2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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, OCTOBER 20, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 76)

Hon. G. Collins

Election Act Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill M207)

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Artists for kids

K. Whittred

Prevention of gang violence

P. Sahota

French immersion

R. Stewart

Oral Questions

Expansion of gambling

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Hon. I. Chong

Community access to forest resources

B. Belsey

Hon. R. Harris

Ditch maintenance by Langley farmers

L. Stephens

Hon. J. van Dongen

Expansion of gambling

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Reid

Student performance in Surrey

D. Hayer

Hon. T. Christensen

Environmental assessments

B. Penner

Hon. G. Abbott

Petitions

R. Masi

D. MacKay

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Transmission

Corporation, major capital project plan

Advertisements run during Parksville-Qualicum

by-election, Surrey–White Rock election and 1997 federal election

Second Reading of Bills

Northern Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 59) (continued)

Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. Wilson

Hon. R. Harris

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Falcon

B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act (Bill 58) (continued)

P. Nettleton

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Harris

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65) (continued)

W. Cobb

Hon. R. Harris

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65)

Committee of the Whole House

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Falcon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2004 (Bill 74)

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills

Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Third Reading of Bills

Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Committee of the Whole House

Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 72) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

[ Page 11591 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Deputy Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to

introduce 30 public servants seated in the public gallery who are participating

in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop, offered by the

Legislative Assembly, provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to

gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their

ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Today in the members' gallery I want to

acknowledge a very special visitor to the House, Mr. Paul DuBois, ambassador of

Canada to Germany. I'm very pleased the ambassador has travelled to British

Columbia to discover and enjoy the many opportunities our beautiful province

presents to visitors. British Columbia has traditionally been a great

destination location, especially with visitors from Germany, and we congratulate

the ambassador for his efforts in promoting our scenic and "super, natural"

province. Would all members please join me in making him feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I have two constituents in the gallery today:

Mr. Kal Rangi and his wife, and they're joined by their son. They have two

visitors from the Indian army — D.S. Grewal and Mrs. Harjit Grewal. I would ask

the House to please make them very, very welcome.

J. Kwan: I have the pleasure to introduce Lenlen Castro, a

member of local 76 students union of Vancouver Community College, who has travelled to Victoria today to present the government with petitions calling on

the government for the reduction of tuition fees to 2001 levels and to restore

public funding in advanced education. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Stewart: Some colleagues and I had the opportunity and

the pleasure to be able to meet with representatives of the Canadian Parents for

French this morning, who came in to discuss the tremendous success of B.C.'s

French immersion program and how we can work together to address some of the

demand. Joining us in the members' gallery today are CPF directors Laurin

Shadforth; from Dawson Creek, on behalf on my colleague who is behind me,

Heather Newman; and the president of Canadian Parents for French, Melanie

Tighe-Lovsin. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Masi: I would like to take this opportunity to recognize

all the members of a student delegation I met with this morning regarding

post-secondary tuition. I would ask the House to please make them all very, very

welcome.

M. Hunter: Part of that delegation includes two of my

constituents, Rick Powelson and Pat Barbosa. I hope the House will make them

welcome on my behalf too.

Hon. S. Brice: Another member of that delegation is a

constituent of mine. Her name is Joanna Groves. I would ask the House to make

her welcome.

R. Nijjar: The Association of Professional Engineers and

Geoscientists of B.C., otherwise known as APEGBC, maintains high academic

practice and professional standards expected of B.C.'s over 20,000 professional

engineers and professional geoscientists. I am going to be a little politically

incorrect and say there's one of those 20,000 that is dearest and most loved in

our hearts. I'm very proud to say that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano,

an engineer, a PhD, is going to receive the community service award by APEGBC.

[1410]

I hope everybody can attend and give their well wishes, because of

the 11 members that are going to receive the exemplary professional contribution

award at the 2004 annual conference in Whistler, October 21 to 23. I'm sure some

of us will not have the chance to be there, but he is loved by all of us on both

sides, I'm sure. I'd like to have everyone congratulate him. [Applause.]

L. Mayencourt: I have the pleasure of introducing three

individuals that are with us today, but I'd also like to introduce two that are

not, and for this reason. For many years I've been a member of the Public

Accounts Committee. That Public Accounts Committee has been served very, very

well by the office of the auditor general and in particular by three individuals

that are facing retirement.

They include Mr. Peter Gregory, who is not here today. Peter has

been very, very involved in creating kind of a revolutionary type of performance

reporting for British Columbia that is putting us at the forefront of this kind

of reporting in all of Canada. He is not joining us today. We also have Endre

Dolhai, who is away doing some work out of the province. He will also be

retiring.

In the gallery today we have Keyvan Ahmadi and his wife Elizabeth

Ahmadi, who will be enjoying their retirement. We also have Mr. Wayne Strelioff,

who is the auditor general. Would the House please salute these three exemplary

members of the public service. [Applause.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2),

[ Page 11592 ]

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to announce that Bill 76

reduces the PST from 7.5 percent back down to 7 percent. As I said at the time

of the 2002 budget, raising taxes was the last thing the government ever wanted

or intended to do, but when faced with nearly $800 million in additional

compensation costs in 2002 to pay for doctors and nurses — but particularly an

arbitration with doctors — government took the very difficult decision to raise

the provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 7.5 percent.

Today I want to thank British Columbians for helping us, over the

last three years, to pay for those doctors, manage the health care system, get

our costs under control, turn this fiscal house around and get our economy back

on track. The thanks for the change today really go to the people of British

Columbia, who've worked hard over the last three years to see this result.

I also said at the time this tax was raised that when the many

structural changes we were making began to pay dividends and our budget moved

into a surplus, reducing the sales tax would be one of British Columbia's top

priorities. We're now projecting a substantial surplus in 2004-05 and into the

future and, indeed, every year thereafter. I've very pleased to be able to table

Bill 76 today, which reduces the PST that half a percentage point. The

transitional rules are available on the ministry's provincial website

immediately.

I move first reading of Bill 76.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 76 be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 76 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.

ELECTION ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

J. MacPhail presented a bill intituled Election Act Amendment Act,

J. MacPhail: I move that a bill entitled Election Act

Amendment Act, 2004, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1415]

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Election Act

to make it illegal for the government to use taxpayer funds on partisan

political advertising during a general election or a by-election. As all British

Columbians have been made very aware, the government is currently spending

millions of dollars on partisan advertising featuring actors dictating blatant

partisan spin. Despite the government's commitment and promise to not run such

advertising during elections, British Columbians are being inundated with

partisan messaging and print ads hourly while a by-election is running in the

riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. It costs roughly a minimum of $35,000 every

time one of these advertisements runs on prime-time TV. That money is being

taken away from health and education.

In order to curb this reckless and partisan use of taxpayer

dollars, this bill will make government advertising an offence during the

campaign period of general elections and by-elections. Under this act, if an

offence is committed, the Premier of a government that commits the offence can

be fined up to $5,000. This bill will also facilitate the creation of a

non-partisan committee to create the standards that will govern government

advertising. This bill represents an opportunity to ensure that all elections

are free from interference of partisan advertising paid for by the taxpayers.

British Columbians deserve to see their tax dollars put into positive programs,

not partisan ads.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207 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 25

b) ARTISTS FOR KIDS

K. Whittred: Nearly everyone on the North Shore has

enjoyed, at one time or another, a visit to the Artists for Kids Gallery. It is

one of the many successes of the North Vancouver school district, a leader among

school districts in providing unique and enriching learning experiences to

students in North Vancouver and, indeed, around the province.

The gallery is but one part of the Artists for Kids Trust. This

trust was established in 1989 through a generous partnership among some of

Canada's finest artists — Bill Reid, Jack Shadbolt, Gordon Smith — and the North

Vancouver school district. In fact, one of the very first pieces of art donated

to the gallery is the Bill Reid drum design that the Canadian Mint has recently

incorporated into the new $20 bill.

The mission of Artists for Kids is to provide an art education

legacy for the students of British Columbia. The trust administers the gallery

as well as the Paradise Valley Summer School of Visual Art in Brackendale, where

in addition to the usual range of summer camp activities, students experience

and learn from some of Canada's finest visual artists and teachers. A host of

quality art programs for students are offered year-round, everything from

painting to potting to design, for children from kindergarten through high

school.

Funds are raised for all of its accomplishments by the sale of

original prints by its many artist patrons. Recently this initiative played a

significant factor in why the North Van school district was awarded the third

minister's award for school board excellence, which includes a $10,000 prize.

[ Page 11593 ]

I think the most important part of the program is the part that's

called Artists in the Spotlight. Up-and-coming artists are nominated by their

teachers to showcase their talents. I would like to congratulate Sarah Mitchell,

who is eight, from Lonsdale School, and Nick Harborne, who is 16, from

Sutherland, whose achievements are currently in the Artists for Kids spotlight.

If any of you are in North Vancouver, I encourage you to visit the

Artists for Kids Gallery, located in the Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre. It's

filled with an ever-exchanging collection of magnificent works by our leading

artists, so come to the gallery and see art from Canada's foremost contemporary

artists and support quality art education for the children of British Columbia.

PREVENTION OF GANG VIOLENCE

P. Sahota: Over the past three years many of us have stood

in this House to talk about the ongoing gang violence in the South Asian

community. We know that more than 75 young people have lost their lives over the

past decade. In response to this escalating violence, law enforcement agencies,

community leaders, this government and community organizations have been working

together diligently to find solutions to a problem that has many facets.

[1420]

One such community organization is VIRSA Sikh Alliance Against

Youth Violence, which is doing tremendous work. They have been actively working

with the youth, the parents and the community to prevent other young people from

entering a life of violence and drugs. The chair of the organization is

well-known Burnaby resident Harbans Kandola, who, along with the board of

directors, has shown exceptional leadership on this issue.

Those involved with VIRSA recognize that law enforcement is just

one piece of the puzzle. Thus, the goal of VIRSA is to educate our youth, to

provide mentors and to empower the parents so that future violence can be

avoided. VIRSA has forged ahead with unique prevention and intervention programs

for families of Indian descent. More than 200 parents are enrolled in the

intervention program designed to help parents build better relationships with

their children and to spot the warning signs that their children are headed down

the wrong path. Three mentorship programs, like the Big Brothers/Big Sisters

program, are underway to motivate and provide positive role models.

To further raise awareness and discussion of this complex issue,

VIRSA is holding a fundraising dinner this Friday, October 22, at the Riverside

Palace in Richmond. I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be attending

to lend our support. I also know that the presence of the Attorney General, the

Solicitor General and the Minister of Education is much anticipated and

appreciated by the community.

I want to thank and congratulate VIRSA and the many volunteers for

the work they have undertaken and for working together in a collaborative and

cooperative manner.

FRENCH IMMERSION

R. Stewart: Last week at the ministerial conference on

francophone affairs in Moncton, I once again heard praise from my colleagues

across Canada about B.C.'s success in French immersion. As we saw in front-page

newspaper stories this morning, education in B.C. in French language has had

tremendous success, and much of that success is due to the advocacy of parents

and organizations like Canadian Parents for French. This organization now boasts

more than 6,500 members, myself included. According to the organization, this is

an increase of more than 67 percent in the past three years, giving them twice

as many members as any other province in Canada.

French immersion enrolment has increased almost 20 percent in the

past four years in spite of declining student populations in general. As well,

some 13 communities have added French immersion programs in the last four years

as a direct result of parent advocacy. Now 44 of B.C.'s 60 school districts

offer French immersion. As CPF points out, this success goes beyond French

immersion. Surrey, for example, recently added B.C.'s first intensive core

French program. Conseil scolaire, the francophone school district, saw a

remarkable 12 percent increase in enrolment this year alone.

The B.C. government has just built some new francophone schools,

and there are more under construction. SFU has launched its bilingual degree

program. Éducacentre has been transformed into the province's first

French-language community college, and Okanagan University College, for the

first time, is offering teacher training and certification in French as well as

If you have concerns about the challenges students face in

learning a second language, you should consider that a Stats Canada report

revealed that B.C.'s French immersion students lead the country in reading

second language, of being bilingual, helps improve brain development and may

cause lifelong cognitive advantages. I'm sure that my colleagues can think of

examples right here in the House to show this is probably true.

I want to applaud the teachers, the school districts, the Canadian

Parents for French and all those parents who take on the challenge of enrolling

their children in French immersion programs.

Oral Questions

EXPANSION OF GAMBLING

J. MacPhail: When in opposition, this is what the now

government Whip had to say about expanded gambling: "Women in British Columbia

will die as a result of gambling expansion, so children may die as a result of

gambling expansion, and their blood will be

[ Page 11594 ]

on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and the MLAs who voted

for it." That is a direct quote from Hansard .

Does the Premier agree with his Whip that children will die as a

result of this government's expansion of gambling?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think there should be no question at

all in this House about who carried out the increase in the massive expansion of

gambling. It was the NDP, the previous government, that did that.

[1425]

The second thing I think we have to know is that we have to make

sure that we contain it, that we control it and that we manage it properly and

appropriately for everyone concerned. That's why this government, unlike the

last government, has doubled the amount of dollars that are going towards

problem gambling. We want to make sure that it is controlled, and we want to

make sure that society is not in fact harmed by this activity.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, supplemental

question.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the Premier should stick around and hear

what his ministers are saying in this chamber. The Solicitor General has already

admitted that the government broke its promise and expanded gambling. Let me

quote from him last March to me in this chamber: "I'm not going to say that none

of this is expanded gaming, because some of it is." We have the Solicitor

General admitting that the government has expanded gambling and the government

Whip saying that expanded gambling leaves blood on the government's head.

My question to the Premier: will he advise the House what studies

his government has commissioned that will allow him to be confident that

expanded gaming won't lead to the tragic results for children his colleague

predicts?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we announced in an open cabinet

meeting, we had legal obligations to be met. We have met those legal

obligations. I also think it's important to note….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that

there were legal obligations that had to be met. We discussed that very soon

after we were elected as government.

As a result of the initiatives we have taken, there is now a

24-hour help line available for people. There are 31 professionals who are

available across the province. There are provincial counsellors that are

providing provincewide counselling services. All of those things are to try and

make sure we have an organized, thoughtful gaming industry in British Columbia.

We are meeting those obligations through the lottery corporations. We have

removed the political interference from it, and that is in the public interest.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further

supplemental.

J. MacPhail: The government Whip says that people will die

because of expanded gambling, the Solicitor General admits that this government

has expanded gambling, and this Premier hides behind the fact that he says

contracts are inviable. Does he know his own record on breaking contracts? There

is absolutely no evidence that there were any legal obligations, and he knows

it. He knows it. It is very disturbing that this Premier doesn't have a handle

on this.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: Study after study has shown that gaming is a

threat to kids, particularly Internet gaming. The Responsible Gaming Council of

Ontario says that Internet gaming is a particular danger for kids because they

are often the most adept at using the Internet. Three months ago a British study

concluded that age verification systems designed to stop minors from gambling on

the Internet aren't reliable.

The government admitted that gambling laws are unable to keep pace

with changes in technology. That's what the Solicitor General said. Again, my

question is to the Premier: when will he start advocating for children and

demand that his government keep its promise and call a halt to the expansion of

gaming?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me underline and emphasize

that the expansion of gambling in British Columbia took place under the previous

government. I am actually very sorry that the member from the opposition did not

have that information available to her at the time they entered into these

agreements and the expansion of gambling. What we have done is we have made sure

that gambling was managed in a sensible way. We have removed the political

interference from gaming, and we are providing support services to those who may

have difficulties with gaming in their personal lives.

J. Kwan: This Premier, when he was in opposition,

campaigned on no gaming expansion. After he took office, he expanded gaming. In

opposition the Liberal MLAs cited a report that shows that children of gamblers

do worse in school than their peers and attempt suicide twice as often as their

classmates. They pointed to studies that show pathological gamblers abuse their

spouse and children.

[1430]

Let me ask the Minister of State for Women's Services: does she

accept the findings of the studies refer-

[ Page 11595 ]

enced by her own colleagues that gambling expansion hurts women, and what is

she doing to stop it?

Hon. I. Chong: The hypocrisy coming from the members

opposite is outrageous. When I was in opposition, I did not see those members

standing up to the expansion of gambling that they introduced.

Our government is committed to ensuring that we have a responsible

gambling industry, and we have done that. We have removed the political

interference. If those two members would stop fearmongering in this House, it

would serve the public much better.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

with a supplemental.

J. Kwan: At least the Solicitor General has enough

integrity to admit that they have expanded gaming. This government campaigned on

no gaming expansion and then proceeded to expand gaming. The Minister of State

for Women's Services' hypocrisy, she calls, is just about to be tested.

In opposition the member for Langley and former Minister of State

for Women's Equality introduced a motion of non-confidence during the Women's

Equality minister's estimates debates because she couldn't stop a minor

expansion of gambling. This government has doubled gambling in the province of

British Columbia and is now taking it to the Internet. The current Minister of

State for Women's Services voted in favour of that motion of non-confidence. So

did the Premier. In fact, the Minister of Finance spoke to the motion.

My question to the Minister of State for Women's Services, again:

does she agree that this House should have no confidence in her because she has

done nothing to stop this massive expansion of gaming?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the members opposite continue to

create fear amongst the public. They have no understanding of the gaming

industry.

We have a variety of services that are available…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. I. Chong: …and programs designed to ensure that

responsible gaming occurs in this province. Let me just name a few of them. We

have self-exclusion programs. We have information on problem gambling being

posted in gaming venues. We have referral services and training for all gaming

workers to identify and assist problem gamblers. Problem gambling awareness

campaigns have been recently run in the media. A responsible gaming website has

been developed and is now operating.

COMMUNITY ACCESS

TO FOREST RESOURCES

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for

Forestry Operations. My riding, from the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii to

halfway to Terrace, from Stewart down to Bella Coola, is covered with a blanket

of trees — old growth, some new growth and some prime for harvesting. Carved out

of that blanket of trees are a number of small communities that for decades

tried to get access to those trees, to secure some tender.

My question to the Minister for Forestry Operations is: will he

tell my constituents what he is doing to help those communities reach their goal

of access to the forest?

Hon. R. Harris: The member and I have talked quite often

about small community-based tenures in his riding. He has been a tremendous

advocate. When we were elected, one of the things we said we were going to do

right away was revitalize the forest industry in this province. It's pretty

difficult today to pick up a newspaper anywhere and not read about the good news

that's happening in this forest industry right across the province.

One key component of that revitalization plan is, in fact, the

creation of a significant number of new, small community-based tenure

opportunities in this province. To date we've signed over 70 forest and range

agreements with first nations. We've recently extended community forest licences

to communities like Fort St. James and Burns Lake, and just recently extended

invitations to a number of communities for new community forest opportunities —

Ucluelet, Sechelt and Port Alberni, just to name a few.

[1435]

We are expanding the woodlot program in this province. We're

doubling the size of the B.C. timber sales program in this province. What we're

doing in this province today is providing access, not just to communities but to

community-based businesses, to the fibre that surrounds them in a way that's

going to work for them and that is going to build these communities in a strong

and sustainable manner. I'm proud to be part of a government doing that.

DITCH MAINTENANCE

BY LANGLEY FARMERS

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries. Farmers in Langley and the Fraser Valley are having a very

frustrating time dealing with the regulations from the federal Department of

Fisheries and Oceans. According to our farmers, the DFO is making the clearing

of ditches very, very difficult. If farmers do not clear these plugged ditches,

very often their fields will flood when it rains.

My question to the minister is: what is being done to assist our

farmers in dealing with their discussions with the DFO?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am familiar with the conflicts in

Langley between farmers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The

conflicts revolve around land clearing, drainage and ditch maintenance. I have

[ Page 11596 ]

spoken to the federal minister, Geoff Regan, on this issue. He has committed

to working with us on these issues. We are working, through our ministry staff

and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff and through the agriculture

environment partnership committee, to develop guidelines for farmers to use to

develop codes of practice that they can follow which will be compatible with the

federal Fisheries Act.

I believe that taking a thoughtful science-based approach,

combined with respect for legitimate farming activities, will help us resolve

this issue. Our ministry is committed to working on that to help these farmers

resolve these conflicts.

EXPANSION OF GAMBLING

J. MacPhail: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson said

about expanded gambling: "Women in British Columbia will die as a result of

gambling expansion. So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and

their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and

the MLAs who voted for it."

To the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development: was the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson telling the truth then?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to rise and respond on behalf

of this government's record in terms of how we've handled children's issues in

the province of British Columbia.

In one example alone, in terms of the children who receive

services and who have autism today, we are the leaders in the country in terms

of individualized support for families. This government is only interested in

doing things that are a kindness to families, and we will stand on that.

STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN SURREY

D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Education.

Excellence in education continues to be a source of pride for Surrey

communities. Recently the NDP have tried to claim that the education system in

Surrey is eroding and much worse than it was four years ago.

To the Minister of Education: I would like to know how students in

my communities are performing today compared to three years ago.

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for the question.

The Surrey school board actually has a great story to tell.

They've shown incredible leadership in focusing on student achievement and on

improving student achievement in the Surrey school district. Over the last few

years…. Last year, in fact, we saw a record 80 percent of students in the Surrey

school district complete high school. That overall completion rate has increased

steadily over the last four years — in fact, from 76 percent back before the

turn of the century to 80 percent more recently. They are achieving on all

levels, and they will continue to achieve due to the effective leadership

they've shown there in focusing on student achievement.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

B. Penner: In August the NDP-funded Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives and the David Suzuki Foundation released a document claiming

that the provincial government had watered down or weakened the environmental

assessment process in B.C. I'm aware of some changes that were made to

streamline renewable energy projects, but I'm wondering if the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management can comment about how the changes affect

environmental protection in the province of British Columbia.

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member: there was a new

Environmental Assessment Act brought into place in December of 2002. The object

of that was to produce more timely decisions on environmental assessment

projects. In most cases now, the projects are through the assessment process in

180 days. As well, we have put in place concurrent permitting, which would

ensure that the proponents typically only have to wait about 60 days to have

their related permits in place by the end of the process.

Importantly, the process continues to involve the public in a

major way — a lot of public input, a lot of consultation with first nations.

Most importantly, there is a very thorough, very fair, very objective and

professional analysis of these issues by the EAO.

Happily, the product of all this is more economic development in

the province. We have seen the number of projects in the EAO process double in

the last year. Also very importantly, we expect at least ten new mining projects

to be a part of the EAO process next year.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

R. Masi: I have here a sample of a number of petitions from

approximately 25,000 students from colleges and universities from right across

the province, all relating to tuition fees. The remainder will be delivered on

behalf of my colleagues here to the Clerk's office.

D. MacKay: I have a petition to file on behalf of about 850

residents throughout the northwest who are opposed to a proposed road being

built.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition also. I have a petition

opposed to the Safe Streets Act legislation from members of the community, with

291 names on the petition.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

[ Page 11597 ]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. van Dongen: I see in the gallery our

poultry specialist with the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart Paulson. I'd

like the House to please make him welcome and acknowledge the good work that he

and the other ministry staff did in dealing with the AI crisis in British

Columbia.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have the honour to present a major

capital project plan prepared by the British Columbia Transmission Corporation

for the proposed system control modernization project in accordance with the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table a

document.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Collins: I have before me 41 advertisements that

might provide some context to the Leader of the Opposition's private member's

bill today, including those that ran during the Parksville-Qualicum by-election

and the Surrey–White Rock election. But my favourite has the smiling face of the

member opposite on it, which ran using provincial government money during the

1997 federal election.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please

come to order.

[1445]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Collins: If I had known it was going to hurt that

much, I would have provided anaesthetic as well.

Despite how tempting it is, I call second reading of Bill 59.

Second Reading of Bills

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

TRUST ACT

(continued)

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in

support of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act. I have just come back

from visiting with 41 mayors and regional district chairs from across the north.

The best way to describe their attitude is that they are not just grateful that

this has happened; I think in some ways they're surprised. We are doing

something with this piece of legislation which is in response to what

northerners have been asking provincial governments for decades and more.

We should recognize that when we provide $135 million for northern

people to come up with northern solutions to northern opportunities, we have

liberated the north to pursue their goals and objectives in a way that is

unprecedented in British Columbia. I was fortunate on Saturday to be in Prince

George, where we were part of the opening-up of the Chicago Express. Speaker

after speaker commented about how that would allow us to shrink the supply line,

how it would allow us to get our products to customers earlier. That is just a

start of the B.C. Rail investment partnership's benefits to the people of the

north.

I want to talk about the northern development initiative

particularly, because it does do something that is unique. It is a model that we

will able to watch — how it grows and how it develops — as we move forward. The

northern development initiative does something that has not happened before. It

provides substantial resources to communities and regions in the north to pursue

their goals and their objectives in the way that they see fit.

As we met with the advisory committees in the north, I can tell

you that mayor after mayor and regional district chair after regional district

chair were very excited by the opportunities that this opens up for them. It

opens up opportunities, certainly, in transportation, in tourism development, in

energy development, in forestry development, in dealing with the pine beetle, in

small business development and in economic development. We are talking about a

whole new era of development in the northern part of British Columbia. That's

what we committed to, and that's what this bill delivers on.

Mr. Speaker, as you see the other benefits that have accrued as a

result of the B.C. Rail investment partnership…. We see not just a write-down of

$500 million in debt that is coming but also a savings of $30 million a year. We

see maintenance in the infrastructure improving and increasing. That's going to

be important.

When you look at what's taken place just in the changes that have

taken place in the last few months and you see how much closer shippers are to

their customers, you also discover that there's been $2.6 million invested in

Prince George alone. There will be a new wheelhouse opened early next year.

There is going to be an expansion to the airport as Prince George becomes a

northern hub for transportation and goods movement. That's important to all of

us.

Equally important, yesterday I was in Terrace, and I was talking

to mayors and regional district representatives of the northwest part of our

province — a part of our province which has too often not been paid attention to

by governments in the past. I am pleased to say that when you talk with the MLA

for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the MLA for Skeena and the MLA for North

[ Page 11598 ]

Coast, they have captured the imagination of our northwest communities. The

northern development initiative will give them a brand-new opportunity to open

up the opportunities and the jobs for people in the northwest.

[1450]

You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we forget that the previous

government sometimes didn't even recognize where the northwest was and the

opportunities that it presented to us. I have in my hand a government investment

climate brochure from 1996. You open it up, and there are some grand comments

about the capacity of British Columbia's ports. The only port that is mentioned

is Vancouver.

I think it is important to note that the port of Prince Rupert has

already attracted attention from people in the central part of the United

States. It has already attracted attention from our prairie farmers and our

Peace River farmers. It is already slated to become a major container facility

for the long term in British Columbia, because it gets our products 30 hours

closer to the markets in Asia — particularly the markets in China and Japan —

and the markets in India. That is a huge plus for the north and for British

Columbia.

When you look at the $135 million established under the northern

development initiative in this bill, we recognize that a number of things are

taking place. The first one is that we are recognizing that the north should

come up with their own solutions to their own problems. I think that is

something that's been very important to community leaders across the north. But

the second is this. This is a new model. It's a model that asks individual

community leaders to come together and find common ground and common purpose as

they pursue their investment strategies.

I'll tell members of the House that one of the things that every

regional advisory committee mentioned as we sat and discussed the potential for

the northern development initiative…. They all said this: "We are not going to

invest these dollars in bureaucracy. We are not going to invest these dollars in

more and more studies. We're going to invest these dollars in improving the

quality of life of the people that we serve in our ridings and across the

north." That's exactly why I support the northern development initiative.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at how these dollars are allocated, $25

million is an ongoing trust that will provide the opportunity for northern

communities to come together and find common purpose. The $15 million we are

allocating to each of the regions in the north is equally important to the

northeast, the northwest, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Lillooet and Prince George.

Again, that allows them to complement, to lever up additional opportunities —

whether it's through the private sector, through the federal government, through

provincial programs…. All of those things are critical.

The $50 million which will be used for northern initiatives offers

a challenge to all of the members who are part of the northern development

initiative board, and that is this: what are the things that we all have in

common? One of our challenges is that as we come to Victoria, it's not unusual

for us to talk about the north as if it was one place. The north is a vast area,

and the north has different economies, has different opportunities, and has

different goals and dreams for itself. As we look at how we create the northern

development initiative and as the bill represents the $50 million that will be

placed there for transnorthern initiatives, I think it does something and

reinforces part of the northern culture that is there already. It says that we

recognize the differences in the region, but we also recognize that they have a

great deal in common in their objectives and where they would like to go.

I think it's probably most important for us to reflect on the fact

that for too long, northern communities have had to come to Victoria and say

please. This is no longer a question of please. This is a question of

opportunity being developed in the north by northerners. Whether you live in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, whether you live in the Peace or the northern Rockies,

whether you live in the northwest, whether you live in Terrace or in Prince

Rupert, you have an opportunity now to find common goal, common purpose, and to

invest resources in meeting those objectives. By levering up those objectives,

we believe we will open brand-new doors of opportunity across the north.

One of the important things of this legislation is that this in no

way takes the place of other government programs that are already in existence.

We will continue with a substantial increase in transportation infrastructure

improvements. We will continue to move towards more regionalization of the

health care infrastructure across this province so people can get care closer to

where they live. We will continue to expand our post-secondary opportunities in

apprenticeships and in colleges and in universities so that people can get the

education where they live. We will continue to work with communities to

reinforce their cultural initiatives and their own goals and objectives as we

move forward.

[1455]

I believe that this is a critical step in the future of British

Columbia. The north of our province is a critical part of our future. By

providing the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, by providing $135

million to people across the great expanse of the northern part of British

Columbia, we are providing keys to the future — keys to opportunity and keys

that will reignite the sense of excitement and entrepreneurship we have felt

across the north for the last 100-and-some-odd years in the province.

This is an exceptional initiative. It is one that we should all

support. It is one that all northern communities support. It is one that helps

create a brand-new future for the entire province by focusing on the strengths

of our northern communities.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I, too, want to stand and fully support

and speak a bit to the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, Bill 59.

[ Page 11599 ]

It certainly is something new and innovative that has been put in

place by the Premier of our province, who comes up with these kinds of

innovative programs that actually start making people think about what they'd

like to do in their particular region.

An Hon. Member: It's good news.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In fact, it's just mentioned to me that

it's good news. It's really good news.

I know that yesterday, when I was with the Premier and some of the

other cabinet ministers and we met with the two regional district chairs in

northeast B.C. and all the mayors, they were enthused with what we brought

forward and what we talked to them about. I will say that they had asked a

couple of times: "What will you allow us to do with this money?" The Premier's

response was: "That's a decision for you to make. What we're saying is that for

your region — that's northeast B.C. — there is $15 million. You decide how you

want to spend that money. You decide how you want to prioritize where that money

should go. You decide whether you want to hire people to actually do some

reports or some economic development ideas. You decide how you want to spend

that money."

To be perfectly honest, having been a mayor in the north in the

past, it was surprising to them that our Premier said: "It's your decision. We

set a basic framework around the development of this $135 million fund because

it is taxpayers' money, but you decide what priorities you want to put the money

to." For too many years the north was actually used to fund many things that

took place in the province, but very little went back into the north for

infrastructure, for services that people need.

I have been fortunate enough to have been in this House since

1991. I want to thank the people of Peace River North for electing me since

1991. I guess one would think: "What's the matter with you? You had ten years of

socialism stuffed down your throat every day. Were you happy to have that?" I am

saying to you now that no, I wasn't happy to have that socialist attitude. I'm

happy that we have a government now that believes in the north, believes in

people — whether they live in Vancouver or any part of this great province of

ours — and actually comes up with some of these innovative ideas, so that they

can go out and do some of the things they want to do.

I remember so many things about those ten dark years, but I

remember seeing a document one time about transportation in British Columbia put

out by the previous government. I think it was the then Premier, Glen Clark.

It's hard to remember. They had a number of them over a period of time, but I

think it was under Glen Clark. When I looked at that transportation document, I

think there was either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek on the map, and that was

it. And no money was allocated to those regions.

It was darn pathetic what took place in northeastern British

Columbia, and today we're paying the price. Today we pay the price through

greater costs to actually fix up that infrastructure, because you could only

beat that infrastructure for so long and then you had to put in an awful lot of

money.

[1500]

I will give you a couple of quick numbers. Under the NDP reign,

for five years they averaged…. This is the last year they went into the

election, and they really ramped up spending because they thought they'd win a

few votes in northeastern B.C. In fact, they didn't. The Marijuana Party beat

the candidate. Anyhow, what happened was that they spent an average of about $20

million a year on rehabilitation. Our government has seen its way clear to spend

on average, over three years, about $55 million to $58 million. That's just to

try to catch up and fix the things that should have been fixed when they were in

office.

Mr. Speaker, this money that comes from the B.C. Rail

Partnership…. Let me tell you that there was a lot of soul-searching in

northeastern B.C. in regards to the B.C. Rail Partnership. I'm not going to say

that all the people, all the leaders in northeastern B.C. were onside with what

we were doing when we started the process, but I clearly remember yesterday

Mayor Fred Jarvis saying: "You know, Mr. Premier, when you started talking about

your rail investment partnership, the district of Taylor wasn't in favour of

what you were doing. We weren't happy with the amount of information that we

were getting, because we couldn't make a good decision. But we understand that

you couldn't let all the information out.

"Now that you have released all the information — that it is a $1

billion deal; that the people of B.C. still own the right-of-way, the railbed

and the tracks; that you've paid off $500 million in debt; that you have a

company running a rail line that actually knows about railroads, CN…. That's

their business. They have a major North American network and market to actually

work that railroad in."

Now that he sees what we're doing with $135 million of that — the

Premier had told them the balance of money is going into infrastructure in rural

British Columbia — he's pretty happy. In fact, he fully endorsed what's going

on.

He was pleased with the fact that actually he, as part of that

group in northeastern B.C. — mayors and regional district chairs — will make the

decisions around $15 million of how they want to expend it. That's just for the

northeast. That will be $15 million in four different regions in the province.

The other thing he was excited about is that they will be able to

sit on a board together with leaders from around the whole northern part of the

province — from the Cariboo right through the northwest to the Prince George

region in the northeast — and decide collectively how they want to spend the

other $50 million. There will be a $25 million fund that's set aside in a trust,

so that northern development initiative will be ongoing well into the future.

Those are exciting things for those people up there. I'm sure that

in the northwest they were as excited as they were in the northeast or in the

Prince George re-

[ Page 11600 ]

gion — and we'll probably hear about that a little later on — or in the

Cariboo region. There are all kinds of initiatives that these folks can take

forward and start thinking about how they can apply them — how they can grow

their own economy and how they can spend their own money. They're accountable to

the people right there in northeastern British Columbia.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, this is a forward-thinking document. This comes from

a government that thinks that people in different regions of the province can

actually make up their own minds about their own destiny, and we're lucky in

this province to finally have a Premier who agrees with that process. With the

last administration, over those ten years all those decisions were made in the

corner office over there with the Premier — the past Premiers, I should say —

deciding on how they would actually spend money in northeastern British

Columbia, on projects that they thought they knew best about. Let me tell you,

there were some real projects there that fell flat on their face.

[1505]

I am pleased to be able to stand up, support Bill 59 in the House,

the moving forward of this new, innovative thought process. People in

northeastern British Columbia will actually be able to go out and do some

thinking about how they want to invest their dollars, what kind of economic

activity they can create for that. There are all kinds of things that they can

think about in furthering agriculture and those kinds of things in northeastern

British Columbia. There are a whole host of things that could happen up there.

Those communities in northeastern B.C. have had a real growth in

the last few years through initiatives that we've taken as government to

actually expand and increase the oil and gas industry in northeastern B.C. As we

move to expand that industry into the rest of the province, people are getting

the optimism, the thought process that it's good for British Columbia. It's good

to actually develop those resources in a responsible, environmentally sensitive

way for the benefit of all British Columbians.

They've had some pressures in northeastern B.C. that have not been

felt maybe in other parts of the province. But let me tell you that this $15

million and the other $50 million that they will be able to work with

cross-jurisdictionally will certainly help alleviate some of those pressures and

build more of an economic base in northeastern British Columbia so that we can

continue to be the great powerhouse that we are in this great province.

So with those few words, I'd like to say again that I fully

support, and the people of Peace River North are fully supportive of, the B.C.

Rail investment partnership deal and want to see it move forward. The mayors and

the regional district chairs are excited about what we're doing and excited

about what they can do in the near future to actually develop, with that money,

the things that they think are important for the people of northeastern British

Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased to rise, not only on behalf

of myself but on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education, Deputy Premier

and MLA for Prince George–Mount Robson, who is unable to be here with us today

due to a family emergency. I can tell you that both of us are very, very excited

about what is going on with the northern development initiative.

When I think back to the 1940s and fifties and what occurred with

B.C. Rail as an economic development initiative in the northern part of the

province and how it really opened up and created the economic opportunities, I

think what a great legacy — to take a portion of the money that comes as a

result of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership agreement and use it to make those

further investments.

I think back to Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and I'm sure he would be

proud of this decision, seeing it as a lasting legacy, an opportunity to

continue to build the north economically and create the advantages and the

vision that not only Premier Bennett saw but also our Premier sees for the

north.

You know, it's been a long time since anyone invested in the

north. Clearly, through the 1990s I lived in the north, and there was no

investment in the north. They'd sprinkle around a little bridge here or

something there, but really there was no significant economic investment, and

whatever there was, was directed out of Victoria. In fact, when they created a

patronage appointment in Prince George and called it the northern commissioner's

office, they actually had that particular individual report to a deputy minister

in Victoria.

That's what's really unique about the northern development

initiative. Although I'm only going to take a few moments here, I'd like to

focus my comments very specifically on the uniqueness of the northern

development initiative and, as we've heard already, how the focus is to have

northerners in charge of their own destiny. You know, I took

part in some of the

meetings that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Premier referred to

earlier, and it was really neat to see the expressions on the mayors' faces when

they realized they were actually going to be directing these funds with very,

very few constraints on them. Anything that can fit under the umbrella of

economic development as an initiative is an acceptable model.

[1510]

What was really interesting, I thought, was the way the mayors

viewed it. They view it with caution. They want to make sure that those dollars

are invested appropriately and that they leave a lasting legacy. If I can think

of the one word that I heard most consistently throughout the presentation and

discussion we had in Prince George, it was legacy. It was the desire to make

sure, as we moved through this process with the $135 million that is there for

the north, that those dollars are spent in such a way that it creates the

economic opportunities we all are looking for.

Whether it's enhanced utilization of the mountain pine beetle

fibre that's available; the incremental silviculture issues that we are faced

with all the time; an

[ Page 11601 ]

expanding mining industry that's already growing in leaps and bounds and

facing some challenges in terms of finding sufficient people who are trained to

work in the mining industry; an expanded oil and gas industry; and whether it's

in the Nechako basin or the Bowser basin; enhanced fish-farming opportunities on

the North Coast — there are just so many opportunities out there.

But at the end of the day, it really comes down to this. There's

$135 million there, which is far more than the north has ever seen, no matter

how you slice it or dice it. This is the first government that has come forward

with an initiative of this size, this volume. To entrust the decision-making

process to northerners to determine how that money should be spent is, in my

view, truly remarkable.

With that, I would like to again congratulate — not only myself

but also on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education — the Premier on his

vision for accepting the opportunity for northerners to put their hands on this

economic development initiative and create huge opportunities going forward.

Certainly, I think we'll all look back at this and realize how great a use of

those funds it was. I am proud of not only W.A.C. Bennett and what he did but

also of our Premier, who has truly stood up to that mandate and created that

economic opportunity.

J. Wilson: This is indeed a great day for northern British

Columbia. I am proud to stand here today and support Bill 59. For many, many

years I and my constituents have watched as the money generated in the north has

come south and nothing comes back. It's like everything goes into a black hole

once it leaves. Today we have the reversal of that.

There's nothing new that I can say about any of this, but I would

like to reinforce what my colleagues have said. The northern development

initiative is something that puts those dollars in the hands of the people in

the regions. That's very, very important. Up until now, they have never had the

ability to direct any money that did come to where they felt it was most needed.

This gives them — the people that represent the boards, who are our municipal

leaders — a unique opportunity to look at their region, their towns, their

cities and say: "This is the way that this money should be spent."

It's the first time that I've ever seen anything like this in this

province. Thanks to the hard work of our Premier and this whole thing, this

whole picture here, we are finally being recognized. The significance of the

north is finally being recognized. It is indeed a good day.

In the past we have seen occasions where a government — and I can

think of one or two — would download. They would put some money out, but it was

actually a way of downloading. This is not downloading. This is money that's

upfront, and it does not impair in any way any projects, any further

advancements in the regions in the north. It is additional money that is put

there through the lease of B.C. Rail to CN.

[1515]

It's a unique thing in our history. It's very unique in the fact,

as I've said before, that it puts that money into the hands of the people who

best know how to manage it and look after it.

The other good thing that it does is it short-circuits a lot of

things. They have flexibility now. They can act quickly, or they can act in a

time frame that they think best suits them. They do not have to go to Victoria

to get approval for anything, because they're the ones that are in charge of

this. They are going to set their own destiny for the future with these funds,

for the economic prosperity of all the regions in the north — the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, Prince George, the west from Bulkley Valley out and the

northeast corner.

So it is indeed with a great deal of pleasure that I stand in the

House today and support Bill 59.

Hon. R. Harris: Like the other members, it is with a great

deal of pleasure that I stand here not only to support the northern development

initiative in this bill but to talk about it in a way that I think really

reflects the needs of rural communities and the communities that I represent.

I was sitting here thinking about this bill for awhile. I think

that in many ways it's easy to get captured and focused on just the bill. But

really, what this bill does for me is…. I wrote down the word "connectivity." It

finally brings together the last component of a strategy that now starts to work

for northern British Columbia in a way that northerners have always wanted it to

do. That's a strategy that puts in place the tools for those communities to now

reach their full potential, to achieve the goals they've set for themselves.

This last week I had an opportunity to meet with an advisory board

from the northwest meeting with the mayors. It was interesting listening to Herb

Pond, the mayor of Prince Rupert. He said one of the most significant pieces of

having this advisory board and having the $15 million for them to manage wasn't

so much that they had money, although he certainly appreciated that. It was the

fact that it would now force the mayors of that district and that region to come

together and meet on a regular basis. It would force them to start to put

together the planning process that has them looking at themselves as a lot

bigger region and starting to develop common goals, common strategies, common

plans that work for all of them.

I think the most important thing he said is that their measuring

stick of success will not be how well the larger communities will have done, but

the measuring stick of success will be: has every small community benefited from

this initiative?

When I said connectivity, this is what I'm talking about. In most

of the communities along the Highway 16 corridor and along the northwest and,

quite frankly, in all of the north, our history is built as resource

communities. We pride ourselves as being resource-dependent communities,

resource extraction–industry towns, resource development. But the resource has

always been the mainstay of our creation, and many

[ Page 11602 ]

times it's our history. It's a proud history that I certainly was an active

participant in. Whether that resource is gas and oil, whether the resource has

been mining or whether the resource is in forestry — that is the whole component

that in many cases drove these communities. It subsequently led to the building

and development of mills in each of them along the way and really developed the

forest industry.

Well, through the nineties a lot of things changed. We saw the

mining industry disappear. We've seen technology evolve in the forest industry

and change the landscape of that. The communities are still there, but the

industries that built them are not the same. What has been lacking in this

province for a long time is a plan that actually helps these communities, which

have been crying out to find assistance in diversifying their economies, to move

from resource-based and resource-dependent economies to those that allow them to

become other things.

What have been some of those barriers? Certainly, the number one

barrier to any community north of Hope, quite frankly, has been access to

markets — the ability to connect to the world in a way that if you want to

develop a product, if you want to develop an industry, if you want to build

something new and bring something new into your community and the ability to

move that product, whether it's bottling water or building crafts or taking the

resource industries that are around you and using them further down the

value-added chain and getting them into a marketplace in a manner that allows

you to survive.

[1520]

I lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands for almost 20 years. You

can go around there and look at the kelp plant that exists in the member for

North Coast's riding. What killed that plant? The inability to move their

product to the marketplace in any kind of economic manner. That's another

community, the islands, which is rich in peat moss — the same challenge for

them. How do they actually move that product off the island?

The government in the past, especially during the nineties when we

saw the resource industries take some significant hits, didn't look at any ways

of how to actually help these communities bridge. Once you run into a problem

where you can't get access to global markets, what's the next problem you run

into? Access to capital. I can tell you that's a big issue. It's a big issue

because if you do finally have a plan, it's hard to get the banking world and

the investment world to look at your community differently if they see that it's

incredibly difficult for you to be economically viable.

What the northern development initiative does, on top of providing

funds for the north, for northerners to start to make those decisions for

themselves in a very real and meaningful way is complete a strategy that now

allows all those communities access to the global marketplace through a new port

in Prince Rupert — a container port — and through a gateway in Prince George

that takes us to the Midwest of the continental U.S.A.

It starts to put in place a world where the finance and investment

community starts to look at the north differently. It allows your community to

truly start to look at broadening that economic platform, becoming more than

what you are, to move away from the resource dependency that's been the

single-industry town and start to build on the other assets you have. The assets

we have in the north are pretty extensive. We have low-cost land, when you start

to look at the cost of land in the lower mainland. We have underutilized

transportation grids, whether they're rail or whether they're highway. In fact,

even our airports are underutilized in terms of their capacity.

When you look at the whole northern initiative, the B.C. Rail–CN

partnership, we're going to start to see not only the port in Prince Rupert

develop. We're going to see an airport in Prince George develop. We see the new

rail transportation grid expanded. When you look at the money that we as a

government are spending in the north today on building and improving the highway

system, it is phenomenal. It is pretty well impossible to drive from Prince

Rupert to Prince George and not be on new pavement literally the whole time.

We're seeing new bridges, corners straightened — all of the things that start to

make the transportation system of the northwest and the entire north an

efficient model to operate on.

When the investment world starts to look at all of these dynamics,

they can look at businesses and entrepreneurs that want to come forward and that

have a new idea for their community, have a new idea for their business. It

finally gives them the tools by which to not only get it started but to be

successful.

The NDI provides an overriding agency that can create an entirely

new marketing opportunity. It will be driven by the north in terms of branding

that part of the world, branding it in a way that works for us. The northern

development initiative allows us to take a significant amount of money — $135

million across the north — and spend it in a way that works for us. It starts

putting in place the strategies that brings the investors in, and starts to

connect us to the world in a way that allows us to become much more than we've

ever dreamed of.

We are looking at some pretty exciting times right across the

north today — the expansion of the gas and oil industry. Up Highway 37 today, we

have an incredibly exciting mining industry that's just taken off. Go up to the

airstrip at Bob Quinn. It looks like something out of Vietnam, in terms of the

number of helicopters that are sitting down there servicing the mining industry

that's going on. We have a rail partner that has the capacity today to actually

now start to expand the rail and make it the economic driver that it should be

in the north and hasn't been for the last number of years. These are all the

beginnings of building a strong economy, building strong communities that start

to create those family-supporting jobs that bring people back to the regions.

That's how we're going to build communities — by providing them

with the tools they need, not just the tools but the ability to be the

decision-maker in how those tools will be used. That's what is so significant

[ Page 11603 ]

about this bill. It provides, in fact, that funding envelope that for the

first time, in any real and meaningful way, puts the financial tools to coincide

with the infrastructure improvements and tools that we as a government have on a

broad front delivered to the north. It allows communities finally to start to

reach out, broaden that economic platform and become truly more than they ever

dreamed they could be.

It's an exciting time, Mr. Speaker, to be in the north in the

province of British Columbia. I can tell you that I'm looking forward to the

next decade.

[1525]

J. Kwan: Bill 59, the Northern Development Initiative Trust

Act, sets up a trust for local communities to distribute a very small percentage

of the B.C. Rail sale proceeds.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: It's interesting that I'm being heckled, of

course. The question was asked about how much the previous administration gave

to the north. Well, actually, let it be on the record that even the Social

Credit government did not give a fair share of the oil and gas returns to the

northern community. It was the NDP administration that actually signed the Fair

Share deal that gave significant amounts of dollars back to the north.

So the Social Credit ministers from the previous, previous

administration might want to actually check their record before they heckle me

about how much was given to the north. Certainly, the Social Credit government

did not see fit at the time, about the oil and gas fair share….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: And yes, it is about the NDP, because it was the

NDP administration that signed the Fair Share deal that the Social Credit

government didn't move on. So let's just be clear on the record here in terms of

what the NDP did do around the northern communities.

The communities of the north, of course, are receiving, let me

just say, less than 20 percent of the billion dollars the government made from

betraying the trust of British Columbians. Apparently, to the government this is

all their broken promise is worth. Communities throughout the north will never

forget the government's broken promise. It broke its promise to not sell B.C.

Rail no matter how much money was thrown at them. It is so unfortunate for these

communities that the government has chosen to give them such a small portion of

the proceeds of the sale. They need more, and they deserve more for enduring the

betrayal of an arrogant government.

Let's look at some of the figures. The entire northwest region

will get $15 million. That's it. That's all they get from a billion-dollar

broken promise. The government spent $15 million on lawyers and communications

for the deal. It is absolutely shameful. The B.C. Rail deal has been a disaster

for British Columbia — scandals, leaks, police investigations, cancelled deals,

hidden details and secrecy, Mr. Speaker. The government bungled the deal from

the very beginning and refused to give British Columbians any information. And

they continue to refuse to give information to British Columbians about the

deal.

When my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings spoke to

second reading on the bill, she clearly spelled out our objections to the sale

of B.C. Rail and the government's refusal to be upfront and honest with British

Columbians. We have never supported the B.C. Rail broken promise, and we never

will. Let that be clear on the record. However, we have decided that we will not

oppose the passing of this bill, for two reasons.

First, the communities desperately need the resources. The

government has abandoned them in the last three and a half years. They have

closed schools. They have reduced health care services. They have shut down

courthouses. The list goes on. The communities need the money because the

government has refused to adequately support them.

Secondly, the model being used to distribute and manage the money

is similar to the principles of the Columbia Basin Trust, a model created and

supported by the previous NDP administration. This model of local control is one

we support because it will get the money out of the hands of government and

actually into the communities. The Liberals have done enough damage.

[1530]

I want to make something very clear. The government's broken

promise to not sell B.C. Rail is unforgivable. We will never support the

government's decision to betray the trust of British Columbians and sell off a

profitable Crown corporation that has had no taxpayer-supported debt.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Transportation closes

debate on Bill 59.

Hon. K. Falcon: Boy. You know, unfortunately I had to

follow the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. How unpleasant was that

dissertation that we just listened to?

This is an individual that, unfortunately, has yet to grasp just

how significant this is for the northern parts of the province. I can tell you,

having just been through Smithers, Terrace, Prince George and Fort St. John,

meeting with those mayors, meeting with those regional district representatives,

it has been absolutely outstanding feedback that we've received. They are

excited about the possibilities they see with the northern development

initiative. For the first time it will put dollars into the hands of

northerners, and they and they alone will be making those decisions for the

interests of northerners, for northerners, to the benefit of northerners. That

is going to be very, very positive not just for northern British Columbia but

for all of British Columbia.

I also want to say this before closing debate on second reading. I

want to say that I listened with interest

[ Page 11604 ]

to the members from northern British Columbia speak on this particular bill.

I noted the passion they had in their voices when they talked about how

important this was for northern British Columbia. It is because of the

leadership of our Premier, who listened to residents, community leaders and

elected leaders in the north who came to the government and said: "We've got a

problem with B.C. Rail. It's not working for the north. We need significant new

investment in that line, and when that investment is made, that will be the

foundation for revitalizing northern British Columbia." The Premier recognizes,

as this government recognizes, that the true revitalization of the northern

economy is going to be having the most efficient, effective transportation

system you can possibly imagine.

That is going to happen with the partnership with CN Rail. It's

going to happen because CN Rail is going to invest the billions of dollars of

private sector dollars that the government does not have, that the government is

not able to take away from our health care and education to run a railway

system. That's what CN brings to the table. They bring that to the table in

partnership with the government that maintains ownership of the railbeds, rail

tracks and rights-of-way, because that's where there's a provincial interest.

That is where there is significant public interest, and that's why we undertook

that partnership.

I just want to thank those members of the north — all of them —

who spoke very eloquently on the northern development initiative. I know, as

they know, that the same thing I heard from virtually every single mayor, every

single regional chair and every single councillor that we had the opportunity to

meet in the last few days is that they are genuinely excited about the northern

development initiative. They are excited about a government that has taken the

proceeds from the partnership arrangement with CN–B.C. Rail. They are going to

be able to put that to use in their own communities.

On that, I now close and move that second reading of Bill 59, the

Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, is now put forward.

[1535-1540]

Second reading of Bill 59 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Chong

Brice

Hansen

Bell

Santori

Barisoff

van Dongen

Bray

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Murray

Campbell

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Abbott

Neufeld

Penner

Cobb

Jarvis

Hogg

Nuraney

Nebbeling

R. Stewart

Hunter

MacPhail

Kwan

Chutter

Bennett

Belsey

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Lekstrom

MacKay

Halsey-Brandt

K. Stewart

Whittred

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 1

Nettleton

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 59, Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading on Bill 58.

B.C. RAIL BENEFITS

(FIRST NATIONS) TRUST ACT

(continued)

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to respond

in second reading to Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act.

[1545]

I have a few brief comments and a couple of letters that I would

like to read into the record, if I may. The first is in fact a media release

dated April 22, 2004, from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which was widely

circulated at that time, which references the trust before us today. In

part it

says:

"The government's shameless crusade to secure economic

certainty to fast-track the sale and privatization of B.C. Rail's assets knows

no bounds. It is abundantly clear that the government is attempting to prey on

the poverty of those first nations along the rail line to complete the B.C. Rail

deal." It goes on to say that they are of the view "that the B.C. Rail deal is

nothing more than a 990-year ripoff."

Chief Phillip continues. He goes on to say:

"Government

is engaged in a risk-management approach, and this approach is premised on the

continuing denial that aboriginal title and rights exist, while offering

accommodation or benefits agreements to lessen their legal liability in the

event that first nations prove aboriginal title and rights and that the

government is found to have infringed on those rights."

It goes on to say, this release of April 22, 2004:

"The

UBCIC commissioned a legal review of the B.C. Rail deal. One of its findings is

that the…government 'will use proof of economic benefit to argue that the damage

suffered by indigenous peoples was mitigated or lessened — that indigenous

peoples participated in and benefited from their decision to privatize B.C. Rail

— and also possibly to show consultation. In the event that any

[ Page 11605 ]

indigenous communities who are part of the trust choose to challenge

the transfer from B.C. Rail to CNR in the future, government would likely argue

that it met this test, in part, by seeking 'workable accommodations' as

evidenced by the creation of the trust.'"

Finally, I'll read into the record, if I may, from the

release of April 22 from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They go on to say:

"'The

UBCIC categorically rejects the notion that the B.C. Rail benefits trust comes

with no strings attached,' said Chief Phillip. 'To date, the language of the

provincial assurances state that the Campbell government does not believe

aboriginal title or rights are involved in the transfer, because it's a transfer

of existing interests rather than the creation of new ones; therefore,

consultation or accommodation are not required. The UBCIC is absolutely

convinced that the existence of the trust will be used by the Campbell

government as a 'workable accommodation' in the event of a legal challenge.'"

I was fortunate enough to participate in the discussions

here in the last sitting of the Legislature with respect to the first nations

trust and read into the record during the course of those debates and

discussions a number of letters from various first nations who were opposed to

the trust, given that the trust was tied to the sale of B.C. Rail. I had asked,

over the weekend in fact, for an update from Chief Harry Pierre, tribal chief of

the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. He had asked that I read into the record his

response to my queries — that is, wanting an update in terms of where he was at

with respect to the legislation before us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is dated now October 18, 2004. It's current, and it's from

Tribal Chief Harry Pierre of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council headquartered out

of Prince George, my hometown. I'll read this into the record, and with that,

I'll conclude my comments with respect to second reading of this legislation.

"The sale of B.C. Rail has failed to take into account the

interests of first nations people. First nations were neither consulted nor

accommodated on the details of this sale. The first nations benefits trust is a

political attempt to deceive the public that we support the sale of B.C. Rail."

[1550]

He goes on to say:

"I will ask two questions to

the Premier. Firstly, are there first nations representatives on the board of

the northern development initiative? Secondly, why do municipalities receive

taxation directly from the new owners and not first nations?"

Tribal Chief Harry Pierre goes on to say:

"The

unresolved land question is not a negotiation between municipalities and the

federal or provincial governments. Case law clearly states that CN Rail now has

a legal duty to consult and accommodate our interests. This should have occurred

before the sale."

He ends by saying: "We will hold them to account."

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today representing, as I do, Chief Harry

Pierre of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council and others in opposing this

legislation. It's unfortunate that, in fact, first nations find themselves —

many of them the 25 first nations along the line — in this very difficult

position — cash-strapped as many of them are, desperate for the money that is

being dangled before them, tied, as it is, to the sale of B.C. Rail.

In any event, it's certainly the position of Chief Harry Pierre

that he is opposed to this legislation and opposed to what it represents. I will

stand for him and others that I represent in opposing this legislation.

J. MacPhail: On Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First

Nations) Trust Act, this legislation establishes a $15 million trust for first

nations along the B.C. Rail line — $15 million out of a $1 billion sellout. That

$15 million is the same cost as the price tag the government spent on lawyers to

sell B.C. Rail and a little bit more than they spent to communicate their spin

on their broken promise. Let's see: their lawyer friends are equal in value to

all of the first nations out of this deal along the B.C. Rail line. Boy, first

nations must feel good.

Combined with the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, this

legislation represents the only piece being given out to the people of B.C.

following a scandal-plagued and secretive process. The Liberals are doling out

the cash in an attempt to make people forget their broken promise. They're

trying to make people forget they sold B.C. Rail Ltd. and entered into a

990-year lease. They're trying to make people forget that they betrayed their

trust.

Now, the opposition in no way…. Not at all do we endorse that

betrayal. We think the betrayal is despicable. However, we will not stand in the

way of letting communities and first nations get access to the scraps the

Liberals have offered. The only comfort we can take from this is that money will

not be controlled by the Liberals. Thank goodness. They have done enough damage.

On the specifics of the bill, I want to start by advising the

minister that I am making a request for some information — not through FOI, like

the Liberals like to make us do, but right here, right now.

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: Everybody on that side of the House, the

government front bench, is predicting that we're going to be out of this

Legislature tomorrow. Now, that's impossible. I don't know what the Government

House Leader was smoking when he said that today in the scrum to justify his

cynical ploy around the Surrey–Panorama Ridge by-election.

Mr. Speaker, let me make clear I'm putting this information on the

record today so the minister can get the answers when we debate this legislation

at committee. We've got until the end of November when this fixed sitting

finishes for him to get these answers. By the time this bill comes up for

committee stage debate, I want to be able to cover all the details with the

minister. Don't refer me to FOI. We've got weeks to get this information.

[1555]

I will ask for information about when the government consulted

with the first nations, about the details

[ Page 11606 ]

of the transaction agreement and the revitalization agreement. I will ask who

in the first nations community the government has consulted since the sale was

announced. I will ask what the results of that consultation were and what those

groups had to say about this bill, about the agreements and about their rights.

I want specifics: dates, places, people and outcome. The minister can get this

information for me ahead of time or he can have it with him in committee, but I

will be asking those questions, and I will expect thorough answers.

Here's what we know so far. During estimates debate in the spring,

the minister gave me a quick little rundown of the consultation the government

did in regards to the legislation. Now, I noticed how he didn't say consultation

on the deal but only consultation on this particular legislation. Actually, I

probably shouldn't even use the word "consultation," because that's not the word

that the minister used. During estimates debate, the minister said: "I'll just

provide a little outline of some of the advising and informing that was done in

the process of engaging first nations up and down the line."

Now, that's interesting, because it was in response to a question

that I specifically asked about what consultation he did. And of course, we know

that the word "consultation" has specific legal meaning in this province and in

this country in relation to first nations. Maybe the minister didn't know that,

but that was exactly what I was asking about — what consultation he did — and he

said some of the advising and informing that was done.

Here's what they did to advise and inform, not consult. Here are

the details of that advising and informing from Hansard in its entirety.

"On April 10, 2003, the Premier and the former minister" — he was referring to

the member for Nanaimo-Parksville — "provided a letter to all first nations

along B.C. Rail's right-of-way to advise them of the government's decision to

seek an operating partner…." The letter advised chiefs that government

representatives would be in contact and inform them of the province's actions.

Then the province went out and implemented the grand

advise-and-inform strategy. That's it. That's all we know. All first nations

received was an outline of the government's intentions to find an operating

partner. They were advised and informed. First nations found out, like the rest

of us, in piecemeal details over months of controversy that the government was

selling B.C. Rail Ltd. and embarking on a 990-year lease. Not one of those first

nations was consulted about the final deal — not one. Not one was told about the

terms of the lease. No one was told that the government would be able to sell CN

Crown land back for $1. No one.

I'm sure the first nations are going to have a lot to discuss with

the government about that secret clause and their violation of the government's

obligation to consult. The advising and informing was shaky, at best, given that

the details of the deal were not released to the 25 affected first nations at

all.

I have to say it doesn't give me much confidence about the

consultation the government did with this bill. That's why I'm giving the

minister the specific questions that I'll be asking at committee stage. That's

why I want the minister to provide this House with a full account of that

consultation.

We've already heard some of the many concerns of the first

nations, and my colleague from Prince George–Omineca has outlined some of those.

Participation in the trust is not even guaranteed. Each first nation listed in

section 1 of this legislation must sign on. To some of them, this feels like

they have to endorse the government's broken promise. Seton Lake band chief

Garry John has said: "It is nothing more than hush money." He also said: "It

amounts to asking for a blind trust." Imagine the first nations groups having

trouble trusting a government that promised it wouldn't sell B.C. Rail. Imagine

first nations having trouble trusting a government that's going to give CN

tracts of land for a buck, the same land that's subject to land claims.

[1600]

Here's a column by Vaughn Palmer in the April 16, 2004,

Vancouver Sun . In it he cites a comment made by a staffer within the

Ministry of Attorney General last December, December 2003. "A trust fund

developed wholly by the province or with limited involvement by first nations

would result in the withdrawal of any support for the partnership agreement and

could also potentially affect broader government relationships with the first

nations communities."

As far as we know, that staffer still works for the Attorney

General. The minister thinks that comment from the public official is nonsense,

I'm sure, but I hope the minister took the Attorney General staff's advice.

I expect there will be a great deal to discuss at committee stage.

I've already given the minister a lot of notice on the issues I want to canvass,

and I expect we'll be able to canvass them in great detail. I will not accept,

Mr. Speaker, answers like: "I'll get that information for you." It's simply

unacceptable. He's got notice, and we've got four weeks left in this sitting.

They don't have to call this bill…. Well, they have to have it passed by the end

of November when this great concept of the fixed sitting will come to an end.

The people and the communities along the rail line deserve a heck

of a lot more than they're getting out of this betrayal and broken promise. They

want answers, and they deserve them.

Hon. R. Harris: I stand here to support this bill and talk

about a few things around it. I spend a fair bit of my time in first nations

communities. I have five in my own riding that I spend a lot of time visiting on

an ongoing basis. I can tell you that the people of those communities have the

same dreams and aspirations for their children that everybody in this province

has, regardless of where they live — whether it's an aboriginal community or a

non-aboriginal community.

I think that what this bill does is put in place a $15 million

trust fund, a tool for first nations not unlike the remainder of the northern

development initiative fund — the bill we just spoke to — which is a tool for

non-aboriginal communities. It's a tool for them to use at

[ Page 11607 ]

their discretion, at their will, to make choices about their lives for

themselves. Maybe that's not important to some people, but it's awfully

important to me. It is awfully important to me because first nations — just like

the non-aboriginal communities that I represent and that I visit on an ongoing

basis across this province, especially in the rural component — have been saying

for years: "Let us have some freedom and choice in determining our future. Give

us some of the tools that allow us to do this."

That's exactly what this does. It provides some of those tools.

Within our ministry, we have now signed 72 forestry agreements with first

nations right across this province. They're economic agreements. They're

agreements that provide access to revenue-sharing as well as fibre, so that

those communities can start to build themselves and use the resources around

them in a way that starts to work for them, and that gives them the fair share

and access to the resources of this province which, quite frankly, previous

governments have denied them.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition start to speak about how

this is a betrayal to first nations communities and how we don't work with them,

the evidence is pretty significant that we have done more in terms of trying to

work with first nations communities, trying to put in place and provide them

with the tools they need to achieve their dreams, than any other government

before us and specifically her government.

This $15 million doesn't come with ties. She can sit there and

rail away about how this has treaty implications. But it doesn't. It's a tool;

it's an opportunity. I'm interested to see how she votes, because it will be

interesting to see if she wants to vote against providing $15 million to first

nations communities.

I do live in the world and do remember the Northern Development

Commission — their great brainchild. It was funded to the tune of $2 million a

year. It had a northern commissioner who reported directly to Victoria, who got

a lot of his direction out of Victoria. It wasn't about decisions and funding

being put in the north; it was about as tokenism as you get. Between the bill

we've just spoken to and this bill, we are seeing this government — the only

government in the history of this province — put significant dollars into the

north in a way that has never been done before — period.

[1605]

There is no denying that. There is no denying that it is also

being put there in a manner that creates structures that allow northerners,

whether they're aboriginals or non-aboriginals, to make those decisions about

their lives without the interference of governments in Victoria. I think that's

very important. It's too bad the Leader of the Opposition doesn't share that

view. It's certainly not a view they ever encouraged, supported or advocated for

when they were in government. It's why I'm very proud to be part of this

government. Not only do we support it and advocate for it, but we're actually

doing it.

I'm very pleased to stand here to support this bill today. I think

it is, in fact, exactly what communities across the north have been asking for,

and it will be a great tool to finally allow all communities to reach the

potential that they have and the goals that they've set for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 58. The Minister of

Transportation closes debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just before I move the motion for second

reading, I do want to make a couple of comments in reference to some of what I

heard, particularly from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Not surprisingly,

the member for Vancouver-Hastings continues to misrepresent the most fundamental

facts about the partnership arrangement between B.C. Rail and CN. I imagine that

it is sort of an increasing sign of desperation because they recognize that

right across northern British Columbia, there is growing excitement about the

importance of this partnership arrangement and what it's going to mean to

northern communities and indeed the province.

The recognition is growing because, as I have indicated before,

the foundation for a revitalized northern economy is an efficient transportation

system. That is absolutely crucial to realizing the dreams and the potential of

northern British Columbia. Every shipper, every lumber producer and every mill

that relies on getting its goods to markets south of the border need to ensure

that they can get to their customers as efficiently and effectively as they

possibly can, and that's exactly what will happen under the partnership

arrangement.

What that member fails to realize and continually misrepresents is

the fact that she's fixated with this talk about sale. Well, actually, the

member needs to read the legislation and the partnership agreement and the

transaction agreement. What we've done is maintained public ownership. We've

maintained Crown ownership of the railbed, of the rail tracks, of the

right-of-way, and we did that specifically because that is where the public

interest is. That is our Crown asset. That has not changed, and that confuses

the member opposite. I think the member opposite just doesn't quite understand

that.

We clearly know that she doesn't understand what a lease

arrangement is. She talks about a 999-year lease. Of course that's absurd. It's

a 60-year lease with a 30-year renewal option, and there are options to renew

beyond that. It's very similar to those that might have an office lease and sign

a five-year term. They have five-year options to renew. It doesn't mean they

signed a 15-year lease. They signed a five-year lease with options to renew. But

I recognize that has always been a challenge for the member opposite.

I will say this. I have never been more proud to be part of a

government under the leadership of a Premier that has done more for first

nations in three years than we've seen achieved in the last 30. I don't just say

that. I actually listen to those voices in the first nations that will tell you

that the progress that has been made under this government in the last few years

has been dramatic. It has been extraordinary, and it has been historic. I'm

proud of that.

[ Page 11608 ]

This is another step in that direction, whether it is the doubling

of the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million or whether it is the

revenue-sharing agreements that have been undertaken, particularly with the

Minister of Forests, which have created new opportunities and new hopes for

those first nations communities that have taken

part in that. All of those

create options to create independence, new pride, new opportunities and new

tools for self-reliance for those first nations.

That is exactly what Bill 58 will also achieve. The B.C. Rail

Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act will provide $15 million. Now, I hear the

member opposite talk about that in a way that disparages that, as if that's some

very small amount of money. As the member for Skeena correctly pointed out, what

did they achieve in their term? Well, they had a northern commissioner that cost

about $2 million a year, most of that eaten up in bureaucracy. What possible

benefit was there in the north?

The northern development commissioner's role was actually to try

and fix all the problems that their fundamental economic policies had created.

You know, they create the problems. Then they hire more bureaucrats to try and

fix the problems they've created. That's the NDP approach to trying to deal with

opportunity in the north.

[1610]

We have a different approach. Our approach is to actually build

reliance. Our approach is to provide the tools so that first nations can share

in the opportunities that will be realized through the CN–B.C. Rail investment

partnership. And $15 million, even invested at a 4 percent return, represents

about $600,000 a year in interest alone. That's about $50,000 a month.

I tell you, that actually helps create reliance for those first

nations. They and they alone — those participating first nations that wish to

participate in the first nations benefits trust — will decide what is in the

best interests of those 25 first nations that have had a historical relationship

with B.C. Rail over the years. That is a continuation of the policy of this

government to provide the tools and the opportunities for first nations to

achieve their dreams and realize their opportunities.

Finally, I will say this. The members opposite and one other

member have suggested that this in some way takes away from the treaty rights of

first nations. Again, that is simply not the case. In fact, we have a clause in

the bill, if they would take the time to read clause 11…. Clause 11 makes it

very clear that nothing in the act in any way will take away or derogate or

abrogate the constitutional rights and treaty obligations with the first nations

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, with those concluding remarks, I now move second

reading of Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act.

[1615-1620]

Second reading of Bill 58 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

Falcon

Coell

Chong

Brice

Hansen

Bell

Barisoff

van Dongen

Bray

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Murray

Plant

Harris

Christensen

Penner

Cobb

Jarvis

Hogg

Nuraney

de Jong

R. Stewart

MacPhail

Kwan

Chutter

Long

Johnston

Bennett

Belsey

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Lekstrom

MacKay

Halsey-Brandt

K. Stewart

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 1

Nettleton

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 58, B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on

Bill 65.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 65; J.

Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 4:22 p.m.

section 9 (continued) .

W. Cobb: Most of my questions were answered around this.

What I would like to ask the minister is in regard to the revenue account, the

stumpage rates and what not. How is this rate actually going to be calculated?

Hon. R. Harris: There is no firm provincial silviculture

fee. This will be calculated on a district-by-district basis. That's going to

change, obviously, if you are in the Queen Charlotte Islands where the average

hectare or stands are significantly heavier than in Lytton. Some of these

dynamics are going to change. The calculation

[ Page 11609 ]

for this will be done on a district-by-district basis, and that's yet to be

determined.

Sections 9 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Harris: I move that the committee report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 65, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. K. Falcon: I now call committee stage on Bill 75.

[1625]

Committee of the Whole House

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; J.

Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the purpose of

section 4, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The primary purpose, to the member

opposite, is that the addition of the term "designated tolls" is required so the

GVTA can legally recover its costs in relation to designated projects. The term

"designated tolls" is added to make it specific to new yet-to-be-constructed

road projects.

J. MacPhail: I'll get to that in a minute, but the

section

is much broader than just talking about designated tolls. What is the purpose of

adding

section 3?

[1630]

Hon. K. Falcon: The GVTA has the ability to establish

standards on the major road network. These proposed roads that will form part of

the proposed crossing are roads that will not, at least initially, be part of

the major road network. What this does is provide them with the ability to,

essentially, properly manage and administer the proposed road network.

J. MacPhail: It does more than that. It adds the ability.

This is a new ability that the GVTA has. The change enables the GVTA —

TransLink…. I'm actually going to call it TransLink, because that's what the

public is familiar with. GVTA creates TransLink; TransLink is the brand name of

the GVTA. The change enables TransLink to implement for the first time its own

separate highway construction and maintenance standards, separate and distinct

from those in place for provincial highways. Over time some are predicting that

there will be an evolution of two different sets of highway standards in this

region — one for provincial highways and a different one for the regional major

road network.

This is a safety issue, if you ask me, Mr. Chair. Highway

standards are all about configuration of road design, frequency and nature of

repair. As an example, for Canada, with the national highway system, those kinds

of construction and maintenance standards are established in a collaborative,

collegial way via the Transportation Association of Canada. The provinces work

collegially with the Transportation Association of Canada.

Given the fact that that collegiality already exists and that

provinces across the country already abide by the same standards, what is the

purpose of giving TransLink separate and distinct highway standards from those

of the province?

Hon. K. Falcon: They've always had that separate ability to

deal with the major road network and apply their own standards with municipal

roads. They do that, have done that and will continue to do that. All we are

doing here is ensuring that for these to-be-constructed roads, they have the

ability to manage and administer these roads appropriately until such time as

they become, perhaps in the future, part of the major road network.

[1635]

J. MacPhail: I have the Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority legislation here. Could the minister point me to where the GVTA

currently has the ability to implement its own separate highway construction and

maintenance standards?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would refer the member to

section 4(1)(

a) of the GVTA Act, which states: "Subject to this Act, the authority must do the

following to carry out its purpose: (

a) manage and operate the regional

transportation system." The thing that the member might not recognize that is

different here is that TransLink, to use the term the member prefers to use,

have never built this kind of new construction before. They are normally used to

managing an existing network, but they've never built this kind of newer project

before. What this does is just ensure that GVTA has the

[ Page 11610 ]

ability to put in place reasonable standards to ensure the functionality and

the smooth operation of the proposed crossing.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so it's a news story. They didn't have

these powers before, and they do now. Let's just be clear about that. Why aren't

they provincial standards? Why aren't they just subject to the provincial

standards?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because it is not a provincial

highway. I think that the member probably knows that all municipalities have

always had the ability to set their own road standards. They always have, and

presumably, certainly, under this government they will always have that ability.

I might refer the member to

section 19 of the GVTA, which refers

specifically to "Standards for major road network"; that's the title. It says:

"Subject to this Part, the authority may, by bylaw, establish standards for the

management, operation, construction and maintenance of all or any part of the

major road network." Again, really all we're doing is ensuring they have that

same ability on a new project, which they've never undertaken before.

[1640]

J. MacPhail: I just gave an example of where, in previous

situations, there was collaboration to ensure that the standards where there was

a conjoining of projects — whether it be municipal or provincial, provincial or

federal…. It was done through an association. Is the minister guaranteeing that

there will be nothing less than the provincial standards in terms of

construction and maintenance?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I can confirm to the member is that

there will be no change in TransLink's ability to manage and set their own

standards on the road network, as they have always done. In fact, it is in

TransLink's own best interests to ensure that they maintain and put into place

standards that are going to be efficient.

Actually, the whole functionality of their proposed crossing is

going to be driven by the fact they've got commonsense standards in place to

ensure that it works efficiently. They will continue to have that ability, as

they've always had, and I have no doubt that TransLink will govern themselves in

the most appropriate fashion.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that this clause adds

absolutely nothing — absolutely nothing new?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. As I said to the member, what it does

add is the ability to distinguish between the fact that the existing legislation

speaks about an existing road network…. This is not existing, obviously. It's

proposed, so this is new. Therefore, it is clarifying that they have the ability

to set those standards for this new crossing.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask the minister, then: for the new

road construction, does the minister guarantee that TransLink's standards will

be no less than those standards put in place for previous construction and

maintenance?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. You know, I can't obviously…. I don't

run TransLink, and I think the member understands that. What I can say is that I

have no doubt TransLink will employ the best engineering practices to ensure

that the structures and roads they put in place will meet the functionality

requirements to ensure they have a crossing that meets all the appropriate

engineering standards. They've done that pretty well on the existing road

network, and I have every confidence they will do that on the new proposed

network.

J. MacPhail: There's an amendment in this clause to

section

15 of the original act. The amendments seem to compel TransLink to consult when

new tolls are being considered. However, there are also amendments under the

same section, particularly 15(4)(b), that say that TransLink may impose a toll

and not consult with the public if the GVRD board of directors has ratified the

toll. Can the minister explain that?

The Chair: Member, are you on

section 6 now?

J. MacPhail:

Section 4.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Yeah. My apologies — that is on

section 6.

The Chair: Do you want to conclude?

[1645]

J. MacPhail: I have another question on

section 4. Sorry. I

should have been referring to subsection 4 of

section 4 — okay?

Now, this expands the expropriation powers for TransLink. Can

these expanded appropriation powers be used to benefit a private company?

Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 4 does provide the ability, very

narrowly defined, for TransLink to allow a subsidiary of TransLink to carry out

the authority's purposes. You will see in subsection 5, just below it, that the

authority's purposes are defined in relation to a designated project, either RAV

or the Coquitlam line.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's

interpretation that the

expanded expropriation powers are limited to benefit a construction project of

TransLink?

[1650]

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, to TransLink or other subsidiary. Yes.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

[ Page 11611 ]

section 6.

J. MacPhail:

Section 6 of this act amends

section 15 of the

GVTA Act. Again, I'll start my question over again that was inappropriately put

on a previous section.

It seems that these amendments to

section 15 of the original act

appear to compel TransLink to consult when new tolls are being considered. But

there is also an amendment to

section 15(4)(

b) that says that the GVTA,

TransLink, may impose a toll and not consult with the public if the GVRD board

of directors has ratified the toll. My question is this: does this mean tolls

may be imposed on the basis of sort of multi-year funding plans passed by both

the GVTA and the GVRD? Can they predict tolls into the future on a multi-year

plan? Therefore, when the actual proposed toll is about to be implemented and

there has not been a vote on that specifically, doesn't it require a public

consultation?

[1655]

Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 15, as it currently stands, has an

existing requirement that TransLink must consult when assessing any designated

tolls. That consultation requirement is there, and that does not change.

All that 6(4)(

a) and (

b) do is essentially say that since

TransLink has already consulted…. So they've done the consultation they're

already required to do. If they've had the bylaw subsequently ratified, they

don't need to come back and do more consultations, because they've done the

consultations already. It's been ratified by the GVRD board, and they don't need

to come back and consult again after the ratification.

The other part essentially says that if they're reducing any tolls

— if it results in the reduction of taxes or tolls — that does not require any

consultation. That's consistent with the existing practice.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. MacPhail:

Section 7 also deals with designated tolls. I

would like an explanation of the whole clause together, both sections (

a) and

(b), which amends

section 16 of the original act. My

interpretation of this

piece here is that if TransLink, GVTA, decides by a two-thirds majority that an

increase in taxes or charges is necessary to meet debt obligations, then the

GVRD loses its ability to vote on such a decision, as it would with any other

bylaw. If my

interpretation is correct, that seems to significantly reduce the

role of the GVRD in its position as a guarantor of the debt.

Has there been consultation with GVRD directors on this?

[1700]

Hon. K. Falcon: What is happening here is that the existing

powers of the authority under

section 16(3) spell out, essentially, that a bylaw

assessing a tax, a project toll charge, a motor vehicle charge or a parking tax

does not require ratification by the GVRD board of directors if…. Then it goes

on in subsection (

a) and (

b) and essentially says that the board, after

examining all the capital and operating expenditure issues, determines it's

unavoidable to meet debt obligations, then the board passes the requirement by

two-thirds ratification. All this does is add, in those existing powers that are

already in place, the term a designated toll, which is consistent with the

changes that were described earlier.

For the member's edification, my understanding is that in the

model that they're proposing, TransLink is proposing a non-recourse scenario

that will not allow a recourse situation to come back onto TransLink or the

GVRD. But what they want to ensure regardless, if they change the model or if

the model didn't work or whatever the eventuality, is that the designated toll

is included in the existing capabilities that they have consistent with what

they already have in terms of project charges or motor vehicle charges, etc.

J. MacPhail: This

section does more than just add the

designated toll to it. The addition of

Section 29.1(5) is a new form of an

exemption where there is a requirement for resolution by the GVRD, but that

requirement is then exempted in the earlier part of the amendment.

[1705]

What I'm asking is…. This

section seems to say that GVRD doesn't

get a say. All I'm asking is for the minister to ensure that GVRD does get a say

in whether there are going to be changes to bylaws that involve debt

obligations.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess the way of stating this and trying

to be clear about it is that this isn't the standard operating procedure. So the

member is correct, actually, in saying that under 29.1(5), that lays out the

responsibilities of the board in terms of ratification. That won't change at

all.

This is actually the fallback position if the business model

changed. So if it changed from a non-recourse model, this is the fallback

position that really builds on what was already there and in place with respect

to project toll charges, motor vehicle charges, etc. It just adds the term

"designated tolls" to that fallback position.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

J. MacPhail: On

section 11, it's hard to…. This is a very

major addition to the old act, and the explanatory notes are meagre — that's a

polite word for saying what they are — so I need some information about this. Is

this

section the

section that permits the GVTA TransLink to put a tax on parking

stalls? The reason

[ Page 11612 ]

why I ask that, Mr. Chair, is because I was trying to find out where it is in

the legislation that the parking stall tax is permitted.

[1710]

Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 30(2) of the original GVTA Act,

which I believe was introduced and passed in 1998, allows for the assessment of

the parking tax. That's the vehicle that allows for the assessment of the

parking tax. What

section 11 does, essentially, is to define the exemptions that

will be governed under the establishment of the roll necessary for carrying out

the implementation that was anticipated back in

section 30(2).

J. MacPhail: Does such a tax exist now?

Hon. K. Falcon: The tools to implement the tax that was

authorized by

section 30(2) would need to be implemented. Part of what we were

doing here is providing the tools for the implementation of the tax that was

authorized back in 1998.

J. MacPhail: Does such a tax exist now?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, obviously, until the ability to

implement the tax is in place, you can't have the tax in place until you provide

the tools necessary for them to carry out what was provided under

section 30(2)

in the original legislation.

J. MacPhail: So the tax d