2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)

Hon. J.

Murray

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Hon. G.

Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Sumas Energy 2 project and alternative energy

production

B. Penner

University College of the Cariboo

K. Krueger

Tara Singh Hayer

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

B.C. resort task force

Christensen

Hon. K.

Falcon

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. MacPhail

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Crown

Corporations, second report

K. Stewart

Committee of the Whole House

Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 79)

J. Kwan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Suffredine

W. McMahon

B. Bennett

D. Jarvis

[ Page 7985 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: Philippe Murat — you know him from CBC Radio-Canada — and his

wife, Jasmine, are the proud parents this morning of two beautiful baby girls.

Thérèse was born at eight last night. She came in at 5 pounds 9 ounces. Two

minutes later Charlotte was born, coming in at 6 pounds — oy — 14 ounces. I

just had an initial reaction there. But everybody, apparently, is well and

resting comfortably.

I'm sure

the House will join me in wishing Philippe, Jasmine, Thérèse and Charlotte all

the best, and I ask the Speaker to send félicitations on behalf of the

entire House.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered, and I really appreciated the sound effects.

[1405]

Hon. L.

Stephens: In the House today is Samantha McBride. She is here to assist with

the job-shadowing in recognition of Women's History Month. Women's caucus

members, through the last couple of weeks, have been hosting young women in

leadership and encouraging young women to participate in the political process.

Samantha is

a grade 11 student from Esquimalt High School. She's on the honour roll. She's a

member of the rowing team and the vice-president of the student council. Would

the House please make Samantha welcome.

P. Bell:

I am very pleased to introduce to the House today the individual that keeps

my life on time and deals with all the issues that we are faced with on an

ongoing basis. I'm pleased to introduce Charlotte Groot, my constituency

assistant from Prince George. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Also today in the gallery is Chelsea Parker. She, too, is

job-shadowing me today as part of the celebration of Women's History Month.

Chelsea is a grade 10 student at Mount Douglas Senior Secondary in Victoria, and

her favourite subjects are literature and drama. She's here today to learn more

about politics and government. Will you join me, please, in welcoming Chelsea.

Hunter: It's my pleasure to introduce today two visitors in the gallery. Mr.

George Hanson is the executive director of the downtown Nanaimo partnership,

working hard to re-establish our downtown as a vibrant part of our community.

He's accompanied by his mother, Lila Blackman, who is a resident of the state of

Maine. Will the House please make them both welcome.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Visiting us today from Robert Bateman Secondary School are 32

students who are studying government, and with them are three teachers: Jeff

Crocker, Jinny St-Hilaire and Tia Ash. I spoke to these students a few days ago

government. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

P. Wong:

Today joining us in the House are a number of dedicated volunteers and a youth

group from the Church of Scientology, which is actively involved in educating

youth about the harm of drugs so that the youth will make an important decision

to be drug-free. The drug-free marshals who have joined us today are Sharon

Werner, Jeff Beaumont, Shauntel Braun, Lindsey Scott, Tyler Smith, Kyle Connor

and Brandon McGonigal.

This group,

along with our MLA office, organized a successful street-cleaning day this

summer to help clean up Fraser Street. Would the House please help me to make

them very welcome.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me today to introduce a few people to

the House, one from my constituency. Today we had a successful oil and gas day,

and there were quite a number of oil and gas executives over from Calgary and

Edmonton to visit with some of the MLAs.

But staying

behind was Pierre Alvarez, the president of the Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers. I believe — I'm not sure — he might be here: Doug

Haughey, the president of Duke Energy. I have here Ross Curtis, assistant deputy

minister of the oil and gas division in my ministry, and from my constituency a

good friend of mine by the name of Bob Fedderly. He's the president of the

Northern Society Oilfield Contractors and represents a lot of folks that are

working in the oil and gas industry in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Dawson

Creek. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hawes: In the House today are two former colleagues of mine and now close

associates: the mayor of Mission, Abe Neufeld, and the city administrator, Glen

Robertson. Could the House please make them both welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I just ask the House to make welcome two people who are here with

me today. The one who spends most days here with me in the Legislature is Adam

Buchanan, who is the executive assistant in my office. With him today, as well,

is a gentleman who works out of my constituency office, Mr. Eric Hogan. I ask

the House to make them welcome.

[1410]

I. Chong:

Earlier today I had the pleasure of meeting with two fine gentlemen to discuss

concerns regarding their profession — the opticians. Joining us in the gallery

is Mr. Don Smith, president of the Opticians Association of Canada, and with him

is Mr. Brian Maycock, a highly successful owner of a family-run busi-

[ Page 7986 ]

ness here in Victoria, Maycock Optical. Would the House make them both

welcome.

J. Kwan:

I see that visiting us in the visitors' gallery is Susan Thom, the

communications director of B.C. Housing. I recognize her from the days when we

were in government, and there were lots of housing announcements and openings of

affordable housing. Would the House please make welcome Susan Thom.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. J.

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

intituled Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that Bill 84 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm pleased to introduce a bill that makes amendments to both the

Park Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. British Columbia is

home to the third-largest park system in North America, behind only the national

park system in Canada and the U.S.A. We have a park system to be proud of. This

government's goal is to continue to make that system even better. We'll continue

to welcome and cater to all visitors by providing more choice and more

opportunity.

With these

amendments to the Park Act, we recognize there are economic opportunities that

exist within our provincial parks that can be accessed while continuing to

protect the important environmental and recreational value of our parks. Further

amendments to the Park Act contained in this bill will clarify the rules for

directional drilling under lands in the parks and protected area system,

consistent with current practices in protected areas and consistent with

government's new-era commitment to ensure no mining or logging in our parks. In

addition, amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will amend

the boundaries of seven parks in the schedules of that act.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 84

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.

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

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

intituled Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: This piece of legislation completes the legislative reform of the

Motor Vehicle Act and the Insurance Act as it relates to the core review of ICBC

and greater provision for optional insurance and competition in the optional

insurance market.

The bill

amends the Insurance Act so that it applies a consistent set of statutory

provisions to both public and private providers of auto insurance, including the

mandatory basic insurance provided by ICBC and optional vehicle insurance

provided by ICBC and private insurers.

At present

the Insurance Act and Motor Vehicle Act apply to all ICBC insurance, basic and

optional, and

part 6 of the Insurance Act governs optional insurance policies

issued by private insurers. This act will further competition between the public

and private providers as well as level the playing field between the two,

resulting in greater choice for consumers. This act completes the core review of

ICBC announced late last year.

I move the

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

of the House after today.

Bill 93

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.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROJECT AND

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION

Penner: When will we find out if SE2 will be permitted to build power lines

into the Fraser Valley in order to hook up their proposed power plant? That's

the question I've been asked repeatedly ever since the National Energy Board

wrapped up hearings in the middle of September. Along with many Fraser Valley

residents and municipal leaders, MLAs for Maple Ridge–Mission, Abbotsford-Clayburn,

Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, Chilliwack-Sumas and a riding known as Chilliwack-Kent

joined the provincial government as official interveners in the process. During

23 days of evidence and seven days of closing argument, the B.C. government

argued strenuously that the Sumas Energy 2 proposal was not a project which

fitted the National Energy Board's criterion of "public convenience and

necessity." Frankly, it's anyone's guess when the NEB will release their

decision, but I think we may hear something by Christmas. Is it just a waiting

game at this point, or is there something else we can do?

Although

the hearings are finished, there is more we can do. Thanks to B.C.'s new energy

policy, clean

[ Page 7987 ]

sources of electricity are coming on line. The more we can encourage this

type of energy production, the less demand there will be for power from projects

like SE2. At this moment work is well underway on the Furry Creek small hydro

project near Squamish. This is where our Minister of Finance and Minister of

Energy announced a tax break for run-of-the-river projects back in August, a

move which signals the government's support for this type of renewable energy.

Along with

the members for West Vancouver–Capilano and Burnaby North, I was pleased to be

on hand for the announcement. It was rewarding to see people from throughout the

Fraser Valley, including Chilliwack, working on the project and earning very

respectable paycheques. An even bigger project is under construction now at

Rutherford Creek, near Pemberton; and the Brandywine Creek project, south of

Whistler, was commissioned only a few weeks ago. Other small hydro projects are

nearing completion on Vancouver Island.

About ten

days ago I met with proponents of B.C.'s first-ever commercial wind power

project. They have now completed a power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro,

including payment of a non-refundable deposit of $400,000. Now they must proceed

through the environmental assessment process, which I sincerely hope won't take

too long. While we're waiting for the decision on SE2, there is, in fact, more

we can do, and the good news is that we are doing more.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE CARIBOO

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, as you know better than anyone in this House, in 1970

Cariboo College was founded by a group of men and women who knew young people in

the interior had a desire to get a post-secondary education close to their

homes. I wasn't even old enough for a driver's licence at the time, but I've

certainly heard a lot about it since I've been in Kamloops.

When

Cariboo College opened, it consisted of little more than its student body and

instructors — 500 full-time and part-time students who studied in primitive

facilities by today's standards. Today the University College of the Cariboo has

a modern, high-tech campus. It has an enrolment of more than 10,000 students who

come from all over British Columbia, Canada and 49 other countries including

China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland. It offers 48 bachelor's

degree options in 12 different program areas, 20 diploma programs and 34

different certificates in a variety of subjects, and it has a tremendous record

in trades training.

It has

specialty courses for first nations and programs such as adventure guiding,

bachelor of tourism management, respiratory therapy, animal health technology

and bachelor of journalism, which are not offered anywhere else in British

Columbia.

UCC has a

sports program that rivals any in the country. In fact, UCC varsity athletics

has been accepted into the Canada West conference of Canadian Interuniversity

Sports. Starting in 2005, UCC athletes will be competing against UBC, SFU and

UVic athletes and other top athletes from western universities.

However, as

impressive as it already is, UCC has room to grow and get better. It sits on 250

acres of land overlooking the North Thompson valley. It still has 60 acres to

expand in — enough land to meet the growing demand for class seats and to

build new structures such as the Trades and Technology Centre that opened five

years ago, an international building that is now under construction and a new

Actors Workshop Theatre that opened this fall through the funding of this

government.

There is a

group of people in Kamloops named the Friends of UCC University Society, who

have come together with one goal in mind: to get official recognition, through

name, that University College of the Cariboo is a full-fledged university. They

have galvanized the people of Kamloops and the region, who know what

opportunities lie ahead for our community and our province if UCC can achieve

official university status. I support their efforts, and I know you do also, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to thank them and pay tribute to the work they have done.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Advanced Education, who has listened

intently to our proposal. We look forward to more discussions in the near

future.

[1420]

TARA SINGH HAYER

Hayer: Like many of my colleagues, I attended Remembrance Day ceremonies

last week to pay homage to the courage and dedication of those who so bravely

fought for the freedom we enjoy today. There is another remembrance this week,

also for a courageous freedom fighter. Today I remember my father, who dedicated

his life for a different kind of battle. With a stroke of his pen, he fought for

freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom that so many of us take for

granted. I especially remember him today, because five years ago on November 18

my father was assassinated for standing up and speaking up through his

newspaper, for defending the freedoms and democracy we enjoy today.

recognize the sacrifice made by my father, Tara Singh Hayer, there will be a

memorial service — the fifth annual memorial service — at the Guru Nanak

Sikh Temple in Surrey. The services will be held Friday, Saturday and Sunday,

with the main service being held on Sunday, November 23, at 10:30 a.m. I invite

all in the House who are available to join me on that day to celebrate his life

and the contributions he made to further the cause of peace, security, freedom

and the preservation of democracy.

While I

remember the tragedies that have occurred to preserve our way of life, I am also

reminded personally every day that we have all faced sacrifice. To keep what we

hold so precious, we must all be vigilant, and each in our own way we must be

willing to defend and preserve it.

[ Page 7988 ]

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: The Premier likes to talk about the supposed benefits that will

flow to the taxpayer as a result of breaking his election promise not to sell or

privatize B.C. Rail. Today we learn that there may be no benefits to the

taxpayer at all if the Premier sells B.C. Rail to one of his biggest campaign

backers, CN. Everyone familiar with this file knows that CN is salivating over

the potentially billions of dollars in untapped tax write-offs sitting on B.C.

Rail's books.

Now, the

Premier may be happy to eliminate competition for his big-money campaign backer

— more than $107,000 in election donations — but he's got a bit of a problem

on his hands on the tax side. To the Premier: is he going to offer CN an

indemnity against the possibility that Revenue Canada rules against CN's plans

to write off billions of dollars?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite was in attendance at the transportation

conference which was organized with northern representatives and with

representatives from the federal government as well as representatives from the

province. She actually heard the communities of the north saying to this

government directly: "Our recommendation would be for the province to

retain ownership of the railbed and rail tracks and their partner to offer

freight and passenger services."

People from

the north said to us that we had to improve on the quality of service that B.C.

Rail offered. People from the north told us that it was time for us to see some

investment in B.C. Rail that would encourage economic development from the Peace

to the northwest, to Prince George, to the Alberta border. Our government is

committed to assuring that there is an integrated rail service that meets the

needs of the north and the heartlands of this community so the economies in the

north and the heartlands can reach their full potential.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, once again the Premier misrepresents what a body decided or

didn't decide, and he continues to duck the central issue. When he told the

voters he would not privatize or sell B.C. Rail, he wasn't telling them the

truth, and he just admits that now. All along, the Liberal government has been

planning to sell B.C. Rail, and it was prepared to say whatever it took to get

elected in order to do so.

Reality is

setting in, and let me just give some of that reality. Let's find out what the

benefits to the province are if it sells B.C. Rail. There's no benefit to the

shippers. They'll pay higher rates. There's no benefit to the communities.

They'll see reduced levels of services and huge amounts of money leaving their

economies. There's no benefit to the employees. They'll see at least 600 jobs

disappear.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: There's no benefit to the taxpayer, because the government….

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the member please now put her question.

MacPhail: Yes, I will.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

MacPhail: There's no benefit to the taxpayer…

Mr.

Speaker: Now, please.

MacPhail: …because the government appears ready to hand over B.C. Rail to

one of its biggest campaign donors.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

MacPhail: To the Premier: cut the spin, drop the message box, admit the

truth. Will he now admit that the B.C. Rail campaign promise wasn't worth the

glossy paper it was written on?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Here's the truth, Mr. Speaker. B.C. Rail has $500 million of debt.

B.C. Rail has had to write off $800 million over the last 15 years. Shippers

told us it was time to change — that they couldn't count on B.C. Rail.

Communities told us that B.C. Rail had to be integrated into the northern

transportation networks or we would not be able to serve their needs.

This

government said to communities in the north, who came and said: "We must

work together to find a private rail operator to meet the needs of industries

— forestry, mining and tourism." The province has given an assurance to

retain the ownership of the track and railbed. They're satisfied with that. The

mayor of Prince George has said to us that their recommendation was that we

retain ownership — we retain ownership, public ownership — of the rail and

the railbed. We will do that so that infrastructure is always there to meet the

needs of northern and interior communities in British Columbia, and we will do

that.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, what this Premier refuses to acknowledge is that he

hasn't received one new piece of financial information from the time he promised

northern communities he wouldn't sell or privat-

[ Page 7989 ]

ize B.C. Rail — not one new piece of financial information.

He likes to

talk about the demands of the community and the supposed benefits that will flow

to the taxpayer, but today we learn that there may be no benefits to the

taxpayers at all if the Premier sells B.C. Rail to his biggest campaign backer

of them all — CN.

This

government was wrong to try to sell off the Coquihalla. It reluctantly dropped

those plans. It was wrong to try to sell off the liquor stores. It dropped the

plan for now, anyway, when he realized the former minister had botched the plan.

Now, the

Premier has an opportunity to admit another mistake — something I know it's

difficult for him to do — and he can say to his big campaign donor: "I'm

sorry, the $107,000 helped me get elected, but unfortunately you can't have B.C.

Rail in return. It's just not going to work."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Instead of putting the taxpayers…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. It's time to put the question, hon.

member.

MacPhail: …on the hook for millions of dollars in a bad deal…

Mr.

Speaker: Now, please.

MacPhail: …why doesn't the Premier tell his party to give CN its $107,000

back and cancel this bone-headed plan?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Campbell: You know, we have an enormous opportunity in this House to serve

the needs of northern communities, to serve the needs of northern workers, to

build an industrial plant in the north that they can count on…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …and that's sustainable for the long term. It is unequivocal

that you need an integrated rail service to meet the needs of our customers and

the shippers of British Columbia, whether they're in the forest industry or the

mining industry. There is no question about that.

There is no

question that we need an integrated shipping network. There is no question that

we need more competitive rates. There is no question that the costs that have

been associated with B.C. Rail…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …delivering services have been onerous. So we are doing exactly

what the mayors of northern communities asked us to do. They said to us, and

again I quote…. Let me quote directly. The member opposite had this. She may

decide not to read it, Mr. Speaker, but she knows that this is true: "Our

recommendation would be for the province to retain ownership of the railbed and

rail tracks and their partner to offer freight and passenger services."

Now, that

was said once to the member, it was said again at a special meeting of northern

mayors, and it was said again at a shippers' conference last December. Following

that, what the shippers and what the communities said to us was clearly:

"Get on with the job. We want the service. It's time for action." And

we will act, Mr. Speaker.

[1430]

B.C. RESORT TASK FORCE

Christensen: Well, it may be raining outside here in Victoria, but

throughout a number of mountains in the interior it is snowing furiously today.

As all members of the House should know by now, my riding is home to Silver Star

ski resort, one of British Columbia's most spectacular and fastest-developing

resort destinations.

As part of

our….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

Christensen: My constituents have a great deal of interest in what happens

at Silver Star ski resort as it is a foundation of part of the economy in the

Vernon area. As part of our new-era commitment to stimulate tourism and our plan

outlined in the throne speech last spring to establish a B.C. resort task force,

the Minister for Deregulation was appointed chair of the task force.

I know the

Minister for Deregulation has been working hard in terms of the task force's

purposes. I was hoping that the minister could provide my constituents with some

update on what is happening with the B.C. resort task force and how that is

going to benefit Silver Star ski resort and other resorts throughout the

interior.

Hon. K.

Falcon: As you know, the Premier back in February toured over a dozen alpine

ski resorts and came away with a recognition that these resorts can be huge

economic generators. Just to give you an idea, Whistler alone generates over a

billion dollars in economic activity, representing some 10 percent of the

tourism revenues of this province.

[ Page 7990 ]

What we

said under the leadership of our Premier was that we were going to look at every

single resort across the province and see what barriers the government has put

into place and make sure we reduce those barriers. We unleashed the unbelievable

power and potential of resorts right across British Columbia to ensure that we

capitalize on 2010 and all the folks who will be coming and looking at this

great province and realizing what fantastic natural resorts and what great

people we have here.

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

J. Kwan:

The one document that the Premier forgot to look at is the new-era commitments

that he himself put out, and in it: "We will not sell or privatize B.C.

Rail." Maybe the Premier has forgotten that promise.

You know,

watching the Liberals twist on the B.C. Rail file will make for good

entertainment if it weren't for the fact that this flagrant broken promise will

hurt jobs and the economy in the north. Recently the northern customers of

Agricore United, one of B.C. Rail's big customers, passed a resolution

condemning the government for its broken promise.

Here's what

one of these B.C. Rail customers said in a letter to the Premier: "Public

ownership of B.C. Rail is crucial to the economic well-being of all British

Columbians. B.C. Rail has the advantage of providing competition in the

marketplace and direct access to the Asian marketplace." This was sent to

the Premier just last week.

The

government is out of excuses. B.C. Rail makes money, its debt is manageable, and

its customers say its service is dependable.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister stop…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Order. Would the member

please now put her question.

J. Kwan:

Will the Minister of Transportation stop twisting in the wind and just admit

that her government has betrayed British Columbians on B.C. Rail?

[1435]

Hon. J.

Reid: There is so much growth potential in the north and in the rail

services, and that previous government could not accomplish any of that growth.

We have had to consolidate the services of the freight rail side. There are

hundreds of jobs available for the passenger-tourism sector. There are jobs

available in the growth of industry when we get a rail partner who can invest

and can see that growth happen. The frustration we've had and industry has had

is that there has not been access to more capital for more growth, and that

investment is going to create the economic opportunities we all want to see.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Well, in the free enterprise economy the customer is always right. In their

resolution condemning the government, Agricore customers said the B.C. Liberals

have no mandate to sell the company. They say that the sale of B.C. Rail would

result in higher freight charges. Employees will be laid off, and northern

interior lines will be abandoned.

These

customers say that the vision laid down by W.A.C. Bennett for B.C. Rail still

holds true today. Everyone knows the government is — what this minister

refuses to admit — selling B.C. Rail to CN. Why is it so hard for the minister

just to admit the truth? Does she think British Columbians are gullible enough

to believe the deal isn't already done?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Speaker, here's the truth. British Columbia needs to have a

rail system that takes our products to their marketplace. British Columbia needs

a rail system that delivers as cost-effectively as possible. British Columbia

needs a rail system that delivers….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order. Order, please. Order! Order!

Will the

Leader of the Opposition please retract that statement unequivocally.

MacPhail: No, I won't, Mr. Speaker. I won't retract it, because if he's

saying it's the truth now, then he was lying before.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, if you do not retract the statement unequivocally, I

have no choice but to ask you to leave the chamber.

MacPhail: I'm not going to retract the statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: Then I have no choice, hon. member, but to ask you to leave the

chamber.

[J.

MacPhail left the chamber.]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The truth is that we need an integrated rail…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …system to meet the needs of our resource communities in the

north. The truth is that we are not going to sell the railbed. We are not

[ Page 7991 ]

going to sell the tracks of B.C. Rail. We are going to provide for economic

investment in the heartlands of this community. The truth is that there are

going to be more jobs in the north. There are going to be more jobs in the

heartland, because at last we have an integrated transportation system that

works for all British Columbians.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Stewart: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations respecting a review of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the homeowner protection office and

the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia.

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Stewart: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

Leave

granted.

Stewart: I move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of

the report, I wish to make the following comments. First, I thank the Clerk's

office and staff for their continued high level of support to our committee.

Our

committee is committed to the improvement of reporting and accountability

processes of the British Columbia Crown corporations and is pursuing a number of

new initiatives to meet this goal, specifically in the areas of performance

measurement and governance. The operation of boards will also be more closely

scrutinized for their performance by the committee.

[1440]

In closing,

I would like to thank the committee members for their time, energy and

expertise, which allows for the accountability and transparency of Crown

corporations for the benefit of all the citizens of British Columbia.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 79.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 79; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[1450]

The

committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

You'll have to excuse me for a moment, Mr. Chair. My colleague the Leader of the

Opposition was carrying this bill, and I wasn't expecting to do committee stage

on this bill until just now. So you'll excuse me if I stumble here and there.

Bill 79,

the Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, was introduced two Tuesdays ago.

Under

section 1, here are some general questions for the minister. In

introducing this bill, the minister said this bill would enable the trust to

"more efficiently deliver its legislated mandate." So let's look at

that mandate. It says in

section 4 of the Columbia Basin Trust Act:

"4

(1) The purpose of the corporation is to invest,

spend and otherwise manage the regional allocation and the corporation's other

assets, including any assets that may be transferred to it, for the ongoing

economic, environmental and social benefit of the region including, without

limitation, for

(

a) the social well being of the residents of the region,

(

b) the preservation, protection and enhancement of the environment of the

region,

(

c) the economic development of the region, and

(

d) any other prescribed purposes.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) relieves any level of government from any

obligations it might have with respect to the region."

[1455]

It is with

interest we note what the present minister had to say about this

section during

debate in 1995. At that time he said:

"To

get back to the question, is the province's responsibility not already the

social well-being of the residents of the region? Is the province's

responsibility not already the preservation, protection and enhancement of the

environment of the region? Is the province's responsibility not the economic

development of the region and any other prescribed purposes? One seems very

opposite to the other, and what I see — subsection (2) — is really a

contradictory statement altogether."

The minister, then, was not what one would call a fan of the

mandate of the trust. In fact, he questioned the need for it.

I'm sure

the minister will understand that there is a certain amount of skepticism in

response to the changes he's proposing in this bill. The minister is, with this

bill, increasing the power of the provincial government as it relates to the

management of the trust, and he is not a big supporter of the legislated mandate

[ Page 7992 ]

of the trust. What assurances can the minister provide that the independence

and local focus of the trust will be continued with the passage of this bill?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, it's great to put on the record that we are not changing how

the trust operates. What we are doing with this bill is simplifying a few items,

items that no longer need to be there. There are some deregulation initiatives

taken.

I'll deal

in general, if it's the will of the Chair, as the question was general. The

trust will still manage its assets the way it always has. Columbia Power

Corporation will still manage the assets along with the trust. The Columbia

Basin Trust will still have the authority to spend their share of the proceeds

however they want to spend their share of the proceeds, exactly as it was

envisioned in 1995.

The only

difference here is that — and although it's in the next section, I will say it

— we're reducing the board from 18 to 12. That's by agreement of the board.

They would rather have a smaller board than a large board, so we're

accommodating those things. Nothing changes as to how they want to spend their

share of the money that comes forward from those investments.

J. Kwan:

Well, no. We'll get into more detailed debate when we get to the next section,

which is, of course, about the makeup of the board. It has substantively changed

with this piece of legislation. Therefore, what will happen with decisions from

the board may result in changes in their decisions because of the makeup of the

board. We'll get into that when we get to that section.

The

minister did not answer the question, though, in terms of how local focus will

be maintained and how the independence of that board will be maintained. The

fact is that the makeup of the board is going to be changed. It's no longer

going to be community people. How will one ensure that there's local focus with

respect to the work of this board?

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I want to draw us back to

section 1, but let me reassure the

member, and I'm going to reassure the people in the Kootenays. The board

members, all 12, will actually come from the Kootenays. They will be people in

the community, who live in the Kootenays, in the area that's represented by the

Columbia Basin Trust. That will not change.

Prior to

this change, there were six members appointed by the previous government and 12

from the region. All we're changing is that six will come, again, from the

government. The Kootenay caucus has recommended and has processed the names of

the people from the region that are acceptable. At least, I certainly haven't

heard or received one letter that said those six people that government

appointed are not the people to represent the people in the Kootenays. I can

assume from that, then, that the government appointees — the ones that

government actually appoints — are satisfactory to the people in the

Kootenays. The other six will be given to us. Names will be given to government,

to board resourcing, by people from the five different regional districts and

one tribal council.

[1500]

Now, I

don't know what that member doesn't get about how that's not people from the

Kootenays. It still amazes me that someone can stand in this House and say the

people won't be from the Kootenays when they will be from the Kootenays. They

are from the Kootenays, and they will always be from the Kootenays. I can't

express that more. I hope this member actually reads the bill to find out how

those people are appointed. She may not like a board going from 18 to 12, but I

can tell you that the people on the board like it going from 18 to 12. There are

some reasons for the matter of fact that we have to appoint all of those by

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that should be well understood.

No one is

trying to usurp anything from the Kootenays. This is all about representation

from the Kootenays on the Columbia Basin Trust so the Columbia Basin Trust can

move forward, carry on its business as it normally has with people represented

from the Columbia basin.

J. Kwan:

It simply is not a true representation of how the community feels about the

changes being proposed in this bill, Mr. Chair. The fact of the matter is that

the community is greatly concerned with the proposed change. What the minister

refuses to acknowledge is that with the change in this bill, it actually takes

away local representation chosen by the people from the community — not a

government-chosen board on which the government has a bunch of stooges who will

simply do what the government tells them to do. That would be their caucus.

The

minister can pretend all he wants that somehow he's listening to the people,

while nothing could be further from the truth. Let me ask the minister this

question. Has he received any correspondence from the public, news reports —

meetings? No doubt he's heard a lot of those going on in terms of opposition to

this bill. Has the minister received any correspondence or proposal from the

current board in relation to the changes we find in this bill?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I mean, if we want to discuss this issue, we should really be doing

it in the next section, but I'm quite willing to do it in this section.

Again, you

know, you can stand there and say whatever you want, but the people that are

appointed by government to the board are actually people from the Kootenays.

Now, if you're telling me that those six people that we appointed just recently

are stooges, I find that a bit offensive. I would think that the folks who just

got appointed to that trust by government — those six people and the rest of

the people on the board that you refer to as stooges — should all be just a

little bit upset with that member.

[ Page 7993 ]

Now, I

don't know who she's referring to as stooges, but that is unacceptable to stand

in this House…. Actually, I've heard that member chastise me and others for

not paying attention to parliamentary rules, and I can't believe that member

stood up in this House and called every member of the Columbia Basin Trust a

stooge. Can you imagine how disrespectful, how absolutely disrespectful that is

to those folks who put their names forward to sit on the board to make sure that

money is expended in the Kootenays for the benefit of the Kootenays?

But then

maybe she's referring to past boards. Let me read a few names. I don't know. Is

she referring to Dave Bjarnason as a stooge? Or to Jo Brown as a stooge? Or to

Ed Conroy? Now, he used to be an MLA in this House. He used to be a cabinet

minister in a government that she was in. Is that a stooge? Jim Doyle, also an

MLA from the Kootenays who sat in cabinet, I believe, as Minister of Forests —

is he a stooge? Or is Joanne Partridge a stooge? Is that what that member is

referring to — that these people that actually put their names forward are

stooges?

One change

that will happen under this government is that we won't appoint MLAs to the

Columbia Basin Trust. There are people that are willing to sit on the Columbia

Basin Trust for the benefit of the folks in the Columbia basin. They are there

now, and there are six of them that were just recently appointed and are

spending that money wisely.

[1505]

I find it

offensive, and I would actually ask you, Mr. Chair, to ask that member to

withdraw that statement. Otherwise all the members that she has appointed….

She was part of a government from 1995 to 2001 that appointed a whole bunch of

people, and I could read all their names. Anne Edwards — is that a stooge? I

don't know. Fred Parker — is that a stooge? Is that what she's referring to?

I'm telling

you, Mr. Chair. I think that what you should do…. If she's a bit upset about

question period, I'm fine with that. Her member chose to get thrown out of the

House — no one else. Her Leader of the Opposition chose to get thrown out of

the House. I would ask that that member….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I would ask that that member remove that statement calling all the

people that have been appointed to the Columbia Basin Trust stooges. That is

unfair. There are six appointed by government. There are six good people, six

excellent people. The other six people that come from recommendations…. Again,

Mr. Chair, I say to you that we're going to deal with that in the next section.

Those six that are recommended from the five regional districts and from the

tribal council, I am sure, will all be good, solid representatives of the

Kootenays who have the Kootenays at heart and should not be subject to being

referred to as stooges.

The

Chair: I'd like to remind the members to keep it in a civil tone. If the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant wishes to restructure her comments, she

may. If not, we will continue in a more civil tone.

section

1, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Well, here's the difference between the previous bill, the bill called the

Columbia Basin Trust, with the makeup of the board and how it changes under this

government. I will name some of the appointees that this government, this

minister has put on that board and give you some background, Mr. Chair, about

those individuals, which is why the concern has been raised — that I raise

with respect to whether or not the decisions will be in the best interests of

that community. Or will there be ulterior…? Well, let me just stop there. Let

me just put on the record the makeup of the trust before.

Point of Order

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, before the member asks her question, we ask that the name

"stooge" be removed and that the member apologize to those folks that

have spent time on the Columbia Basin Trust and may spend time on the Columbia

Basin Trust moving forward. I'd like to see that happen, please.

The

Chair: Just one moment, and we'll confer on that.

Members, I

already mentioned earlier in the strongest terms to keep this conversation at a

civil level. I would caution the members to keep their comments on personality

in a negative way out of this discussion.

We are now

talking on

section 1 of the bill, and if we can continue with

section 1 with

questions pertaining to it.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

Let me just outline from the existing piece of legislation that this

government is just about to override with Bill 79, the Columbia Basin Trust

Amendment Act, 2003. The appointment of the board formerly requires that two

must be appointed by the board of the regional district of Central Kootenay. Two

must be appointed by the board of the Fraser–Fort George regional district.

Two must be appointed by the board of….

Point of Order

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, if we're done with

section 1, I would just as soon pass

section 1. We're reading now the next

section in the bill. If we can just move

on forward through it, that would be great.

[ Page 7994 ]

The

Chair: Members, in looking at the bill, it does appear that the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's comments are more relevant in

section 2. If she

would like to allow us to continue on — passing

section 1 or voting on

section

1 — and bring up that discussion in

section 2, I think it would be more

appropriate.

[1510]

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

I have a whole host of questions. As I mentioned at the beginning of the debate

under

section 1, I have a series of general questions for the minister. The

minister himself brought up the makeup of the board, specifically, and he had

advised that he would not mind answering questions relating to that — which is

why I actually went into the makeup of the board per the minister's direction in

his answer to my question.

Section 1

actually deals with the nominating bodies as well as with qualified individuals.

When we look at that in a broad scope, we can also look at, really, the specific

makeup of that board and who is deemed to be qualified individuals. It is in

that context, Mr. Chair, that I am asking these questions.

The

Chair: Member, I'll just remind you. If you could keep it in the general

terms, that would be great, and we can continue on. If it's specific, please

hold those till

section 2, and we would be more than pleased to give you your

time at that point.

J. Kwan:

I'll be happy to do so, Mr. Chair. I'll be happy to do so.

Then let me

go back to ask the minister whether or not the minister has received any

correspondence or proposals from the current board in relation to the changes we

find in this bill.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We have received some correspondence in regard to

section 2, which

actually deals with boards.

J. Kwan:

The minister says he has received some letters relating to

section 2. Has he

received other correspondence relating to this bill in general, whether it be

section 2 or

section 3 or any other

section — but with respect to this bill in

general? Has he received any correspondence?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, I guess I read the media reports on a daily basis, but as

far as a lot of letters, no.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister table the letter from the municipality of Creston — table

that document in this House today?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm saying that we have received some correspondence in regard to

this, and we have read, obviously, some news media about it. But I would like to

get on with passing

section 1 and get on with the boards.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question. Will he table the correspondence from

the municipality of Creston in this House?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The staff. Actually, I was remiss when I started, but we were

waiting for quite a while to start. I have with me Dana Hayden, deputy minister

and CEO of Crown agencies secretariat here on my left; Les McLaren, executive

director of Crown agencies secretariat; and Arn van Iersel, the comptroller

general, Ministry of Finance, right behind me.

I guess we

have received kind of a letter from the town of Creston. It's addressed to the

MLA for Nelson-Creston, Blair Suffredine. Interestingly, it's not copied

to me, so I guess, in reality, I had it given to me. It was not sent to me.

J. Kwan: The

minister is in receipt of this letter in any event. Will he agree to table that

letter for the benefit of all members in this House?

The

Chair: Just a little direction to the minister. It's your discretion.

[1515]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: No, I won't table a letter that's not sent to me. That would be

unfair, and I wouldn't think…. I'm not sure whether I should authorize the

tabling of that letter at all. If the town of Creston wishes to write me a

letter as Minister of Energy and Mines, they're quite welcome to do that. In

fact, they can get one on the way right now if they're sitting there watching.

Suffredine: I have a couple of general questions. The first deals with

"qualified individual." Earlier, in one of the minister's answers he

indicated that a qualified individual is, of course, someone resident, but he

referred to the board resourcing. How does that change who is a qualified

individual? What individuals might be no longer qualified? For example, would an

MLA be qualified to be a member of the board now, and if not, why not? Why would

people be excluded?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Our policy through boards and resourcing is that MLAs do not sit on

boards of either corporations or the Columbia Basin Trust, for instance. I know

it was standard practice with the last administration. In fact, to stretch it a

little bit, the last administration would appoint the minister in charge of a

Crown corporation to a board such as B.C. Hydro or ICBC.

We don't do

that, because we think there are hugely qualified people in the region that can

actually sit on this board unfettered by any other political affiliation — any

of that — and actually make very good decisions on behalf of the people that

actually live in the Columbia basin. There are a whole bunch of people out there

who actually want to do that — who want to

[ Page 7995 ]

come forward, spend their time and give us their energy and their knowledge

so that we can actually have the Columbia Basin Trust run in a way that the

people in the Columbia basin, I'm sure, would like to have it run.

Suffredine: The letter alluded to by the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant raises the issue of whether or not there's a change to the mandate of

the trust. In it, the town council apparently drew a conclusion that somehow the

funds in the trust could be used as a bank account or used to pay down the

deficit. Can the minister clarify whether or not there's any substance to those

allegations?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, no, the assumption is incorrect. As I said in my remarks

earlier and in my second reading remarks and my first reading remarks,

government is not going to take away anything that the trust already has under

the original Columbia Basin Trust Act. We will not be taking any money away from

the Columbia Basin Trust at all. Their 50 percent proceeds from those

investments that they've made in that region continue to flow to the people of

the Columbia Basin Trust to be used as they see fit, to be used as they would

like to have them used in their region. So, no, government's not going to use it

to retire debt or anything like that — not at all.

I think I

explained in my second reading remarks why we're doing what we're doing. The

board's investment and program priorities will continue to be guided by the

Columbia basin management plan. They have a management plan in place, one

they've designed, and they will continue to be guided by that plan as they move

forward.

We should

know that that plan has been developed by folks in the Columbia basin — not by

government and not by government influence. At least — let me put this on the

record — not by this government's influence. That's probably the correct thing

to say: not by this government's influence. It could have been by the last

government, because they appointed MLAs and cabinet ministers to the Columbia

Basin Trust, but I don't know that.

[1520]

They have a

master plan that I assume they're happy with, and they'll move forward with it

and continue to enjoy the money that they were promised they would get.

J. Kwan:

Before I got cut off on this issue, I want to actually follow up, Mr. Chair.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

You know, for the members who are laughing — the member for Nelson-Creston,

who is laughing…

The

Chair: Member, can we keep to the question, please.

J. Kwan:

…about the rules. There is such a rule as letting the member finish their flow

of questions before they're interrupted by another member. At least the members

don't know any of the rules in this House.

The

Chair: Back to

section 1, please.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Well, you know…

The

Chair: Member, can we get back to

section 1 and get this thing on track.

Thank you.

J. Kwan:

My apologies, Mr. Chair. It's a little bit hard to take. As the only member in

this House, in this Legislature, asking questions — pertinent questions — to

this minister and to get heckled by the government MLAs who are actually, quite

frankly, breaking the tradition of this House….

The

Chair: The minister takes the floor.

Point of Order

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I heard heckles coming from that member when our members were

asking questions. That's actually something that happens in this House. It's

pretty common. It's just like she's heckling me now while I speak on a point of

order. So, Mr. Chair, it's a normal procedure. I would hope we would get back to

section 1, pass

section 1 and get on to

section 2.

The

Chair: That's our intent here, so we'll go back to the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to continue on

section 1.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

Well, one against 77. I'm sure that's a bit tough for this minister to take.

section

1 here I was asking the minister questions about tabling letters, and the

minister said, with respect to the municipality of Creston — the letter that

he has received through his colleague — that he does not intend to table that

letter. Let me ask the minister this question: does he intend to respond to that

letter?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm going to repeat this again and a little slower: the letter

never came to me. The letter was not copied to me. I don't even respond to

letters that are copied to me, because I'd have to have a staff of hundreds to

answer those kinds of letters.

No, I won't

be responding to the letter, because it didn't come to me. I mean, if the

member…. She has the letter. Table it herself. Why doesn't she just table it

in the House if she wants to table it? Why ask me to table a letter I didn't

even receive or wasn't even copied on?

J. Kwan:

That was perfect. I will make sure that the people who wrote that letter will

get a copy of Hansard so that they know the arrogance of this minister.

[ Page 7996 ]

There are a

number of letters, Mr. Chair, that have been sent to the minister with regard to

this. Many people in the Kootenays believe that the changes in this bill are in

fact major changes to the management plan and as such must be put to a public

meeting. Why did the minister choose not to engage the public in these changes?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We have been in discussions with the Columbia Basin Trust board for

a year and a half or maybe even more — two years, I would say, by now — on a

pretty constant basis. It doesn't change any way that the trust manages its

money. They still have 50 percent of the proceeds. They can continue forward

investing that money however they want.

We have

done a fair amount of consultation. I have met with the board chair and the

treasurer, I believe, on quite a number of occasions. Staff have worked closely

with the board. There has been a lot of input to the changes in this bill. I

would say that they actually are looking forward to these changes.

[1525]

You know,

when the member talks about consultation, we actually have gone out and

consulted. We went through core review. We had a process where the Columbia

Basin Trust chair and people came forward with ideas about the Columbia Basin

Trust and how we could actually move forward with it. We took that information.

We've actually worked with people and with the board to try and design something

that still represents what the Columbia Basin Trust folks want.

This bill

in no way alters that, other than a few minor changes, but changing from 18 to

12…. They still have the same rights, the same management plan, the same

moving forward with the plan and spending their money in the basin. I think

probably the only people who don't get it would be the opposition.

J. Kwan:

Well, funny how the minister says that the only person who doesn't get it would

be the opposition. Maybe the city of Revelstoke doesn't get it either.

Here's a

letter written on November 12 by the city of Revelstoke, signed by the mayor:

"On

behalf of the city of Revelstoke, I am writing to you to request the formal

adoption of Bill 79 related to the governance of the Columbia Basin Trust, but

delayed until such time as there has been an opportunity for public

consultation with residents of the Columbia basin.

"As

you're aware, the Columbia Basin Trust was established to benefit communities

in the Columbia basin and to provide benefits to residents to mitigate the

effect of the flooding of large areas within the basin. The city of Revelstoke

believes it is important that residents of the basin be consulted to determine

how best the agency should be managed.

"Sincerely."

It is

signed by the mayor of the city of Revelstoke.

Could the

minister please advise: do the city of Revelstoke and the mayor of Revelstoke

not get it either?

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

I take it from the non-response from the minister that it is his opinion. He

would otherwise rise up to correct me. Perhaps in his opinion, the city of

Revelstoke and the mayor of Revelstoke don't get it either.

The

interesting thing is it isn't the city of Revelstoke that has written about this

issue. Other people have as well. Here's another letter, this one written to the

Premier, and it's from the Creston Museum and Archives:

"I'm

writing on behalf of the directors, volunteers and staff of the Creston and

District Historical Society to share our concerns about Bill 79, regarding

amendments to the Columbia Basin Trust Act. As you know, the Columbia Basin

Trust is an important source of funds for many basin organizations. As funds

from government continue to decline, the importance of the trust in this

respect can only increase. Since the trust has until now been run by basin

residents, it has done an admirable job of identifying and meeting basin needs

within the scope of its mandate. We do not believe this job can be done from

Victoria.

"During

the debate in the Legislature when this bill came up for second reading, the

government was adamant that the amendments to the Columbia Basin Trust Act

would not remove control from local hands. If you are so concerned about

leaving control of the Columbia Basin Trust in local hands — and, in fact,

are heartily congratulating yourselves for having done so — why does the

Lieutenant-Governor have the ability to decline any nominee provided by the

local nominating bodies? According to

section 5(3) of the amendment act, the

Lieutenant-Governor merely has to decline nominees twice before being able to

disregard local wishes entirely. This does not seem a suitable safeguard for

keeping control of the trust in local hands.

"Furthermore,

under what circumstances may the Lieutenant-Governor decline nominees provided

by the local nominating bodies? Those circumstances are not spelled out in the

amendment act. Why not? If you're really concerned about keeping control of

the trust in local hands, you must have put a great deal of thought into what

would justify removing it. Why did you not specify that justification when

writing this amendment act?

"We're

also concerned about the government's desire to allow the Lieutenant-Governor

to remove a director of the trust at the written request of the minister.

Again, under what circumstances may the minister make such a request? Does

that ability not significantly undermine local control of the trust?

[1530]

"Also,

why should the Lieutenant-Governor have the ability to change the term of

office of any director or determine the terms or conditions of that term of

office? Should this not be — is it not — spelled out in the documents

creating the trust in the first place? One of your stated goals for enacting

this legislation is 'to delete unnecessary requirements that are duplicated by

other statutes and processes.' By including the stipulation in the amending

act, are you not in fact creating one of the duplications you seek to

eliminate? It is also interesting that you think duplication necessary in this

instance, but not in the far more significant area of conflict of interest.

Even if such a stipulation does not need to be included in the amendment act,

wouldn't it be better to leave it to those local people to determine those

[ Page 7997 ]

trust remains in local hands, we certainly see the logic of this.

"Mr.

Bennett states in Hansard , November 4, 2003, that 'it's important

on a board like this that the terms of office are staggered and that they all

don't come up for renewal at the same time. I mean, with a board of 12 people

you would want to have two or three coming for renewal at one point and then,

perhaps six months later, a few others. That's the reason why the

Lieutenant-Governor has maintained that kind of flexibility around the

appointments.'

"Many

organizations have removed this problem simply by including in their

bylaws a statement to this effect: 'The term of office for a director shall be

two years except for the first year in which these bylaws are effective, in

which year the term of office for half the directors shall be two years, and the

term of office for half the directors shall be one year.' Why can't you include

such a statement in the amendment act instead of leaving it to the

Lieutenant-Governor's discretion indefinitely? Would this not be more likely to

promote local control of the trust?

wonder why you feel it is necessary to eliminate the advisory committees.

The minister states in Hansard, November 4, 2003, that: 'the trust board

is now enabled to appoint advisory committees as required instead of on an

ongoing basis, saving taxpayers unnecessary costs'. An admirable goal, but the

amendment act itself simply states that

section 13 of the Columbia Basin Trust

Act is repealed — not amended for the better, as the minister suggests.

"Mr.

Bennett — Hansard , Tuesday, November 4, 2003 — makes quite an

issue out of the skills matrix that will be used in selecting nominees for the

trust board. He states: 'Each director is expected to have an advanced

understanding and a working connection with a significant number of people in

the basin. There's supposed to be a multicultural component on the board and the

ability to work effectively with people of all races, religions and persuasions;

the ability to work effectively in a group; superior communications ability;

understanding and experience with board structures and processes. They should be

respected in their fields and have the ability to represent the wider

perspective of the basin rather than the perspective of the appointing body.'

"These

are absolutely necessary requirements for the director of an organization

such as the Columbia Basin Trust. However, the amendment act states only that

qualified individuals be appointed and defines qualified individuals as

residents of the region. Where are all these other qualifications enshrined?

Surely Columbia basin residents are capable of identifying and appointing local

residents without the Lieutenant-Governor's help. Even though the qualifications

of the current appointees are very high, where is it ensured that subsequent

appointees will have equal credentials?

"Mr.

Bennett also states: 'The three fundamentals of the trust success include

invest wisely, spend wisely and engage basin residents.' If those are the three

fundamentals, why are they not listed among the required skills enshrined in the

trust legislation? Notice, also, that Mr. Bennett refers to the trust's success.

If the residents of the Columbia basin have been able to nominate and appoint

the leaders of the trust who have brought about the success in the past, surely

we can be trusted to continue to do so. Why is it suddenly necessary to put

these appointments solely in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor?

"It

was stated several times during the second reading debate that the board of 18

directors is unwieldy, and that is the primary reason for the reduction to 12

stipulated in the amendment act. Although this could be considered a weak

reason, it is by no means invalid. But why does it follow that all the

reductions have to come from among the directors appointed to represent the

Columbia basin? Why is there no reduction in the number of directors

representing government? If you're really serious about leaving control of the

trust in local hands, why have you not made provisions for nine local

representatives and three government representatives?

"The

words of the Liberal government concerning the Columbia Basin Trust, as

recorded in Hansard , appear to be very reassuring, but the legislation

being enacted by the same government is not. At the risk of employing a cliché,

actions do speak louder than words. Your government has repeatedly expressed

concern for the heartlands and loudly declares its intention of supporting the

interests of the residents of the Columbia basin. If these are more than fine

words, you will match your actions to your words, take this piece of legislation

off the table and fix it. Enshrine the safeguards you claim to want in the

legislation — not just in carefully crafted speeches. Better yet, let the

residents of the Columbia basin decide for themselves what is in their best

interests. According to your own government, we have been doing that

successfully for years. Let us continue. We look forward to your responses to

our inquiries."

[1535]

It's signed by the manager of the Creston and District Museum and Archives.

The Creston and District Museum and Archives — are they out to lunch as well?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: No. I was referring to the member as being out to lunch, not anyone

else.

Actually,

you know, regardless of how you look at this, Mr. Chair, the members of the

Columbia Basin Trust have to be within GRE, the government reporting entity.

That's a fact of life. Otherwise, we could end up having to write off over $200

million.

The world

is changing. We're moving to general accounting principles, which actually bring

different responsibilities onto government than we used to have. I think they're

probably good responsibilities. These changes are made to represent that, but we

should not forget that all the members must come from the Columbia basin, from

the defined area. That includes the ones that are appointed by government and

the nominees that are nominated by the regional district and the tribal council.

Those people must be residents of the Columbia basin.

There is a

border, an area that's in the bill, which we haven't changed. It defines the

Columbia basin. So it's a bit unfair, I think, to characterize this as

"government appointees will be from Victoria." No, they won't. Those

six people that are appointed by government — exactly the same as there were

six people appointed by government before — will be people from the basin, who

actually have the basin at heart and want to move forward doing things in the

basin — some of the good work they've already done and continuing on with that

in their master plan. Nothing changes. We move from 18 to 12, all from the

Columbia basin — none from Victoria.

[ Page 7998 ]

J. Kwan:

We'll get to the makeup of the board when we get to

section 2, as the minister

insisted.

I know the

minister is the minister, Mr. Chair, and that this government decides what it

wants to do and sets the rules in accordance to their own pleasure. But you know

what? I'll respect the rules and ask the questions with respect to the makeup of

the board under

section 2, and I'll dispute the comments from the minister then.

Interestingly,

though — about the letters that I just read on record — the city of

Revelstoke and the Creston and District Museum and Archives have written to the

Premier and members of this House, concerned about Bill 79. The minister just

stood in this House moments ago to say that I, the opposition, am out to lunch

because I oppose what this government is doing and I'm challenging this minister

on what he's doing.

Well, the

people who wrote these letters are also challenging what this minister is doing.

They say that this bill is actually not good for the Columbia basin, that it is

not good for the Kootenays and that they disagree with what this government's

doing. The city of Revelstoke was very clear in saying to the government that

they need to consult with the people in that community.

So let me

ask the minister this question. If he says that they are not out to lunch, then

why won't the minister act in accordance to the requests from these individuals?

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Well, the best thing for the minister to do is to simply ignore those people.

That has been the approach from this government. If this government doesn't

agree with members of the public, from those British Columbians who dare

question their decisions, then the thing to do under this so-called consultative

government is to simply ignore them. Ignore them as this minister has just done

— not answer their questions, not pay any attention to them. Just ignore them.

Hear no evil; see no evil. That is the approach this minister is taking with

respect to the concerns — valid concerns — that have been raised by the city

of Revelstoke, by the mayor of Revelstoke and by the Creston and District Museum

and Archives.

[1540]

They are

not the only people who have concerns with this bill, with this minister. There

are many people with many concerns. I have several more letters. I'm going to

wait for a moment, though, before I put those letters on the record.

The

government's sacrificial lamb on this bill, I believe, is the member for

Nelson-Creston. He is on record voting against his own community. It's not a

first. He's not the only one. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has done so as

well. Many members in this House will continue to do so. I don't doubt that for

one moment, because they are the people who will just do whatever the government

tells them to do, irrespective of the wishes of their constituents.

According

to that member, the member for Nelson-Creston, the reason for this bill is to

ensure that qualified people from the Kootenays make the decisions on the board.

Well, the implication here, then, is that the current board has at least some

members who are unqualified. Can the minister tell us how many of the current

board members are unqualified?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member for Nelson-Creston or the member for Vancouver-Burrard….

He actually isn't affected by this bill, but his name was brought up. The member

for Nelson-Creston represents his constituents very well. I can say that

confidently because I've had lots of meetings with the member for Nelson-Creston

over an array of issues in the area he represents. I've met with the whole

Kootenay caucus quite a number of times to make sure that what we're doing

actually is representative of what those elected representatives would like to

have happen in their region with the Columbia Basin Trust.

As I said

before, the master plan doesn't change. The money doesn't change. The ability to

spend the money doesn't change. Having the members come from the Columbia Basin

Trust boundaries doesn't change. There are very few changes here. The Leader of

the Opposition, I think, made remarks that we were going to take a whole bunch

of things away. We're not taking anything away. We're actually allowing the

Columbia Basin to empower themselves, as they were before, just with 12 members

on the board instead of 18, to actually move forward and do all the things they

want to do in the Columbia basin.

I believe

the member for Nelson-Creston represents his constituency quite well, as do all

the members that are representative in the Columbia basin. They all represent

their members well. They all have been voted in, quite substantially in some

cases, by people from those areas. I assume they're bringing forward the wishes

of the general population. They questioned me while we were developing this,

while we moved through this.

I know it's

probably a different process than what the member of the opposition used to be

accustomed to in the last administration, where a member would find out about

something like this once the minister stood in the House. This caucus is

different. We have processes that we have to work through. We have to work

through committee processes to actually bring….

Interjection.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's interesting. The member sits there and laughs about it. That's

how much she thinks about actual good process, isn't it? That's what she thinks

about really good process.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, members, the minister has the floor.

[ Page 7999 ]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We actually take these processes through committees…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please allow the minister to

continue.

[1545]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …and talk about them at length, actually talk at length — two

years with the Columbia Basin Trust board and those people. We have had lots of

consultation with the people in the Columbia basin. It's just that some people

in this House don't get it. In this House — that's what I'm saying. People in

this House just don't get it and want to play politics with this kind of thing

and try to scare people. That's fearmongering. It's not the truth.

If you read

the bill, you'll find the truth. You can scatter around it all you want, and

that's what we're witnessing here today. Instead of talking about the benefits

of the bill, we have someone trying to actually tear it apart and make it as

though it is something it is not. This is a bill that still represents the best

interests of the people in the Columbia basin.

J. Kwan:

You know why I was laughing, Mr. Chair? I was laughing at the statement the

minister made to suggest that the member for Nelson-Creston and those members

from the Kootenays are representing their constituents. I was laughing at that

notion, because you know what? The community from Nelson-Creston are saying:

"Where is the MLA?" Now, they actually used the real name of the MLA,

and they asked: "Where is the MLA?" There is no voice from the MLA

representing them. On this issue, not only did the MLAs from the Kootenays vote

against the wishes of the people, supporting their own government's wishes, but

they are not representing their people by raising their concerns.

The letters

that I just put on record are not from my community. They're from communities

elsewhere. I don't hear the members from those communities rising up saying:

"I received this letter, and people are very concerned about it."

Where is the member from Revelstoke? It is the mayor of Revelstoke who has sent

this letter to that member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, saying: "Hold

off on Bill 79. We don't like it. Consult with us." I don't hear the MLAs

rising up in this House raising their concerns, so it's left for the opposition

to do that. I'm bringing forward these concerns. I'm not making them up. I'm not

fabricating these things. I put the letter on the record, signed by real

individuals. To just pretend — I know in the fantasy world of the minister —

that somehow the government MLAs are representing the constituents is simple

fantasy. It is just that.

Here's

another letter — not my constituent — from a constituent from the Columbia

Basin Trust community. Here's what the individual has to say:

"My

mom spoke to Mr. Rushton at the MLA for Nelson-Creston's office today, who

explained to her that the bill" — the bill they are referring to is Bill

79 — "would allow them to make changes in the things that the Columbia

Basin Trust funds. They won't be funding any" — and I quote —

"'damn butterfly study that doesn't bring any money in.'

"He

also restated how the Columbia Basin Trust should be funding the Needles

bridge. When my mom said that the Columbia Basin Trust shouldn't be funding

things that the government is supposed to fund, he replied: 'Well, we're not

funding the Needles bridge.'

"Several

times he mentioned that projects should 'bring money in'" — and

'bring money in' is in quotes. "I'm concerned that if we don't show

people evidence that indeed major changes are planned, they'll see our protest

of the appointment procedure as nitpicking."

Here's

a constituent who actually went to the MLA for Nelson-Creston's office and spoke

with his staff, and the staff person said that they're not funding any

"damn butterfly study that doesn't bring any money in."

So the

whole funding notion is centred around bringing in money. The government says:

"Don't worry." The minister says: "Don't worry. Nothing will

change. The decisions and all of those things will remain exactly the

same." If that's the case, the question's been asked, why make the changes

when nothing is broken — even if the minister suggests that the board is too

big and 18 people is too unwieldy.

[1550]

From the

letter that I read on the record from the Creston and District Museum and

Archives, who made a suggestion that if you think 18 people is too big, well,

change it. Change it to 12 with six appointments. Sorry. Let me just find

exactly the wording here, because I don't want to be misrepresenting what the

individual said, particularly relating to this.

The

individual says that you can change the numbers by having…. Instead of the

government appointing, by the Lieutenant-Governor, the members and the makeup of

the board, why don't you leave it for the community to pick their own people, as

it was under the Columbia Basin Trust bill, but reduce the number of people?

They were wondering: "Why don't you do that?" That would still reduce

the number of people on the board to address the concern about the unwieldiness

of having too many people but at the same time keep the control within the

community. Why doesn't the minister do that?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I want to reassure again, for quite a few times now, that members

nominated by the five regional districts and the tribal council are actually

people they want to have on the board, not people that we're choosing.

Government gets to choose six. They're people from the basin. They're people

that the Kootenay caucus, the people that are representative of the Kootenay

caucus, want to have on the Columbia Basin Trust. The other six representatives

are actually

[ Page 8000 ]

people that are nominated by the specific regional districts and the tribal

council.

All that

authority still lies within the Columbia basin. It is not removed from the

Columbia basin at all.

J. Kwan:

I found the specific passage. Here's what it reads:

"It

was stated several times during the second reading debate that a board of 18

directors is unwieldy, and that is the primary reason for the reduction to 12

stipulated in the amendment act. Although this could be considered a rather weak

reason, it is by no means invalid — though why does it follow that all of the

reductions have to come from among the directors appointed to represent the

Columbia basin? Why is there no reduction in the number of directors

representing government? If you are really serious about leaving control of the

trust in local hands, why have you not made provisions for nine local

representatives and three government representatives?"

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, 18 is unwieldy. The agreement with the Columbia Basin Trust

board was that we would move to 12 — six appointed by government, and the

other six will be nominated by the regional districts and the tribal council and

will be appointed by government. That, we think, brings the whole process into

the government reporting entity, which will actually have us not write down over

$200 million this year but still have the authority in the Columbia basin to

move forward and expend their funds on whatever they want to expend their funds

on in the Columbia basin.

Again, I

stress, and I keep stressing to the member, that the 12 people will all be

people from the Columbia basin. I would hope and I would think that the

decisions those 12 people make from the Columbia basin will actually be in the

best interests of the people in the Columbia basin. In fact, further on we'll

get to a

section where there could be removal, and that's not just the

Lieutenant-Governor.

So we can

move forward with this, and I would like to move forward with this. I think

we've given enough reassurance, through all the questions that were asked, that

the people of the Columbia basin will continue to enjoy exactly what they did

before, but in a much simpler and more efficient fashion.

J. Kwan:

With the exception that the people from that community disagree with the

minister. He may say all he wants that nothing has changed, but interestingly

the people who live in that community have a different opinion They're asking

the minister this question: why has there been no reduction in the number of

directors representing government?

[1555]

There are

six appointed government representatives on the board — formerly with 18

people — the majority of which would be community-appointed individuals. Now,

with this change, there are six to be appointed by government. The numbers for

the government-appointed individuals have not changed. Why didn't government

reduce that number to address the unwieldiness of the size of the board?

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 1.

J. Kwan:

Unable to answer the question. Well, I actually suspect what the answers

might be. But let me ask the minister this question first: can the minister tell

the House how many of the current provincial government appointees to the board

contributed money to the Liberal Party?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, I have no idea if they contributed money to the

provincial party. For all I know, they might have contributed to the NDP.

J. Kwan:

If the minister claims that he talks to the member for Nelson-Creston as

often as he does, then the minister would have known, I presume, that one of the

board appointees is actually a fellow named Ben Arcuri. You know what? Mr.

Arcuri just happens to have been the campaign manager for the member for

Nelson-Creston in the last election. Oh. And you know what? Ron Miles

contributed to the Liberal campaign in the last election. So did Michael Rouse.

More than that, I should say that Mr. Rouse is a former vice-president of Tembec,

and they gave substantially to the Liberal Party. He is the former

vice-president of Crestbrook Forest, which also gave substantially — some

$28,000 — to the Liberal Party. No connections there.

It just so

happens that some members of the board in fact have donated to the Liberal

Party, and others have worked for it — campaign manager, no less. Does the

minister consider those appointments to be an acceptable level of patronage? Or

is it too much or too little?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Well, that's a real interesting question, isn't it? Somebody found

that a few of the six people that we appointed to the Columbia Basin Trust

worked for the B.C. Liberal Party, actually gave money to the B.C. Liberal

Party, and that eliminates them. It's an interesting comment, isn't it?

Maybe that

member could tell me: when she was in government in 1995-96, when Ed Conroy and

Jim Doyle — two previous MLAs that sat in this House, that sat in cabinet and

that probably gave money to the NDP party…. I would think they probably did.

They may not have. I know both of those gentlemen fairly well. But that's not

patronage. This is NDP. This is where you can't do two things at one time, but

this member tries to do it. You know, if you're an NDP member, you can sit on

the Columbia Basin Trust, and that's just fine — right? But if you're a B.C.

Liberal person that's actually worked for the party, that's actually donated to

the party, then that's political patronage. Actually, it's absolutely

unbelievable that this member would stand here and say those kinds of things.

[ Page 8001 ]

The

Columbia Basin Trust was created in 1995. In 1995 we had Ed Conroy and Jim

Doyle. I only pick on the MLAs. I'm not going to pick on people, because I think

that's unfair. I'm going to pick on the ones that were elected here at one time

and that represented the area. Now, that's not patronage.

In 1996-97

we had Jim Doyle and Erda Walsh. Erda Walsh represented…. She was an MLA from

the basin. Oh, that's not patronage? Oh, okay. I guess NDP-style, that's okay.

Let's go to

'97-98, and all of a sudden Anne Edwards showed up. Now, Anne Edwards was a

member of this House also — actually was a Minister of Energy and Mines at one

time. I know Anne quite well. That was okay, because that was then and this is

now. That was NDP and this is B.C. Liberal.

[1600]

Let's

continue on. In 1998-99 we had Anne Edwards on there again; 1999-2000, Anne

Edwards; 2000-01, Anne Edwards. You know, the list goes on and on.

I don't

know the relevance of this at all, to be perfectly frank. I'm not sure about the

relevance of this discussion about those people. You know what? Those people

were from the Kootenays. Those people had the Kootenays at heart. Those people

lived in the Columbia basin. They wanted the best for the folks in the Columbia

basin. Not once did this government ever say…. Let me correct this. Not once

did I — because I'm speaking for myself — ever say publicly that any one of

those people should not be on the Columbia Basin Trust.

What I am

saying is that we move forward now. Those six members…. I want to thank them

publicly for allowing their names to stand, even with members of the opposition

calling them stooges — which I think is totally unfair. These people are

knowledgable about the Kootenays. They've lived in the Kootenays. They make

their lives in the Kootenays. They raise their children in the Kootenays. They

have the Kootenays at heart. Because they happen to belong to a certain

political party should play no

part in it at all, the same as prior to when we

were in government.

Now, the

last government chose to appoint elected representatives. There is a clear

distinction here. We have said in this government that we will not appoint

elected representatives to boards. I've said it before, and I'm going to say it

again. That is because there is a whole host of people out there who live in the

Columbia basin and are very bright and very wise and have the Columbia basin at

heart. They want to see those funds expended in the Columbia basin under the

plan that's there, that's not changed, that's moving forward and actually

looking after the interests of the people in the Columbia basin.

J. Kwan:

I just want to set the record straight for this minister's information. Yes, the

MLAs that were appointed under the former board were government appointees, but

you know what? You have to note the fact that there were 18 people on that

board. Only six were government-appointed individuals, and some of them were

MLAs. The majority of them were appointed by the community. You know what, Mr.

Chair? Anne Edwards was appointed by the community, by the regional district,

not by the government.

The change

in this legislation speaks right to the heart of the issue here. The people this

government has picked on the board, at least the ones I have mentioned here,

just happen — by coincidence, Mr. Chair — to have donated substantially to

the Liberal Party, to have actually worked as a campaign manager for the MLA for

Nelson-Creston. Just a coincidence. Nothing untoward there.

When I

mentioned the issue around stooges, Mr. Chair — I want to clarify it for the

record — I meant the government MLAs who sit around this bench, who will not

rise up to represent their community. That is the issue.

The

Chair: Member, that is absolutely unparliamentary language. I'll ask you to

withdraw it.

J. Kwan:

You know, the minister, Mr. Chair….

The

Chair: Member, I will ask you to withdraw that statement. That is an

absolutely unparliamentary statement — to call a member of this House that

particular name. I'll ask you to withdraw it, please.

J. Kwan:

Okay, Mr. Chair. Maybe they're not stooges. Already my colleague….

The

Chair: Member, please take your seat. I'll ask you to withdraw that

statement.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will withdraw that. You know what? My colleague the

opposition leader has already been challenged by the Speaker today for

challenging the Premier on an issue.

The

Chair: Member, member. You know the rules of this House. You know that

certain language is not accepted in this House.

J. Kwan:

I withdraw.

The

Chair: The member formally was asked to withdraw for stating unparliamentary

language. I'm asking you now to proceed with the debate. We are dealing with

section 1, and I'll ask you to be relevant to

section 1.

J. Kwan:

Well, I withdraw.

The

Chair: Member, I think we've had….

J. Kwan:

I withdraw, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Member, just take your seat, please. We usually give a lot of

latitude in

section 1, and I think we've gone beyond that point at this point.

I'd ask you now to focus your questioning on

section 1 and only

section 1.

[ Page 8002 ]

[1605]

J. Kwan:

Well,

section 1 deals with what the minister likes to call qualified people —

qualified people under the

definitions of

section 1 to be appointed to the

board. I was asking questions of the minister around who was qualified and who

was not qualified and about the people who donated to the Liberal Party, the

people who worked on the campaign — as the campaign manager for the member for

Nelson-Creston in the last election — whether or not those individuals are

qualified or not qualified and whether or not those are patronage appointments

or not. It was the minister who claimed that I called people stooges, and I want

it to be clear on the record who I was referring to in that regard, Mr. Chair.

Just so

that we know what was said in this House — and I know this Liberal government

has the majority, and they can threaten and heckle and intimidate all they want.

Already the Leader of the Opposition, by challenging the Premier in question

period today, is not allowed in this chamber. I am the only opposition member,

along with the independent member for Prince George–Omineca, who may raise

questions to challenge this government.

Perhaps

this government and this minister and the MLAs around the government bench would

like to see complete silence on questions raised for this government. Under a

critical bill that will change the face and the makeup of the Columbia Basin

Trust, that will undermine the control of the Columbia Basin Trust and that will

take away the control from local authorities, the government decides to do that

under the auspices that the board is somehow too big and unwieldy.

Community

members have written to the Premier asking a simple and valid question: why did

the Premier, the government and the minister not reduce the government-appointed

MLAs or the government-appointed members on the trust — reduce those numbers

from six to three or two, let's say — rather than reducing the

community-appointed individuals? Why didn't they do that if the issue is about

the size of the board? Or is the issue about qualifications? It just so happens

that a number of the people sitting on that board appointed by this government

happen to have donated to the Liberal Party, happen to have worked as a campaign

manager, no less, for a Liberal MLA.

Maybe it's

just a coincidence, Mr. Chair. Silly me. Why would I ask such questions? You

know, it's fascinating, though, because the minister refuses to answer the

question. He refuses to answer the question.

The

minister also says that the changes are necessary, because they'll clarify

"issues of ownership and control as they relate to the new accounting

standards to ensure that auditors continue to include government's investments

in the trust in government's

summary accounts." It is my understanding, Mr.

Chair, that this implied lack of clarity stems from a difference of opinion

between the comptroller general, who is responsible for the

summary financial

statements, and the auditor general, who is responsible for the overall

accounting practices of government. This dispute predates this government. I'm

not implying that this minister has picked sides in this debate, but I have not

seen a written explanation from either the comptroller general or the auditor

general as to just what is at issue here. It is this dispute amongst accountants

that is the justification for the changes being made to the board of the trust

by this bill.

So will the

minister, hon. Chair, table any opinions that he has from the comptroller

general or the auditor general on the issue of accounting for government

investments in the

summary accounts?

[1610]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, nobody is trying to undermine the control in the

Kootenays — none whatsoever. We're trying to leave the control in the

Kootenays. I've said that consistently from the start. We actually have worked

that through with the Columbia Basin Trust board, so there's no desire to do

that.

The entity

actually has been and, with this, will actually be in the GRE, the government

reporting entity. We want to make sure of that for the simple fact that we don't

want to write off over $200 million for no reason. This is simply to adapt to

the GAAP — the generally accepted accounting principles — and to the

reporting entity. That's what we're trying to do here. It's pretty

straightforward.

All 12

members will continue to come from the basin, exactly as they did before.

They'll be absolutely no different than before. They will still expend their 50

percent proceeds that they get from the investments in the Columbia basin.

They'll be able to spend that money in the Columbia basin however they see fit.

There was a

statement made about Anne Edwards — and Anne Edwards I know quite well —

being appointed by the regional district. You could actually go to the March 31,

1988, annual financial report and see the name "Anne Edwards, province of

British Columbia." I just wanted to put that correction on the record so

that people understand, instead of someone flailing out with information they

don't really have, that this member — as of that date — was appointed by the

previous administration. That's just a matter of correcting the record.

J. Kwan:

Just a matter of correcting the record. Anne Edwards was picked by the regional

district, Mr. Chair — just so there's no misunderstanding or confusion about

that — and it's a community representative. The government can keep on saying

and this minister can keep on saying all he wants that nothing has changed and

that the community control is still there.

Funny how

the community doesn't think so, because as I stated, it isn't just the

opposition that thinks that. Other people think that too. Well, here's another

letter, and let me put the issues raised by the city of Nelson on the record for

the minister. A resolution that was passed unanimously by the Nelson city

council on November 17, 2003:

"Whereas

section 2 of the Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, Bill 79, replaces local

government

[ Page 8003 ]

power to appoint Columbia Basin Trust board members with an

opportunity to nominate candidates for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's

selection; and

"Whereas

under Bill 79 the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may decline any

nomination from a local nominating committee; and

"Whereas

the L-G-in-C may, 'remove any director after receiving a written request

to do so from (

a) the minister or (

b) the board of directors;' and

"Whereas

the above diminishes the Columbia basin communities' power to determine

their representatives to the Columbia Basin Trust; and

"Whereas

section 5 of Bill 79 removes specified public accountability from the

board of directors;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the city of Nelson:

"immediately

urges the provincial government to delay third reading of Bill 79 until

proper community consultation is completed;

"immediately

convey to the UBCM our concern about the lack of provincial consultation

with them, as would be appropriate under the protocol agreement between the

province and the UBCM;

"urge

the provincial government and the Columbia Basin Trust board of directors

to work toward creating the trust as an independent entity with the power to

appoint its own directors, but operating in accountable partnership with the

provincial government as well as with other governments and entities; and

"reaffirms

that all assets and revenues of the trust should remain in the basin

under the management of the Columbia Basin Trust.

"And

further that this resolution be copied to all local governments in the

Columbia basin, to the AKBM for information, and to the Nelson and District

Chamber of Commerce."

So,

Mr. Chair….

The

Chair: Pardon me, hon. member. That letter refers to

section 2. Would that

question better be presented in

section 2, rather than in

section 1?

J. Kwan:

Well, actually, the letter refers to a number of different sections —

section

section 5….

The

Chair: Well, member, it certainly doesn't refer to

section 1, so I think we

should probably move on.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I'm not finished asking questions under

section 1.

The

Chair: Member, you are referring to

section 2 in that letter. I just want to

clarify that.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

Well, then I'll make the relevance in this letter and put the question to the

minister as it relates to

section

Section 1 deals with what the minister

calls qualified people to be appointed to the board. Broadly speaking, there are

issues around consultation with respect to Bill 79 and the consultation process

that this minister and this government have not undertaken. One of the issues

that has been raised by the Nelson city council pertains to consultation. It is

the view of the Nelson city council that this government has not done the

appropriate consultation per the UBCM protocol agreement between the province

and the UBCM. They're asking the government to delay third reading of Bill 79.

Well, I'd like the response of the minister on that.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, we have carried on two years of consultation with the Columbia

Basin Trust — at length with people on the Columbia Basin Trust — through

both the ministry and people that are sitting here in the House with me and

actually through myself. Members elected in the Columbia Basin Trust area have

had lots of consultation with folks in the area. I think we've done a fair

consultative process in the region to make sure that we, again, have people from

the region that are going to be representative of the region.

I believe

that the six we appointed just recently…. It's our prerogative to appoint

those six. They come from the region. They're recommended by the people from the

region. I think we should be quite happy that people want to step forward and

spend the time it takes to actually do the job of what they're challenged with.

We want to be able to maintain that and continue on. People will still be able

to do the same thing. I keep saying that time and time again. Actually, all 12

will come from the region, similar to what happened when she was part of a

government that was in the administration.

The

difference is that there are 12 instead of 18. Another clear difference is that

there are no MLAs elected to the House who sit on that board at the same time.

There are people from the region that actually want to do that work. I'm pretty

happy that those six people and the other people sitting on the board are

sitting there, doing the work they should be doing for the Columbia basin

residents. We should be happy and thankful they're there, and we should be

thanking them daily, not berating them for who they are.

Mr. Chair,

I just want to table a document, just to put the record straight in regard to

Anne Edwards. This is from the annual report, 1997-98, March 31, Anne Edwards,

province of British Columbia. She was appointed to the Columbia Basin Trust to

represent the province of British Columbia. Just so there's no mistake, I'll

table that part of the annual report.

The

Chair: Just for the information of the House, you are unable to table

documents during committee.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

Learning the rules of the House — important for the minister.

The

minister himself raised the issues around the makeup of the board. One crucial

difference he forgot to highlight is that with this bill, Bill 79, the majority

of the board appointed by the community would no longer exist.

That, in

some people's minds, the community's mind…. Many of the folks in the

Nelson-Creston region, in the Kootenays region, the Columbia Basin Trust

constituents, people from the Creston and District Museum

[ Page 8004 ]

and Archives, and the city of Revelstoke, amongst others, raised the concern

of this substantive change.

The

minister can ignore their concerns all he wants, but it does not change the fact

that this legislation changes the makeup of the board, taking away the balance

of power that resides with the community under the Columbia Basin Trust Act. By

that change, the balance of control is taken away from the community. That is

the reality.

That's what

the community is saying. That's their concern, and they are asking for this

government to set aside committee stage debate on Bill 79. I'll come back, Mr.

Chair, to these questions around the makeup of the board.

I asked the

minister if he has received any written information or opinions from the

comptroller general or the auditor general on the issue of accounting for

government investments in the

summary accounts.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, we have received advice from the comptroller general that this

is necessary so that, actually, the Columbia Basin Trust stays within GRE.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister table that information at the end of committee for the benefit

of all members of the House?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I just tabled it.

J. Kwan:

I asked for written information.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I can't table anything. I have just said that it's the advice we

received. I don't have any documentation to table.

J. Kwan:

The minister has received no written information from the auditor general or the

comptroller general pertaining to this. Am I understanding this correctly?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Wrong.

J. Kwan:

So then the question is on the written information that the minister did receive

from the auditor general or the comptroller general on this: will the minister

provide that written information to the members of the House?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I said we have received advice. Actually, this government

responds to advice from the comptroller general and the auditor general. Now,

the last administration may not have. We actually do. That's why those people

are there. It's to give us advice. I said we actually got advice that this is

what we should do. This in no way changes, for the people of the Columbia basin,

what benefits they get out of the Columbia Basin Trust.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

No. The question I asked the minister…. I'll say this slowly for the minister.

It is my understanding that the implied lack of clarity stems from a difference,

and the issue around clarity is this. I quote the minister with his own words:

"The changes will also clarify issues of ownership and control as they

relate to new accounting standards to ensure that auditors continue to include

government's investments in the trust in government

summary accounts." The

issue around the implied lack of clarity stems from a difference of opinion

between the comptroller general and the auditor general. The comptroller general

is responsible for the

summary financial statements, and the auditor general is

responsible for the overall accounting practices of government.

This

dispute, I want to say very clearly, predates this government, so I'm not

implying that this minister is picking sides on this debate. All I'm asking for

is the written information that he's received from either the auditor general or

the comptroller general on this issue and for him to make available that

information to all members of the House — not just what this minister says,

but the written information that he's received. He says that he takes advice

from the auditor general and the comptroller general. Great. Well, will he table

the written information for the benefit of all members of the House?

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Well, I don't know what the minister is trying to hide. He says that he takes

advice from both the auditor general and the comptroller general, and I'm asking

a general question. Why won't he then share that information with all members of

the House, so that we can see for ourselves what the issues are and then the

resolution that the government decided to address those concerns, and not just

take this minister's word for it? You'll pardon me, Mr. Chair, because, quite

frankly, I don't trust it. I want to see the written information. But he won't

even rise up in this House to answer the question on whether or not he'll table

the written information. Then he leaves the question in the people's minds….

It begs the question: what is he trying to hide?

Let me ask

the minister this question. The third general matter that I'd like to raise also

stems from what the minister said when this bill was introduced. At that time,

the minister said: "The government remains committed to supporting the work

of the trust and to providing ongoing funding for local power projects that

benefit the region." As was noted by the Leader of the Opposition during

second reading stage, the trust spent about $4 million in the last fiscal year

on the non-power projects in the fulfilment of its mandate.

When the

minister's statement about appropriate spending by the trust is taken in

conjunction with the statement made by the minister about the mandate of the

trust, it does appear that the government views the only role of the trust as

that relating to the local power projects and not those other activities listed

section 4 of the act. Question: what assurances can the minister

[ Page 8005 ]

provide that the real purpose of this bill is not to set the stage for the

effective amalgamation of the trust and the Columbia Power Corporation to the

detriment of the activities of the trust?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Nothing in this bill is to the detriment of the trust —

absolutely nothing. I've said that consistently now for well over an hour. This

bill still respects all the rights and privileges of the Columbia Basin Trust.

They will still be able to expend their 50 percent share of proceeds from

investments that they make in the Columbia basin on whatever they want to spend

that money on. This bill doesn't change that in any way, shape or form. In fact,

there will be 12 really excellent members of that board who will make sure that

takes place.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister put on record that he will not amalgamate or this

government will not amalgamate the trust and the Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That's a totally irrelevant question. It's got nothing to do with

section 1. I think we should get back on

section 1 and deal with

section 1.

J. Kwan:

Well, the concerns people have raised…. They want assurances from this

government and this minister that the real purpose of this bill is not to set

the stage for the effective amalgamation of the trust and the Columbia Power

Corporation. The minister gets up and claims that for the last hour he's stood

in this House, saying that he will protect the trust. Well, one of the

fundamental issues around protection of the trust is that he will not amalgamate

the trust and the Columbia Power Corporation. Well, give that assurance to the

people. Why won't he do that? Unless, of course, the people should have

something to fear.

[1630]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's not relevant at all to the discussion around

section 1 of this

bill.

J. Kwan:

So the minister will not give the assurance to the people. He gets up and says:

"Don't worry; be happy." It's sort of like the Minister of Human

Resources to all the welfare recipients that he's going to kick off come the

next fiscal year: "Don't worry; just be happy." This minister says the

same about the Columbia Basin Trust.

When

constituents of the member for Nelson-Creston asked his office for an

explanation of the purpose of this bill, they are told that it is to move the

focus of the trust from community-supporting activities to moneymaking

activities, including financing the Needles bridge. But it was just this kind of

provincial responsibility that this minister argued a decade ago should not be

the responsibility of the trust.

Here's what

the member for Nelson-Creston said: "I'd like to see a board that focuses

not on politics and patronage like might be alleged, but on which regions have

been affected the worst and how we can help fix the problem. The Nakusp region

is a great example of…. Well, for example, the Needles bridge wasn't built.

The trust took the view that it wasn't there to do jobs that government could

have done. I took a little bit of a different view. I took the view that the

trust potentially could have built the Needles bridge and sold it back to

government, and that would not have been replacing the function of

government."

Is the

member for Nelson-Creston correct? Is it the government's intention to push

provincial projects like the Needles bridge onto the trust?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, there will be 12 members from the Columbia basin who will be

making all these decisions for people that they represent in the Columbia basin

for their best interests. I'm not going to hypothetically pick on anything — a

Needles bridge or anything like that.

What

happens is that group will make decisions under a Columbia basin management plan

that they have in place and that's been in place under the last administration.

That doesn't change under this administration. They will still make their

decision surrounding how they want to invest their 50 percent share of their

moneys that they receive from investments in the Columbia basin in whatever they

deem fit that they want it to be invested in. That's what we'll actually ask the

board to do. It will be the same as before. They will make decisions for the

benefit of the Columbia basin.

J. Kwan:

With the exception of a fundamental change, which we'll get to under

section 2,

and that is the makeup of the board. Where formerly the majority of the board

would be appointed by the community, that will no longer be in place. That will

no longer be in place after Bill 79 passes.

The

minister had said in this House how wonderful the member for Nelson-Creston has

been in going into his office and advocating for his community on this issue.

Well, he is actually on record saying that the trust should be doing the Needles

bridge. In fact, his office told a constituent: "The trust should be doing

projects that bring in the money." That's what the member for

Nelson-Creston's office told a constituent. That "damn butterfly study that

doesn't bring in any money" won't be getting any funding. That's what the

staff of the member for Nelson-Creston said.

Given that

the makeup of the board is no longer going to be substantively in majority by

the community, is the intention here to push through projects that will only

bring in money, as the staff from the member for Nelson-Creston said to a

constituent of his? Or is the intention to push through provincial projects such

as the one example, the Needles project?

[1635]

The

minister refuses to answer the question. You know what? All he does by not

answering the questions, giving the reassurances to the community, is reaffirm

the concerns that they've raised. The minister says that he has consulted with

the public. Funny how

[ Page 8006 ]

it is that mayors of communities and community individuals from the region

write letters to the Premier, to the MLA raising these concerns. Funny how they

say we need more consultation and that they have not been consulted, and that in

fact this government is ramming Bill 79 through without consulting with the

people that are most affected and, in fact, is breaching the protocol agreement

that was signed by this government and the UBCM. So much for consultation.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

The

Chair: On

section 2 there's an amendment from the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke. We'll deal with that amendment first.

McMahon: I move:

[That

section 2 be amended by replacing the words

"at least 2 and not more than 4" with the words "at least 1 and

not more than 4."]

The

board of the Columbia Basin Trust has indicated they would like an amendment to

section 2 of the act, and in discussions with my colleagues in Kootenay caucus

and in consultation with the minister and his staff, this amendment is

consistent with the wishes of the board and the citizens of the basin. I think

it's a clear indication that we've been flexible and that we are listening, as

is our executive branch, who are being respectful of the concerns that have been

expressed.

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

I just received the amendment, so I'm just going through in the act here where

it pertains to: "That

section 2 be replacing the words 'at least 2 and not

more than 4' with the words 'at least 1 and not more than 4.'" That would

be in

section 2(b).

Am I

correct in understanding that's in

section 2(b)? So then the wording would read:

"The nominating body is, within 60 days after that notification, to provide

to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a list of at least 2 and not more than

4…." That phrase there, to replace it with "at least 1 and not more

than 4 nominees who are qualified individuals…." Am I correct in

understanding this is where the amendment applies?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'll explain it a little bit more. You're correct. If you go down

section 6, it also talks about two and four, so it amends that one also. This

is all in

section 2, by the way —

section 6 and go to 8. It refers to two to

four, and it amends that from one to four.

Subsection

8(2)(

b) says from two to four and actually goes from one to four. That's all in

section 2. They're all the same changes. All they are is repetitive.

J. Kwan:

Effectively, in all the relevant sections where it refers to at least two and

not more than four nominees, those are being changed to the words "at least

1 and not more than 4."

Substantively,

though, in terms of the changes in this bill, the appointments would still be by

the Lieutenant-Governor. It doesn't change that. Instead of the

Lieutenant-Governor choosing a minimum of two, it could actually go down to one.

I didn't

catch from the member who proposed the amendment…. Who did she say, Mr. Chair,

the request came from?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: From the Columbia Basin Trust board.

J. Kwan:

Well, I'm not sure what the premise is. Could the minister please then explain

what the premise is by changing the number of people from two to one?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I believe we had a letter from Mr. Smienk in regard to this, from

the board. They had a discussion, and apparently it was, as I understand, a

unanimous decision by the board that they would like to have the option of maybe

just nominating one person instead of a minimum of two.

[1640]

I don't

have any problem with that. All we're doing is asking for a good matrix of

people. They can either appoint one, each one of the regional districts and the

tribal council, or they can…. Not appoint. They can recommend one or up to a

maximum of four. Board resourcing then will take those names from each of those

areas and put that together with a matrix of all of the people on the board so

we get a good cross-section of people on the board to administer it. It's a wish

of the board that we reduce that from two to one, and we're fine with doing

that.

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister mentioned the issue around matrix. I'll ask him a question

around this notion of a matrix in a few moments.

Would the

minister provide the written information from the board so that the opposition

actually have a chance to examine this before the vote on the amendment is

called?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, it is a request from the board of the Columbia Basin Trust,

and we're act