2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jack Chilton

K. Krueger

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

Hon. G. Plant

Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 72)

Hon. G. Plant

Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Hon. G. Plant

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 73)

Hon. J. Murray

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

St. John Ambulance awards

R. Lee

Economic development in northern B.C.

B. Belsey

Alternative energy sources

B. Penner

Oral Questions

Chartered accountants' report on B.C. economy

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Ward system referendum in Vancouver

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Government aid for B.C. cattle industry

J. Wilson

Hon. J. van Dongen

B.C. Citizens for Public Power

B. Penner

Hon. R. Neufeld

Transportation infrastructure in lower mainland

V. Roddick

Hon. K. Falcon

Tabling Documents

B.C. Treaty Commission Annual Report, 2004

Public guardian and trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2003-04

British Columbia Ferry Commission, annual report, August 11, 2003 to March 31, 2004

British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission, final report, 2004

Judicial Justices Compensation Commission, report,

September 1, 2004

Crown Proceeding Act report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2004

Judges Compensation Commission letter to Ministry of Attorney General, dated September 24, 2004

Motions without Notice

Membership changes for Finance Committee

B. Penner

Withdrawal of private members' bills

L. Mayencourt

Second Reading of Bills

Northern Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 59)

Hon. K. Falcon

P. Nettleton

W. Cobb

Hon. J. Les

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Thorpe

J. MacPhail

J. Bray

R. Visser

B. Belsey

B. Penner

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

Hon. K. Falcon

[ Page 11463 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the

House today a constituent, a friend, a supporter and my former constituency

assistant: June Wayslow. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

[1405]

J. MacPhail: It is a very special day today, and it's the

last opportunity I will have to make this introduction. October 7 is the

birthday of Jack MacPhail Scott. He is 16 years old. For those of you who think

he remained a three-year-old running around the halls 13 years ago, you are 13

years older. I just want to tell you that.

I do want to take this opportunity — because I know he is not

listening, and that's the only reason I can do this — to blame the Liberal

government for the driving licensing rules for a 16-year-old. Unfortunately, he

remembers that it was our government that started that. So I can't get away with

that.

I will just tell one story that is terribly embarrassing as a mom

of a child who was brought up in politics. At one very particularly intense

annual Premiers' meeting that Jack was forced to attend with me, he indicated to

anyone who would listen that his favourite Premiers were Mike Harris and Ralph

Klein.

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually want to stand up and say that

Jack always…. At least he used to show good political judgment. The first time I

met Jack was at Hastings Park. We were at a baseball game, and he was there with

his mom, who was presiding as the MLA. I can tell you this. All of us should

remember this. Our kids are always there for us. He has always been there for

the member opposite. He is a great guy; he has got a great future. It just goes

to show you that sometimes it doesn't have anything to do with the genes. You

can turn out great anyway. [Laughter.]

Hon. J. Les: It is my pleasure this afternoon to

acknowledge several special visitors that we have in the precincts today. They

are João Pedro da Silveira Carvalho, the ambassador of Portugal to Canada. This

is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I had the

pleasure of meeting with him this morning. He is accompanied today by Mr. João

Luis Laranjeira de Abreu. He is the consul general of Portugal to British

Columbia. I would like the House to please make both gentlemen very welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Leader of the Opposition can blame me

for the enhancements to the graduated licensing program, if that helps with the

argument that the 16-year-old now won't get his licence for a year instead of

six months.

I'm pleased to introduce Terry and Sherrie Thorne, good folks from

Langley who are here to visit us in the Legislature today. Terry and I ran on a

slate in 1986 for council in the township of Langley. He won; I lost. I said I

would never run for politics again. I was wrong. It is also Terry's birthday

today. I won't give you his age, but they're great folks from Langley. Would the

House please make them welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have a delegation from

Tsinghua University, one of the best universities in Beijing, China. The

delegation members are Prof. Hu DongCheng, vice-chairman of Tsinghua University

Council; Prof. Cui Guowen, director of the Centre of Overseas Academic and

Cultural Exchanges at Tsinghua University; and Ms. Lang Xiaohong, assistant

director of the Centre of Overseas Academic and Cultural Exchanges. They are

visiting the universities in this province to establish collaboration and

develop exchange programs. Joining them is Pato Chan of the EIC Education

Innovation Canada Group. Would the House please join me to give them the warmest

welcome.

B. Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce a fellow

from Prince Rupert: Farley Stewart. Farley Stewart is the executive director of

the Friendship House Association, which is a strong advocate for first nations

and non–first nations in the community of Prince Rupert. I ask that the House

please join me in making Farley welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today are students,

along with their teacher Mr. Lurie, from Christ Church Cathedral School located

in here Victoria. This is a relatively new school, an independent school started

in 1989 in beautiful Christ Church Cathedral. They've done wonderful renovations

to this heritage building. There are 140 boys and girls from kindergarten to

grade 8 attending this growing school, providing great education in Victoria. I

ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1410]

Tributes

JACK CHILTON

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we lost a leading

citizen in Kamloops last week. I wanted to acknowledge his life and death today.

Jack Chilton was the only elected mayor ever to serve the municipality of North

Kamloops. He was front and centre in the amalgamation of Kamloops and North

Kamloops and was named a freeman of the city in 1995. He passed away last week

at the age of 91, and the city will really miss him.

Introductions by Members

J. Nuraney: We have in the House today the love of my life,

a person who has been a great supporter and a real source of strength for me, my

dear wife, Gulshan.

[ Page 11464 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SAFE STREETS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safe Streets Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased today to rise to introduce the

Safe Streets Act. This bill incorporates several of the important objectives of

the private member's bill of the same name introduced by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard earlier this year.

People want government to respond to the complex problems of

mental illness, addictions and homelessness, and we are responding with

initiatives like the newly announced mayors' task force. People also want to be

able to pass safely on streets and sidewalks and to shop and operate businesses

without the fear of physical or verbal confrontation.

This bill isn't about stopping people from holding a hat out and

asking for spare change. It's about preserving the rights of citizens and

visitors to our province to go about their daily business and activities without

being aggressively panhandled or cornered when they're trying to conduct a

routine transaction at a bank machine or wait for a bus at a bus stop. It is

about making our streets safer for all of us.

This legislation responds to what local governments, mayors,

business owners, citizens and groups all over British Columbia have been telling

us that they need as a tool to help make their communities safer. By returning

all traffic fine revenue to local governments, we are giving communities the

financial resources they've asked for to help support street-level policing.

Now, with the Safe Streets Act, we are giving the people of British Columbia an

important legislative tool to help ensure that our streets and communities are

as safe as they can be.

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 71 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.

TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trespass Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Trespass

Amendment Act, 2004. This bill draws key elements from the private member's

Trespass to Property Act introduced in the spring of this year by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard. It modernizes our trespass legislation.

Key elements of this bill are that it will deal with unwanted

activities on land as well as unwanted presence on land. It goes beyond setting

rules for what traditionally has been defined as enclosed land and deals in a

more modern context with premises such as structures and buildings, and ships

and vessels not in motion. It provides that notice about unwanted presence or a

prohibited activity may be given orally or in writing.

This bill will mean that B.C.'s mall and store owners will be able

to look to the province's trespass legislation for the authority to verbally

direct an individual to leave their premises or to put up signs banning certain

activities like the riding of bicycles on their premises. Contravening such an

instruction would be an offence. I'll speak in greater detail about the Trespass

Amendment Act at second reading.

For now, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on the orders of

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

[1415]

Bill 72 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.

CHARITABLE PURPOSES

PRESERVATION ACT

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Charitable Purposes Preservation Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 63. This bill

will provide a carefully circumscribed means by which charitable donors and

charities may ensure that donations given for a specific charitable purpose will

be preserved exclusively for that charitable purpose and will be protected from

being used to satisfy the debts and other legal obligations of the charitable

organization other than those incurred in performance of that specific purpose.

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 63 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.

[ Page 11465 ]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. J. Murray presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that Bill 73 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Murray: Bill 73 amends the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act in response to concerns raised about the USA

Patriot Act and to ensure that the personal information of British Columbians

continues to enjoy the highest protection of any personal information in Canada.

B.C. is showing leadership by being the first province to

introduce tough new legislative measures that ensure that personal information

protection is not compromised by laws enacted in other jurisdictions. This

government has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting the privacy of

British Columbians, including its recently enacted Personal Information

Protection Act. These amendments continue this tradition.

The amendments in the bill place restrictions on public bodies and

service providers from storing, accessing or disclosing personal information

outside of Canada. They extend the restrictions that apply to public bodies

regarding the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information to

public body employees, public body service providers and employees or associates

of service providers.

They add an obligation to report to government any foreign demand

for disclosure of personal information that is not authorized by the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy bill, and they add whistle-blower

protection for employees who report a foreign demand for disclosure of personal

information. They add offence penalties for contravening the notice

requirements, the whistle-blower protection provisions or the restrictions

placed on storing, accessing or disclosing personal information outside of

Canada.

The changes in this bill will position B.C. as a leader in

addressing privacy issues arising out of the USA Patriot Act, and they will make

what is already regarded as the strongest privacy legislation in Canada even

stronger.

With that, I move that Bill 73 be placed on the orders of the day

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

Bill 73 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.

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1420]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the Transportation

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Anybody who has lived in or visited the lower

mainland is well aware of our traffic problems. Traffic congestion costs the

lower mainland economy about $1.5 billion each and every year in lost economic

opportunities. As we implement our ambitious transportation improvement plan,

the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority is either partnering with us or

with others on new initiatives — namely, the Fraser River crossing project, also

known as the Golden Ears bridge; the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit

line; and the Coquitlam line.

Amendments to the GVTA act will provide the GVTA with the clear

authority and power to carry out the Fraser River crossing and the RAV projects.

The amendments will also provide the GVTA with the clarity it needs to acquire

and expropriate land for the use and benefit of specific projects or, in the

case of RAV, to transfer an interest in the land to the Vancouver International

Airport Authority. It will also allow the GVTA to set and collect user fees for

the Fraser River crossing project, provide the property tax exemptions for the

RAV-Coquitlam line rapid transit project and the Fraser River crossing project.

Amendments will also be made to the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act to allow the GVTA to enter into agreements with municipalities

regarding the RAV and the Fraser River crossing projects. The amendments will

also provide the GVTA with authority to create a parking site assessment role

for the purpose of raising revenues.

This bill also includes amendments to the Transportation

Investment Act, allowing for performance payments to compensate operators we

partner with in running our highways. Finally, two minor amendments are being

made to the Transportation Act. The amendments are effectively technical

drafting changes.

The amendments contained within this bill will give the province

and the GVTA the means and ability to continue working on key transportation

initiatives. We are committed to moving people and goods safely and efficiently,

and I am pleased that this bill will help us to continue to do that.

[ Page 11466 ]

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 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ST. JOHN AMBULANCE AWARDS

R. Lee: Last Sunday I had the honour to be a spectator at

the annual inspection of the lower mainland divisions of St. John Ambulance

brigade. I understand that the hon. member for Richmond East is also a member of

this organization. Joining me at that magnificent event were the member for

Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

The Order of St. John has a long history in Canada, dating back to

1636, when the Knights of Malta became the Governor of Quebec. For hundreds of

years the St. John Ambulance brigade uniformed volunteers have been working

tirelessly to improve the health, safety and quality of life of Canadians.

Last year 1,823 brigade adult members, crusaders, cadets, juniors,

therapy dog handlers and therapy dogs provided over 190,000 hours of volunteer

services to communities in British Columbia and the Yukon.

During the ceremony at the Seaforth Armoury in Vancouver,

ambulance divisions and individuals were recognized for their accomplishments. I

would like to congratulate all the award winners, including the 12 recipients of

the Duke of Edinburgh's awards from the Vancouver division. From Burnaby,

division 389C received the Tinkler Shield as the most efficient cadet division

in the lower mainland and won the Maundrell Trophy as the best overall cadet

division in the province, while its member Michael Wong received the course

commander's award as the top candidate on brigade officer training level 3.

Some other divisions were recognized as well. Division 426 in

Richmond is the best adult division in the province, and Division 336 in Surrey

contributed the most volunteer hours per member.

Time will not allow me to mention all the winners. Would the House

please join me to congratulate all the award winners of the St. John Ambulance

brigade and recognize the contributions of this great non-profit organization to

British Columbia.

[1425]

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IN NORTHERN B.C.

B. Belsey: Last week I had the good fortune to attend the

Northwest Corridor Development Corp.'s annual general meeting in High Level,

Alberta. This is an organization made up of public and private sector

representatives, including the utilities, transportation companies,

manufacturers, labour organizations and three levels of government. Their goals

include promoting trade synergies and efficiencies for a northern corridor that

spans four provinces, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and even Alaska.

Delegates spent much of their time highlighting accomplishments

that northern B.C. has seen in the last three years. Accomplishments include a

cruise ship dock in Prince Rupert and an uplands infrastructure project that

hosted an estimated 60,000 tourists this summer, and a new international airport

that is under construction in Prince George, making Prince George the hub of

international air travel for the north.

Participants were excited about the spinoffs resulting from the CN–B.C.

Rail Partnership agreement where $130 million is set aside for northern

development initiatives. Many of them praised the initiatives we have managed to

put forth, this government. They are excited about the opening of the Hythe rail

line that was once closed and now will be reopened to flow grain from the Peace

River and northern Alberta to Ridley Island.

They talked about proposed rail links joining Alaska with the CN–B.C.

Rail line. Participants had nothing but praise for this government's initiative.

We'll see the port of Prince Rupert develop a container port that will rival

that and the shipping that goes through that of the port of Vancouver.

The Northwest Corridor Development Corp. continues to provide

strong leadership for future transportation issues, continues to raise national

and international awareness of the importance of this corridor and continues to

support this government's initiative to revitalize communities and industries

across northern British Columbia.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

B. Penner: Last month I was fortunate enough to spend some

time in the great outdoors while attending official openings of renewable power

projects in two different parts of this magnificent province. It is a fact that

British Columbia became an importer of electricity during the 1990s, and it is

tempting to wonder what W.A.C. Bennett would think. Regardless, it is important

to develop new sources of domestic supply. That's why the B.C. energy plan,

introduced almost two years ago, calls for more investment in our energy sector,

not in foreign lands.

Since the 2001 election almost 40 renewable energy proposals have

received contracts to deliver electricity to B.C. Hydro. These include two

biogas systems — one in the lower mainland and one in southern Vancouver Island

— capturing escaping methane gas from landfills and turning it into energy. Wind

projects are also moving closer to reality. But the majority of projects

currently being developed are run-of-the-river small hydro.

Running water is something British Columbia usually has in

abundance, so it makes terrific sense to transform some of it into much-needed

electricity. The

[ Page 11467 ]

45-megawatt Pingston Creek hydro project south of Revelstoke and the

50-megawatt Rutherford Creek project near Pemberton are now delivering

zero-emission electricity to British Columbians. Taxpayers were protected

against the risk of cost overruns as individual investors took on that risk,

bringing with them capital, ingenuity and expertise to develop energy with

minimal environmental impact.

Collectively, these two examples of B.C.'s energy plan will pay

about $1.5 million per year directly into the province in water rentals, rural

area property taxes and Crown leases. Good-paying construction jobs and demand

for local goods and services are extra benefits.

To encourage even more of a good thing, last month B.C.'s Minister

of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Finance announced the government's

intention to ask the Legislature next spring to provide further tax relief for

green run-of-river power producers. Additional projects are now underway,

helping to re-energize our growing economy. I encourage all members of this

House to visit a green power project in B.C. in the near future. The fresh air

will do you good.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

ON B.C. ECONOMY

J. MacPhail: As we pointed out earlier this week, the

chartered accountants said that the B.C. Liberals cut per-student education

funding by 3.5 percent. The Minister of Education said the chartered accountants

were wrong. The Minister of Finance challenged my colleague and me to reveal

what was in the rest of the report, even though every parent knows that the B.C.

Liberals have cut education. We took up the Minister of Finance's challenge.

The chartered accountants also report that manufacturing peaked in

2000. Under the B.C. Liberals it has gone down by almost 6 percent, for a loss

of $850 million. To the Premier: are the chartered accountants wrong about this

too?

[1430]

Hon. G. Campbell: The chartered accountants, the Conference

Board of Canada, virtually every economic think tank in the country and every

bank in the country has said this: British Columbia is back. We are number one

or number two in economic growth. We are number one or number two in investment,

and we are number one in job creation.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's not exactly right. But let's see

what the Chartered Accountants say about very specific issues. Here is the

advice that the Chartered Accountants give to this government: "Government

should be concerned not on the cost of labour but on the effectiveness of labour."

They say that driving down labour costs leads to a "race to the bottom" and that

this province should aspire to high wages and salaries.

The Chartered Accountants report that under the B.C. Liberals

labour costs did decline. Why? "As a result of lower wages, there was virtually

zero increase in productivity. All declines are because wages fell." In other

words, middle income British Columbians are having a harder time making ends

meet under this government. To the Premier again: are the Chartered Accountants

once again wrong?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Chartered Accountants have been very

clear that this government has a record that everyone in British Columbia should

be proud of. We've had a plan that not only has worked but is driving our

economy forward in a way that they recognize is one of the leaders in Canada.

We've had a five-times increase in the number of mines, the exploration in

mining. We actually have mines opening up in British Columbia as opposed to

closing down, as we saw with the last government.

We watched as last year there was an 18 percent increase in

forestry investment. This year it is anticipated to be a 17 percent increase.

That means jobs. We have watched as our energy industry has not just expanded;

it has exploded and is recognized across the continent for billions of dollars

of private sector investments and thousands and thousands of jobs coming right

here, to our home, the great province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's actually deal with the facts. The

two very most recent economic forecasts say that high commodity prices and low

interest rates are driving the B.C. economy.

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: I am talking. I'm addressing the Chartered

Accountants' points of view about B.C.–made policies. Let's be clear. "In the

year 2004 there has been a net job loss compared to 2003." That's Statistics

Canada. The Premier has trouble with accountants that address his policies.

Here's what they say: "British Columbians are paying millions of dollars out of

their own pockets for government ads telling them how good things are." But the

Chartered Accountants also report that the B.C. investment-to-GDP ratio is

declining and has declined every year under his government.

Again, to the Premier: maybe the Premier will stand up and admit

that he's wrong and the Chartered Accountants are right about his policies — not

national global policies. Education funding is cut. Investment is down. Personal

savings rates…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …are the lowest in years and the lowest in the

country. If he insists…

[ Page 11468 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …on blowing millions of taxpayer….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The question, please.

J. MacPhail: Thank you.

To the Premier: if he insists on blowing millions of taxpayer

dollars on supposedly fact-based advertising, why doesn't he include these

facts? Why doesn't he include the facts that show how bad his policies are, that

don't come from the NDP…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

J. MacPhail: …but come from the Chartered Accountants?

[1435]

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, let me say this. We

recognize that global commodity prices are helping everyone's economy,

particularly in British Columbia. Let me say this: low interest rates have

helped unquestionably in terms of investment.

But you know, with the previous government, we had the most

prosperous decade that we'd seen in the global economy, and this was the black

hole of the global economy. This was the economy under the previous government

that drove jobs, opportunity and investment out of British Columbia. With this

government…. The great thing about this government is not only have we left more

money in peoples' pockets so they make their own choices; we have turned this

economy around from being the worst economy in the country to the best economy

in the country.

Let me say this: in Canada, across this country, other provinces

are celebrating the fact that British Columbia is not just carrying its full

weight but contributing to the country with the best job-creation record of any

province in this country since December 2001.

WARD SYSTEM REFERENDUM

IN VANCOUVER

J. Kwan: Next Saturday, October 16, residents of Vancouver

will decide if the city will move toward a ward system. If residents vote yes

and the council adopts a bylaw, it will still require the consent of this

government. To the Premier: a simple question. The Premier has always opposed

wards in Vancouver. Will he provide the public the assurances today that if

Vancouverites say yes to wards, he will take immediate steps to implement the

decision on the request of Vancouver city council? Yes or no?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say, number one, to the member

opposite that she is wrong. I have not always opposed the ward system. In fact,

when I was mayor of Vancouver in 1978, I advocated the ward system. We took

that, and we put it to a plebiscite, and it lost. I have been a personal

advocate of the ward system for some time. I am interested in what the people of

Vancouver decide. The people of Vancouver and the council of Vancouver can

decide how they want to govern themselves. I have been for the ward system. I

can't tell you how people in Vancouver are going to vote.

J. Kwan: Well, if the Premier claims that he supports the

ward system, then he would have answered yes to my question. Let me give the

Premier another chance. Given the position of the Premier, the citizens of

Vancouver have every reason to doubt that his government will implement the

results of a successful ward referendum. All they want is a simple yes or no

answer. Will this government approve a bylaw submitted by the city of Vancouver

that implements wards if the referendum is a yes vote? Yes or no?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite should know, the

city of Vancouver has a city charter. We will act within the confines and within

the regulations of the city charter. We will do exactly what the city charter

requires us to do.

GOVERNMENT AID FOR

B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY

J. Wilson: My question today is to the Minister of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Would you please

start over? We couldn't hear the question.

J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today my question is to

the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It seems unlikely that the

Canada–U.S. border will be re-opened this fall to beef exports. Ranchers are now

facing a very depressed market. Recently the federal government announced a

cost-share holdback program to help prevent the market from being overflooded.

To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries: what is the provincial

response to this holdback program?

[1440]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Our government does have a

comprehensive response to assist the beef industry in repositioning to the fact

that the U.S. border is not going to open this fall. Today I am announcing full

B.C. participation in the national calf set-aside program. This program will pay

ranchers $200 per head to set aside calves up until January 1, 2006. We are

pushing the federal government hard to finalize the details of this national

program.

I also want to remind ranchers of other elements that we have

already announced — a CAIS cash advance of $100 per head. We've announced

workshops to assist producers with the CAIS program, and we have also been

successful in achieving an extension of the application date to November 30,

2004. So we en-

[ Page 11469 ]

courage ranchers to participate in all of these programs to assist them in

this time of dire need.

B.C. CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC POWER

B. Penner: It looks like there's a new executive director

for the supposedly non-partisan Citizens for Public Power. I wonder what

happened to the last guy. The new executive director, Mark Veerkamp, worked as a

political operative for CUPE last year, while at the same time that particular

union celebrated the election of Carole James as the new leader of the NDP and

contributed $5,000 to her election bid.

To the Minister of Energy and Mines: does this group provide

legitimate and accurate information? Or are they simply grinding a political

partisan axe by acting as a front for organized labour and their friends in the

NDP?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting question, Mr. Speaker. It

certainly brings to light further to all British Columbians that the Citizens

for Public Power are just a front for the NDP and grind the axe on a constant

basis. Mr. Veerkamp joins a great group of people, such as Marjorie Griffin

Cohen, director for the NDP….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Listen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Marjorie Griffin Cohen, director for the

NDP-funded Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Jim Abram, failed candidate

for an NDP nomination in 1996; Jim Fulton, former NDP MP for Skeena; Jim

Sinclair — and I don't think we have to go into his pedigree — president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour, another solid NDP supporter; Blair Redlin, who quite

a few in this House will know as a former researcher for the NDP.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They share their lists, with the NDP, of

people that they've got into their group. I have yet to see something that comes

out solidly clear and the truth from the B.C. Citizens for Public Power.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

IN LOWER MAINLAND

V. Roddick: My question is to the Minister of

Transportation. Traffic congestion in Delta communities is both unhealthy and

costly, resulting in inefficient movement of goods and air pollution for the

residents. The necessity for upgrades to Highway 10, 17, etc., connecting to 99

and 91 and to the south perimeter road, is apparent as residents continue to

acknowledge the need for transportation solutions to preserve safety, air

quality and the community as a whole.

To the minister: what will the government's Gateway initiative do

to help solve transportation problems that affect the quality of life for

residents in Delta and the lower mainland?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know this is an important issue. I had

the opportunity to meet with the chamber and the mayor and several councillors

some months ago to talk about this very issue. We, of course, as the member

knows, have underway, in partnership with the federal government, a $241 million

border improvement program where we are widening some of the key highways and

access points for our border crossings.

[1445]

The member correctly points out that that still creates some

challenges in Delta. We are, of course, working on a new potential interchange

on Highway 91 and 72nd Avenue. As part of the Gateway program, which a lot of

thought and work is being put into as we speak…. The Gateway program would

include a South Fraser perimeter road, which I believe would go a long way to

addressing a lot of the traffic congestion concerns that the folks in Delta

have. That would be a road that would go all the way from Langley Industrial

Park, swing all the way down to the Delta Port, and improve transportation and

remove trucks from our major thoroughfares. That is something that we continue

to work on with that member's support.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Plant: I have the honour to present the following

reports: the B.C. Treaty Commission Annual Report, 2004 ; the public

guardian and trustee of British Columbia annual report, 2003-04; the British

Columbia Ferry commission annual report for the period August 11, 2003, to March

31, 2004; the final report of the 2004 British Columbia Judges Compensation

Commission; the report of the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission,

September 1, 2004.

Pursuant to

section 15(2) of the Crown Proceeding Act, I table the

Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004. I also

table, as part of the tabling of documents pursuant to the report of the Judges

Compensation Commission, a letter dated September 24, 2004, addressed to the

Ministry of Attorney General from the Judges Compensation Commission.

I am obliged to make some observations about the reports

concerning compensation of judges and judicial justices. Under

section 6(1) of

the Judicial Compensation Act, when the reports that I have just tabled are

tabled, I am obliged to advise this assembly that pursuant to

section 6(3) of

the act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject a recommendation contained

in the

[ Page 11470 ]

reports within the time lines established by that act, then the judges and

judicial justices will receive the salary and benefits as recommended in the

respective reports, beginning for the judges on January 1, 2004, and for the

judicial justices on January 1, 2005.

Motions without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGES FOR

FINANCE COMMITTEE

B. Penner: In my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the

Government House Leader, I move, with leave, that the Hon. Brenda Locke, MLA, be

substituted by Mr. Blair Suffredine, MLA, as a member of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services and that Mr. Richard Lee, MLA, be

appointed to serve as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

WITHDRAWAL OF

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

L. Mayencourt: With mixed feelings, I seek leave for the

withdrawal of Bill M202, intituled Safe Streets Act, and Bill M203, intituled

Trespass to Property Act, from the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading debate on Bill 59.

Second Reading of Bills

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

TRUST ACT

Hon. K. Falcon: I call second reading of Bill 59, the

Northern Development Initiative Trust Act.

[1450]

The economic future of northern British Columbia is getting

brighter and brighter. A big reason for this is the billion-dollar B.C. Rail

investment partnership, which is allowing our government to commit, out of the

proceeds, $135 million to northern British Columbians. Legislation enabling the

$135 million northern development initiative trust is going to give northern

British Columbians in the Peace, Prince George, northwest and the

Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions the funding, the control and the ability to

identify and pursue new opportunities to generate sustainable economic growth

and job creation in their regions.

An independent board of directors will be established by

northerners and for northerners to make strategic investments in their own

future. These investments might be in forestry, pine beetle recovery,

transportation, tourism, mining, energy, Olympic opportunities, small business,

sustainable economic development or other related endeavours as that board may

see fit. This $135 million will be theirs to invest completely as they wish.

The $135 million is separated into three parts: $25 million will

be in the form of an operating endowment to generate interest and other income

that will be used to cover operating expenses for the delivery of the initiative

and to cover off the head office, which will be located in Prince George; $50

million will go into a fund to support cross-regional economic investments to

maximize developments across the north; the remaining $60 million will be

divided four ways, so that the four regions I mentioned earlier — the Peace,

Prince George, the northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions — will

receive $15 million each to invest according to their own regional priorities.

The board of directors will comprise 13 members: two

representatives from each of the four regional advisory committees, which I'll

go into in more detail in a moment, as well as five members appointed by the

provincial government to share their expertise on northern investment. In

conjunction with the board of directors, four regional advisory committees will

also be established, as I mentioned — one in the Peace, one in the northwest,

one in the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet and one in Prince George. These committees

will be comprised of elected officials from each region: mayors, regional

district representatives and MLAs. Together they will determine spending

priorities for their $15 million share of the allotment. They will also select

two non-MLA members to sit on the main board of directors to provide input and

implement spending of $50 million on cross-regional projects.

To get started, the province will establish a temporary board

consisting of the mayors of the first- and third-largest municipalities from

each region. Mayors from municipalities with a population greater than 500 will

serve on the initial regional advisory committees, as well as the chairs of each

regional district within the region and MLAs from the region. Mayors from the

region's second-largest municipalities will chair those regional committees.

These temporary committees and board will get things set up and establish how

they want to conduct business. After six months the committees themselves will

select two members to serve on the board, and the regions will have decided on

the membership of their committees. After six months, this initiative will be up

and running independently. While the initiative will be activated by a one-time

instant grant of $135 million, this investment will generate significant

economic growth in northern British Columbia for many generations to come.

In addition, the bill contains other appropriations related to

renewal as a result of the B.C. Rail investment partnership. These include $200

million for the

[ Page 11471 ]

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority's multi-year capital plan, as well as

added support for sport, recreation, volunteer initiatives, Asia-Pacific market

development, fuel cell research and other related initiatives. This is the

legacy of the billion-dollar B.C. Rail investment partnership that this

government has worked so hard to make real and that I am so proud to stand here

today and introduce.

[1455]

In conclusion, let me say this. The future has never been brighter

for northern British Columbians. A new private sector railway will be investing

private sector dollars to create the kinds of efficiencies that will revitalize

northern British Columbia, coupled with the proceeds in the northern development

fund that will empower British Columbians to invest those dollars — that $135

million — to ensure that we have future opportunities for future generations of

northern British Columbians. With that, I say that the future is indeed bright

for northern British Columbians.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to respond in

second reading to Bill 59. I'm going to first of all mention a few things that I

like about this bill and this initiative.

I think this government has learned a lot from the office of the

northern commissioner, which was an office established under the previous

administration. I certainly was one of the critics of that office and the

politicization of the whole business of economic development in the north as

seen within the office of the northern commissioner.

It was my sense that leaders in the north — be they mayors,

councillors, directors or regional districts — appreciated the whole notion of

government at the provincial level getting involved in terms of the creation of

economic opportunities in northern and central British Columbia. But it was

their sense, as I had indicated earlier, that in fact that office had been

politicized to the point where it was really of little effect.

The other thing that we saw under the previous administration with

respect to that office and their commitment to northern economic development was

really an unwillingness or an inability to commit the necessary resources to

that office and to leaders in the north in terms of establishing serious

economic initiatives. The fact that there were not the resources tied to that

office, as there could have been and should have been, again, was a problem.

I should also say that at the same time, under the previous

administration we saw the establishment of the office of the northern

commissioner, an office which was abolished shortly after the election of 2001.

We had an administration which, under the Minister of Energy and Mines — namely,

Dan Miller — directed B.C. Rail to bleed B.C. Rail and divert dividends from

that rail to general revenue. I believe in one year it was somewhere in the

range of $40 million. At the same time, of course, there was a real need for

scarce resources to be directed or redirected into the northern and central

interior.

I should say that while I'm criticizing the former office of the

northern commissioner in the context of a discussion with respect to the

legislation before us, I have the utmost respect for the northern commissioner

himself, Mr. Backhouse. He is someone who has, over many years, contributed not

only to Prince George but beyond, but I think he was seriously hamstrung by the

structure of his office. To his credit, he worked very hard and did some good

work, even given the limitations of that office. I know that a lot of people

respect him and wish him well.

One of the things, of course, that one looks at when we have

before us, as we do, a bill of this sort, is the structure of the northern

development initiative trust, in contrast to the office to which I have made

reference — that is, the office of the northern commissioner. Again, talking

about what I like about this legislation, I like — and it's my sense from

talking to folks in northern and central British Columbia that they like them —

the regional advisory committees and the establishment of temporary committees.

[1500]

I think there's nothing in the structure that certainly strikes me

as being problematic. If anything, as I say, I think government has learned from

the experience of the office of the northern commissioner — an office which has

been abolished, in fact — to develop a structure that provides for the kind of

widespread involvement of members of the various communities and regions of the

northern and central interior to ensure that we don't have the kind of

politicization with respect to this northern development initiative that we saw

previously.

One of my experiences with respect to economic development

initiatives in the north really goes back to my time as critic for B.C. Rail

when, as a member of the B.C. Liberal opposition shortly after 1996, I met with

Paul McElligott, the CEO of B.C. Rail, in his North Vancouver office, as I did

on other occasions. On that occasion I discussed with him the prospect of

economic initiatives — the provincial government, by way of B.C. Rail,

developing and investing in the north. He was at that time excited about the

prospect of doing joint ventures with the private sector along the line —

bearing in mind, of course, that B.C. Rail at that time was much more than just

the freight rail. It involved a telecommunications arm and Vancouver Wharves; it

had a real estate division and other divisions.

Again, B.C. Rail was viewed — certainly by him and the board of

B.C. Rail, and I'm sure there were those within government and even under the

previous administration — as a publicly held rail, a Crown corporation, a

vehicle to involve the private sector to open up and develop the north and

ensure long-term prospects for jobs and other forms of security. That did not

happen, unfortunately. The previous administration, it seems, got into some

difficulty with respect to their need for revenue and, as I had mentioned

earlier, turned to B.C. Rail and demanded of them dividends of such a nature

that it spelled real difficulties for B.C. Rail — not only in terms of the

long-term prospects for

[ Page 11472 ]

B.C. Rail but also in terms of their hope, as expressed by Paul McElligott in

my discussions with him, to involve the private sector and invest in northern

and central British Columbia.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

The difficulty I have with the legislation before me and that my

constituents have with respect to Bill 59, the Northern Development Initiative

Trust Act, is that the dollars outlined in this act are tied to the sale of B.C.

Rail. I also recall, as a former member of the B.C. Liberal team both in

opposition and in government, taking the very public position that B.C. Rail

would not be sold. I know government still contends that is not the case. I

think that's problematic too — that in real, practical terms we have seen the

passing of this public asset into private hands and we have yet to hear

government acknowledge that is the case. That is certainly a problem. It's a

problem for the electorate; it's a problem for folks I represent. They do expect

that government at the provincial level should invest and reinvest in the

northern and central interior. Initiatives of this sort would be wonderful

initiatives if they were not tied as they are to the sale of B.C. Rail.

To oppose this legislation is not, as some critics have suggested,

to oppose the province investing in the northern and central interior. That's

simply not the case at all. There are many of us, many folks who I represent,

who have long argued and have long lobbied various administrations to invest and

reinvest in the north.

[1505]

The complaint has been for many, many years that resources have

flown southward. Moneys derived from those resources have gone to general

revenue, and very often, very little is returned to the communities in which

those resources are harvested. That is certainly a problem for the folks I

represent, for the most part.

As I say, people do want to see government moving, as they have

with an initiative of this sort. They do not, however, accept that in this

instance, this initiative is tied as it is to the sale of B.C. Rail — a broken

promise, a new-era promise broken, much to the chagrin of those of us who want

to see the northern and central interior prosper.

For those reasons I will oppose this bill.

I look forward to comments with respect to Bill 58 later on today,

I expect, from the first nations perspective with respect to the sale of B.C.

Rail and its impact on them. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

W. Cobb: As the Minister of Mines often says: more good

news. Well, this is not just good news. In my mind, this is excellent news. As

has been indicated by the previous speaker, previous governments have tried to

put economic indicators and initiatives in place to build the north. They have

been unsuccessful. Why have they been unsuccessful? In my mind, and to put it in

the words of what we would say in the Cariboo: because they never had the balls

to back it up with bucks. We are backing it up with bucks, and we're backing it

up with bucks not from the sale of B.C. Rail but from a partnership we have with

CN. We've done that. We've backed it up with bucks.

We understand that the north is the economic driver in our

province and that in many cases it's the breadbasket of this province. We have

huge economic opportunities here with this $135 million. There are the tourism

opportunities. There's a passenger train that we've talked about. I mean, it was

gone. Now we have the chance to get it back. Not only that, but with the funds

and the way the funds are allocated, we are putting them in the hands of the

communities who know best what they want to do and the vision they have for

their future. We also have the security for our industry — the forest industry,

the mining industry in the province — because we now have good operators on the

rail line.

As I travelled back home from Victoria on numerous occasions while

we were waiting for this to go to the competition bureau, the mayors of my

communities continually said: "Walt, where's the competition bureau? Why is this

not happening? Let's get on with it." Well, I say: let's cut the rhetoric, let's

cut the debate, and let's pass this bill.

Hon. J. Les: It's a pleasure for me to be able to rise in

the House this afternoon to speak to this legislation at second reading. Mr.

Speaker, as you well know and as members of the House well know, I am not from

the north. I am from the southern part of the province, but I know this much.

This is extremely important legislation for everyone in British Columbia. The

investment that this enables in the economic infrastructure of the northern part

of this province is key to making sure that collectively we have a thriving

economic future in British Columbia.

I have spent a fair bit of time in my ministry role in the last

several months visiting the various communities across northern British

Columbia, and I'm impressed with the tenacity of the residents of many of those

areas, who have faced a lot of adversity in the last decade and more.

They haven't given up on British Columbia. They know that the

assets are still there. They know that they as people are still there to help

build a future. They are very appreciative of the fact that there is now a

government in Victoria creating conditions that are going to enable them to take

advantage of all of the assets they have throughout the north.

[1510]

The CN deal with B.C. Rail has produced numerous benefits,

starting right from the very top with the repayment of $500 million of debt.

That is a debt that has been lifted off the shoulders of British Columbians

collectively. That is a debt that our children and grandchildren won't have to

repay in the future. That is the first benefit, as I see it, from the B.C. Rail

partnership.

What this bill, of course, is going to do is provide $135 million

that's going to be directed and invested by people who live in the north, the

community leaders

[ Page 11473 ]

and others in the north who know what needs to be done to ensure that the

economy of the north can grow, expand and prosper. I think that's one of the

hallmarks of this legislation. What's happening here is that the government is

saying: "Here's the money. You know best what your needs are across northern

British Columbia. You work with this money as you see fit without interference

from Victoria."

I've heard several references in the previous remarks from the

member for Prince George–Omineca, who apparently was quite enthused at one time

about the northern commissioner, as he then was. That northern commissioner, of

course, was first of all known as a political hack, and indeed he was, but that

northern commissioner also had next to zero resources to work with and was

listened to even less of the time. That person had $2 million a year. It's

unclear what results, if any, ever transpired. The governments of the day

rarely, if ever, listened to any recommendations that the northern commissioner

made. I would suggest to the member for Prince George–Omineca that the then

northern commissioner was a rather pale example to follow and one that we had

best consign to the dustbin of history.

This is a real, robust economic development model. I know that the

mayors across northern British Columbia greeted the tabling of this legislation

yesterday with a great amount of enthusiasm. They are excited. As the member for

Cariboo South just indicated, they've been waiting for months now for this

legislation to be presented. They were impatiently waiting throughout the spring

and summer of this year as the competition bureau did its work and, of course,

ultimately approved the B.C. Rail–CNR deal.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to this $135 million

that is being put in the hands of northerners as a meagre disbursal of funds.

I'm not sure exactly what would be considered a lot of money in the Leader of

the Opposition's mind. I can tell you that to me and many people that I know,

$135 million is indeed a very significant allocation of funds. But then, of

course, we're quite accustomed to the NDP not being too terribly conversant with

figures, particularly when it comes to dollars. Apparently the writing off of

hundreds of millions of dollars in the fast-ferry experiment didn't concern them

too much either.

As we look across northern British Columbia today, we can see the

economy of that part of the province emerging again. We see the mining industry,

which has had a tripling or a quadrupling of investment in the last several

years. We see the prospect of the emergence of the port of Prince Rupert, not

only on the provincial stage or the national stage; this is truly going to be an

international-scale piece of infrastructure that is going to contribute mightily

to the future of not only Prince Rupert but the entire province.

I don't think there are many people in British Columbia who truly

understand today the potential that exists in the port of Prince Rupert. I can

tell you this, Mr. Speaker: there are many people internationally who understand

very clearly that Prince Rupert enjoys a very strategic location. Prince Rupert

has deep water. Prince Rupert is a year-round port that never freezes up. With

Prince Rupert located where it is, if you're shipping from Asia, you can get

your goods to Chicago in the Midwest three days faster than via any other port

or railway system. In short, all I can say at this point is: watch Prince

Rupert. It's got a great future ahead of it — and the areas around Prince

Rupert.

[1515]

Indeed, that applies not only to Prince Rupert alone. When that

port facility is built, when it starts to process through that port hundreds of

millions of tonnes of goods a year, the communities in the area, like Kitimat

and Terrace and Smithers and Prince George and on down the line, too, are going

to feel the very beneficial impact of all of that world commerce moving through

that part of the province.

There is an explosion of goods being moved by container around the

world today, with double-digit increases every year. It is the mode of

transportation that is most favoured and increasingly so. If you watch the

average freight train going by today pretty well anywhere, the boxcars are being

moved off the rails, and flatcars with containers are what you'll see most of

the time. If you watch those world trends, you know that the asset we have at

the port of Prince Rupert is indeed going to come into its own in the very near

future.

I have no doubt that the directors of the groups that are being

set up under this legislation are going to keep the port of Prince Rupert

foremost in their minds as they move forward. Also, in the tourism industry

across the north, there's a great deal of anticipation, as we continue to open

up British Columbia, that tourism is going to be a significant beneficiary.

The cruise ship industry for the first time touched Prince Rupert

this year, of course, with over 30 cruise ships docking there and a very, very

positive impact on the commercial community in Prince Rupert. I was there just a

couple of weeks ago, and although the cruise ship season is now over, there's

still a great buzz in town, given the very positive effect the cruise ships have

had this past summer. In the months ahead, in the summer of 2005, I am told

there will be as many as 50 or more cruise ships that are going to be pulling

into Prince Rupert to enjoy the tourist attractions that are available there.

I think it's fair to say that some years down the road, as we look

back at the year 2004, when this legislation was passed and marked the event

that these resources were put into the hands of northern British Columbians, we

will increasingly come to understand that this has been a turning point in the

fortunes of northern British Columbia. This is a time when we put resources into

their hands so that they could build their future, which I think is going to be

remarkably robust.

We are currently facing a situation, of course, as a result of BSE,

where ranchers throughout the interior of British Columbia are in great

difficulty. One of the ideas that has been touted recently is the construction

of a tender beef co-op, where they would slaughter cattle and test them all for

BSE. I think there's a lot of merit to that idea, and it may well be that the

directors

[ Page 11474 ]

of these funds decide that is something that is worthy of their support. I

think it would be a way to put the beef industry back on its feet throughout the

interior of British Columbia.

I am sure the directors of these funds with $135 million worth of

resources at their disposal are going to look at a wide variety of opportunities

that are available to them, and I am sure they are going to make much better

decisions than would otherwise be made by folks from Ottawa, Victoria or other

places. These are people who live in their communities, people who know the

aspirations of their communities far better than anyone else.

I know they're excited about the opportunities I've talked about

briefly this afternoon, and there are many others as well. There are, you know,

ideas around a northern pipeline. There are the industrial parks that several of

the communities would like to develop; hydro projects, run-of-the-river and

others that may well be coming forward; liquid natural gas plants that are being

thought about and are being moved forward in a couple of locations.

[1520]

Airport expansions in several locations. Currently in Fort St.

John and Prince George the airports are being expanded. Those are significant

additional assets to help grow the economy. I think it was in the 2003 throne

speech that we talked a fair bit about opening up British Columbia. That means

not only road infrastructure but also airport infrastructure — very important to

enable people to travel around this province conveniently and comfortably. As

I've travelled around the north, it certainly has been good to see the

additional investment in airport infrastructure, and I know the people in those

communities are very excited about the impact those assets will have in their

communities.

To summarize, I think this is extremely enlightened legislation.

The approach that we are taking is something that has people across the north

very excited. It has them feeling very optimistic about their future. I know

that as they move forward with this empowering legislation the results are going

to be seen across the north in a very short period of time.

D. MacKay: I am pleased to stand today on second reading of

the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, which was introduced into this

House yesterday for the first time.

This is more than a piece of legislation. This is about a vision —

a Premier with a vision who realizes the importance of the northern part of this

province. He understands the value that resource extraction that comes from the

north has generated for the benefit of all British Columbians. The Premier of

the day looked at the north and asked what he could do and what we could do as

government to benefit the people of the north.

The legislation that's in front of us today for second reading

stems from the partnership between the BCR and the CNR for the operating rights

to allow a major railway company that knows what they're doing to take over the

operation of the B.C. Rail line. That has now come to fruition. The competition

bureau of Canada has signed off on that, and the province is going to realize

some considerable money from that — about $1 billion to be exact.

Before I go there, I'd like to talk just very briefly to show how

closely the provincial NDP and the federal NDP are tied together, because I

don't think they understand, nor have they done anything for the north. I can

recall a federal NDP candidate who was parachuted into Bulkley Valley–Stikine to

run in a federal election. He was asked the question: what do you think of the

B.C. Rail line? Should it be extended? His answer was yes, he supports the B.C.

Rail line. He said the B.C. Rail line should be extended to the Queen Charlotte

Islands.

Well, I shouldn't have to remind anybody that it's a 12-hour ferry

ride across from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands, but that was his

response. That was his understanding of the north — just how big the north was.

He wanted to extend the B.C. Rail line from the present location over to the

Queen Charlotte Islands. That shows you how much the federal NDP party has in

common with the provincial NDP party. They don't understand the north.

For the first time the northern part of this province is going to

have some funds. They're going to have $135 million, and that $135 million is

going to be spent by people who live in the north. The decisions on how that

money is going to be spent will be made by the people who live in the north.

But before I go there, I just want to stop for a moment. Let's

have a look at what the provincial NDP government did for the northern part of

our province over the last ten years. There's a great example, and I'd like to

read from it now. It's from the Times Colonist, dated October 7. It

talked about what the NDP did for the northern part of our province for three

years. That's when they had the northern commissioner. I'm going to quote now

from this article. It says: "The NDP effort ran for three years as a patronage

gig and never budgeted higher than $2 million a year." Two million dollars a

year is a far cry from $135 million, and northerners are finally going to have a

chance to decide on how to spend that money.

[1525]

To continue my quote: "It was run by a northern commissioner, but

one example shows how much impact he had on the government of the day. It spent

a couple of years and a few hundred grand exploring whether the offshore

drilling moratorium should be lifted, only to have the former Premier, Ujjal

Dosanjh, unilaterally endorse a continued freeze without even consulting the

commission."

That's what's so different about the northern commissioner's

position and this new northern development initiative. The people, the mayors

and the regional district chairs who live in the northern part of our province

are going to have a great deal of say on how that money is spent.

I want to talk for a moment about mining, because mining is

critical to the north. We rely on resource extraction for the revenues that we

all need to spend for

[ Page 11475 ]

the social programs throughout the province. Well, I shouldn't have to remind

you, but I'm going to. We lost one out of every two jobs in the mining industry

in the dark nineties under the former NDP government. Not only did we lose one

out of every two jobs….

We just have to look at what happened to the mining exploration

with the tight regulations that were imposed unilaterally. They actually chased

the mining industry out of the province. As I said, we lost one out of two jobs.

We saw mining exploration dwindle to $25 million in the last year of the NDP

reign from the $150 million that it was when they took over government in our

province. That's a huge and dramatic drop in revenues and job creation in the

north, and I refer to the north again.

Forestry throughout the province of British Columbia took a big

hit. We saw 17 mills close throughout the province, and we saw 10,000 people in

the forest industry lose their jobs.

What about health care? I can recall when the federal government

contributed some money to the province. And you know how that money was spent?

It was spent on transportation, bringing people down from the north so the

Premier of the day and the NDP government of the day could take credit for the

extra funding that had been received to spend on health care. I don't know how

much of it actually went into health care, but I do know a considerable amount

went into transportation, bringing people down from the north and throughout the

province so they could make a photo op out of public funds that were to be used

for health care.

I happen to live in the north. I do a lot of driving in the north.

It's a big province. I just recently went on a tour of the northern part of my

riding. I left on June 29, and I came back around July 10. I visited small

communities throughout the north. When I came back, I had put on 4,200

kilometres of driving just visiting the northern part of my riding. I have to

tell you, there's a lot of road up there.

Under the previous administration, I don't recall seeing any

upgrades to the roads in the north. I'm not aware of a single upgrade that

happened in the north that I can account for and give credit to the previous

administration for. That's a shame.

What about hydro? We consume and we're going to be consuming at a

rate of about…. We need about 3 percent more every year of hydro to run our

province. I have to be honest that once again, I'm a little bit miffed when I

stop to think for a moment: what did the NDP do to generate more power for the

people of this province? I suspect there's nobody in this room who could come up

with one option or one program that was developed. But there is one that the NDP

embarked on, and that was in Pakistan.

J. MacPhail : Have you heard of Keenleyside and Brilliant?

What have you guys done?

D. MacKay: Quite a bit.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Member, let's listen to the

member speaking, please.

D. MacKay: I heard the Leader of the Opposition speaking in

the House the other day about post-secondary education, how they froze tuition

for schools. For post-secondary education the tuition had been frozen. You know

what that did to post-secondary education? It deprived a lot of students who

live in the north of the right to attend schools. There were no new spaces being

created — no new spaces at all.

Nothing is free in this province. Nothing is free in this life.

Everything has a cost associated with it. Somebody has to pay for everything

that we do in this province, so nothing is free.

[1530]

We also saw this province go from the number one economic driver

in our country to number ten in ten years under that previous administration. We

went from the number one province to a have-not province. We actually started

receiving funds from this Confederation that we belong to. That's a cost-sharing

program that has been developed over the years for those provinces that aren't

doing well — for those provinces that are doing well to be able to share the

wealth. We actually went into the have-not situation under the previous

administration. That's not a very nice legacy to be proud of.

I've told you what the NDP did under their previous

administration. Now I'd like to tell you what we've done in three short years.

Let's talk about mining for a moment. I've heard several people talk about

mining and how important mining is to our province. Well, I happen to live in

the northern part of our province, where I know mining activity is extremely

active. I've driven up Highway 37. You can't get a hotel room up north. You

can't get a helicopter up north. You can't get a drilling rig up north. Every

one of those pieces of machinery and highway…. Motel rooms are full to capacity.

They're running overtime. That's what we've done in three short years.

The number of jobs that have been created through the mining

industry speaks for itself. The jobs that are being created in the north are

being created for people who live in the north. Mining exploration requires

expediters to service those mining industries. The drilling companies that

provide the drills for the exploration that takes place are manned and built by

people who live in the north. So yes, we are building a large number of jobs.

As a matter of fact, I think we've generated 156,000 jobs in the

province since being elected.

Interjection.

D. MacKay: The Leader of the Opposition wants to know how

many jobs we've created. I just told her — 156,000 since December 2001. That

speaks for itself.

In health care. When we were elected, we said we would provide

more funding for education and health

[ Page 11476 ]

care as the economy grew. The economy is now just up and running to where it

should be. It's still a little slow in some parts of our province, but the

economy is finally starting to move again. Even while times were tight, our

government committed to spend extra — over $2 billion on health care. That's $2

billion more than the previous government did on health care.

Have we reached the utopia yet where everything is great? No, it

isn't. Health care is still a problem. It'll be a problem for governments for

decades to come and into the future. But we've made a great contribution to

shorten the wait-lists and look after people who do need health care, by the $2

billion infusion. I expect more will come as the economy continues to grow.

As I said, the exploration side of the equation is interesting

too, because we took over as government when the exploration company was

spending $25 million a year. That's not enough to create new mines; it's not

enough. They need to spend in the neighbourhood of $100 million to $150 million

a year in order to look for new mines.

Well, as I said, we took over when exploration was at a low of $25

million. I'm pleased to report today that mining exploration is upwards of

around $125 million, and I expect that a lot of that mining exploration is in

fact taking place in the north.

Let's look at forestry — forestry revitalization. The new

investment dollars being put into processing facilities in my part of the riding

are quite remarkable. We have the large mill at Houston, which is the world's

largest sawmill, producing 600 million board feet a year. West Fraser in

Smithers is spending roughly $25 million and upgrading their mill.

Roads. As I said before, under the previous administration I did

not see any roads being improved or any new roads being built. I want to remind

you that under our government and under our Premier, we have committed to spend

$835 million on upgrades and new roads in the northern part of our province —

$835 million. Because I travel on the roads all the time and they're great

distances, I can tell you that I've already seen the improvement in our roads.

[1535]

Highway 37 alone is a 600-kilometre road that runs from Kitwanga

up to the Yukon border. We're spending $40 million on that road in the next

three years. In 2005 that road will be 100 percent legal axle loading, which

will allow those new mines that are being built up north to travel with all that

ore concentrate and create jobs for the people in our part of the province and

pay for the social programs that the people in Vancouver and the people in the

north want. That's what we're doing with roads.

There's lots of new investment going into highway infrastructure.

Interjection.

D. MacKay: She keeps asking me to name them. I'm not going

to respond to her, but I've already told you how much we're spending and given

her a couple of examples of how much we're actually spending on roads.

Hydro is another one. I spoke very briefly about Pakistan. Well,

we've actually asked independent power producers to generate the new power that

we need — that 3 percent that we need year after year. We've signed off on $800

million worth of new power projects — green power projects. I've got one in my

riding. It's a $225 million project. It's a run of the river. They're going to

borrow water from the top of the Iskut canyon. They're going to build a 3.5

kilometre tunnel and put the water back in below the canyon. They're going to

generate 110 megawatts of power.

That is such good news. The present hydro grid ends at Meziadin

Junction. It's 118 kilometres up to this new power project that's being built.

We're going to see an extension of the B.C. Hydro grid — 117 kilometres north

from its present location.

That is such good news for those mines that are up there. The

mines consume a great deal of power, and diesel generation power is not an

option; it's not an environmental option. What we need is the cheap

hydroelectric power that this province produces and makes available to our

mining industry and the residents of this province who consume this electricity.

We have some of the lowest power rates in this country. One of the

things that brought the mining industry back to our province was the

availability and knowing full well that our province will look after the mining

industry with cheap hydroelectric power as these mines develop, the

infrastructure develops and the roads develop to create these jobs.

I want to get back on topic now. I've wandered off my topic,

talking about the northern development initiative. I spoke for a few moments and

wanted to let you know that we now have $135 million for the north, which is

considerably more than the $2 million that the previous administration gave to

the northern commissioner — $135 million. It's going to be broken down into a

couple of programs. There's going to be $50 million for cross-regional

investments. Because the northern part of our province is so massive and so

huge, there's obviously going to be some cross-regional initiatives that they're

going to want to embark on, and that's $50 million that they're going to be able

to draw from the funds.

There's $25 million that will be an endowment, which will cover

the operating costs of this northern development initiative. There's also going

to be $60 million available to the four regions of the north, particularly the

northwest, the northeast, the Prince George area and the

Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet area. They're going to have $15 million each to spend

on whatever they want — whatever they think is valuable to them. Economic

drivers, I would suggest, would be the most lucrative ones that they should

embark on, but they won't be told from Victoria how to spend that money. Those

decisions will be made by the people who live in the north and in the best

interests of those people that live in the north.

Their head office, of course, will be in Prince George, which is

almost in the centre part of our prov-

[ Page 11477 ]

ince and makes sense. The makeup of the boards as we get started…. We're

going to see two mayors from each of the four regions, and they're going to be

composed of the first and third largest communities in each of those four

regions. Those mayors will sit as an eight-member board, along with five

government appointees, to get this program up and running. In six months they

will be required to nominate two candidates to represent this board into the

future.

They can spend that money. They can spend the money on roads, if

they want. They can spend it on mining. They can spend it on any economic

activity that they want, or they can flush it down the toilet, but the province

will not be able to tell them how to spend the money. They're going to make

those decisions. The best part of this whole program, this whole initiative, is

that it's local control. It'll be local decision-making, and it will be local

spending.

[1540]

As a northerner I have to ask: how can anybody that lives in the

north and understands the north not support a piece of legislation such as this?

I can tell you that I speak on behalf of a lot of people who live in the north,

and I speak on behalf of the mayors. I have seven mayors in the riding that I

represent. I haven't spoken to all of them yet, but for those mayors that I have

spoken to, I can tell you that they support this northern development

initiative. They stand behind me in this because they realize that they're going

to have a say in how that money is spent.

In closing, I would just like to reiterate that I stand here in

very, very strong support of this program, which was a piece of paper that was

introduced into this House, that's going to create some wealth in the northern

part of our province. It's going to be spent in the best interest of the people

who live up there by the people who live in the north. Thank you for this

opportunity to stand in support of this motion.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am very, very pleased to rise in this

House to let it be known that I'm going to support this bill. But most

importantly, what I'm doing in speaking today is rising and speaking in support

of my northern colleagues.

I've had the privilege over the last three and a half years to

visit the north many, many times. I was in Rupert a couple of months ago, and I

can tell you what a difference a year makes. People are happy; people are

smiling. People are looking at opportunities. People are excited about their

future. That is what the spirit of British Columbia is about. It's about people

having hope and the opportunity for prosperity as they go forward so that they

can stay in the north, they can look after their families, and their children

can come back home.

You know, many speakers have said here today that the

opportunities that Prince Rupert is going to have as a result of this deal…. But

that is just one community, and as I've travelled across corridor 16, I've heard

community after community speak with one voice, speak of the opportunity of

growth, speak of the opportunity that they are going to be a new gateway for

North America. All of those communities are working with one voice.

You know what this fund does — this $135 million? It takes it out

of the hands of people in Victoria. It puts it into the hands of people in the

north who are going to work on a board to establish their cross-regional

priorities. It's going to give them the opportunity to have funding so that they

can have a group that is going to bring people together. It also gives them, in

four regions, the opportunity to work on their regional priorities.

You know, when I'm in Quesnel or Williams Lake, people are excited

about this opportunity, as they are in Chetwynd, Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.

This is a huge, huge opportunity, one that we committed to doing with the B.C.

Rail investment partnership, one that we said the northern communities and the

northern citizens of British Columbia deserve — the opportunity to be able to

make their own decisions so that they're unfettered from people in Victoria and

Vancouver, so that they can establish their priorities in their communities,

whatever they may be.

You know, I think this is going to create a huge opportunity for

the spirit of the communities to come together; for families and members of

families to come back to the north; for the opportunities that they are going to

be able to create for themselves, their communities and their families. I hear

the member of the opposition speak against this, as she does most other great

things that are happening in British Columbia. But it's about real people. It's

about going into Smithers and hearing people.

[1545]

As many know, Smithers used to be the jumping-off point for the

mining industry in British Columbia. Under the dark decade of the nineties, it

suffered dramatically. In talking with one lady at Smithers about how her

business has grown over the last three years in providing services to the mining

community of the north, it exhibited to me once again that this is about people.

This is not about elected officials here in Victoria making great decrees; it's

about people in their community building the future for their community.

I am very strongly in support of this bill. I am very strongly in

support of the communities of the north, because I have seen over the last three

and a half years what they can achieve with a vision and the enthusiasm and

their commitment to success. Whether it be Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace,

Smithers, Houston, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Williams Lake, Quesnel,

Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or all of the other

communities and regions of the north, this is a great opportunity and one that

we should be celebrating. This, in fact, is a new era not only for the north of

British Columbia but for all of British Columbia, and I proudly support this

bill.

J. MacPhail: Today we start debate on Bills 58 and 59,

which is this government's distribution of the proceeds from the sale of B.C.

Rail. I want to make two

[ Page 11478 ]

things clear from the beginning. First, the sale of B.C. Rail is an absolute

betrayal of trust — absolute. The Liberals promised not to sell or privatize

B.C. Rail. They ran in the last election making that promise, but that is

exactly what happened. They sold B.C. Rail.

The Liberal government seems to be a little bit in denial about

that, just like the President south of the border is in denial about what's

going on in Iraq. This government is exactly the same — in denial about the fact

that they've sold B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail Ltd. is now 100 percent owned by CN. Not

one single person can dispute that. It's sold. It's in black and white in the

transaction agreement that the Liberals hid for months.

The Premier, the Minister of Transportation and all of the Liberal

backbenchers would have us believe that they kept their word, that they didn't

betray the people of B.C. How do they try to have that denial seep through?

Because they only leased the right-of-way. That's all they did. They only leased

the right-of-way. For how long? For 990 years. British Columbians are supposed

to say: "Oh yeah, that's right. Gee, that isn't a sale." It's 990 years. It's

the new millennium line, Mr. Speaker. That's in the ownership of CN — 990 years.

But somehow that's all they've got left to defend against their betrayal.

It's time this Liberal government stopped treating the people of

the province like they have no common sense. This piece of dirty Liberal laundry

has been through the spin cycle so many times that it's been torn apart, ripped

to shreds and nearly dissolved. Yet the Premier clings to it, wearing the

remains in a desperate and feeble attempt to say that he kept a promise. Well,

the people of the north are not fooled. It is ridiculous for the government to

claim that they haven't sold B.C. Rail. The people of B.C. know very well what

happened. The Premier deliberately told them one thing and then did another. He

went back on his word. He betrayed the people of British Columbia.

To make matters worse, British Columbians had to endure all this

spin while the government kept the details of the deal a secret. It took months

of questions, leaks and police raids to extract any concrete details. But once

we finally got the truth, we could see just how far they had tried to pull the

wool over our eyes. The sale of B.C. Rail Ltd. and the 990-year lease of the

right-of-way were and continue to be an absolute betrayal.

[1550]

Now we come to the second point that I want to make clear. The

money being distributed to first nations groups and impacted communities is

welcome. We will not dispute the benefits this money can provide to the interior

and northern communities that have been left behind by this government. As I

have travelled the province with the Finance Committee, I have seen the need for

infrastructure in the north and the impacts of the pine beetle. I can tell you

this, Mr. Speaker: the demands and the needs of the north far exceed the amount

this government is doling out today.

Let me give one example. This is from the housebuilders

association of northern B.C. in a presentation they made last week in Prince

George. Yes, they were thankful for all the investment of infrastructure in the

north in the 1990s.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: In the 1990s. You know, I hear some bellowing

minister from the other side. I think he's currently the Minister of Provincial

Revenue, but he bellows that I should give my head a shake. Well, it's actually

in Hansard . The presentation is actually in Hansard .

The homebuilders association of the north was grateful and the

mayor of Prince George was grateful for the infrastructure investment in the

1990s, but they are desperate to have infrastructure begin now under this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, the piddly $15 million going to the

northwest corner of this province in this legislation won't cover but one

request from one community.

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: Now, let's just talk about the Les Leyne

article this morning in the Times Colonist . I wasn't going to bring it

up.

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't going to bring it up, because it's

always difficult. But I see the backbenchers have seized upon that. Well, what

Mr. Leyne focuses on…. Believe you me, he is an excellent journalist and

columnist, but he was wrong today. He was completely wrong today to compare the

northern commissioner's office to what real investment took place in the north.

He was dead wrong. I don't begrudge him that; he's a busy man.

He completely overlooked the hundreds of millions of dollars

invested in infrastructure in the north, like roads into the oil and gas fields

— over $50 million in roads into the oil and gas fields alone; a huge investment

into the forest and pulp sector in the northwest, which is an absolute disaster

under this government, an absolute disaster.

It was embarrassing, the

article in the Vancouver Sun

yesterday about that. Investment in hospitals, schools, universities…. Yesterday

I heard the president of the university council say that the University of

Northern British Columbia was built in the 1980s. Well, now I can correct the

record. It's celebrating its tenth anniversary today. That would mean it was

built — when? It's 2004, so minus ten — in 1994.

And the courthouse….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order, please. Order. Let's

keep it down to a dull roar here, please.

J. MacPhail: And who built the new courthouse in Prince

George and the new hospitals in the north? Let's

[ Page 11479 ]

see. And all those new schools? Not this government. I hope I can sit down

with Les Leyne and explain to him that all of that investment occurred….

To date, in three and a half years under this government, the

investment has been piddly — less than a few million dollars. In fact, I'm hard

pressed to name an investment. I'm just kind of giving the benefit of the doubt.

I can't name an investment.

They've closed down hospitals, they've closed down schools, and

they've closed down colleges.

[1555]

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: That, Mr. Speaker, is what I can remember.

Somebody asks: why did they throw us out? I guess we'd look at

what the support is for this government in the north. I don't know whether

anybody's got the latest polls.

Has anybody got the latest polls about how it's going in the

north? Well, I don't know. It's maybe 15 to 18 points of people saying to this

government: "We like the other political party better." I don't know. I could be

wrong.

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute shame that this government has

chosen to give less than 20 percent of the proceeds of a profitable company back

to the communities. Let's be clear. The $135 million awarded by this legislation

is equal to two years of B.C. Rail profitability. Two years of B.C. Rail

profitability is the same as the absolute sale and giveaway of B.C. Rail to CN

and the one-time money given back of $135 million.

We give away a profitable Crown corporation actually serving the

north and the interior, and the community gets back, actually, the equivalent of

less than two years of profit for B.C. Rail — less than two years, less than 20

percent of the price tag for a profitable, efficient and productive Crown

corporation. That's all a broken promise is worth, and that's why the opposition

cannot and will not support this bill.

We 100 percent support providing our communities with the tools

and resources they need to develop and grow. However, we cannot support where

this money comes from. It comes from a betrayal and a broken trust, and the

people of northern B.C. and the interior of B.C. understand that. It comes from

secrecy and deception.

The resources being allocated to establish these trusts could have

come from other sources. The Finance minister is sitting on a $1 billion surplus

created by commodity prices of goods coming from our interior and north. That's

where the billion-dollar surplus came from — oh, and out of the pockets of

students. A hundred million dollars out of the pockets of students created the

surplus as well. The government could easily have taken $135 million and

established these same trusts if it wanted to. In fact, it could do more if it

wanted to. It could easily have done more.

We support our communities, and we wish them well with managing

the spare change they're getting from a billion-dollar giveaway to CN, but we

cannot vote in favour of Bills 58 and 59 — not because we do not support those

communities, but because we do not support the government's broken promise and

decision to sell off B.C. Rail.

We cannot support betrayers, and that's what this government is —

a group of betrayers. Their decision betrayed British Columbians when they sold

out British Columbians. It's an absolute betrayal.

I think the only comfort we can take from this is that the regions

will have control of the funds. And what's that a model of? Who created that

model? It's a model similar to the Columbia Basin Trust, a model that the

previous administration created — the NDP administration. It's very similar. The

communities impacted by this sale, those that will be seeing job losses….

It's interesting. Someone stood up and bragged….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let's keep the debate confined to

the member, please.

Leader of the Opposition, proceed, please.

J. MacPhail: I understand that the odds are even in this

chamber, believe you me. I understand that it's fair odds, but I welcome the

chance for the Minister of Labour to get up and talk about the job losses as a

result of this sale. I welcome his opportunity to get up and deny the hundreds

of job losses as a result of this sale. In fact, I'd be happy to give my place

to him so he can explain the job losses.

[1600]

They talk about new jobs going to Prince George. What is it — a

dozen new jobs? How many are being lost in Prince George — over 200? Oh, let me

try and do the math there. That would be a net job loss as a result of this, and

that's added to the net job loss in this province for 2004. It's not me; it's

Statistics Canada.

There is a net job loss year to date in this province in 2004. I

didn't see any ads saying that. I wonder if the Minister of Labour forgot to put

that in their most recent ad — huh? Or did they forget to mention in their ad

that they're throwing away hundreds of jobs as they sell off B.C. Rail to CN?

Well, the communities impacted by this sale know that. They know that they will

be seeing job losses and reduced service, and of course, they deserve to have

control over the meagre funds. The Liberals have done enough damage.

I am well aware of what's to come. As soon as I sit down,

government member after government member will charge that we do not support the

communities of this province. I can hardly wait for them to get up and say that.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is this government that turned its

back on B.C. when it decided to sell off a profitable Crown corporation, close

courthouses, throw people out of work, shut down schools and reduce health

services.

I note that my colleague behind me didn't mention the dozens of

closed schools in the north — I think he

[ Page 11480 ]

must have forgotten that — or the dozens of closed hospital beds in the

north. I think he forgot to mention that. I sincerely hope the communities with

access to funds are able to do many positive things with the money, but we

cannot forget how we got to this point.

[H. Long in the chair.]

The government never had a mandate to sell B.C. Rail Ltd. They

never had a mandate to lease the right-of-way for 990 years. The Liberals

campaigned on a new-era commitment to not sell or privatize B.C. Rail, but that

promise has magically disappeared from the Internet. There is no New Era

document left. That document — it doesn't exist on the Internet anymore. I find

it amazing how this government is so ashamed that they think they can wipe the

record clean by taking it off their Internet site. Do they think British

Columbians are stupid? Well, British Columbians remember the promise this

government made to not sell B.C. Rail, and their constituents took them at their

word. Despite that, the Liberals broke the promise and tried to cover it up with

weasel words.

The spin never fooled CN's CEO, Hunter Harrison. He said that CN

paid $750 million to buy the business. That's what he said. Maybe he's the

member of the chartered accountants institute. I don't know. I better check. I

don't think he is. I don't think he's a member of the chartered accountants

institute. I think he's just straight-up smart and knew when he got a good deal,

and he told the shareholders the truth, unlike this Liberal government telling

their shareholders anything but the truth.

The story doesn't end with that broken promise. That's only the

beginning. The sale of B.C. Rail has become infamous — raids at the Legislature,

inside information, leaks, the cancelled spur line deal of B.C. Rail, and

relentless misinformation and secrecy.

During the months after the announcement over a dozen mayors and

councillors represented by these Liberal backbenchers, from Squamish to Fort St.

James, asked for the deal to be opened up before it was voted upon in this

Legislature. The government refused every step of the way. We were all to take

them at their word — what was the problem? — a word that had already been

broken.

[1605]

We were supposed to believe them when they said there would be no

surprises. Member after member of that front bench said there would be no

surprises. Well, there were surprises. There were a lot of surprises. Some were

uncovered by the media. Some were uncovered by the opposition, and some were

even uncovered by the police. Even the police uncovered some surprises, and

that's why this government had to shut down the sale of the B.C. Rail spur line.

Oh, where's the heckling now? Hello. Is there anybody out there?

Where are all the denials on that one? Oh, dead silence. There's dead silence as

this government should hang its head in shame that the police had to shut down

the sale of the spur line of B.C. Rail.

Let's run through some of those details. The government tried to

tell us that they were selling off a Crown corporation that was a burden to the

taxpayer. I heard some city MLA, the member for…. No, no. It was the Minister of

Labour saying: "What about the debt?" In fact, here it is, right in my remarks.

"We're getting rid of the debt," the ministers all cried. "We're saving

taxpayers money," the ministers all cried, and they continue to cry that today.

Well, let's just look at that. Let's look at how that's not true.

Taxpayer dollars have never for a moment been involved with the debt of B.C.

Rail. It is a non-taxpayer-supported Crown corporation, and not one dollar of

taxpayer money went to support the debt of B.C. Rail — not one. On top of that,

B.C. Rail was making a profit every year. Now, I know that this government

doesn't understand many business principles, but getting rid of the debt on B.C.

Rail doesn't make one iota of difference to those who are paying for the debt,

and that's the shippers. Not one iota of difference, because CN will pass on

those costs, just the same way that B.C. Rail did. Absolutely.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: I see the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill

looking like a…. I guess he doesn't understand that concept. I guess he doesn't

understand it — that the people who were actually paying for the debt, the

shippers of B.C. Rail, are completely unaffected by this. In fact, there isn't a

dime of savings to the taxpayer for the payment of this debt. So there we go.

But these people won't hesitate from standing up and reading from

their spin-cycle spin message again, eh? Go through the spin cycle. Okay, but

that information wasn't forthcoming from the government. It had to be dragged

out of them. In fact, their message box actually said taxpayers were going to

save $30 million a year until they were forced to admit that wasn't true. Once

the public discovered this, they got a little curious about the deal itself.

For months we asked to see the details, and for months we were

stonewalled. In estimates debate we learned that there was no reason for the

government to withhold the deal — nothing. The competition bureau didn't say it

had to be kept secret, and nothing in the deal itself prevented the government

from being open with the public. Only this government's secrecy kept the details

from the public. We know why. It was the government's unilateral decision to

withhold information. It took months to get the information.

Oh, then there was the fairness report. Let's talk about the

fairness report. Now, that was paid for by the taxpayers. Uh-huh. That was paid

for. Charles Rivers Associates were paid $300,000 for a report into the fairness

of the bidding process, and the government waves it around and goes: "Look,

look, look, all you naysayers, accusing us of not being fair. Here is the

Charles Rivers report." Well, despite the discovery of a critical leak of

confidential and commercially sensitive information, they found nothing wrong.

[ Page 11481 ]

[1610]

The report didn't even look into the actions of the Premier, and

the Premier continues today to refuse to answer questions about his meetings or

lack thereof with people involved in the bidding process. I don't know why the

Premier continues to refuse to answer those questions about whether he met with

the then CEO of CN, Paul Tellier, but he does. We spent weeks and months asking

the Premier and both ministers, both the present one and the former one, for

information about the leaks. It took hours of cross-examination in the

ministry's estimates in the spring before we got any useful information.

Here's what we learned. We learned from the minister that the leak

was commercially sensitive information that should only go to the successful

bidder. It took a few more hours, but we managed to get more out of the

minister. The minister let it out that CN had received information about the

costs associated with interline agreements.

CN was in the middle of a bidding war where they had offered up a

5 percent reduction for interline shipping rates. I'm trying to make the

terminology clear for members who are going to speak to this in a minute. All of

a sudden, there was a leak of confidential information about these agreements,

and CN ups the offer to a 7 percent reduction in interline shipping rates. The

fairness report said this was all fine.

Let's talk about that 7 percent reduction in shipping rates. The

member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was calling over: "Hey, what about those

reductions in rates?" Let's talk about that. Okay.

Well, the Premier boasted endlessly about that reduction —

wonderful news, he said. He failed to mention that the 7 percent reduction was

an average. We only found that out later. He didn't mention that the 7 percent

only for interline shippers covered only one-third of all of the shipping in the

province. He didn't mention that. We had to find that out later. No help for

grain or sulphur shippers, because they rely on intraline shipping. Intraline

shipping, which is 66 percent of the shipping business, got zero reduction in

rates. Really, the 7 percent reduction in rates turns out to be about 2 percent

overall.

Then the minister was also forced to admit that the reduction came

into effect on the day that the transaction was complete, but he couldn't

guarantee how long it would last — no. It could be for six months. It could be

for a year. It could be less. He couldn't tell us how long that reduction would

last.

The kicker to all of this? The minister finally coughed up the

detail that the taxpayers would actually be on the hook for a portion of the

reduction. Ah, isn't that interesting? The taxpayers were going to be on the

hook for it.

I'll go through that in a minute, because the minister's forgotten

this detail.

What other surprises were there? Here's one. After Mike Smyth of

the Province got a copy of the revitalization agreement, we learned that

the government could sell off Crown land to CN for a buck. Was that in the

original announcement? No. I checked today to see whether that was in the

original announcement — no.

We also learned that CN could abandon various lines after five

years. The document also showed that the lease will last for 990 years, since

the government will not have the ability to buy back the rolling stock. They've

sold all of the rolling stock. What are they going to buy back?

Hon. K. Falcon: The rolling stock.

J. MacPhail: Oh, the minister says they're going to buy

back the rolling stock. Oh my God. I can't believe they finally admitted to

that. What of the business acumen of this minister? He's claiming that the proof

of the pudding that the lease is not for 990 years…. The government at any time

could buy back the lease, but they'd have to buy back rolling stock as well.

Well, let's see. Why, if it's not for 990 years, did they sell the rolling stock

in the first place?

The government is still trying to say it's not a sale. I love it.

The minister stands there and says: "Well, we'd buy back the rolling stock."

Okay, I think that's a sale — don't you? — if you have to buy back something in

order to make the lease less than 990 years. Hmm.

[1615]

Then just a few weeks ago we learned the true value of this

one-for-the-millennium lease: $52 million. Oops. Gee, the minister wouldn't

admit to that in estimates — the value of the lease, $52 million. But there it

is in the first quarter report of this government, which was tabled September 14

of this year.

Here's what page 19 of that first quarter report says. Now, this

is a government document, so I hope the minister won't stand up and say it's

wrong. But you never know — right? He could, because it makes him look silly. I

quote: "Fifty-two million dollars of the transaction gain relates to the

operating lease for the right-of-way and railbed assets and will be spread out

over the term of the lease."

Let's take the best-case scenario for the government. Let's say

the lease is for 90 years, not 990 years. That's $577,000 per year to lease the

hundreds of kilometres of railbed and rail line — half a million dollars. Wow,

did they ever wrestle CN to the ceiling. Wow. No wonder the minister didn't want

to reveal the cost of the lease in estimates, because he'd look like a silly

fool.

Then there's the costs spent on the transaction — $14 million on

lawyers. I wonder if those lawyers are happy — $14 million on lawyers,

accountants and communications. Oh, by the way, that's the same amount of money

that the whole northwest sector is going to get. The northwest corner is going

to get $15 million out of this. Lawyers and accountants got the same amount of

money. I wonder if those lawyers and accountants live in Prince Rupert. I think

I'll ask the minister at committee stage the names of the companies…. In fact,

he should write this down. The names of the lawyers and where those lawyers and

accountants reside and the communications firms where they actually live…. I

sure hope it's Smithers. I sure hope it's

[ Page 11482 ]

Prince Rupert. I sure hope it's Houston and Prince George where those lawyers

live so that at least the community got some investment back. That money alone

could have established the first nations trust. Isn't that interesting? That's

exactly the amount of money that the first nations are getting.

Those expenses aren't the only hidden costs. Once again it took

months of questions and months of evasiveness, but the minister finally coughed

up details that the government — here it is, Mr. Speaker — is covering the land

transfer taxes. Yeah, he had to admit that he estimated that would be between

$12 million and $14 million.

Now, when you and I buy something, Mr. Speaker, we have to pay

those transfer taxes. I make $75,000 a year. I'm not CN. But when I buy a piece

of property, I have to pay those land transfer taxes. My colleague to my right

and my colleague behind have to pay those land transfer taxes as well. People

who are in long-term leases have to pay those land transfer taxes. But CN

didn't. Poor little CN. The minister says it's because the government

transferred the land. Well, isn't that a scam? He actually admits that he

performed the scam and said it was him that transferred it, even though it is CN

that has the lease.

The lease for CN. It's the long-term lease that's subject to the

land transfer tax. He said: "Oh, CN, don't worry about it. We'll finagle the law

so that you won't have to pay the transfer tax." In fact, the Minister of

Transportation, if he is going to….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. The Leader of the Opposition

has the floor.

[1620]

J. MacPhail: Well, I look forward to the Minister of

Transportation reversing what he said in the media on this matter. He has been

forced to reverse himself in the House before. I got my information on this from

the Minister of Transportation himself that yes, they did make a deal so that

the land transfer tax wouldn't be paid by CN when it should have been, under the

law.

I look forward to him standing up and saying how he was wrong when

he gave that information, and reversing himself. It wouldn't be the first time

that the Minister of Transportation has had to reverse himself around B.C. Rail.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister's getting a little

sensitive. I certainly hope my comments aren't getting to him. I certainly hope

they're not. I look forward to him reversing the statement he made around this

matter. Then we'll have to start all over again about what the truth is in this

deal.

Let's just imagine what that land transfer tax giveaway to CN,

which every other person would have had to pay, would have meant. Imagine what

that amount of money could have done for the communities in the north and the

interior. All of this information only came to light because of persistent

questions and digging. The government refused to share any information. Most of

the time it seemed like they were as caught off guard as the rest of us when

these details came to light. In fact, we see the Minister of Transportation and

his heckling flip-flopping again today. I can hardly wait for him to answer

these questions. I expect he'll know now that committee stage will be quite a

detailed discussion. They were so caught up in their own secrecy, and we now

know why.

But to cap it all off, there were the raids at the Legislature and

a criminal investigation that found itself in the office of the former Minister

of Transportation. While the results of the investigation are still outstanding,

we do know one crucial thing: on March 10 of this year the current Minister of

Transportation, on the advice of the RCMP, advised the public that he was

cancelling the deal into the Roberts Bank–B.C. Rail spur line sale — wow, on the

advice of the RCMP. Here's what the minister said, and I quote: "Significant

confidential information may have compromised the government's negotiating and

financial position." He had to cancel the deal.

More scandal, more leaks, more uncertainty and more wasted money.

The cost of the cancelled deal was just under $1 million — that they will admit

to. I'll be asking more questions about what the final costs of that were,

because they admitted to under $1 million to date. That's more money that could

have gone to projects up and down the B.C. Rail line.

The B.C. Rail sell-off was bumbled and full of scandal from

beginning to end. Nothing the government members can say or do will ever make up

for their decision to break a fundamental election promise and betray the trust

of British Columbians.

I have no doubt that our opposition to this bill will be

misrepresented by this minister and the rest of the Liberal MLAs. They will

suggest that the NDP is opposed to investment in rural and northern British

Columbia. Well, I will tell you that B.C. Rail as a Crown corporation did more

for the investment of northern British Columbia and the interior of British

Columbia than this government will ever purport to do, and it should have been

kept as the viable Crown corporation that it was. This government promised it

would be there in the last election. Nothing could be further from the truth, as

will be made exceptionally clear in the weeks and months leading up to the

election.

[1625]

But we are opposed to the sale of B.C. Rail. It was the wrong

thing to do in 1996, when the government said it was going to sell it and lost

the election. It was even more wrong to do after 2001 when the Premier promised

that he would do exactly the opposite. Let there be no doubt: the sale of B.C.

Rail was a broken promise. It's bad public policy. It's a sellout of historic

proportions. The opposition cannot and will not support any aspect of a deal

that will damage our economy and dismantle our provincial economic heritage.

Why?

[ Page 11483 ]

Because British Columbians deserve better. It is clear that nothing about

this betrayal in the sale of B.C. Rail is anything but bad for British Columbia.

J. Bray: I am very pleased to rise and speak in favour of

Bill 59, Northern Development Initiative Trust Act.

I was listening with great interest to the Leader of the

Opposition. What I must say is: what a palette to work from. It astounds me that

as we celebrate northern British Columbia — we celebrate the opportunities of

northern British Columbia, we celebrate the potential, we celebrate the dreams

of northerners, we celebrate the revitalization of that great part of our

province — the NDP stands up and says they're against that.

It's amazing that the Leader of the Opposition actually stood up

and said that $135 million for northerners to help northern initiatives,

controlled by northerners, is a bad idea. I'm glad she repeated it several

times, because I found it difficult to actually believe that she would say that.

Now, I know that the leader of the NDP, the member who will not run in a

by-election and actually take a place in this Legislature, Carole James, is

against that.

Of course, she was against a lot of things before she ever learned

about them. I found it interesting that she was against the B.C. Rail–CN

partnership before she found out that the result of that was going to be a brand

new containerization port for the city of Prince Rupert — the number one

economic initiative that that community has called for, for years. Their own MLA

that used to be up there — I think he lives down here now, but when he was up

there — didn't listen to those calls. The government didn't listen. I don't

think they could find Prince Rupert on the map. That community struggled when

the New Democratic government ignored them.

This government got elected in 2001, and this B.C. Liberal Party

ensured that we had an MLA that was elected in Prince Rupert — North Coast — to

actually come down and carry the message. What did this government do? We

listened to Prince Rupert. They came to us and said: "We have great potential in

the north. We have great potential to be a gateway for all of British Columbia

and, in fact, for Alberta, for Saskatchewan. We could be a gateway to the

Midwest of the United States, to Chicago, to the great transportation hub in the

central part of the U.S. All we need is some help. We've got the dream; we've

got the people. We need the assistance of the province."

When that member, the Leader of the Opposition in the House, was

in government, she never listened. We listened, and the northern development

initiative has provided the direct dollars for that community to engage in its

dream.

Before I even talk about the actual monetary values in this act

that will go to the various four areas of the north, let's talk for a minute

about what I heard and what members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance

heard just in the last several weeks as we've travelled the north as a result of

that one initiative out of this $1 billion partnership with CN. This is just one

initiative and what it's doing for the north. Many people now realize and have

heard that Prince Rupert is a day-and-a-half closer to the Pacific Rim than

Vancouver-Ladner-Deltaport. That is an important advantage for shippers not just

in British Columbia but right across this continent.

Prince Rupert said: "We could be the second gateway. Everything

doesn't have to go to the southwestern corner of this province. We can supply

the kind of shipping expertise and shipping service that people right across

Canada want but also what American markets want and what Asia-Pacific markets

want to get back into the North American market if we have an investment with

the private sector, the province, the federal government and our own dollars as

a municipality to actually make that containerization port happen."

[1630]

When we travelled up to Prince Rupert and we saw their new

college, we saw their new cruise ship port and we stood on the site where that

new $500 million containerization port project is going to be realized, we were

literally inundated with the