2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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, NOVEMBER 26, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

Hon. G.

Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Military leadership

V. Roddick

MLAs' response to environmental

activists

B. Bennett

Student spaces in post-secondary

institutions

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Benefits of B.C. Rail–CN Rail

agreement

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

Privatization and viability of B.C.

Rail

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Campbell

B.C. Rail pension fund

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

Occupational safety

W. Cobb

Hon. G.

Bruce

CN Rail operation of B.C. Rail

services and impact on jobs

P. Nettleton

Hon. G.

Campbell

Tabling Documents

Alternative

Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change, auditor

general report No. 4

Committee of the Whole House

Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill

96)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill

96)

Second Reading of Bills

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89)

Hon. J. Reid

P. Nettleton

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Motions on Notice

Amendment to sessional order (Motion

105)

Hon. G.

Plant

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

Reporting of Bills

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

Third Reading of Bills

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

Committee of the Whole House

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J.

Murray

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)

[ Page 8209 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Paul Keenleyside. Paul was

one of my key volunteers on my campaign. He has also volunteered in more than 40

municipal, provincial and federal campaigns. He is also a good friend. Would the

House please make him very welcome.

Sultan: We have as a guest this afternoon a well-known West Vancouver

entrepreneur, Peter Kains. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2003

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 90, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003. This bill amends provisions in the following

statutes: Assessment Act; Credit Union Incorporation Act; Election Act; Family

Maintenance Enforcement Act; Financial Institutions Act; Health Care (Consent)

and Care Facility (Admission) Act; Land Title Act; Land Title Amendment Act,

1999; Medicare Protection Act; Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992; Mortgage

Brokers Act; Personal Property Security Act; Real Estate Act; and Strata

Property Act.

I will

elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

In addition to these provisional amendments, this bill also provides for minor

housekeeping, transitional and consequential amendments to the changes in the

acts that I have already identified.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 90

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

MILITARY LEADERSHIP

Roddick: At ten this morning in Ottawa, a very special ceremony took place.

My constituency assistant, Elizabeth Merritt, along with her two brothers, Cecil

and Peter, and their respective families donated the Victoria Cross belonging to

their late father, Lt-Col. Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt, Q.C., to the

Canadian War Museum — the museum having the best means of promoting the

virtues of leadership in a free society.

Freedom

cannot be won nor maintained without leaders. Leadership is putting your country

before your party, before yourself. Effective leadership requires a clear vision

of the future and a willingness to engage the enemy. It must be inspirational

and persistent. It must be rewarded.

Mr. Merritt

won the Victoria Cross at Dieppe on August 19, 1942. Born in Vancouver, Cecil

Merritt — whose father died at the second battle of Ypres in 1915 and whose

mother, Sophie Tupper, was the granddaughter of Sir Charles Tupper, Father of

Confederation — also served as Conservative Member of Parliament for Vancouver

Centre immediately following the war. For those who are interested, his picture

is on the wall in the corridor directly behind me.

[1410]

It is hoped

that the Canadian War Museum will not shrink from the role of glorifying

leadership and preserving the values and the valour of those many great men and

women who served our country so that freedom could survive. There is an

inevitability to war as new generations do not always find a peaceful path to

progress. Canada must have people who are willing to fight for its future when

diplomacy fails. Freedom has to be protected, and Canada's freedom was and is

worth fighting for. Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt, VC, Q.C., was an

inspirational leader and a great Canadian.

MLAS' RESPONSE TO

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS

Bennett: Recently three of my colleagues took some inspired actions, for

which I'd like to thank them today. I speak of the three courageous MLAs who

recently took on the most righteous of all activists, the green activists.

The member

for Chilliwack-Kent gave an incisive lecture in downtown Vancouver recently to

some eco-activists about B.C. forestry workers and their families and the

altogether reasonable proposition of selling B.C. wood to China. Then, right

here in the capital city, the feisty members for North Coast and for North

Island waded into a sea of extreme environmentalists, proudly waving packages of

pure, natural farmed salmon and shocking those present so much that they were

uncharacteristically silenced. What do these actions signify? Was it just a

clever communications exercise, or is there a lesson we can draw from the

audacious pluckiness displayed by these members?

I suggest

that two important points were made by the gallant actions of our colleagues.

First, some attention has finally been drawn to the real-life impact of

environmental blockades and boycotts on the people of our province. We must not

stand by while the working people of British Columbia are sacrificed at the

altar of political correctness and eco-dogma.

[ Page 8210 ]

The second

lesson learned, I hope, is that despite the very good work of many conservation

groups in B.C., many claims by extreme environmental groups must be challenged

for their factual basis. Radical environmental groups needing to raise large

amounts of money from the general public — including from wealthy U.S. donors

— and needing to acquire the political capital of the general public, motivate

a trusting public with gloomy warnings of impending catastrophes.

Eco-champions

painted as heroes in the media have convinced much of the public with a litany

of doom and gloom that our natural environment is ever-depreciating and that

human interaction with nature is inherently bad. This cynical, anti-human

proclivity must be challenged with facts, statistics and science, and I thank

the three private members for standing up for working families in B.C.

STUDENT SPACES IN

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

Hayer: As a former member of the board of governors of Kwantlen University

College, I have a long and abiding interest in post-secondary education. That is

why I was very concerned when earlier this month Maclean's magazine's

annual survey of university rankings stated that B.C. has the lowest number of

university seats per capita. That is misleading. In fact, this year's ratings

were good news for B.C., with three of our biggest universities ranking on the

top in their categories nationwide.

Where

British Columbia really shines is what Maclean's fails to ignore. It is

that our post-secondary education system includes outstanding university

colleges, colleges and other institutions.

As a member

of the Select Standing Committee for Finance and Government Services that

travelled around the province this fall, I heard about increasing need for more

skilled trades people. I know that our Minister of Advanced Education is

committed to providing a top-notch post-secondary education system and will

continue to increase access and choices for British Columbia's students —

choices that include certificates, diplomas and apprenticeship, for example, not

just degrees.

Recently I

was speaking with Skip Triplett, the president of Kwantlen University College. I

was told that due to the changes implemented by this government, they are now

able to offer more than 10,000 additional seats at Kwantlen University College

alone. I firmly believe the opportunities for the post-secondary education

system in this province are excellent. As our economy expands and preparations

for the Olympics get underway, I know the future for our kids in my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead and across B.C. is more bright, as we continue to add even more

spaces and create more choices.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[1415]

Oral Questions

BENEFITS OF

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

MacPhail: The Liberals are blowing a small fortune to sell the B.C. Rail

deal to British Columbians, but all the spin in the world can't hide some basic

truths. Yesterday the Premier made a big deal about the fact that taxpayers

won't have to pay $30 million in interest payments on B.C. Rail's debt. But as

the Premier knows, B.C. taxpayers were never on the hook for that debt. It's

paid by B.C. Rail through its revenues, not by the taxpayers.

To the

Premier: is he so desperate to sell this bad deal to British Columbians that

he's willing to make claims for the deal that aren't true, or was it just an

innocent oversight?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite probably has not paid much attention to the

finances of the province in the last ten years. Certainly, she didn't when she

was on the government side of the House.

The fact of

the matter is that the dollars paid out for debt from B.C. Rail are dollars that

are not available to the province of British Columbia. The fact of the matter is

that this province has had to write off $860 million over the last 15 years. The

fact of the matter is that this provides us with a long-term economic future for

the north and the interior of this province that people have been looking for

— a long-term, sustainable rail system and private sector investment into the

rail system. In fact, this single partnership transaction will generate

literally billions of dollars of private sector investment in British Columbia's

economy.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: The Premier knows full well that the taxpayers weren't on the hook

for that debt servicing at all. Yet he refuses to come clean just now. Not only

did the Premier claim that taxpayers would save $30 million a year that they

never had to spend, but he also made a big deal about the fact that B.C. Rail

will now pay municipal taxes in Prince George and Squamish.

Let me

remind the Premier of a campaign promise he made in a speech to the Union of

B.C. Municipalities on October 26, 2000. Here's what he said: "Crown

corporations in a B.C. Liberal government will pay your community full property

taxes." There's the quote from the Premier. That was a commitment over

three years ago to every single municipality in the province. Just like the

promise to give municipalities revenue-sharing from traffic fines, that promise,

too, has been broken. It's not a spin machine grinding away in the back rooms;

it's an election-promise Cuisinart grinding it all up into nothing.

Does the

Premier believe that British Columbians should now thank him for a deal that

breaks a promise

[ Page 8211 ]

not to sell B.C. Rail because it results in money to municipalities that was

promised a long time ago? By the way, the promise was made that all Crown

corporations would pay property tax. It's a zero sum for the municipalities. Why

doesn't he just admit it?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm not quite sure what the member opposite is opposed to. Is she

opposed to the fact that the Peace River regional district will see their

property taxes go from $59,000 to $1.2 million? Is the member opposite opposed

to the fact that 100 Mile House will watch as the private sector puts five times

more, in terms of property tax, into their coffers? Is the member opposite

opposed to the fact that the district of North Vancouver will watch as the

private sector increases its contribution to property tax in North Vancouver by

half a million dollars?

The member

opposite may be opposed to the private sector contributing to local government.

We want the private sector contributing to local government. We said we would

have Crown corporations pay full property tax, and they will.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: So the Premier yesterday takes credit that some municipalities are

going to get a Crown corporation finally paying property taxes that he promised

to municipalities on behalf of all Crown corporations, and he has yet to

deliver. But that was presented as great news.

Again the

Premier takes great pains to sell the idea that B.C. Rail is a drain on the

public purse — again, not true. Year after year B.C. Rail pays dividends to

the public — money that's used to pay for health care and education. Far from

being a drain, B.C. Rail is a profitable asset that helps support our province,

particularly in health and education.

[1420]

Can the

Premier advise this House how much money B.C. Rail paid in dividends to

taxpayers over the 15-year period prior to this government taking power —

dividends that will now flow not to British Columbians but to the CN

shareholders? Just how much?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite should know that had the government not

written down $860 million of debt, indeed B.C. Rail would have had taxpayers

support it. That's what the auditor said. The member opposite should know that.

Further, the member opposite knows that the "dividends" that B.C. Rail

supposedly has paid over the last 15 years might amount to $130 million. There

has been $860 million in write-offs, and those write-offs are taxpayer-supported

write-offs. It's the government, the taxpayer, paying for that.

What we

have managed to do here is…. There is a billion dollars of private sector

investment that is coming up front for British Columbia. The member opposite may

be opposed to this. She may be opposed to a $135 million northern development

initiative. She may be opposed to the port of Prince Rupert finally reaching its

full potential. She may be opposed to Prince George becoming a continental

gateway. She may be opposed to tour passenger service making available and

creating hundreds of jobs in British Columbia. She's opposed to it, I'm for it,

and we're sticking with it.

PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY

OF B.C. RAIL

J. Kwan:

The Premier won't admit it, but B.C. Rail paid a total of $137.7 million in

dividends to the public. Now he's selling the whole company for 90 years for

what amounts to $500 million. That's about $5.5 million a year that CN is paying

for a company that made $64 million profit last year. Someone is getting ripped

off here, and it is not CN. Can the Premier explain how selling a profitable

company that paid $137 million in dividends over the last 15 years for $5.5

million a year is a good deal? If he can sell that, he should try selling the

Brooklyn Bridge to Cincinnati.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The members opposite didn't do math very well when they were in

government, and they do it even worse now that they're over on the other side of

the House. The members opposite think it makes sense for $130 million to

generate $860 million of taxpayer-written-off debt. The members opposite don't

seem to understand that $502 million of debt causes debt service costs, and

those are costs we don't have to meet.

A billion

dollars. We will be able to pay off $500 million in B.C. Rail debt. We will be

able to expand the transportation infrastructure in the province, and the

private sector will be investing in the rail right-of-way. The private sector

will be investing in new cars. The private sector will be investing in providing

better service. The private sector will be investing in the port of Prince

Rupert. The private sector will be investing in the city of Prince George. The

private sector will be investing in the interior and the north of this province.

That's how we're going to drive the economy forward.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

B.C. RAIL PENSION FUND

J. Kwan:

British Columbians know when they're being sold a bill of goods, and they know

they were not told the truth in the election. They can't be fooled by a spin

machine on overdrive. Right now there is a $150 million surplus sitting in the

B.C. Rail pension fund. Nowhere does the government say what's happening to that

surplus. The company couldn't answer that question today.

[1425]

To the

Premier again: as part of the deal to sell B.C. Rail for a song, who got the

surplus — CN or the Minister of Finance?

[ Page 8212 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: It's very important that the workers are being respected. We worked

very hard to make sure that their rights are being respected. If that pension

fund were wrapped up today, there would actually be a deficit in it. That

pension fund goes with the workers, and any benefit from that pension fund is

attached to the workers who are eligible for it in the future.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour, and it's more

to do with forestry. We've been developing a number of forest policies and

legislation changes in this last year, but one of the major issues in my area is

safety for the workers. We have a number of fatalities and injuries both in the

logging industry and in the trucking industry. Can the minister tell me what's

being done to ensure the safety of these workers?

Hon. G.

Bruce: There have been a number of changes that we've been working through

with the workers compensation system, and of course, as the member opposite

would know, we just brought in a new board ten months ago. That board has been

very concerned that workers compensation, as a system, is focused on safety in

the workplace.

In respect

to the forestry sector, it still has, next to the construction industry, the

highest fatality and serious injury rate that we have in the province. In fact,

over the last 15 years in work that's been done, that fatality rate has not come

down.

The

chairman of the board has put together a specialized task force with a number of

players from the industry, both the union side and company, to focus in on those

particular industries that have a good safety record and see what we can take

from that and apply it through the sector so that we can try and get to a

situation where we're actually reducing fatalities and serious injuries in the

forest industry.

CN RAIL OPERATION OF B.C. RAIL

SERVICES AND IMPACT ON JOBS

Nettleton: I have some serious issues to raise with respect to potential job

loss at B.C. Rail. The figures that are being bandied about really are all over

the landscape. According to a leading B.C. columnist, the latest and perhaps

most accurate figures seem to be a possible 35 percent reduction in the

workforce.

This is

scary stuff for B.C. workers to anticipate — that is, B.C. Rail workers. But

having read up on the track record of CN's CEO, Hunter Harrison, a southern

cracker and American entrepreneur if there ever was one, it would not be beyond

the realm of possibility. Harrison's success is measured by how much he can

reduce the operating ratio — having, for example, reduced Illinois Central

operation from 90 percent to 62.5 percent in less than seven years.

question, then, is to the Premier: can the Premier set the record straight for

us on the job figures, as well as give us his take on Mr. Harrison's plans in

this regard? And, oh, can the Premier also tell us how much face-to-face

interaction he's had with Mr. Harrison, please?

Hon. G.

Campbell: To the member opposite: the first time I met Mr. Harrison was

yesterday at roughly ten to 11, before we went to make the announcement. So he's

seen me with Mr. Harrison as much as I've been with Mr. Harrison.

Let me say

this to the member opposite. We are concerned about the job impacts here as

well, and I think it's important to note this. There are approximately 420 jobs

that may be affected in the B.C. Rail network. There are 250 of those jobs that

would be voluntary retirements, early retirements, etc. There are an estimated

180 involuntary job losses that would take place as a result of the partnership

agreement that's been entered into.

I think

it's important to note that the agreement that's been entered into will create

an additional minimum 250 jobs as a result of the tour trains and passenger

trains that are available. The announcement we made yesterday will result in an

additional 75 new jobs at the airport at Prince George, as well as 300 indirect

jobs. There are an estimated 500 new jobs that are anticipated in the port of

Prince Rupert in the northwest of this province.

[1430]

More

important than all of that, Mr. Harrison — and we had no reason not to take

him at his word — said he wants CN to expand its services in the north. They

announced yesterday that there will be three to four years of additional

contracts between a coal supplier in Asia as a result of the reduced times it

takes to get from the Asian markets to North America and vice versa. I can tell

the member opposite this. The billion dollars of investment that is coming up

front, the millions and millions or billions of dollars over the term of this,

will mean more jobs for the interior, more jobs for the north and a long-term

sustainable economy for the northern part of our province.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's

report No. 4, Alternative Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change ,

to the Legislature.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 96.

Committee of the Whole House

TIMBER LICENCES SETTLEMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 96; H. Long in the chair.

[ Page 8213 ]

The

committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections

1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:33 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 96,

Timber Licences Settlement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: It gives me great pleasure to call second reading of Bill 89.

Second Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

(REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. J.

Reid: I move the bill now be read a second time.

In 2001 we

made a commitment to revitalize the economy and manage taxpayers' money

responsibly. This year we developed the B.C. heartlands economic strategy to

help fulfil this commitment. It is with this commitment and this strategy in

mind that I propose Bill 89, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization)

Amendment Act, 2003.

[1435]

B.C. Rail

is struggling under significant debt. That has restricted B.C. Rail's ability to

reinvest. Shippers have been telling us this, mayors have been telling us this,

and railway communities have been telling us this. They've been asking for the

responsible management of the railway. They tell us that shippers are turning to

alternative transportation sources because B.C. Rail is no longer competitive

and is under-resourced and cannot meet its service requirements. As a result,

our rail communities are suffering.

B.C. Rail

no longer has the means to make the capital improvements needed to win back

their customers. We have a number of communities from North Vancouver to Fort

Nelson that rely on the services provided by B.C. Rail. We must keep B.C. Rail

going, but we must manage it responsibly. This bill will allow us to do that.

B.C. Rail

is draining taxpayers' funds needlessly. Over the past 15 years taxpayers have

lost $857 million in railway asset write-offs, and that's on top of the

railway's current $502 million debt. This bill will allow us to pay off that

debt and put an end to the ongoing burden on taxpayers.

consultation with the shippers, the mayors and the railway communities, we've

developed a new model, a responsible model that will maintain the railway as a

publicly owned asset. After a thorough evaluation process, cabinet selected CN

as the successful proponent to operate our railway. By allowing CN to operate

the railway and invest in the infrastructure, we can get B.C. Rail back on

track.

This bill

allows us to put this revitalization plan in motion. It amends the British

Columbia Railway Act to provide long-term security for Crown ownership of the

railway right-of-way, railbed and track. B.C. Rail is an important government

asset, and it is important that we retain ownership of the right-of-way, railbed

and track. It will enable the British Columbia Railway Company to enter into a

long-term partnership with a third-party operator by providing access to the

railway right-of-way for railway purposes.

This

amendment will clarify legislative authority for the British Columbia Railway

Company. It will clarify that the British Columbia Railway Company has

legislative authority to enter into partnerships and to undertake property

transfers and subdivisions.

There are

currently some discrepancies between the British Columbia Railway Act and the

Railway Act. This amendment will clarify any discrepancies. It will ensure that

the British Columbia Railway Company maintains control over the port subdivision

and that successor rights for B.C. Rail Ltd. employees are protected.

The bill

will allow for the smooth transition of inter-company land transactions to

ensure long-term protection by the Crown. It will also allow by OIC an

amalgamation of B.C. Rail properties and a bypass of Land Title Act requirements

for a few subdivisions. There are more than 3,000 properties involved in

refining and protecting the railway right-of-way. Given the scope of the number

of properties involved and the need to ensure public ownership is protected in

the shortest term possible, an efficient land transfer mechanism is required.

Shippers

have asked for this, mayors have asked for this, and rail communities have asked

for this. We have worked hard with them to develop a new model for rail

revitalization. This bill is another step forward in that process.

revitalized railway will return job opportunities to B.C. at the port of Prince

Rupert, at the new wheel shop CN will open, and in the service and hospitality

industries. It will bring investment back to the railway in the form of 2,100

new or upgraded railcars, and it will see the reopening of the Dawson Creek to

Hythe subdivision. It will reduce shipping times by establishing a Chicago

express route, and an open gateway program will make the railway competitive and

will bring shippers back to the rail line.

CN and B.C.

Rail will issue an RFP to develop new tourist passenger train services. This

will create hundreds of jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector.

[ Page 8214 ]

This

investment partnership will ensure the long-term sustainability of the railway

while allowing us to maintain public ownership of the right-of-way, railbed and

track, and it will increase economic activity not only in the heartlands, where

our railway communities are situated, but in all of British Columbia.

[1440]

Nettleton: Responding, then, in second reading. It's now almost official. A

deal has been struck between the B.C. government and CN Rail for CN to take over

and operate B.C. Rail, the details of which may demonstrate that the north and

Prince George have finally been heard loud and clear — at least according to

the government's spin on the sale. The rail reps are more than a tad cautious.

The resulting agreement, which seems on the surface a far cry from the original

request for proposals, proves that a united front can have a powerful effect

even on a big deconstructionist government.

That brings

us to step 2, which should have been step 1. That's Bill 89, British Columbia

Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. This is legislation to enable and

facilitate the privatization of B.C. Rail, which I have opposed for many years

— in fact, since 1996 — and continue to oppose with my limited means since

becoming an independent member of this Legislature.

It would

appear this is a compromise deal that has been arrived at, barring further

information coming to light during the assessment and approval process, which

may in fact undermine the deal. If the deal passes these tests, it could be said

that the B.C. Liberal government has finally recognized the value and the voting

power of northern and central British Columbia, and in particular Prince George.

But what a roundabout way to finally recognize it — a seven-year story: the

threat to sell B.C. Rail, the promise not to and the promise now broken.

According

to the government, when is a sale not a sale? Apparently when it's modified,

concession by grudging concession, with a wary eye on the public and the

pundits. The government may say that it has not made any concessions, that this

was their plan from the beginning. Not so, I say. Obviously, concessions have

been made or at least verbalized so far, and the direction of government has

appeared to have shifted somewhat, at least on this one issue. But this

government has shown that it has not been turned away from its indiscriminate

privatization agenda.

Privatization

is an issue-by-issue battle that will continue as long as the Premier views the

selling-off of B.C.'s assets as furthering his ideological goals. Does B.C. Rail

see that an agreement does not signify a reversal in direction by this

government but rather is a meeting of two opposing parties at a halfway point?

The two parties I am referring to are the government and the anti-privatization

public sector. This was a forced but nonetheless major compromise by the

government in the face of overwhelming public protest.

It is my

opinion that with a transparent, open process, we could have achieved the same

or better ends without the angst, frustration and confrontation. B.C. Rail could

have been retained as a revitalized Crown corporation, where the B.C. Rail Crown

corporation would not have had to become the B.C. Railway Company to achieve the

Premier's goal of converting it into a test case of public-private partnership.

It is an affront to the public intelligence to try to pass it off as anything

less than privatization.

Yesterday

at the announcement which I attended, the Premier said that he agreed, back in

2002, with Mayor Kinsley of Prince George that the goal was not to privatize

B.C. Rail but to find private partners — outsource but not privatize. We've

had this debate before, and it's futile to reduce it to the level of semantics.

How did we

get from there to now, with the B.C. Rail Crown corporation becoming the B.C.

Railway Company? The Premier explains it away by saying that underneath the rail

still remains the B.C. Rail corporation, literally. The Crown corporation owns

everything up to the rails. We own the bed and the bed rails. But nothing that

rolls on those rails belongs to the people of British Columbia, at least not for

90 years. You can argue 60, but none of us will be around to prove it.

[1445]

Can you

follow the Premier's logic? I can't, but hopefully you can, because most of you

are still true believers. If the Premier says it's so, it must be so. Only time

will tell as the details come out, and regardless of Tuesday's announcement,

it's not a done deal yet. U.S. President George W. Bush announced that the war

was over in May, but all that banner-waving didn't make it so.

Talking

about hoopla, let's look at the promise that this deal holds for B.C., according

to the Premier. The Premier's announcement and presentation was way over the

top. He said as much. "Boy, have I got a deal for you." It's the stuff

that elections are made of. CN's number one man, American entrepreneur Hunter

Harrison, remarked that the Premier was a hard act to follow. Mr. Harrison, we

find him a hard act to follow too.

The deal as

outlined by the Premier was all-encompassing. There's nothing this deal can't

fix, a panacea for the whole province. If we are to believe all he said, the

people's protests have been heard. The Premier has answered, and untold and

unrelated blessings are about to drop from the sky. Fortunately, the Premier was

soon brought down to earth when he faced tough questions from the media. The

glib answers he had provided here in the Legislature didn't stand up in the

glare of public scrutiny.

It's not so

quick, and it's not so easy. In reality this has been an evolving process,

unnecessarily drawn out and egregious not only for the communities along the

B.C. Rail line but for the bidding proponents as well. This government

recognizes pressure, and now the average British Columbian also recognizes the

power of their individual and collective voices. What I am about to say may

alarm some, because I am cautiously accepting of what has been achieved by this

unified effort coming from all corners of the province. I will be

[ Page 8215 ]

voting against this B.C. Rail bill on principle, despite the fact that major

concessions have been made and that the north may well benefit if the government

and CN are true to their word and if the facts are straight. Hmm, that's a lot

of ifs.

Credit for

any genuine and lasting benefits that flow from this deal cannot be claimed by

the government, as concessions were wrested at considerable sacrifice to the

people involved. If there's any credit due, if the deal is actually creditable,

it should go to the people of northern and central British Columbia for hanging

in there and resisting the original premise.

Sadly, we

did not stop B.C. Rail from being privatized, but we did stop the government

from giving it away. If the details coming out of this deal are consistent with

the claims being made, I congratulate the people of the north, which include the

B.C. Rail workers, most mayors and many council members, newspaper editors and

various other media outlets that have championed this issue and have

demonstrated tremendous courage in the face of overwhelming odds. Vigilance is

still required, especially on behalf of the rail workers and their families.

Thankfully, this deal will not be concluded in the winter.

It is not

my place to itemize all of the pros and cons of this deal. I will instead leave

that to government while continuing to monitor the commitments that have been

and will be made between CN Rail and the people of B.C.

MacPhail: I rise to speak to Bill 89, a bill whose title is even misleading:

British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Mr. Speaker, you

can't amend

an act that doesn't exist. The very title is used as spin with this

government, the same way their explanatory notes are. There is no British

Columbia Railway Revitalization Act — none whatsoever — yet these Liberal

caucus members are more than happy to have the government, even through use of

legislation, do it with spin and misleading.

[1450]

The

government, the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and all the Liberal MLAs

have no mandate whatsoever to bring this bill forward. They have no mandate to

speak to it; they have no mandate to support it.

In spite of

all that, as they do just that, they are breaking a fundamental election promise

— a promise each and every one of them signed on to. They campaigned on a

new-era commitment that was announced and trotted out during the last election

on April 23, 2001, as a big breakthrough — a big campaign promise of a new-era

commitment to not sell or privatize B.C. Rail. Prior to that, they waffled.

They, of

course, during the '96 election had said that they were going to sell it, and

they lost the election. So they thought about it, they reviewed it, and on April

23, 2001, they released their New Era document that for the first time,

right during the election, made a commitment to not sell or privatize B.C. Rail.

It was a deliberate act during the election. It wasn't just off the side of

their desk that they made that commitment. They brought out a new-era

commitment, and they were elected by constituents who took them at their word on

the promise that they made during the election. Now their word is worthless.

B.C. Rail has been sold. It has been privatized.

Bill 89,

this legislation, is a clear contradiction of the new-era promise, no matter how

this government tries to weasel out of that. A sale is a sale; a deal is a deal.

The Liberal MLAs and the executive council have broken the public trust.

The Premier

— I can't believe he still does this — claims that he has not sold or

privatized B.C. Rail. Perhaps he could explain, then, why Hunter Harrison, the

CEO of CN, told investment analysts — away from the media, away from the

Liberal MLAs — yesterday on a conference call that CN paid $750 million to buy

the business. Mr. Harrison knows when he's purchased something.

Oh, Mr.

Harrison said that they paid $750 million. That's the maximum taxpayers are

going to see for this — the maximum. But I can hardly wait for the Liberals to

stand up and say how wrong Mr. Harrison is. It's not us saying this; it's Mr.

Harrison himself. Even the CEO of CN understands that he just bought B.C. Rail.

Why is it so difficult for the Premier to admit to that?

The issue

at hand is simple. The Premier and the Finance minister are so desperate for

cash because their economic policy has been a complete failure. It's such a

failure that they've been forced to sell a public asset — a profitable public

asset.

I note that

the government tries to say it's not profitable. They try to say: "Oh,

isn't it awful that B.C. Rail had to write down the debt accumulated by the

Bennett government in the eighties?" Well, the Bennett government knew that

B.C. Rail was the only avenue of opening up the economy in the northeast sector.

They knew that they had to make an investment for coal and that there had to be

a spur line there.

[1455]

No one

stood up and challenged the B.C. Social Credit government under Bill Bennett

when they invested $600 million in that spur line. The very people who are now

backing this Liberal government backed the building of that rail line — the

same business people. The same people said that was a good idea. Well, it turned

out that it didn't do what the Social Credit government of the day promised,

because the coal contracts didn't come through from Japan. There was competition

from the southeast, the Cranbrook area, as well, just like there will be

competition amongst various regions again. The government, my government and my

colleague's government, was forced to write off $600 million of debt on B.C.

Rail.

Never once

have I heard this Liberal government get up and badmouth then Premier Bill

Bennett for risking that investment. Oh, they badmouth other megaprojects every

day, but not that one. Why is that? It's because Bill Bennett supports this

government. He's the one that stands up with this government and says: "Oh,

this government is doing a great job." Well, his

[ Page 8216 ]

government made a mistake in B.C. Rail, and the debt had to be written off.

Is that B.C. Rail's fault? No, it isn't. For this government to somehow make a

leap that the writing off of that debt really would have meant that taxpayers

were paying an extra $30 million in debt-servicing charges is beyond belief.

Then, of

course, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance and the MLAs

from Prince George say: "Oh, but B.C. Rail isn't profitable." Oh,

really? From the year 1986-87 through to the year 2000, B.C. Rail delivered a

dividend to taxpayers every year — a total of $137.7 million in dividends over

a 15-year period. Who's going to get that dividend now? CN shareholders. The

dividends paid into health and education, building hospitals and schools,

building roads — straight from B.C. Rail — are the same as what the north is

now going to get in total.

Somehow the

northern MLAs are saying that this is great? The north loses $137 million over

15 years in dividends, and they get about $150 million over 90 years. Gee, is

that Liberal math? Is that what the northern mayors are clapping their hands

about? They gained $137 million over 15 years, and now that's wiped out, but

they get $150 million over 90 years. Just do the math, northerners. You are

losing tens of millions of dollars each and every year, even with this deal.

The

Liberals have broken one election promise in a dismal effort to save another.

The Finance minister needs cash to plug the gaping holes in his budget, and

apparently he is willing to sell out communities. He promises to do it, and the

Liberal MLAs support him.

The people

of British Columbia deserve the truth. They deserve better than broken promises.

They deserve to be represented by members of this Legislative Assembly. Instead,

they have 70-odd MLAs willing and ready to go back on their word, to break a

fundamental promise and ram through legislation in the dying days of this

session. The Liberal government and the Premier have no mandate for this. Bill

89, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is a

broken promise now entrenched in legislation. CN has bought B.C. Rail. Hunter

Harrison of CN knows it; the Premier knows it; the people of B.C. know it. It is

a done deal. B.C. Rail is gone.

[1500]

The Premier

didn't even give this House a chance to debate the legislation before he put on

a glitzy, pricey, taxpayer-paid, rhetoric-filled infomercial yesterday — a

series of news releases strung together, much of it factually incorrect.

According

to CN and the Premier, the deal is done. They both announced that yesterday. In

fact, it was done on October 15. Yet day after day when we asked the Minister of

Transportation questions about this, she denied any knowledge of the fact that

the deal was done in October. Yesterday both the Premier and the CN CEO said:

"The deal is done." They said it. So what chance do we have here in

this Legislative Assembly to debate the bill? None. It's going to pass.

In fact,

this government probably thinks: "Oh, legislation. What a bother." The

Liberal MLAs will be whipped to support it. The Premier will order the troops to

fall in line. "The broken promise must be passed," he said — and it

will, because this Premier is desperate for cash. He's so desperate for cash

that he's going to pay off a mortgage by selling the house.

The deal

was announced yesterday at an unbelievably expensive news conference — a news

conference that gave the Premier a chance to sell his broken promise in some

sort of positive light. He called the sell-off an investment partnership. Well,

he makes that commitment out of complete denial. The Premier is in denial. It is

official.

The tag

line for the deal was: "A billion-dollar investment." All the media

picked it up. All the media just printed it as if it were true. Well, some of

the media got what Mr. Harrison said. First off, $250 million of that supposed

$1 billion isn't even guaranteed. Can you imagine if a New Democrat government

had made that claim? Do you think the Vancouver Sun and the Times

Colonist would have printed that? No. They would have printed,

"Government makes false claim of a billion-dollar deal," because it is

a false claim. It's a completely false claim of a billion-dollar deal.

CN is going

to hand over a billion dollars, and then taxpayers are going to give CN back

$250 million. Well, we're all taxpayers, aren't we? So what CN giveth with one

hand is taken back from us out of another pocket, but we're still $250 million

shy of a billion dollars for a profitable rail line. CN gets that for 90 years

— lock, stock and barrel — despite what the Minister of Transportation tries

to claim — that we still own the railbed and the right-of-way.

Now, of

course, there's even double jeopardy on that $250 million. If Canada Customs and

Revenue Agency doesn't agree with the Premier on tax credits owed as a result of

this deal to CN, then CN gets to reduce the amount of cash it gives British

Columbians by $250 million and B.C. taxpayers are on the hook completely. If the

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency do that massive tax credit giveaway, at least

the burden of a bad deal is shared by other Canadians.

[1505]

Anyway,

it's either a rotten $250 million giveaway for all Canadians, or it's a really

rotten tax giveaway for British Columbians alone. There is no assurance that the

tax credits will come to pass. Thank God for Mr. Harrison. He actually gave us

the facts yesterday. Mr. Harrison recognized that reality in his analysts'

conference call. He was quite proud of the fact that he bought a profitable

company for $750 million. The Vancouver Sun reported that, and good on

them. I don't know why the Vancouver Sun then said in the headline it was

a billion-dollar deal, when elsewhere they actually admitted that it wasn't.

Anyway,

there is a distinct and very real possibility that the taxpayers will be called

on to cover at least 25 percent of this deal. Well, what about the rest? The

$500 million comes in and goes out immediately to write off a debt that B.C.

Rail was managing quite fine.

[ Page 8217 ]

The taxpayers weren't managing that debt. It was non-government-supported,

non-taxpayer-supported debt. No matter how much the Premier tries to obfuscate

on that issue, no matter how much they try to blame the auditor general for

their lack of understanding, it's non-taxpayer-supported debt. B.C. Rail was

managing that just fine through its revenues, just as CN will continue to manage

that debt through its revenues.

Not only is

there no benefit to the taxpayer, there's no benefit to the shippers either.

They're not going to see a change. That same non-taxpayer-supported debt will be

CN shareholder–supported debt now and will be passed on through pricing. So a

claim of a $30 million advantage to B.C. taxpayers in no longer having to

service that debt is just plain wrong.

So CN forks

over $500 million and gets a debt-free company. No benefit to the taxpayer —

$5 million in, $5 million out. There's nothing about an investment there —

nothing. To their credit, the government has managed to set aside some money for

the communities. It's only 17 percent of the total package, but they did find it

in their hearts to give some money to communities.

Let's look

at those figures. Some of it will go to deserving projects, and I sincerely hope

that it's well used, because our northern communities need all the help they can

get. They have been completely ignored by this government to date.

There will

be $4 million for an expansion of the Prince George Airport. The government has

been promising that for ages. There will be $17.2 million to fund the expansion

of the port of Prince Rupert. But let's be clear. That expansion is over $62

million to actually get it done. There's no commitment from either the federal

government or CN. There's no guarantee that CN or the federal government is

going to invest in that expansion — none. So Prince Rupert is a quarter of the

way toward its goal of getting a port authority, a deep-water port there, but

that's all. They cannot look to one single guarantee that the port will actually

be built. Of course, as the port of Prince Rupert gains, the Delta Port of the

Vancouver Port Authority loses. It's a zero-sum game. The port authority knows

that. Delta Port knows that.

[1510]

There's $15

million for a first nations trust fund and $135 million for a northern

development initiative, and over 400 jobs lost. The railway isn't even going to

stop at Prince George anymore. There's absolutely no investment required

whatsoever by CN in Prince George, yet the northern communities get a one-time

shot for 90 years. For the next 90 years they get a total of $130 million to

help those troubled communities from Squamish north right to the B.C. border and

from Prince Rupert right through to the eastern border of British Columbia.

That's the big announcement: 17 percent of $1 billion goes to our communities.

Dig deeper, and it gets a little sketchy.

Let's look

at the northern development initiative. Some $60 million will be divided into

four regional funds — the regions being the Peace, Prince George, the

northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Those regions get $15 million each. The

payroll from B.C. Rail in the lost jobs would be bigger than that on a yearly

basis. The suppliers servicing B.C. Rail get double or triple that every year

from B.C. Rail. All of that will be gone now. Fifteen million bucks, a one-time

shot for the next 90 years. That's what four regions get.

The entire

Peace region gets $15 million out of the $1 billion. That's 1.5 percent of the

whole deal. How in heaven's name is that a good deal for the Peace? I can hardly

wait for the members from the Peace region to get up and make that claim. The

entire northwest gets 1.5 percent out of this. How is that a good deal for them?

Another $25

million will be set aside to fund the regional boards. That's not even a direct

investment in infrastructure. What's that — a pork barrel for some Liberal

board appointees? It's got nothing to do with investment in permanent

infrastructure. It's not going to go into roads; it's not going to go into

bridges; it's not going to go into schools or hospitals. It's going to go into

regional boards made up of Liberals. Wow, that's really exciting — not.

For this

broken promise, communities across the north have been shortchanged. The entire

north will receive less than 20 percent of the $1 billion. The money will be

spread so thin that I predict it will have little, if any, economic impact.

By my tally

so far, the allocated funds don't add up to the $1 billion. Hmm. I thought this

was a billion-dollar investment. That's what the Premier said. That's what he

spent tens of thousands of dollars for, paying to slap it across every piece of

paper and backdrop he could. So far there are a $171 million investment and a

$500 million write-off that mean nothing to the taxpayers of British Columbia,

and then another $250 million in tax credits that will go to CN and out of

British Columbia taxpayer pockets.

Where's the

other $329 million? It's going into government coffers — a government

desperate for cash. They've sold off a Crown corporation, broken an election

promise and misled the voters. Why? Because they need $329 million to make up

for their failed economic policies. This is the third year of the highest

deficits in each of those three years ever in the history of British Columbia's

public finances — ever. So the Minister of Finance has sold off a profitable

Crown corporation to make up for his miserable failure, and he's going to get

$329 million to do that.

[1515]

That's

where that money's going — right into government coffers for the Minister of

Finance to plug a hole in his failed fiscal and economic policy. It's money

sucked right out of British Columbia's economy. That $329 million isn't going to

add one red cent to the GDP — not one red cent. And this is a government that

has added ten times that amount to debt already on government books. In its

first three years it has increased the debt at a rate unheard of. I never hear

the Liberal MLAs talking about that.

So we have

a Finance minister who increases the debt not through investing in British

Columbia but by

[ Page 8218 ]

running operating deficits that are now an accumulated total of well over $4

billion. He had to sell off a Crown corporation to pay down one-tenth of the

debt he's racked up, which his government personally has racked up. Never see

that reported — about how this government has racked up debt at a rate unheard

of by any previous government ever.

I sure hope

that the MLAs for the north are ready to work hard, extremely hard. They're

going to have to fight tooth and nail to get any of that $329 million, because

the Minister of Finance ain't going to give it to them. He's not going to let it

be torn out of his hands. So the north gets nothing of that.

I wish the

northern MLAs well. I truly do, because so far it looks like the one hope they

had of getting some sort of privatization deal right is going to fall flat

again. They were so desperate to privatize B.C. Rail that they would go to any

extreme — break an election promise, tell the northern communities that they

get less than 20 percent of the sell-off, take $329 million as a little drop in

the bucket for the debt that they've incurred elsewhere. But there's no getting

around it. The northern MLAs' communities are getting the shaft on this deal.

We need

investment and growth in the north — absolutely. Why not commit that $329

million to northern investment? No. The Minister of Finance is going to take it

and not add one iota of stimulation to our economy, because he needs it to pay

down his debt that he personally created, his government personally created.

There is a

great deal of suspicion and anxiety around this deal, and I am afraid we will

never get the answers from this government. The deal is done. The Premier has

made that clear. It's a bad deal for B.C. The supposed billion-dollar investment

is cloaked in spin and rhetoric. The actual investment is minuscule when you

look at the price tag. So as I wish all the northern MLAs well in their attempts

to ensure that their communities get the money they deserve, I really hope that

the breaking of their promise is not in vain.

The people

of British Columbia believed this government and this Premier during the

election of 2001. They believed the Premier when on April 23, 2001, he and a

bunch of his MLA candidates revealed a whole new commitment, and it said that

the Liberals will not privatize or sell off B.C. Rail. This bill, Bill 89, the

British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is nothing but a

broken promise with a lot of glitz to hide the truth. It's a bad deal for B.C.

The northern communities are getting a fraction of what they deserve. This deal

is a sellout, and the Premier is leading the sellout.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

I would like to take this opportunity and echo the words of my colleague the

member for Vancouver-Hastings. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

Once you dig out from underneath all of the Premier's spin, the rhetoric and the

glitz, it is clear that this deal is not what it is cracked up to be.

Communities are getting a fraction of the selling price.

The

so-called billion-dollar investment is simple PR, not reality. It is not $1

billion at all. It's $750 million, and that's potentially being generous. As my

colleague pointed out, the tax credit issue may come back to haunt British

Columbians, and British Columbians may well have to wear that — not CN. It is

British Columbians who are on the hook if the tax credit does not come to be. In

all of that the northern communities…. What they get are scraps. The Minister

of Finance takes a portion of that money to cover up and to pay for his failed

economic policy.

This is a

bad deal for British Columbia. For 90 years the profits of B.C. Rail will flow

to a private company that has no responsibility whatsoever to protect British

Columbia routes or jobs beyond 2008 — 90 years, Mr. Speaker. The lost

dividends from B.C. Rail will go into the pockets of a private company, and it

would not benefit British Columbians by contributing in the areas of education,

health care, social services or road infrastructure — the things British

Columbia and British Columbians need for the future. The $171 million going to

communities from this deal will be pennies of what CN will pull from this deal

for itself. This is not an investment for B.C. It is a sellout for quick cash.

The Premier

has been spinning hard to communicate the supposed benefits of this deal. My

colleague went over how the actual investment in communities is a minuscule part

of this deal. The Premier has also crowed about the tax benefits to communities.

Well, if the Premier was true to his word in 2003 when he promised Crown

corporations would pay their taxes to municipalities, then the tax benefit from

this private company, CN, is zero. It's a zero-sum game. The net benefit in

taxes for municipalities…. If the Premier lived up to his commitment that

municipalities will get their taxes for Crown corporations, they're not gaining

anything they haven't already lost. The Premier admitted to that today in

question period. He said he will make sure Crown corporations pay those taxes.

Then the taxes from CN are not an addition in revenues for municipalities.

[1525]

If the

Premier was so concerned, by the way, about municipal tax revenues, why has he

refused to fulfil his election promise — yet another election promise he has

not fulfilled — to transfer 75 percent of traffic fines to municipalities to

help with policing costs? That promise wasn't kept in the 2001 budget, in the

2002 budget, in the 2003 budget and apparently won't be kept in the 2004 budget.

That's some $200 million that should be going to municipalities. That's far

above the $8.3 million the Premier claims will flow from this deal. It is yet

another broken promise. This government — this Premier, the Liberal government

— has no credibility.

What about

the other benefits of this deal? A lot of those happen to be pure spin as well.

The Premier was all excited about the quicker transportation times between

Prince George and Chicago. He said this deal will allow products to be shipped

and to reach markets faster. Too bad this deal has nothing to do with it. CN

already has the capacity to ship to Chicago in 90 hours,

[ Page 8219 ]

and it has nothing to do with this deal. The CEO of CN said in the press

conference that his company has a new train that is already doing that. He was

quite proud of his company's achievement in cutting the time from nine days to

90 hours. The Premier is trying to take credit for something he has nothing to

do with. How about that? Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker.

How about

this new wheel shop in Prince George? B.C. Rail, the Crown corporation, was

already planning to do that. Once again the Premier is trying to create

something out of, as usual, nothing. That's what the Premier is trying to do.

Then there

are the shipping rates. The Premier has been very proud of the fact that the

rates will be, on average, 7 percent lower for shippers once this deal is done.

Too bad the Premier didn't talk to Mr. Harrison about that one. Maybe he should

have spent more than ten minutes before the announcement with Mr. Harrison. He

might have actually found out some facts and saved himself some embarrassment.

In the Vancouver Sun today the CEO of CN said that the rate will only

apply to shipments between Vancouver and Prince George, not on movement between

other points on the B.C. Rail line. The Premier is once again grasping at

straws.

So much of

this process, so much of this announcement, is wrapped in suspicion. The other

bidders complained about the process. They complained along the way. One bidder

even dropped out. The winner was a major donor, it just so happens…. Perhaps

it's a coincidence; I don't know. It just so happens that the winner is a major

donor to the Liberal Party. The fairness adviser has raised serious concerns

about the leaks, and the Premier won't even show us the deal — just a glitzy

press conference and a bunch of press releases with figures that are at best

questionable.

I hope the

backbench MLAs from the north have better luck in getting answers than us. As it

stands now, they are getting very little for this broken promise — a broken

promise they traded their honour, their integrity and their word on. Make no

mistake about it. It is a broken promise for $750 million. Mr. Harrison bought

B.C. Rail, and apparently he bought the B.C. Liberals too.

[1530]

They're

going to ram this through in the dying days of the session. In fact, this

Legislature in some ways — in the words of the Premier — is irrelevant,

because he's already said the deal is done. B.C. Rail is sold to a private

company, and the losers happen to be British Columbians — not for the short

term but for the long term.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Reid moved adjournment of debate.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call debate on Motion 105 standing in the name of the House Leader

on the order paper.

Motions on Notice

AMENDMENT TO SESSIONAL ORDER

Hon. G.

Plant: The motion is:

[That the Sessional Order passed by the House on February

11, 2003, amending Standing Order 2 be amended as follows:

That

section 2 (2) (a) (ii) be amended by deleting the words "from

October 6, 2003 to November 27, 2003 inclusive", and substituting

therefore "from October 6, 2003 to December 3, 2003 inclusive."]

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I take it this is a debatable motion.

Mr.

Speaker: Yes, it is.

MacPhail: The opposition rises to say: huh? The Attorney General or the

Government House Leader doesn't even think he has to offer an explanation for

breaking another promise. Doesn't even give the courtesy to the public or the

Legislature about why they're doing this. Of course, they didn't give courtesy

to the Legislature to even tell within this House — to bring a motion inside

this House — before they told the media they were going to extend the

Legislature.

Here's what

happened, Mr. Speaker, and it took us all by surprise. For some reason

unbeknownst to any of us inside this Legislature, the government is breaking its

election promise, which it takes great pride in every day, that they're going to

have fixed sittings and that all of us MLAs would know the

schedule — that it

would be run like a business. Well, this is the third time they've broken that

in a short two and a half years, the third time they've broken that promise.

Why? To ram through draconian, extreme legislation that they don't want the

light shone on.

Here we are

again today. They want to ram through the B.C. Rail legislation with no

scrutiny, because every moment and every hour there's more scrutiny on this B.C.

Rail sell-off deal, it becomes more suspicious, more suspect. Certainly, the

claims are ripped to tatters about the benefits of the deal. No, the Government

House Leader doesn't even bother to offer an explanation on that.

Here's what

happened. My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I got

called out into the hallway two days ago, on Monday around 5 o'clock, and a

reporter says to us: "How do you feel about the Legislature being

extended?" We said: "Huh — pardon? You must have your information

wrong, reporter." And the reporter said: "Well, no, I called public

affairs bureau, and they confirmed that the Legislature would be extended by a

week."

[1535]

Public

affairs bureau. What is public affairs bureau? It's that spin-doctoring $45

million organization of political appointees that reports directly to the

Premier and writes news releases that give new meaning to

[ Page 8220 ]

misleading Liberal-speak every day. We saw a perfect example of that

yesterday. Public affairs bureau is running this legislative chamber.

Do you know

how ashamed my colleague and I felt? It was shame, actually. We were

embarrassed, and we actually wanted to say: "Oh no, you must be wrong. That

can't be so." This reporter — who is a darn good reporter, I might add,

as they all are — said: "No, no. The public affairs bureau confirmed

it." We said: "But that's not possible. There's no notice of

motion." "Oh yes, it's true."

Then later

that evening the Government House Leader snuck in a notice of motion that we're

now debating. No explanation from the government why they're doing that —

none. So shame on them. Clearly, it is with shame that they're doing this.

Then one

wonders why we need to extend the legislative sitting. It's not like the Liberal

MLAs are doing anything. My colleague and I sit here day after day debating the

substance of legislation that takes away union contracts and privatizes our

health care system. Not a peep. I'm sorry; that is not fair. One or two Liberals

take a position on that. The rest of them are silent, stand up and support the

government no matter what.

Bill 75,

the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Every day as it gets examined, more

and more people protest it, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and it's

left up to my colleague and me to defend the interests of those communities who

are being run over roughshod by this government. It's not because they need to

pass this legislation, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment

Act, 2003, because the Premier said it's a done deal. He said that yesterday.

The deal doesn't even kick in until the second calendar quarter of 2004. The

earliest — and believe you me, I claim it will be the earliest — that there

will be any effect on the deal will be April of 2004 — plenty of time for the

government not to break its promise on fixed sittings and on reforming this

Legislature, plenty of time for them to come back and do what they promised to

do, which was introduce all significant legislation in the spring sitting.

Oh yeah,

that's what the Government House Leader and the Premier said: we're having fixed

sittings. MLAs will be able to conduct their constituency business and their

family business, because we'll know years ahead when this parliament is sitting

— oh, except for this week.

The Premier

and the Government House Leader claim: "No, no. The fall sitting is just to

clean up legislation that was introduced in the spring, or non-significant

legislation would be introduced." Really? Well, in this fall sitting of

this session, the government has introduced 22 pieces of legislation.

Is it

controversial? You bet. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act that overruns

local government authority makes the Community Charter irrelevant — null and

void, if you ask me. The B.C. Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003

breaks an election promise and sells off B.C. Rail. Bill 84, amending the Park

Act, now allows for business to be done inside the parks. It destroys the

Muskwa-Kechika park.

[1540]

Bill 94,

the Health…. I don't know. The health privatization act, it should be called.

For the first time ever in the history of Canada, as the minister admitted,

services in our public hospitals will be delivered by private employers with no

responsibility to the health authority. Hospitals will be built privately, for

the first time ever in Canada. The Minister of Labour took great pride in saying

that nowhere else does this legislation exist. Here we are in a fall sitting,

and that's the kind of legislation we're debating.

The

government doesn't even have the gall to stand up and justify its actions. It

slips it in, in the middle of some other controversial debate. We're not going

to go on at length, because there are two of us, joining with other colleagues

sometimes — one or two — trying to hold this government to account. We'll do

our job, forcing this government to be revealed for what it is, which is

breaking election promise after election promise. This motion extending the

legislative sitting, despite all of the promises they made, is just another

example of a broken promise, and they don't even have the fortitude to explain

why.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, apparently the motion was not moved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move Motion 105.

Mr.

Speaker: Before I call the question, the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management seeks the floor.

Hon S.

Hagen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I call committee stage on Bill 75.

[1545]

Committee of the Whole House

SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

STREAMLINING ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:49 p.m.

section

2 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

We were debating

section 2 on Bill 75. To follow up the question on

section 2,

will these descriptions, as it is described under

section 2, be subject to the

Freedom of Information Act? Since the minister, under sub (1), makes the

recommendation to cabinet, one

[ Page 8221 ]

would assume that it is not subject to freedom of information. Could the

minister please advise?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The answer is that this act is subject to the Freedom of Information

Act. That's correct.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

No, I didn't say whether or not the act is subject to freedom of information. I

said that the description that is described under subsection (1)…. Would that

information be subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

The minister seems confused, so let me spell it out for him. Under subsection

(2) of

section 2, it reads as follows: "Before the minister recommends a

project under subsection (1), the minister must (

a) determine the identity of

the proponent of the project, and (

b) obtain from the proponent a description of

the project that (

i) in form and content is satisfactory to the minister, and

(ii) sets out the scope, intended operations, anticipated constraints and other

details of the project."

The

description that the minister receives of a particular project — would that be

subject to freedom of information?

Hon. K.

Falcon: My understanding is that would be advice to the minister. I haven't

got the FOI Act in front of me, but I don't believe that would qualify as being

FOI.

J. Kwan:

No, it's not advice to the minister. It's information that the minister receives

about a project. Yesterday I asked the minister the question about whether or

not he would be receiving written information about these projects so that he

can review, presumably, and that there be a public record, a written record

available. He got up, Mr. Chair, and made fun of my question, saying: "We

are the kind of government that relies on plans and business plans and so on. Of

course those things would need to be in writing. How else can we examine the

project?"

My question

is…. Those business plans, the description, the details about the particular

project that the minister is receiving, which ought to be public information so

that the public knows on what…. The details of a project on which the minister

is making his decisions — that information ought to be made available to the

public through freedom of information. It's not advice to the minister. It's

factual information from the proponents. Would that information be made

available under freedom of information?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The information that the public would be interested in knowing about

is information on projects that are designated. The public will presumably have

little to no interest in every person who approaches the minister with a project

that they may wish to have considered, which the minister — in 95 percent of

the cases or even more — is unlikely to even consider.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question, Mr. Chair. It's irrelevant whether or

not the minister thinks the public is interested in getting that information at

all. It's up to the public to decide what information they would want to seek.

It is this government's responsibility to make sure that when the public wants

that information, it is in fact available. That's an open and accountable

government — not to say: "Gee, we don't think you're interested, and

we're going to make secret decisions behind closed doors, so we're not going to

show you the stuff." That's just complete nonsense from the minister.

I'll give

the minister one more chance. The details of projects that the minister will be

making decisions on and recommending to cabinet — whether or not those

projects would receive a designation under this bill, whether or not the details

of that information would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act…. If

this government is at least going through the motions of pretending to be open

and accountable, then the answer would be yes.

[1555]

Hon. K.

Falcon: I want to assure the member that we will be fully compliant with

every aspect of the Freedom of Information Act — fully.

J. Kwan:

Well, it's a simple question. Would that information be subject to freedom

of information? Would the people of British Columbia be able to access that

information through the Freedom of Information Act? A simple question to the

minister — yes or no. Or if he doesn't know the answer, perhaps we should wait

for his staff to come in so we can get clarity on this.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm happy to, if my staff have anything to add when they arrive, add

to that for the member, but I can tell the member that this act will be in full

compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

J. Kwan:

Either the minister is trying to hide the information, or he's ignorant of

the information — one or the other. Does he know or not know whether or not

information received about projects by this minister for determination, whether

or not those projects will be deemed to be designated under this act, be subject

to freedom of information…? Yes or no? It's not that difficult.

Hon. K.

Falcon: My staff has now arrived and has confirmed that yes, it will be

fully compliant with the freedom of information and will be subject to the

exemptions under the FOI. I haven't got the act in front of me, but I'm

presuming the member might know what those are too.

[ Page 8222 ]

J. Kwan: To

confirm with the minister that the descriptions of the project which the

minister would receive would be subject to freedom of information? I just need a

simple yes or no.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Through the Chair to the member: once again, yes.

Section 2

approved on the following division:

[1600-1605]

YEAS — 49

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

J. Reid

Bruce

van Dongen

Barisoff

Wilson

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Bond

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

On

section

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 3, in the proposed

section 3 (2) (

b) by deleting

"create measures to replace any or all of" and substituting

"approve the replacement of, and to create measures to replace, any or

all of" . ]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister outline the rationale for the amendment?

Hon. K.

Falcon: This

section amends

section 3(2)(

b) to authorize the responsible

minister to "approve the replacement of, and to create measures to replace,

any or all of…." Then it lists the different classes of constraints.

J. Kwan:

The way I read it, it's just likely grammatical errors — it seems to me.

There's no significance, really, to the amendment. Am I right?

Amendment

approved.

[1610]

section

3 as amended.

J. Kwan:

In relation to a project recommended by the minister,

section 3 gives cabinet

the power to: "By order, designate that project as a provincially

significant project." From there the overriding process then begins. Will

these decisions be subject to FOI?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, this bill will be subject to FOI with all its provisions and

exemptions therein.

J. Kwan:

So the public will be able to access the decisions made for projects deemed to

be provincially significant projects.

Will there

be any role for the independent officers of the House to participate in the

process? For example, if the auditor general wants to review the process that

deemed a project significant, would he be able to do that?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Nothing in the act restricts the role of the auditor general

whatsoever, so whatever powers the auditor general has would continue to apply.

J. Kwan:

The Auditor General Act has been amended as well, so when the Public Accounts

Committee requests that the auditor general undertake a project…. In that

case, the matter will be brought before the Public Accounts Committee for a

review. I would anticipate that the Public Accounts Committee could still

exercise that right to review a provincially significant project that's been

designated under this act. Am I correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Nothing in the act also restricts the scope of the Public Accounts

Committee.

J. Kwan:

Is there any opportunity for public oversight?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Nothing in this act restricts the ability of any current provisions

of public oversight.

J. Kwan:

Nothing prevents it or restricts it, but has the minister planned for any public

oversight processes?

[1615]

Hon. K.

Falcon: There's nothing in this act that adds any additional public

oversights into any of the existing public oversights that apply today. There's

also nothing, as I said earlier, that restricts any public oversight.

J. Kwan:

To be clear, we're talking about

section 3, which deals with designation. The

process for designation is through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who will

consider a project in relation to which the

[ Page 8223 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council receives a recommendation under

section 2,

which is a recommendation from the minister, etc. Then that triggers the

designation process. My question to the minister is…. Maybe he can just tell

me what opportunities there are for the public to engage in a public oversight

process.

Hon. K.

Falcon: We will get into the consultation process under

section 4, and we'll

be able to talk a little more fully about that.

J. Kwan:

I anticipated that the minister might say something like that, but the fact is

this. After the consultations to remove the constraints are completed, what

happens, as an example, if the local government says no? The community

consultation process is important, so you can't ride roughshod over it. You

can't just skip over it, because that's what

section 3 allows for. Can the

government just sweep aside elected officials at the municipal level and

override their processes? What happens when the community is opposed to

fast-tracking a project?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Part of that question does engage

section 4, but I think I was able

to carve out the

section that would engage

section 3. Under

section 3(2)(a)(

i) and (ii) it states very clearly there…. What it does say is: "Ensure that

decisions they are required to make in relation to the designated project are

made expeditiously." Then (ii) says, "if and to the extent that it is

decided that the designated project is to proceed," facilitate the

decision…. There's a certainty of process, not a certainty of outcome, under

section 3.

J. Kwan:

The minister actually didn't answer my question. I mean, that's precisely the

point. Under

section 3 the government, this minister, has the power to expedite

a project, a project they'll designate as provincially significantly important.

Therefore, it just moves right along. In doing that, the government can — I

presume, in reading this bill, and correct me if I'm wrong — use this power to

override local governments' right and authority. It can use this power to

override community consultation processes, and it can use this power to override

community plans. Am I not right in understanding this?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is actually getting ahead of herself a bit. That actually

section 4 discussion.

Section 3 is just referring to the designation act

itself.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

No, I'm not getting ahead of myself. Let me just read to the minister

section

3(2)(b): "(

b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, in the designation

order or in any subsequent order, authorize the responsible minister, subject to

section 4, to create measures to replace any or all of (

i) specified

constraints, (ii) constraints of a specified class, and (iii) any constraints

affecting the designated project."

What

section 3 does is give the government the authority to override a whole bunch of

things. I'm asking the minister whether that overriding power includes, as I

understand it, local government rights, like community consultation processes

and community plans — just to illustrate by using these examples. Am I not

right in understanding that?

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

If I'm not right, I would love it for the minister to get up in this House and

say, "No, you're absolutely not right" — that the government will

not, under this

section of the act, have the power to override local government

authorities, local government rights, local government consultation processes,

community plans, etc.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think the clarification that may help the member is that

section 3

only gives the ability to use those powers that the member mentioned, subject to

section 4. You'll see there under

section 3(2)(

b) it does say "subject to

section 4," so it ties in very importantly to the provisions laid out in

section 4.

J. Kwan:

God, what does a person have to do to get a straight answer from anybody in this

government? We're going through committee. Mr. Chair, you'd think it was

question period all over again. Why doesn't the minister just come clean and

tell people that, yes, they have the authority to override these rights — what

everybody already knows.

I just want

to confirm that in the language that's written here under

section 3, because it

is this

section that gives the power to this government to override local

government rights. It is in this

section that the government can designate a

project as provincially significant. It's when they exercise that power that

they will override local government authorities to arrive at their end result.

Isn't that correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon: If the member reads

section 3(2)(

b) carefully, what it does say is

that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may — not "must" but

"may" — in the designation order…. Then it says "subject to

section 4." I'm happy to have the discussion that the member opposite wants

to have, but that is really more proper once we're engaged in

section 4.

J. Kwan:

Okay — whatever. We'll get to

section 4, but getting back to the decisions,

and that's what we're dealing with under

section 3. After the consultations to

remove constraints are completed, what happens if a local government says no? If

the local government says no…. The community consultation process is

important. Can the government just sweep aside the elected officials' authority?

Could they just sweep it aside? What happens when the community is opposed to

the fast-tracking of a project?

[ Page 8224 ]

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think that is a perfectly legitimate question from the member, and

I don't want to in any way undermine that at all. But I do want to remind the

member that that actually is a discussion we need to have under

section 4. I'm

absolutely perfectly happy to have that under

section 4, but it is not a subject

that's engaged in

section 3.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

Well, fine. I disagree with the minister. I disagree with him, and I'll ask him

exactly the same question under

section 4 and then exactly the same question

under

section 5. Those are the two relevant sections here. You know, it's a

strange happening when you have a

section that relates to another in this House,

and the minister refuses to answer questions in this House. It's a strange

happening. Fine. We'll go with that, hon. Chair. I'll ask him exactly the same

questions. In fact, I won't ask him. He already knows what I've asked him, so

when we get to

section 4, I'll ask him to rise and give me the answers to my

questions.

Section 3

as amended approved on the following division:

[1630]

YEAS — 48

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

J. Reid

Bruce

van Dongen

Barisoff

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Clark

Bond

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Bray

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

NAYS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

On

section

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 4 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 4, in the proposed

section 4 by deleting

subsections (4) to (6) and substituting the following:

(4) If a proponent and

an approval authority are able through the consultation process contemplated

by this

section to reach agreement on how a measure that is perceived by the

proponent to be a constraint on the designated project can be overcome in a

manner that is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the approval

authority, the parties must

(

a) enter into an implementation agreement in which

(

i) the measure that is perceived to be a constraint is identified,

(ii) the measures that the parties have agreed are to replace the constraint

are specified,

(iii) the approval authority agrees to waive performance of the constraint

identified in subparagraph (

i) if the proponent performs the replacement

measures specified under subparagraph (ii), and

(iv) the proponent agrees to perform the replacement measures specified under

subparagraph (ii), and

(

b) submit the implementation agreement to the responsible minister for

approval.

(5) If an implementation agreement is submitted to the responsible minister

under subsection (4) (b), the responsible minister may approve the agreement

if the responsible minister has been authorized, under

section 3 (2) (b), to

approve the replacement of the constraint identified in that agreement.

(6) If, after an implementation agreement is entered into under this

section

in relation to a designated project, the implementation agreement is approved

by the responsible minister under subsection (5) and if the replacement

measures specified under subsection (4) (a) (ii) are complied with, the

following apply to the project whether or not the project loses its

designation as a provincially significant project after the implementation

agreement is made:(

a) compliance with the replacement measures is deemed to be

full compliance with the constraints they replace;

(

b) the approval authority must treat the project as having fully complied

with the replaced constraints and, without limitation, must

(

i) issue or provide, or facilitate the issue or provision of, the permits,

approvals and consents that would normally be issued or provided had the

replaced constraints actually been complied with, and

(ii) take, or cause to be taken, any actions that would normally be taken had

the replaced constraints actually been complied with.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) (b), an approval authority referred to

in that subsection must issue or provide, or facilitate the issue or provision

of, the permits, approvals and consents referred to in subsection (6) (b) (i),

and must take, or cause to be taken, the actions referred to in subsection (6)

(

a) are specified in the implementation agreement, or

(

b) if not specified in the implementation agreement, would normally apply had

the replaced constraints actually been complied with.]

Amendment

approved.

section

4 as amended.

J. Kwan:

For the benefit of the members of the House, I will be canvassing a few

questions with the minister on

section 4, and then we'll move on to

section

[ Page 8225 ]

5, on which I have a few questions. I'll be calling division on

section 5.

For those who need the exercise, they should go out and come back. For those who

don't, they can stay and enjoy the debate.

The

Chair: Can the member please stick to

section 4.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, my question to the minister he already knows for

section 4, which I

stated under

section 3.

The

Chair: It's on the amendment?

J. Kwan:

No. You already passed the amendment, I thought. Same questions that I tabled

under

section 3….

[1635]

Hon. K.

Falcon:

Section 4 lays out the consultations required for the removal of

constraints. The important thing I would point out to the member, which I think

is very important, is that any proponent must — not may but must — consult

with the approval authority — whether that's local, as in the case the member

is mentioning, or the provincial approval authority. It goes on to state that

they must facilitate any reasonable requirement of the respective approval

authorities, which I think is also very important. The bill then allows that

should there be a case where — even though the requirement to consult with the

approval authority is in place and the approval authority has made reasonable

requirements — there is an allegation that there is unreasonableness taking

place, then the minister may, in an additional step, appoint a facilitator to

come in — under

section 8 but referred to here — to facilitate the

conditions, to do some work in finding out what the fact base is, etc., and try

and resolve the subject or whatever the perceived constraint may be.

Then there

is an option for the proponent and the approval authority to reach agreement on

an alternative process. They may decide to work together, identify what the

constraint is, come up with a mutually agreed-upon agreement on an alternative

process which will allow the project to move forward while still meeting the

needs of the approval authority. That is something that can be jointly agreed

upon, subject to the approval of the minister. I believe that sums it up.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

The question is if there is no agreement with the local authority…. That's the

point here. The whole point here about this bill in its entirety is that it

gives the government the ability to override and run roughshod over local

government authority. The minister can say: "Well, you know, they have to

go and ask them to see what they think, and then there can be a facilitator and

all those kinds of things, and then hopefully they'll come to an

agreement." The point is that if there is no agreement, does cabinet

therefore have the power to override local government authorities, override a

local government's decision on its community consultation processes, override

local government's decisions on their community plans? Isn't that correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon:

Section 4 is simply talking about the consultative process that has

to take place. The member is actually referring to

section 5, I believe, in the

heart of her question. The key thing under

section 4 is that we've put into

place a process that must be followed to ensure that there is a dialogue and a

spirit of dialogue that can be created. A proposal is designated by cabinet,

thereby signalling everybody that this is provincially significant. What

section

4 does is say that we want to make sure the proponent must deal with the

approval authority, and we want to make sure they do so with the reasonable

requirements of the approval authority. We make sure we build into place the

ability to bring in a facilitator if that is necessary to help this dialogue.

All of that speaks to the consultation requirements that are all specifically

laid out in

section 4. The heart of the member's question is actually engaged in

section 5.

J. Kwan:

Isn't that funny? I asked the question of the minister under

section 3 of where

the government makes those decisions. Then he goes: "Oh no. I'll answer

that question under

section 4." Now we're at

section 4, and he goes:

"Oh no. I will answer that question in

section 5." The minister can

keep delaying and delaying however long he wants. At some point in time he's got

to own up to it.

[1640]

By the way,

the consultation process the minister tries to put out softly, as though somehow

the government won't be riding roughshod over local government authorities and

the government won't be overriding their decisions and authorities…. Guess

what. The UBCM don't buy it. They already said to this minister that you have

betrayed, I would argue, the commitment to UBCM that the government has put out

under the Community Charter. The Community Charter goes to recognize local

government and their authority, and so on and so forth. There was much fanfare

when the Premier said he was going to put the Community Charter in place at the

UBCM. Now the ink on the Community Charter is barely dry, and the government is

bringing in legislation that would override the Community Charter.

The

minister can delay all he wants in answering the question, but it doesn't change

the fact of what he is trying to do. That's fine. I will wait for the minister's

answer to the exact same question under

section

Section 4

as amended approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

I'm waiting for the minister's answer.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I appreciate the member's forbearance in that. I can recognize the

frustration of me hav-

[ Page 8226 ]

ing to say it comes up in the following section, so I appreciate that.

Section 4, as the member knows, laid out the consultation requirements.

J. Kwan:

It passed. Move on.

Hon. K.

Falcon: That's right. It did pass.

If we run

into a situation where there is a breakdown in all of those steps that have been

put in place to ensure dialogue and to ensure that the process — after all,

this is a streamlining act — moves the review and decision process along, then

section 5 can be engaged. I think the critical thing here in

section 5 is that

we're now dealing with what, by any definition, would be an unreasonable

approval authority to the extent that we've had every opportunity for the issues

to be worked out under

section 4, and we've now run into a barrier where that

still is creating a problem.

Section 5

then requires and allows the minister responsible to make an order regarding

replacement measures to specifically deal with whatever particular barrier is

holding up the ability to expedite the review and decision processes. What is

important in

section 5, especially in subsection (2), is that it requires the

minister responsible to consult with the proponent, the affected approval

authority and any facilitator that would have likely been engaged under

section

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister tries to skate over the question, and he's all over the map

about it. He tries to hide and say: "Well, you know, there's this process,

and we'll talk to so-and-so, and then we'll go and talk to so-and-so." The

net result is — and this is the most pertinent part to this bill and to this

section, as it related to

section 4, as it related to

section 3 — that if the

government, the cabinet and through all of these processes the minister

responsible, in talking with the local authority, cannot arrive at a place where

they agree with each other, even if you use a mediator…. You can use whatever

you want. If there's no agreement at the end of the day, under this bill, in

this section, could the cabinet use their power to override local government

authorities and local government rights?

Whether it

be for a community consultation process or a community plan or any of the local

government authority decisions — it could be local bylaws that have been set

up by the local government; it could be the zoning requirements — if at the

end of the day there is no agreement through all of the processes outlined,

could cabinet override local government authorities?

[1645]

Hon. K.

Falcon: What is critical to remember here is that the minister must abide by

the reasonable requirements and a proponent must abide by the reasonable

requirements of the approval authority. It is only if there is unreasonableness

associated with an approval authority, and I might point out — this is, I

think, very significant — that this is actually an equal discipline. It's an

equal discipline on both provincial approval authorities and local approval

authorities, which is one of the reasons why the bill has also generated

considerable support among local government leaders who appreciate the fact that

this also can impose a discipline on provincial approval authorities.

What is

being engaged here is that if we have a decision where an approval authority —

whether it be a local approval authority or a provincial approval authority —

is clearly acting unreasonably, then yes, it does allow for a replacement

measure following discussions with the proponent, with the approval authority

and presumably with a facilitator. That replacement measure would only be

implemented to address whatever the issue was that was unreasonable in terms of

the approval authority. What would happen is that the replacement measure would

replace the unreasonableness with a reasonable measure to allow the review and

decision process to continue.

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps using the word "unreasonable." Unreasonable in

whose terms? If local government says, "Here's our community plan, and you

have to go through this, this and this, and this is the direction we want to

go," and the provincial government comes in, and they say: "That

community plan doesn't fit our game plan, and we want to build" —

actually, let's just use the example — "a fish farm right there in the

middle of that lake, because that's what we want to do…." Local

government says, "That's a great thing for us. We want it," or local

government says: "No, that doesn't fit our community plan, and by the way,

it violates all kinds of environmental standards and we don't like it, so we

disagree with that." Using that example, this government, this minister,

could rise and say: "Well, that's not reasonable, those local government

types, and we're going to use this bill to override their authority."

Isn't it

right that at the end of the day, this bill gives the cabinet the authority to

override local government decisions, bylaws, authority, community processes,

community plans? Isn't that right? Why is the minister having such a hard time

admitting that?

The UBCM,

by the way, have expressed to the opposition that they don't like this bill, and

they don't agree with the government's sweeping power to override their

authority. That's exactly what this bill is doing. What is the minister trying

to hide?

Hon. K.

Falcon: It's very important, I think, to point out to the member opposite

that yes, there are some portions of UBCM leadership that do not support the

bill. But I think it's important to point out that government has always had

those powers that the member is mentioning in terms of override provisions under

section 874 of the Local Government Act — rarely used, I might add, just as

this bill will be very infrequently used.

This bill

is meant to ensure that as opposed to using the blunt instruments we have under

section 874, which allow us to override all the things the member mentioned in

local government issues, this bill allows

[ Page 8227 ]

cabinet, by designation, to say: "This is a really important project

with broad provincial or environmental benefits. Because of that, we want to

ensure we have a way to work cooperatively to make sure that just the review and

process provisions which government puts a project through are done

expeditiously."

It is not

guaranteeing a certainty of outcome; it is guaranteeing a certainty of process.

Right now in British Columbia, sadly, after many, many years of a whole lot of

process being added to government, it often takes years — up to a decade —

for projects to be approved. We think that the province can do better. We

certainly think that local governments, working in cooperation with the

provincial government, can do better. It's something we can work cooperatively

on when a project is considered in the provincial interest.

[1650]

J. Kwan:

Funny how it is, because the minister says: "Oh, there are only a few of

the leadership at the UBCM that disagree with this bill." Guess what. In

case the minister missed it, UBCM passed a resolution opposing this bill as

recently as September, saying that no, the government should not have this

authority. The past president wrote to this minister after she met with the

minister, saying: "This overriding power of local government authority

stinks, and we don't support it."

The Local

Government Act. Yes, it's true. There's a

section that gives some overriding

powers to provincial government, and it has not been used in the last 25 years.

More than that, the past president writes — and I quoted this onto the record

already — to say this compares nothing to that

section of the act. This is far

more sweeping, because when we get to it under

section 11, it basically gives

all overriding powers of all legislation in this bill.

Just for

the record…. I want to challenge the minister's comment that only a few people

within the UBCM disagree with this, because we got a letter. The opposition got

a letter as recently as November 24. Guess what. The current president of the

UBCM writes to the minister….

Well,

actually, before I get to that, let me put on the record the municipalities that

don't agree with the minister's position and that oppose Bill 75: the city of

Armstrong, the district of Bowen Island, the city of Burnaby, the village of

Cache Creek, the regional district of Central Okanagan, the district of Central

Saanich, the town of Creston, Delta, Fort St. James, Gibsons, greater Vancouver

regional district council of councils, Greenwood, Hazelton, Kaslo, Kelowna,

Kitimat-Stikine regional district, Langley, Lillooet, Logan Lake, Lumby, Maple

Ridge, Mission, Nanaimo, Nelson, North Van, Port Coquitlam, Qualicum Beach,

Rossland, Saanich, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Silverton, Smithers, Sparwood, Squamish,

Squamish-Lillooet regional district, Sunshine Coast regional district, Telkwa,

Vancouver, Vernon, Victoria, Wells, district of West Van. The groups are adding

up. The list is growing longer and longer day by day.

The

minister can pretend all he wants that the UBCM thinks this is great. Well, they

don't. They don't, and that's the truth, Mr. Chair.

I'll give

the minister one more chance just to come clean and answer the question and be

straight up. We already understand it is the case, and all he has to do is

confirm it — that the government, under this bill, has the authority to

override local government authorities if they are in disagreement. In the

processes that have been outlined, if they are in disagreement, they have that

authority.

Section 5(1) says this:

"If,

at any time, the responsible minister considers that the proponent and an

approval authority are not able, or will not be able, to reach an agreement

contemplated under

section 4 (4) in relation to a constraint, and the

constraint is one that the responsible minister has been authorized under

section 3 (2) (

b) to replace, the responsible minister may

(

a) develop detailed measures to replace the measure that is perceived to be a

constraint, and

(

b) set out those replacement measures in an order."

When I ask

this question of the minister under

section 3, he says go to

section 4. When I

ask the question under

section 4, he says go to

section 5. Well, the end of the

food chain has arrived. We're now in

section 5. Come clean. Answer the question.

[1655]

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, I've actually been very clear what

section 5 is all about.

Section 5 follows a process that was laid out in

section 4 to ensure that unlike

the powers we have under 874, which is an override provision…. Let's be very

clear about that.

Section 874 of the Local Government Act is an override

provision. It allows the province to override local government.

What this

bill does that is very different is allow for extensive consultation to ensure

there's a cooperative dialogue. It allows for the use of a facilitator, which is

also important. Sometimes you want to make sure you have someone independent

come in and take a look at the facts to make sure, as the member is concerned

about, that you haven't got a case where somebody is exhibiting a bias toward

the particular constraint. Then, as the member correctly points out, you've got

the ability to implement the replacement measure for the specific barrier that

has been identified as being a constraint.

But even

there, again it says that prior to putting into place the replacement measure,

the minister must consult with the proponent, with the affected approval

authority and with any facilitator that had been engaged. I think it's fair to

say, as the member correctly does, that there are some elements of UBCM that

candidly said to me…. Frank Leonard is president — you're absolutely correct

— and said to me that he absolutely preferred a case where no disciplines

would be imposed on the local government level.

They love

the fact that there were disciplines being imposed at the provincial approval

level but not at the local approval level, and that's where I as a reasonable

person part ways. I believe the whole purpose of this bill is to recognize that

we are talking about provin-

[ Page 8228 ]

cially significant projects whereby the province has indicated, through the

use of the guidelines, that there is a provincial interest here — a broader

provincial interest.

The local

government interest is very, very important, and there's no question that

everything we do fully respects local government. In fact, this bill is entirely

consistent with

section 2(2) of the Community Charter, which states — and I

paraphrase — that nothing within the charter shall in any way take away from

the responsibility of the province to act in the interests of the citizens of

British Columbia generally.

So I'm

actually very proud of the fact that we have a very balanced piece of

legislation here that says when there is a project that is really important to

the province and really important to the citizens of British Columbia and

generally, then rather than use an 874 that would just be a very blunt override

that has no provisions whatsoever for the kind of consultative process we have

put into place in this bill, this bill actually ensures that there is a

consultative process.

I must say

that I have worked hard to try and work with local government and UBCM to

address the concerns they raised, and I have no doubt that in the minds of the

president and the past president, they are important concerns. I briefed them

fully on the bill back in April of this year, which is about six months ago and

since that time have written them and actually incorporated two of the important

recommendations that came out of that April briefing.

I will

qualify this by saying I want to repeat, to be very accurate, that the overall

impression of the table executive I met with was that they'd prefer not to have

any disciplines whatsoever imposed on local government: "We like the fact

you're putting it on the provincial approval authorities but not on the local

approval authorities."

When I

indicated that that was inconsistent with the whole purpose of the bill, which

is to provide and lend some degree of certainty at least of process, then they

suggested to me that there were two important issues. The first was that the

bill emphasize the infrequent nature — that it won't be used all the time. The

second was that it should emphasize the cooperative portion of working together

of respective levels of government. This bill has done exactly that.

We changed

the name, by the way, to signify the fact that this applied just to provincially

significant projects. The bill was originally named the economic development

streamlining act. To give further comfort to local governments, we changed the

name to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act to emphasize in the title,

certainly, that this is just referring to those projects that rise to the level

of provincial significance.

The second

thing we did was ensure, based on the letter I received from former president

Pat Wallace, that we do incorporate the cooperative nature they had recommended.

That's why

section 4 goes through all those steps — to ensure, as I mentioned

earlier, that we have a whole bunch of steps in place so that the proponent must

deal with the approval authority — not "may" but "must."

They must meet the reasonable requirements of that authority.

[1700]

If there is

still a breakdown, we have the ability to work with the proponent, the local

government, to ensure that through the use of an independent facilitator, we try

to resolve whatever that perceived challenge is.

Then under

section 5, if there is still a problem, if there is clearly an unreasonableness

with one of the levels of government's approval authorities, we have the ability

to, in a very focused way, put into place a replacement measure, but only a

replacement measure that will replace the unreasonableness of the approval

authority with a reasonable measure to allow the continuation of the expedited

process.

J. Kwan:

The list grows, as I was mentioning, of the local governments that disagree with

this minister and this government's approach under Bill 75. Guess what. Other

people, other municipalities have written to ask for the province to withdraw

the legislation: the village of Anmore, the regional district of Cariboo, the

city of New West, the regional district of Peace River, the city of Richmond.

Communities and local governments asking for the legislation to change are the

district of Powell River and the city of Surrey.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

For the

minister to suggest the local governments and the UBCM would prefer the

government not to do this…. I would say that's an understatement of the

century, Mr. Chair, because here's their letter and what they said — not my

words but the words of the president of UBCM in a letter that he wrote and sent

to the minister on November 24.

"This

is to restate the UBCM executive's position regarding Bill 75 and address issues

raised during our recent discussions. We also want to express our appreciation

for these meetings during the past two weeks and the facilitation of these

sessions by Minister George Abbott.

"We

hope we've made clear to you our support for timely reviews and decisions

by all levels of government of projects that bring not only economic benefit to

our communities and our province but also those that provide social, cultural

and environmental benefits. The UBCM is currently advocating best practices to

our membership, and we are working with the provincial government and the

private sector on best practices guides.

"We

also wish to emphasize the fundamental principles that exist in the

legislation that govern our members. We are the most open, transparent and

accountable level of government, and the Local Government Act and the new

Community Charter have significant measures that ensure the democratic rights of

our citizens. That is why we find the generalities in Bill 75 that allow

ministerial overrides of any local government decisions foreign and

unacceptable.

"The

UBCM has proposed that Bill 75 be amended to exclude local government.

You have rejected that proposal outright. Subsequently, in our meetings we

[ Page 8229 ]

have put forward several compromise amendments to limit the scope of

the bill as it affects local government and to introduce some openness and

consultation to the decisions that override the democratic decisions made by our

council and boards. Once again, you have rejected every amendment proposal we

have put forward.

"Finally,

you have agreed to consider a process for the provincial government and

the UBCM to prepare guidelines and criteria as to how Bill 75 will be applied to

local governments. We must once again stress that we take little comfort in such

arrangements outside of legislation because they have no means of enforcement.

"Thus,

we're asking, as

an act of good faith by the provincial government, that

the bill be amended so that guidelines and criteria be developed and agreed to

prior to the bill's imposition on our member governments and the citizens they

serve. This can be accomplished by amending Bill 75 to allow the provisions of

the bill to be brought into effect by regulation and stating that local

government will not be brought under the legislation while the guidelines and

criteria are being developed.

"Letters

conveying council and board resolutions in support of the UBCM

executive's opposition to Bill 75 are pouring in from our members, although I

acknowledge you have recruited support for this bill as well. Yet good

governance is not about who has the largest stack of letters. Our members and

the citizens of our communities enjoy democratic rights that are exercises at

council and board meetings where the decisions affecting them are made. The

spirit of this longstanding tradition was recently expressed in the principles

of the Community Charter your government passed this spring.

"Therefore,

we implore you to support this amendment. That amendment would be to have

the act come into force by regulation accompanied by a commitment from the

government not to bring local government under the act until guidelines and

criteria are finalized. This will provide an opportunity to give some good

measure of protection to these principles and rights through guidelines and

criteria.

"Sincerely,

Mayor Frank Leonard

President"

[1705]

For the

minister to suggest he's made changes…. To be polite, those changes that he's

made at the request of UBCM barely touch on the periphery of the substance that

needs to be changed. For the minister to say he's changed the title of the act

as though somehow that's significant, that's like changing a name from Big Bully

to Big Bull. It doesn't help.

Let's be

clear. What we've got here is that the government is bringing forward a measure

to override local governments' authority and decisions. That is to say that

after all the consultation is said and done, if this minister and this

government do not like local government decisions, they will say: "Too bad.

We're the senior level of government. We have a piece of legislation that says

our power overrides yours, and that's how we're going to proceed."

It's as

though local governments don't actually care about economic prosperity for their

own communities, don't care about the well-being of their communities. Of course

they do, but they also want to make sure their decisions are made on the basis

of a balance of a number of competing demands — namely, social, cultural,

economic and environmental demands — not a one-sided or lopsided approach

where money is the driving force for this government and for our communities,

and be damned with everything else.

I note the

minister is not going to answer my question outright, but the people know what

the answers are. Let me ask the minister this question: will the information

surrounding the minister's order be subject to FOI?

Hon. K.

Falcon: To restate, I want to be very clear that this act will be fully

compliant with all provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in its entirety.

To respond briefly to the member, I thank the member for reading into the record

the letter from Mayor Leonard, as president of UBCM. The member made reference

to the fact and the acknowledgment in that letter that there was considerable

support among the mayors for this bill too. Really, that's not to say there's

anything wrong with the fact that there are differences of opinion.

I think the

critical thing is and the concern that some mayors have had…. What I've found

in my discussions with them, frankly, was that the concerns were raised as a

result of a letter they received from UBCM, and that's legitimate. In talking to

me and once they had an understanding of these sections of the bill,

particularly the consultative provisions…. I found that lends a lot of comfort

to this bill.

The member

should probably acknowledge one of the things that is a reality in public life.

Even though governments have powers to override local governments, as they do

under

section 874, those powers have been there — as the member correctly

pointed out — for at least 25 years, and they're rarely, if ever, used. The

point of departure I have with my friends at UBCM — and many of them are

indeed just that — is that I think local government does a fantastic job. All

of the councils that member mentioned in her recitation do excellent jobs in

representing the local interest. I have absolutely no quarrel with that.

This bill,

though, suggests there are times at which there is a broader provincial

interest, and that broader provincial interest at times needs to be respected to

the extent that if there is a sense there is a broader provincial interest,

let's make sure we have an ability to engage in a cooperative dialogue to ensure

we allow the broader provincial interest to at least have some resonance in the

debate.

[1710]

I believe

very strongly that this bill has done that, and that's why I stand very proudly