservation movement, which today ensures the maintenance of healthy populations and healthy habitat.

Organizations like Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the B.C. Wildlife Federation give more money and spend more of their own individual resources and time on wildlife than all of the NGOs combined.

For those without the kind of experience that I am fortunate to have, the idea of killing, of taking an animal as part of wildlife management, appears counterintuitive. Let me quote that well-known rabid right-wing ideologue, Albert Schweitzer, to make an important point. "We must be wary of the illusion that not to kill or harm is completely possible." Albert Schweitzer knew from his experience in Africa that humans can have beneficial impact on wildlife populations by taking some animals from a population that is expanding beyond its available habitat.

There's another reason to hunt, especially certain species such as the black bear and grizzly bear. Bears that are not hunted lose their fear of humans. They come in closer to our cities, towns and villages to find food. In fact, predatory attacks are increasing in B.C. every decade. Bear attacks in B.C. have doubled over the past 20 years. One reason is that bear populations are increasing. Another reason is that bears adapt very quickly, and if they are not chased away, if they are not hunted, they will rapidly assume it is safe to help themselves to your back porch and, perhaps in some cases, even to your carcass.

Some critics will say: "Well, humans have taken too much habitat from bears, and we should give it back." I don't hear those same folks asking for a transplant of grizzly bears into Stanley Park. I do hear them saying that those of us in rural B.C. should make more room for their friends, the bears. But is it really necessary to allow bears to reclaim all of their former range in order to guarantee their future survival? No. Not only is it unnecessary to allow bears to reclaim all of their former habitat to ensure their survival as a species, it's not reasonable, practical or wanted by those of us who live in bear territory.

I walk to work here in Victoria past a bus shelter that sometimes is adorned by a large colour photo of a beautiful grizzly bear. The poster lectures me, telling me that I should clean up my act and become more like the good folks here in Victoria, the city that flows its raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean.

One of the foundations of this hypocrisy mixed with misunderstanding is a belief system known as pantheism or, more popularly, as Disneyism. This ideology falsifies, distorts and sentimentalizes nature and ultimately makes a god of it. Pantheism sees nature as imbued with its own balance, purpose and justice and sees humans as the spoiler of this natural order. To advocates of this world view, animals and plants are held in higher regard than humans, who happen to have a hunting tradition that is 2½ million years old.

[1050]

As former wildlife biologist Ken Sumanik said to me recently: "Wildlife management involves harvesting, killing, culling, taking animals by any legal means. Wildlife requires management in a modern civilized world. We no longer live in a fully natural world, and as a modern society, we must perform some level of management" — you can call it animal husbandry, if you like — "if wildlife is to thrive and live in a state that is acceptable to the majority and not cause undue hardships for any minority. Hunting is an important tool in that management regime."

M. Sather: At the heart of the matter is the fact that by and large there is a need to manage humans for the continued viability of wildlife. Left on their own and given space to do so, wildlife do very well without us manag-
[ Page 10629 ]
ing them. I understand wildlife management is a science and it has its place — I'll refer to that further — but we must understand that human beings are really the ones that are the problem, not the wildlife.

However, I want to say that hunters and hunting organizations themselves are important to wildlife and provide many valuable services such as habitat restoration in the conservation of the environment. I think of some of the organizations, like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and Ducks Unlimited, that have worked to conserve the environment, such as Ducks Unlimited working with environmental groups and the government to preserve a wetland in the Lower Mainland in my constituency, which is very important to us and to wildlife.

In a natural ecosystem predators and prey keep each others' numbers in dynamic balance, and they keep each other strong through the forces of natural selection. The challenge today is to balance the interests of hunters, non-hunters and wildlife. Predators such as wolves should not be decimated to provide additional hunting opportunities.

First of all, with regard to that, predators are wildlife and should be treated as such. I think there's a danger that's happening in the province today to decimate wolf populations without regard to actually scientific management of wildlife.

Secondly, genetic fitness of prey and predators is better facilitated by natural predation than it is by hunting mortality. Hunters tend to seek out the most genetically fit individuals to kill — for example, the male with the largest antlers, and in the deer world size does apparently matter — whereas predators kill more young of mothers that are less fit to protect them and will kill some, although certainly not all, older prey individuals who are also less genetically fit. For example, if your genes make it that you're not a fast enough runner, you are likely to be killed by predation.

So I don't think it's an either-or situation — that we have conservationists on one hand and we have hunters on the other hand. I know where the member was going, but I don't think that's productive. I think what we need to recognize is that everybody has to be involved in the province to conserve and manage wildlife and to recognize that the footprint that we're having on nature in our province and throughout the world is such that it's making it very difficult for many species of wildlife to thrive and even to survive.

There's an article in the Sun today about the wetlands and the Salish Sea and all the effects that bird life is experiencing. That's a very, very important area down there for birds, and any kind of loss of habitat — be it through agricultural land, alienation or what have you, tanker spills — is detrimental totally. That's the kind of issue that we need to focus on, in my opinion, such that we all make a positive contribution.

I know the member opposite is a keen outdoors person. I used to be an avid hunter myself. I appreciate hunting. I understand why folks do it. You know, that's how I got my love for nature was first through hunting. My father was a pioneer, and you know, that's how his family survived. So I have no problem with hunting. I just want to be assured that we treat all wildlife as wildlife, not as anything less or, in fact, anything more.

[1055]

As far as the dangers of wildlife, I see an increasing tendency for society to become frightened of wildlife. I think as we become less engaged with nature, we tend to fear that which we don't know.

So I think it's important for folks to act, obviously, carefully around wildlife, but there's no need to live in fear because that makes you then want to avoid the natural areas where wildlife occurs and, therefore, to miss out and, worse yet, to not understand nature and not understand wildlife interactions and, therefore, not have the husbandry that we really need.

B. Bennett: I thank the member from the other side for his comments. I do think, from my point of view, that he communicates quite clearly the sort of world view I spoke of in my first remarks in regards to pantheism and Disneyism — that it's always humans that are the problem and that if humans will just get out of the way and let nature take its course, everything will be fine. The problem with that is that the survival rate of any species is such that the population will inevitably increase until it exceeds the care and capacity of the habitat.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The result of that…. We've seen it many, many times with various populations, various species. The problem with that is that you end up with territorial disputes. Bears are notorious for territorial disputes, especially grizzly bears, but blacks as well. You get intraspecific strife within a population. You get increased disease, parasites and also malnutrition.

What happens typically with populations that have outgrown their habitat is that they usually have a severe winter that will kill off many, many animals, or you have an outbreak of disease. I've seen both of those situations, and it's not a very pretty sight, and it's not particularly humane. So humans do have a role in terms of managing the size of those populations.

As far as the member's comments about humans having no reason to fear wildlife, it may well be that the hon. member has not had a confrontation with a grizzly bear or a black bear. I have. I've had a number. I've also had a confrontation with a very large timber wolf, which stood there and looked at me and decided whether it was going to eat me or not. I was actually quite afraid.

Again, perhaps what we need to do is get folks out of the city a little more and get them to interact a little more
[ Page 10630 ]
with wildlife so they can determine exactly what it is that is necessary.

I did want to say, in closing, that hunters in this province basically pay the costs of managing wildlife. Every year the Crown takes over $7 million — and that's net — from hunting licence and tag sales. The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund receives about $1.6 million from resident hunters' licence sales, and they get almost $25 million from the guides in terms of licence sales and tag sales.

So it is hunters who pay for the management of wildlife in the province. Over the past 100 years hunters — groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation — have proven their benefit to wildlife management.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the private members for their statements this morning, and now I move Motion 7.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of this House is required to proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 7 — REVIEW OF
SMART-METERING PROGRAM

J. Horgan: It's delightful to be back again after our brief Easter break. I'm also delighted to be up speaking on the motion in my name on the order paper, Motion 7, which says:

[Be it resolved that this House urges the Government to direct the B.C. Utilities Commission to do a full and comprehensive review of the Smart Metering Program.]

In the normal course of events we wouldn't have to have a motion like this on the order paper on private members' day. In the normal course of events, our public utility, B.C. Hydro, would be required, when expending a billion dollars, to go to the Utilities Commission and defend that expenditure.

[1100]

The government and B.C. Hydro would be required to demonstrate to the public, through an independent third party, the B.C. Utilities Commission, that this endeavour was in fact in the public interest.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I was quizzing the then Minister of Energy, now the Minister of Transportation — the member for Peace River South — during the budget estimates in 2009. That seems like a thousand years ago, I'm sure, to the government, but it was just yesterday in geological time. I asked the minister to give me an assurance that the Utilities Commission would, in fact, be reviewing the smart meter program, a billion-dollar undertaking — 1.8 million metres on homes and businesses right across British Columbia and a significant capital cost that will lead inevitably to an increase in rates.

This is what the minister said to me at the time: "Ultimately, as we've talked before, the BCUC will review that" — the smart meter program — "and make a determination: is it in the public interest or not?"

I was given significant comfort by that comment, and I think most British Columbians were. "We're going to spend a billion dollars," says the government. B.C. Hydro is being driven towards a smart meter and a smart grid system, but the B.C. Liberals will ensure that process will be followed.

Well, that assurance in November was eradicated by April when the government introduced the Clean Energy Act and exempted not just the smart meter program but about $12 billion to $13 billion worth of capital projects from third-party oversight by the commission.

And what has the result been? Well, I've tabled, myself, and I know other members on the opposition side — and I think, actually, someone on the government side — have tabled petitions with tens of thousands of names on them urging the government to have a second thought about this, urging the government to review the health implications, urging the government to review the privacy concerns, urging the government now, of course, to review the potential security challenges of a smart grid and a smart-metering system.

Just the other day I was on radio in Vancouver, on the CKNW afternoon show with Jon McComb, and he raised with me an issue that had come to his attention from the FBI. That's the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for those who aren't familiar with the acronyms. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States has determined that as smart grids and smart metering increase across North America, the likelihood of intervention by hackers goes up exponentially. So there are security concerns as well that aren't being addressed. They certainly weren't addressed when the government exempted this program from oversight back in 2010.

Since that time the government has forged ahead. Contracts were let. A billion dollars is going to be expended. And in every other jurisdiction in the world that has brought in smart metering, they've done it for one reason only. That's a conservation ethic, which I think we all embrace — the ethic at least. But what you need to do to make it work is use time-of-use pricing, time-of-day pricing. When you use your power you pay what the value of that power is at that time of day. That will lead to increased costs for consumers. It's inevitable. It's the way it will happen, but not under the B.C. Liberals.

They just want to spend the billion dollars. They're not
[ Page 10631 ]
going to use time-of-use pricing. The current Minister of Energy has made that abundantly clear. So the only benefit from a billion-dollar expenditure is not going to be used by the government that's bringing it forward — so convinced that there was a good use of this billion dollars that they're not even going to allow the Utilities Commission to review it.

I have had, since last July, 8,000 e-mails from individual addresses across British Columbia. That's a whole lot of e-mail. I defy any member of this place — put the HST to one side — to think of one public policy issue in the time that they've been an elected representative that has garnered that kind of volume of mail — 8,000.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You're the Chair of a committee. You're asking for the e-mails. These are unsolicited e-mails from citizens right across British Columbia — 8,000 e-mails from people appealing to the government to have a bit of sober second thought. I know the member for Chilliwack is keen on a Senate. Well, why doesn't he, as the elder statesmen in his group, take that senatorial position and go to the cabinet and say: "The time is now"?

The time is now to take the smart meter program, send it to the Utilities Commission and restore confidence in B.C. Hydro and restore a modicum of confidence in the B.C. Liberal government. Eleven years of broken promises and this, the last in a long list.

[1105]

The minister of the day said: "Yes, we will go to the Utilities Commission. Yes, that independent third party will make an assessment about the public interest of a billion dollars." Six months later it's thrown on the scrap heap of history. No Utilities Commission oversight. That's why we're debating this today. That's why it's important for all members of this House to take the opportunity to stand up and speak for their constituents, to speak for some rationale and sensibility in public policy configuration in British Columbia.

The Utilities Commission has served a valuable function in B.C. to keep our monopoly of the utility in check. A billion dollars would go a long way for retrofits in communities right across British Columbia. Smart meters are just alienating and offending citizens. It's wrong. It's time to take a long, hard review. Let's go to the commission. Let's go right now.

M. Dalton: The smart meters are really about modernizing a system, a grid, that's been virtually there since the 1950s. It hasn't changed, and the world has changed since then. Technology has changed since then.

I was raised up in little radar bases across Canada — in Holberg, up on the top of Vancouver Island, and, yes, in Beaverlodge in northern Alberta and in Chibougamau. These were the 1950s. There was the Pinetree line. The DEW line was put in there using the technology of the time.

I remember having the first tour of where my dad worked as a sergeant in one of these radar stations up in the height finders — the ice cream cones, they looked like — up in the hills. They tracked the airplanes. I was very impressed. He wore a white technician outfit and he was with the Royal Canadian Air Force. We saw the computers, and the computers were just massive. Quite impressed.

Then I remember the next tour in Holberg, the 1970s. This was just a few years later, and these computers were downsized. What used to take entire rooms were now just in a small corner of one of the floors. There was a change that was happening with technology. That's what we've seen, also, in all respects with technology. B.C. Hydro and the electrification are no exception.

Another story of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I know that one thing that was a concern to many of us for generations was the Avro airplane. I was always kind of a little bit embittered about that — the fact that it was scrapped. I read something last week, and one of the reasons why it was scrapped at that the time was because the technology was changing. The threat moved from being bombers from Russia attacking to the intercontinental ballistic missiles. So there was a change, and a change of technology.

That's happening. Smart meters are a part of technology and changes, and B.C. Hydro is keeping up with that. What are some of the advantages? Well, I would say that one thing would be labour costs — the meter readers. Now, it will be sad to see this position seem redundant in many places, but technology does make occupations redundant.

In Vancouver at the turn of the last century there were people that would go around with horse-drawn carriages. What would they do? They were selling ice. There has been something that's happened since then. They're called refrigerators. So there was change, and we've benefited from new technology.

A lot of my family and relatives are from the Peace River country from up in northern Alberta. When they first moved there, they got farms of a quarter section. That's a quarter of a square mile, and that could take care of their families. Well, now there have been changes.

At one time there was 40, 50 percent of the population being put into agriculture. Now it's about 1 or 2 percent. So there've been advances. Now you need ten sections, ten square miles. One family can take care of this, and the combines run by GPS system. The fertilization is done. Everything is monitored, and it's much more efficient. The yields are increasing astronomically — the bushels per acre.

So there are some labour costs that are being addressed right here. There are accuracies. Now, I know that there's been criticism, talking about accuracies with the smart
[ Page 10632 ]
meters. Well, one thing I've noticed in my bill since my last place is that I've seen sometimes in summertime a big spike in my electrical usage where it's gone higher than even the wintertime. And I thought: "What is going on?"

[1110]

Well, it's been inaccurate readings. So this is a lot more accurate. There will be some challenges, and those challenges, those difficulties, will be addressed as complaints are brought forward.

Now, where I live, also, there are a lot of trees, as much of British Columbia. We've had over the past number of years a fair amount of outages, and it's caused problems. One of the things which these smart meters will allow is to be able to detect where and when the outages are happening. They'll pinpoint it. I know my constituents will benefit in that way.

Another benefit of the smart meters: they will be able to address drug crime, grow ops. They will be able to pinpoint where the usage is happening. This is a....

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Mungall: I find this motion to be very timely, especially for the residents at the north end of Kootenay Lake and around Duncan Lake in my constituency. They are with B.C. Hydro. Many of my constituents are with Nelson Hydro, with Fortis, but at the north end of my constituency I have many constituents who are on B.C. Hydro.

They recently had a meeting about smart meters and their concerns. Now, they haven't received their smart meters yet, but they follow the news, they see what's going on, and they're quite concerned with how this entire process for smart meters has been rolled out here.

Before I go to the extent of their frustration on the smart meters, I think it's important to note that for the residents at the north end of Kootenay Lake this isn't the first time they've come across frustration with the actions of B.C. Hydro as a result of this Liberal government. Of course, the first one, most recently, was with the Glacier-Howser private power project that was slated for that area of my constituency.

This project was going against the express desire of people in that region. They did not want to see those creeks be dammed and turned into some type of project that would, of course, not benefit them and the people in that region but would benefit the shareholders of multinational corporations like AXOR corporation.

That project was done as a direct result of directives by this Liberal government, and here we have another situation exactly like that one. The Liberal government directs B.C. Hydro to take on this $1 billion project without due oversight from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

What this motion does is ensure that that oversight, that independent body that works in the public interest, is going to protect the public interest.

People up in Argenta and the Lardeau Valley and Meadow Creek, around Duncan Lake and the north end of Kootenay Lake, are quite concerned about smart meters showing up on their property in replacement of their older meters. They don't want to see that happening.

They want to see some due diligence. They want to see this government take their concerns seriously, and they want to see that the B.C. Utilities Commission is able to do its job.

As the hon. member for Juan de Fuca pointed out earlier, when the Liberals chose to remove this decision and another $12 billion of capital projects from the oversight of BCUC through their Clean Energy Act, what they did was say that these decisions don't need an independent body to review them to ensure that they're being done in the best interest of the public. Everything else can be reviewed but apparently not this one.

Let's review why the B.C. Utilities Commission should be looking into this. Let's look at their mission statement. "The commission's mission is to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable and non discriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates and that shareholders of those utilities are afforded a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on their invested capital." Fairness. Non-discrimination. Safe. Reliable.

[1115]

Well, what we're finding out, with the removal of a thousand meters, of these smart meters, the uninstallation of them, is that things might not be fair. We've already seen rate increases of 36 percent in the last four years, and some people are reporting that since their smart meter, their bills have gone up 300 percent. That's not fair. That's not reliable. For that individual who has to pay that bill, is that going to be safe for them? What is it going to do to their income, their ability to put food on the table?

These are all questions that need to be asked, and they need to be asked in a proper review process to ensure that the public's interest is upheld. That's all the residents at the north end of Kootenay Lake want, and that's fair. That's the right thing to do, and that's exactly why we should do it, and that's exactly why this House should support this motion.

R. Howard: It's always a pleasure to rise and to talk about a subject, a file that has at its base one of our most marvelous natural resources, in this instance, water — a clean, green, renewable, sustainable and reliable source of hydroelectric power. It is a testament to the natural advantages this province enjoys.

I recall well as a young person growing up in this province, touring the province, always marvelling at the hydro assets that were located around the province. Vivid memories of the Columbia River…. We had friends and family that were in the area. There was a sense of concern as that facility was being created but, also, a sense of excitement about the future and what that facility would provide.
[ Page 10633 ]

Which brings me to my point. The fond memories from the '50s and '60s, when the system was created, speak to the need of the system to be modernized — many of its components being older than I am. It's an important step forward to modernize the system. The world has changed.

I know that the member opposite spoke of concerns over security. My goodness, when we look at the change in technology over the last decade alone…. We do our shopping, our investing, even our banking on line. So there are always concerns, but there are also always solutions as society moves forward in general. I think B.C. has such a strong leadership on the clean energy file that smart meters are a continuation of that.

So what is the result of modernizing our system, modernizing our electrical grid? I've heard say that members opposite don't think there are any advantages or that the only advantage is peak-period monitoring.

Well, I would beg to disagree. There are significant benefits to British Columbians, including improved safety and reliability through faster notification when an outage occurs. We have the benefit of more accurate meter readings. We have increased convenience for both the company, in terms of monitoring the meters, as well as the public. We have reduced electricity theft and increased ability for customers to track energy consumption and as a result to save money.

Interjection.

R. Howard: Conservation.

These benefits also enable savings to British Columbians, including efficiencies in outage management and reductions in theft.

I want to talk just about the concept of metering alone, because in my community, Richmond, when we installed water meters many years ago, I was on council. The citizens of Richmond embraced the opportunity to install water meters so they could have a better understanding of how their consumption was impacting the water grid in that instance. I know just in my own household that it became a management tool to look at our consumption, which only came, I think, on a quarterly basis. But we still were able to look at it and try and challenge ourselves to do better quarter after quarter. So I think there are great rewards for British Columbians in cost savings by managing a family's demand.

[1120]

Back to electricity. I know that when we managed commercial buildings in my life before politics, one of the great things, one of the great advancements, was…. On the side of the hydro bill there was a little graphic produced that compared month-over-month savings for the entire year. Again, we used that simple one-month-at-a-time graph to monitor our own behaviour, to challenge ourselves to reduce June over the previous June or June over May and understand what impacted that bill. I can only look forward and anticipate that with more information, with the ability to drill down deeper into what's driving consumption, there will be lots of opportunities all across the province to save energy as well.

I should note that B.C. is not alone. The Conference Board of Canada has recognized the need across the country to repair, upgrade and expand electrical utilities. Other utilities around the world are also upgrading their systems.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to stand in the House and comment on this motion. The whole issue arises out of what I think is clumsily introduced legislation and poorly implemented public policy, which seems to be the standard for this government over the last little while. We've seen mistake after mistake, blunder after blunder — and all preventable.

When you think about how government is supposed to implement public policy…. If you want a perfect case example to teach your poli-sci 101 what not to do, it's exactly what this government has done. The Clean Energy Act — introduced in the same term as the HST act, I might point out — shows exactly the level of capability that this government has — the HST and the Clean Energy Act.

I would even suggest that the Clean Energy Act was worse legislation than the HST. I would say that because of one thing. This government is trying to do an end run past the oversight bodies that exist in this province to protect the public interest.

Now, everybody out there in the public should realize that specific legislation was passed — was barely debated but was passed — in order to circumvent the processes that we have put in place as a democratic society here to protect the public interest. Why wouldn't a project of this value…? If it was such a good idea, why would the government be afraid of putting that past the B.C. Utilities Commission? That's my question. I can see their heads all going down because they know it's the truth as well.

The Clean Energy Act was a mistake. The Clean Energy Act was introduced by a minister who insisted that it would be overseen, that the smart-metering program would be overseen. Did we see that at all? No. It was an end run that has not served the public interest.

We have people who are concerned about their health. Whether you agree or not or whether you see the evidence is there or not, I would suggest that they have concerns. The public has concerns.

Others have concerns about privacy. Are you concerned about your privacy? Maybe not. Maybe you don't really care one way or the other. You'll let someone come along or read your meter from somewhere far away.

Then there are issues around price, the cost. In my riding Ivor Gustafson's bill went from $178 for a two-month period to over $2,000. That's not a mistake? These are just little tips of the iceberg that the ministers and the mem-
[ Page 10634 ]
bers of the government caucus all know. They've been getting e-mails as well. They've been pretending that it's just a little bit of an anomaly — anomalies, anomalies, anomalies. Well, you have enough anomalies and you've got a big problem.

What we have on our hands is a big, foreseeable problem that this government failed to anticipate, as is its nature. It seems to me that had the government put adequate forethought, adequate planning into this public policy, they wouldn't have found themselves in the mess they're finding themselves in.

But I would say that the mess they're in isn't as bad as the messes that I find my constituents are in. Single parents who see their bills going from $178 a month to $415 — that's a problem. It's a problem bigger than this government wants to contemplate.

[1125]

I have families in my constituency who are struggling to pay rent, and now their hydro bills are almost reaching the level of rent that they have to pay. This isn't just a minor inconvenience. This isn't about something that's sort of: "Oh, poor you, you don't want modernization." We understand the importance of modernization. That's not the issue.

The issue is we have public policy that should be implemented with the knowledge and understanding that the public should have in public policy. I think that what this government has failed to do was to adequately consult. When they had the opportunity for an independent review of the entire program, they chose to duck and cover and go around the backs of the public.

I think that's something that the public is getting awfully tired of. They've seen it in situations. They've seen it with the HST. They saw it with the smart-metering programs. The seniors are seeing it with their DriveABLE program. It's an end run, bad public policy based on ideas that seem to come and get introduced and passed without adequate discussion.

I would also point out that the Clean Energy Act, the act that allowed the government to circumvent our processes, the democratic processes that we've fought for, was also passed with closure. In other words, the government decided they don't want to hear any more about it. They don't want to discuss in detail the clauses of this piece of legislation because they know it's a problem. They felt that it would be easier if they just hid it, if they didn't talk about it, if they suppressed the information through a lack of debate — lack of open, rigorous debate, which is what we should do.

H. Bloy: As I look across the Legislature today, I'm wondering how the NDP is doing. I see two of their members with casts on their hands. Are they winning or losing their fights? What's going on? That's what I want to know.

This motion was introduced.... And I'm opposed to this motion. I believe it's wrong. I don't think it was smartly thought out at all.

First, I just want to review a few of the key facts before I move on with this. Smart meters are a step forward. It's a step forward with all the new technology that's taking place. It's going to upgrade our grid. It's going to allow us to have faster and better information, not only for B.C. Hydro but for the end users. Smart meters have many benefits: more accurate meter reading, increased convenience, reduced electrical theft.

B.C. has always been at the forefront of clean energy, and smart meters are no exception to that. With smart meters, British Columbians will be able to enjoy some of the lowest prices for hydro in all of North America. B.C. Hydro has been a leader in low prices for North America. I believe it's number two in all of North America.

The NDP stand there, and they criticize, and they oppose. They're very good at opposing and criticizing. They're opposed to run of the river. They're opposed to wind power. They're opposed to water power. They're just opposed. But they weren't opposed to John Laxton in the chair of B.C. Hydro, back a number of years ago, spending millions and millions of dollars in Pakistan. What benefit did that bring British Columbians? Nothing. Not one savings. Nope.

They don't know how to save. They just know how to spend. If it wasn't for the past right-wing governments of British Columbia — from the Social Credit, from W.A.C. Bennett — bringing the dam to British Columbia, we wouldn't have the Lower Mainland that we have today. It's our government that's doing the process to expand the dam. It's our government that's increased hydroelectricity in British Columbia, which allows British Columbia to grow, to make it the great province it is today.

I just want to quote from the Conference Board of Canada. It's also recognized for Canada to repair, upgrade and expand the nation's power grids to meet the demand.... They're saying these investments will "boost the economy and create a steady stream of high-paying jobs." That's what our government has been doing: creating jobs in British Columbia, creating Hydro so that we can have the processing, the mining and the manufacturing here.

British Columbia has developed many great electrical savings around the world. We have Legend Power for its maximization systems. There are so many great things that happen in British Columbia because of innovation and technology. It all goes from having the energy to provide these savings to all British Columbians.

[1130]

The NDP's Energy critic has acknowledged the benefits that smart meters will have if customers want to monitor their energy consumption. In this House he admitted: "Certainly, I'm really excited about smart metering." I guess he was really excited. I'd like to know how excited he was, because he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth. I can't figure it out.
[ Page 10635 ]

Is he excited because the Leader of the Opposition can't fraudulently do something against the consumers of British Columbia, can't lie and cheat and steal money from the citizens of British Columbia? Is that why he speaks out of both sides of his mouth? It really makes me wonder how a Leader of the Opposition can steal from the public.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

H. Bloy: Is this what we're trying to do here?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will caution you.

H. Bloy: You know, sometimes it really makes me wonder about the Leader of the Opposition stealing from the public, fraud. I wonder how he proposed to his wife. Is he like his good friend Svend Robinson? I wonder how he did that.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

H. Bloy: I'm just wondering. How did he do that?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Island on a…?

Point of Order

C. Trevena: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed is using unacceptable, unparliamentary behaviour, unparliamentary language and inferring the good name of the Leader of the Opposition. I would hope that he will withdraw and apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the point of order is well taken. I will ask the member to withdraw.

H. Bloy: I withdraw.

Debate Continued

H. Bloy: I'd like to quote from Jim Burpee, the president and CEO….

Point of Order

B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, point of order. If the member from the Sunshine Coast is going to yap, he should be in his own seat.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member from Kootenay's point is well taken. If the member wishes to involve himself in the debate, he needs to return to his seat.

The member for Nechako Lakes has the floor.

Point of Order

J. Rustad: I'd like a formal apology to the Legislature from the member from Sunshine Coast for using unparliamentary hand signals to the members of the government. That sort of action should be totally and completely unacceptable, and I'd like him to make a formal apology to this House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

All members will return to proper decorum befitting this chamber.

Member, continue.

Debate Continued

H. Bloy: I'd like to quote from Jim Burpee, president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association. He describes smart meters as the "backbone by which utility operators get to enable all the other potential of the smarter grid afterwards. The overall system becomes much stronger with the evolution of the smart grid."

Then again, we can look back to 1997 when the NDP shut down the Utilities Commission review that was set to look at more retail competition in delivering electricity in B.C. Coincidentally, this decision occurred just one week after the announcement that government was increasing the amount that Hydro was going to pay in government dividends.

In 2001 the NDP mined $305 million from B.C. Hydro to give British Columbia a pre-election payout of $200. Can you imagine what they could have done if they had used that money to look at how to deliver hydro better, instead of giving hundreds of thousands to an NDP think tank at the end that could never survive on its own or live whatsoever?

Hon. Speaker, I'm opposed to this motion.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will come to order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[1135]

C. Trevena: I take my place in this debate, actually shocked that it could have devolved into such nastiness, such rancour, such outrageous fiction and fabrication from the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. I think that
[ Page 10636 ]
he's brought this House into further disrepute. It's no wonder that the public has no respect for what we do here.

It's not just the appalling legacy of this government that's left us with having to debate an issue like this. As my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast talks about, it's a simple matter of public policy. But it's behaviour and actions that we've just seen from the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, that I hope he will have the decency…. I'm very pleased he's withdrawn. I hope he'll have the decency to apologize.

I'm going to debate this motion which is on the table because it is an important motion. That's why we've brought it to the floor. That's why we're using an hour of this time — because we think it matters to the people of B.C., to the four million people of B.C., the people of B.C. that we represent, who look to us as leaders in our communities, not as childish people who are just going to use epithets and insults and are going to create fabricated history.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the history lessons we've had from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who participated, and also from Richmond Centre. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission gave us sort of a little history lesson about what has happened in the many years that he has been growing up in B.C., and I'm very glad that he enjoyed his time in Holberg. In fact, in Holberg just down the road from where he grew up, there is going to be a wind farm. But he's talking about the change in technology, change in times and that we need to move on.

What the member seems to forget is that as part of this change in technology and moving to smart meters, you also need to have a smart grid. I note that he really didn't address the motion very well, and the member for Richmond Centre, likewise. I agree with him as he marvels at the wonderful infrastructure that we have — the big dams that we've got and the amazing work that was done in the 1950s and the 1960s to create the B.C. Hydro that we have today.

But I think that what these members and the government could learn, when looking at B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission — and ignoring the B.C. Utilities Commission, as it has done — is that they could learn from history a little bit. They could learn about the hubris of power and the arrogance of a government — what happens to those governments that don't listen to the people and that don't respect the public, nor do they respect the concepts of public policy and good public policy.

What we're talking about here and the reason we would want to see the B.C. Utilities Commission having a comprehensive review of the smart-metering program goes back to our first arguments about the smart-metering program, which is that it is a $1 billion program that is getting no public oversight.

We all have huge respect for B.C. Hydro. It is our public power utility. It is owned by the people of B.C. It provides power to the people of B.C. It provides power at a very good rate to the people of B.C. It provides clean power to the people of B.C. and has provided clean power to the people of B.C. for many years. Well before this government came in and started talking about clean, renewable power, it was providing clean, renewable power.

What we're looking at is a matter of public policy and good governance. What we wanted to make sure of through this motion, through B.C. Utilities Commission oversight, is that B.C. Hydro is working in the best interests of the public. The B.C. Utilities Commission has, really, a very clear, very simple mandate. Its mandate is that it has to ensure that customers receive safe, reliable and non-discriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates. It's got to make sure that shareholders of these utilities are afforded a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on their capital and that the competitive interests of B.C. businesses are not frustrated.

It would seem to me that if you're going to be investing…. We're asking B.C. Hydro to be investing $1 billion. That's $1 billion. We see no money going into a poverty reduction program. We see no money going into the areas of real need where we have a huge need. We see $1 billion going to provide meters, without the oversight.

[1140]

Maybe the B.C. Utilities Commission would come back and say: "Yeah, this is a good idea." But without that review, without accepting the public policy system….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Barnett: I stand here in this House today to oppose this resolution. I think it's time that we all took a look at the world today. In our world we have change — change for modern society and for modern technology, change to make improvements. Government must lead, and in order to lead, you make decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the people of the province of British Columbia. Basically, B.C. Hydro made that decision. This government makes those decisions on a day-to-day basis. Many of those decisions are not popular, but they are the right thing to do.

I look back into history, as many of my colleagues here have done today — how B.C. Hydro first started and what this province was basically built upon. It was built upon infrastructure, and it started with power, transportation and the other needs for the people of this province to make it grow and to make it succeed. Here we are today talking about new technology and what's right and what's wrong and what's good and what's bad, and he said, she said.

I believe the smart meters are right. The riding I come from…. I have had some concerned citizens contact me, and I appreciate every one of them. Every one of their concerns has been addressed through people working for
[ Page 10637 ]
B.C. Hydro who have gone and had their discussions with these people. Are we going to make everybody happy? No. But are we doing the right thing? Yes.

If we do not improve our infrastructure continuously…. That was not done in the '90s. Whether it be health care or transportation or hydro or whatever, we must, yearly, improve infrastructure as our province succeeds and grows — increased population, technology. We must be out in the forefront in advancement and taking care of the needs of the people of this province.

Let's look at what smart meters are going to accomplish in many areas of British Columbia. They're going to save money. They are going to help with power outages. Many people in many ridings don't like trees cut down. Guess what, folks. When we have windstorms, we lose power. This will save time. It will save lives. It will help workers.

It will also do something that is most interesting and may upset some people. You know, out in rural British Columbia and in many parts of British Columbia we have a criminal mindset out there, and we have grow ops. We have people stealing hydro. This will certainly help cut back on policing costs. It will certainly help catch these criminals.

This is a great thing, a great thing these speakers….

Interjections.

D. Barnett: You know, if you also look at other benefits…. There are many benefits. It's very, very interesting to me. I'm looking back at some comments that I have here. When I look at these comments…. I must find the right ones. It says here, on March 30, 2012, "Smart metering will enable these grow ops to be located," without costs, without many, many instances of gangs.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: That is strong. Maybe the opposition wants these things to carry on. Where I come from, we want to stop the criminal element as quickly and as efficiently as we can, and smart meters will certainly, certainly help us to do this.

You know, we talk about customer complaints. The biggest complaint I get? The biggest complaint that I get is that too many people are complaining about moving this province forward. I'm here to tell you that we must not let the negative outcome the positive…

We talk about working together in this House, and that we must. But when we have people who don't understand that in moving a province forward, infrastructure needs are a must, we cannot do that.

I encourage this motion to be defeated.

[1145]

R. Austin: I take my place in support of this motion, following the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the very astute comments that she made.

Look, here's the thing. If indeed what the B.C. Liberals have been saying this morning is correct insofar as all of the wonderful benefits of the smart meter program, then surely this could have gone before the B.C. Utilities Commission. That is the body that's actually put here to create independent oversight for something like the expenditure of a billion dollars of ratepayers' money — not a hundred million, not tens of millions, but $1 billion.

If all of these reasons for having the smart meter program were so good, then surely the B.C. Utilities Commission would have come to that conclusion and would have said that this was a worthwhile expenditure.

The fact is that this government chose to take an end run around the B.C. Utilities Commission. Why is that? Why is it that the B.C. Utilities Commission wasn't even given the opportunity to hear all of the arguments, pro and con, for this expenditure? I would suggest to you it's because most of these arguments make no sense whatsoever.

Now, in my riding of Skeena, here's what has happened since this smart meter program has gone in. People have contacted my office with claims that their bills have gone up — not by 50 bucks or a hundred bucks, but they've gone up by 200 and 300 percent. Of course, what does B.C. Hydro say? "Oh well, maybe the customer suddenly put in a hot tub, or maybe the customer got rid of their old wood stove and suddenly decided to have baseboard heating put in."

Now, do you honestly think that people would be contacting my office if they had done something like that? People aren't stupid out there. People are smart enough to realize that many of these smart meters, unfortunately, are not so smart. In fact, they don't work.

The government and B.C. Hydro have already admitted this. I believe at least a thousand meters have had to be pulled out because they were faulty. So much for them being super smart. They were faulty — a thousand meters across British Columbia.

We don't even know if that could just be the tip of the iceberg, because as more and more complaints come in, the Minister of Energy responsible for this said in the House a couple weeks ago that if people have bills in their constituency from their constituents that seem a little bit odd, to bring them to him personally. Well, you know what? We shouldn't have to be bringing bills from our constituents to the Ministry of Energy and Mines — right? We shouldn't need to do that.

This program should have been properly thought out. It should have been worked out beforehand, decided whether it was in the public interest of the people of British Columbia, and then it should have been brought forward.

Instead, what we've got are constituents who are very upset. Let me explain. There are constituents who, when
[ Page 10638 ]
they make complaints, are told that it's going to be looked into — okay? But in the meantime, they're supposed to pay their bills, or they're threatened with their electricity being cut off.

It is fundamentally wrong to go to a senior who's on a fixed income or go to somebody who has a family and is trying hard and struggling to pay their own bills and to suddenly say that some erroneous $400 or $500 electricity bill has to be paid while B.C. Hydro looks into it. That is fundamentally wrong.

You know, you have to think about why it is that the government has chosen to take an end run around the B.C. Utilities Commission. We've seen hydro rates increase 36 percent in the last couple of years here — okay? We once had, by any means, the cheapest electricity rates, but we've seen them increase quite distinctly in the last little while.

Why is that? Well, in part, of course, it's to pay for some of the failed policies of the Clean Energy Act of this government. What they have done is gone and bought power — not necessarily that we need it — at very high rates, and we're selling it at even cheaper rates. That's why we have to have smart meters come in so in the future they can perhaps gouge our citizens even more by coming and using time-of-use billing.

What is time-of-use billing? If you're a family and you come home from school or you come home from work, needless to say, you're suddenly going to have greater electricity use — the kids are home, the heat is on, whatever. You know, you're got to make supper. You're going to have to do laundry. People are not going to be able, once they find out what time of day they're using their electricity….

It's not like they're going to get up in the middle of the night and start doing laundry. Families have to function as they do. So really, time-of-use billing is not going to help our citizens. But that's the reason why, long term, I think this has been brought in.

[1150]

I want to make one last point. The northwest transmission line in my area, which originally had…. I see I'm out of time. Don't worry. There'll be lots more time to talk.

J. Rustad: I actually want to thank the member opposite for bringing this motion forward. It's created some interesting debate this morning.

I've just got to ask a question. The member for Skeena just came up and said that a thousand meters were pulled because they're faulty. Are you intentionally misleading the House, or do you have evidence that we don't currently have? From my understanding, there have been a thousand meters that have been pulled that were pulled to review, not because they were faulty. If he wants to mislead the House….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, it is possible to disagree without resorting to personal attack. I would wish that to be the case, and I would ask the member to withdraw those remarks.

J. Rustad: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the remark accusing him of intentionally misleading the Legislature. Thank you.

Carrying forward, maybe I'll take a little bit of a different approach here. I was talking with my colleague about the definition of "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. I found it very interesting that when the NDP were in power — and the person who moved forward this motion was in the Premier's office — they removed B.C. Hydro from the B.C. Utilities Commission. Hey, isn't that amazing? They don't seem to think that the B.C. Utilities Commission even had a role in what B.C. Hydro does.

Now, of course, we added it back into the Utilities Commission, and it's been a part of the process. Now they're standing up and saying: "We want oversight when you are looking at a program but certainly not when we want to do a program."

In any case, the other thing I think about is this. The grid that we have in this province was introduced back in the 1950s, and the technology around that was for the 1950s. Surely, things need to be updated. If you're going to be updating a grid, updating the equipment that you have, you really should be looking at things that are state of the art and that are being done around it that have flexibility to be able to do a host of other things in the future.

There's a reason why there's going to be more than a billion of these things installed around the world — a billion of them being installed around the world. They seem to want to go back to 1950s technology.

The member who introduced this suggested he's received I don't know how many thousands of e-mails.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Perfect. Great. So 8,000 e-mails that he's received.

Well, back in the 1950s they didn't have e-mails. They didn't have cell phones. They didn't have pagers. The only way stuff came in was actually by telegram. That's the type of technology that the province has been working on and the need for doing upgrades to the system. When I think about the upgrades….

I live in rural B.C. When the power system goes out in rural B.C., it's important that B.C. Hydro knows where it is, what the problem is. They can get there to fix it quickly. It's a long travel distance — right? There aren't maintenance people all over the place to do that. These smart meters will help immensely with being able to do just that. That is a huge benefit to many, many rural residents. I understand the opposition don't care about rural B.C., but that's fine.
[ Page 10639 ]

The other thing when I think about this is…. Talk about safety and reliability. I mean, these things…. Sure, like any technology, there may be some challenges, which is why there are audit reviews and these things that go on with it. But these things are safe technology, which has been around for 40-plus years. The opposition is saying that there are health concerns and stuff. I've seen all of the articles around it.

But I have to say that cell phones…. All of the same arguments were used for cell phones 30-plus years ago. All of those studies and stuff that came out back then have all been proven to be not quite the same concern that they thought it was when it was introduced.

Now, I understand people's concerns about health and all those sorts of things around this. But there's no question in my mind that if we want this province to grow; if we want to have a good power network, which is critical for economic growth in this province and the prosperity of our people; and if we want people to continue to use technology, we are going to have to make upgrades to our hydro system. We are going to have to make upgrades to the way things are monitored and to the process, and the smart meter system is a step in the right direction.

Now, I understand the NDP would love to take us back, would love to go back to some other era, maybe even the 1950s, in terms of it. But there's no question. We need to be moving forward.

This is the right thing to do. I'm very pleased that we're able to make this investment in our future so that we can have reliable power and have a good grid to be able to depend on, especially in places like rural B.C.

[1155]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

D. Routley: I rise to support the motion that indeed this House should support a review of the smart-metering program that has been undertaken by B.C. Hydro and that review should indeed be done by BCUC.

The B.C. Liberal mismanagement of B.C. Hydro has pushed it to the brink of bankruptcy in fact. The corporation is in dire straits financially. We've seen hydro rates for British Columbians rise 36 percent in the past couple of years, and that is not something that is at all in the public interest. Now with smart meters we see a billion dollars of ratepayers' money being directed to a program with very dubious claims to saving power and stopping crime and any other number of promises that the Liberals can come up with to justify this program.

In fact, the problem for the B.C. Liberals is the very fact that they didn't allow BCUC to review the program. Had BCUC reviewed this program, they would have been able to declare whether or not it was in the public interest, whether or not the technology was efficient and effective and whether or not it was going to impose a greater cost on British Columbians. Perhaps it would have been better to spend a billion dollars worth of ratepayers' money on upgrading public buildings and actually have a quantifiable savings in power out of investment of public money.

Instead, the B.C. Liberals, in a bully-like fashion, have rammed through public policy without adequate consultation. The people of Gabriola in my constituency are desperate to have this reviewed and to have their voices heard. People are afraid that this technology is unhealthy, that it lacks security. There have been a lot of questions in the media recently about the security issues around this technology.

Unfortunately for the government, they are caught in a corner of their own making. Had they allowed a review of this technology, all of these complaints would not be directed at the B.C. Liberal Party. Instead, they could say rightly that the program had been approved or disapproved by BCUC, by an independent body. Instead, the B.C. Liberals rightly wear the blame for the problems that we see resulting from B.C. Hydro's smart meter program, and that's unfortunate.

D. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank all the members for their spirited debate and move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada