2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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)

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Statements

NEW DENVER BOATING ACCIDENT

K. Conroy: On Saturday afternoon tragedy struck in the tiny community of New Denver. A canoe overturned with four young people aboard. When rescuers arrived, the only person found in the canoe was 19-year-old Lily Harmer-Taylor, who later died in hospital despite intensive resuscitation attempts, both at the scene and at the hospital. The RCMP continued to search for the other three boaters — Hayden Kyle, 21; Skye Donnet, 18; and Jule Wiltshire-Padfield, 15.

This has hit the small community very hard, and everyone has come together to support each other in this very difficult time. On Sunday night residents gathered for a community healing ceremony on the shore of Slocan Lake. I ask the House to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of the missing young men and our condolences to Lily's family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests with us here today in the gallery. Marilyn Orr is a retiree from Thunder Bay, Ontario, spends her winters here in Victoria and happens to be the mom of one of our splendid assistant deputy ministers, Lindsay Kislock. Also, Marilyn's granddaughter Allison Eggert is visiting from Sudbury, Ontario. She's just completed her second year of school at McMaster University where she studies business. Will the House please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are some very special people from my constituency of Juan de Fuca. Fred and Lucy Proctor are here today with their son Rob. Joining them are Bob and Linda Proctor, Jo-Anne Kent, Marissa and Marina Landolt.

They're here to join with us in observing the presentation of a series of petitions by myself and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, to try and introduce some sense into the tragic loss of Kimberly Proctor in March of 2010.

I know that this is a very moving issue, and we're going to be talking about this briefly today, but I want to just say to everyone assembled here and everyone watching how proud I am of the Proctor family for their courageous stand to try and improve the lives of families here in British Columbia after their tragic, tragic loss. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: In the House today is the Technology Education and Careers Council. The council is a group of leaders from industry and education that were brought together by the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia to align common interests in engineering, technology, education and careers.

In the House today we are joined by Chair Sid Siddiqui, the vice-president of Stantec; Sandy Innes, VP at Telus; and other members of the board. Also, from the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., we have President Dave Rutherford and the CEO John Leech. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

G. Heyman: It gives me pleasure to join the minister today in welcoming representatives of the technology and science industries in British Columbia and, in particular, the people who hosted many of us today at lunchtime — the associations of the ASTTBC and, in particular, John Leech, the CEO, and Dave Rutherford, the president, as well as Sid Siddiqui. Thank you very much, and join me….

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the member's gallery this afternoon is His Excellency Niels Boel Abrahamsen. He is the ambassador of Denmark to Canada.

[1340]

Also joining us is Mr. John Petersen, the honorary consul of Denmark in Vancouver. They will be meeting with myself and several members of this House today to discuss issues of great importance to our two governments, including trade, aboriginal relations and resource development. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the ambassador and the honorary consul.

Statements

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

S. Hammell: I rise to acknowledge that this week is Mental Health Week and to explain to those in the gallery that the green ribbons we are wearing are a gesture of support to those who have suffered from mental illness. As many of you know, one in five will suffer some kind of mental illness in their lifetime. If you do the math, that means 17 of us sitting here.

People with mental illness have suffered for centuries under a dark stigma and have been labelled and shunned by many communities. Fortunately, that is changing as we learn more about the disease that affects the mind and body. But we still have a long way to go. Would the House please join me in acknowledging Mental Health Week.
[ Page 3940 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: We are joined in the gallery today by an incredible group of women, all with very impressive resumes — a tremendous list of accomplishments behind them. All of them are dedicated to transforming their communities, and I think — just as importantly, if not more importantly — are dedicating themselves to being role models and mentors for young women who also want to succeed in a world where sometimes it is a little bit harder for women to get ahead.

They're sharing what they've learned. They are making sure that they make a very real difference across the province. There are quite a few here. I'd just like to introduce the board members: Julia Kim is the president of the International Women's Forum Vancouver, Lynne Kennedy is the past president, Nancy Laughton is a board member in Vancouver, and Vicki Kuhl is a board member in Victoria.

They're joined by a long list of very, very accomplished women. I hope that the whole House will make them very welcome today.

B. Ralston: I would like to welcome a delegation of Taiwanese Canadians here on behalf of the official opposition. I'd like to name several of them personally: John Tsai, who is the president of the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese-Canadian Association; William Tsai, the executive director of Maple Overseas Cultural Foundation; Paul Chen, director of the Taiwanese-Canadian Association; Jonathan Yang; Po-Chan Chang; Michael C.L. Hsu; Caroline Hu; Chih Lung Chan; Jaiu Mei Ho; Ya Chuan Chan; Helen K.C. Ho — all of the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese-Canadian Association.

And finally, Lily Dyson, president of the North America Taiwanese Professors Association.

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the House today are James Fong and Raymond Yee from Sing-Tao Daily, as well as Eric Chang from Ming Pao Daily News. They are all reporters here visiting and observing the Legislature today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

LESLIE KARAGIANIS

M. Karagianis: On May 5, 2010, I made an introduction here in the House as part of a statement on the celebration of the Canadian Navy that celebrated its 100th anniversary that year. I introduced my uncle, Les Karagianis, who was with us in the gallery that day. The House was particularly gracious to him when I commented that he, too, was 100 years old at that time. The House gave him a standing ovation, which touched him very deeply, and we gave him a presentation folder from Hansard.

Uncle Les signed up with the Canadian Navy in 1930. He was a supply lieutenant and was involved in numerous convoys in World War II, among many other events in a long and very illustrious career in the navy.

His nephew, Gerry Karagianis, asked me particularly to include these words today: "Les was the kindest, most gentle and funny man. He led his life with grace and dignity. Les was a dear friend, a role model and a hero to all members of his family."

Leslie Karagianis passed away peacefully in his sleep on Monday. He would have celebrated his 105th birthday in August. I'd like to mark his passing here today.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'd ask the House to welcome in the gallery Mr. T. J. Parhar, who has worked tirelessly for a series of ministers during his 12 years in this House working in the buildings. He's about to get married in Mexico and then run off to the private sector. May we wish him well as his future unfolds.

R. Chouhan: I would like to join my colleague from Surrey-Whalley to welcome all my good friends from the Taiwanese community, and specially John Lee, Naome Lee, Douglas Chiang, and William and John Tsai. They're like family friends to me. Particularly, I want to welcome my constituents Wilson Lee, Tina Fan and Victor Yu. Please join me in welcoming all of these wonderful people here today.

D. Horne: In the galleries this afternoon we have a political science class from the University of Victoria spending the afternoon with members learning about civic engagement. This course, "Public Policy and Analysis: the Art of Engagement," is led by Prof. Sarah Wiebe, who's a former British Columbia intern from 2007. May the House make them truly welcome.

J. Darcy: I would like to join with the member opposite in welcoming our guests from Denmark. Velbekomme. Katrine Conroy's family is from Frederikssund, and I was born in Grindsted in Jylland. Mange tak and goddag.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's an honour today to welcome a school group visiting from my riding. I would like to introduce — and I believe they're just entering the gallery right now — Mrs. Pam Spadavecchia's grade 5 class from Holy Trinity school in North Vancouver. I hope they enjoy question period today, and I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

M. Mungall: I have two guests in the gallery this afternoon. Jessica and Rosalie — her 14-year-old daughter —
[ Page 3941 ]
Sothcott are with us today. They're here at the Legislature to share their personal stories of what it is to have child support clawed back. May the House please make them very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I join the Leader of the Official Opposition in welcoming the members of the Proctor family. I look forward to meeting with them later on, along with the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and people from the Ministry of Children and Families, as well as Justice.

Tributes

VICTIMS OF MINE EXPLOSION IN TURKEY

H. Bains: I'd like to take this opportunity…. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of every member of this House to pay tribute to those victims of a mine explosion in Turkey. I think the last count is about 270, and many are still missing. I just want to say our thoughts, our prayers, our sympathies are with the families and the people of Turkey. I can't even imagine the pain that the families are going through whose loved one went to work and never came home. Others are still missing. I just want to say that our thoughts are with them.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: Today in the gallery we have the full executive of B.C. Hydro — here in anticipation of the inquisition that the Leader of the Opposition will bring down upon me later this afternoon in estimates.

Actually, they all asked me to not introduce them. They'd like me to focus on introducing Charles Reid, the president of B.C. Hydro, who is retiring at the end of June. Let me just say quickly that Charles Reid joined B.C. Hydro in 2008 as the company's executive vice-president for finance and the chief financial officer. He was appointed president and CEO of B.C. Hydro in July of 2012.

Charles has been the chief financial officer for companies like Canfor Corp. He's held many senior financial and operational positions, including 14 years in the field at pulp and paper operations in Prince George. He's a certified general accountant and a chartered director. He's done many, many things that would bring commendation in his career.

[1350]

I can tell the House that it really is an honour for me to get to work with people of the calibre of Charles Reid. With all the education, with all of the skills, with all the experience, he's a really good guy, and I think that's also important. Let the House help me make him welcome and thank him.

G. Heyman: It gives me pleasure today to join some of my colleagues in welcoming representatives of the Taiwanese-Canadian community. In particular, joining us in the gallery today from the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese Seniors Association are Huan-Chang Cheng, Chi-Te Hsiao, Pi-Yen Chiang, Fang Eui Lu and Hsiu Pao Chen Lu.

Also in the gallery is Douglas Chiang, the secretary general of the Taiwanese-Canadian Association, and from the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society, the CEO, Cecilia Chueh, who I had the pleasure of meeting last Friday and who gave me a wonderful tour of their centre, showed me the exhibits. I urge anyone in the Lower Mainland to go see them. It's a wonderful display of art, and it's a wonderful display of the culture of Taiwanese Canadians in the Lower Mainland.

Thank you, and will the members of the House join me in making them very, very welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: Like many in the House, it's not too often we get to see people from our hometown. I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, who share the Kelowna region, to welcome Dr. Andrew Hay to the House — vice-president academic of Okanagan College. Please help me make him welcome.

J. Shin: I'm very blessed to have so many friends from the Lower Mainland visiting me today. I hope the members will bear with me.

In the precinct is Guy Frederick Black. Guy is a local history enthusiast, and it was both my honour and pleasure to be able to assist him in some of his many noble projects over the years. It was also through Guy, at a Hastings Lake naming ceremony, that I met another community legend, Tim Jones, who is greatly missed.

I look forward to joining Guy again on June 21 for his 2014 Walk for Veterans, along with the member for Port Coquitlam, as well as the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. Would the House please make Guy and his wonderful family — Melanie, Shawn and Cameron — feel very welcome.

I can't quite see her, but also in the gallery today is my sister from another mother, Emma Wan Chin Lee. Emma and I have many things in common. While we both studied science at UBC, our entrepreneurial drive took us to a life as small business owners. It looks like politics found both of us, and that's how our paths crossed last year.

Emma is one of the most intelligent, hard-working, diligent, caring people that I've had the pleasure to work with. She's a wonderful advocate for our residents in Burnaby-Lougheed, and I couldn't ask for a better teammate to serve the community with. Would the House please welcome my distinguished colleague and my new BFF, Emma Lee.

Lastly but not least, I would like to also welcome my family from the Taiwanese community. Not only did over
[ Page 3942 ]
100 from our Taiwanese community sign up as members to nominate me for my candidacy in Burnaby-Lougheed; they both have, before and also after the elections, supported me in every way that a politician can ever dream to be supported.

In the large delegation with us today, also my constituents, are my Uncle John Lee and Auntie Naome Lee, the directors from the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese-Canadian Association; as well as the president, Fa-Kuan Fan, of the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese Seniors Association and his partner, Lo Kuei-Chiu; and of course, the amazing Cecilia Chueh, the CEO of the Taiwanese Cultural Society.

Could the House please give them a very, very warm welcome.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to join with my colleagues on this side to welcome our friends from the Taiwanese community, particularly, from the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese Seniors Association, two constituents of mine who are here — Show Yang Chao and Sue Chu Chuang. Please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope we can welcome the members of the Fraser Basin Council, who are here in the buildings today, chaired by none other than Colin Hansen.

[1355]

M. Bernier: It's not often I get to introduce somebody from my riding as well. I'm very honoured to have a young man from Dawson Creek who is learning down here at university with the public policy class. Will the House please welcome Sanjay Bowry to the House.

L. Reimer: It's my pleasure to also welcome my constituent Mr. Guy Black. I look forward to working with him in the coming months on an event that he's organizing.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ERASE BULLYING STRATEGY

J. Thornthwaite: Bullying is not a rite of passage. Every child should feel safe at home and at school, and as parents and educators, we do our best to ensure that our children are happy and healthy. But too often we hear tragic stories of young people being tormented by their peers. Sometimes these stories end in suicide, sometimes murder.

Under the ERASE Bullying strategy, British Columbia has become a leader in bullying prevention and is the first province in Canada to develop a comprehensive approach to the issue. We believe that efforts focused on early intervention and prevention are key to protecting youth. To that end, the ERASE provincial advisory council has created a committee to develop the provincial guidelines for violence threat risk assessment.

This is something that many have been calling for — in particular, the proponents of Kimberly's law, who are here today. This assessment, which will be used in conjunction with the codes of conduct adopted by all 60 school districts, will help administrators identify students who have made threats or engaged in threatening behaviour.

These guidelines will also help administrators clearly define the difference between conflict and bullying and identify the conditions of bullying activities, which involve an imbalance of power, intent to harm and repeated behaviour. Threat assessment training will not only be made available to schools but also to post-secondary institutions as part of the curriculum for teachers.

The goal is to ensure the safety and well-being of all students and, perhaps most importantly, to resolve problems before they escalate. By developing a safe school culture and by providing teachers and staff with broad threat-assessment skills, we can reduce the incidence of threatening behaviour and empower those suffering from bullying to seek help.

I encourage anyone who is interested and wants more information to check erasebullying.ca.

KIMBERLY'S LAW

M. Karagianis: I rise today in the House to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Proctor family in developing Kimberly's law. As many of you may know, in March of 2010, the life of 18-year-old Kimberly Proctor, lovingly known as Kimmy, a vibrant young woman about to graduate and explore the life before her, was brutally cut short. She was assaulted and murdered by two Langford teens.

In the days that followed Kimmy's murder, the investigation and court process brought many issues to light for the family, issues that we could only imagine and ones that no family should ever have to face. The Proctors discovered that while the increasingly aggressive behaviour of the teens raised red flags, it did not trigger any kind of integrated system which would respond to those warning signs and ensure mandated treatment.

In moving forward, the family felt that they needed to advocate for reforms. They developed Kimberly's law, with a provincial emphasis on identifying potential threats before such attacks occur, rather than trying to remediate them after the fact.

In the wake of this unthinkable tragedy, this family has worked tirelessly to bring forward reforms which would help families before violence occurs and subsequently bring about change so that what happened to Kimberly Proctor would not happen again.
[ Page 3943 ]

Today I ask, as this House continues its work, that all members reflect on what the Proctor family has had to endure these past few years and thank them for their amazing courage and their tireless efforts to make our society a better place. They have taken their daughter's death, and they have moved forward with action to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again.

[1400]

DONATION BY NANAIMO MILLWORKERS
AND RESPONSE TO SHOOTING AT MILL

Michelle Stilwell: I would like to share an example of a remarkable act of compassion that happened in my riding. In the midst of a terrible tragedy that has left an entire community in mourning, workers at the Nanaimo Western Forest Products mill were able to come together and to follow through with a promised donation to Habitat for Humanity. Western Forest Products' donation to the Campbell River ReStore was delivered on time as promised.

This is an example of community strength, compassion and selflessness that shows us the best of what it means to be an Islander and a British Columbian, even in dark times. In the wake of senseless violence in their workplace, the men and women who work at this mill were able to recognize the need of the other people in the community. The selflessness and compassion will make a real difference in the lives of others.

We may never know why the Nanaimo tragedy occurred, and we'll probably never find an answer to explain why it happened. But we do know this. We can move forward — as a community, as a team — as we continue to make our world a better place.

We must honour the memory of those who lost their lives on April 30 in Nanaimo. The thoughts of this House are with the families and friends of those who died and those who were hurt in this senseless attack.

Frederick McEachern and Michael Lunn were killed simply for being in their workplace. They leave behind spouses, children and co-workers. This past Saturday hundreds of people gathered to honour these two men and offer solace to their loved ones. We recognize their loss and the need for community support.

That support is also extended to Tony Sudar and Earl Kelly, who are recovering from their injuries that they suffered that day.

It is the strength of our community coming together that helps us to realize how strong we truly are when we stand together and support one another.

CHINESE AND ABORIGINAL
PLACER MINERS HERITAGE SITE

J. Kwan: On Monday, May 12, 2014, Bill Chu from Canadians for Reconciliation showed the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I, along with seven other media outlets, an important heritage site dating back to the 1858 gold rush near Lytton. It was a three-hour drive from my home constituency across the Fraser River to a living testament of our shared Chinese and aboriginal heritage in B.C.

When we arrived, we were introduced to local resident Bill Paul. Together, they led us through the sites and told of their significance. Bill Paul shared moving histories that were passed down by his ancestors of how the Chinese and First Nations workers mined for gold and platinum in the area by hand under deplorable conditions. He told us stories of how poorly the Chinese workers were treated and described their abysmal living and working conditions.

He said his great-grandfather recalled how members of the aboriginal community helped and supported the Chinese people with friendships, food and lodging. Through these difficult conditions, members of the two nations developed an everlasting bond that many in the community today still remember.

As to the physical site, it stretches 2.5 kilometres, and the visible rock piles were moved mostly by Chinese workers' own hands. It remains in pristine condition today with the odd artifact still visible on the surface.

Bill Paul showed us his collection of the artifacts that he himself found at the site, which included things like a shovel, fork, knife, spoon, cups, pots, a small weigh scale, parts of a wristwatch and medicine bottles. Bill Paul even showed us a couple of Chinese coins from the Qing dynasty era that he found on the site.

As Mike Kennedy, one of the few B.C. authorities on placer gold mines, noted: "The Fraser corridor is saturated with historic-era heritage sites, of which this is one of the most important." The site is also a key stop on historical study tours on which hundreds have been awed by the epic landscape created by early Chinese settlers in B.C.

I ask the House to please help me thank Bill Chu for his dedication over the years in educating and advocating for the recognition and preservation of these Chinese historical artifacts and sites.

VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

M. Dalton: I rise in the House today to recognize one of the province's excellent independent schools, Valley Christian School in Mission. Valley Christian School, or VCS, is hosting an open house and grand opening of its new facilities on Thursday, May 22, with youth activities, classroom tours and a community barbecue.

[1405]

Valley Christian School first opened in 1983 to educate students in a nurturing environment of faith and values inclusive of the broader community. From VCS sprang
[ Page 3944 ]
other schools located in Chilliwack and White Rock.

Today Valley Christian School offers a faith-based curriculum for students from kindergarten-to-grade-12 through innovative and flexible methods, including a main campus, technology-based distance learning and home school educational opportunities. Institutions like Valley Christian School provide excellence in education and offer choice for families. They have B.C.-certified teachers and follow the B.C. education curriculum.

Parents choose to send their kids to independent schools because of religious, cultural, philosophical and educational approaches that offer meaningful alternatives. In 2013 B.C. had over 350 independent schools, and 78,000 students, or approximately 13 percent, of B.C.'s kindergarten-to-grade-12 population were enrolled in independent schools this year.

Today I stand in this House to recognize the dedication and hard work of all of the students, teachers, parents, staff and supporters of Valley Christian School. Special acknowledgment goes to Principal Kevin Honey as well as to the visionary and committed board led by Paul Burns and Kelsey Manning.

I warmly congratulate the school on the grand opening of their new facilities and the positive impact that VCS has had and will continue to have in the lives of so many students.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND
CULTURAL FESTIVALS IN BURNABY

J. Shin: I expressed this sentiment several times already in this House, but I've got to say it again — that what I really adore about my community in Burnaby is our diversity. I'm grateful that I see that diversity represented here in the chamber also with my colleagues from Burnaby–Deer Lake, Burnaby-Edmonds and, of course, Burnaby North all being proud Canadians with diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Again this summer I am looking forward to seeing Burnaby do what Burnaby does best, which is celebrating our mosaic community with a full buffet of festivities coming up. We have the European Festival on May 31, the Multicultural Festival on June 21, the Fiji Festival on July 19, the Korean festival on August 16, as well as the Ethiopian festival and Bosnia-Herzegovina festival — all slated to take place in various locations in Burnaby, from our Swangard Stadium to Burnaby Lake West Park.

We have the whole world in Burnaby, really. I never have to travel far to find my piece of Punjab or get my dose of Italian. In particular, I am looking forward to one of the biggest festivals. It's the weekend-long TaiwanFest, which will be organized by many of my friends that are in the gallery today.

As we all know, Taiwan is a beautiful island country on the Tropic of Cancer in the west Pacific between Japan and the Philippines. It's only a little bigger than Vancouver Island, but it boasts a population of nearly 30 times ours here, with over 23 million people.

Our Taiwanese Canadians in B.C. brought with them their warm, friendly and fun-loving ways. So this August I invite all of the members to join us for an entire weekend of Taiwan in B.C. — to get your share of bubble tea, stinky tofu and my favourite, beef noodle soup.

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

J. Horgan: This past weekend single mothers and their children rallied across B.C. to draw attention to the child clawback that's been conducted by this government over the past ten years. Hon. Speaker, $17 million is taken out of the hands of children every year by this government — $17 million that could go to basic things like school supplies, nutritional food, clothes and other things.

The Minister of Social Development says that we can't afford, at this time, to give back mandated child support payments. The courts have said that these child support payments must go to children, and the government immediately claws it back.

It's not Liberal money. It's children's money. My question is to the Premier. She's had time to reflect on this. She's answered the question once before. Will she do the right thing today and end an egregious program that takes money out of children's pockets?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: May I start just by saying that because of my travels, this is the first opportunity that I've had to face the new Leader of the Opposition, so I'd certainly like to welcome him to his new role in this Legislature.

In answer to the question I'll say this: being a single parent is difficult. Any of us who experiences that on a day-to-day basis knows how hard it is, but for some parents it is a lot more difficult than it is for others. People who are struggling to find work that can support them to the extent that they need to be able to care for their children struggle more than most of us can ever imagine. We do need to support those parents, but what we need to do is also make sure that we are fair to all of the people in the province that are paying taxes and that are dependent on the system.

The reason that the government asks for that money back is because it's income. It's declared as income. Some people garner quite a bit of income in child support, while others don't garner quite so much. We want to make sure that we are fair across the system and recognize that income assistance is a service that's provided to try and help people get from social assistance back into the workforce. We intend to try and do that as broadly as we possibly can, making sure that parents have the
[ Page 3945 ]
opportunity to get to work, which is what we know all of them want to do.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the sentiment from the Premier that she wants to respect taxpayers. Well, I would argue that the $17 million that this government spent on partisan advertising last year would have been better spent for children living in poverty. So $342 million in cost overruns on the northwest transmission line; $341 million in cost overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre; $464 million in cost overruns on the South Fraser Perimeter Road. That would pay for the clawback for 60 years. How is that respecting taxpayers? How is a billion dollars of cost overruns while people are going without in this province…? How is that respecting taxpayers?

Families first doesn't mean families are the first to pick up after Liberals make mistakes. It should be putting people in need at the top of the line, not the bottom of the line.

Madame Premier, you could make a difference today in thousands and thousands of people's lives by ending the clawback, ending it right now.

Hon. C. Clark: Having answered the question a number of times already, I'd like to reflect on this. That is the fact that we believe on this side of the House that the best and the only way to lift people out of poverty, to lift families out of poverty, is to grow our economy. It's to make sure there are opportunities for people to access meaningful and useful job training that will put them into the workforce. It's to support people moving from social assistance to work, and it's to make sure that there are jobs for them when they get there.

That's why we are embarked on a generational opportunity to transform our economy, to ensure that we create more jobs in our province so that more people have an opportunity, a real opportunity, to participate in our workforce in a meaningful way and to bring home a family-supporting wage.

We believe in getting to yes on economic development. That's how you resolve poverty. One day I think the opposition will catch on.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: I thought it was impossible, but somehow the Premier just said that liquefied natural gas is going to help people on disability income assistance feed their children today. I don't know how that's going to happen, but in the world the Premier lives in, apparently that's the case.

Jessica Sothcott is here today with her 14-year-old daughter. Jessica was injured at work. She's on a disability assistance pension right now. She receives minimal amounts of money from the province to pay for her basic needs.

[1415]

The court has mandated that Rosie's father pay $187 a month for basic necessities — school clothing so she can participate in active, ordinary things that kids like to do. It's $187, and this government is clawing that back every single month. Jessica can't go find work. She's on a disability pension. She's unable to work today. What's the Premier's solution in her one-size-fits-all, LNG-will-save-the-day world for Rosie and Jessica? What is she going to do today for families like that?

Hon. C. Clark: Today all across our government we are working to make sure that people who are living with disabilities have more opportunities to work. That means, across ministries, finding ways to change the way we deliver services, to change the way we deliver training, so that we can help lift people up who are living with a disability, most of whom would love to be able to fully participate in the workforce, but there are many government barriers in the way of that happening.

We are working across government to make sure we can lift people out of poverty and into the workforce. We are working across government to support people through social assistance and a variety of other programs. We want to make sure that every British Columbian has a chance to participate in the workforce. We know that's important. Since 2003 the child poverty rate has declined by 41 percent, the most significant decline in child poverty in decades in British Columbia.

There's no question we have more to do, and we are going to continue to do just that.

M. Mungall: It's a real shame. The Premier's comments are callous at best, not just because the jobs plan is a total failure but because Jessica, who is here today, goes hungry, goes without food, so that her daughter Rosie doesn't. All the same, while Jessica is reducing her food, she can't afford enough nutritious food for her daughter Rosie.

She has difficulty getting Rosie's school supplies, and there's certainly no money for things that most teenagers like to do, like trips to the movies. Next year Rosie is going into high school, and Jessica knows that book fees and other expenses are going to go up, and Jessica is going to have to say no more often.

The $187 each month Rosie is supposed to be getting from her father would make a huge difference in their lives. That's what they have been saying all day, and that's what they want the Premier to hear.

The question is: will the Premier stop telling everybody to just go get a job and recognize that there are different reasons in people's lives? This clawback is keeping kids
[ Page 3946 ]
in poverty, so will she end the clawback today?

Hon. D. McRae: I have stood in this chamber, and we've addressed this question. I never want to belittle the challenges that these individuals face, these vulnerable British Columbians. I am proud that we made income assistance reforms going forward in the past. Why? Because income assistance is there to support vulnerable British Columbians, and their needs change, so we bring in things like earning exemptions, or we bring in things like annualized earning. These are opportunities for us to make sure we do those reforms.

I've also stood in this chamber and said that I'm not going to make reforms that we don't have the ability to pay for. It is a balance. We want to make sure we are addressing the needs of vulnerable British Columbians.

Now, I'm a little confused as well, I may add. Just last week, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition stood in the chamber and said that it's a stroke of a pen to fix this, and it's not. That's why I stood in this chamber and said that we want to make sure we make reforms we can afford to pay for.

Then just this morning, I read in the paper…. When asked how the Leader of the Opposition would meet expectations for more and better services in health care and education and social ministries, his response was: "You grow the economy." Because you know what? You have to support good projects.

[1420]

I'm not sure. I'm a little confused. Is it a stroke of the pen, or is it growing the economy? One of the things…. I think, maybe, if this is an opportunity to support good resource opportunities, to give jobs to British Columbians and opportunities for British Columbians, maybe we're on the same page, or maybe we can't figure where you're coming from, Leader of the Opposition.

M. Mungall: No one in this province thinks it's okay to grow the economy on the backs of kids except for the B.C. Liberals. That's absolutely wrong to be taking $17 million out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest kids. The minister ought to know that every time he says that the government can't afford it, it's not his money. It's money that belongs to the kids.

Rosie is here today. She admires her mother. There's no doubt about it; she admires her mother and her mother's will to stand up for her and her daughter. Rosie wants to stand up for herself as well, and she wants the Liberal government to hear that that $187 that her father sets aside for her would make a huge difference in her life. Rosie has severe allergies. She can't eat a lot of the things that they get at the food bank. If her mother could keep that $187, Rosie would be able to eat more nutritious food. That's what this boils down to.

Again, to the Liberal government: taking money out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest kids is wrong. Full stop. So when will you stop doing it?

Hon. D. McRae: We have a broad range of supports for vulnerable British Columbians. I've said in this House before that we have over 70 programs to assist. There are opportunities we want to do to make sure we reach out to talk to individuals and find out these challenges.

I talked about how we had phase 1 reforms in income assistance. I never said we were done our work. One of the things we're going to do is we're going to continue to look at opportunities to evolve our income assistance programs, looking for opportunities to make sure that we are supporting vulnerable British Columbians. But at the same time, when we make those changes, we want to make sure that we are able to pay for those changes.

The issue the member opposite raised and has raised in the past is an important one. It's also important, like I said to the member opposite when we were in estimates, that we also talk about: should we raise the bus pass — that's a $40 million cost — raise the number of individuals there? Every time you change policy, it comes at an expense.

I'm a big fan of making sure our policies are the most robust possible for British Columbians, but we have to make sure we're living within our means and not making commitments we can't afford to pay for.

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE
CHANGES TO CALL CLASSIFICATIONS

J. Darcy: Last fall this government made major changes to the way ambulance paramedics respond to emergency 911 calls. These changes have resulted in the downgrading of thousands of calls from code 3, the most urgent — responded to with lights and sirens — to "routine" code 2. As a result, we are now seeing longer wait times for many patients as firefighters are dispatched and then have to wait an hour, and sometimes two, for ambulance paramedics to arrive.

A few days ago the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, representing 33 municipalities from Squamish to Hope, unanimously passed a resolution stating that this government's policy has "created an unprecedented downloading of costs and risks onto local government first responders."

Is the minister finally willing to listen to Lower Mainland mayors and recognize that this reckless policy is putting patients at risk?

Hon. T. Lake: The member, I know, does not like change of any kind. We have to respond to the needs of the population, and this resource allocation plan is in fact designed to ensure that the most urgent patients get care in the most rapid way possible. An ambulance is an emergency room on wheels. That means the right patient has to be provided with the right care by the right pro-
[ Page 3947 ]
vider at the right time, getting there faster for the most urgent patients.

[1425]

This was a rigorous review. In fact, a review of the methodology by an outside expert, Alan Craig, said that this is best practice and is based on strong clinical evidence. We are consulting with Lower Mainland representatives as well as all local governments to help them understand that this is in fact providing better service to those patients that are most in need.

J. Darcy: This plan may look good to the number crunchers, but for people on the front line and patients whose lives are being put at risk, it's entirely a different story.

Let me give you a few examples. A 90-year-old woman was bleeding uncontrollably from a cut at the back of her head as the result of a fall. A 77-year-old man had been on the floor for two days with no food and no water. A 103-year-old man fell from his wheelchair and suffered a head injury. All of these people were forced to wait between one and two hours before the ambulance arrived because of this government's policies and for no other reason.

If the minister isn't willing to listen to the mayors in the Lower Mainland, will he listen to the ambulance paramedics and firefighters on the front line, and will he finally listen to the evidence itself, which shows that this reckless plan is putting patients at risk?

Hon. T. Lake: It's evident that when it comes to evolving health care policy, the members opposite are last responders. The resource allocation plan has been shown to shorten the response to urgent patients by, on average, one minute. Those patients that do not require emergent care have to wait, on average, six minutes longer.

It's important that emergency vehicles save lives, but they can also put lives at risk if they are going to an accident scene or a patient inappropriately with lights and sirens — in fact, in the last month alone, over three reports of injuries caused by emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. This is not only about making sure the right patient is treated by the right provider at the right time but ensuring public safety and safety for the employees of the B.C. Ambulance Service.

K. Corrigan: Last month emergency services were called to a case of severe internal bleeding, but due to the downgrading of the call by ambulance dispatch, firefighters responded rather than paramedics. After the fire department arrived this already very sick man's health quickly deteriorated. Despite four separate follow-up calls at 15:38, 15:42, 15:46 and 15:52, an ambulance didn't arrive until 25 minutes later, after the patient went into cardiac arrest.

Will the Minister of Health immediately order an investigation into this matter as well as the many others that have compromised patient health as a result of his policy change?

Hon. T. Lake: Whenever a change like this is made, we are certainly interested in making sure that it is reviewed and that any concerns are, in fact, evaluated. The Ambulance Service has informed our ministry that they have reviewed, operationally and clinically, 77 concerns that they have received from municipalities. Of those 77 concerns, they have found no negative patient outcomes for any of the calls reviewed.

If the member opposite or any other member has instances that they want to come and see me about and we can investigate, we'd be happy to do that.

In fact, this resource allocation plan is about providing the best service in the shortest time possible to those in need while keeping the public and the B.C. Ambulance employees safe.

[1430]

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, a letter with the details of this case has been in the hand of Dr. Dick of the emergency health services for more than two weeks with no response other than: "We're putting it in the queue of letters of cases that need to be reviewed." We have a broken assessment system, and we have a broken communications system, obviously, if this minister does not know about this and other cases.

In a report to Burnaby city council, the fire department said: "At 15:52 dispatch was again called to let them know that we were losing the patient and needed B.C. ambulance service now, when the patient collapsed and went into cardiac arrest." I invite the minister to follow up on what happened in that case.

Dr. Dick is responsible for implementing this policy change. I want to know why the minister does not know about that case and what he is going to do to fix this very dangerous system that is putting patients' lives at risk.

Hon. T. Lake: As I said earlier, this is about providing the right service to the right patient at the right time. It is important that we always review the way we provide medical services. It's an evolving field. It's important that we use our resources in the best way possible to make sure that the patients who need us — and need us urgently — get that kind of service. Now, first responders may decide to go to what they'd consider comfort calls.

I have spoken to many local government leaders about this, and in fact, many local government leaders do support this resource allocation plan change because it's an efficient use of resources to ensure that the people who need an ambulance get one as soon as possible and that
[ Page 3948 ]
the people who are driving those ambulances, the people on our streets, are kept safe.

We will always look at the best ways to provide care for the people of British Columbia. We'll continue to do that.

EDUCATION FUNDING POLICIES FOR
PUBLIC AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

R. Fleming: The Minister of Education has repeatedly told this House and the public that there is "no new money for public education." That's his stock answer every time the subject of unfunded cost pressures on school districts is raised.

But there is one area of his budget that is growing rapidly — private schools operating distance learning businesses. Apparently, they didn't get the memo that said: "No new money." In fact, government subsidies have actually been increased for private on-line courses, and this generous increase comes at a time when there is no money for public education. We've seen enrolment in these private businesses grow by 125 percent thanks to the subsidy increase introduced by this government.

Can the Minister of Education explain why there's one rule of unbending budget restraint for students, parents, teachers and trustees in public education but a completely different set of funding rules in his ministry for on-line independent schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think what I've seen in terms of opposition budget analysis is flawed at best. The reality is that this government has invested in education at record levels since 2001. We have added an additional $1 billion a year to public education in this province. In addition, that has been at a time when enrolment in public schools has been declining by 70,000 students.

We have said clearly, as a government, that we support choice for parents in our education system. Independent schools provide that choice, and they are funded at the same level that they have been in our block funding formula.

[1435]

We support independent schools and what they provide but not at the expense of the public education system, with a clear understanding that public education is fundamental to the future of this province.

R. Fleming: Well, despite what the minister said, there is a funding double standard going on here. We've just been through estimates debate. The minister confirmed on the record that public education funding has been frozen for the last two years and will be frozen for three more years to public schools and school districts.

We've just received a freedom-of-information request released this week that shows that the Parliamentary Secretary for Independent Schools was "influential" in getting approval for three funding policy changes that will give a $6½ million increase to independent schools. Now, I'll give credit to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. He seems to be a far more effective advocate for his sector than the Minister of Education seems to be for public education.

But I would ask the Minister of Education this — and speak directly to teachers who are being laid off in districts right across British Columbia and kids who are losing their programs in public education, if you will: at a time when operating grants are being frozen in school districts, how can this government somehow manage to direct more funds to private schools while refusing the same consideration and fair treatment to public schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have the opposition's education funding formulas. Oh, I'm sorry. It's a blank sheet of paper.

I will say this very clearly. When you look at the investments of this government in public education, if you look at the investment in all-day kindergarten at $120 million a year, if you look at our investments in special education, if you look at our learning improvement fund that has hired 500 new teachers, 400 new special education assistants, increased the hours in classroom for special education assistants….

The policy of the members opposite, when it comes to budgeting, is spend, spend, spend — but no policy on how to generate the revenue. This government is working to generate a balanced economy so that we can invest in the future of education, health care and other social services. Not only are we talking about the future; we are doing it.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
INTO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: On March 5 in this House we raised questions about the Minister of Advanced Education's role in schemes at Kwantlen University to hand over tens of thousands of dollars in hidden payments to executives at the school.

The minister said our questions were "outlandish." He was wrong. There are now two investigations underway.

The minister said the unreported payments were due to "pre-employment" contracts. He was wrong. We've tabled documents in this House that show they were part of the employment offer.

The minister said he felt like "Eddie Murphy" in Groundhog Day. He was wrong. Bill Murray is the star of Groundhog Day.

Interjections.

D. Eby: We're not done yet, hon. Speaker. Finally, finally….
[ Page 3949 ]

The minister was wrong, yet again, when he said we'd have the investigation report by "mid-April." He was wrong. It's mid-May, and there's still no report.

Will the minister finally say something that this House can rely on and promise us that the investigation report will be tabled before the end of this session?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought Bill Murray was great in the movie, by the way.

The member has raised the issue before. I think I've explained and advised the House that I asked Mr. Rob Mingay to look into the matter. What I can assure the member of at this stage is that I have had no conversations with Mr. Mingay about this matter. I'm hopeful that he is close to having completed his report.

I gave the undertaking in the House that when the report is completed, it would be released publicly. But I'm not in a position to authoritatively advise the member or the House as to the status of the report.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by 2,776 individuals calling on the provincial government to take action to implement the elements of Kimberly's law that are within provincial jurisdiction. They include such things as ensuring that there are mandatory intervention services in the K-to-12 system, ensuring that there are mandatory counselling services available to children with mental health issues and, most importantly, ensuring that children are tried in adult court if the charges warrant.

N. Macdonald: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: It's rare to have an opportunity to welcome guests to the Legislature from Golden. It's particularly special to welcome students from the school I worked at, Nicholson Elementary School. There are 19 grades 6 and 7 students with the following teachers and parents: Kara Hunt, Kim Cibulka, Larry Lindequist, Dale Shular, Lance Jones, Karen Jones, Wanda Anderson, Jodie Magnusson, as well as Lorna Higginson.

They have wonderful days planned here in Victoria. I'm really pleased part of those plans include a visit to this Legislature. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Petitions

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to present a petition of 166,000 names, all in eight-point font here, to oppose Bill 4.

Madame Speaker: Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, hon. Speaker?

Madame Speaker: That would constitute a prop.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's a petition, but thank you, hon. Speaker. I will hand this off to the appropriate parties.

Madame Speaker: The member will roll it up. Thank you very much.

S. Chandra Herbert: I will roll it up.

J. Thornthwaite: I also have, on this side of the House, petitions to do with Kimberly's law, and I'd like to present them.

J. Yap: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: On your behalf, Madame Speaker, I'd like to introduce some visitors joining us in the gallery this afternoon. Would the House please welcome the students from Richmond Christian secondary school from your riding, who are visiting with their teacher, Mrs. Christy Simpson, and accompanying adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and in this chamber, ongoing second reading debate of Bill 24.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and continue my remarks on Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission
[ Page 3950 ]
Amendment Act, and continue my comments from yesterday.

Yesterday I closed my remarks with a mea culpa and what that meant in terms of consultation. I think it's important to continue in that vein for a few minutes, because I think it's extremely important when you look at this particular piece of legislation and the impact that it will have on agriculture and agricultural land in this province and why this bill deserves to be defeated.

The government says that this bill is here to improve the state of agriculture. They say they're concerned about protecting agricultural land. One would think, as I stated yesterday, that one would have talked to the agricultural community in detail. One would have consulted with them and found out exactly what the real issues of agriculture are in this province and brought in legislation and policies to deal with specific issues.

Unfortunately, for some reason, this particular bill deals with the land commission in a way that, frankly, does not support agriculture. Currently we have one zone in this province. All land is treated equally. The province is one zone for the purposes of assessing agricultural land. This particular piece of legislation will divide the province into two zones, which is really interesting.

The government is saying: "Oh, don't worry about prime agricultural land. Don't worry, you in the Lower Mainland who are concerned about the loss of agricultural land. Nothing's going to change. It'll be just like it always has been. Don't worry. Nothing's going to change."

The Minister Responsible for Core Review is the one who says: "You know, 85 percent of agricultural output and the value comes from the Lower Mainland, and 90 percent of the land is outside. It's beyond Hope, and all it's good for" — in some of his comments — "appears to be growing hay, certainly in the Nelson-Creston area or the Kootenays." That's what his comment was. But he says: "No, no. We need a different approach outside of the Lower Mainland." There, other issues need to be addressed in terms of how we deal with agricultural land.

Well, go talk to people on the ground, and you get something different. What they want to see is the land commission strengthened, not weakened.

[1450]

They like the approach that Richard Bullock, the chair, has taken, where you're less reliant on regional considerations and the pressures that go along with them, and a more centralized approach that allows for full and comprehensive evaluation — not just of the parcels of the land in question, not just of their capabilities but also of all the various components that go into making good agricultural land.

I said yesterday that we have some of the best soils in the country that can grow a wide variety of crops, and we do. We have remarkable soils in this province. We have podzolic soils. We have chernozemic soils. We have brunisolic soils. We have luvisolics. We have regosols. We have a range of soils that can….

I see that my friend the Chair is smiling there, wondering: what does that mean? Well, I'll tell him in a nutshell, not using this scientific terminology. It means we have things such as sandy soils, peaty soils, alluvial soils, clay soils, silty soils. All of those can grow different varieties of crops.

For example, in my own community of Port Coquitlam we have a lot of peaty soils. I know the member knows where I'm talking about. It's in the northeast part of Port Coquitlam, and part of it spills over into his riding on the other side of De Boville Slough. Those soils are ideal for growing blueberries. We have some significant blueberry farms.

We can grow Christmas trees in other parts of the province because the soils are uniquely geared and grow amazing Christmas trees.

I remember my former colleague when we were government, Bill Barlee, Minister of Agriculture, and standing in awe and listening as he was able to list off the facts. I know the member for Chilliwack-Hope down there will know this. I see I've got his attention. That's always good, to know he's there listening.

We grow hazelnuts in this province. Out where he is from is some of the prime hazelnut-growing land in the province of British Columbia.

Some people go: "Oh yeah, what's the big deal? It's just a hazelnut. Squirrels like them — right? — and some people like them at Christmas." But I remember Bill Barlee standing in this House, saying that there are 74 value-added products made from hazelnuts in British Columbia. He then proceeded to list off all 74. I can't do that, but I can tell you this. It's an example of the diversity of crops we have in this province, and it's an example of the opportunities for agriculture we have in this province when we protect and promote agriculture in British Columbia.

Over the last two decades we've seen a significant change in the demographic composition of British Columbia. We've seen immigrant communities from all over the world settle here. With them, they've brought much of their culture, and a big part of their culture is cooking and food production.

We're now growing crops that we never dreamed of growing in this province — vegetables unique to Asian cuisine, particular herbs that grow here. Shiso leaf, for example, is something that's grown here now. We have all these niche markets and the land available to do that. We should be protecting it, not being dismissive, as the Minister for Core Review is — that the only thing that grows in the Kootenays for a 100-mile diet is hay. It's simply not true.

That comes back, again, to my issue that I'm talking about, which is consultation and having talked to people who work the land and talked to farmers in the agricultural organizations in this province. It's why the
[ Page 3951 ]
Agriculture Council of British Columbia has rejected this particular piece of legislation as not meeting the needs of agriculture in B.C.

I want to come back to this idea of zone 2, which is causing particular concern — splitting the province into two zones. Why? Why is this taking place? What is the government trying to accomplish?

This is a question that's particularly acute and appropriate in the Kootenays. The Kootenays is a geographical area where there is important agricultural land, but there's not a lot of it. At the same time, it's an area of the province that is attractive for people to retire to, from here in British Columbia, but also from other provinces — neighbouring Alberta being the biggest pressure in terms of people wanting to retire there and have second homes that are recreational property.

What you're seeing is significant development pressure in those areas, and on agricultural land. It is the easy land to develop, and that's what is so concerning. It's not just the fact that you build on it, if you weaken and make it easier to take land out. It's not just that that takes place. It's that when that happens, it impacts the land that stays in.

[1455]

You build on it, and the people move in, and the next thing you know, they're complaining about the smell from dairy cattle or beef cattle or goats or sheep or llamas — you name it. They're upset when proper agricultural practices are taking place. All of a sudden they're going: "Well, wait a second. We moved here. We bought this wonderful piece of recreational property. Why is this happening? We've got to do something about these agricultural practices."

We hear it in the Lower Mainland, but you also hear it when you talk to farmers in other parts of the province. The Kootenays is a prime example.

I was up there earlier this last year. I met with a dairy farmer who was very concerned about the ability to access good agricultural land to keep their farm, to grow their farm, to meet the demand of the organic milk that they are supplying and the organic cheese that they are making in production on that farm, which is employing not just the family that has lived in the Kootenays for generations but is employing new people. It is employing young people who want to get into farming.

There is pressure on that. The biggest source of concern for her and her family is development pressure on land next to their farm — land that they would like to see have an opportunity to be able to bring into agriculture and to add to their farm. It causes price rises, and it makes farming uneconomic. That's not what should be taking place.

We need to be listening to the agricultural community and addressing the issues that matter to them. That's what should have been taking place, not this particular piece of legislation. Had they spoken to farmers and had they spoken to the agricultural community, they would have found out what a lot of those issues are.

Access to land, the ability to access land at a reasonable price. The Agricultural Land Commission, when it's strong, when it's resourced, when it's able to enforce the rules that are there now, allows that to continue. The fact that government supports enforcement of the act sends a strong message both to communities, people who would want to ignore the act, and to farmers that we value farmland. The changes in this act will weaken that. That will impact the issue of accessibility and affordability of land.

Marketing. We could be paying, and should be paying, more attention to the marketing of the products that we make here in British Columbia. We had a very successful buy-B.C. program. It was scrapped by this government and has yet to this day to be replaced by something that is even remotely comparable or remotely as successful as that program was.

The agricultural community would like it back. That would have been something that this side of the House and the agricultural community could have supported. That is something that would have had a real impact on the farming community and on the ability of farmers to make a living — not just large farmers but small farmers as well.

I mean, one of the things…. It's a story I have told before, and I'll tell it again here in this House. It was a couple of years ago, during a leadership contest. We were touring the province. It was late at night, and I pulled into Creston. I'm hungry. It's been a long day. A lot of the restaurants were closed. We pulled in and go into a store. It was a 7-11. I looked around for something edible to eat. I thought: "Ah, apples. I'll have an apple." I got some beef jerky and an apple.

Well, the beef jerky turned out to be made in Alberta. But the apple…. I looked at the apple. It had a label on it. It said from Washington State. Now, I'm in Creston, one of the best apple-producing regions in British Columbia, and the only apple I can get is one from Washington State.

I ask you: what is wrong with that, hon. Speaker? There's lots wrong with that. Washington State is marketing their apples up here, but I can't get a B.C. apple in Creston. That's not right. That is not right.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member from Surrey says: "Talk to the member from Creston." Well, I did talk to the member from Creston, and she told me one of the biggest problems that farmers in Creston were facing was the elimination of the buy-B.C. program to get people to buy local.

[1500]

Yet without the buy-B.C. program, what we also see is a renewed interest, in part, to many people in British Columbia, around the concept and the idea of eating local, of buying local — supporting our own producers,
[ Page 3952 ]
supporting our own farmers. You've seen the growth of the 100-mile diet. Lots of ordinary British Columbians are working with farmers to promote British Columbia products.

The reaction of the government…. Well, from the Minister for Core Review, it was: "Huh. I get a kick out of the 100-mile diet, because up my way it's mostly hay." Well, maybe if you're a mule, you might like a diet of hay, but the reality is that people in the Kootenays grow a lot more than that, as my colleague from Nelson-Creston has so ably put it.

As I said, that's an issue that we should have been addressing, that this government could have been addressing, instead of bringing forward a piece of legislation that is going to make it more difficult for the agricultural community as opposed to dealing with the real issues that they're facing.

Other issues that they should have been dealing with. Again, we could talk to grain farmers and dairy farmers and cattle farmers about the ability to get feed — feed for their chickens, their turkeys, their cattle, feed for dairy, and it's a real challenge because of the lack of action, if you will, of real action by the federal government in getting grain moving in this country and the ability to access grain for feed.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: What we could…. And I see my colleague down the way agreeing with that.

You know, what's really required is a government to stand up and say to Ottawa: "Hey, this is a priority. How about supporting British Columbia farmers?" How about supporting Canadian farmers who need to, one, get their grain shipped and two, buy grain here in this country by rail so that they can continue to produce the food that we as consumers demand and need.

That's what they could have been doing instead of putting forward a piece of legislation like that. That's what they could have been doing if they had gone out and consulted with the agricultural community. But I guess when all you can say, when you are asked, "Did you consult?" is "Mea culpa, I didn't, I'm guilty, I'm sorry," that should be a wake-up call.

If you wanted to make a real difference, how about having a government that actually stands up and says to Ottawa: "This is a priority and needs to be addressed"? Instead, we have a minister who brought forward a piece of legislation who quotes one of the supporters: "Well, I think if I want to put a hotel on a piece of land, I should be able to do it."

No. The land reserve was brought in place to protect agricultural land and to promote agriculture, and a key part of that is supporting farmers. That should have been the priority, and it hasn't.

Water. We're seeing some changes in terms of new water legislation, but again, farmers have concerns around this particular issue, and government needs to be working with them. Again, they could have spent more time working with farmers — dairy farmers, for example — who have made it really clear on their support for the agricultural land reserve and the land commission as it is currently structured, as opposed to the changes that are being put forward in this particular piece of legislation. The whole range of agriculture in this province, I think, could have done with a lot more consultation than what we have seen.

Enforcement. Talk to farmers. Talk to people concerned about agricultural land. And one of the top issues, one of the top-of-mind issues, is the ability of the land commission to do its job effectively. The key part of that is ensuring that it's resourced.

You know, it's really something sad when there are two trucks for enforcement officers for the whole of the province of British Columbia. Two trucks. I mean, we are a province of — what? — 400,000 square miles, and we have two enforcement trucks, two enforcement officers to deal with those who would like to skirt the law of this province as it exists when it comes to the agricultural land reserve. Government could have been supporting agriculture by focusing its attention there and giving it the resources.

[1505]

One of the biggest challenges that we have is those who would use agricultural land for illegal fill sites. Fill farming, it's called, taking good, productive land and covering it with demolition material or fill, knowing full well that — guess what — the odds are they're not going to get caught.

If they do, they can delay, and prosecution, if it takes place, is years down the road. In the meantime, land is alienated from agriculture. People who are law-abiding and who are farming see this taking place, and they wonder what's going on. Why is it that somebody is allowed to get away with something and I'm not?

A couple of years ago I ran into someone in my own riding in Port Coquitlam. I was looking at a piece of land, and a fellow came up to me. He recognized me. Turns out he worked for the Land Commission. He was an enforcement officer, and he was telling me just how pleased he was that a site that we had seen, which was an illegal fill site…. It had taken ten years, but they had finally got a prosecution, and the illegally placed fill was having to be removed.

Hon. Speaker, I note that the green light is on, and that means I have not much longer — I think about three minutes or two minutes or even a minute. One and a half minutes, they've said. That's unfortunate, because I could talk on this particular piece of legislation for a lot longer.

I want to say this. It is a bad bill. We will not be supporting it. We ask the government to withdraw it. Rather than this particular piece of legislation, they should have
[ Page 3953 ]
been out doing real consultation with farmers in the agricultural community and addressing a number of the issues that I raised as they relate to real issues that will impact farmers, allow them to make a better living in this province, to expand the range of agricultural products that we can grow and market in British Columbia and deal with some of the real obstacles and impediments they face in terms of getting product here to feed their cattle, for example, or chickens or turkeys, as I talked about, on the grain or getting product to export.

It's been my pleasure to rise and to speak in this debate. I hope I get another opportunity, because there was so much more that I wanted to talk about. I know the members would really like…. I see the Minister of Environment smiling too. So I would really have enjoyed the ability to do that. But I don't have that, and I notice the green light is on, and so I will take my place, because I know my colleague from Nelson-Creston has a lot more to say on this particular piece of legislation as well.

M. Mungall: My colleague from Port Coquitlam is absolutely correct. I have a lot to say about Bill 24, and that's because a good chunk of my constituency in Nelson-Creston is ALR land, and this bill has a direct consequence on the lives of the people that I represent, on their well-being, on their way of life, on how they make their living.

This particular bill is very important to the people in Nelson-Creston and to all of the Kootenays. What they have said unequivocally is that they want to save the ALR and they want to get rid of Bill 24 because this bill does absolutely nothing to protect their way of life.

It does absolutely nothing to protect their economic sector. It does absolutely nothing to protect the way in which they make their living, they earn their money and they contribute to our communities. This bill, in fact, hinders all of that and puts their lives in jeopardy. Therefore, they don't support it, and as their representative, I don't support it.

I want to talk first about what this bill does. If we look at it, it changes the ALR and the way in which it is managed. It does two very significant things. One of the things that it does is it creates two zones of agricultural land reserve.

[1510]

Historically, the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, was one zone, and it was managed provincewide by the Agricultural Land Commission. Now, under Bill 24, the ALR is put into two zones. One zone will be managed the way it pretty much has been since 1974, when the ALR first came into being.

Zone 1, as you know, hon. Speaker — as I'm sure you've heard from many other MLAs who have spoken before me — is consisting of the Island panel region, the Okanagan panel region and the south coast panel region, and zone 2 is everywhere else.

For people who might be just tuning in and wondering what this panel region business is about, that's actually the second change that's being made in this bill, which is amending the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

What it does is it devolves decision-making power over the land to regional panels. These regional panels…. There are six of them. There's the Interior regional panel, the Island panel, the Kootenay panel, the north panel, the Okanagan panel and the south coast panel region. Each one of these panels is going to be making decisions, and they're going to be looking at these particular things.

Under section 4.3 of this bill, what we read is: "When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2, the commission must consider all of the following: (a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6; (b) economic, cultural and social values; (c) regional and community planning objectives; (d) other prescribed considerations."

The place those "other prescribed considerations" come from is the minister. The minister of the day may decide that something must be considered by these regional panels. For example, perhaps exploratory research for mining has to be considered or developing recreational vehicle, RV, parks needs to be considered. Whatever the minister of the day has decided in his or her wisdom, that needs to be considered by these panels. They have to consider it. It's in no descending or ascending order; these are all the things that must be considered equally as of today.

What this means ultimately is that regional panels who are appointed by the minister from people that live amongst that region have to consider alternate uses. They must consider alternate uses to the land other than agriculture.

Now, this inherently, at its core, changes the very purpose of what the ALR is — agricultural land reserve. It is land that is supposed to be reserved for agricultural purposes. Instead, this bill is changing that very purpose and saying we can do a whole host of other activities on this land, and it's going to be decided by a group of people who have been appointed by the minister of the day.

All of this has my constituents extremely concerned. The things I've heard they're concerned about are that the regional panels will not be free from political manipulation, free from political interference and that the very people that will be appointed will be partisan in nature and will have their own agenda to drive, rather than an independent approach that we have seen for the last 40 years with the Agricultural Land Commission.

They particularly are concerned, as I mentioned, that this will negatively impact their way of life. I'll give you an example later on as I talk about some of the people that live in my riding.

[1515]

But for now I want to make it clear that the people of Nelson-Creston, the people in the Kootenays do not trust
[ Page 3954 ]
that this type of legislation is as benign as the government claims it to be. Rather, they believe that this is a backdoor approach to degrading the ALR and ultimately putting into jeopardy the 5 percent of land that we have set aside for agricultural use.

That's not a lot of land. When we look at all that is here in British Columbia, it's only 5 percent. That means that 95 percent of our land base is not being used within the ALR. Some of it might be being used for agriculture, but not very much of that 95 percent. Hon. Speaker, 5 percent of our land is being used for agriculture, to grow our own food, to feed ourselves, to ensure our food security.

Without that, we are putting not only people's lives in jeopardy, but we are putting our broader provincial economy in jeopardy. This is an important economic sector in our province.

When we think about climate change, the long-term impacts of climate change, and we see droughts occurring right now in California and the increases to food prices as a result, we are very concerned that when we are putting 5 percent of our land base — the 5 percent of our land base that is set aside for agriculture and that is set aside for our food security — into jeopardy, we put our own well-being into jeopardy. We put our ability to feed ourselves into jeopardy, to make sure that food is at a reasonable, affordable cost. We put that into jeopardy.

Earlier today I was talking about a single mom and her daughter and the struggles they have to put food on the table and how they have to rely on food banks because food costs are going up and up and up. It's a conversation in every coffee shop in my riding — how food costs are going up. I have no doubt it's a conversation in the coffee shops of the other 84 MLAs here, in their ridings.

Food prices are going up. When people are struggling to make ends meet and they're relying on food banks and we are creating a bill that will systematically — in a very short time frame, I have no doubt, of a few years — have a negative impact on our local food prices, we're doing absolutely nothing for people living in poverty. We're doing absolutely nothing for people all across this province, regardless of their income.

One of the things that is particularly disturbing to people in my area is that the Kootenays have been put into zone 2, which is so bizarre, because the Creston Valley is class 1 agricultural land. Now, the Minister for Core Review and the MLA for Kootenay East has commented — I have no idea what he was thinking when he said this, and perhaps he doesn't know what he was thinking when he said this, either — saying that the only thing you can get in the Kootenays, if you want to eat a 100-mile diet, is hay.

Hon. Speaker, you should have heard the outcry in Creston. You can grow everything in Creston — much more than hay. There is somebody right now who is experimenting with citrus fruit in his greenhouse. Could you imagine? Lemons and limes grown here in B.C.

Right now, just on the news this morning, I heard about the lime shortage and how restaurants all across the province are now paying $200 a case for limes because of a drought in South America and in the southern part of North America. They are paying $200 a case for limes when they used to pay $30 a case for limes. That's a huge jump. That's going right back to the consumer.

The Creston Valley, able to grow everything — including limes, as it turns out — certainly should not be considered as zone 2, which is somehow a second-class citizen to zone 1. Creston Valley is absolutely prime ALR land. It's beautiful agricultural land. It's no surprise. It's really no surprise when you take into consideration how they were selected as class 1.

[1520]

Recently, Fred Harper and Ray Demarchi wrote an article for the Times Colonist. Who are they? They were both people who were involved in the original mapping of the ALR as biologists looking at the soil and the quality of the soil. What they found in the Kootenays and in other places where it's been designated ALR is that it's incredibly rich soil. This is what they say in their article.

"A specific soil's described profile is used to determine the agricultural capability of a given unit of land. Because the scientifically based description of a soil profile is admissible in a court of law as evidence of an area's agricultural value, soil capability was chosen as the basis for the reserve boundaries."

Now, that contradicts some of the things we've heard from the opposite side, where they say that on large chunks of the ALR you can't grow anything on them, anyway, and all you can grow is hay, and they're rocky territory, and it's not ideal farm use, and so on. The science would suggest otherwise.

Back in the '70s, Fred Harper and Ray Demarchi remind us, "the province had a well-studied and understood basis for determining where the best soils and, therefore, the best farmlands existed throughout the province." Creston Valley is one of those best places for farmland, without a doubt.

In the Creston Valley, I've mentioned, there's much more than hay. Cherry season is coming up, hon. Speaker. If you get the opportunity, please do come down to the Creston Valley and get yourself a beautiful bowl of cherries. You'll have none like it anywhere else in the world.

Recently I was just there picking up beautiful Creston Valley asparagus from Sutcliffe Farms — the best asparagus, bar none, that you'll ever have. The carrots out of the Canyon valley — excellent. I could go on and on — potatoes, the dairy, everything that's grown in Creston.

Some people might say I'm biased, but I really don't think I am. I'd like to think I come to this objectively, as an eater; that food out of the Creston Valley is by far some of the best food in B.C., if not the best food in B.C. Why is that? It's because of the soil, it's because of the water, it's because of the land base, and it's because it's been pro-
[ Page 3955 ]
tected under ALR.

Now, I brag about this to my colleagues all the time, about how great the Creston Valley is, so whenever I get an opportunity, I invite them, just as I did you. I invite them to come down to the Creston Valley and see for themselves, see what all the fuss is about. Don't just take my word for it. Let me feed you some food from the Creston Valley.

This April my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville came for a visit, and we did a tour of some of the farms. At the first farm that we went to, Mo and Mikey Farms, we learned about the transferring of knowledge from elder farmers to younger farmers. Of course, the access to land is a big deal for young farmers. What the young farmers were telling us about Bill 24 is a real fear that they have that land prices will skyrocket as greater demand pressure is put on ALR land to do things other than grow agriculture.

This is exactly why we have ALR in the first place. It's to protect our food security, to protect our farmland and to protect farmers into future generations so they can afford to buy land. It's already very difficult, so why would we want to make it even more difficult? Why would we want to do that? That's something that young farmers Laura and Nigel asked me. Why would we want to make it more difficult for them to access land so that they can do something that they love doing, which is farming?

I know that the Minister for Core Review has said that this is all about letting older farmers stay on their land longer. However, when you talk to some of the older farmers in the Kootenays — in my riding, particularly, where most of them are — what you find out is that they want their land to continue on for farming use, and they want to be given an opportunity to transfer their experience and their expertise on to younger farmers and to find affordable ways to do that.

[1525]

One of the ways that is possible, and only possible if the land is protected, is exactly what Mo and Mikey have done with Laura and Nigel. Laura and Nigel are sharing land. They're sharing Mo and Mikey's land, and Mo and Mikey are now able to expand their farm to the full capacity of their land base because they have two younger people who are there to help them with that.

In the process, the young people are making an investment in their knowledge base, in their experience and in their expertise by learning from others who have gone before them. Eventually, the hope is that Laura and Nigel will be able to buy that land from Mo and Mikey.

These types of connections are happening already. There are places and incubators that we can create to grow that, but Bill 24 doesn't allow that to happen. Bill 24 doesn't stimulate that type of transfer from generation to generation, the long-term economic viability of the family farm. It doesn't do that at all. In fact, it hinders that. It makes that nearly impossible to do, because the almighty dollar will say: "You can get more money by building an RV park on your land."

When someone goes to apply to get their land taken out of ALR for an RV park, according to this new bill, that's exactly what the new regional panel will have to okay. According to the farmers in my community, and according to Mo and Mikey and Laura and Nigel, that's not going to be good for them. That's not going to be good for the region.

From there, we heard from Laura and Nigel and from Mo and Mikey, and we went on. Of course, as we got in the car to drive around the beautiful Creston Valley, Selina was blown away at the incredible farmland that she saw….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much for reminding me, hon. Speaker. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville pointed out just how beautiful it was and how much she loved the scenery and how much she could see in the vista just out of the car window — all that was growing in the Creston Valley.

Then for our next stop, we came to Kootenay Meadows Farm, which is a value-added farm. They are doing value-added from feed — from the Minister for Core Review's favourite product, hay — right to bottling milk. They've got the whole picture.

They are doing it all on Kootenay Meadows Farm, but they're not doing it all on one chunk of land. They actually have 27 landlords. All of those 27 landlords have to ensure that agriculture is being produced on their land because it's ALR. If they no longer need to do that, because they can take their land out of ALR and put in an RV park or have it opened up to some exploration for mining and natural gas, whatever it is, or put on a chalet or invest in the tourism industry, then it puts their entire production at risk. They need those 27 pieces of land. They need those 27 landlords to work with so that their business is viable — their job-producing business.

Taking that land out of the ALR would mean that they don't have an income, that the people that rely on them don't have an income. It would mean that people in Nelson don't have milk at their local Kootenay Co-op, or cheese.

Mr. Speaker, I will apologize. I only brought cheese from Kootenay Meadows Farm for Madame Speaker. I will be sure to do the same for you next time. It's delicious; it's amazing. It's the best cheese you'll ever have, because it's grown in the Creston Valley. But they won't be able to do that if this bill goes through. This bill will hurt their family farm. They are three generations of farmers on that land, and this will hurt them.

[1530]

The third farm we went to taught us a lot about producing for the farmers market. That was Jessica Piccinin.
[ Page 3956 ]
She's somebody I go to every single week at the farmers market to buy all my fresh fruits and vegetables coming from the Creston Valley, whether she's in Nelson or in Creston. What this bill would mean for her and all her neighbours that give her food to sell at the farmers market is that she no longer would have a business as well.

What I'm hearing from my constituents is that this bill — trying, at its core, to destroy the ALR — is anti-business. It is anti-farm business. Under the guise of trying to promote other industries, it's throwing this industry under the bus, and that has dire consequences for people in my riding.

They have been absolutely clear. They do not want this bill to go through. They do not want to see the ALR put in jeopardy. They do not want government making these massive land use decisions without any consultation with people across British Columbia.

How do you do that, actually? How do you go about making such a massive land use decision that affects every single corner of this province and not have a consultation process? It is enraging my constituents.

They deserve better than this. British Columbians all across this province deserve better. They deserve to be part of a discussion, a conversation, that will then decide what we will do with our land base, with our agricultural land base — the very land base that determines our provincial food security, which is integral to a provincewide economic sector that benefits us all.

That's why I feel it's absolutely necessary at this point to move a motion that we refer this. I'll read my motion.

[That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.]

Deputy Speaker: The member proposes an amendment, and the amendment is in order. Proceed.

On the amendment.

M. Mungall: It's at this time that I would like to speak to that amendment. What I'm proposing to do here, for those who may be watching at home, is…. I'm asking that that consultation process — the consultation process that I've heard from my constituents and that I know British Columbians all across this province would have expected for such a major land use decision — take place.

The reason why I'm suggesting that we refer this bill to the Finance Committee is because we need that consultation. Why is the Finance Committee the right place, the right body to actually take on this consultation process?

Now, I've talked about my bias for the Creston Valley and all its good food there because of my own personal experience. Maybe it's a similar situation with the Finance Committee. I sat for two years on the Finance Committee, and I know it does exceptional work. It does exceptional work in engaging British Columbians all across the province in a consultation process that it does on the budget.

It's able to do that. It already has the function of being able to go out and talk to British Columbians all around the province. It has the experience and the expertise. It has the know-how. It has the ability, and they'll be doing it this fall. Perhaps the Finance Committee could make this a part of their fall tour as they go around and consult with people on the budget.

[1535]

I mean, at the eleventh hour the Minister for Core Review last fall suggested that's exactly what people should do if they want to be heard on the issue of possible changes to the ALR. They should go and talk to the Finance Committee.

My guess is that the Minister for Core Review already thinks that the Finance Committee is a good body to be conducting some type of consultation process, a much-needed consultation process, for the ALR. I'm hoping that the Minister of Agriculture and the rest of cabinet will understand the value that this type of consultation process will have and why the Finance Committee is the ideal body of this Legislature to go out and do that consultation process.

As I mentioned, the Finance Committee has the expertise — absolutely — and they are the ones who ought to be doing this. They would be able to take in all the feedback from the public and make sure that the public is heard, and provide recommendations back to this House about what should be done with the ALR. One of the things I've heard from the farmers in my community is that there are some things that could be fixed with the ALR.

Now, Bill 24 doesn't offer a single one of those things that they'd like to see, but there are some things that could be done. That really piqued my interest, because what that said to me was that they had some ideas. As people who farm, as people who actually do the work every single day, they had something to offer us in this assembly. They had something to tell us, something to show us, that could improve the economic sector of agriculture.

We ought to hear from them. We ought to hear from them in a meaningful way, in a meaningful process that is transparent so that we hear what people are saying and know what people are saying — especially with the Finance Committee where that would be transcribed into Hansard — rather than just trusting that the minister is reading letters. That's not a consultation process, and the government knows that. If the government thought that only reading letters was sufficient consultation, they would never have done what they did with the Water Act modernization process.

That process was a five-year process. I remember when it was first started, the farmers in my community were concerned. They weren't too sure what the government
[ Page 3957 ]
wanted to do. I could say to them: "Here's the meeting that's happening in our community. Go to it. Make sure your voice is heard. Say what you have to say. Make sure that the government is hearing what this means for you, what these ideas might mean for you — some changes you see that need to be made."

They did that. They were heard, and changes were made. It came back to this House, and it was something that we could support. We know that time was taken to make a major decision on water — again, something that affects us all, just like food — and that decision was made.

The government knows that consultation is more than just letters. But they haven't taken the opportunity to go out and do that meaningful consultation. That's why I moved my motion — to do that consultation.

They know that they did not do sufficient consultation. They know that, because the Minister for Core Review, when confronted with this issue, said: "Mea culpa. I'm guilty." We did not put together a proper consultation process. We know that reading letters, by the thousands even, is not a transparent, proper, meaningful consultation process. That's exactly what's needed, and that's exactly what the Finance Committee can do.

That's exactly what local governments all around the province have requested. The city of Richmond, on April 28, passed a motion asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law.

Peace River regional district sent a letter to the minister requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land reserve into two significantly different zones be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly. Clearly, they have something to say. They want to be heard. They wrote a letter, as the minister has asked them to. But I have no doubt that if we had a face-to-face consultation process with the Finance Committee, the city of Richmond would be there to make a presentation and put their citizens' voices on the record — officially.

[1540]

The village of Nakusp in the riding of Kootenay West. This is what they had to say on November 25 when they passed a motion to support preservation of farmland. They called for what? A consultation period.

I will continue. The Islands Trust on December 20, 2013, wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture at that time and to the Minister for Core Review supporting the preservation of the ALR and an independent ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, and demanding consultation. They did this following a council resolution.

The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities, at their annual general meeting, April 11 to 13 of this year, passed a resolution sponsored by the city of Victoria requesting that the provincial government respect the integrity of the provincewide agricultural land reserve and support its management by an independent and adequately funded Agricultural Land Commission.

I have no doubt that the AVICC would attend a Finance Committee meeting where consultation was taking place on Bill 24 and the ALR. I have no doubt that they would show up, make a presentation and make sure that the citizens they represent and their voices were on the official record.

The Southern Interior Local Government Association also passed resolutions at their May AGM just a few weeks ago. What did they say? "Increase resources to the Agricultural Land Commission, in accordance with recommendation No. 2 in report No. 5, September 2010, Audit of the Agricultural Land Commission, to more effectively preserve agricultural land and encourage farming — and further, that the provincial government maintain the Agricultural Land Commission as an independent administrative tribunal."

Again, a group representing local governments and all the citizens that local governments represent, the same citizens that we represent in this House, saying they don't agree with Bill 24. I have no doubt that they would show up at a consultation process and make sure their citizens' voices were put on the official record.

My very own association of local governments, the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments, at their AGM passed a resolution. This is what it said: "Requesting that the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete."

That's exactly what my motion is about. That's exactly what it's about.

The people in my riding want to see consultation. The people throughout the entire Kootenay region, the same region that is represented by the Minister for Core Review, want to see consultation. I know he knows that because he was there at that annual general meeting of the AKBLG where they passed this resolution.

It's been absolutely clear that the people of B.C. want consultation. They've made that clear through their local governments, but they've also made it clear through the organizations in which they are involved.

The B.C. Agriculture Council represents over 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers and close to 30 farm sector associations from all regions of the province. What do they want? Hands down, they want consultation. I heard that in the meetings I had with them the other day. When I went to go to their reception for all MLAs on Monday evening, what did they say? Farmer after farmer representing their agricultural sector — what did each one of them say? Consultation.

They were affronted that the B.C. Agriculture Council was not formally consulted. They felt blindsided by Bill 24.
[ Page 3958 ]

[1545]

That's not governing. That's not governing with the public. That's not working with the public on land use decisions. That's making something up based on a conversation with a few friends in a Cranbrook pub — that's what that is — and ramming it down the throats of British Columbians. That is not governing. That's working for a few friends. That's not acceptable. That is not acceptable, according to British Columbians. That shouldn't be acceptable to this government, and yet, they do it all the same.

Well, I'll tell you this. At the very least, the people of the Creston Valley will not be putting up with it. The B.C. Food Systems Network have also called on this government for a full analysis of Bill 24 and for consultation. The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. have asked for consultation, and they weren't even asked about this bill. B.C. Fruit Growers Association…. I sat down in my community office with the president. What did he say? Consultation. The National Farmers Union — a six-page letter to the Premier, detailing their concerns with Bill 24.

Again, I have no doubt that if we gave the Finance Committee the opportunity to go around this province and talk to British Columbians, the National Farmers Union would show up and make sure that their members' voices were on the record.

The Kootenay Local Agricultural Society. I have received in my office hundreds and hundreds of letters. On Friday alone…. I got another letter, another e-mail into my inbox, every three minutes on Friday — petitions, hundreds of names on petitions, postcards to the Premier. People in my riding are begging for this government to slow it down, to not ram these types of land use decisions down the throats of British Columbians but to actually stop, take some time and do the good consultation process we know they are capable of doing, because we saw it with the Water Act modernization.

This is what the Kootenay Local Agricultural Society had to say to me in their letter.

"Contrary to the Minister for Core Review's latest comments, there are virtually no organic farmers in the Kootenays who support Bill 24. Certainly, none of the KLAS's 65 members or 18 farmers certified under the Kootenay Mountain Grown label support it.

"Contrary to the minister's claims, it appears that the Agricultural Land Commission in the Kootenays is generally functioning well. According to IntegrityBC, 72.3 percent of the applications to the ALC from 2006 to 2012 in the Kootenays were approved with some conditions, while only 27.7 percent were rejected outright."

Clearly, any desire to take land out of the ALC for alternate uses is being considered. Actually, people are being allowed to do what they want to do, but it's being considered with an independent body that is not politically tied to the Minister for Core Review or to another minister or to another member of this House. It's independent, and it's there to work on the basis of that independence.

They go on to say:

"Given that changes to the agricultural land reserve and ALC will affect every British Columbian, KLAS urges you to postpone Bill 24's second reading until after a multi-year public consultation process similar to the one undertaken to update the Water Act.

"The public should have the opportunity to comment on any proposed legislation, including enabling legislation. Any changes to the ALC and ALR should increase farmland protection and the province's food security, especially in the face of climate change."

Those are the types of letters I'm hearing. From the Creston Valley Agriculture Society it's very much the same thing. Randy Meyer, the president, writes:

"I write to your office again to continue to voice our opposition to Bill 24. We held another public meeting last night, and it was well attended by a wide cross-section of farmers from our diverse agricultural valley, from beef, dairy and field crop growers to smaller-lot fruit, vegetable and market gardeners. Absolutely no one voiced any support for this divisive bill.

"We are encouraged by your apparent desire to hear from farmers from around this province and, at the same time, are disappointed by the Minister for Core Review's closed-minded attitude on this very important matter."

[1550]

People want to see this consultation process take place. They want to have their voices heard. They want to be able to tell this government what the agricultural land means to them.

I have another letter here from the president of the Boundary Organic Producers Association in Grand Forks. He writes that he was pleased to meet with his MLA, the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and her assistant on April 17. They thought: "It is my belief that the concerns expressed at that meeting did not fall on deaf ears. I was assured that our MLA supports our concerns addressed below and will do everything in her power to help the farmers in her riding."

They go on to say: "Myself and members, therefore, urge you to scrap Bill 24 and to work with farmers to develop legislation and policies that will promote locally and sustainably produced foods."

I wonder how the Boundary Organic Producers Association are going to feel if their MLA does not stand in favour of my motion to refer this to the Finance Committee for consultation, to do that consultation work, especially when they've asked her and they left that meeting feeling confident — like they were heard.

I am aware that the Minister for Core Review has brought up that some members in the Kootenays are supportive of Bill 24. And of course, we are in a democracy. You never get 100 percent of the population agreeing 100 percent of the time. That's why we have a democracy where majority rules. And the majority is clear here. They can't be more clear that they don't like Bill 24, and they want to have their say in a process, a consultation process, for the agricultural land.

I just have so many letters here. I have to go through the stacks of paper.

Let me share with you a letter from Melissa Flint. She's from Creston, and she writes:

"I'm opposed to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. Bill 24 does not in any way support agriculture in British Columbia. The Agricultural Land Commission and the
[ Page 3959 ]
agricultural land reserve were put into place to protect and grow the agriculture sector in B.C. in face of development which may alter the land to make it unsuitable for farming as well as raise prices and make land unaffordable to farmers."

And I've talked about that.

She goes on: "By changing the zoning that makes zone 2 vulnerable to development, you endanger farmer livelihoods, rural economies and food security in British Columbia. Climate change is a real and present factor." She goes on to say: "I call on the provincial government to conduct a public consultation process with the ALC and those affected by its decisions — farmers, ranchers and citizens of B.C."

She's, by far, not alone. As I mentioned, I have a considerable number of letters that have been coming into my office — people saying that they don't want to see this bill go forward. And they should have the right to say that. They should have the right to say: "You know what? I don't like this idea of regional panels, and I don't like this idea of prioritizing campgrounds over food production. I don't like this idea of prioritizing exploratory research or mining over agriculture. We need to be doing both. There's a place for mining, and there's a place for agriculture, and we've identified the place for agriculture. It's the agricultural land reserve."

They deserve a place to say that, and that's exactly what a consultation process would do with the Finance Committee.

I've read several letters from people from Creston, but let me tell you, I'm getting a lot of letters from people in Nelson, too — a town founded on mining. They care deeply about their neighbours and friends in the Creston Valley, about their neighbours and friends in the Salmo Valley, in the Lardeau Valley north of Kootenay Lake — all these places that have ALR, producing amazing food, as I've bragged about already.

[1555]

This is what I hear from Dan Rude, who's the principal at Crawford Bay Elementary-Secondary School: "Food sustainability and sovereignty is a growing concern and is resulting in a growing number of grass-roots initiatives in our community."

I'm just going to interject in reading his letter there, because it really is amazing what's going on around food security in the Nelson-Creston riding and all throughout the Kootenays. The 100-mile diet has taken hold. We cherish our local food, and we don't want to lose the opportunity to be eating healthy, local food and to be reducing our impact on climate change. For those who think it can't be done, I've mentioned to the Minister for Core Review on numerous occasions how it can be and that we grow so much in the Creston Valley.

If you think it can't be done on a large scale, I'd like to let people know that when I got married a couple of summers ago, we hosted our wedding feast with the 100-mile diet. It was a 100-mile wedding feast. Everything that we fed our 150 guests came from the Kootenays except the cheese.

There was one cheese, the goat cheese, that did not come from the Kootenays. I have to admit it. I apologize. It came from Kelowna — the beautiful riding of the Minister of Agriculture, actually. We got the goat cheese from his riding. It's fantastic. I'll give him the name of it. He should get it.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Oh no, it was yours.

It's exactly why I hope he's hearing today how important it is to go to consultation process, because eating local and eating the food that we grow here in B.C. is increasingly important to British Columbians, as it is for people in Nelson.

The principal that I mentioned, Dan Rude from Crawford Bay, continues on: "We are wanting to become more self-reliant and localized in food production and distribution, and we are wanting to teach the values related to growing our own food and knowing where our food comes from to our children and youth. I am not in favour of Bill 24."

Now, I have no doubt that Mr. Rude would like to be able to send his letter not just to his MLA, not just to the Minister of Agriculture, but to be able to include it into a formal process that is then compiled officially, transparently, and heard by members of this House.

John Beerbower from Queens Bay, which is just about 45 minutes north of Nelson — beautiful views over Kootenay Lake…. This is what he has to say:

"I'm opposed to the proposed alterations to the structure and management of the agricultural land reserve in Bill 24. As a small farmer in the Kootenays for the last 30 years, I highly value the ALR in its present configuration. The relaxed management regime proposed for the planned area 2 will prepare the way for greater subdivision and exclusion of currently or potentially productive farmland."

He raises a very important point, a point that's been brought up by my colleagues. It's something that is happening in the Creston Valley on a daily basis. Land gets subdivided. Somebody, often from Alberta, comes and buys what they consider a beautiful house on beautiful acreage. They're right; it is a beautiful house on beautiful acreage. But it's also surrounded by farmland.

What often happens is that they're there not even a month before they start to complain about the smells from the dairy farm, the smells from the chicken farm, the smells from spraying manure and so on, the noises from the tractors at early times of the day, the noises from the cows, the noises from the chickens, the pigs running around. They start to complain about that. But they have a voice too, and I have no doubt that they would like to bring their voice to a consultation process.

And I have no doubt that the farmers, who have to hear these complaints on a regular basis, would like to bring the points they have to a consultation process on how we
[ Page 3960 ]
can address the needs of the ALR and how we can particularly address those conflicting needs, and that Bill 24 would actually increase that conflict rather than reduce it. I have no doubt that they have something to say.

Here's another person from Crawford Bay, Jessie King:

"I'm writing to express my concern about Bill 24. I am opposed to the passage of this bill, as I feel the ALR currently helps protect farmland, farming jobs, healthy and sustainable food, and allows us to not be 100 percent dependent on Californian food," she points out, "which is likely not to be around for long, given their overuse of aquifers and droughts.

[1600]

"We all eat multiple times a day, and thus we need our farmland in B.C. to be protected. The process by which the government is trying to shove this bill through the Legislature without public consultation is absolutely disgusting. I would like to teach my students that we live in a democracy, but this process has me questioning the strength of that democracy."

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think we owe it to Jessie King and her students. We will show them that we value democracy, we value the process of governing, and we understand that that means bringing the public, involved, especially into an issue that, prior to the election, the government made no mention of. They never said that they would make any changes to the ALR. I believe they said quite the opposite — something like what happened in 2009 with the HST.

Well, the public is feeling blindsided again. They want to have their say. Last time they had their say by forcing a referendum on to this government and winning that referendum. That's how they had to have their say. Why make it so difficult on them again? Why do that?

I think here we have an opportunity. I hope the government side of the House will see that opportunity and support the motion to go to a consultation process — a robust, meaningful, transparent, public consultation process — with the Finance Committee.

Here's another reason why we need a consultation process. I hear it from the regional district of Central Kootenay, area E director. She wrote to me to let me know that 72 percent of the people who answered a land use survey in her area believe that agricultural land should be for agricultural purposes. To me, that's a good indication that people do care about this issue, and they want to be consulted. They do have something to say, and it's not what the government thinks. It's not what the government is presently doing.

As I said, I have received countless letters. Here I received a letter from Ashley Dawson in Kamloops. She is writing: "Please don't pass Bill 24. The future of our province and its people depends on this decision. I love my locally grown food. I want to know where and who grows my food. Passing this bill could take that privilege away, and that's not okay with me."

She's certainly a voter in Kamloops, and I hope that her MLAs are listening to her today and saying: "You know what? Ashley has something to say, and she should be able to say it." She should be able to say it in a formal way — not just through a letter, but in a formal way — in a way that the Finance Committee will be sitting down and listening to her and listening to what she has to say about how passionate she is about the agricultural land reserve.

Another group that's written to me is the Blewett Conservation Society. They're near Nelson. As I mentioned, the people in Nelson have been writing extensively to me on this issue, asking for consultation, asking to be heard, saying that they don't support Bill 24 in its current form whatsoever. The director of the Blewett Conservation Society writes that they are opposed to Bill 24, that land in the ALR should, now and in the future, be suitable for food production. They're concerned that Bill 24 is going to absolutely reduce the ability of the ALR to produce food for our province.

They're particularly galled by the fact that the Creston Valley, class 1 agriculture land, has been designated for zone 2 at a whim — not because of any analysis on the value of the land, not because of any analysis of its economic viability as agricultural land for the entire region.

[1605]

No, not because of those reasons, but because — the only thing that people in my area can surmise, the reason why they've been tossed out as second-class citizens with second-class farmland when they don't — of a conversation that was perhaps had by the Minister for Core Review with a few friends in a pub in Cranbrook. That's how this legislation seems to have come about, and that's not okay.

That legislation — any type of legislation like this that is having massive changes on our land use, on the very land that we produce food on — should have been done with a multi-year, provincewide consultation process that included the B.C. Agriculture Council, that included the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments, the Southern Interior Local Government Association, the Lower Mainland local governments…

Interjections.

M. Mungall: I see my colleagues from the Lower Mainland particularly want that consultation to include Lower Mainland local governments.

…a process that included Vancouver Island local governments, local governments from the north. Every single local government association has been clear that they are not happy about being left out of this massive decision on land in their regions.

The B.C. Agriculture Council has been absolutely clear that they are not happy about this, about being left out of this important decision-making process. I've listed off several other organizations. The organic farmers, unhappy; the National Farmers Union, unhappy. Way to not make friends, right? This is a great way to not make
[ Page 3961 ]
friends. I mean, the Liberal government — here they are going around making massive decisions and not including anybody. I highly doubt that anybody is feeling pretty good about them right now.

Not only did they not include all of these representative organizations that are actively involved in land management or actively involved in the sector that is impacted by this bill; they didn't include eaters. They didn't include eaters, which is all of us. That's exactly why we need to have a consultation process. That's exactly why we need to be able to go out to the public, hear what they have to say and make sure what they have to say has been put on the record.

With all due respect to the Minister of Agriculture, I know…. I have no doubt that he's reading all of those letters, the thousands and thousands and thousands of letters he's receiving. I have no doubt that that's exactly what he's doing at this minute. That being said, when policy is made in this way, it does not breed confidence amongst the public. They are not left feeling confident that the government has truly taken into consideration what might be in those letters.

In fact, there's no process to ensure that there's some accountability, that the government is listening to what people have to say. We just have to trust. But the trust has been broken. It's been broken repeatedly — many different places, many different policies. It's broken with the HST, as I mentioned, but it's particularly broken right now with Bill 24.

This is an opportunity to refer this to the Finance Committee. It's an opportunity for this government to start building that trust again with the public, to say: "Yes, it's not just your letters that I'm reading. I want to hear you in a formal way, in a meaningful way."

By presenting to the Finance Committee, putting those voices on record, having some public transparency, members of the B.C. Agriculture Council can go back and look and say, "There, that's exactly what I said. It's in Hansard," rather than finding out that they're apparently in support of a bill that they've never actually said they were in support of, which is exactly what happened with Bill 24.

[1610]

That trust — that this government will hear and accurately represent what they had to say — has been broken. That trust needs to be rebuilt. That's not a partisan issue. That's just a commonsense issue. That's just a good-government issue.

If members across the way were interested in doing that — building that public trust and good governance, rather than photo ops and slogans — they would take this opportunity and begin a consultation process by supporting this motion and voting yes, getting to yes. They like to say that a lot over there: "Getting to yes, getting to yes."

Here's a really great opportunity for them to get to yes. Get to yes to the public. Get to yes to public consultation. Get to yes to democracy. At the end of the day, that's exactly what this issue is all about. It's about democracy. It's about the public. It's not just about: "Hey, we won an election a year ago, and now we can do whatever we want." That's not democracy. That's hubris. That's narcissism. That's what that is.

The public deserves something more than that. They deserve to be heard. They deserve to sit in front of the Finance Committee and say what they have to say on the ALR and to say: "We don't want Bill 24. We want to save the ALR." They have every right, as members of this province, as citizens of this country, to go in front of the Finance Committee and say: "Kill Bill 24."

Hon. N. Letnick: I'd like to thank all members for their participation in the second reading debate on Bill 24. I understand the current motion before the House is to refer Bill 24 to the Finance Committee and wish to convey to the House that the government will not be supporting the motion to refer. I look forward to hearing further comments on the bill and the latest motion as we progress.

N. Macdonald: All right. First, I want to thank my colleague from Nelson-Creston for putting the motion forward, which is a thoughtful and, actually, the only reasonable way to move forward. One of the terms she used right at the end was the term "hubris," and hubris is the best description for the group on the government side, because even the response from the minister — to not explain, to not take any time to bother explaining, to this House why this was not the way forward — speaks to hubris. That is actually what it speaks to.

The opposition have all spoken to this bill — pretty well all spoken to this bill — which will make substantial changes to the agricultural land reserve. These are not small changes. They're substantial changes.

I had the pleasure of just taking a group of students around the precinct. They're visiting all the way from Golden, from Nicholson Elementary school, a school I was principal at. I'm sure all MLAs do the same thing, where you go and you speak to school groups and you explain the process here. And when they witness question period, you say: "Okay, well, that's not really how we communicate with each other. There's something more substantive that goes on." Really, there should be something more substantive that goes on, but again and again the process here lets down the people of British Columbia.

The motion that my colleague just put forward is actually the process that the member for Kootenay East suggested was the right way to go. Remember that in the confusion of leaked documents and the confusion of what was actually going on with the agricultural land reserve after the election, the member for Kootenay East said: "Go to the Finance Committee. Make your presen-
[ Page 3962 ]
tations there on the ALR. Off you go."

[1615]

Some people did start to show up at the Finance Committee, where the Chair of the Finance Committee — who, by the way, is the co-chair or the deputy chair of core review; you'd think there might be some communication between the person heading the so-called core review and the deputy chair — said: "Hey, I don't know what you're doing here. I didn't know we were getting rid of the ALR, and I didn't know that you were supposed to come here and speak to me. Don't do it." Tremendous confusion at every stage with this bill.

All that we're suggesting is that what should have happened in the first place take place now. Now, what is so unreasonable about that? What is the answer from government about what is so unreasonable about taking time to do a bill properly? Is there one member that will stand up on the government side and explain to me why that is so unreasonable to do that?

We have a Finance Committee. We have a Chair of the Finance Committee, who is paid to take on the role of chairing that committee. It's supposed to be a tool that we use, but we never do use committees properly here. We hardly use them at all.

I have a member here who'd like to make an introduction. I'd just like to give him the opportunity and then take back my position speaking.

H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the gallery is a school from my constituency — Lee School grade 9 students. Many of them are here for the first time, and they are led by their teacher Mrs. Donna Murphy. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful place, and I hope that they enjoy the debate.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: I do hope they enjoy it. Of course, it's debate in name only. It's not really an exchange of ideas. I mean, we stand and we put forward arguments. The government, in full hubris, doesn't even bother to make a counterpoint, doesn't even bother to explain why we would not enter into what is a completely reasonable process.

What I see are members on the government side who disconnect themselves from these pieces of legislation — tune it out, right? — and do not take the job that they're sent here to do seriously. If they were serious about it, then we would be looking at this legislation…. In my first comments, I called it one of the stupidest pieces of legislation I've seen in front of this House.

It is deeply flawed. Members have been told that again and again by people who know that to be the case, but there are elements of it that we should be experts on. We are lawmakers. We are the senior law-making body in this province, and we do not take that job seriously. We consistently turn out very poor legislation, consistently in ways that are predictable.

This is a prime example of poor law-making, and for that, I'm sure members will say, especially on the government side: "Hey, there's nothing I can do about it. The Premier told me I had…." Well, the Premier? "The member for Kootenay East told me I had to do it." I don't know what he holds over you, but each individual has the ability here in this House to speak to legislation, to influence the legislation that we have. You don't have to go along like sheep on stuff like this. You have the ability to think for yourself and to act properly and to have a real debate.

We don't do that. In fact, we're not going to do that going forward. I've been here eight years. I've seen how this plays out all the time. We will now get into a period where opposition members will make their arguments, and it will be dismissed completely.

What was the minister's answer to a half-hour argument from the member for Nelson-Creston on the reason why we should go to the Finance Committee and actually have hearings and a thoughtful process to come up with legislation that's actually going to work? What was the response? Did it take 30 seconds? What was the essence of the argument? "We're not going to support it," was the essence of the argument, "because we don't have to."

Well, that was his position. I don't even think he's in charge of this file, but he stated that as his position. What do other members think? Is it just to go along with that blindly without thinking? That seems to be exactly what always happens, and it leads in predictable places.

[1620]

As I said, there are elements of this bill that legislators in particular need to be mindful of. We have talked about the agricultural implications of the bill, and there are people in this House that have expertise on that, and there are many, many outside of the House that have more expertise. That's a fact. It's true. But on making laws, we should be the experts. We, more than anyone else, should be the ones who take that job most seriously, and I don't see it, frankly.

You know, I'm reminded when I go and speak to a class. I tell them that we take this job seriously and that laws here are thought through. But I know it's not true. I know that that is not what happens. That saddens me.

Could it be something different? Absolutely. But it would take a few people taking on the responsibility to actually do the work that should be done.

This bill is flawed. I laid out in my first speech some serious problems with this bill. I think, inevitably, it is going to lead to cronyism. It is going to lead to abuse.

I think we have the responsibility to make sure that
[ Page 3963 ]
doesn't happen. When I was a teacher and we set up a test, I always thought it was my responsibility to make sure that no student could cheat. I would structure it so they were seated in a way and that the test was structured in a way so that the students couldn't cheat. That was my responsibility.

As lawmakers, we have an obligation in setting out laws that are practical, where opportunities for abuse are mitigated in the best possible way. This law doesn't do it.

I said that this is primarily a real estate bill. When you listen to the member for Kootenay East, that's his argument. How do you support farmers? Essentially, by getting them out of farming. That's the argument. How do they get out of farming? By selling off their land and increasing the value through a zoning change.

Now, how is that not going to lead to abuse and corruption? Especially when that panel, the group that makes that decision as to whether the value of the land can be increased in that zoning change, is completely politically controlled.

Now, I heard the minister who introduced the bill. It was the member from Kelowna. He's the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I read what he said — all sorts of nice words about…. I can quote. I mean, I was listening. Strengthening the ALR. This is going to be about preserving farms, farmers and families. Increasing efficiency. The ALR is going to be fully independent. Protecting farm…. But all of that is demonstratively not true. That is not what is in this bill.

We could have that discussion, perhaps not in this venue. It's not the best venue to have it. But a committee could do it. A committee could have that discussion that needs to take place.

You know, I don't know who writes these introductions of bills, but it's the same person who writes the slogans about B.C. being debt free, B.C. being number 1 in jobs when it's number 8. And we're debt free. How are we getting debt free? By piling on the most debt that we've ever had in the history of this province right now.

There's something completely Orwellian about the language that is attached to the initial introduction of this bill, and the Orwellian language continues.

This is a real estate bill. The rules that we put in place will mean that either the real estate dealings that come from this are legitimate, or if we don't put in safeguards, then you're going to have abuse. You are going to have financial abuse, and it is predictable.

Real estate is a big business in British Columbia. It is actually the biggest part of our GDP. I don't know that people actually understand how much money we're talking about. So 19 percent of B.C.'s economy by share of GDP is real estate. Compare that to…. People would think manufacturing. That's 7 percent — right?

People would think mining, oil, gas. That's less than 6 percent. People would think forestry — less than 2 percent. The biggest part of the economy is real estate. That's a fact.

[1625]

There is huge money at stake when real estate is being moved around, and you change the value of property tremendously when you change its zoning.

That is what this bill is all about, and I can tell you that it is up to MLAs, legislators, to put forward a bill, put forward pieces of legislation, that will make sure that there is not abuse. Bill 24 is set up to allow cronyism. If it is not set up to allow political abuse, in my view, then, it is complete incompetence because that is inevitably what is going to happen.

I just invite members to really have a look at what safeguards are in place. Where in the legislation are there safeguards?

Now, I know that many of the new MLAs have been on local government and some that have been here for a while. You know if you've been on local government that you make zoning changes with a whole set of rules that are intended to limit that abuse. They're there in legislation. You can go and find them in the books of legislation that we have here — rules that try to make sure that on zoning changes we're not going to have abuse. Where is it in this bill?

Now, when I was first making that point the minister said: "You're wrong." Okay. Well, that's not a debate. The minister said: "Oh, you're wrong." Okay. Is there an opportunity for him to stand up and explain, to elaborate on that?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: There was an opportunity. How long did he speak? About 30 seconds. Did he address that at all? No, he stood up, and he said: "Hey, your motion to actually put this to a committee and do proper work on the bill — not doing it." No explanation. No addressing any of the issues that were brought forward by members here.

So there we are. Sometimes it would be nice to presume that this Legislature actually works the way it's supposed to. Sometimes it would be nice to presume that committees would actually work the way they're supposed to.

What sort of a world would that be? Would we end up with legislation that actually improved people's lives here? Could we avoid waste? Could we put a set of rules in place that we could be proud of? I think we have a greater opportunity to do it if we actually did our work properly here. There's no reason why it cannot happen.

I honestly feel that the government MLAs are enablers, and they allow this to happen. They don't do anything. It's time that those backbench MLAs actually stand up and do something, and there's an ability for people within cabinet to do the same thing. I realize, publicly, you can't criticize, but you have measures. You have the ability to make sure that we go through a proper process.
[ Page 3964 ]

Which MLA here thinks that a proper process was followed? Is there one? Is there one person who thinks that a proper process was followed here?

The one most likely to say that, even though it wasn't true, would be the member for Kootenay East. What was his explanation of the process? He said: "Mea culpa. Hey, I take this one. It's true. We didn't do it properly."

Well, here's your opportunity to do it properly. What is missed by putting it off until the fall, allowing the committee to go and do some decent work and bring back a bill that is actually a bill from this minister. What would be the harm in that? In fact, there would actually be something good about it.

We could actually do a decent job as MLAs in producing legislation that the people of British Columbia deserve. They deserve, having spent $92 million to have this place function every year, for it to function properly. That's the fact of it.

But who on the government side is going to have the guts to stand up and insist on that? I've yet to see it happen. It should happen. Otherwise, let's be clear. You're enablers. You enable this. This is absolutely something that you have to leave this place knowing. It's a deeply flawed bill. It's our job to fix it.

[1630]

Let's look at examples of where a similar sort of process has gone on, where legislation was put in front of this House by surprise, legislation was not debated properly, all the things that are supposed to happen were skipped. Other examples of legislation like that, where there are consequences: how about the Clean Energy Act? Hey, that's a dandy. How's that one worked out? How much has that cost?

Contracts were signed without the Utilities Commission having the ability to look at them because the legislation removed the Utilities Commission. Here's a number for you: $55 billion in obligations to buy energy from B.C. Hydro, from private run-of-river diversion projects that come at the wrong time.

As we speak, we're dumping water that could have been used to create power, but because of legislation decided in this way in this House, we're out of pocket in a huge way. That's one example of where this House didn't do its job. There are others.

HST was the government's signature economic move of the last four years. What a mess — a mess coming in, a mess going out. It was passed in this House in the same way that we're passing this bill.

The key word I'll borrow from Nelson-Creston is "hubris." It's that idea that somehow, wherever this was created, it was created in the finished form. It's like divine conception. It's just there. "It's perfect," the government is saying. But it's flawed in so many ways.

You have legislation like when you broke the HEU contract, and the teachers — all of that creating hardship, creating problems that have stretched on for ten years, and all of it speaking to a failure of legislators to properly do their jobs. That failure sits with the government and sits with government MLAs that go along blindly with this sort of bill-making.

I listened to some of the arguments that were made by government members. At the beginning some government members did participate to a certain degree in the debate. I'd be interested if they could respond to some of the things that we've said so that this is a real debate rather than a series of monologues, but that, perhaps, is out of the question.

I listened, and I'll just go through…. I've spoken about what I heard from the minister who introduced the bill. I've spoken, too, about one of the first government speakers, the member, I think, for Chilliwack-Hope.

It goes on. Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — I think he spoke. Basically, it was the government's talking points, but it was lucid. I think the point that I picked up is that he says that this bill keeps farmland as one of the first priorities in zone 2. But if you read the legislation — and I'd invite the member to really read the legislation carefully — even with the amendments that are coming there is ambiguity in that language that will allow the politically appointed panel to rationalize anything they do.

What is not on the table in that language? They can change it for agricultural reasons; failing that, for social reasons, economic reasons. Then they have a catch-all for anything else that the government wants to add as regulation. What can they not rationalize for removal from the agricultural land reserve? Look at the language. It is absolutely flawed.

I heard the member for Shuswap. He says that one zone doesn't work. That's what he's saying. But he says that knowing that in what is described as zone 2, 75 percent of the people who apply successfully have an exclusion in a process that at least has some rigidity to it, some authenticity to it. He still says we need two zones.

Now, it's interesting, because his riding actually sits on the cusp of two zones — one part of it zone 1, the other part of it zone 2. I wonder when he stands on that boundary if he can actually tell the difference between what's zone 2 and zone 1. What is dramatically different, actually, about those two zones? I can't imagine that it's really a huge difference.

[1635]

The member from Cariboo south — the essence of what I picked up from what she was saying was from a letter that she read where she described the ALR as a socialist system. Well, presumably, as a former mayor she did zoning. Zoning, I think, is pretty standard and hardly a socialist construct. I mean, anybody does this.

We had the member for Chilliwack. I listened to the argument he was making. The essence of it seemed to be that since it was 40 years old, it needed to change, presumably because 40 years is a long time, and he listed things from 40 years ago.
[ Page 3965 ]

I know change happens. I know that it can make sense, but of course, the ALR has adapted boundaries as we've gone along. Sometimes all sorts of things can change. One can change. I don't think it takes 40 years to change from being a conservative to a liberal. I think it actually took about 40 minutes. But change happens, sure.

From Prince George–Mackenzie — it was an interesting speech, actually. I think that would be an interesting member to have on a committee. I think those would be interesting conversations we could have.

Abbotsford-Mission — she did address interference in the land exclusions. Again, from her perspective, she assured people that it was going to strengthen the independence of the commission. I absolutely would love to hear an expansion on that idea.

I don't see it. Like I say, if that's an assertion, it's one thing. It's easy to assert it. It's far more difficult to actually make the case. Although the committees are enough like local government, where you're going back and forth, that maybe the member can make a compelling case.

Abbotsford South — what I heard was basically that he said the bill doesn't affect his area. I actually think it does, but okay. Maybe he feels it doesn't, but there's no doubt that it affects areas such as I represent, like the Kootenays.

He talks about not being allowed to do things on ALR land. If you look at what he cites, you actually can do those things. So again, I think that would be useful to go to a committee and actually talk through those things.

The Minister of Education from Langley actually started by dismissing everything we in opposition said as full of mistruths and misinformation. I think that was his first sentence. I don't know that that's a debate that would go anywhere, since he was completely dismissive of anything that we might bring. Capital "H" for hubris on that one.

From Peace River South — it was interesting. The regional district in his area wants consultation. He comes from an area that once had Blair Lekstrom as an MLA, and I always appreciated Blair Lekstrom's willingness to actually stand up at key times and do what he knew to be right. I guess that's what I would look for.

Okay, there are opinions expressed. That seems to be the essence of the arguments that have been put forward by government — hardly compelling, in my view. Something may be fleshed out if one had a committee where ideas could be exchanged. Maybe there are things I missed in the arguments that were put forward.

Kootenay East — I tell you, he laid it out really clearly in the sense that this is his bill. This is nobody else's bill. He came up with it. He's wanted to do it for…. Well, he had a descriptive way of describing the 13 years that he wanted to do it.

This is his agenda. I don't get how the people of B.C. end up in a place where Kootenay East, with all the history that we know, ends up being the person who has the last say on everything in this Legislature. That's a pretty flawed system.

He wants to get re-elected next time. Okay, well, we'll change the Boundaries Commission. We changed the rules on that one. He wants land out of the ALR. All right. Well, let's change the rules on that one.

[1640]

I mean, that's a pretty strange world that we're in where that individual is the one calling the shots. But I guess, in the vacuum over there, that's what's happening.

The essence of the argument is this. In the Kootenays, which is identified as zone 2, we need to support local food production. People are passionate about that, and this is one of the tools that we have to do that. We have lots in the Kootenays. In my area, within 100 kilometres of where I live, we have cattle, bison, chickens and sheep. We have market gardens. It's true. We have hay. We have Christmas trees.

We grow lots of things legally, and we have an understanding that the ALR is important to wildlife. A tremendous amount of the land is forested. It's true. But it is there for the future, and there are reasons why one would want to support agriculture in the area.

I mean, there is an opportunity here with this bill to take it away, take it to a committee and actually lay out a food plan. You know, it's not that long ago that Liberals actually put together a food plan that went nowhere. Val Roddick came up with, actually, a pretty good food plan. I would ask new members to go have a look at it.

One of the elements was protecting the ALR, by the way, which is also one of the elements of the B.C. Liberals' election campaign. But hey, we're so used to the fictions that were part of that campaign that it's hard to feel too outraged about one more thing. Nevertheless, that's what they ran on.

People want farmers markets. We have them in Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere. We want greenhouses. We want abattoirs. We want to be listened to so that there are not some of the messes that have been made with things like the meat regulations.

But in the time I have left, I'm just saying that we have a job here as legislators to do proper legislation. This is an example of the worst kind of legislation — deeply flawed. It will inevitably lead to corruption.

I think it was, in my view, designed that way. It was set up for abuse. I think, inevitably, it will go that way, and unless there's somebody on the government side who has the will to stand up and make laws properly, it'll get pushed through.

But I can tell you that on this side, we know what our responsibilities are, and we know our responsibility is to fight bad legislation. This is one of the stupidest, worst pieces of legislation I've seen in this House. If members were serious about their jobs, took their obligations seriously, the motion that's in front of this House would be followed. We'd put this to a committee. We would put it to a committee that did good, real work on fixing this bill.
[ Page 3966 ]

L. Popham: I stand in support of this motion to refer Bill 24 to committee, to the Finance Committee. I do this as almost a last resort. I think that this bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation that we've seen. The process to bring this in is as bad as the process that brought in the HST. There is no respect for the people of British Columbia, and the only way that we're going to be able to sort that out at this point, which is late, is to refer it to the Finance Committee.

I would love to see it come to the Finance Committee, as I sit on the Finance Committee. But the history of the Finance Committee and Bill 24 is quite interesting. Last fall, September 24 in fact, the Minister for Core Review, the member for Kootenay East, promised that the public would "have an opportunity to provide input to core review" as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations. That was in a news release at the end of September.

This shocked everybody on the Finance Committee, including the Chair, because the Finance Committee actually does not have a mandate or any terms of reference on how to deal with input around the core review on the agricultural land reserve.

[1645]

I knew at that point that we were heading into trouble, because although the Minister for Core Review admitted that he could have done a better job at maybe warning the Finance Committee, he made no apologies. No apologies for treating the Finance Committee with disrespect and also blindsiding the agricultural community — completely disrespectful — and also blindsiding the members of the public.

At this point, referring it to the Finance Committee for further discussion is the only thing to do. One of the things that you do when you refer to a finance committee or a standing committee on a referral motion is to make sure that the bill goes through the proper process. The government, the members on the government side, act like that is just a formality that we need to get through, not meaningful, and the public disagrees absolutely.

In fact, a public opinion poll came out today, and if this government doesn't think the public is in tune with what's going on, I'd like to read this into the record. It's a public opinion poll that asks if this government has done a good job or a bad job in making the following decisions. I will specifically point out one of the questions that was asked. "A good job or bad job around proposing changes to the agricultural land reserve?" And 50 percent say they have done a very bad job — 50 percent of people.

Many issues that we see in the House, many issues that we debate in here — not all of them have a lot of public resonance. The public doesn't understand or is not informed on what's going on in this chamber. But on the ALR legislation changes, Bill 24, the public absolutely gets it, and they are not happy. That's one stakeholder group that the government didn't consider when they tried to ram this bill through.

We of course heard from the Agriculture Minister earlier — his comments on referring to a standing committee on finance. He said that the government would not support that. He doesn't support consultation. We're going to do that after the bill is passed, I guess. I guess this government is in a very big hurry to pass Bill 24.

I also think they're in a big hurry. Nobody that I've talked to understands what the hurry is. The agriculture community doesn't understand what the hurry is, but the government is in a big hurry.

I would like to specifically say that I think the member for Kootenay East is in a big hurry. He seems to be in charge of Bill 24. He's not the Agriculture Minister, but he seems to be in charge. He also seems to be in charge of the whole cabinet, because he's forcing members to agree with Bill 24 when I know in their hearts and in their communities they're hearing and feeling something different.

The Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation is actually going to be interested in hearing this, because there's a rally that's going to be held at his office. It's called "Bill 24 — What the Cluck?" That's going to be happening on May 21 — that's a week today: a rally of his constituents that are extremely disappointed that he has not stood up and said that Bill 24 should be pulled from the order papers, that it should be taken off the table and proper consultation should be done.

I think that a lot of the members in this House, if they're listening to their constituents, are going to find the same thing. I don't know if the province has enough energy at this point to try and rally at everybody's constituency office, but I know that there is great appetite in many of the areas that these MLAs represent.

One of the things that is sad to me is that all members in this House — many of us, the majority of us — attended an event this week put on by the B.C. Agriculture Council. Many of us went around and talked to the amazing agriculture stakeholders in B.C. that came specifically to talk to both sides of the House about the important issues around agriculture, the issues that they're working on, the policies that could help them be more successful.

[1650]

I can tell you that I talked to a lot of people in that room, and I didn't find one person who thought Bill 24 was a good idea, yet this government continues to say that they have found stakeholders to support this bill. I know that the minister that represents Kootenay East has a few people in his back pocket that he feels this bill is imperative for. I don't consider that they are farmers, but perhaps in his mind they are farmers.

We all know this is a development bill, not a farming bill. The sad part about talking to the representatives that came to visit us from the Agriculture Council — what I got from them is that they have lost their fight on this bill. What's happened is that they've expressed their opposition. The government doesn't care.
[ Page 3967 ]

You know what? It's spring. There's farming to do. These are business people trying to make a living. Instead, they have to put up with this irritating government trying to push through legislation that will affect their future and the future of agriculture in British Columbia.

That's the problem with this bill. It's being rushed through. It is spring. Anybody who is connected to agriculture or who eats knows that this is when the produce in B.C. — all the products we grow — starts to show up on our shelves. Right now, these farmers are extremely busy in all of our regions, in zone 1 and zone 2. Well, they don't have the energy to fight this government anymore, so they are resigned to hope for the best. I think that is so disrespectful to the agriculture community.

You know, agriculture for many operations is 12 months a year, but it's especially busy at this time of year for everybody. To push a bill on agriculture through at the busiest time for agriculture is unacceptable. I can barely stand it.

Now, they've all said to me, the stakeholders I've talked to: what is the emergency? Nobody knows what the emergency is, but I guess there have been promises made. I'm assuming there have been promises made by the member for Kootenay East to satisfy, I guess, an election promise, although when we look at the Liberal election platform a year ago today, I don't see any promises the member for Kootenay East made to his constituents about allowing the agricultural land reserve to be destroyed and opened up for development.

I don't see anything in their election platform. But I can tell you that I sat in a meeting with that MLA, and he said to some constituents that came down to show what bounty they can produce in the Kootenays: "I have got constituents who have been waiting for 40 years — 40 years — to get rid of the ALR, and I represent my constituents." I think we all know where this member is coming from.

Something happened yesterday that was extremely concerning to me. I was sitting in on the core review estimates with the minister from Kootenay East. He was being questioned. One of the questions around the consultation over the core review for the ALR came up. The question was: what was the process for the core review? How did the ALR become involved in the core review?

The minister said that it was the same for every ministry. Ministers were tasked to go out and figure out how their ministries could be run better. They brought back that information and presented it to the member for Kootenay East. I would consider him at this point the Premier, I guess, of the province.

They would present their ideas to that member, and he would decide whether or not the ideas were warranted. With the input from the ministers of their individual ministries, their responsibility — he admitted this; it's in Hansard from yesterday — was to go out and make sure they consulted with people. There was thorough consultation to make sure they had covered their bases.

[1655]

When he was questioned on whether the current Minister of Agriculture at that point was doing consultation, the Minister for Core Review, in Hansard yesterday, said yes. He did consultation, as far as he knows. He wasn't available. You know, time was of the essence. He didn't have a lot of time, so he wasn't able to just do the consultation himself, but he trusted the Minister of Agriculture to make sure that that process was done. In fact, I can quote from Hansard from yesterday.

"I've said a few times, and I want to be consistent, that the obligation for stakeholder discussion consultation was with the minister suggesting the idea. It was in their letter of instruction. Clearly, it's there, and it was up to them to do the necessary consultation.

"I am aware of extensive discussions that the minister had with the ALC, meetings that lasted for hours, about potential changes. That, I know, happened. I am aware that the previous minister had discussions with some of the agricultural organizations in the province — I think at least half a dozen of them, maybe more. I do know that. He told me that, and I believe him."

Well, this is what I have to say to that. We have letters from stakeholders, prominent agricultural stakeholders in this province. They've written in recently, even as recent as a few days ago, saying that there was no consultation. And the statement the minister made that there were hours of meetings with the ALC — I don't believe that. In fact, when I confirm some of this information, I will be calling for a point of order in this chamber, and I will be asking the minister to withdraw that statement, because I don't believe that it's true.

He also said, which was very interesting, that the consultation that the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission did "I think in 2011, resulted in apparently hundreds of pages of notes" that the chair took.

This minister yesterday, in the estimates for Core Review, implied that the Minister of Agriculture at the time had thumbed through all those notes — hundreds of pages of notes by the Agricultural Land Commission chair — last summer in order to get the information for Bill 24. I highly doubt it.

Possibly he had the notes, but I'm going to find out. I'm going to find out, and if that is not true, I'm going to call for another point of order in this chamber. We all know — every one of us, every member, both sides — that the consultation wasn't done. That's a fact.

Now, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association has always had a very good relationship with the other side of the House and on this side of the House too. I think they've been very good at pushing the issues that are important to them, and I believe the government has listened to them.

So it's quite alarming to receive a letter dated May 7. This is last Friday. I'm going to read this letter into the record, because considering the Hansard notes that I just read into the record from the Minister for Core Review, I would say that the minister should be very concerned about what he said.

"Dear hon. Minister" — this is to the current Minister of Agriculture.
[ Page 3968 ]

"Thank you for your willingness to meet with the agriculture community on Bill 24. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association has been monitoring the progression of Bill 24. Our biggest questions about the amendments you presented in the Legislature this week are: what will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future?

"We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture. We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24. Ranchers have lived with the reserve for over 40 years. Waiting a little while longer to ensure that proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

They go on to say:

"It is our view that much of the uncertainty around the bill could have been avoided by including the agricultural organizations from the early crafting stages. At the very least, we should have had the information available to share with them."

This is from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. This is from one of the organizations that I believe the government side of the House has been touting as one of their supporters for Bill 24. They weren't consulted.

[1700]

I haven't seen one government member stand up and explain that. Why are these government members not concerned about the consultation process? How can they go back and face their constituents without having referred this to the Standing Committee on Finance for proper consultation and discussion? It's alarming to me.

One of the things I've really enjoyed over the last little while is that although this bill will be devastating for agriculture, I believe, it has certainly raised the profile of agriculture. Everybody around the province understands what's going on. They feel threatened, they feel our farmland is threatened, and they don't trust the government. They do not trust the government for the actions they've taken.

Here's a fabulous letter I'm going to read from a gentleman in my constituency. He was an agrologist. He was a soil scientist, and he understands the agricultural land reserve very well.

"Dear Minister of Agriculture:

"Our family many years ago lived in Lake Country and had a small cherry orchard on Okanagan Centre Road. We now have a cherry orchard on the Saanich Peninsula. It's because of the ALR and the land commission that we invested in farmland and agriculture. It provides us with certainty and predictability, which most investors need. The ALR has excellent rules to provide stability and does accommodate change for many land uses within the ALR.

"We have for 25 years always had our farm pay its way and in the last ten years made annual profits. We both worked out, now on pensions, but on only three acres of our five-acre property we have sold over $500,000 worth of products including strawberries, green beans, garlic, raspberries and cherries. Over that time we have contributed about $250,000 to local employment. Our land is still very productive and sustainable and hopefully will be for 100 years into the future.

"Our family sees the ALR as another excellent piece of B.C. resource protection legislation. California, Oregon and Washington have also had strict agricultural land use protection laws. Other legislation which promotes a renewable and sustainable resource base is riparian zoning, which protects streamside lands for salmon- and trout-bearing streams, surface water protection, forest protection laws as well as groundwater legislation. All of these acts protect our investment stability and long-term sustainability of these interacting resources.

"Much of the ALR is positioned on valley floors and contributes significantly to groundwater recharge. Continued hard-surfacing of all our valleys will ultimately reduce groundwater levels. This is very poor resource management, particularly at a time of water uncertainty and global warming. We have very capable provincial staff who can work with others to protect our resource and at the same time design smart-growth systems for all to fit in, in a sustainable manner.

"The ALC has now had 40 years of experience in dealing with agricultural land use decisions. They are very good. To change things now will have a very destabilizing effect on agricultural initiatives and investments. Never before have we had a need for research and growth in food production here like now. So many young people are waiting in the wings to have a chance at farming.

"Please leave the system as is. Growth will continue in B.C. as it has done for 40 years.

"Respectfully, Robert and Janice Maxwell of Oldfield Road on the Saanich Peninsula."

I have worked over the years with Max, as I call him. He has been an incredible resource for me as a farmer myself, and he has much time to spend with young farmers who want to get into the business. He has also been the chair of the Peninsula Agricultural Commission. I sat as his vice-chair for a few years, and I know that he believes so much in agriculture.

As a soil scientist, I believe he also worked for the provincial government as an agrologist in the Ministry of Agriculture. These are the people that are contacting us; these are people that want to be consulted.

[1705]

You know, one of the problems with this legislation is that nobody believes there should be two zones. Now, the government believes that they're protecting agriculture and encouraging agriculture, but we all know what "two zones" means. It means that one zone will continue to be protected the way it is right now, and zone 2 will be open to development.

It's obscene that the government members have been able to not take their place in debate. Every one of the opposition members on this side of the House has stood — our independent or Green Party members, all of our NDP caucus. We have all stood and tried to explain to this government why this bill is bad. There has been a handful of members on the government side that have explained to us why they think it's good, and everybody else has been silent.

I think it's an abuse of our system in here. We are elected to represent approximately 50,000 people each. If you do not stand and take your place in debate, you are not representing your constituents.

This is a very controversial bill. People want to know what their MLA thinks. I know that I'm getting copied on a lot of the e-mails going to other constituencies. The member from Kamloops is getting e-mails. I'm not sure if these members are not only not standing to speak…. The minister is signalling me that he's received five letters. Well, I would suggest to anyone watching this broadcast
[ Page 3969 ]
that if you live in Kamloops, it's time to let the member from Kamloops know what you think.

These members are not only not standing in the House for their 30 minutes to defend this terrible piece of legislation; I'm not sure if they're responding to their e-mails. I'm getting e-mails now….

Interjection.

L. Popham: The minister is getting upset. When I say things like this that hurt his feelings, he gets upset, and he starts yelling across the chamber. But honestly, I'm getting e-mails from constituents of government members saying that the government members are not responding to their e-mails. I guess it's just another letter from a constituent coming through.

Every single person in British Columbia that has taken the time to write a letter to all of us deserves a response, because the agricultural land reserve is part of British Columbia. It's not part of rural B.C.; it's not part of urban B.C. It's all of British Columbia, and for 40 years many of us have grown up with the agricultural land reserve. It's part of our values as British Columbians. In order, I believe, for democracy to work correctly, every member in this House needs to state how they feel about it.

Now, I can see where this is going, and it's unfortunate. We've just gone through second reading. We've all stood. A few people on the other side of the House have stood and made outlandish comments about how this bill is great. The Minister for Core Review continues, I believe, to say things that aren't true, including in Hansard last night, as we watched estimates for the core review.

Just saying something doesn't make it right. Just saying that this bill is going to strengthen agriculture doesn't make it right. I would like every member of this House to stand up and let us know exactly how it will strengthen agriculture. Give us an example.

One of the interesting things that the Minister for Core Review also said is that…. Let me find the exact quote here. When he was asked how the bill was going to affect British Columbia in zone 1 and zone 2, he said: "All I can say is that I guess we'll find out over the next couple of years, in my view, if it's going to in fact help farmers and ranchers in zone 2."

So he's going to just take a chance and hope for the best. That's not part of the way you design legislation. When you design legislation in this chamber, you need to go out, consult, make sure that the policies and the legislation you're bringing in actually will have a positive result.

[1710]

That's the problem with this bill. The members on the other side have a song sheet that they're singing from, I guess. I keep saying they must have an enormous jug of Kool-Aid in their cabinet room. Maybe it's blue raspberry. I don't know. But the statements coming from the other side of the House seem very uninformed.

The minister from Kamloops, I believe, was also the head of the Ranching Task Force. I would challenge that member to go back to the Ranching Task Force and speak to every member, every stakeholder that he consulted with and ask them if they support Bill 24 being rammed through. I would suspect that every stakeholder would say no — every stakeholder.

The Ranching Task Force did not….

Interjection.

L. Popham: Well, the minister now wants to engage on the Ranching Task Force. That's fine. Let's just talk about the Ranching Task Force.

The Ranching Task Force did not suggest that there be two zones, that the agricultural land reserve be broken into two zones. There was nothing. I didn't find anything in the Ranching Task Force. I know that the Ranching Task Force was asking for support to make agriculture stronger and all of the things that….

Interjection.

L. Popham: The minister gets excited when I say that, but go back to the Ranching Task Force stakeholders and ask them if they support Bill 24.

Would the ministers and the members on other side of the House like to have a real debate on Bill 24, or will we continue this facade that we're having in this chamber? This is a facade. When only one side of the House stands up, it's a complete facade, and it makes a mockery of this chamber. For me personally, it's embarrassing.

I would like the members to stand up, because maybe they've got some inside information on why this bill works for British Columbia. If they do, I challenge them to let us in on it — and everybody else in British Columbia that has no idea why they're pushing so hard for Bill 24.

We are now referring this by motion to the Standing Committee on Finance. As I said, I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance. I would love the opportunity to work with that committee and do proper consultation, but we heard the minister say that that's not going to happen.

It's outrageous. I disagree with it, and we're going to have to try to do some other motion.

The people of B.C., every single day that this bill gets debated in this House, are becoming more and more angry, and they trust this government less and less. I don't blame them.

L. Krog: I'm always thrilled to rise and debate around quarter after five when most British Columbians are probably eating dinner…
[ Page 3970 ]

Interjections.

L. Krog: …or watching hockey, as some of my colleagues in the House have pointed out. I don't take that, however, as an indication that my remarks won't be listened to, at least by the government benches today.

I rise to speak in support of the motion to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. That will come as no surprise. As I said in the House a couple of days ago, speaking to second reading debate in this chamber, it was the member for Nanaimo who, over 40 years ago, introduced the very legislation that created what has made British Columbia unique in terms of its commitment to the preservation of farmland in a world where we have seen such a dramatic increase in population over these last four decades.

We've enjoyed the experience, if you will, of the Green Revolution. It allows us to feed so many more people. But even with the so-called Green Revolution, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the consequences of that are also changes in the oceans of the world and a reduction in the amount of protein we can expect from that source.

[1715]

If you're going to make changes that even have the possibility of affecting the ability of British Columbia to maintain its agricultural land, thereby reducing its capacity to produce food, then surely, that is something that has to be considered very, very, very carefully. That is the essence of what the House is being asked to do with this motion.

If there had been some significant consultation process around this bill…. It's pretty clear that there wasn't. If there had been that significant consultation process and British Columbians' views had been canvassed at length and they had a full opportunity to understand what the government was up to — or, for example, something as simple and pedestrian and logical as actually having raised this during the last election — British Columbians would have been able to take into consideration the Liberals' proposals as contained in Bill 24. Then surely that would have been a fair process. That would have been a logical process.

British Columbians would have had that opportunity to pass judgment. Then, frankly, if the results of the election were the same, I can tell you how the members opposite would have been crowing and saying: "We went to the people of British Columbia. They voted for us. They didn't vote for you. They obviously, obviously supported the destruction of the agricultural land reserve. Therefore, you folks on the other side are just whistling for no good reason. You're wasting the time of the people of British Columbia in this chamber."

That's not what happened. There wasn't a peep — not a word, not a speech, not a sentence, not an argument, not a pamphlet, not a leaflet, as I said the other day, no TV advertisement, no commercial, no campaign commitment, no promise. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate that we would be confronting changes to a piece of legislation that has, in the most powerful way, in the use of that timeworn cliché, stood the test of time. We are almost unique in the world in terms of our commitment to farmland.

Now, I'd be the first to admit, and members on both sides of this House have acknowledged during the course of debate, that the people who work the land — the farmers, who everyone professes to love — have not received the support that they deserved or that agriculture merited in the last four decades.

When this legislation was originally brought in, there were supports in place. It was part of what was the establishment of a new social contract with British Columbians, particularly British Columbians who were farmers. You won't be able to treat your farm as your retirement package in the sense that you can sell it to some developer and see the houses go up or the commercial shopping centre or whatever. You won't be able to do that, but we will provide support to you so that you can actually continue to farm, and farm successfully, make a living and continue to produce food.

Now, that social contract has existed for over 40 years. Successive governments have let down their part of the bargain in many respects, not providing the supports to agriculture. Notwithstanding that, some aspects of British Columbia agriculture have flourished incredibly. Indeed, that's one of the arguments we hear for why there should be the two-zone proposal — again, which was never trotted out in front of the public and which is a very good reason why this should be referred to a committee.

The argument has been, "Look, you've got this wonderfully productive land in the zone 1 area" — basically, the Fraser Valley, parts of Vancouver Island and the Okanagan.

Now, the problem with that argument is that, obviously, they may represent the most productive lands today in terms of dollar value per acre or hectare. Everybody gets that. We understand that. But the cattlemen of British Columbia understand that sometimes we can't all have blueberry farms or raspberry farms or wonderful vegetable farms. Sometimes we actually want to run cattle. You know what? The land doesn't have to be as productive, but you can't do it without the land. You can't raise cattle.

[1720]

Indeed, just the other day, listening to representatives of the B.C. Ag Council, they pointed out in no uncertain terms that getting grain — feed, if you will — from the Peace River down to the coast and to Vancouver Island is a real problem.

Now, I can tell you that you can arguably take a dairy farm on Vancouver Island and you look at the cost of milk quota and the revenue generated and say, "That's really productive," and somehow, therefore, in the minds
[ Page 3971 ]
of the government benches that's more worthy of protection in zone 1 than the lands in zone 2, as proposed in the northeast of this province. But some of what's making the dairy cow down in Qualicum Beach productive has come from the northeast sector of British Columbia, and if you can't feed the cow on Vancouver Island, you don't get milk.

It's not a hard argument. It's not a difficult concept. There is an interrelationship, and everybody gets that — except, apparently, the government side. They think that if you protect what they see as the highly productive lands and create a two-tier agricultural land reserve, that is somehow going to be good for agriculture.

The member for Golden I think put it best today when he talked, in his speech, about how this wasn't really about agriculture when the Minister for Energy was speaking in support of this bill. It is about real estate and the real estate industry and real estate development. Many of the arguments that we've heard from the government members are based on, as best as I can describe it, misinformation about what the substance of this bill is all about and what the facts are with respect to agriculture in British Columbia.

The reality is that there is a commission in place, and if you can make an argument for the construction of something on ALR land that enhances the agricultural use and the productivity of the land and the success of the farmer, guess what. Surprise, surprise — it gets approved.

Now, when you want to create a business that's completely unrelated simply because you want to use agricultural land that is capable of producing food or crops or sustaining animals or livestock — if you want to do that, and it's contrary — you know what? You're not going to succeed.

But when you can demonstrate both the integrity of your proposal and that it represents an enhancement to agriculture and agricultural production, you can succeed. We've had 40 years, over four decades, of the existence of the ALR. So when I hear these arguments that we are seeing the collapse, if you will, of farms and that farmers can't sustain themselves…. "It's all because of the ALR, and if we just do this, it'll be fine, and it'll be better, and it'll improve agriculture." With great respect, that just doesn't cut it.

I know many members have referred to the letter of May 7 addressed to the Minister of Agriculture from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. I want to read just one line out of that letter. I may read more later. The writer says: "Ranchers have lived with the reserve for 40 years. Waiting a little while longer to ensure that the proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

You know, I mean no criticism of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, but I don't recall getting a big cheque in the last campaign from them. I have never seen them as a group that was highly favourable to the NDP. I have never seen them as a group of supporters, particularly. I think the public might perceive that, in fact, those folks have somehow generally tended to lean more towards the government side when it came to voting.

[1725]

So when you have managed with a bill like Bill 24, which deserves such thorough consideration that you've now forced, encouraged, inspired — whatever language you want to use — a group of people, through their association, who are seen as your supporters, generally, to send a letter off telling you to slow down, step back, then why would the government not take that good advice?

You know, hon. Speaker, you don't have to be very old in this chamber to remember W.A.C. Bennett. I notice a couple of the members looking a little hurt by that, but you don't have to be that old to remember W.A.C. Bennett. And even dear old Wacky, God bless him, God rest his soul, when things got tough, had the political intelligence and the sensitivity and the common sense to step back and take what he used to refer to as his famous second look.

Now, I realize there are probably not a lot of folks in the B.C. Liberal party anymore who see themselves as old Socreds. The only one I really know of, and I speak of him with great affection, is my old friend Graeme Roberts, who was the mayor of Nanaimo for a while, and I always greet him as my favourite old Socred.

Those folks understood something — that when you are in a debate and the position you're taking is alienating the very people who support you generally, then that second look, that concept of referring a matter to a committee, should be the first thought that comes to your mind instead of trying to drag it out, work your way through the debates, which, based on the numbers of voters on the government side and the numbers on our side, notwithstanding the good work of the two independents…. Logic says you're going to win. Why would you want to win when the political cost is so high?

If I knew that the members on the government benches were getting e-mails and letters that they couldn't possibly read because they were so voluminous, saying this is the right thing to do, then I might pay a little more attention to it.

But I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker, in my constituency…. And I enjoy a pretty good relationship with folks who don't vote for me. I pride myself on that. Nanaimo is quite an interesting community. Nobody — and this may inspire anyone who's listening; maybe the minister will send me a letter — has sent a letter or an e-mail to my office or phoned and left a message and said: "Member, you go down to Victoria and you support what the government's doing with Bill 24." Nobody.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I see my friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs…. If he had access to a BlackBerry…. Oh, the
[ Page 3972 ]
member from Comox. They're all excited, and I must say that if they actually voted in my constituency, I'd pay really close attention to what they had to say. But I know the perils and the price one pays for cabinet solidarity in the province, and that requires you to support even the dumbest ideas consistently, publicly and with evident enthusiasm. This is one of those dumb ideas that the government benches are supporting with that kind of enthusiasm.

Now, I don't want to be too critical around the issue of seeing this referred to committee, but it is apparent to me from the remarks of many of the members that they have enjoyed the benefit of what it is to sit on the government side. I did that for a while, back in the early '90s. You have access to so many more resources and people. Folks, if you want or need them to, will prepare a speech for you and make notes for you and do all kinds of things.

Indeed, it's fairly apparent that a number of the members — and I don't mean this unkindly because I probably did a little bit of it myself, when I had the opportunity, in the old days — have come in here and repeated the message. We're all politicians. Even those who came virginally, if you will, into May 14 last year and got elected to this chamber are now no longer virgins to the process, and they get it. They understand what the message is, and they have delivered it.

[1730]

But the reality is that they, like I, trust that the information you're being given is accurate and fair, and the truth is that it's not always accurate and fair. It isn't fulsome, it doesn't describe both sides of the question, and there aren't a lot of opportunities to ask why a government is doing something. But you do your job on the back bench around the cabinet table. You stand up and you defend the government's position, and the opposition's job is to criticize.

What I would prefer, when you deal with something as important as this, is to step back and say: "Let's take that second look. Let us refer this to the Standing Committee on Finance."

What I've heard from very sincere and decent people in this chamber on the government side is, on occasion, frankly, almost rubbish: information and claims and stories and examples that bear no reality to how the commission operates, that bear no reality to what British Columbians feel about this or what they think, and indeed bear no relationship to the reality of what this legislation means and its impact.

Every once in awhile, because I still take such great pride and a thrill in being elected to sit in this place and to have the opportunity to speak, I step out into that rotunda, and I look up. What a magnificent building it is, and we all know what we see when we look up. You see those wonderful paintings, those murals: mining, forestry, fishing and agriculture.

Now, I live in a community that was built on mining by the colonizers, that followed with forestry, that relied on fishing and the fishery. Indeed, the First Nations since time immemorial in my community survived and lived a good life based on the fish in this province, on the Salish Sea, on their estuaries of the rivers. Later, as colonization proceeded — agriculture. This island once produced nearly all of its food, and now it produces almost nothing of its food in comparison, when you look at the population.

Now, that's partly a function of population. I get that, okay? I get that, but the fact is that at a time in the world when the government should be looking at a bigger picture and considering the impact of climate change, the impact of salinization of soils around the planet, the impact of phosphorus in the ocean, and the impacts of all of these things, instead they want to jam through a bill that will have the impact of reducing the amount of land available for agriculture in British Columbia.

Let's not kid ourselves. This legislation isn't designed to make it easier to put land into the agricultural land reserve. I mean, that's not the point of it. The point of it is to allow land to be more easily withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve. That's the point of it, and that is the position that I find so utterly distressing when we know so much more about the state of the planet and climate change and population growth.

We know that there are parts of the world where people are hungry and starving, where warlords — gangsters, by any other definition — maintain sway in order to grasp, as much as they possibly can, the receding resources of some part of the planet where no government or civilized state exists so that they can sustain themselves. Why would we here in British Columbia, with all of our knowledge and the benefit of 40 years of the ALR, not want to give real consideration not only to the contents of this bill but to the position of the people of British Columbia?

You know, I've known the member from Fernie, the Minister of Energy, for a while. Every once in a while he says something I really agree with — every once in a while, not often. I respect that he believes he represents his constituents — or certainly, the people he listens to in his constituency anyway.

[1735]

I agree entirely when he said, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun on March 28: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." Now, I know that the Minister of Energy is a lawyer by training. I give him full credit for that, and I'm delighted he remembers a little bit of Latin. We don't take it in law school and haven't done for a long time. But boy, was the minister speaking the truth on that day, and was he dead accurate. We could have done a better job of consultations.

You know, the one thing the law teaches you to do is to be extremely cautious in your language. You never want to put yourself out there too far, so everything gets quali-
[ Page 3973 ]
fied to death. When a person who's had both the political experience of the minister and legal training says, "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations," what they're really saying, for the benefit of the uninitiated, is: "Well, we probably didn't have any consultations, and I blew it, but we don't care. The bill is in front of the House, so let's get on with it." That's really what's being said. There was no real consultation.

We all know about the bit of the fiasco where the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance was put in the awkward position of being informed that people could make submissions to the committee on this, even though it wasn't part of their mandate. That was a bit tricky. You know, you sort of hoped that the government would get the message as a result of that embarrassing fiasco, that maybe they wouldn't introduce legislation like this. Everybody worried the government was going to do exactly what it's done. Again, I emphasize: it doesn't have support. So why not refer it?

Apart from a few years in Vancouver at university, I'm a lifetime resident of Vancouver Island. The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities convention, on April 11 to 13, 2014, passed a resolution sponsored by the city of Victoria requesting that the provincial government respect the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and support its management by an independent and adequately funded land commission.

Now, I have to tell you, the last time I checked, the chair of my regional district, the mayor of my city, the majority of council, I suspect, aren't supporters of the NDP. It comes as a big surprise. They're generally Liberal supporters or Conservative supporters. Those are the same folks, up and down Vancouver Island, who said to this government: "Please don't do this."

You've got the Cattlemen's Association, you've got municipal politicians, you've got the opposition, you've got British Columbians by the hundreds and thousands sending in comments all saying the same thing. This isn't good legislation. Slow it down. Reconsider. Because if it was referred to a committee, imagine for a moment what a wonderful opportunity it would be for real democracy in British Columbia, to actually listen to the people in a meaningful way.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This isn't just an issue in a big sense where you do some big-P political report around an issue. This is a specific bill. So there's no issue about what the public is being asked to comment on. That would give an opportunity for the public to comment on all of the things that should figure in the thinking of the government and this Legislature when it comes to this bill.

It would give an opportunity for people who are concerned about climate change and soil scientists and people who want to analyze the impact of agriculture in given communities across the province. It would give them an opportunity, in front of the Standing Committee on Finance, to present evidence that would demonstrate that lands that may not now be as productive in terms of a dollar value as the beautiful lands of the Fraser Valley or the Cowichan Valley, that are not as productive as the wonderful hills around Kelowna that produce those wonderful grapes and make that fantastic British Columbia wine….

[1740]

It would give those experts and those people an opportunity to demonstrate that with climate change and differing growing seasons, areas of the province that now might not be seen as productive may in fact be, a decade or two or three or four or five down the road, our new breadbasket.

At exactly the same time that that's happening, what we know is that other productive parts of the world — because of a lack of water, because soil has been washed away, because of chemical fertilizers — have been damaged and, because of salinization, have been destroyed. Those lands will not be productive, so those very areas that we take for granted as producers now will not be producers of agricultural products, will not be producers of food, will not be able to sustain livestock and other animals.

I come back to my point around the necessity of the referral. None of that, apart from having it mouthed by the members of this chamber, is going to be heard unless the public is consulted, unless the committee has the chance to do its work. If ever the failing of the British Columbia Legislature in not having a decent committee structure that functions was apparent, it is now. So let us do the right thing.

We'll get the government out of its political fix. It's jammed itself with this legislation. It has an opportunity now to step back, take the famous second look. The Premier — she'll be able to crow about it. She'll be able to go around the province of British Columbia and say: "What a wonderful Premier I am. I listened to the people." I'd almost encourage her to do it. I would probably clap if she said that, as long as this government is prepared to refer it to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Let British Columbians have their say. Let this government actually listen to the broad mass of British Columbians and those who have real expertise in this area. Listen to them. Actually listen to them. Pay attention. Pay attention to scientists. Pay attention to people who understand.

Then it gives you the opportunity to step back, step away, and maybe this bill will just go the way of things that have outlived their usefulness. Believe me, this bill was never useful to start with. So for heaven's sake, let's refer it to the committee. Let's do the right thing.

If you do that, hon. Speaker, it'll be a political win for the government, it'll be win for agriculture, it'll be a win
[ Page 3974 ]
for farmers, it'll be a win for the future, but most importantly, for those of us who care about the generations that follow us, it will be a win for them. Here, in the wealthiest part of the world, we will have demonstrated a commitment to sustaining agricultural land to produce food so that our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will actually have something to eat. It is really as simple and as logical and as real as that.

D. Donaldson: I'm very, very happy to speak to this referral motion that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations. It's a splendid referral motion, a fantastic referral motion. I'm going to spend a little time speaking to what we're actually doing here in this referral motion and why it's necessary.

I think part of what we're doing here is not only giving a voice to the many organizations and people and farmers around the province that want to have more of a discussion on this bill, but actually, we're helping the government out. We are helping members on the government side out.

Why do I say that? Why do I say we are helping them out? Well, the Minister for Core Review, the member for Kootenay East, who is a vociferous proponent of this bill, has said — and this is in regards to how the government side could have done a better job of consultation: "Mea culpa." Mea culpa that they didn't do a very good job.

[1745]

In other words…. I studied Latin for a couple of years in high school. I do recall that. I don't remember much of it, but "mea culpa" means "through my own fault."

I think the Minister for Core Review should have continued with that saying from Catholic mass. It's: "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." That is, "Through my own fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault" that consultation was not done in any manner on this bill before it was introduced into the Legislature.

Of course, what do you say when someone says: "I screwed up badly"? What do you say? Well, you say: "Okay. Perhaps we'll give you a second chance." What we're doing here is giving the government a second chance. We're giving them a second chance.

However, when you give people a second chance and they don't take it up — they keep saying they're sorry and repeat the same behaviour — then you really wonder how chaotic it must be on that side.

I say that with all respect, because we also had the introduction of an order-in-council, a law made behind closed doors, in the exemption of an environmental assessment on natural gas pipelines by this government. Then a few days later it was revoked with a mea culpa. "I'm sorry."

Here we have another example of a mea culpa and a chaotic approach. It makes you wonder who's in charge of the government agenda on that side of the House.

We're going to help the government out here. We'll going to help the government out with this referral motion. I've gotten to know this…. I don't know if this is a prop, hon. Speaker. But I've gotten to know a book.

Deputy Speaker: It would be if you take it off your desk, Member.

D. Donaldson: Okay, thank you. I'll just touch it then, like we should be touching it often in this Legislature. I'll touch it, and I'll put my hand on it. It's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, the fourth edition, by the previous Clerk, Mr. MacMinn, a well-respected Clerk throughout the whole Commonwealth.

What we're doing here is under Standing Order 83. We're making a referral motion. What Standing Order 83 says is that a referral motion at any stage after introduction of a bill…. "It is still open to a member to move that the subject matter of a bill be referred to a committee. This motion may be made during the debate on second reading when the reasons for the proposed referral could be explained." That's what I'm going to do here and explain why this bill needs to be referred. Finally, under standing order 83: "Generally speaking, a referral is for the purpose of obtaining an opinion or observation."

So that's what we're doing here. We're suggesting, through this motion, that Bill 24, the amendments to the agricultural act, be referred to a committee. It's the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, one of the nine select standing committees of the Legislature. There isn't one for agriculture. Maybe that's something that we might, as a body, want to consider in the future. But at this point there isn't one, so we've said that it should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Well, that's a good committee for it to go to. It's a committee that already tours the province. It has the ability to appoint a subcommittee, from its members, to consider matters that are referred to it. It can adjourn from place to place as may be convenient.

It's a cost-effective measure, because it's already a committee that's struck by the government, and it consists of both sides of the Legislature — four members from the official opposition and six from the government side.

I was Deputy Chair of that committee for three years, immediately after becoming the elected representative for Stikine, in '09, 2010 and 2011. I was deputy Finance critic and was Deputy Chair of the committee. We went to lots of towns in those three years. That's what happens in the fall. The Finance Committee can travel around. You got out and about. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The committee can call witnesses as well, which would be appropriate in
[ Page 3975 ]
this circumstance.

I enjoyed the committee structure. I think in '09 what we encountered right off the bat was the issue of the HST not being talked about before the election and then introduced after the election. You know, the similarities are eerie, with this piece of legislation not being talked about before the election and being introduced after the election.

[1750]

The former member for Chilliwack, Mr. John Les, was the Chair when I was there for the first two years of that committee. He did a great job as Chair. He had a very high skill set in that particular area. I happened to see him just recently at the B.C. Agriculture Council event just a couple of nights ago.

At that event I was able to talk to many of the B.C. Agriculture Council representatives about Bill 24 — the president, Poultry Association people…. By the way, I had a great conversation with the Poultry Association people because, of course, they don't do things by hand anymore. I pluck my own chickens and turkeys and ducks, and so we had quite a lively discussion about how much of a pain in the you-know-what that is. Maybe next year I'll get a plucker.

Deputy Speaker: Well, I'm certain it was an intriguing conversation. I'm not certain it's relevant to the current debate, Member.

D. Donaldson: Yes, okay. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I thought you might enjoy that story, but I'll continue in another vein.

I talked to many of the people at the B.C. Agriculture Council event, and all of them that I talked to, whether it was the president, the Poultry Association people, the head of the 4-H association, were of the opinion that this bill needs sober second thought, that it needs to be withdrawn and that it needs to go to further consultation. So that's what we're going to be talking about under this referral motion.

I do beg your indulgence for one other aspect, though. It's the 100th year of 4-H in B.C. this year — 2014 is the 100th year. I was part of setting up the 4-H organization in Hazelton. There's a great one in Smithers. I think we should all make sure in our constituencies that we support 4-H, a great, great organization.

Getting back to the matter at hand, we are suggesting, through this motion, to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, where it can get a thorough review. Why? Why do we want to do that? Well, it will allow for comprehensive consultation, and that is something that did not happen before the election, before this bill got introduced. There was an opportunity all fall, when we weren't sitting in this Legislature, for that to happen. It didn't happen then.

In fact, in Country Life in B.C. magazine, which I thoroughly enjoy…. I think it was established in 1915. Before the election there was a question posed around the Agricultural Land Commission: will your party ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not be used for port, dam, transportation and industrial and residential development? And each party answered. The Liberal Party answer in that issue, the May issue of the Country Life in B.C. magazine, was yes.

Well, I think with the legislation in front of us, that is not accurate. This is why a referral to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services would be a fantastic idea, because then people could come and present their views. Under our suggestion, under this motion, it's comprehensive consultation.

That poses the question: who could come to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services? Who might they ask to come? Who might be a witness there?

I think one key part that wasn't mentioned in second reading debate and that was neglected in consultation before this bill was introduced is First Nations. I find that very, very shocking, because the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, this government, have said they're all about trying to build the relationship with First Nations to deal with reconciliation, and yet here's a bill that will have a significant impact on the land, a significant impact on the use of land.

Much of that land is within First Nations traditional territories in this province. We know that, the government accepts that, and yet no consultation with First Nations before the introduction of this bill in the Legislature — and with a kind of ramrod approach in trying to get this passed this session.

[1755]

What I wonder is: did the government not learn from two recent examples — from their approach to the environmental assessment review process, the joint review process in Site C? I mean, we just had that decision released this week. It was found by the review panel that further consultation — significant, important consultation — needed to be done with First Nations, which this government, through its Crown corporation B.C. Hydro, didn't do.

The review panel is saying: "Go back to the drawing board on that one. Go back to the drawing board." Well, I think that's a little backwards. You should do that consultation first, and then come to a decision.

They didn't appear, in introducing this bill, to learn from that, or didn't appear to learn anything from the backstabbing…. That's not my word. The Fort Nelson First Nation Chief, Sharleen Gale, typified the order-in-council release of a law that exempted natural gas plants in the northeast from environmental assessment as backstabbing. The government stepped back from that, but the trust has been broken.

Here again, I would hope that a government would
[ Page 3976 ]
learn from those two examples, but it appears, under this bill, that it didn't happen. Here we are having this referral motion in front of us, as a way for the government to show that they actually follow their words about building relationships with First Nations.

The First Nations Agricultural Lending Association, for instance, does not support Bill 24, yet they haven't been consulted by this government, by the Minister of Agriculture, on the contents. The First Nations Agricultural Lending Association, for those who aren't familiar with it, is a fantastic organization. Its head office is in the Minister of Health's area. I don't know if it's actually in his constituency, but it's in his area, in Kamloops. Part of its mandate is promoting and advocating on behalf of aboriginal agriculture in British Columbia.

If I was to introduce a bill that had some pretty wide-ranging effects on agricultural land in B.C., and I was also knowing what the courts have said about consultation with First Nations, I would think the first tick box…. This government likes tick boxes. That's the way we do consultation. We tick off: "Have we sent them a letter? Oh, yeah, we did that."

I would think the first thing on a tick box would be to consult with a group like the First Nations Agricultural Lending Association. But no, that didn't happen. We have spoken to the First Nations Agricultural Lending Association, and it gives me a chance to say that while they have some grave issues and concerns around Bill 24, they do support our private member's bill that we introduced earlier into this Legislature, The British Columbia Local Food Act, 2014.

I only speak about that because in that act there is a very important stipulation about consultation and who would be consulted. I think that's a good list for this government to look at, and it's a good list that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services could draw upon when they consult around Bill 24, if this motion passes.

First Nations are part of that, and post-secondary institutions, the different farming associations and agricultural associations in B.C. — all the organizations that didn't happen to be asked their opinion by this government before the bill was introduced. As critic for Aboriginal Relations, I think that was a grave oversight. This motion gives the government the opportunity to take a couple of steps back and correct that oversight, which could easily have been interpreted as another breaking of trust with First Nations.

Who else — under comprehensive consultation, under what we're proposing here with this referral motion — might come before the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services?

Well, the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association could come before the committee and put its views forward, and committee members could have a very interactive discussion with them. They have written a letter to the Minister of Agriculture on May 7, and they asked some of those questions: "What will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future?

[1800]

"We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture." This is the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

I know from my interactions with them that there are members in Stikine, very good ranching country. Some of the ranchers, cattle producers in Stikine are not members; others are. But I've had good interaction with them over my time as the MLA for Stikine.

The member for Nechako Lakes, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, who I share a boundary with to the east, has many members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in his constituency as well. He indicated to me during second reading debate that he had talked to them and that they were all for Bill 24.

Well, here's the president of the association, on behalf of its members, writing to the Minister of Agriculture and saying that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association believes that ALR reform should be driven by the agriculture community. Undertaking reform for any other reason could essentially make ranchers more vulnerable to outside pressures, and they're encouraging the government "to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24" — a slow approach.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Well, I don't think we're seeing that, but this referral motion gives the ability to the government to heed important organizations like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and to take a slower approach to this bill.

Who else could appear before the Select Standing Committee on Finance if this motion passes with the support of the government side? Well, the B.C. Food Systems Network could come and give their perspective on the bill. I think that they've been a very interesting organization over the years. I had dealings with them before I became an MLA, when I was involved in promoting local food production, using it as a tool to discuss civic literacy and responsible citizenship — using agriculture as a tool to do that.

One of the documents that the B.C. Food Systems Network brought to my attention — and something they could bring to the attention of the Finance Committee in a more fulsome way if this motion passes — is a document called B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance: Can B.C.'s Farmers Feed Our Growing Population? It was authored by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture in 2006.

That report was very interesting in that it pointed out that the food grown in B.C. — whether it's dairy, meat and alternatives, vegetables, fruit, grain for food — ful-
[ Page 3977 ]
fils about 56 percent of our self-needs. In other words, we consume in those categories about 56 percent of food grown in B.C. — in products and protein raised in B.C.

What the report points out, though, is that that leaves another huge category for food growers to take advantage of, to fulfil more of our needs in B.C., because the rest — obviously, 44 percent — is dependent on imports. Those imports might be as far away as California, and we know that California is going through a serious drought. It's been three years now in California. We import $1.8 billion worth of food from California.

This is the kind of information that the B.C. Food Systems Network could bring before the members of the committee if this motion passes. I hope the government sees how important this referral motion is and how it could really benefit the debate around this bill.

There is another group — in fact, two groups — that could be canvassed in a comprehensive way under this referral. Those two groups are — and this is from the area I represent — the Bulkley Valley Farmers Market Association and the Hazelton Farmers Market Society.

They wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, and I'm sure he's read it. He's reading through many, and this one actually came quite a few weeks ago — April 26. He's probably had time to read those letters from that time.

[1805]

What they wrote to the minister is, "We do not accept the assertion that our farmland is second-class" — referring to the two-zone model that's being proposed — "or less valuable because, according to Minister Bennett: 'Elevation, frost, long distances to market and poor soil limit what can be grown.'" I'm sorry. The Minister of Mines and for Core Review is who I was referring to.

They assert that:

"Opening up protected farmland to non-agricultural industrial activities will fragment, degrade and pollute the land left in production and will make farming even less of a viable option economically, when other ventures on the land become much more lucrative, and will make it more difficult for new farmers to start out, by inevitably driving up land prices.

"Please hear the concerns of zone 2 ALR markets and include us in the consultation process.

"Respectfully,

"Jonathan Knight."

He's a director of both the Bulkley Valley Farmers Association and the Hazelton Farmers Market Society. That is a group, under this referral motion, that could present in front of the select standing committee.

I also have to add as an aside that both those farmers markets were in full swing outdoors this past weekend, and lots of produce — seasonally, of course, because it's a little colder up where we live — and starter plants were available over the weekend at those places.

Who's another group that could present to this committee that didn't have the opportunity to have their views known before the legislation was drafted and whose views could actually really help form what the final bill might look like? I know that the government is intent on trying to push this bill through, but by this referral motion, a group like the Peace River regional district could come and testify and present their perspective and point of view in front of the Select Standing Committee on Finance.

What they have said and one of the directors, Arthur Hadland, said is: "I think if we're going to talk about the two-tiered system, we're talking about our northern regions as being treated as second-class citizens. I mean, you either have a single tier or you don't have a tier. I think it's wrong." That's Peace River regional district, where grain growing is phenomenal. I've been there. I've seen the grain. I've seen the greenhouses there that produce an amazing amount of vegetables. In fact, I do believe that it's in the area of the former Minister of Agriculture.

They're saying that, and they also said — and this is something they could bring to the committee as well — that they refuted the Minister for Core Review, the member for Kootenay East's assertion that there's "tremendous support for the bill in the Peace region." Karen Goodings, the chair of the Peace River regional district, said that's not quite true: "I think it's inappropriate to slam the fist on the table and say 'that's the way it is.' Let's talk about that."

Perhaps the Minister for Core Review could sit in on the committee, if this referral motion goes through. He could actually learn a bit more about what the people in the northeast are thinking. Obviously, he didn't hear that before this bill was introduced, because there wasn't an opportunity to consult.

Who else might be able to present their point of view in front of committee and not just write a letter? I mean, that's only a small way. We know that 80 percent of communication is non-verbal. Writing a letter only covers about 20 percent of communication when there are two points of view; 80 percent is non-verbal. So to have people….

You know, I've witnessed this. I've been there at the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I was there for three years. I've witnessed people coming in. I sit on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, and I witness people coming in. You get a lot more out of people coming face to face. This government didn't provide those opportunities before, but by this referral motion, we're providing this opportunity now, if they will agree with us and think it's a splendid, fantastic motion.

[1810]

What could happen is that people could come in, face to face — not just depend on letter writing — and really be able to explain their views, and it would be on the record. All these select standing committee meetings are recorded and transcribed and published by Hansard, so it could be on the record in a very public way.
[ Page 3978 ]

I talked earlier about the B.C. Agriculture Council. They've written a letter, and they feel that there need to be amendments, that there need to be changes. They want the bill delayed, perhaps even withdrawn, until this happens. They're concerned about the two zones, for sure. I talked to them at the event I referred to earlier, the other night — to many of the directors and the president.

They're very concerned about the performance measures that can be instituted by the government on the supposedly independent Agricultural Land Commission. They can institute performance measures, but there's no definition of that. They're very concerned about the direct appointment onto an independent commission, through cabinet, of vice-chairs and what implications that would have. It's putting the independence at risk.

So they could come and explain those views in person in front of everybody. I mean, these events are often televised, just like this debate here in the Legislature, and it also travels around the province.

When I was on the Select Standing Committee on Finance we had meetings all over the province. We had them in Smithers, in my constituency, across the northwest, the northeast. We tried to hit every part of the province. People could write letters, as they do now, but they can actually come to the meetings and present their point of view in person, where it actually is a much better way of communicating.

I know my time is running out, and there's lots more to talk about — about who could come to these meetings. But I'm trying to give the opportunity, to avail the government of the opportunity to actually be serious about this legislation and get some feedback in a structured way regarding a consultative process. All the different people in B.C. who want to have a say over such an important topic as agriculture….

I'm very disappointed that only less than a quarter of government MLAs have gotten up and spoken to this bill. This would give an opportunity for members of the committee, from the government side, to at least get on record about why they think this bill is good. We know that many organizations in the agriculture sector want it removed.

I just want to finish off the way I started. One of the main proponents of this bill, the Minister for Core Review, said mea culpa — that he didn't do a good job of consultation. I guess that means he's one of the main proponents of whether consultation takes place or not. But he took the opportunity — kudos to him — to debate in second reading. He was one of the ten — only ten of over 40 MLAs on the other side — on the government side who took the opportunity. But he did say in his remarks that…

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Donaldson: …all the opponents were from zone 1. Well, that's not true. I'm from zone 2, and I don't think this is a good bill.

C. Trevena: I rise to support the motion that Bill 24 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and that committee be empowered to call witnesses to help in its deliberations.

Here we are. It is a sunny afternoon, a late afternoon in early spring. I'm sure that most people are not watching the legislative channel. I'm sure most of the members in this chamber are more engaged in the third period of game 7 and just cheering the Habs on.

That being said, while we haven't heard either any government backbenchers or ministers speak on this bill, I hope that we do because this really is very important.

What we are suggesting in this motion…. We've heard from our side of the House, and as I say, we've not yet heard from the government side of the House. What this motion is about is giving people a chance to express their opinions in a deliberate manner.

[1815]

We have had the Agricultural Land Commission amendment bill in front of us for just over a week now. We have known for some time that this was coming down. Back in the fall there were indications that there were going to be major changes to the Agricultural Land Commission, and that created some concern. We've had the Minister for Core Review, the Minister of Energy and Mines, talk about the need to change this. This is a 40-year-old body, and we have the need to change it.

When this came out, we had concern. People started to talk about it, and they started to write letters and e-mails. I think every member of this House has had e-mails talking about why this is happening. That isn't consultation. That is people expressing their opinions, but they are not being consulted.

The new Minister of Agriculture is being left with, really, the burden of seeing this bill through and will be left, if this bill passes, with having the ignominy of being the minister who killed the Agricultural Land Commission — really this proud piece of B.C. The minister will be the one who goes down in history, on record, as the Minister of Agriculture who destroyed the agricultural land reserve and destroyed the Agricultural Land Commission.

The minister, when he took over the portfolio, did give people pause for hope that there was going to be consultation. He said there would be consultation and maybe changes, that he was going to listen. We heard when we got back to the Legislature…. This was over the Easter break. When we got back to the Legislature and we had this in front of us and started debating it and started asking more questions, we understood from the minister that his perception of consultation was just reading those e-mails and those letters.

Madame Speaker, I know that you, like I, have great respect for this institution. We are hugely honoured to be
[ Page 3979 ]
the representatives of our constituencies here. Obviously, we have different perspectives on how legislation should proceed, what legislation should proceed, what is good and bad for the province. Our side of the House firmly believes that this piece of legislation is going to be hugely damaging for the province, for now and into the future. We have expressed this. We've had member after member standing up and talking about our views, representing the views from our constituency, representing the views from the associations.

We've heard from the Minister of Agriculture, and we've heard from a handful of members from the government side. We've heard from the Minister of Energy and Mines and for Core Review and then a handful of backbenchers, most of whom represent areas where there is agricultural land reserve in their areas. They have been talking about this bill. That has been the debate.

As you know, Madame Speaker, the formality of this place and the way we have evolved it doesn't really allow for much debate. We get the person from the opposition standing up and making a speech, and the person from the government side standing up and making a speech. We rarely actually seriously debate and engage in a conversation.

I mentioned in my previous speech on this bill, when I was first talking about it, how in Westminster, in the Mother of Parliaments, they have a very interesting system where even an opposition member will cede the floor to a government member if the government member has a point of information about a topic that opposition member is speaking about. We firmly hold on to our 30 minutes of speaking time and are determined to speak to the max there. We'd be very reluctant to give away the time.

But there is that sense in Westminster. It's a very mature parliament. There's the opportunity for debate. There's also the opportunity for committees.

This is where I refer to really the importance of using what we have in this Legislature wisely. We don't have many active standing committees. We don't actually have many committees. What we have is usually, if this motion fails, which I hope it doesn't…. I hope the government really does listen to rational argument and thinks about it. I know they'll be having meetings tonight and talking about this. I'm sure it's going to be a topic of their debate tonight in their caucus meeting. I'm hoping this is something that engages them.

[1820]

Otherwise, what we're going to do is have members on this side of the House talking about how important it is that we have that withdrawal, that we move this to a committee. The motion will fail, because nobody on the government side stands up and talks, and nobody from the government side actually has the courage to join the opposition side and say: "Actually, you're on to a good thing here. That really is important."

What we'll go to is the committee stage of this bill, and the committee stage of this bill, as we know, isn't a committee stage in which we can call witnesses. It isn't a committee in which we can have a discussion, where we can take out the partisanship, where we can try and find consensus. It's not a place where we can have people who are involved in the agricultural industry, in the business of agriculture. We're very aware that agriculture is a business. They won't be able to present.

It will be my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Agriculture critic, joined by other critics. I'm sure the member for Saanich South will be involved with it, because she has been very involved with the agricultural portfolio, and other members of this side will ask questions of the minister. The minister, who has been in the job for by that time maybe four weeks, will be ably informed about the amendments in this bill. It's actually quite a small bill. He'll be ably informed by his staff. But that doesn't fulfil what is needed for a committee.

A working committee…. Madame Speaker, as you are well aware, because you are very well attuned to the workings of parliamentary democracy, a good committee system allows for both sides of the House, if it's a two-party system, or however many parties there are, to have representatives on a committee, to call witnesses, to reach a consensus, not to work in an adversarial role but to work to get the best piece of legislation that will work for the province.

What we're talking about here is not insignificant. This is why we're taking such lengths about this. We're talking about our land base. We're talking about the essence of what makes British Columbia. We're talking about the food production of British Columbia. At the moment this is something that is vital. The food production….

We're very aware. We've got climate change. We've got people very aware of sustainability issues, of food security issues. This is a core debate. It is something that has really….

My colleague from Saanich South said earlier this afternoon that if this has done nothing else, it has raised the profile of agriculture. I would say to her, and I'd say to this House, that the profile of agriculture, the profile of food and the need for food security has been growing, I think, rapidly in the last few years because of climate change, because of the awareness of the industrialization of food production chains, because of genetically modified foods, because of the growth of organics. People are really much more concerned. People are getting engaged, and people want to have a say, which is why this side of the House has put this motion on the table, saying: "Let's take the bill to the Finance Committee."

The Finance Committee works, usually, in the autumn. It goes around the province, talking to various groups, inviting witnesses, asking for submissions and having witnesses apply to appear before it. Really, it's mandated, usually, to be hearing from people around the province
[ Page 3980 ]
ahead of the budget process. So it can, as a consensus from both sides of the House…. Those who have been on it say that they find it very valuable. Both sides of the House can form consensus to inform the budget process.

I think people who are listening to this, those who aren't engaged in game 7 of the Stanley Cup with the Habs, those who aren't out enjoying the nice weather, would be asking: "Well, Member, why isn't this going to the standing committee on agriculture?"

Well, we don't have a standing committee on agriculture. That is another issue. We don't have many active standing committees.

[1825]

The Standing Committee on Finance would be a good place to direct this, because it's an active standing committee. It meets, as does the Public Accounts standing committee, the committee for children and families. There are a few that meet — not many, but there are a few. It would allow witnesses to be called. It would allow a non-partisan debate. It would broaden the consultation, and this is really, I think, what has been sorely lacking, the lack of consultation.

A few weeks ago we passed unanimously the Water Sustainability Act. That could have gone through the process in this Legislature of how our Legislature works, of the opposition standing up and going time and time and time again, everybody speaking for long speeches, everybody getting their views heard from their communities, from their constituents, from organizations, but it didn't because there had been thorough consultation.

This side of the House does not believe there has been enough consultation on this bill and so would like to give the government the opportunity to have real consultation. The minister indicated, when he took over the portfolio, that he would like to have consultation. I'm sure the minister is aware — he's been an elected official for many, many years — that reading e-mails, while it informs you, is not actually consultation because you can't question the person who has written the e-mail. You have it. You read it. Okay. That's their point of view.

Consultation, the committee process, allows committee members — the Chair, who would be, I would assume, a backbench member from the government side; and members of the opposition — to question the witnesses to find out just why they think what they do, what their arguments are and how their information and their knowledge can be used for the best case of the province. This is what we want.

As I say, we're talking…. Okay, 5 percent of the land base is under the ALR. It's not big in terms of the size of the province of British Columbia, but it is huge for us as a province that is trying to ensure that we are both growing food for our own people and that we have an effective agribusiness so we can also export food to other provinces, other jurisdictions and other countries, but that we can start working towards our own food sustainability and our food security.

One could ask: "Well, you know, we've got all these e-mails. Who would want to come and speak?" Well, there are many, many organizations and bodies who would, and there are many individuals. I've had conversations in my own community, in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Comox Valley, talking with farmers and farming groups. I've also heard from many organizations. Whether they be farming organizations or whether they be local government organizations, there are many organizations that would like to be able to present to a committee.

Now, the Finance Committee was actually supposed to be the committee that had some say on the changes to the ALR, although apparently the Chair of the committee hadn't been informed of this. The Minister for Core Review, the Minister of Mines from Kootenay East, said at the time when we started hearing about changes to the ALR…. He did say that the public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations, but apparently the Chair of the Committee on Finance and Government Services — I believe it's the member for Penticton; I'm not quite sure because he's comparatively new — didn't know that the core review was part of the committee's terms of reference.

So what this motion suggests is…. Look, we've got a problem with this bill. I think the government has got to realize that they've got problems with this bill. They really have to realize that this bill is not going to go down sweetly, that the minister is going to be tarred with this, that the government is going to be tarred with this. It is not a popular bill. They cannot be quite so insensitive.

[1830]

I mean, even the Minister for Core Review, while he says he wasn't the sole instigator in his remarks about it in second reading, was talking about how the process of getting bills to the stage and changes through cabinet, through committees of cabinet and so on and so on. He didn't work alone.

He did admit…. When it was introduced, he did say: "I know I could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." Well, here's a chance to do better consultations. It really is.

We have an extraordinary number of organizations that would like a voice. Just local government — many people are coming from local government. They must have been hearing from their own local governments.

We have the Union of British Columbia Municipalities saying that it has not determined whether it wants to support it or not, but it is seeking consultation with the province. What better opportunity than to have a committee process?

Go to the Finance Committee. We've got members there all ready to go, chomping at the bit. They've not sat for I don't know how many months. I should say that it's
[ Page 3981 ]
about eight months since the committee sat. This gives them an opportunity to sit down and get to business, to call in representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

The city of Richmond, Madame Speaker, your own community, passed at the end of April a motion asking the province to consult with the public and local government before this becomes a law. Madame Speaker, I'm sure you're hearing from your communities about this. You represent farming communities yourself. This must be a big issue. This is the opportunity for your community, the city of Richmond, to come forward and have their views heard about the impact it's going to have.

Peace River. We know the importance of the Peace River area for agriculture. The Peace River regional district actually wants this withdrawn. Forget consultation; they want it withdrawn. But if we had the opportunity to consult, I'm sure that they would come down to Victoria or do it through a video link.

Or take the committee to the Peace River region. The Finance Committee usually goes on the road in the fall when it's out doing its consultations. It hasn't come to my community for many years, but it does go on the road. It could go up to the Peace River.

I would urge it to do so, because it is a very important area. It's really at the heart of this debate when you talk about the different zones and the importance of agriculture versus the importance of industry. People in the Peace River would be clamouring at the door of the Finance Committee to speak.

Burnaby would like to be able to speak. They passed a resolution which opposes the alterations.

The Islands Trust wants consultation. Actually, they demand consultation.

The Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments — which I'm sure covers the area of the member for Kootenay East — at its recent convention passed a resolution requesting that the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete.

There is a clamour for consultation. The government side must be the only people who are not hearing that. As I say, I would hope that they will stand up — that we will hear from the minister and other members — about this motion that we have on the floor and decide that it's worth supporting. To let this go through without giving people a voice is not democratic. It goes against the very institution that we are here working in, representing and are proud defenders of.

I will stand up and defend the parliamentary system. I think it's a fine system of governance, but it's a fine system if all the parts of it work. If our committee system is not working and if we cannot have important pieces of legislation debated using all the tools that we have, I think that our system is not working, and that is worrying.

We have seen in the past where legislation is pushed through very speedily when we have closure. We have time management, and we see a lot of legislation pushed through.

Here we don't. This is the last piece of the government's legislation. This is the last piece on their calendar.

[1835]

We have a fixed calendar. We know we're coming back in the fall. Surely, it would make sense to say: "Let's stop debate now. Let's take it to a committee. Let's use the summer wisely, taking this out, hearing from people, getting it right."

It might not all be "no." It might be that people actually are willing to say that there should be some changes here or there. But they don't feel that they've been heard. And while you get people not feeling that they're being heard, two things happen. They lose trust in the system. They lose trust in this very place that we work in with pride and the approach that we have of representing our constituents.

If they lose trust in us, they lose trust in this place, and that's not good for us as a society. We need to have people knowing that we are working in their best interest, that we are listening and that we are working in consultation with people.

The other thing is that I've worked in a number of places and seen how fragile democracy is. Not using our systems, not using the committee system and not having that full consultation, I think, really starts to destabilize what we have. People lose trust, the government thinks it can do whatever it likes, and it continues to act unilaterally.

We've seen this for a number of years. It has gotten worse — the government acting unilaterally. Now is the opportunity, as I say, for people's voices to be heard.

I know that we've heard from local governments. We've heard also from the agricultural industry itself. The B.C. Agriculture Council represents more than 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers and close to 30 farm sector associations — not just 30 farms; 30 farm sector associations — from all regions of the province. They want consultation.

The Cattlemen's Association. I know that colleagues have raised this in their speeches, but I think it's worth reiterating, underlining it. The Cattlemen's Association is basically pleading for consultation. They say it's very difficult for their director to support the bill, even without changes.

"We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community. It's our desire to be included in developing both the legislation as well as the regulations."

People are desperate for consultation. Here we're giving the government an out. There is no question that we
[ Page 3982 ]
are giving the government an out here.

As I was mentioning, I had a number of meetings both in my own community and in the Comox Valley about the agricultural land reserve and what's happening at the Agricultural Land Commission. Again, people who felt that they had not been heard — whether it was food sustainability people, food security people, farmers, scientists — came out in the spring, a busy time.

They came out, some in the evening when we had evening meetings, some during the daytime. They came out to talk about this, because they were fearful of what the government is doing, that the government is acting without really knowing all the facts. I think there is something very true to that.

For instance, soil scientists have written a letter to the minister and to the Premier, concerned about this, warning that the action that will be taken is basically going to be detrimental. Now, the soil scientists could come and present to the committee. They could come and talk about why we need to have the system as is. They could give ideas. They've been working at this for some time. They could give ideas.

[1840]

I had at one of my meetings a former ALC commissioner, agricultural land commissioner, and a present farmer. He was talking very much about why this takes us in the wrong direction, partly because of the impact on food production, also because of the impact on land use planning and biodiversity and right down to the impact on tourism — what's going to happen to the Okanagan with changes, what it could mean.

A very thoughtful presentation in a round table that we had in the Comox Valley last week — very thoughtful. It'd be great if those thoughts and those ideas were going to be considered by not just myself and my colleagues, who held the round table, but by those who are involved in fixing this legislation so that it goes to a committee this summer. The government says: "Okay, now we are going to listen to people. We're going to stop, and then we're going to bring it back in the fall when it's been fixed, when we've heard from people like this, when we've heard from academics."

A letter, I believe to the Premier, from 100 academics — when people get 100 signatures to any letter, it's pretty impressive — said:

"Making changes to such an important piece of provincial legislation without consultation with the public, the agricultural industry or scientists in general prevents relevant information and viewpoints to factor into informed decision-making.

"These and other options should be explored because failing to incorporate alternate viewpoints and scientifically derived information into the commission's decision-making framework threatens the health of British Columbia's ecosystems and endangers its biodiversity.

"The lack of a process to access and incorporate science-based information into the proposed framework threatens the biodiversity of British Columbia's ecosystems and the sustainability and security of agricultural production in a changing climate.

"We call upon the government of British Columbia to include scientific-derived information…."

Again, very thoughtful.

Yes, the minister, I'm sure, has the letter. I'm sure the Premier's office has passed the letter on to the minister. We have copies of the letter, so the minister, I'm sure, has copies of the letter.

Those people should be able to present. I have farmers in my community whose land wasn't in the ALR back when the ALR was being drawn up. They got in. Neighbouring property isn't; that's industrial. Those farmers would like to be able to talk to the minister and talk to a committee and explain why consultation is important.

I have both fruit growers and wine growers. I have people throughout my communities who would be able to come to a meeting in Campbell River, in the Comox Valley, or do it by video link, and present to a committee to explain why this legislation is wrong.

What we have here, again, is an opportunity. We are giving the government an opportunity. It gives the government the chance to hold off from what is going to be very bad legislation. It gives the minister the opportunity to save face, so he won't, as I say, go down in history as the minister who destroyed the Agricultural Land Commission and destroyed the agricultural land reserve. It gives people an opportunity to both consult and be consulted. It allows people to have faith in our legislative and parliamentary system because of that.

We have the time to do this. We have the summer. We have a fall session. We know we have a fall session; we've got a fixed parliamentary calendar. We don't have to rush this, so I would urge that the government support this motion.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 24.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear the minister. The member for Comox Valley is asking some questions. I am really glad that he posed those questions, because I'm more than happy to answer them and perhaps give him and some other members a really strong reason as to why to support this motion.

Now, I know the minister is aware of what the motion is, but there are others in this House and others who may be watching this on television and are wondering exactly what the motion is. I will read it, just so we understand. I see my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Agriculture critic, nodding.

It is the opposition, moved by the MLA for Nelson-Creston: "That Bill 24 not be read for a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Finance Committee and further that the committee be empow-
[ Page 3983 ]
ered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

[1845]

I think it's important that the government and its members understand that this resolution is offered up in good faith, and that it's an opportunity for them to step back from an unpopular piece of legislation and a bad piece of public policy.

We have in second reading debate — I have participated in that debate — laid out why it is bad public policy, why this is not a piece of legislation that is supported by the agricultural community or in fact tens of thousands of British Columbians who are concerned about agriculture, concerned about food security, concerned about land use and concerned about the way in which public policy is developed in this province.

Good public policy is developed on the basis of good science, the best information, best practices and public input. When that comes together in a way that is open and transparent, you can create and government can create — regardless of political stripe — good legislation that stands the test of time. That's one of the reasons why this piece of legislation has stood the test of time for 40 years. It's why other elements of public policy have stood the test of time since they were created, such as ICBC or B.C. Hydro.

When a piece of legislation is introduced into the chamber and one of the opening remarks and comments about that is from the minister tabling it, who on the question of consultation says mea culpa — "I'm guilty of not consulting enough" — that should be a warning sign. That should be a warning sign that all members of this House take seriously and acknowledge. "Hang on here. We need to examine this particular piece of legislation."

When this piece of legislation was tabled, the minister stood up and trumpeted the support of the B.C. Agriculture Council. Subsequently, as we all know, the B.C. Agriculture Council chair was replaced, resigned, because they had read the legislation. Clearly, it did not meet with their approval. Clearly, they felt it was bad legislation and needed to be withdrawn. Yet the government has gone ahead like a bull in a china shop, saying: "No, we're going ahead with this."

We had a new Minister of Agriculture, and he said: "I'm here to listen. I want to consult. Everything is on the table." But the minister that tabled the bill gave a very different message. Again, mixed signals should be raising alarm bells, and it has raised alarm bells right across this province in all sectors of agriculture — from those who plant the grain and grow the grain to those who raise chickens, grow flowers, grow the hazelnuts — that supply some 74 value-added products here in British Columbia available for consumption at home and for export. Right across the full spectrum of agriculture in the province of British Columbia, concerns have been raised.

One of the things in the role of the opposition is not only to question and propose but to be constructive in its criticism and to give the opportunity for government to see the error of its ways. There are a number of ways we can do that.

An Hon. Member: Or not.

M. Farnworth: The member across the way says "or not." Well, it is interesting that that came from the cabinet section of the seating, because it's a cabinet bill.

I am speaking, yes, to cabinet but also to all those members who aren't in cabinet — the backbenchers of the government who sit there and vote as they're told to vote and wonder why their constituents are telling them this is bad legislation and: "Why is this government plowing ahead putting in place an unpopular bill that has not had proper consultation, that has not been thought through properly?" All kinds of questions have not been answered, and they're wondering: "Is there anything we can do about this?"

[1850]

Well, yes, there is. Members of the back bench can join with those on the opposition and vote for this amendment. In doing so, you can liberate yourselves from cabinet. You can liberate yourselves and do the role which you were elected to do, which was to represent your constituents and their concerns.

It does not mean you are voting against the government. It does not mean you are casting aspersions on their capabilities or the decisions that they made. Rather, you are exercising sound judgment, common sense. You're doing what people wanted you to do, to say: "Hang on a sec. Let's address some of these issues."

That's why we have motions such as the one that's tabled. That's why we have a committee system in this place. That's why one of the first things we do when we convene each session is: the House Leader stands up, and the Opposition House Leader stands up, and they strike a Committee of Selection.

The Committee of Selection chooses members to sit on a raft of committees. We have a Finance Committee. We have a Health Committee. We've had a Crown Corporations Committee in the past, and we've had a Forests Committee. We've had an Agriculture Committee. We've had all kinds of committees.

The problem is, for most of the time that this government has been in power, that the committees are never constituted. They are never given anything to do. You have to wonder why. Is it because cabinet thinks it's omnipotent, that the opinions of backbenchers on its own benches do not matter, that it knows best?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says yes. You know, I'm in a generous mood, and I really would like to prove my
[ Page 3984 ]
colleague wrong. I really would — that it is not because the cabinet believes that it's omnipotent. I'd rather like to think that cabinet is just waiting to be asked, not just by the opposition but by its members on the back bench, who sit and toil day in, day out and do the bidding of the executive.

The committees are there for a reason — to be able to go out and do committee work. Committee work can really improve legislation. It's happened in this place in the past, and it actually happens each year.

I know the members do like to talk about the '90s. You, hon. Speaker, were here back then. I know you participated in many committees yourself, because committees were active back in the '90s. It was a very positive thing. Members were able to be out on committees across the province, talking to people, hearing from witnesses, hearing criticisms, hearing suggestions on how to improve — whether it's health care, the environment or forestry. You name it.

Even under a former Premier, Gordon Campbell…. He introduced an innovation of having not just Public Accounts chaired by a committee but having a committee that, in fact — my colleague from North Island was on that committee — dealt with aquaculture. It was struck, and with a majority of opposition members.

It was a new innovation, and it was from a Premier who believed that — you know what? — we do need to use the committee system. We do need to give all members of this House the opportunity to participate in the shaping of important public policy and, ultimately, legislation. That was a great idea.

Today we have the Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by the member for Surrey-Whalley. They look at the public accounts, reports from the Auditor General, and they do wonderful work. I'm sure that they would like to meet more often, but they meet as often as they are able. They do terrific work.

I, myself, am a member of another important committee, the Finance Committee, which goes out each year and does budget consultations in the run-up to the budget process. It brings back recommendations — recommendations based on input from people, on input from communities, from individuals, from organizations right across the province.

[1855]

It's an amazing exercise, because you get a sense of the diversity of this province. You get a sense of the issues of this province and of the priorities of the public. That helps, we think. We hope that some of those recommendations are taken into account in the budget process. It is gratifying from time to time to see that in fact some of those recommendations are there, that in what otherwise is a very bad budget in some cases is not quite so bad in certain sectors because the government did take the time to listen. Lots of times they don't, but they do on occasion, and that's important.

That is why — and I do note the hour; I am mindful of the clock — I believe that there's a real, unique opportunity here to take a bill, pull it back, to put capable members of the back bench of the government along with members of the opposition on the Finance Committee to go out and to hear from people. I mean, I don't think….

You know, I am so confident that this is an idea that the government would be willing to entertain that I am sure if a government member said, "You know what? We really like this amendment, but we think if you were to, say, change it from Finance to the Agriculture Committee, would you support it?" that I am confident this side of the House would support that. I am confident.

I know the time is late, and I have much more to say on this topic. I will reserve my place and adjourn the debate and tomorrow explain further why these members should support this motion.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,107,000 (continued).

[1450]

Hon. B. Bennett: I should also, if it's okay, just take a minute to introduce my support team here.

First of all, on my left, is Charles Reid, the CEO of B.C.
[ Page 3985 ]
Hydro. On my right is David Nikolejsin, deputy minister for the ministry. Starting back here, Susan Yurkovich is the executive vice-president in charge of Site C. Beside Susan is Cheryl Yaremko, CFO for B.C. Hydro. Beside Cheryl is Greg Reimer, the executive vice-president for transmission and distribution. Beside Greg is Chris O'Riley, the executive vice-president for generation. I am obviously…. I just can't see how I can go wrong.

J. Horgan: The hon. minister will know that I mean no harm, but you've already gone wrong, because you had them in the wrong order. But I know who they are. Chris is not Cheryl, and Les was left out altogether. But I know everybody over there, and I want to thank them, also, for coming over today.

I want to thank you, Minister, and your staff for making the pilgrimage here, the annual pilgrimage to defend B.C. Hydro. In years past there was more time devoted to this activity. I know the assistant deputy minister and I remember it quite vividly as younger people than we are today.

It's unfortunate we don't have more time to dive into this. Largely, I would argue, it's a disappointment that we don’t have more time because normally the Utilities Commission would be available for the public to have a clear understanding of what exactly is going on at B.C. Hydro from day to day on various projects and initiatives that the corporation is responsible for.

What I hope to do today in the time available, with my colleagues offering in at various points on issues that are of importance to them, is touch upon a whole range of issues. I want to talk about deferral accounting, and I want to talk about the ten-year rate plan and the consequences of that plan for families, for businesses and for small companies as well.

I want to talk also about transmission line cost overruns. I know the northwest transmission line would be at the top of that list, but the Dawson Creek line and the Interior–Lower Mainland line, as I understand it, are also either not on time or certainly over budget. I'm going to want the minister to address some of those issues, because we don't get the opportunity at the Utilities Commission to explore those.

I want to talk a little bit about the Powerex settlement that was announced last summer — with little fanfare, after 12 years of support in the courts by successive governments — and why the decision to reverse course, where that money is coming from and how the corporation is going to book that.

I'm also going to touch upon earthquake preparedness. I think I might start there. The minister will remember that last summer a freedom-of-information request was released to members of the media to review B.C. Hydro's earthquake preparedness. The response was quite staggering. I asked a series of questions of the minister at the time about what actions the corporation planned to take to come into compliance with the audit that was put forward.

I'll just pose that first question to the minister. In the 12 months…. We're coming on 12 months since the release — unintentionally, I understand, through freedom of information — of the audit on B.C. Hydro's emergency preparedness, particularly with respect to earthquakes and seismic activity that could have devastating effects on B.C. Hydro infrastructure. What steps have the minister and his staff taken to address those shortcomings?

[1455]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the member is probably aware that the John Hart project has a significant seismic component to it, as the John Ruskin dam project also has an important seismic component to it.

I think the member's question, though, was: what steps have been taken since the audit? I am advised that B.C. Hydro has very quickly established a strategic emergency management committee, which meets regularly to stay on top of what is needed. B.C. Hydro has developed numerous response and recovery plans that will enhance its ability to respond to a major event.

Hydro staff is being trained to better respond to a major event. They're conducting regular drills to validate and reinforce the company's procedures. Those kinds of exercises include responding to seismic events and major service disruptions across multiple regions of the province. B.C. Hydro has signed a mutual assistance agreement with utilities in both the United States and Canada.

Just to add one last observation or reflection. I was recently at Vancouver central, visiting the new substation that's part of the Vancouver central project. The new substation has been built to withstand a very powerful earthquake and be able to continue to deliver electricity to downtown Vancouver. That same day I was able to visit one of the old substations, the Murrin substation, and the contrast was remarkable.

The point, though, that I would just like to raise in this discussion is that it costs a lot of money to build a new substation and to upgrade it to the point where it can withstand the kinds of damaging earthquakes that we potentially could experience here in B.C. The same comment applies to the dam projects, the John Hart project in particular. I think it's around a billion dollars, and a lot of that is going to go towards seismic upgrade.

J. Horgan: In the report that was done on preparedness, the following…. I don't know if the minister answered the question or not. I don't mean any disrespect by that. I know that he had a note in front of him. But it said: "An effective governance structure to oversee, coordinate and
[ Page 3986 ]
report on disaster preparedness activities is not in place."

Am I to believe from the minister's answer that there is now a "governance structure to oversee, coordinate and report on disaster preparedness" in place?

Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer is yes. I can read from the note, if the member wants me to. There's a dedicated strategic emergency management team that's going to provide what the audit felt was missing.

J. Horgan: The minister mentioned John Hart. My understanding is that the bulk of the work is powerhouse and penstock, and the infrastructure upstream is not part of that activity. Are there any issues or concerns? If we're doing work at the front end of the system, what concerns do we have moving further up the river?

[1500]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that…. The member makes a good point. I've slipped before in talking about the John Hart project and leaving the impression that the seismic work is all about the dam. That actually is not accurate. It's my advice that there is a very strong component of seismic upgrade, but it relates more to the upstream and to the penstock and powerhouse.

I am also advised that there is a plan that Hydro has to do all of the necessary seismic upgrades in that area. This is the first piece of that plan — obviously, an expensive piece. But this is the first piece of that plan. There is a capital plan to upgrade what needs to be upgraded to make it safer, from a seismic perspective, all the way through that river system.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I also think it's important — for those who are going to read this later on and those who may well be, surprisingly, watching this at home even now as I'm speaking — that our understanding of the importance of seismic upgrading is relatively recent.

In defence of B.C. Hydro and other large institutions — the Ministry of Education, for example…. We have now got in place a plan to seismically upgrade those schools that are in high need of that improvement, but that wasn't a concern 30 years ago. It's only recently that we have come to understand the consequences to our public infrastructure of living on fault lines.

I appreciate that this is relatively new on the horizon for planners at B.C. Hydro. But now that we're conscious of the challenges, particularly after events in Japan in very, very recent memory, I would wonder if the minister could advise the committee — beyond "It's on the books; we're working on it" — just what the plan would be. I mean, people think of the two-river policy. We do have the Bridge River system as well, a significant component of Hydro's assets, aging assets.

The John Hart example is a good one. I am delighted that the project is proceeding here on Vancouver Island. The penstocks are made out of Douglas fir. Or maybe it's cedar — I don't know. It's wood, either way, and it's time to replace them. I'm glad that the Crown is doing that.

At the same time, we need to look at the knock-on effects of this activity. When we improve the front end, we've got to make sure that we are taking steps to improve the back end as well.

[1505]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'd like, for the benefit of anyone who is paying attention, to differentiate between what the audit focused on and what B.C. Hydro has actually been working on for a number of years. The audit, I'm advised, focused on emergency management — the capacity of B.C. Hydro to respond to an emergency — and they found some things that were not as strong as they could be.

I'm advised that B.C. Hydro has completed six of the nine management action items identified in the audit response. In terms of the timing of their responses, they are actually ahead of schedule.

But the member is, I think, asking about a broader picture than that. He's asking about the dams and the generation facilities and the seismic work that relates to that. That's, of course, on the capital side. I'm advised that B.C. Hydro has actually been working on updating their seismic hazard calculations for the last five years and actually had a lot of that work done long before the audit was done. Again, the audit didn't look at dams. The audit didn't go out and look at dams or generation facilities.

What Hydro has done over the past five years…. In updating their seismic hazard calculations, they prioritized issues with each of the facilities. They've built those priorities into a ten-year capital plan that has sufficient dollars in it to address any perceived seismic deficiencies on the capital side, while at the same time responding to this audit in doing the work that's necessary there to strengthen emergency management.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I don't disagree that the audit was looking at management preparedness, governance and so on. But one extrapolates from that that if you're preparing…. If you're a large utility and you have transmission infrastructure, you've got dam infrastructure, you've got substations that the minister talked about, and you've got other infrastructure that could be at risk, it's not just the management and preparing for those catastrophes; it's: what are you going to do about it?

Okay, you've got a manual in place, which was one of the issues that was raised. For example, emergency response plans existed, yet none of them were complete, current, and there was no central repository. Those are management issues, and I would expect that after an audit came through Dunsmuir Street, everybody rattled the cages and said, "We've got to do better," and I'm glad.

That's the advantage of an audit. Whatever your organization is, it's supposed to improve outcomes in govern-
[ Page 3987 ]
ance. But if you carry on from that, everybody's ready at Dunsmuir Street, but what are we doing out in the field?

As the minister has said in some of his rationale for rate increases, we have aging infrastructure, and we need to address that. We quibble about timing, we quibble about which projects should be priorities, and that's the responsibility of the board of directors and the minister and the senior managers that are assembled around you today.

But the question for people who live downstream from significant infrastructure is: what's the plan if something runs afoul, if there's a shaker? Living here on Vancouver Island most of my life, certainly from birth, I'm concerned about earthquakes.

I can recall one in 1999 when working in this building. Someone jumped out the first-floor window and broke their leg. They were terrified. You could almost see the rocks bouncing. It's a frightening thing when the earth shakes. It's a really frightening thing when the earth shakes and the dam breaks.

I'm wondering if maybe the minister could give me, if he has it available today, a sense of what the priorities are and where the Crown corporation is focusing its energies to improve and ensure that our infrastructure is protected, particularly when it comes to human health and the consequences of catastrophe.

[1510]

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, I'm going to just distinguish between what this audit did and what it focused on and the work that Hydro is doing on its own, without any reminders or oversight from the audit. On the emergency preparedness and the capacity for a response side of things, as I said a minute ago, Hydro is making good progress on completing, implementing the management action items. They've done six of nine. They're ahead of schedule on implementing the recommendations of the audit.

I've already talked about some of the internal processes that they have formulated and have running now within the utility. They are also out working with local governments on Vancouver Island and on the mainland where one would think there is a higher risk of an earthquake. So they are doing, I think, what responsible corporations should do to respond to that audit in terms of emergency preparedness and capacity to respond.

On the capital side. The member mentioned that as well. Again, the John Hart generating station is a $1 billion-plus project that is just getting started now. It does have a seismic component to it. The Ruskin dam safety and powerhouse upgrade is a $748 million project. That's going to improve dam stability, and it's going to replace some aging powerhouse equipment. There's reinforcement of embankments, seismic upgrades of the dam, water intakes, powerhouse upgrades, etc.

On the Coquitlam dam. That was a $65 million project. It's complete. It was the most seismically vulnerable dam, as identified by B.C. Hydro. It's now been completely rebuilt. Again, to refer back to my previous comment, Hydro has taken some considerable time, five years, to examine the whole system — obviously, the focus is Vancouver Island and, to some extent, the Lower Mainland; Bridge River apparently is another focus — and determine what the priorities are.

They did the Coquitlam dam, which was, as I said, the most seismically vulnerable dam. It's done, completed in 2008. I won't go into details on those projects unless the member wants me to.

They've also almost completed, I understand, a $400 million spillway gates program — several upgrades on Vancouver Island that dealt with safety and making sure that gates can operate reliably. They completed the highest-priority sites, including Stave Falls, Cheakamus, Duncan, Terzaghi and Seton. Early-attention items have been completed at the three Campbell River sites.

[1515]

Just for the member's benefit, in case he's curious about this, there is also ongoing work at four other sites: G.M. Shrum, Peace Canyon, Ladore and Sugar Lake. So Hydro is, I think, all over this, by the sounds of it, in terms of what they need to do.

From a capital perspective, they're spending a lot of money. They've determined what the priorities are, and they have responded to the audit in terms of the preparedness.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that attempt at a comprehensive answer. I genuinely appreciate that.

What I heard, though, and what I've seen…. I drove into Strathcona Park, past the works at John Hart, and I drove over the dam. I think it's Strathcona. There's a second dam, and it looked a bit wobbly to me. I don't think anyone would disagree with that if they'd been there and they'd seen it.

I also have gone…. It's some years now. It's been five or six years since I went through the bridge system. I appreciate, as a Vancouver Islander, that the corporation is focusing on improvements at John Hart, but I'm not hearing quite what I want to hear. I'm hearing that there's $1.2 billion for a penstock, for a powerhouse, and then you mention dams around Campbell River.

I'm wondering where in the priority…. Is refurbishing and seismically upgrading the dams on the Campbell River system part and parcel of the John Hart project, or is that to come later?

Hon. B. Bennett: With particular respect to the dam, as opposed to the penstock and powerhouse and that hardware, I am advised that it is necessary to do the penstock and the powerhouse first. I'm advised that there have been some relatively small jobs done around the dam — a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there. I am advised that after the project is complet-
[ Page 3988 ]
ed that is just starting now, the $1.2 billion project, the dam at John Hart will be addressed. It is a next priority in that area.

J. Horgan: But not within that funding envelope?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is within the funding envelope. I'll remind the member that there is $1.7 billion a year, in total, for ten years that will be invested in capital. Of that, there is $1.8 billion, in total, that relates specifically to seismic. They've actually broken out the capital budget to show how much is going to be spent on seismic. Obviously, a lot of these projects don't just deal strictly with seismic. They deal with lots of other types of upgrading. So 2018 is the likely date for the start of work on the dam at John Hart.

J. Horgan: I don't get over to the Utilities Commission as much as I would like to, he said with a wry smile, and I don't imagine Hydro does anymore either. So I would want to ask if the minister could direct me to the information that he's just read from.

[1520]

Is it only on a confidential briefing note for the minister, or is there a public location where I can access that material, either at the Utilities Commission or on the B.C. Hydro website? Maybe the ministry has a pile of binders they could pass my way, to thumb through at my leisure.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's not often I get to burst the member's bubble, and I'm sure he's going to be bursting a lot more of mine before we're done today. The information around the John Hart project, including the seismic information, is in fact all public. A certificate of public convenience was obtained from the BCUC on this project, so it actually is all there, on the BCUC website.

J. Horgan: Bubble's burst, I guess, but specifically, I wanted to know not about the project that is part of the $1.2 billion — the penstock, the powerhouse — but the dams themselves. Is that information that the minister read to me from his briefing notes also a part of the certificate of public convenience and necessity?

Hon. B. Bennett: Short and to the point, the answer is yes. I'm advised that all of that information was disclosed to the BCUC at the time, so it should all be there.

J. Horgan: I'd like to move now, if I could, to transmission and, in particular, the status of some of the projects that I inventoried at the start of my remarks. Particularly, I wouldn't mind starting with, I guess, the granddaddy of overruns — unless I'm mistaken and the overruns on the Interior–Lower Mainland line or the Dawson Creek line are wildly off base.

Certainly, I'd like to start with the northwest transmission line. It's my understanding, when the project was conceived some years ago, that the budget at that time was less than $400 million. There was an agreement to have multiple parties participate in the expansion in the area for a whole host of positive outcomes that at the time I certainly supported, when the cost was $395 million, I believe — certainly, $395 million to $400 million.

I'm wondering what scope changes have taken place since that initial announcement that would lead us to now be in the range of $736 million and still rising. I understand that the completion date was to be at the beginning of May. If that's happened, I didn't see the press release.

[1525]

Hon. B. Bennett: With respect to the member, I do think he did refer to the power line as a power line to nowhere, so I'm not sure that he has always supported it, but I'm glad to hear that he's supporting it now.

I would definitely defend the utility in terms of their actions and their work around this project. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that if it's a private utility, you don't announce so early in the process that you are looking at maybe 100 percent variance on the price or 80 percent on the variance. You don't do that because you don't have a government as a shareholder. You just keep working away until you get close to a final investment decision, and then you say how much you think it's going to cost, and your board approves it, and you go ahead and build it.

I think public projects like this one, where the government of British Columbia was — and I think with good reason and sincerely and for all the right reasons — wanting to extend electricity up into that part of the province, to open up that part of the province for clean energy projects and mines and to electrify the communities up there that are currently on diesel…. They went, and they wanted to work with the federal government, to try to squeeze some dollars out the federal government on this, so they had to have a price.

I think the utility did its best to come up with that kind of a cost at a very, very early stage. It was in the order of $400 million. It changed considerably after that as they had the time to do the additional engineering work and other types of assessments that they do to determine actually how much it's going to cost.

I would just say in conclusion, in terms of explaining and perhaps defending a little bit how off we were on this project, that Hydro has gone out and done a comparison with what the Alberta electrical system operator spends for this type of a transmission line — and in that case across the bald prairie in Alberta, not over the mountaintops and rivers and lakes that we have to deal with in the northwest. In fact, the cost of the northwest transmission line is very much in line with what they spend for exactly the same size transmission line in Alberta.
[ Page 3989 ]

I think the point…. You know, we can argue about estimates and whether they were 50 plus and 50 minus, or 100 percent plus and 50 minus and how it all happened, but the bottom line for me, and I would suggest for the people of the province, is that it didn't cost any more than it would have cost to build a transmission line in Alberta across flat ground, and we're ending up with the power line that's going to open up a quadrant of the province that didn't have electricity.

J. Horgan: I think my question, to start with, was: is it done yet? But while we're on how we got from there to here, I have the board minutes going back to September 2012, where the board was asked to go from $561 million — that's already $161 million over what the initial estimate was; this is in 2012 — to $617 million. Then a board minute in May, so eight months later, going from $617 million to $746 million.

In the space of 12 months we've gone from $500 million plus to almost $750 million. As much as I was prepared to buy the minister's argument that while things happen, it would strike me that when this project started at $400 million and now we're at $750 million and we're not done yet, there were some management breakdowns along the way.

[1530]

I don't know. I only have the minutes that were provided through freedom of information, and some of them are redacted. But I do know just from that trail that over a short period of time it was obvious to senior managers at B.C. Hydro that this project was careening out of control.

Again, I don't disagree that it's a lot easier to do stuff on flat land than it is in British Columbia, and there is a premium that one has to pay for that. That's to be expected. But I don't think it's good enough to say that because you're a public company and your shareholder is the people of B.C., you don't have a responsibility to do your level best to stay on time and on budget.

My question again is: is it done yet? And is $746 million the last number we're going to hear?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that we'll fire up the line by the end of June this year. Frankly, I hope the hon. member can come and help us cut the ribbon.

J. Horgan: I’m there. I’ll be there. Are you paying?

Hon. B. Bennett: Personally?

J. Horgan: I’m thinking about the T5.

Hon. B. Bennett: We'll have to discuss that after estimates are over. [Laughter.]

I do want to make clear that I didn't say there was any premium being paid for this transmission line, as compared to Alberta. In fact, what I said was that this transmission line is within the same costs that you'd see in Alberta for the same kind of transmission line on flat ground.

My point is that actually, even with, admittedly, the cost estimates going up to $746 million…. The transmission line, as long as it's built for $746 million, will come in at roughly the same price you'd pay in Alberta on flat ground. I think that says something about Hydro's approach to the project.

Are we going to hit the $746 million? I am advised that we are definitely on track right now to do this within budget, $746 million.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for the invitation. I know his colleague from Fort Langley–Aldergrove would love me to be there as well. I would be delighted to talk about the logistics of that after the estimates are completed.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, that's fine. That's fine.

There are a few issues that are left open with the minister's response, though. Perhaps he could table the information that compares Alberta construction costs to B.C. construction costs so that we can have a good sense of that and maybe who paid for the review and under whose direction. What were the terms of reference that were put forward? Did that come from senior management, or was that a board decision?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Alberta electric system operator apparently posts their transmission line costs. I think we could easily get it for the member. I don't think it's a big deal. It's there on the Internet. All Hydro did was it looked at what it cost to build a transmission line of this nature in Alberta and compared it to what it's costing to build the northwest transmission line. That's where they came to the conclusion that in fact our costs are very much in line.

I'm not aware that the board had anything to do with this. I think it was the management of B.C. Hydro just going to the Alberta site and seeing how much it cost them to build transmission lines there.

[1535]

J. Horgan: Well, if everything was that simple…. I'm sure that's what happened, and we're comparing apples and apples, so I'll see if I can find some time over the weekend to take a look myself.

While we're on the topic, I wonder if…. We're at $746 million, end of June completion date. Does that include the Iskut extension? Is that a separate envelope? What's the cost of that?
[ Page 3990 ]

Just as a second question, while you've got your staff going through the binders, will the late in-service date have any consequences to any arrangements or agreements with AltaGas with respect to delivering power that they are contracted to deliver?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Iskut extension that the member references is being built, at least the transmission line part of it, by Imperial Metals. There is some substation work involved with that extension that B.C. Hydro is building.

The total cost of the line and the substation work is $180 million. It is expected to be done at some point this summer, perhaps late summer. It's up to Imperial Metals. I understand that they're a little bit behind on their portion of the work. That, again, is their risk, and they're certainly not complaining about anything.

In terms of the Forrest Kerr clean energy project, again, Hydro and AltaGas are talking about when the light will come on, on a regular basis — the project being completed by the end of June. Forrest Kerr should be able to connect to the transmission line independent of the extension — that has no bearing on what happens at Forrest Kerr — as soon as Forrest Kerr is actually ready to connect. They've still got some work to do.

Again, I'm not aware of any problems in terms of timing or anything else relating to either the Red Chris Mine, Imperial Metals or Forrest Kerr and AltaGas.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I can appreciate that Imperial Metals will need the electricity when they need the electricity. But with AltaGas and the Forrest Kerr project, I'm wondering if they…. My understanding is that they have contractual obligations to B.C. Hydro that will be coming into force, were supposed to be in force in May.

If we're heading into the end of June, is there going to be a consequence to B.C. Hydro's receiving power? Is there a side agreement that circumvents the power purchase agreement that's in place for that energy?

[1540]

Hon. B. Bennett: The Forest Kerr project. Obviously, AltaGas and, as the member has suggested, B.C. Hydro have an electricity purchase agreement, and it comes alive, if both parties are ready, on July 1. If both parties are not ready — and there is a chance that AltaGas will not be ready on July 1 with their Forest Kerr project — obviously B.C. Hydro wouldn't pay for electricity that they don't receive. Other than that, I'm not aware of any other ramifications, implications.

J. Horgan: Well, end of June is really close to July 1, so if it goes one way, one assumes it goes the other way. What if the northwest transmission line is not complete at the end of June, and on July 1 Forest Kerr is ready to deliver electricity and you're not ready to accept it? Have you contemplated the consequences of that scenario?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that the line will actually be fundamentally complete the first week of June and that the next few weeks after that will be used to get it up and running, so to speak. There is a high degree of confidence at B.C. Hydro that if Forest Kerr is ready to roll on July 1, they'll be able to start sending electrons into the power line on July 1.

If they're not ready to go…. The member asked this, so I will respond. If the transmission line is not ready by July 1, as long as B.C. Hydro has made reasonable efforts, as defined in the agreement between the parties, AltaGas would wait until the transmission line is available to receive the electricity. That's a backup. It's obviously part of the contract. But there is every intention and expectation that the line will be ready to receive the electricity by July 1.

J. Horgan: The Forest Kerr power purchase agreement, I believe, is a 60-year agreement, one of the longest signed on the B.C. Liberal watch. AltaGas is an income trust, in essence. I'm wondering, in the creation of the agreement to pay the one-quarter, one-quarter, one-quarter — or at least that's how it started out — for the capital costs of the transmission line, if there was any consideration given in the discharging of that power purchase agreement to back-pay the consequences of cost overruns that we see today.

[1545]

In other words, we started at one-quarter each, roughly $100 million each, from the federal government, the Crown, from Red Chris and from other mining opportunities in the region and AltaGas. Is that still the case with the $746 million, or is AltaGas only required to pay the initial portion of that capital cost?

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, I'm advised that the $130 million that came, and continues to come, from Canada was not based on a quarter of the cost for the project. It was, in fact, as much money as the current administration could squeeze out of the federal government at the time.

In fact, AltaGas had not at that point made a deal with B.C. Hydro about contributing to the line. AltaGas at the time, and I do recall this, intended to build their own 138 kV line up to their site.

The member will recall that there was tremendous public support in the northwest. I remember all the mayors and some of the First Nations…. There were so many people that really wanted the government to avail themselves of the opportunity. Instead of allowing one company to build a line as far as the Forrest Kerr project that would essentially serve them, you know, why didn't government get involved and build something up at least as far as Bob Quinn or Iskut that would open up that part
[ Page 3991 ]
of the province?

So government made that decision and, in making that decision, gave AltaGas the opportunity to put in their $180 million, which is what it would have cost them for the 138 kV line. That's how the $180 million was arrived at.

J. Horgan: Then the $180 million is the upper end of the AltaGas contribution?

Hon. B. Bennett: The $180 million is based on what it would have cost AltaGas to build a 138 kV line. So it is not in the cards to…. There would be no foundation for B.C. Hydro or government asking them to pay more.

J. Horgan: And Imperial Metals. I remember the enthusiasm in the region. The Electrify Highway 37 campaign was a very impressive one by local regional districts, local councils, as well as First Nations and industry. At the time there was an expectation…. Copper prices were high, and a whole bunch of activity was expected. The only play that's come into being is the Imperial Metals project at Red Chris. What is Red Chris on the hook for, beyond the $180 million for the Iskut extension? Are they also part and parcel of this deal?

[1550]

Hon. B. Bennett: It takes me so long to get the advice I need to answer the questions, I sometimes struggle to remember what the question was. I have felt better than I do today as well.

Anyway, Imperial Metals does currently have an arrangement with B.C. Hydro to pay on the basis of a special tariff that takes into account the total capital cost of the northwest transmission line. So when they start receiving electricity, their tariff will reflect the final cost of the transmission line. The transmission line will cost $746 million or less. That's the advice that I've been given. Their tariff will be higher than it would have been had the transmission line been $500 million or $600 million. So that's something that they are aware of.

With respect to the Iskut extension, Hydro and Imperial entered into a legal arrangement whereby Imperial has taken the responsibility and risk for constructing the transmission line, as I said earlier. They felt that they could build it to Hydro standards for less than what they would have paid Hydro to do that. Hydro was estimating, just roughly, in the range of about $75 million to build that transmission line from the substation into the Red Chris Mine. Imperial thought they could do it for less than that, so the deal was struck. They're in the process now of constructing that transmission line.

Hydro will purchase that Iskut extension from Imperial, after it's done and after they've inspected it and so forth, for $52 million. It's Hydro's view that they're actually getting a good deal. I actually have not spoken recently with Imperial Metals in terms of their expenditures on the project, but I know that they're behind schedule a little bit. I suspect that they're discovering that building transmission lines in that part of the country is maybe not as easy as what they thought.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Just on the tariff for Imperial Metals, I know there were negotiations at one stage at the $561 million capital cost range, and then it started to escalate over that 18-month period that I touched on earlier.

[1555]

Does the tariff include some reflection of the cost of new supply, or are Imperial going to be starting…? I have the material. I could go back and dig it out, but you've got the best and the brightest behind you. They'll probably be able to find it in their heads faster than I can find it in my briefcase. The cost of new supply; the cost of the transmission line. What will the tariff be at Red Chris compared to Gibraltar, for example? What will the differential be, if you have that math? If you don't, I'd wait for a note sometime in the future.

Hon. B. Bennett: The rate that Imperial will pay for their electricity at Red Chris will be the standard heavy industrial rate paid by most mines in the province, plus their share of the capital cost of the transmission line, which they negotiated as part of the tariff, as the member made reference.

But again, because the capital costs have gone up since they negotiated the deal and because the tariff allows for their share to go up with the increased capital cost, they'll actually be paying more than they originally thought they were going to be paying. And of course, they know that.

J. Horgan: Still on this subject, I have an excerpt from minutes of a special meeting of the capital projects committee, of the board of directors, Thursday, July 4. It reports and updates the northwest transmission line. "Management proceeded to explain the detail contained in the materials" — I don't have, of course, the materials — "and answered related questions. The overview included a detailed analysis of progress made both by contractors on right-of-way preparation work as well as by the construction contractor on foundation work and tower assembly erection."

I want to talk about that a little bit, because I know from media reports of at least two tower failures after that meeting took place and, of course, the tragic death of a contractor for reasons that perhaps the minister knows more about than I. Nonetheless, there was a safety failure, and an individual lost their life. We've had at least two towers fall, collapse, during the construction since that date of July 2013.

Can the minister advise what actions, if any, flow from the minutes I just referred to? Have there been other fail-
[ Page 3992 ]
ures on this project that the public is not aware of? Or have there just been the two that I'm aware of through public media sources?

[1600]

Hon. B. Bennett: There were two tower failures. The member is correct. There were no other tower failures. The first tower failure happened as a result of that particular tower not being, essentially, fixed down. It hadn't yet been, in my simple-minded language, bolted to the ground, and it fell over.

The second tower failure happened close to the accident that the member refers to, where there was the tragic loss of life. But WorkSafe has made very clear that there was no relationship or connection with the two events, the loss of life…. In fact, they stated that the loss of life was not as a result of systemic safety failure of any type and that it was probably bad judgment on the part of the victim. Nonetheless, the second tower failed not long after that accident.

Hydro decided, as they should, that they should just shut the operation down, shut the work down temporarily and work with the contractor. There were apparently 35 towers that had not been completely fixed, not completely secured. I think they were partly secured, in terms of being fixed to the ground, but not completely secured the way they need to be before they're at the stage where there is no way — no matter how hard the wind blows — they are ever going to fall over. There were 35 towers like that.

Following this horrible accident, even though it wasn't related to the falling tower, Hydro decided: "Let's make sure we get these 35 towers secured." There was some lost time as a result of that, but they did the right thing. They got the 35 towers secured, and then they all went back to work again.

J. Horgan: Whenever there's a safety failure — human error — it's often a result of fatigue or bad judgment, which is a result of perhaps an accelerated schedule. Because the project was behind schedule, because there's a desire to ensure that we meet the current in-service dates, can the minister advise the committee what the current schedule is?

Is it seven days a week? Is it a five-day-a-week schedule? Are there two shifts, three shifts or one shift? And if there is an accelerated schedule, how long has it been in place, and did it have, coincidentally, any connection to the loss of life or the tower failures?

[1605]

Hon. B. Bennett: In relation to the accident that we're discussing, I'm advised again that WorkSafe indicated they could find no evidence of any sort of systemic safety issues. That would include the issue of fatigue and too much overtime and the kinds of issues that I think the member is getting at. I'm advised there is zero evidence that overwork or fatigue or anything like pressure from the contractor — none of those — appear to have been relevant or even that there was any evidence of any of that.

I'm advised that the workers are on rotation. They will work longer hours if they can, but of course in the wintertime there's not enough daylight for them to work that many hours. They're also very much weather-dependent up there, so there were lots of periods of time in the winter where they couldn't work.

Again, no evidence that I'm aware of that would indicate that there was any pressure on this particular worker or that he may have been tired because of….

J. Horgan: Wasn't going there.

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay.

J. Horgan: I just want to know if they've accelerated the shifts, whether more shifts….

The Chair: Just a reminder that it's not being captured if you don't get recognized.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you, hon. Chair. The member has asked me if worker shifts have been accelerated in order to meet the demands, the timing of what B.C. Hydro has committed to. I don't have details, actually, in terms of how many hours, on average, these workers would work. I know it's weather-dependent. I know it's dependent on how much light is there. I know they have opportunities to work lots of hours when the weather's good and there's enough light, if they want to. I don't have any more detail than that, but I certainly could get it if the member wanted me to.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that answer. I wasn't seeking cause and effect. I just make the case that when accidents happen, it's usually for a whole host of reasons. I wasn't apportioning any blame to anyone for anything. If that was implied, I certainly didn't intend to.

I'd like to move now to the Interior–Lower Mainland line, if I could. We're spending more time on this than I thought we would, but I'm hopeful there's a happier story here and that the cost overrun is modest relative to NTL. Can the minister advise what the initial capital cost and the in-service date was for the Interior–Lower Mainland line?

[1610]

Hon. B. Bennett: To the member's question about when the expected in-service date is, it is projected, I'm advised, to be November of 2015. The project is more than 50 percent completed. The BCUC authorized up to $725 million for this project, plus or minus 10 percent.

I'm going to let the member take it where he wants to take it. I'll wait for the question.
[ Page 3993 ]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister.

I'm led to understand, then, that the in-service date of November 2015 is on time and the $725 million cost is the original capital projection when the project was contemplated and the first approval was granted by the board of directors.

Hon. B. Bennett: The number that I gave the member is the maximum that the BCUC authorized for expenditure on the project: the $725 million, plus or minus 10 percent. At one point in time Hydro expected the project to cost $690 million and expected the project to be done in November of 2014. So to be clear, the project is a year late. But the $690 million is what had been approved by the board of B.C. Hydro. They can go up to $725 million, plus or minus 10 percent.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that information. So we're a year behind. Normally on a large capital project, that involves cost escalation. How is it that B.C. Hydro is managing 12 months of construction time and staying within budget?

Hon. B. Bennett: This particular contract is a design-build contract. It's a fixed-price contract. The contractor, Flatiron-Graham, has all of the risk for ensuring that the project is built on time and on budget.

[1615]

I am advised that the vast majority of the reasons why the project is currently a year behind relate to the contractor's failures to perform.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise if there is any legal action ongoing or pending from the contractor with respect to this project?

Hon. B. Bennett: Apparently, we haven't heard the sounds of any writs dropping, so the answer to the member's question is no legal actions as of yet. Some matters have been arbitrated. The contract includes some allowance for arbitration, and some matters have been arbitrated, for the most part to the benefit of B.C. Hydro and the detriment of the contractor. But again, no legal action.

It is unclear how much more the contractor is going to have to pay to complete the project, given the delay.

J. Horgan: I have a progress report dated fiscal 2014 for October to December of 2013. In the schedule under risk management for the ILM…. It's redacted so it's difficult for me to draw conclusions, but I see the project's estimate is $709 million, plus or minus 10 percent. The full funding authorization of the project is $725 million. We've got that.

Then we have:

"Contingency plans are in place, should ILM not be in service by January 13, 2015. B.C. Hydro is working with the contractor to mitigate construction delays. Transmission system planning has reviewed the 2012 load forecast and concluded that as long as the load level on the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island is less than approximately 90 percent of the 2015 forecast peak level, no contingency plan is required for the single 500 KV line."

Is that still the case? Is there any concern? I know that when the minister talks about the need for new sources of supply, he talks about growth in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island. Its remaining risk is designated as high, and now we are another full ten months later in the year. I'm wondering if that's had any material impact on the forecasts for power.

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that there is no need for a contingency plan. As the document stated that the member has in his possession, that's still the case — no contingency necessary. B.C. Hydro feels that they're in a position to be able to provide the necessary electricity to the Lower Mainland for now, until demand increases.

J. Horgan: I'm not going to draw a conclusion that we're not expecting demand to increase and that new supply is not as urgently needed as sometimes it's argued. I'll leave that for later on in the afternoon, when we're really tired and our blood sugar is nice and low.

Instead, I'll move to the Dawson Creek line and ask the same questions I did for ILM and NTL. Is it on time? Is it on budget? What was the initial in-service date? And what was the initial capital cost?

[1620]

Hon. B. Bennett: In terms of cost, the estimate that the member has probably already seen in the '14-15 service plan is $296 million for this project. I'm advised that customers who are looking forward to receiving electricity from this project in June will receive electricity in June but that the project in total will not be completed until October. So final-final is October. It'll be done enough for these customers to be served in June.

I think the last thing that the member would be interested in is that the BCUC approved up to $300 million for the project.

J. Horgan: Was that $300 million figure the initial capital cost? And was June 2014 the initial in-service date?

Hon. B. Bennett: I can provide this to the member. He doesn't need to write it down unless he wants to. In September 2012 the Hydro board approved the project. They approved project funding of $257.4 million, including a project reserve. But the board's approval was conditional on the certificate of public convenience being granted from BCUC. At that time Hydro thought they would receive it quickly.

[1625]

Typically, Hydro does not ask the board for project funding until they get their CPCN approval, but in this
[ Page 3994 ]
case Hydro needed to meet an accelerated in-service date to serve industrial customers' demand.

As it turned out, the certificate of public convenience was not granted by the BCUC until the fall. Well, no. It was expected to be granted in the fall of 2012, and it didn't happen. The BCUC determined that the DCAT project was needed but that a CPCN would not be granted until Hydro did further consultation with the West Moberly First Nation. That took some time.

After that consultation took place, the BCUC did grant a CPCN for the project. That was in late April — April 25 of 2013.

As a result of that, the former board approval was considered out of date, and new approval from the board was required for the project to proceed. A new cost estimate at that time of $296 million was approved. The changes in the cost estimate in this project reflect permitting delay, some revised design to meet safe work practices, some taller poles — that sort of thing — and a tightening labour construction market as well. That's the difference between the $296 million and the other number that I provided to the member.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Again, we have got a delay in completion. Is this a fixed-price contract as well? Are there going to be additional costs with each month it's delayed? And if so, in this instance, as with ILM, are there any legal actions underway or pending?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is clearly a complicated project, particularly as it relates to the substations that are being worked on as part of this contract. I'm advised that the reason there are two different dates — essentially, June 2015, where the customers who really need the power then will get their power, and the later date in October when the project will be completed — is this issue of sequencing the substations.

[1630]

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

One substation, the Dawson Creek substation, actually has to be shut down in order to complete the project.

I am advised…. The good news, I guess, is that the $296 million is enough to cover the delays that we know are there.

J. Horgan: I want to thank the minister for this discussion. I went way over time in what I had budgeted for myself to get a better understanding of why there are these, starting with NTL…. We don't have time to waste. There's more stuff to talk about, more bubbles to burst.

I'd like to move on to the smart meter program. I want to ask, just off the top, a question about a Mr. Gary Murphy. I asked you a question in question period, about a month ago now, about information we discovered, in the Financial Information Act, about his compensation.

It struck me that his compensation was higher than all of the people that are sitting around you now, the best and the brightest. It struck me as odd that you would retain a contractor, a U.S. citizen, to come to British Columbia to sell the merits of the smart meter program when there was no requirement for B.C. Utilities approval.

There was, in fact, no interest. The former minister has since gone on to other duties, but the former minister had no interest in consulting with those who didn't want to proceed with the program, nor did he have any interest in municipal governments who voted at the Union of B.C. Municipalities to have the program halted until there could be a review of its value to communities and to the system.

My understanding is that Mr. Murphy was making, over the 2½ years he was here, in excess of $1.3 million. The minister said he would get back to me some weeks ago. I'm wondering if he has now in front of him the complete details of Mr. Murphy's contract, and could he share them with the committee?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'll start by saying that the smart meter implementation project is currently tracking $100 million below budget, which is clearly good news and something I know the member will want to focus on. Part of the reason why it's tracking under budget is because B.C. Hydro went out and found some of the best people in the world to do this work.

It has never been done before in the province. Mr. Murphy is someone who is highly qualified to do work that most people can't do. It's relatively new work. He did some work in Ontario for Enbridge. He did work for PECO Energy in Pennsylvania. He did work for Oklahoma Gas and Electric. He's a physicist. He has over 20 years' experience at helping to build smart grids.

As the member suggested, he was paid well, far beyond the likes of which mere politicians would ever expect to be remunerated. Certainly, the average person in British Columbia would raise their eyebrows, I'm sure, when they hear how much this man was paid. But I think the member, even though we're on opposite sides of the fence politically, has been around enough to know that there are certain kinds of specialized knowledge and experience that you do have to pay for because it's in demand and there's not that much of it. That was the case here.

He was paid $265 per hour. That was capped at 40 hours a week. His last day with B.C. Hydro was on September 30. All payments to this gentleman have been publicly reported in accordance with the Financial Information Act and, actually, as I'm advised, available on the B.C. Hydro website.

I've got more, if the member wants to dig a little deeper. I've got other information.
[ Page 3995 ]

J. Horgan: One assumes, again…. I know many of the people surrounding you. They are very capable people. They bring their expertise to B.C. Hydro every day to make the company function as efficiently as possible, and none of them are getting paid at the rate Mr. Murphy was.

I'm pleased that he's had previous jobs. I'm pleased that he understands physics. But I still am not certain what value, what requirement….

[1635]

What was the necessity of bringing in a U.S. national to sell a program that didn't need any review from the Utilities Commission by statute, did not contemplate any legitimate consultation with the public that was dubious, at best, of the value of smart meters? Despite all of that, we decided to pay someone for 2½ years $1.3 million. That seems to me to be money that would have been better spent trying to explain to the public why we were doing the smart meter program, explain to the public what the benefits might have been had we moved to another means of pricing electricity, which is the whole point of a smart grid and a smart meter system. We're not doing any of that.

We spent $800-some million. The minister says that we've saved. We're tracking $100 million below, but I haven't seen my nifty wall-mounted monitor so that I can track my electricity use in the comfort of my own home. That was part and parcel of the scope of the program, and I don't believe I'm going to be getting that. Perhaps the minister could advise me. If we're tracking $100 million below, is it because we pulled back on the equipment that we are going to use?

Again, I'd also like to know, if the program is so valuable…. I remember very vividly the motivation for proceeding this way was to break up grow ops. I'm wondering if the minister has the number of grow ops that we've shut down because of the implementation of the smart meter program.

[1640]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised by the folks who sit behind me that none of them, in fact, had the skill set or the experience to do what this gentleman did. While it's true that this gentleman may have made more than what these folks make — and I'm not sure that that's the case, but the member has said that — nobody here actually had the skill set to do it. I'm also advised that B.C. Hydro conducted an extensive search for an experienced project leader, and they settled on this man. He signed a contract with B.C. Hydro on December 10, 2010.

I would respond to a couple of other things that the member said about the smart grid. He really caught my attention when he…. I hope I don't misquote him, but I think he suggested that the fundamental benefit of a smart grid is around pricing. I don't believe that's the case.

When I was Energy Minister for a blink of an eyelash in 2010, I had the opportunity to attend the World Energy conference in Montreal. There were several companies there who were demonstrating the benefits of smart grids. It was actually fascinating to see what you can do with a smart grid. And of course, you can't have a smart grid without smart meters. That's certainly where it starts.

Theft reduction, theft detection is part of that. Outages are another part of it. In the part of the province where I live, the power goes out, and lots of times people don't know where the outage actually happened. With smart meters on either ends of that outage, it's very easy for B.C. Hydro to determine where the outage occurred and to get out there and to fix it quicker.

It's helped with customer service already. These are early days, but it's already helped with customer service. There is, obviously, avoided meter reading with the smart meters. There is a lot of wasted electricity in a system that is not regulated and managed by smart meters in terms of too much voltage going to the wrong place. Electricity, I guess, in my simple language, would languish with no purpose. Smart meters help avoid that.

The member did ask about two other elements of this. One was theft detection. He wanted to know if smart meters had discovered any crime. I'm advised that the smart metres have discovered a lot of crime and other inappropriate activity. It sounds like they're working pretty well in terms of identifying skullduggery out there in the province around the use of electricity and especially the illicit use of electricity. I don't have specific examples, but there are apparently lots of them.

The last thing that the member mentioned was that he didn't have his in-home display device. That may well be available to the member in the not too distant future, but in the meantime there is a program that Hydro has developed called MyHydro where the member can go onto his computer at home and take a look at his electricity usage and really get most of the information he would get from the in-home display device, in any case.

J. Horgan: I raised the in-home display because that was part of the scope of the project. It's no longer part of the scope of the project. Perhaps the minister could quantify what the saving was from eliminating that element of the program.

[1645]

I want to go back to Mr. Murphy, though. Again, I have toured — with someone who's in the room right now — the research facility where the smart meters were being tested, and I met with some very excited engineers who shared with me some of the enthusiasm the minister just outlined in the rationale for proceeding with the program. But I have to say that I've never had more mail — and this includes the HST and a whole host of other B.C. Liberal policies that have elicited a lot of correspondence coming my way — than I have on the smart
[ Page 3996 ]
meter program.

I'm going to give the floor to my colleague from Port Coquitlam in a moment to further explore this. But you have people on fixed incomes who are looking at massive rate increases — we'll talk about that before we're done today — and they're being told that they have to pay a monthly fee for a service that they weren't getting monthly to start with. Their meters weren't being read every month. There were estimates for one or two and sometimes three months at a time.

They're being told now that because they don't want to comply with the program…. It doesn't need complete participation to achieve some of the objectives that the minister said. I know if the person beside me, the member for Kootenay West, doesn't have a smart meter and the person on the other side, the member from Mount Pleasant, does, when Kootenay West's power is out, I'll probably know it because the power is out at Mount Pleasant as well. You don't need 100 percent uptake in the program for the program to work.

That, I believe, was a singular failure from a communications perspective. That is not my concern. You have legions of people working on those issues for you, Minister, in government and at B.C. Hydro. But I think it's pretty tough to say to the many, many, many people who continue to resist the smart meter program — and those many, many thousands who complied because they didn't want to pay the additional cost — that part and parcel of the program was to hire a guy and pay him more than the chief executive officer of the company for reasons that are still not clear to me.

What value did Mr. Murphy add, other than he has seen smart meters, and he has helped implement them elsewhere? What value did he add that wasn't found within the operation or couldn't have been found locally for much less than 265 bucks an hour?

[1650]

Hon. B. Bennett: I apologize to the member for taking so long to get my advice. There are actually a lot of positives around this program. I wish we had more time. I could tell the member all about them. I've got a few here that I'll tell him. Maybe I'll start first with the program itself.

I'm advised that this is fairly new and innovative technology and that smart grids have been developed in other jurisdictions, but in most places in the world they have not been developed. Therefore, people who have actually been involved in managing the creation of a smart grid and, in this case, the implementation of millions of smart meters…. Those kinds of people are few and far between. There was no one at Hydro who had that kind of experience.

Hydro was aware, at the time, of a few things that made them want to seek out someone with the actual on-the-ground experience and the technical background to be able to be an authority as they built out the program.

There are jurisdictions — I'm advised California is one of them — where they went at it with their own expertise without bringing somebody in that had done this before. In fact, it had several stops and starts in the development of their program and, in fact, went way over budget because they didn't have the expertise that they needed.

I'll repeat what I said when we first started to discuss this particular topic. The project is running, right now, roughly $100 million below budget. It's highly unlikely that it would be running under budget if Hydro had tried to do this on their own, without bringing that kind of an expert in to do the job.

So I think it's fair to suggest that, in fact, Mr. Murphy was an investment by B.C. Hydro in ensuring that the program was done properly, that it didn't have to be redone a number of times and that, in fact, it was done at least on budget, if not under budget.

This is even more complex than I realized. I've been advised, for example, that the wireless system — and I'll call it the wireless system because that's the language that makes sense to me; it's not, probably, the proper language — that embraces all of these smart meters in the province is actually a larger system than what Telus has for smartphones, for cell phones. It's big. It's complex.

I'm also advised…. One of the member's questions he was asking about was: do you really need to have 100 percent takeup? A hundred percent is everybody. He's probably right. You don't need 100 percent. But you need the vast majority of people who use electricity from B.C. Hydro to be on the system.

Apparently, these smart meters actually bounce signals from one to the other, and if you have a gap, you actually need to spend more money to ensure coverage. The point is that the more people you have on the system, the less expensive per customer it's going to be. If you have gaps, you're going to have to invest more money to make sure that you've got reliable service because you don't have as many meters out there that are forming this web that is necessary for this to be successful.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that.

[1655]

I'd like to go back to Mr. Murphy again. If the minister could table the contract that was signed with Mr. Murphy and what other benefits beyond the $265 per hour, capped at 40 hours per week — which, according to the Financial Information Act, exceeded $1.3 million over the short time he was employed by B.C. Hydro…. Were there any other obligations that the Crown corporation had to Mr. Murphy in terms of club memberships or travel back and forth to his home in the United States, car allowances, health care coverage, insurance, any pensionable payout, any moneys in lieu of benefits?

Hon. B. Bennett: Some of this information is available
[ Page 3997 ]
on the B.C. Hydro website but, admittedly, not to the detail that the member is asking for. I'm advised that this is a commercial agreement between B.C. Hydro and this individual, and privacy rules would prevent Hydro from just basically handing over a contract that they have with an individual. But because he asked the specific questions, I'm going to share with the member some of the details of that contract.

The member already knows it was $265 an hour. He was allowed to charge B.C. Hydro for up to 40 hours a week. That meant that he could not exceed, on a weekly basis, $10,600. The maximum amount or fee that he was allowed to charge over the course of his contract — including expenses, which I'll give the member some examples of in a minute — was $1,472,500.

The contract outlines his expenses, in that they could not exceed $10,000 a month. Eligible expenses outlined in the contract include travel cost to work, including airfare, accommodation, car rentals, meals, accommodation of up to $2,800 a month in Vancouver — so his accommodation rental costs.

Typically, B.C. Hydro uses a per-diem rate for contractors who travel of $225 a day, just for a reference point here. Another eligible expense — because the member asked about this — is travel between Vancouver and his home, for him and/or his spouse. He could not exceed 26 round-trip economy-class trips per calendar year.

That's a lot of detail. I'm not sure if the member got it all down, but that's probably enough for him to have some fun with.

J. Horgan: Just the broad strokes, Minister. Thank you.

Wow, $10,600 a week, $10,000 a month in expenses, $2,800 living, $225 a day, per diem — that's a lot of muffins you can buy for $225 a day — and 26 round trips.

[1700]

Again, we don't believe…. You've got good people around you, people I have the utmost respect for, and it was their considered opinion that that was good value to the people of British Columbia, to bring one guy in that has a physics degree. Here I am lamenting the fact that I studied history. You paid that kind of money for a program that didn't require any oversight by a third party, that was going to be pushed through come hell or high water. My colleague from Port Coquitlam is going to be talking a little bit about the high water.

Still, on top of that, we didn't have the expertise locally or at the executive table or somewhere on Dunsmuir Street to implement a program that requires changing out meters and putting in place distribution nodes throughout the province — which B.C. Hydro is absolutely capable of doing without any additional expertise, in my opinion. Is that what happened here?

We hired this guy — $1.4 million — because there was no one else around that could figure it out? That seems strange to me, Minister. I know that this guy started when you weren't on the watch, but sadly, you're the one that has to defend it. And it's indefensible in my opinion.

Hon. B. Bennett: Before I answer the question, I want to clarify. When I said there was a $225 per diem that B.C. Hydro pays to contractors, I made that comment as a reference to what this gentlemen was receiving. I did not mean to suggest that he received all of the things that I just listed off plus $225 a day as a per diem. I wanted to clarify that. He did not get the per diem.

To answer the member's question…. I frankly think it's very sensational to talk about these kinds of things, because most of us don't live in a world where you make that kind of money. Nobody is certainly prepared to pay anybody, other than the folks probably sitting behind me, to come and live in Vancouver and pay them $250 an hour to do work. We're probably not worth it. I'm just saying. I know I'm not.

This was a $1 billion program. This was a $1 billion project. It's trending $100 million below budget. Hydro paid this man $1.47 million. To be $100 million below the budget target at this stage and to have accomplished that, in at least some part, by virtue of hiring this guy and paying him $1.47 million was in fact maybe one of the smartest investments B.C. Hydro could have made here in order to do this.

The member insists that this was easy to do. This is not easy to do. There are lots of examples in other jurisdictions that I can provide to the member that will show that this is not easy to do. Most of these projects go over budget. If we can get this project done under budget, especially to the level that it appears it's under budget at right now, I think in retrospect — as sensational as it is to think about how much he got paid — that that was a pretty good investment.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister some questions following up on my colleague. My colleague said, "come hell or high water," and that I would be talking about the high water, yet I have a feeling that the constituents that I am asking the questions on behalf of would probably say that it's more like the hell part.

[1705]

Anyway, I've got a series of questions, and they are going to cover lots of ridings in the province. Specifically, they're covering questions from the members for Saanich North and the Islands and for Kootenay West, where different communities have got the same questions. It's the same in Port Coquitlam, where one of my constituents has got similar questions.

It revolves around a letter that they received from Hydro — the meter replacement notification. It's from Mr. Reimer. I'll just quickly read it:

"The Measurement Canada seal on the meter at your premises has expired, and the meter must be exchanged to ensure compliance with federal regulations. In the coming weeks a B.C. Hydro installer or licensed contractor will visit your property to
[ Page 3998 ]
exchange the existing meter for a replacement old meter with a valid Measurement Canada seal. The installer will knock on the door before starting the exchange. However, you do not have to be home for the exchange to take place.

"Please ensure there is free and clear access to the B.C. Hydro meter during this time."

And then highlighted:

"If the installer cannot complete the exchange because he or she cannot access the meter, a $65 failed installation fee will be added to your bill.

"The replacement meter is not a smart meter but may look different than the meter currently at your home. Unlike analog meters that have mechanical dials, replacement meters may be digital. While digital meters have a digital display, they do not contain any radios, and they are not radio-off smart meters. You can check what kind of B.C. Hydro meter is at your home by looking at the meter guide at our website."

Then, if you have any questions, there's contact information.

I guess one of the first questions that I had put to me and that other members have had put to them…. These are individuals who are not on a smart meter. They're paying a legacy fee. They've made it clear that they don't want to go to a smart meter.

Now, all of a sudden, they're receiving correspondence that says that their measurement seal has expired, and they're asking: "Well, hang on a sec. How is it that the seals on the meters all across the province expired at the same time? How is that possible, particularly as they're all installed…?" The ages of the houses are different, but all of a sudden, they've just expired at the same time.

Hon. B. Bennett: A very fair and reasonable question. But I think a good answer…. First of all, when we announced what we were doing with meters, I truly did want to give people a choice, so we did. We gave people a choice. They could just have the smart meter and get on with life, or they could keep what we're referring to as their legacy meters, the old meters, or they could get a new digital meter without the radio on.

Very few people availed themselves of that third choice. The vast majority of people have smart meters or are getting smart meters. There are some people, as the members know, who want to keep their old legacy meters.

[1710]

What I said at the time — and I'm very confident of this because I went back and checked, actually, just about a week ago — was that when the seal on a meter is expired, according to Measurement Canada…. It's true that I had never heard of Measurement Canada before I became Minister of Energy. It's not a commonplace organization that most of us encounter in our everyday lives. But they do exist, they're out there, and one of the things they do is establish the reliability of these kinds of devices.

In any case, I promised the public, the ratepayers of B.C., that when their seal expired, B.C. Hydro would come by and put another old meter on the house as long as there was an inventory of old meters to put on the house. Apparently, there are some old meters still in the inventory. When those seals expire, they'll get another old meter until there are no old meters to install anymore. Then they're going to get a smart meter.

I think the issue here is how, then, and why would B.C. Hydro have sent out 9,500 letters all at one time? Why did these meters all happen to expire at this particular time? The answer to that is that in 2010 Measurement Canada — knowing that B.C. Hydro intended to develop a smart grid, starting with smart meters — gave B.C. Hydro a pass on all of their meters in the province.

So between 2010 and 2014 Measurement Canada was not ordering B.C. Hydro to go and replace old meters with seals that had expired. They, as they say, gave Hydro a pass until they got through the majority of the installation of the smart meter program. That's why you ended up with 9,500 letters — a reasonable explanation, I think, to a good question.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I guess the question, then, is: when Measurement Canada gave Hydro the pass, was that on the basis, then — as far as Measurement Canada was concerned — that they only needed to be inspected and recertified and only replaced if they were not functioning or couldn't be reset?

Hon. B. Bennett: The utility business is certainly a complicated business. Apparently, these meters that are out there around British Columbia all have a serial number. I guess that's not surprising. B.C. Hydro has a record. They know the serial number of your meter on your house or your business.

[1715]

There is an expiry date, apparently, associated with each serial number. They know and are legally obligated by Measurement Canada to advise the customer to go and replace the old meter with the expired seal. That's what these letters were about. I don't know that these letters would ordinarily have been sent out, but given the smart-meter program and all of the controversy and so forth, Hydro sent the 9,500 letters out.

Importantly, so we're clear, Hydro staff are not showing up at people's houses with smart meters and putting them on the house against the will of the person that had the old legacy meter with the expired seal. They're getting an old meter. It might be a digital meter; it might be an analog meter. But it's an old, used meter. That's what they're going to get until we run out.

M. Farnworth: I guess that's one of the issues, that the meters…. As the minister said, Hydro has a record of the expiry date for the meter, so then they would know when it was expiring. The people who have the meters are aware that that's the case. The question becomes then: okay, all these meters have expired? Or is it that they can't be reset?

So people are going: "Wait a sec here. How is this pos-
[ Page 3999 ]
sible?" The minister has given me an explanation, so what I'd like to do, then, is ask a series of questions. I know that we're time short, so if the minister can answer them, that would be great. If not, then get back to me in writing.

The minister's response around the seal and the expiry date and the analog actually leads right to the first question. People with these meters are wondering: will Hydro supply the individual with the accurate seal expiry date for their particular analog? If I heard the minister say it correctly, it was that Hydro has a record of the analog that you have and the expiry date. So that's what people want to know: will they be provided with that record?

Will they be provided with an identification number of the meter for which they state the seal is expiring so they can cross-reference the same with the identification number on the face of their actual meter and the meter number listed on their billing statement?

People would also like to know: would Hydro provide them with a model name and number of the analog meter that they wish to install and its certification — which would be expiry date as well.

Then I guess one of the most pressing questions is the issue of the failed-installation fee and the installer. As it was put to me, the fellow said: "Look, I don't object to having the meter going onto my property. What I object to is it being done when I'm not there, and I want to be there when it's done. "

What they want to make sure is that there's not going to be an installation fee because they can't agree on a mutually agreeable time. What they want to know is: will there be an appointment that's mutually agreeable to both Hydro and to the homeowner to install the new meter?

Then the fifth question is…. I guess, again, people are reading the legislation governing Hydro, in particular section 9.7 of the tariff section under liability. What they're concerned about is that only a licensed electrician who can provide valid confirmation of liability insurance to install the meter….

People want to make sure that they're not going to be liable for any harm or injury done by employees or agents, either through negligence or wilful misconduct or the fact that they're on private property, and ensure that there are no unqualified or uninsured individuals installing the meters on property. So if the minister could answer that question.

Finally, I think, will Hydro assure people that there will be no attempt to install a smart meter with or without transmitters because they have chosen to opt out of the smart-meter program and have notified Hydro of the same? In many cases, many of them are members of the class action suit against B.C. Hydro in the Supreme Court.

[1720]

I just want to reinforce the issue of the failed-installation fee. It is the view of many people, of these individuals, that they paid the legacy fee, and now all of a sudden it's "Okay, this new meter is going in, and if we can't install it…." Now you're going to tack on an additional $65. Is that one time? Is that multiple times? How is that going to work?

Hon. B. Bennett: What I'm going to offer to the member is written responses to each of the questions. There are apparently good answers to all of the questions. I think, not to keep him in suspense, I'll tell him what I know for sure on those questions right now.

It is apparently possible for Hydro to go and look up in their system what the expiry date of a seal would be for a particular serial number. So if somebody goes out in their backyard and looks at the serial number and wants to phone B.C. Hydro, it's possible for them to actually look it up and tell the homeowner when the seal expires.

An important point for these folks: no one from B.C. Hydro or from government is coming to their house to force them to have a smart meter if they currently have an old meter. They've made the choice, and they're paying the extra fee. The letter they got just indicated that their seal is expired. We've gone over why so many letters went out at one time: because of the pass, essentially, that Measurement Canada gave to B.C. Hydro for four years.

There are, I'm advised, enough old meters in inventory right now to supply these folks with old meters. They'll get another old meter, and it'll have a serial number on it, and they can find out what the expiry date is. That's the gist of it.

I'm not going to…. I'd have to speculate on the other questions, and I'd rather get Hydro to provide written answers.

M. Farnworth: I have just the one final question and comment. I appreciate the minister's response, and what I take from what he said is that there are enough analog meters to meet these 9,500 people, if I heard him correctly.

Then the final question would be…. One of the individuals who writes, I guess, has been in touch with Measurement Canada. I just want to clarify that when Measurement Canada tags have expired and they must be replaced…. In fact, the understanding of this individual was that, according to Measurement Canada, they merely need to be inspected, recertified and only replaced if they aren't functioning or can't be reset.

If the minister can clarify that, I would appreciate that, and that will be all the questions I have at this particular time because I know there are lots of other people who are waiting to ask.

Hon. B. Bennett: I want to make something clear. None of this stuff is ever simple. The important word when we're describing the meter that's going to come from the warehouse to the person's home who has a meter with an expired seal is "old" or "used" meter. Some of
[ Page 4000 ]
them are analog. Some of them are digital, but the digital ones are old digital. They're not smart meters. They'll be an old meter, like the kind of meter that they want, and that's what will be installed in place of the meter whose seal is expired.

I'm going to provide answers in writing to the other part of those questions. It's a bit more complicated, as I understand it, to answer the question about going out to a person's house and determining whether the meter is credible enough to leave it on the side of the house. It's a bit more complicated, so we'll get that in writing to the member.

[1725]

J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from Port Coquitlam for carrying the ball on those difficult issues.

I want to move now, Minister, to a discussion of the California settlement, the $750 million settlement that the minister announced last August. My concern on that…. I'll be fairly candid. I believe that British Columbia did nothing wrong. I believe that Powerex did nothing wrong. I believe B.C. Hydro provided electricity to California in its hour of need.

That was the position of the previous government. That was the position of successive Ministers of Energy. In fact, I think it might have even been the position of the current Minister of Energy in his first visit to the ministry back in 2010.

I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for me why it was that after one adverse ruling out of 20…. It was an administrative judge that had not been approved by FERC. It had not been finalized. It was a preliminary ruling, and FERC was the final body to decide on this issue. It hadn't gone there, and we decided to fold up our tent and head for the hills, leaving our ratepayers on the hook for $750 million.

Can the minister explain what the change of heart was and why he decided to do that? And while we have able staff thumbing through the binders, can he explain to me where that $750 million is coming from? Is it coming out of Powerex? Is it coming out of the rate base? Who is going to pay for it in the end?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the source of the longstanding dispute — or disputes because there were multiple parties in California; they were referred to as the California parties, as the member knows — started a long time ago. It started even before the B.C. Liberals were elected to government. That's not particularly relevant.

Powerex was making a lot of money at the time, and they were accused of gaming the market. As the member has noted here today, and as I think I've heard him mention on other occasions, Powerex was found to be clean on that accusation, at least in part in some lower court or tribunal hearings over the years. That could cause a person to think: "Hey, we're going to win this. Let's just stick it out."

However, the legal advice to Powerex, B.C. Hydro and the government, was that, in fact, we were exposed to about a $3½ billion liability. Given the unreliability of the U.S. court system, particularly as it relates to foreign parties, it was the advice of, I think, a very credible legal team that if the government could settle for the right price, the government should settle for the right price — again, to get out from under this $3½ billion liability. So in a nutshell, that's why we decided to settle.

In terms of how the settlement is paid, just in simple terms, there was a payment from Powerex to the California parties of $273 million. There was a credit for moneys owed by the California parties to Powerex. It was valued at $477 million.

[1730]

There's more to this in terms of interest and in terms of payments that had already been levied against Powerex previously. But those are the real numbers. Those are the total numbers. It ended up…. At the time that we announced this in August, it looked like there would be a net loss to Powerex as a result of this settlement of $101 million Canadian. However, that was August. This is May. We now know that as a result of Powerex exceeding its revenue estimates for that fiscal year, the net cost was not $101 million but $58 million.

J. Horgan: The fact remains that the $273 million was transferred from Powerex to entities in the United States, and the $477 million that those entities, various entities, owed the people of British Columbia was forgiven. Then the total came out at about $750 million, so the quantum remains the same.

I think that the number that you're providing here, the $58 million, is a result of improved power sales. It's not a result of good negotiations. It's just a question of…. The hit to Powerex is less because they made more money in the fiscal year. Isn't that what you're saying? It seems to me that if we settled at $273 million, we owe them $273 million. Is that not correct?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: The $273 million that I referenced is Powerex cash that was accumulated over a period of time. Actually, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had some years ago, several years ago now, decided that some parties had overpaid for electricity back in the day and there should be some repayment. There was actually an order against Powerex, and they began to accumulate cash for that. There and other accumulated cash is where the $273 million came from.

The member is correct that it's a good thing for ratepayers that Powerex did well in the year of the settlement. Instead of paying $101 million — or potentially even more, if they didn't achieve their estimated revenue —
[ Page 4001 ]
what happened, of course, is that they not only achieved their revenue target, they exceeded it, which meant that the $58 million was what was left to pay.

[1735]

All of this…. When the ministry — when I — essentially signed off on the settlement, we did this on the basis of a $101 million revenue target being achieved. It was possible that it might be exceeded, and as it turned out, it was.

It was based on the knowledge that there was a very large credit owing to Powerex. I don't have the number right in front of me — but $477 million in U.S. funds. So when you talk about a $700 million and change number…. Yes, that's true. That's what the big number was. But when you deduct what was owing to Powerex and you look at the fact that they have been gathering cash together in anticipation of a settlement, and when you also factor in the costs of continuing to fight over this, it was somewhere in the order of — I will look for a nod — $50 million a year, I think, in legal fees.

In my view — I don't pretend to understand the law in the way that our legal team does — it seemed like a rational, prudent decision to get out from under that $3½ billion liability.

The door was open. It wasn't going to be open that much longer. The California parties had their own reasons for having the door open. I wouldn't profess to know exactly what they were. But to get out from under that liability and to do it in a way that, yes, absolutely, there's a cost to ratepayers, but a reasonable cost — modest I would even describe it — compared to what the risk was for the ratepayers at a level of $3½ billion.

J. Horgan: Well, I personally…. Of course, the minister has the current information. I don't. But I just reject the notion that that was the liability. I appreciate that's the information you're being given, and I'm sure that it was honestly arrived at. I just don't believe that the consequence would be what you're being advised.

Having said that, the notion that we admitted guilt but, in the legalese of the settlement, denied any responsibility for guilt or gaming the market…. As you said, there were allegations made. They were proven in a lower court, an administrative tribunal. One out of 20 shots by the parties in California — they hit the post once. They didn't score; they hit the post. And we settled.

Now that's fine. That's the right of the minister and the government to do that. I'm not begrudging that. It just seems odd, after over a decade of standing firm. Not just for the dollars that were owed to us or the dollars that we would have potentially been liable to…. And if it's $3 billion, that's fine.

What are the consequences to trade in the future? I appreciate that the minister is going to say back to me: "We did not acknowledge guilt. The CEO of Powerex was very clear in the press statement. We didn't do anything wrong."

But in the real world that we all live in, when you say you didn't do anything wrong and then you pay a party that owes you money, the end result is that your trading partners are saying: "Well, that looks pretty simple. Let's see what we can do next time we go at the province of British Columbia and B.C. Hydro."

So in a trade dispute, which ultimately is what this was — a dispute amongst parties that trade electrons back and forth — we now have, in my opinion, admitted that we did something wrong, and I am absolutely convinced that we did not. How does the minister add that into the equation?

Let's assume that he's correct, that the liability was in the billions, and let's assume that we made out well last year in the marketplace, so the cost to the ratepayers is lower. But what's the impact on our relationship with the United States as a trading partner?

[1740]

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct. I am going to say there were no admissions as part of the settlement. That's, I think, standard in these situations. There is no admission by Powerex in this matter that anyone could point to that would suggest Powerex accepted some responsibility for wrongdoing. They didn't. In fact, they were very clear that they didn't.

At the time that we had to make the decision on this, and I had to make a recommendation to my colleagues, I was concerned and interested in all of these issues that the member is raising — in particular, the issue about the future trading relationship. It was something that I did ask about.

While I don't have all of the examples, what I can say to the member is that my advice at the time, and I was just reminded of this advice…. Back in the day when Enron was running around doing what they did, the rules for trading — purchasing and selling — electricity were pretty lax. The rules have subsequently tightened up a lot. I'm advised — both by B.C. Hydro senior staff and also by the lawyer that I spent some time with who represents B.C. Hydro — that it is highly, highly unlikely that this kind of a situation would ever emerge again.

I'm also advised — I was advised today, and I know I was advised by the CEO of Powerex and by the lawyer who spends a lot of time in the U.S. — that Powerex is considered to be a trusted and valued partner or collaborator in that market. The relationship, I am advised, is actually better following this settlement, not worse.

I would suggest that the softwood scenario with the U.S. is a good case study to be aware of in terms of the decision. You know, do you duke it out with the U.S. in the U.S. court system, or do you find ways to make deals with them? Frankly, our experience on the softwood side is that you can spend billions and billions on lawyers and lobbyists. They sue you in one court, they don't get the
[ Page 4002 ]
answer they want, and they sue you in a different court. They just keep finding different venues and different causes of action, and on and on it goes.

And on and on it went, for ten or 11 — or 12 years, in this case — with Powerex spending $50 million a year on legal fees that could otherwise have been flowing through to the benefit of the people of B.C.

I actually believe that we've removed an impediment to trade with the U.S. There was a lot of sour feeling, and it was getting worse. You spend that many years in court and it doesn't engender a healthy relationship between trading partners. The relationship has actually improved considerably. I really do stand behind the decision that was made on this file.

J. Horgan: It will come as no surprise, Minister, that we'll just have to disagree on that. I firmly believe that we did nothing wrong. I agree with you. I read carefully Ms. Conway's statement at the time of settlement, and I acknowledge that no admission of guilt was forthcoming from anyone in British Columbia.

[1745]

In the real world that we all live in, when you take money out of your pocket and give it to someone who said "You owe me money," that's an admission that you owed them money. And the reverse was true. We provided electricity. We provided a hard, solid commodity. The Enron comparison is profoundly unfortunate in the timing of all of this. I know full well that you've heard these stories before. I'm just talking for the sake of hearing my voice, I think, to a certain extent. But I firmly believe that we made a mistake here, and it will have repercussions down the road, and we'll disagree on that.

Let's move on to deferral accounts, one of my favourite subjects. We had a good round on this last summer, the minister and I. I know we're going to, hopefully, cover similar ground again.

If I read the documents correctly, the deferral accounts are going up, not just this year but next year and the year after that and the year after that. They're going up in number as well. I'm wondering if the minister could advise the committee what the current and total number of deferral accounts is and what the total number of billions deferred to future generations is at, at this point in time.

Hon. B. Bennett: To answer the member's question, in the ten-year plan that we announced in 2013 we're, I hope, clear that these regulatory accounts for the most part are being paid off. All but two are being paid off within rates today.

In terms of the total number of accounts as of the end of 2013, December 31, there were 27 regulatory accounts. The net balance as of December 31, 2013, was $4.9 billion. The forecast to 2020 is that they will increase to just over $5 billion as of 2020 and will decline thereafter.

I think the important thing is that there's a plan in place, and payments are being made to pay down these regulatory accounts as we speak — all but two. One of them is a Site C account. Another is a different kind of account. If the member asks me to describe it, we'll be here forever. It's one of those kinds of accounts. All but two of those accounts, I think, are being paid down as of this year.

The Auditor General came to see me a while back and informed me that he was going to be doing some work with B.C. Hydro again on their regulatory accounts. The Auditor has come and gone, so to speak. The Auditor General indicated that his office was satisfied that B.C. Hydro has a recovery plan in place for its regulatory account balances. So he checked it off.

J. Horgan: I very much appreciate the minister's warning on the second account. I think we didn't get that warning last summer, and we spent way too much time on it. I think the number is sufficient for the public to pause and reflect on what the consequence is going to be to rates going forward.

[1750]

You did say, Minister, that the accounts are being paid from the rate base. That, of course, includes…. Or is that exclusively the 5 percent rate rider that is on bills today?

Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer is no, the total amount in the regulatory accounts, other than those two accounts I mentioned that are not currently being paid back or paid down, comes from rates, but from a broader perspective than just the rate rider.

J. Horgan: Could the minister describe what the 5 percent rate rider is paying down today?

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't know if this is going to be what the member is looking for. The 5 percent rate rider was put on to cover off three separate energy deferral accounts which are being paid down. I'll maybe leave it there and see if he wants the names of these accounts or what's in these accounts. I know that one of them….

Let me get the straight goods on the three energy accounts.

Two of these accounts are accounts that account for cost of power. One of them has to do with low and high water, and they both actually are focused on the cost of power.

[1755]

Hydro, as I understand it, estimates at the beginning of the year what the cost of their power is going to be. That involves estimating the water that they're going to have to flush over the dams to generate that electricity. It happens that sometimes the cost of power is more than what they thought it was going to be. I suppose that might be critical low-water years, and apparently, it happens now and again that the cost of power is less.
[ Page 4003 ]

In these two accounts, if it's less then was estimated, there is actually a credit to that account. If the cost of power is more for these two accounts, that excess amount gets added to these two accounts. The 5 percent rate rider is there to pay those accounts down.

The third account, because I said there were three, is a Powerex account that is there to…. It sounds like insurance, almost. It's there to deal with situations where Powerex generates either more net revenue than they predicted or less. It's kind of like the cost of power. So if it's more, there's a credit; if it's less, it's a debit.

That's what those three accounts are about, as near as the Energy Minister can describe.

J. Horgan: Part and parcel, that would be rate smoothing then. You want to make sure that you're keeping your rates stable. Your costs are going to be different on different years. Powerex will make more money one year and less money the next. High water means money for everybody; low water means challenges.

The reason I brought it up is that when I asked if the rate rider went to deferral accounts, you said "in part." So the rate rider is entirely for deferral accounts — three of the 27. Is that…?

Before we turn around on that, I want to pursue another series of questions.

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer is yes.

J. Horgan: Good. Another agreement. This is good news today.

I want to refer to the ten-year plan that the minister tabled in the fall, in November. The documents show a pretty significant amount of money transferred from B.C. Hydro to the province of British Columbia, whether it be water rentals, grants in lieu or dividend.

We had a discussion during the summer last year as part of the budget debate. At the time the government said that they were going to reduce the dividend, and I appreciate it is a complicated formula. We're getting some binders pulled apart even now as I speak.

I don't want to get into the dividend formula per se. I want to just look at the average amount, which is, according to your documents, $200 million higher in 2016 than it is in 2015. I do have the documents here, but I don't have as many helpers to find the numbers for me. In 2014 the number was in the $260 million range as well. But in the document that you tabled in November, Minister, you've got an increase in cost of dividends, grants in lieu stay pretty well flat, and water rentals stay pretty well flat.

Other jurisdictions where we compare ourselves to…. I've often heard — we used to say it; you say it now — the third-lowest energy rates in North America. It's cold comfort when you see 28 percent or double-digit rate increases. Nonetheless, relative to other jurisdictions, I agree, and we can all rejoice in the fact that we have low energy costs.

Among those three — Hydro-Québec, Manitoba Hydro and B.C. Hydro — B.C. Hydro has the highest amount of money transferred from ratepayers to the Crown, whether it be through water rentals, which are higher here than they are in the other two jurisdictions, or dividends, which are higher here than the other two jurisdictions.

My question to the minister is…. As part of your concession to the increases that the public is going to have to embrace, you've said that the province is going to take less over time. But when I look at your own documents, that "less over time" is after the next election. Wouldn't it be a more open statement to say: "The current government is going to continue to take money at the same pace it always has, and if we're successful after the next election, we'll revisit it"? Isn't that a more accurate statement than the one that I've been hearing?

[1800]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to try to respond in a kind of non-partisan way. I think, in fact, that what we announced in the fall was clearly an honest attempt by government to get the house in order. I think everyone realizes there is a need to invest in infrastructure. There's a huge need in the province to do that.

We actually backed away, to some extent, from the capital requirements as part of a suite of many things that we did — including several internal cost-cutting exercises that we did with Hydro — to take pressure off the rates. But even with reducing some of the need to invest in capital, there's still $1.6 billion, I think, or $1.7 billion a year that needs to be invested over the next ten years. That puts pressure on rates.

If you're not investing capital at that rate, it's not that hard, actually, to keep rates down. There is this marvellous chart that B.C. Hydro gave me in the fall, which tracks capital investment and rates from the early 1970s until about 2013. There is an absolute, indisputable correlation between investment in capital and rates going up. There just is.

When my namesake was Premier, rates over — I'm going to guess — a three-year period went up over 100 percent because they were investing so much money in capital. We're in one of those periods of time where there has been a lot of capital need deferred over the years — a lot of it, frankly, in the 1990s.

I'm not in question period, so I'm not going to suggest that the NDP government did nothing, because that's not true. They did some. But they did very little compared to what we need to do now, and it was possible to really restrain rate growth. Today it isn't possible to do that.

We did everything that we could think of — I'll list them off if the member wants me to — in terms of getting Hydro's costs down. That included the loss of 900 positions at Hydro. It included almost $400 million over
[ Page 4004 ]
four years that they're not going to spend. It included, as I said a minute ago, less capital spend. We did that.

Frankly, as the new Energy Minister, I really believed at the time that we would not have the credibility that we think we had — I'm sure the opposition doesn't think we had it — when we announced that we were going to need to raise rates, unless we also got our oar in the water and did what we could do to help, as I say, get the house in order. That included taking less dividend. It included less net income. It included changing the debt-to-equity ratio from 70-30 to 60-40. It included eliminating the tier 3 water rentals — all the things that the member has referenced and I've heard him talk about, and legitimately.

These are costs to B.C. Hydro that, in some cases, you don't see in places like Manitoba and Quebec — at least to the same level. I acknowledge that there was work that needed to be done. Frankly, I think we did it.

If we hadn't done it on the timing, which is the focus of the member's question…. If we had not timed out our ten-year plan the way we did…. I know 2018 is after the next provincial election, but if you want to stop receiving the tier 3 water rentals, if you want to take less dividend, if you want to change the net revenue formula sooner than that, then the only option you've got is to raise rates.

We've got 9 percent, 6 percent — I think 4, 3½ and 3. We would be looking at something like what we were looking at last spring, with that leaked document. Instead of 15 percent over two years you'd be looking at 26 or 27 percent, if not more. So we had to time it in such a way as to avoid what the member and I have heard as the term "rate shock."

[1805]

You know, 9 percent — hopefully, we can get through that on the industrial side, and low-income earners, and find ways to help those two ends of the spectrum. But if you get much higher than that, then I think you have a really serious problem.

We timed it out so that we got to the point in 2018 where we could stop taking the tier 3 water rentals and we could do something about the dividend and about the debt-to-equity ratio and all the other things that the member knows we need to address. That was a rational, reasonable approach to the problem.

J. Horgan: I genuinely appreciate the Minister's initial comment, when he said that this isn't question period. Why I enjoy this process and why I lament the fact that we only do it infrequently and we do it for a short period of time is that there's a mountain of information. I know, as a former public servant, that normally when the minister's estimates are underway, there is a bank of staffers here that have worked for months and months creating binders of information, paid for by the public and in the public interest, that we don't get access to as legislators.

That's why I commend the minister for not showboating when he could very well take that opportunity. I've had other ministers who take that opportunity, and normally I'm inclined to do that as well. I may well do that just for a moment here because I believe it's appropriate. But having said that, I would much prefer the discussion to carry on as it has.

But I do have to say that you've been living in the House for the past 12 years. Getting it in order is kind of your responsibility. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility. You've had the run of the place and been able to do whatever you want.

The consequences are 28 percent rate increases over five years. And when the government says that they're going to take less, it would be more comforting to the hard-pressed taxpayer if there was some evidence that that was the case. But the debt-to-equity ratio is remaining at 80-20 until after the next election. Dividends are going to be increasing until after the next election. Regulatory accounts are going to be going up until after the next election. Water rentals are flat. Grants-in-lieu are flat. There's a continued take, take, take from a beleaguered corporation that, as you say, needed its house put in order.

I appreciate that the minister had some difficult choices to make, and some days I'm grateful that it's his problem and not mine. But the challenges are, nonetheless, of the government's making.

I do also appreciate not making a federal case out of when you invest in capital, because as everyone knows who lives in a home or owns a home, if you put a roof on in 1990, you don't put another roof on in 1995. You wait until the life of that asset is expired, and then you renew it.

That's the ebb and flow and the cycles of capital investments, whether it be at B.C. Hydro, whether it be on transportation infrastructure, B.C. Ferries. Whatever it might be, you buy when you need to buy, and you don't buy when the asset is still usable.

I appreciate the minister not following the question period script, because it wasn't the case, and there were investments in the 1990s. Were they sufficient? Of course they weren't. Are they sufficient today? No, they're not. But we have to do what we have to do.

I'd like to go to some of the other information that was in the leaked document that the minister referred to. In the revenue requirement component, which is the essence of the challenge that the staff have and the minister has in dealing with the Ministry of Finance, there is a chart that's on page 7 of that document. If it's still current…. I know it's certainly current to me, because I'm not updating it like you guys are. So it's current to me.

I made the case last year, and I'll make it again, that the largest percentage increase in costs to the corporation is private power purchases. I'm wondering if the minister…. Again, I know that there are capital costs coming, and as they come on stream, as these projects we talked about earlier come on stream, those costs are going to be moved right on to the baseline of the books. We'll have to deal with it.
[ Page 4005 ]

But it seems to me that from fiscal 2007, which is about the time of the clean call, to fiscal 2016, the increase in the cost of private power goes up by a $1½ billion, which is 27 percent of the total increase in revenue requirements.

What steps…? I know the minister…. I'm hopeful that the minister will advise me that they've suspended some projects and that he's going to give me the reason why.

[1810]

Hon. B. Bennett: Sorry, to the member, to take so long. I know this is another place where the member and I disagree. Our perspectives are different on this. To me, as a former business person running a couple of small businesses, if you've got old assets that are still working well and they're generating revenue for you, they're going to be generating revenue at less cost than if you build a brand-new asset.

I think to a very large extent — and I've actually heard the CEO of B.C. Hydro say this out loud — if Hydro had gone out and acquired the 20 percent of their electricity that now comes from renewables, independent power projects, and done it on their own, built the facilities, whatever they chose to do, whatever technology they chose to adopt, they would have been new. It would have been today's costs. It wouldn't have been the same costs as when W.A.C. Bennett built all that stuff back in the '60s.

It would have been new. It would have been more expensive power. It doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to criticize independent power projects because electricity that comes from them is more expensive than electricity that comes from the Bennett dam or from the dams that were built in the 1960s on the Columbia River. I think that's a fundamental difference of view.

I do think that the member should consider that that 20 percent of today's electricity that is generated for the people of British Columbia from independent power projects…. If it didn't come from them, it would have to come from somewhere else. Hydro would have had to have gone out and generated that electricity from other sources. Where would they do that? They'd have to build something. It would be new. It would be costly. The electricity would be more expensive.

The final thing that I think is…. I don't know if the member is aware of this. I think it changes the discussion to some extent. We actually ended up last year not having a surplus. We actually ended up having to buy some electricity — 1,000 gigawatts of electricity last year, a difference between a low-water year and the year before.

I remember debating this with the member, I think, in the spring. The member was basing, I think, his perspective on the year before, but there you go. One year later all of a sudden you don't have that surplus anymore. The 20 percent that B.C. Hydro acquires from IPPs is electricity that comes from clean, green generation. It is no more expensive than it would be if B.C. Hydro had to go out and build something from scratch.

[1815]

J. Horgan: Well, just on the high-water years, low-water years, that is the essence of the system, and that's the elegance of it. That's why everyone in North America would love to have our problems. On balance, as everyone behind you knows, we win 19 times out of 20. As pollsters will tell you, sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. But with electricity, you can tell. If you've got an ability to hold water, you're going to be good as gold. That's our advantage. My concern is that we're eroding that advantage when we buy power on the margins that is of less value to us than if we had invested that capital in other projects that would be more complementary to that — for example, wind.

I've become a proponent of wind because it so elegantly complements our system. If the water is low, let the wind blow. If the wind's not blowing, let the water flow. That's something that I think most people can get their heads around. When we look at buying new sources of supply…. I know that when the government put their plan together to have the clean calls, they were looking to have the market sharpen their pencils and come up with the best options so that the corporation would remain whole. It seems to me, if we didn't have a surplus last year, then we will certainly have surpluses in the years going forward if we anticipate average or high-water years.

The challenge with Site C, which I'd like to move to now, because we're running out of time…. If I understand the joint review panel's assessment, if we build the project before its time, according to the report, the corporation could lose $800 million in the first four years of operation. Now, it suggests to me that they came to that conclusion based on the information that I discussed with you last year, the information that Hydro provided to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on our long-term load expectations that we were going to be in surplus for the next decade.

Is the minister saying by the last comment that we're no longer going to be in surplus for the next decade, or is it just a matter of high water, low water?

Hon. B. Bennett: Really quickly…. The member commented on this, so I want to just say that the reason that this government encouraged the private sector, essentially, to invest in independent power projects was because in our view, it made more sense to have the private sector taking the risk on new technology than to have the ratepayer do it.

Personally, I've not agreed with everything that the province has done on energy policy in the 13 years I've been here. I can tell you as Energy Minister if B.C. Hydro wants to investigate some new technology, whether it's geothermal or wind or solar or tidal or whatever it is, that's up to them. That's a corporate decision. But they
[ Page 4006 ]
better not try to put it on the backs of the ratepayer. I do feel strongly about that.

[1820]

The risk for all of these projects has been on the private sector. The member mentioned something about capital that was used for those could have been used for something else. It wasn't B.C. Hydro's capital. It was private capital. It wasn't available to B.C. Hydro.

In terms of Site C, the way that the chair has characterized the first four years after Site C would be built, if it gets approved, I think is unfortunate. If we need the electricity, the electricity is going to have to come from somewhere. He seemed to be assuming, in his comparison: "Well, why not just buy it on the spot market instead of building your own generation?"

I mean, to the member's point from before, a minute ago, about what has built this province, our economy, and how lucky we are we have what we have: this hydroelectric system…. We didn't get to where we are and we didn't achieve this amazing, relatively low-priced electricity and this reliability that we have in our system by just taking a chance on the spot market.

We've gone out, with vision, and we've constructed these huge hydroelectric projects. Yes, they're expensive upfront. Yes, for the first four years, potentially, there's going to be pressure on rates, although you can smooth that.

But as the joint panel said in the report and in more than one place, over time — over the 100-year life and even in the first ten years after the project would be built — that electricity will become the cheapest electricity available to British Columbians at that time. It is not a question, I think, of: when do you need this new generation? In fact, I believe it's not "if you need this particular project"; it's "when do you need it?"

The panel report, unfortunately, is a little bit ambiguous. It says at one point that we don't need it until 2028. That would be true if there was no LNG load. If there is even the smallest sort of load imaginable for LNG, we'll need it in 2024.

There was an announcement yesterday by Woodfibre: they're going to use e-drive. Everybody is happy about that. The Chair is particularly happy about that. That's a good thing. They're going to use e-drive. They've got a small pipe, not as much gas, and they're not going to use their gas to drive their compressors. That gas — they're going to sell it. And they're going to use electricity off the grid.

Just the electricity required for Woodfibre far exceeds the lowest case for LNG in terms of what electricity they would need ten years from now. So what I'm saying is: just with Woodfibre, when that gets built, we're already looking at needing that new electricity, that 1,100 megawatts of electricity, by 2024 not 2028. In fact, it looks like we'll need it before that.

If we get some of these major LNG plants going, like we think we're going to, plus there's the plant that's already under construction that Fortis has in the Lower Mainland for transportation fuels, LNG…. They're going to need a lot of electricity. I would suggest to the member that there is a really strong case that we're going to need this kind of project, the kind of project the member has acknowledged is really what has helped build the province. We're going to need it, and we're going to need it at least by 2024, if not before.

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Premier said that Site C was "critical to LNG developments." The same day, the Deputy Premier, the minister responsible for LNG said: "The cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment." We have the Premier saying we can't proceed without Site C, and we have the minister responsible, who's doing the negotiations, saying….

I know from my discussions with the various proponents that they're going to be burning gas — the larger plants on the north coast. They don't want power from B.C. Hydro. They're going to be inside the fence. They're going to be burning gas. The notion that renewables are going to drive the industry is just not probable.

My question to you is…. There've been multiple rationales for Site C: domestic demands, LNG demands — everything but the kitchen sink. My concern is that everybody is saying they're going to take a piece of this. "We're going to export it to the U.S. when prices are high. We're going to make out like bandits." But the joint review panel, the only independent source we have beyond the good people that advise you, says that we're going to lose 800 million bucks, based on current forecasts, if we build the thing before its time.

[1825]

That's a concern for me when you have a Minister of Energy saying one thing, a Premier saying another and the minister responsible for LNG saying a third thing — all for the same asset, and the only independent source we have says 800 million bucks. That's a big chunk, and that's going to hit ratepayers pretty hard.

Hon. B. Bennett: The integrated resource plan that Hydro completed and released — I think in the fall, right around the time of our ten-year plan announcement — shows that there's going to be a growth in demand of 40 percent over the next 20 years.

They're going to find, apparently, 78 percent of that, I think, through conservation. That sounds like a lot. That puts them up there with some of the best in North America but not at the top of the list, actually. There are others jurisdictions that pay more for their electricity where I guess it's easier to conserve.

My point is that they have done a 20-year plan. They've certainly got the horsepower there to do as credible a job at forecasting electricity needs and population growth
[ Page 4007 ]
as anybody. I mean, it's a large corporation with the assets and resources to do this, and they're projecting…. They're using other people's projections, I'm sure, on population growth — the 1.1 million more people.

New mines. We have 30 mining projects in the environmental assessment pipeline today. We had one when I was minister in 2005. You know, they take a lot of electricity. It's not just LNG. When Hydro submitted their environmental impact statement originally, it actually didn't include LNG. They were trying to be conservative. When you add, as I say, even the smallest load in, you find…. And the panel agrees with this, by the way. They say this in the panel report. If you've got the lowest-modelled load for LNG, you need the electricity in 2024. They actually acknowledge that.

My view is that we're going to need the electricity before that. The member is correct that the big LNG operators are indicating they're going to use natural gas to drive their compressors to cool their gas up. A lot of them are going to need 150, 175 megawatts of electricity for ancillary needs. That's a lot of electricity, and they're going to get it off the grid.

I think there is a demonstrated need for the electricity by 2024 at the latest. Frankly, if both levels of government provide an environmental certificate to the project and the cabinet for the government of British Columbia decided that they were going to make a final investment decision that was going to be yes and B.C. Hydro proceeded on the schedule that they have set out and got started construction early in 2015, they would have that project ready, maybe, hopefully, in time for when we need the electricity.

As for the panel chair's characterization of an $800 million loss the first four years, we don't accept that. We're going to need that electricity, and unless we want to just not build new generation…. Forget Site C. Let's use some other combination. Let's use the combination of renewables and gas or all gas, if you want. But we're going to need some new generation.

Unless we just want to take a chance on the spot market, our choice is to figure out what's the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts by 2024. Despite anything the panel says, they did say that we're going to need it, and when we need it, Site C is the best place to get it.

J. Horgan: What does the minister propose to do about the section 35 challenges with respect to First Nations? I read with interest the CEO's column today in the local press. There was no reference whatsoever to what was declared immitigable, not able to mitigate — something to that effect. You can't get around it. It's right there in black and white in the law of the land, the supreme being, the Constitution of Canada. First Nations have rights. How are you going to address those?

[1830]

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly the issue of whether First Nations support this project or not — and currently I think it's fair to characterize it as they don't — is a major problem for government and for B.C. Hydro. Having said that, B.C. Hydro has spent enormous resources and time engaging with all of the Treaty 8 First Nations. The province has engaged and is currently engaging those First Nations. There'll be discussions about impact-benefit agreements. There are a lot of discussions happening with Treaty 8 First Nations because of all the activity up there.

Call me crazy, maybe. I'm a glass-half-full kind of person. I really believe that we can get to a place where First Nations in the treaty 8 area will, on their own, come to the view that they can live with this project and that their people find ways to secure significant benefit as a result of the project going forward.

We're not there. I can't guarantee we're going to get there, but we're going to shoot for that goal and work really hard over the next year to get there.

J. Horgan: What tools does the minister have at his disposal to address those concerns? Has he got any ideas at all that he wants to share with the committee? It's a showstopper, as they say, and a significant one.

I certainly would expect that the government is working on contingency plans. I know there's a whole host of people within the Crown that would be looking at this, within B.C. Hydro. But what does the government proper have to do with this? Does the minister have any insights he could share with us on what discussions he's had with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations? Is there any plan, on his part, to go and speak to Treaty 8 First Nations about their concerns and try to address them?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Minister of Aboriginal Relations is engaged. His staff is engaged with Treaty 8 First Nations. I know him well. He happens to be my roommate here in Victoria. He spends a lot of time travelling and spending time with First Nations. He's done that with the Treaty 8 First Nations. He'll do some more of that.

My deputy minister, God love him — he's busy in another committee meeting right now — phoned each of the chiefs of the Treaty 8 First Nations when the joint panel report came out, just as, more or less, a gesture of respect. I know some of the chiefs reasonably well. I know Roland Willson. I've spent time with Roland and quite enjoy his company.

This isn't going to be easy. I don't want to minimize how difficult this is going to be. There are a lot of irons in the fire. I don't think it's appropriate for me to pick two or three things that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations is up to in terms of, you know, agreements with First Nations, impact-benefit agreements. There are lots of issues to discuss up there. There's revenue-sharing around mining. There are issues around environmental protection of areas that are important to First Nations.
[ Page 4008 ]

I said I wasn't going to pick any particular issues, and I already have. I've named a couple. But I think it's quite fertile there in terms of the things that we can do with First Nations in treaty 8 that will make a difference.

J. Horgan: The joint review panel, in a number of its recommendations, urged the government to take advantage of what they believe is additional time and to have a third party — not B.C. Hydro, not the government of British Columbia but a third-party like, say, the B.C. Utilities Commission — review some of the assumptions, review some of the options available to government.

[1835]

I'm wondering. As the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, I know that the Utilities Commission seems to be in your sights. I'm curious. Why wouldn't you want to defend your assumptions? Why wouldn't you want to take the case to a third party and win the day?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I mean, the joint panel mentioned the BCUC in three different contexts that I can think of and maybe some more. They suggested that a load forecast perhaps should go to the BCUC. I think the weakness with that suggestion is that all of this actually went to the BCUC through the panel process, and the BCUC actually confirmed that what B.C. Hydro was doing is what they would ordinarily do when they apply for a certificate of public convenience.

The BCUC has also on more than one occasion confirmed that the methodology used by B.C. Hydro to estimate load is reliable. It's up to the standards of other utilities in North America. I would suggest there isn't a question about load.

In terms of the need for the project, that's another place, I suppose, where you could take something like this to the BCUC.

[1840]

The joint panel confirms — I mean, it's there in black and white — that B.C. is going to need that electricity. They say 2028, because they don't factor in any LNG load. When you factor in the load that was announced yesterday, you're looking at 2024 or before.

Again, I don't know why we would refer that question — the load calculation, estimate of future load, and the when part…. Why would you send that to the BCUC? In terms of the cost, I know they suggested that might be a nice idea as well.

The project has been studied for a long time, for almost four decades. B.C. Hydro has brought people — I've actually met with some of them, engineers and other people — from all over the world, some of whom are currently building almost identical projects elsewhere in the world — to make sure that their cost estimates are accurate.

B.C. Hydro went out and hired KPMG. I don't know how much they paid. But I expect they paid them a lot of money to do an independent….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Probably not that much, but they paid them a lot of money, I'm sure, to do an independent assessment of the cost estimates. Frankly, BCUC is being reviewed by an independent panel as we speak. If something like an $8 billion hydroelectric project that's taken B.C. Hydro four years to get their heads and their arms wrapped around, with all kinds of independent experts working….

We send this to a group of bureaucrats and lawyers in downtown Vancouver, and what are they going to do with it? Well, they're going to take at least two years, and ironically, they're going to go and hire KPMG or somebody like that to do exactly what B.C. Hydro has already had done.

I think government has to lead on decisions like this. I'm not saying that government will decide to build this project, but we are satisfied that there has been a very high level of due diligence on the part of B.C. Hydro in arriving at the cost estimates and in estimating what the future load requirements will be for the system.

Another place the joint panel recommended that perhaps the BCUC should have a voice in is in the DSM, demand-side management. Hydro has demonstrated that they are very good at demand-side management. They're as good as any utility in North America. They've proven it. They do it on a regular basis.

I know that the member disagrees with this, but it's our view that the BCUC at this point would add no value to this exercise.

J. Horgan: I'm sure the government appointees to the Utilities Commission are delighted to have the confidence of the minister with respect to the value they may add.

We're running out of time, and gee, we're just getting started. I have two questions I'll put in the form of one. The first one is…. You talked about the cost overruns on the northwest transmission line being largely a result of a tightening labour market. I'm wondering. In your due diligence with respect to Site C, have you contemplated what the consequence would be in what is already an overheated marketplace in northeastern British Columbia?

I was visiting a couple of years ago. I stopped to get a cup of coffee in Chetwynd, and I got offered a job selling pizza for 17 bucks an hour. So if this doesn't work out, I can always go to Chetwynd.

The point I'm making is that it is a tight labour market. We have skill shortages today. If we require the power to meet the ancillary services of an LNG industry that takes off in the northwest, we're going to be short of people. I'm wondering what the Hydro strategy is to meet the
[ Page 4009 ]
labour demand.

The second question I'd like to put, because we're not going to be able to get to the end of the day here, is: has the corporation contemplated revisiting its position on Burrard thermal and ensuring that we keep that baseload generator in the garage for those times when we may well need it?

That's a valuable asset right in the middle of the load centre, and it seems to me that that was a misguided policy. I know the minister has his own mind on many things, and I'm hopeful he'll have his own mind on that one and bring Burrard thermal back into the planning mix so that B.C. Hydro can make rational decisions and protect the ratepayer in the long term.

[1845]

Hon. B. Bennett: I do want to clarify what the member said. I actually did not explain away the cost overruns in the northwest transmission line.

J. Horgan: It was a variable.

Hon. B. Bennett: It was one of the variables, yes, but certainly not the total explanation. Clearly, availability of skilled labour is an issue for a big megaproject like this. This is one area of the project that I actually am extraordinarily impressed with, in terms of what B.C. Hydro has done. Not to embarrass her or anything, but Vice-President Yurkovich, on this element of this project, has done marvellous work.

They know, I think, what they're faced with. They have been working on this for years in terms of identifying the skilled tradespeople that will be needed for the project. They have a plan on where to get these people immediately.

I would remind the member, respectfully, that there are now 700 workers that used to mine coal for Walter Energy who are looking for work. As of July there are going to be another 250, from another coal mine, that are going to be available. Teck just announced a reduction worldwide that probably won't impact the northeast because they're not operating at Quintette.

The point is that I think this is another one of the components of this project that B.C. Hydro was well prepared for. There will be ups and downs. I would never suggest that it's going to be flawless or anything. They have met several times, I know, with our Minister of Jobs to discuss the issue. They have met with the unions. I think they're well placed — as well placed as any proponent can be — for a large megaproject on that particular topic.

J. Horgan: This being my last moment to ask a question of the Minister of Energy as the Energy critic — I don't expect I'm going to appoint myself to this position when I get the opportunity; I know there's profound disappointment on the other side — I want to thank the minister for an engaging few hours today. As always, you're forthcoming, and I greatly appreciate that.

To the staff who came along, I wish we could spend more time together. And to Charles Reid, thank you very much for your service to British Columbia. I hope that you have a very enjoyable whatever you're going to do next.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks for the day.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me say thank you very much to my ADM, Les MacLaren, who I rely on seven days a week for information and advice around electricity.

Thank you to Charles Reid for his service to the people of British Columbia. I appreciate the opposition leader's comments in that regard.

Thank you to everyone else from B.C. Hydro behind me who was here to support me here today.

I genuinely wish the Leader of the Opposition the best of luck in his new endeavours. I know he will give it 110 percent. There is nobody over there who's going to fill his shoes in terms of being the Energy critic, and I look forward to that too. [Laughter.]

Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,107,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 19 of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada