2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

John McInnis

J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

The Health and Well-Being of People in British Columbia,

provincial health officer, annual

report, 2002

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Campaigns by environmental activists

Suffredine

Response to AIDS

Mayencourt

Violence against women

S. Orr

Oral Questions

Public release of B.C. Rail–CN Rail

agreement

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Hon. G.

Campbell

Public release of B.C. Rail

privatization proposals

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

Vancouver school board advocacy kit

K. Johnston

Hon. C.

Clark

Severance packages for B.C. Rail

employees

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

Petitions

W. Cobb

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Treaty Commission,

annual report, 2003

Second Reading of Bills

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued)

Hon. G.

Campbell

Hon. S. Bond

D. Hayer

K. Krueger

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

Hon. G.

Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)

Committee of the Whole House

Health Sector Partnerships Agreement

Act (Bill 94) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Bruce

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Health Sector Partnerships Agreement

Act (Bill 94)

Second Reading of Bills

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

K. Johnston

[ Page 8259 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Tributes

JOHN McINNIS

MacPhail: I rise on a very sad note today to inform the House of the very

sudden and unexpected passing of John McInnis. John served several NDP leaders

as a staff member in positions ranging from caucus research director in the

eighties to executive director of the government caucus in the mid-1990s.

What many

didn't know on either side of the House was that John was elected to the Alberta

Legislature as an NDP MLA in 1989, and he served as their environment critic

until 1993. John was famous in the Alberta Legislature for insisting on riding

his bicycle to work, even on the coldest winter days. He was a passionate

advocate for the environment long before it became fashionable. He returned to

the environmental movement and, until his passing, was a tireless advocate for

environmentally responsible mining in British Columbia.

Both my

colleague and I just saw him this past weekend at our party's convention, and he

was participating with enthusiasm and positive energy. John leaves behind his

wife and three daughters. I'm sure all members will join me in mourning his

passing and in celebrating his life.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today I would like to acknowledge three special visitors in

the members' gallery from the United Kingdom. Please join me in welcoming His

Excellency David Reddaway, the newly appointed high commissioner of the United

Kingdom to Canada. I am pleased that His Excellency has taken this opportunity

to visit our spectacular province and meet with several of our ministers. His

Excellency is accompanied by Consul General James Rawlinson, who is the United

Kingdom's representative based in Vancouver, and Mr. Rab Mackenzie, head of the

Canada desk in the North American department of the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office in London.

As members

know, the United Kingdom shares a long history of cultural, economic and

political ties with Canada and British Columbia. Part of that parliamentary

tradition is question period, and I know that our guests will be impressed with

the decorum and wit of this Legislature. I hope His Excellency the consul

general and Mr. Mackenzie enjoy their visit to Victoria. Will the members please

make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Today we have more visitors from the United Kingdom with us in the

House. MacDonald Dettwiler is hosting a delegation of 40 leading CEOs,

information technology directors and elected councillors of local governments in

the United Kingdom. The members of this delegation are taking the lead in the

United Kingdom in introducing e-government and electronic service delivery. We

are pleased that British Columbia is able to demonstrate effective delivery of

services from our government to our citizens and businesses. Visits such as this

continue to maintain and confirm the ever-renewing alliances and bonds between

the province of British Columbia and the United Kingdom. Would the House join me

in making them welcome.

Manhas: I have been slowly, over the last two and a half years, convincing

my family that I actually do work here. So they have been coming to find out, to

make sure that it's true. Earlier this year you'll know that I introduced my

parents to you, as they came and visited. Today I'm very proud to have my older

twin sisters, who are here visiting from Winnipeg and Los Angeles. Dr. Sheila

Manhas, one of the twins, is a neurologist in Winnipeg, and Dr. Sharan Manhas,

the other twin, is a laparoscopic surgeon practising in Los Angeles. Also here

with them is Dr. Neal Prakash, who is also a neurologist. They are all up here

for Thanksgiving weekend. It's perfect this weekend, because we're giving thanks

for the great powder we've got on our mountains, and they'll be testing that

out. I'm very proud to introduce them into the House, and I'd like the House to

join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: Evelyn and Mervin Kuzminski have come to Victoria from Regina to

spend some time with their son Jason, who is my hard-working executive

assistant. This afternoon they have come into the chamber to spend some time

with the rest of us, and I hope we will make them both feel very welcome.

Sahota: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Garth Yoneda to the House.

Garth is the program director for HardHats. This program provides people on

income assistance with training for entry-level trades positions, and it is

sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources in partnership with the Canadian

Home Builders Association, Grant Thornton and Camosun College. Apart from that,

Garth also wears another hat. He happens to be my brother-in-law's brother.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Sultan: On behalf of the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and

Home Care, I would welcome 12 grade 5 students from Seymour Academy in North

Vancouver–Lonsdale and their teachers, Ms. Celeste Hambleton and Mr. Ben

Glover. Seymour Academy has the very interesting motto " Cum Aquilis ad

Astra ," or "Fly with the Eagles." Would the House please make

these eagles welcome.

[1410]

Stewart: Coquitlam is a partner in the Smart Choices initiative and is

working on sharing technology and information with the visitors we welcome to-

[ Page 8260 ]

day from Great Britain. Joining us today from the city of Coquitlam we have

city manager Warren Jones. We have economic development and public affairs

manager Al Ordge and Jennifer Wilkie, who is the project leader for the Smart

Choices Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of my colleague and me, to

welcome two longtime political activists from the riding of Maple

Ridge–Mission: Greg Engh, who the vice-president of the NDP there, and his

partner, Anique Tremblay. Would the House please make them welcome.

Locke: I wish to welcome to the House today Mr. Bill Hutchings Sr. from

right here in the city of Victoria and his son Bill Hutchings from San Diego,

California. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Visser: I would like the House to make welcome Nilo Edwards, a friend of

mine from Sointula, and Kelly Carson and Ketty Weiller from Port McNeill.

They're down here visiting me, and I don't know why. It makes me very nervous,

but I hope we make them welcome.

Manhas: I'd like the House to make welcome Mr. Robert Shirra, my campaign

co-chair during my election. He's here from Port Coquitlam with the Smart

Choices Society.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I have the honour to present the report on the health of British

Columbians, the provincial health officer's annual report for 2002 entitled The

Health and Well-Being of People in British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CAMPAIGNS BY

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS

Suffredine: In a recent statement to the Nelson Daily News the

Valhalla Wilderness Society admitted not only that they are part of the plot to

block the sale of B.C. wood in China but that it's all about politics. In her

letter, Ann Sherrod, the chair of the society, sets out what it would take for

the government to stop the boycott when she says: "All it has to do is

create the parks it promised in the Great Bear rain forest."

Let me say

that simply. She says: "Give us our park, and the protests will stop."

So much for concerns about forest practices. So much for concerns about logging

practices. So much for concerns about endangered species. She couldn't be more

clear. This is about politics, not about the environment. This valley-by-valley

attempt to intimidate has gone on for too long. For decades we have heard:

"This is the last pristine valley. We just need one more park." It

never ends, and it won't until no one has a job in the forest. This intolerable

effort seeks to stop people from doing what they have a lawful right to do: buy

B.C. wood products so B.C. workers can support their families.

We've

dedicated about 12.5 percent of our land base to parks and protected areas. I'm

proud to support that, but when do we have enough? Since 1974, in Nelson-Creston

alone we have 13 new parks, which include the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy,

the Valhalla wilderness park, the West Arm wilderness, the Goat Range and

Monashee parks — over 600,000 acres — and that's just some of them.

If these

groups want to exchange some existing protected lands for lands that have better

use for parks, then let's talk. But let's end the intimidation. Families that

depend on forests deserve better than to be held for ransom by irresponsible

groups like this. The Valhalla Wilderness Society should drop this preposterous

plot and apologize. Until that happens, no one should support them — not with

one red cent.

RESPONSE TO AIDS

Mayencourt: You may note in the House today that many of us are wearing a

red ribbon. It's to signify World AIDS Day, which will happen on Monday,

December 1.

[1415]

British

Columbia has over 13,000 individuals living in our province with this disease.

Many of them have full-blown AIDS. We recently commissioned a study through the

Ministry of Health Planning and published a new Priorities for Action in

Managing the Epidemics — HIV/AIDS . This is the first time it has

been updated in many, many years. The goals of the British Columbia government

are articulated in that. They are, quite simply, to reduce the incidence of

infection by 50 percent through the next five years; to increase the proportion

of HIV-positive individuals who are linked to appropriate care, treatment and

support services by 25 percent over the next five years; to enhance our

province's capacity for monitoring the HIV epidemic; and to look at strategies

for helping women to deal with the disease.

Women used

to represent only 4 percent of those that were HIV-positive. Today in British

Columbia they number 20 percent. In Toronto injection drug users make up only 5

percent of AIDS cases. This number is estimated to be more like 30 to 40 percent

in Vancouver.

There are

many examples of wonderful work that is being done in our community, but this

speech is really not about policies and that sort of stuff, just as this ribbon

is not about fashion. It's about individuals. It's about individuals like a

friend of mine and a friend of the Premier's, Mr. Glen Hillson, who was the

chair of BCPWA and who we lost this year to AIDS. It's about the many wonderful

volunteers at AIDS Vancouver Island and the people at Positive Women's Network

and the people at Loving Spoonful that deliver home-cooked meals to people

living with AIDS. It's about

[ Page 8261 ]

people at Vancouver Friends for Life and so many other organizations.

Today we

salute them. We ask that the whole province stop on December 1 and take a moment

to remember people living with AIDS and all of the people that serve them.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

S. Orr:

November 25 was International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In 1999 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution declaring

recognition on this day every year.

The origin

of this special day stems back to the 1960 murders of three sisters — Patria,

Minerva and Maria Teresa — who were political activists and highly visible

symbols of resistance to General Trujillo's dictatorship in the Dominican

Republic. These three courageous women were murdered by secret police while

being driven to visit their imprisoned husbands. Their bodies were later found

broken and strangled. The sisters have since become a symbol of the need to

eliminate violence against women worldwide.

November 25

also marks the beginning of 16 days of activism against gender violence. Within

those 16 days, on December 6, is the day of remembrance for the Montreal

massacre, where 14 female students were murdered while attending University of

Montreal school of engineering. They were murdered for being women.

Every

minute of every day of every month of every year — in fact, right this minute

— somewhere in this world a woman is being abused, beaten, raped or murdered.

This is such a sad fact and, unfortunately, a fact that can only be changed with

zero tolerance for violence against women. This is why the International Day for

the Elimination of Violence Against Women is so very important.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC RELEASE OF

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

MacPhail: The Premier has said that he's going to campaign in an election on

his broken promise to sell B.C. Rail. [Applause.] However, despite the

enthusiasm of the members who are still in the dark, he won't provide details of

the contract. How's that for openness and accountability? The Premier has said

this is a done deal. There's no necessity for confidentiality anymore. It's a

publicly owned asset, and British Columbians are the shareholders on one side of

this deal. If the Premier is so confident that he can win another election on

the deal, what's he hiding in the contracts that he refuses to reveal to British

Columbians?

Hon. J.

Reid: In the contracts there are two types of information. There is

commercially sensitive information, which that member should understand because

it was her government that exempted B.C. Rail from FOI. Then there's general

information, which will be released. That information will be released in the

first quarter of next year as all the details have been finalized.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: There is nothing in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts

the revelation of all the details, and we have requested the information under

freedom of information. There is nothing for the minister to hide behind, and

she knows that. This deal to sell B.C. Rail breaks a fundamental election

promise, but the government is too afraid to let British Columbians judge the

deal on its merit. All the Premier has provided the public is a bunch of press

releases and bad spin.

A very

minor point, but important to Prince George: he said that the deal would reduce

the cost of the Cameron Street Bridge in Prince George. It got front-page news.

Wrong. He was referring to the wrong bridge.

He said the

deal means B.C. Rail will pay municipal taxes, but he already promised that for

all Crown corporations. In fact, he hasn't delivered on that promise.

Again to

the Premier: why should British Columbians be expected to believe him now, when

his spin is full of holes and he's shown that he can't be trusted to keep his

promises? They can't hide behind the Freedom of Information Act, and the

minister knows that.

Hon. J.

Reid: There are so many people in this province that are so excited about

the positive news with B.C. Rail that this member cannot understand what the

excitement is about, cannot understand the growth opportunities, cannot

understand why the people of Prince George are excited and why the people of

Prince Rupert are excited. My goodness, even Dan Miller is excited about this.

As that

member knows, B.C. Rail was exempted from FOI because of that government's

decision, because of commercially sensitive information. Because she can't seem

to understand that…. Even though B.C. Rail is exempted, we have said that

whatever isn't commercially sensitive information will be released.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, certainly the CN shareholders are very excited. U.S.

business analysts yesterday and today are predicting that as a result of

stealing, in a good buy, B.C. Rail, CN will get — wait for it, Mr. Speaker —

a minimum of 18 percent return on their investment. Now, that information is

available in the United States. Somehow it's not available here.

Interjections.

MacPhail: You're right. CN gets a profit, not the taxpayers.

[ Page 8262 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MacPhail: A point that clearly the Liberal MLAs miss is that that profit

would have gone to the B.C. taxpayers. It's unbelievable that they don't

understand at all what they did when they broke their promise to not sell B.C.

Rail.

British

Columbians have a right to know what's in the contract that the Premier signed

on behalf of the shareholders of British Columbia. The CN shareholders know.

There's no keeping of information from the CN shareholders. If the Premier wants

to campaign on the contract he signed with CN, he should put the contract before

the voters. That's what he said he was going to campaign on.

Again to

the Premier: what exactly is he going to put before the voters when he said he

was going to campaign on his broken promise?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Campbell: What we intend to put before the voters is whether or not they

endorse an agreement that will move us forward to a whole new era of prosperity

and hope in the north of this province.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: What we intend to put before the voters is the fact that the

British Columbia Rail Company continues to own the right-of-way, continues to

own the railbed and continues to own the track; that the British Columbia

taxpayer will get $1 billion upfront; that the British Columbia taxpayer will be

able to write down $500 million of debt and pay it off on behalf of those

taxpayers.

Furthermore,

what we'll be able to show British Columbia taxpayers is a brand-new northwest

gateway to Asia for British Columbia and Canada. What we will show British

Columbia taxpayers is a new continental gateway in Prince George with a new

wheel shop, with a new northern office for CN, with 375 new jobs in Prince

George and the surrounding region through the airport. That's what we're showing

to British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF

B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROPOSALS

J. Kwan:

The Premier's got his facts wrong, and he knows it. He's just giving spin to

British Columbians. What he's doing is hiding the contract with CN. He won't

provide any of the details of the contracts with the other two bidders. As the

Premier knows, those two bidders are complaining that the bidding process was

unfair and biased in favour of CN. If the next election is going to be fought on

the Premier's broken promise to keep B.C. Rail, British Columbians should be

able to compare the proposals to make the judgment.

To the

Premier once again: if the Premier is so confident that he signed the best deal,

why won't he let British Columbians compare the deals and let them make the

judgment on their own?

Hon. J.

Reid: One of the reasons we have had such an excellent result with this

process is because of how we have…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …consulted in advance with the communities and with the shippers,

because we were so thorough with the work with the shippers in looking for the

shippers' advisers, the information…. That's how we've delivered, for the

shippers and for the communities, 600 new railcars — new railcars. B.C. Rail

couldn't do that. That's the investment of CN to be able to build this province.

That's where we have rate reduction for the interline shippers. That's where we

have a new subdivision reopening, which will create greater opportunities for

the grain to move in this province all the way to Prince Rupert. There are so

many benefits in this, it's unfortunate that member can't see them and won't

admit to them.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

If the deal is such a good deal, why won't this government let British

Columbians judge for themselves?

Last

time British Columbians took the Premier's word on B.C. Rail, he wasn't straight

with them. He promised not to sell B.C. Rail. Guess what. He broke that promise.

It's that simple. The Premier looks foolish trying to pretend otherwise.

Now he

says, "Trust me," again, but British Columbians won't be fooled once

again. They want to see the deal and what was signed, and they want to compare

it to the other proposals. It's not an unreasonable request for a government

that promised to be open and accountable.

Again to

the Premier: why is he hiding the contracts and the other proposals? Why is he

taking British Columbians for granted?

Hon. J.

Reid: It is unfortunate that these members don't understand business in the

slightest.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 8263 ]

[1430]

Hon. J.

Reid: For the proponents to even be entered into the bidding process, they

had to be assured of confidentiality. That was important to them, and that

maintains through the process. We will be judged on the results of this deal —

the results of the lower rates, the results of the railcars, the results of

increased service, the results of the Chicago express, the results of the

investment into this province. We will be judged on that, we're proud of that,

and everybody in B.C. sees that.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

ADVOCACY KIT

Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Education. A few days ago the

Vancouver school board issued a press release announcing that it was launching a

district-wide advocacy program. The COPE-dominated school board in Vancouver —

we all know it's a minor-league NDP team — is apparently so concerned with

student resources that they plan to blow money that could be used for students

on something called the Vancouver school board advocacy kit.

I am truly

concerned about this waste of money. I'm truly concerned that this money is not

going directly to students. Can the minister tell us how much funding the school

district receives and what parents can do to stop this initiative?

Hon. C.

Clark: I, too, have seen the campaign brochure from the Coalition of

Progressive Electors in Vancouver. I want to make clear a couple of things,

because the brochure does not talk about facts. It just talks about the

political campaign that this board is engaged in.

First of

all, this board received $384,000 more this year than last, despite the fact

that they have 500 fewer students. They talk in the brochure about how they're

having their tenth deficit in a row. Let me give you just a quick history. In

'97-98 they predicted a $3.9 million deficit. Their deficit was zero. In '98-99,

a $7.1 million prediction. Their deficit was zero. In '99-2000, an $11.8 million

deficit prediction. Who was in government then? I forget. The deficit was zero.

In 2000-01 they predicted a $5.2 million deficit. Their deficit was zero. Last

year they had a $6 million surplus. This year they have had a $12 million

surplus.

They will

not have a cut in per-student operating funding. In fact, they will have the

biggest per-student operating funding just like every other district in British

Columbia. So I say to the COPE school board: politics more properly belongs on

the campaign trail during an election period, not in the classrooms of

Vancouver.

SEVERANCE PACKAGES FOR

B.C. RAIL EMPLOYEES

Nettleton: I think it's time we generated some real questions for the

Minister of Education. I think she misses the rough-and-tumble of question

period.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Nettleton: I promise to work on that next week.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the

question.

Nettleton: To the Minister of Transportation. Since no one — not the

media, myself or the opposition — is likely to receive a copy of the B.C. Rail

agreement, I find myself reduced to asking the minister for a few scraps of

information from the bargaining table. I don't like to be repetitive, but I have

no choice when it comes to jobs, jobs, jobs, and this is at this time my chief

concern.

My question

is about the moneys that are being directed toward voluntary and involuntary

severance, quoted in the range of $45 million over the next three years, which

also leads me to wonder if that amount is indicative of the scale of downsizing.

Can the minister please comment on this issue?

Hon. J.

Reid: The workers at B.C. Rail who have really applied themselves in the

last few years to the initiatives that have been underway are very.… It's very

important that they're well respected and that they're well respected as we move

forward.

The

severances and early retirement packages that are going to be offered are going

to be quite generous. That's why the member is quoting a large figure. The

pension plan that the employees have will continue on with those employees for

and only for the benefit of the B.C. Rail employees currently engaged. CN does

not take on that. It does not merge with their pension plan. It stays with the

B.C. Rail employees.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

[1435]

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

W. Cobb:

I rise to present a petition of 1,077 names: "We the undersigned, hunting

enthusiasts of the Cariboo, realize that the moose population here is healthy

enough to support an open season for spike-fork bulls. This will provide

residents of the Cariboo similar opportunities for hunting moose in our own

region as other stakeholders have and as have the residents of regions 3, 6, 7

and 8."

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Plant: I rise to table the annual report of the British Columbia Treaty

Commission for 2003.

[ Page 8264 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 89.

Second Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

(REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Hon.

G. Campbell: I am proud today to stand up in support of the British Columbia

Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. I want to congratulate the

minister and all of the people in the public service of British Columbia who

have brought us to this exceptional day. There are times when those of us who

have the opportunity to serve in public life and elected office get to make a

decision that has enormous impact on the lives of the people that we serve. This

bill today gives us an opportunity to open a whole new era of opportunity and

prosperity for the northern region of our province, for the interior of our

province and indeed for the people of the province.

I am

particularly sad to note that all of the opposite members are not in the House

today, because I have a few comments that I'd like to make about the comments of

the new leader of the NDP. The new leader of the NDP has shown us that nothing

has changed in the NDP. She is carrying on the tradition that there is not a

debt that the NDP doesn't like. There is a tradition that says that somehow

profit is a bad thing, and we just heard this earlier today in the House. But

let me tell you, with this government we want to encourage private sector

investment. We want to turn our backs on debt and move forward with the new era

of prosperity, hope, jobs and opportunity for all British Columbians.

Let me say

to the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant that this is their chance. They have a vote in this House. They have a

free vote. Their leader won't even be here to watch what they're doing. Don't

listen to the leader of the NDP. She's against this piece of legislation. It's

time for them to stand up and vote yes for paying down the debt. It's time for

them to stand up and vote yes for economic development. It's time for them to

stand up and vote yes for new tourism opportunities, yes to open a new gateway

to the northwest, yes to open a new continental gateway in Prince George, yes to

hundreds and hundreds of new jobs for all British Columbians.

[1440]

The new

leader of the NDP has decided she doesn't want to be in this House, where she in

fact can have an impact on the future of our province. She says that she would

like to travel British Columbia. Well, let me invite the new leader of the NDP

to travel to Prince Rupert. Just take a moment to travel to Prince Rupert and

talk to the people of Prince Rupert about their dreams and hopes for their

community. Talk to them about their hopes for an expanded, scientifically sound

aquaculture industry that will provide jobs and opportunities in the northwest.

She is against those. Talk to them about their hopes for a new offshore oil and

gas industry that is scientifically sound and that paves the way for private

sector investment and for new jobs. The NDP leader is against that too. Talk to

them about the opportunity to create an exceptional port in the northwest that

takes our industry and our resources a day and a half closer to the most

important and expanding markets in the world, in Asia — to China, to India, to

the entire Asia-Pacific basin. Talk to them about that.

The NDP

leader is opposed, but I'll tell you, in Prince Rupert they want to move

forward. They want that port. It may even be possible for the new leader of the

NDP to talk to Dan Miller, the former NDP Premier, who said it was time we got

on with making these choices so that we could build the kind of economic future

the north deserves.

Let's just

go through the opportunities and the benefits this decision makes. First, there

will be continued public ownership of the right-of-way, of the railbed and of

the rails. We will maintain the British Columbia Railway Co., and it will hold

in perpetuity that asset which is so critical to the north and the interior of

the province. Just think of this — something that the members opposite may not

understand. The fact of the matter is that with a billion dollars in proceeds

upfront, we can pay down that $500 million debt which — make no mistake about

it — is a burden on B.C.'s taxpayers.

While we're

at it, I know that, again, the members opposite have suggested that somehow or

other the $860 million of write-downs that the taxpayers have been required to

do over the last 15 years just don't count. Well, it does count. That $860

million counts in the constantly growing debt that we saw under the previous

government. That $860 million counts in terms of opportunities that have been

taken away from British Columbia. I can tell you this: as we pay down that half

a billion dollars of debt, it will mean we don't have to pay $30 million a year

in interest. And that's good news for B.C.'s taxpayers.

As is often

the case, somehow or other the members opposite don't understand this. Most

taxpayers would rather it was the private sector that was providing critical

private services. Now, just think of this. Over the term of this agreement, CN,

in their new investment partnership agreement with us and B.C. Rail, will be

investing $40 million a year of private sector money in improving the track, the

rolling stock and the service for British Columbia's resource industries and

shippers across this province. That's a critical thing. I can tell you this:

when the private sector is willing to take on the risks, provide the resources,

focus their effort on providing increased and improved services to all of us, we

should say: "Thank you very much. We want that private sector investment in

this province. That's how we're getting jobs, and that's how we're building

opportunity."

The CEO of

B.C. Rail told the public the other day that under the constraints B.C. Rail has

had to operate under in the past, it was not possible for them to ex-

[ Page 8265 ]

pand services. We heard from shippers last year and we heard from mayors and

community leaders across the north that it was time for us to maintain our

public commitment to hold the ownership of B.C. Rail's right-of-way, their track

and the railbed, but that it was time for us to ask in a new investor to try and

provide better services for British Columbians. They recognized that as a

critical component of their economic future, as a cornerstone to building the

kind of hope and opportunity they deserve up and down the rail track and

throughout the north.

I am proud

today that because of the work of this Minister of Transportation and this

government, we are able to deliver on that commitment and recommendation from

the north. Our shippers said there were not enough railcars; they couldn't

depend on the rail service. As you know, what was happening was that instead of

shipping through the rail, they were moving onto the roads.

[1445]

Our goal is

to make sure that the rail system is flourishing. We have a commitment for the

building of 600 new centre-beam cars to increase the car availability. We have a

commitment that there will be an upgrading of literally hundreds and hundreds of

cars across those tracks.

There will

be faster transit times from Prince George down to Vancouver. There will be much

faster transit times from Prince George to the core of the continental

marketplace in Chicago. Two days faster we will get our product from British

Columbia to our customers. That makes our industries more competitive, and that

means we have more opportunities for more investment here in B.C. and more jobs

in British Columbia.

When the

leader of the NDP travels around the province, I recommend that she take some

time to talk to Peace River farmers, who are now going to watch as the Dawson-Hythe

subdivision is reopened. Talk to the prairie farmers who are asking for faster

access to Asian markets. Talk to them about the benefit of being one and a half

days closer to those marketplaces for their grains and products.

Talk about

what it means in Tumbler Ridge when someone says: "We are maintaining that

rail line for the next five years for you to decide how you can use it to

benefit your industries and your people and create jobs in your community."

Talk to Tumbler Ridge. Talk to Peace River. Talk to the Dawson Creek farmers.

Talk to the people in Fort Nelson. I'll tell you what they'll tell the NDP

leader: "It's time we did this. It's time we moved forward. Let's get on

with building the future of this province."

Let's make

no mistake. We are protecting this rail network. When you really listen to what

people have said to us throughout this province, they've said that this rail

network is a critical piece of public sector infrastructure, and we are

maintaining that under public ownership. Not only that, but the D'Arcy-Lillooet

and the Takla shuttle services will be continued. We will watch as, indeed, we

have a partner that is trying to build this business, and in building this

business up and down the track, we are in an effort to make sure we have jobs up

and down the track. The day before yesterday a request for proposal was put out

for the expansion of rail tour facilities throughout the province of British

Columbia, and that will mean hundreds of jobs.

Talk to the

people in Squamish. Ask them how excited they are about the new 71 acres that

are available for the redevelopment of their downtown. Ask them about what that

will do to help them springboard off the advantages that the 2010 Winter Olympic

Games provide. Ask them about the jobs that will be created, and then ask them

if they support us moving forward with a new partnership, an investment

partnership. They will say yes — yes, yes and yes again.

I hope

she'll take time to talk to the people of Prince George, because I know this.

For years the people of Prince George have said it's time to move the head

operations of B.C. Rail to Prince George. That's going to happen. For years

they've told us that Prince George is ready to take on its true role as a

continental gateway for the northern part of our province. That's going to

happen.

We have

said that as a result of this deal, there will be $4 million made available for

the expansion of Prince George's airport runway. There will be an expansion of

customs facilities. There will be 75 new jobs in Prince George and 300 indirect

jobs in the region. Those are jobs that will be based on a strong, new, exciting

gateway to the continent that Prince George represents for all of us. Ask them

if they want that, and they will say: "Yes, it's time to move

forward."

Then as she

goes through, ask any community in the north whether they will benefit from the

opening up of the northwest gateway in Prince Rupert. Ask them if they'll

benefit from an expansion of the containerization facility and the $17.2 million

the government has decided to invest. Ask them if they will benefit from CN's

$15 million investment in track upgrades and improvements so that people can get

closer to the marketplace faster. Ask them if they think that's a strong and

sensible transportation investment for the northern part of our province, and

they will say yes.

There is

one group that will not say yes unless the two members opposite have the courage

to stand up and do what's right for British Columbia. The NDP keeps saying no,

but it is their chance to say yes. I invite them to join us as we move forward

in building a stronger future for the north and the interior of this great

province. That's what it's time for them to do.

[1450]

There is no

question, when you talk to people of the north, when you listen to the voices of

the people of the north and the interior part of our province, they will tell us

it's time for us to give them the opportunity to make their own choices, to

direct their own investments, to take the benefits of British Columbia's assets

and use them for their communities' benefits and their regions' benefits. The

new northern development initiative is aimed directly at putting in the hands of

[ Page 8266 ]

northerners investments that will take advantage of northern and interior

opportunities up and down the rail line and throughout this province.

That's $135

million for investments in forestry, in pine beetle recovery, in transportation,

in Olympic opportunities, in new tourism product development, in mining, in

energy development — $135 million in the hands of northerners to do what's

best for the north. In spite of the opposition pointing out how little they had

yesterday, they haven't even taken the time to read what's available to them.

The $135

million will be broken down in the following way: $25 million will be created as

an endowment. The northern development initiative head office will be in the

city of Prince George. It is through that head office that northerners will be

able to determine the tasks they would like to move forward with. They will be

able to look at economic development strategies that meet their needs, without

interference from the government in Victoria.

Equally

important, $15 million will be made available to each of four regions: the

northwest, the Peace, the Prince George region and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet

region. Those communities will have advisory councils who will decide where,

when, why and on what they want to invest those investment dollars. They can

decide to invest all of it in a year and a half. They can take time to do it.

But this is what's critical; this is what the NDP is opposed to. They was

opposed to it when they were in government, and they remain opposed. What's

critical is that we are giving people in the regions of this province the

opportunity to make their own decisions about what's best for those regions.

That's $25

million for an endowment for the northern development initiative, $15 million

for each of four regions and $50 million to invest on cross-regional initiatives

that will meet the needs of the north and the interior. It is time for us to

recognize that by providing resources to those community leaders, to those

regions, we will indeed benefit greatly as a province, because we believe the

economy of the north is a part of our future. It's a critical part of our

future, and it's a critical part of long-term sustainable communities in this

province. That's why I am so proud to be supporting this bill today.

Each day

that we stand in this House and work in this House, we have an opportunity to

make choices. This bill paves the way for a new future for northern communities

in British Columbia. It opens up new worlds of possibility for investment and

growth and jobs. It moves us forward with a $1 billion private sector

investment, with a new partnership that will see literally billions pumped into

our economy over the next 60 to 90 years — billions of dollars to help create

jobs and create opportunity. It delivers on a fundamental election commitment of

this government to create a whole new era of hope and prosperity for the next

decade and beyond.

This piece

of legislation guarantees that we will not sell B.C. Rail. It guarantees that

B.C. Rail's right-of-way and tracks will be kept in public ownership. It

guarantees that the railbed will be there for the public. B.C. Rail Company is a

Crown corporation, and it is an asset that will remain in public hands.

[1455]

I know the

members opposite will never let that central fact get in the way of their

opportunity to vote for this investment. They can't bear to accept that we're

only doing what we said we'd do. This is a smart deal. This is a good agreement.

This is a vital agreement for the future of this province.

We can pay

off $500 million of debt, we can save $30 million a year in interest, and we

will still have enough for another $500 million of investment in opportunities

and jobs throughout this province.

We can cut

the cost of interline shipping by up to 7 percent. We can cut travel times to

North Vancouver. We can cut travel times to the heart of the continent. We can

create an operating partner who will help us reduce shipping times to the east

by two days, as I mentioned earlier. We can provide first nations with true

benefits from this, as we establish a $15 million trust to benefit the first

nations up and down the B.C. Rail line. There will be a new $1 million wheel

shop in Prince George. There will be the new western district head office in

Prince George.

Again, just

as a quick aside, yesterday a member of the opposition said that she didn't

think this wheel shop was such a big deal. Well, let me just tell you that what

we're actually doing is creating in Prince George a wheel shop which will be

state of the art. In Squamish right now — it's true — they are doing about

3,000 wheels a year. In the operation in Prince George they will do on the order

of 40,000 wheels a year.

We will be

doing something even more important that we told British Columbians we would do.

We're going to bring jobs back home to this province. We're bringing jobs from

Washington State, and we're bringing jobs from Winnipeg. We're bringing them to

Prince George, where they should have been all along and where they're going to

be in the future.

As we look

at the excess lands up and down the rail line, we see opportunities for

communities up and down British Columbia. But equally important, over the next

60 years communities can know that they can count on getting the full value of

their property tax paid on a regular basis — not grants-in-lieu but full

property tax.

What does

this mean to local communities? Let me just give you some examples. In the

district of North Vancouver they currently get $156,000 as a grant in lieu of

tax. Following the completion of this partnership agreement, they will get

$716,000 a year — almost half a million dollars more a year. In the city of

North Vancouver a $5,500 grant-in-lieu will be expanded to $256,000 as property

tax that will go to those people.

In the

Peace River regional district, the mighty Peace, they currently get $59,000 in

grants-in-lieu. Following the completion of this B.C. Rail partnership

investment agreement, they will get $1.3 million a year in property taxes. In

100 Mile House they'll watch as their property tax goes up by five times. In

Quesnel they'll watch as their property tax goes up by three

[ Page 8267 ]

times. That means resources for critical community services that people need

in those resource communities up and down the rail line, and that's what this

agreement does for those communities.

As we

decide as a Legislature whether or not to support this bill, let me say this.

This is a time for everyone to look to the future, to imagine for a moment what

can happen in British Columbia. Instead of listening to the naysayers who will

tell you what can't happen and how difficult it is to dream and how we should

just keep on looking back, wouldn't it be great to start looking ahead — to

start looking to the north of our province and seeing in our vision of the north

a great northwestern port in Prince Rupert and a great city in Prince George

that's a gateway to the continent that provides service and opportunities to

people throughout our North American marketplace?

Wouldn't it

be great to look to the Peace and see Peace River farmers saying that our grain

is getting to our customers quickly? Wouldn't it be great to go to Terrace and

hear them talk with excitement about what's happening in the mining industry and

the energy industry? Wouldn't it be great to go to 100 Mile House and to

Williams Lake and hear them talk about the new exciting tourism potential and

tourism product they have? Wouldn't it be great for British Columbians to dream

again and to know that they can reach those dreams because we've given them the

tools to do just that? Wouldn't that be great, Mr. Speaker?

[1500]

We all

inherited a great province from those who came before, but we should never

underestimate the fact that every major decision — every important decision

that was made — comes with those who are optimists, who are looking to the

future with excitement, and overcomes those who are pessimists, who are

constantly telling us what's wrong. Well, I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker: there

is nothing wrong with British Columbia. British Columbia is the place to live.

British Columbia is the place to work. British Columbia is the place to build a

future for everybody that lives here. British Columbians are ready to move

forward. They are excited by the potential of this province, and by passing this

legislation today, we take our place in allowing British Columbians to build the

future they want.

Some will

always say no. Some will always be opposed. They'll be opposed to investment.

They'll be opposed to jobs. They'll be opposed and frightened of the future. I

hope this government shows that we are excited by the future. We are excited by

the potential of British Columbia. We're excited by the north. And let me tell

you this: this is a government that will listen to the voices of the north and

that will listen to the call of the people of the interior. It's a call to the

future. It's a call to build the kind of society people want, where there are

jobs and opportunities and hope. It's a call that this government will heed when

we vote yes, and that's what I intend to do.

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, the first thing I want to say is — and you will not be

surprised by this — that I am excited about the future of the north. With all

sincerity, I want you to know that as a resident of the northern part of the

province of British Columbia…. I look across to the other benches, to my

colleagues who live where I live, and I look at the smiles and the excitement,

because for the first time in a very long time in this Legislature we have heard

the words "the north." We have heard "Prince George" and

"Prince Rupert" — all of those communities up and down the line. We

care about the north. I'm proud to work for and with a Premier who understands

the north.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

I want to

begin my comments today by speaking just a little bit about the process that's

evolved as we've looked at a most difficult and challenging decision for this

government to have made. It required bold leadership, it required a sense of

vision, and most importantly, it required listening to hear the voices of the

people of the north. I have lived in the north my entire life, and I believe

this is the best thing that has happened for the northern part of this province

in a very long time.

[1505]

It's a

pleasure to work with the Premier, who said to us: "I want you to go home

and listen to the concerns of the people you serve." He believes that

serving is what our job is all about. He said: "Go home and make a list. I

want you to bring back the concerns. I want you to bring back the hopes. I want

you to bring back the dreams of the people that are telling you what they want

for the part of the world they live in."

I want you

to know this: he listened, he paid attention, and he acted. He provided the

leadership that was necessary to move this province and, from my perspective,

more importantly, to move the northern part of this province forward.

I am so

proud of the bill that the Minister of Transportation has brought to the floor

of this House today, and I am proud to stand in support of it. You see, at home

today, despite what you are hearing on the opposite side of this House, I heard

the words "hope," "excitement," "opportunity,"

"potential." The community is buzzing. Do you know how long it's been

since we have felt like that in Prince George?

I want you

to know something. We recognized something in this process very early on. There

was something we all agreed on, those of us who live in the northern part of

this province. We need a railway. We know it's important, but we needed a

railway that was efficient. We needed it to be competitive. We needed it, most

importantly, to be sustainable for our children and their children. We wanted it

to provide good jobs, but we also wanted it to be the economic driver for the

northern part of this province.

We all

agreed on that, and I can assure you that even the members opposite would agree.

What we didn't agree on was who should actually be responsible for ensuring that

economic driver remained viable and had the opportunity to grow.

[ Page 8268 ]

We knew one

thing: we needed to protect the asset, and that's exactly what we did. You see,

we're going to make sure, through this legislation, that we guarantee that the

right-of-way, the railbed and the track are legally enshrined under public

ownership. That's protecting the asset.

I'm

absolutely amazed at people's inability to understand the word

"lease." You see, we're protecting the asset, but we're creating a new

operating model. That's simply what we're doing. We're finding a partner who is

going to operate this railway to the benefit not just of those people where I

live but of the entire province. That is responsible, it is effective, and it is

going to generate results for years and decades to come.

understand where we are, we must look at the past. While we may want to deny

some of the facts, which has certainly been commonplace over the last couple of

days, we have to look at why and how we got ourselves to this position today.

First of all, northern leaders came to us and said: "The status quo is

unacceptable. We must look at a new way of doing business." We also needed

to find new ways to reinvest in this railway, and, simply put, we don't have the

resources to do that.

Let me

remind you and this House of a number: $857 million. Now, one might want to

trivialize or minimize that number or even try to suggest that it isn't actually

debt. Think about it. That's how much British Columbia's taxpayers have paid to

write down the debts of B.C. Rail over the past 15 years. Just think about what

$857 million can do.

Certainly,

we have to look at another number: $502 million. That is the current amount of

B.C. Rail's debt. Those numbers just begin to give you a sense of the picture

about why we needed to deal with the B.C. Rail situation.

[1510]

More than a

year ago, northern mayors gathered, and they came and spoke to us and said:

"We think you should consider a public-private partnership for the

operation of this railway." Under the Premier's leadership, this government

worked with those mayors and with other key stakeholders to create a request for

proposals. That RFP laid out clear ground rules for finding a partner. The

guidelines were clear. We needed to look at the issues of sustainability,

competitiveness, growth opportunities and significant community benefits.

We all knew

what the problem was. We knew that B.C. Rail needed to grow. It required

expansion of its capital assets, and we needed to find a partner to ensure that

that would take place. The shippers knew it, the municipal leaders understood

it, and the company acknowledged it. Northerners demanded a new approach. They

deserve a new approach, one that recognizes the contributions of the north, and

with this legislation and with the partnership agreement, that's exactly what

we've got. Let's look at one other number: $1 billion. Our partnership with CN

Rail will generate $1 billion, upfront, of investment in British Columbia.

One of my

primary concerns, and certainly my colleague from Prince George North shared

this concern…. We are concerned for the men and the women who operate and run

the railway. I can honestly say that one of the most challenging things during

the past number of months — in fact, probably a year as we've explored this

possibility and looked for a dynamic partnership — was our concern for those

employees and for their families. You see, we do care about jobs. It's important

to look for new jobs and increased jobs, but we care about the jobs we have in

our community, the existing employees and their families. It matters to us,

despite what you might hear and the rhetoric and nonsense that you hear. There

were numbers in our community that were being discussed and people who

contributed to that with uncertainty and fearmongering — numbers as high as,

for our community, 350 and across the province, thousands. Those numbers were

unacceptable to me and to my colleague and certainly to the members of this

House.

What did we

do about that? Did we sit back and do nothing? Absolutely not. We were at the

table. We were here in Victoria bringing those concerns. We were sharing the

concerns that we have for the workers in our community. We wanted to make sure

that they were treated fairly and respectfully.

Think about

the end result. Throughout the entire B.C. Rail network, there will be 180

involuntary job reductions over the next three years. Although restructuring is

never easy, we will see a reduction of 25 positions from our communities over

the next three years. I know that our partner, CN…. Certainly, we heard it

clearly articulated just two days ago that there would be concern, and we will

work hard. In fact, and I quote — paraphrase, perhaps, is safest — CN

committed that: "We will bend over backwards to be sensitive to the needs

of people."

B.C.'s own

executive said that status quo job loss, more job loss, would have been

inevitable. So we've worked hard. We've worked hard as MLAs. We've worked hard

as a government. The team that worked hard on our behalf, who have done an

outstanding job, concentrated on their priorities as well — jobs for the

province and jobs, protection, for those people who live in our communities and

those communities which B.C. Rail serves up and down the province.

This

partnership will be a major source of economic development for the entire

province. But in my community — the community of Prince George, the city of

Prince George — the benefits are enormous. I am actually shocked by the

comments of people who have suggested…. Let me give you one quote: "The

northern MLAs' communities are getting the shaft on this deal."

[1515]

Let me just

read you one or two or three or four or five or six of the benefits that the

people of Prince George will enjoy. Prince George will be the location of CN's

new B.C. northern division office, finally bringing a regional rail office to

Prince George. Let me tell you a little bit about that division office. Prince

George has been chosen as the office. It will be the home to trans-

[ Page 8269 ]

portation, customer service, engineering, mechanical and general management

employees. That is a significant and sustainable commitment to the city of

Prince George and to the province of British Columbia.

We will

also be the site of the new million-dollar, state-of-the-art wheel shop that the

Premier so accurately described. Think about that. We've been chosen as the site

for the wheel shop. As a result of that new investment, CN will perform all of

its western Canadian work in Prince George, which is now performed in Winnipeg.

As well, some of the jobs that are created will be attracted from work that is

currently being outsourced to U.S. suppliers. That is a long-term and

sustainable commitment to Prince George and British Columbia.

The people

of Prince George also wanted to expand their airport. They want to look at

terminal and runway improvements. They want to look at cargo opportunities. They

needed a customs office to be able to expand. To make that happen, $4 million

will go to the Prince George Airport Authority. That results in direct and

indirect jobs that can only benefit our community.

One of the

most exciting components of the opportunities that are before us relates to

tourism opportunities and passenger rail services. Imagine. People are actually

competing now to have the right to run tourism and passenger opportunities on

the railway. Think about what that means. It means the opportunity for more

jobs, opportunities in the hospitality and tourism industry. It means the

possibility of circuit tours. It means endless opportunities. And that's just

the beginning. New tax revenues for our municipality will help fund our local

services, and that is important to us.

The new

Chicago express — and it is a new Chicago express — will transport freight

to one of our largest markets quicker and more efficiently — in fact, in 90

hours.

This is

also good news as we look at being competitive and we enter the global market.

But think about it. We're not just talking about railways. We're not just

talking about airports. We're talking about ports as well. Prince George will be

the gateway to the north. Think about the possibilities. I can't imagine people

not wanting to be supportive of a bill and an opportunity that is all about

benefit for the northern part of the province, for the middle part of the

province — in fact, for the entire province of British Columbia.

Perhaps one

of the things that has been most meaningful for me as we've explored how we move

forward with this proposal was a discussion with the Premier that led to the

creation of more opportunity for northerners. One of the things people say in

Prince George and other places in the north — in McBride and Valemount and the

communities I represent — is: "Do they actually listen to us in Victoria?

Does anyone actually pay attention to us? You know, sometimes if government

would just get out of the way and let us make some of those decisions ourselves,

that would be a very good thing." I can't begin to tell you how pleased I

am that $135 million is being returned to northerners to support economic

development and investment in things like forestry and pine beetle recovery,

transportation, tourism, mining, Olympic opportunities and small businesses.

[1520]

The best

news about this is that this fund is not going to be administered in Victoria.

In fact, it is going to be administered by northerners with regional advisory

committees for each of the four regions of the north. We will decide what the

priorities are, and we will provide that input. Think about that. How can we not

be supportive of an opportunity that allows people to be directly involved in

the decisions that will assist us in rebuilding our economy? Decisions being

made in the north, for the north, by the people of the north — that just makes

great sense. I thank both the Premier and the minister for returning this

investment and this opportunity to those of us who live in the north.

For the

past few months I've heard all of the critics and all of the detractors,

especially those across from us in this chamber, talk about how somehow the

status quo was good enough. I guess that's perhaps one government's idea —

that the solution is just to do nothing. You know, there have been countless

opportunities over the last ten years in the previous government's mandate to

help the north. They didn't decide to build a stronger B.C. Rail, and they did

little for economic growth in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, we went to

the status of being a have-not province.

Now their

new leader is certainly a supporter of the 1990s edition of that government. I

guess she's prepared to stand up and say to the people of Prince George:

"No, I don't want a million-dollar wheel shop. No, I don't want a

divisional headquarters in Prince George. No, I don't want more parkland. No, I

don't want to preserve jobs. No, I don't want to look at future economic

development in this part of the province." Well, that's simply not good

enough.

It's time,

as the Premier suggested, that we respond to the call of the north, and that's

exactly what we intend to do. People in my community would be astounded and

horrified if we turned our backs on renewed investment in the rail line,

eliminating public debt, 600 new cars and an expansion of service, lower rates,

improved access to markets and, most importantly, long-term protection of the

rail network.

During the

decade the NDP was in power, community leaders in Prince George repeatedly asked

that government to put B.C. Rail's head office in our city. They did nothing. CN

Rail is going to make Prince George the home of its new B.C. north division

office. As I said, it will be home to transportation, customer service,

engineering, mechanical and general management opportunities. This is long

overdue.

You can't

simply not make investment and assume the entity will thrive. During the 1990s

there was no investment. There was no necessary investment in ensuring the

sustainability of B.C. Rail. CN Rail is going to purchase 600 new centre-beam

cars and upgrade 1,500 more. That is how you help build and grow a rail network.

CN is issuing, in partnership, a request for proposals for passenger tourist

train service. Two com-

[ Page 8270 ]

panies have already expressed great interest in operating the service. That

is how you generate new tourism opportunities.

This

partnership is good news for my community. In fact, I was pleased to hear the

member for Prince George–Omineca recognize the opportunities that exist. He

said recently in an interview: "The fact that there will be a wheel repair

shop and headquarters in Prince George generating millions of dollars by way of

municipal taxes — that is a very good thing for Prince George and

beyond."

So often we

believe that decisions are made in the south, and they don't reflect northern

realities. Now, with the $135 million northern development initiative, we will

be able to decide how our money is spent. We're going to choose the projects

that work for northerners. We're going to work with first nations, and we're

going to exert more control over our own destiny.

There have

been so many words exchanged and rumours exchanged over the past number of

months, but times have changed, and the way we operate has changed. The bottom

line is that B.C. Rail needs an investment and an infusion of capital.

[1525]

Canfor's

CEO, David Emerson, a respected businessman, puts the case succinctly:

"The

fact is they have not had that scale and size and sort of general level of

efficiency and staying power for the long haul. We have to plan to do business

with a railway that's going to be around in ten years or 15 years, and we

don't have that confidence today with B.C. Rail. It's not because we don't

like B.C. Rail or we don't like their people. It's because, by their own

admission, they're not a viable railway today."

Mr. Emerson

is not the only shipper who saw the need for improvements to rail

infrastructure. A group of large forest product companies in B.C. has also

expressed the need for changes that allow for a competitive, efficient and

service-oriented railway. This deal provides the shippers with a competitive

advantage. Forestry is what drives our economy, and they now have quicker access

to their markets. As well, they will receive an average rate reduction of 7

percent for interline rail shipments. This is good news for companies who need

an efficient and effective rail system.

I think our

mayor, Colin Kinsley, said it best. As we go through this, you'll see what has

happened with the rate reduction for the shippers. I mean, that's good for us.

The acquisition of 600 I-beam cars so that it will satisfy the shippers' needs

to get back on the rail — that's good news. CN upgrading the tunnels between

here and Prince Rupert to allow for double-decking or piggybacking for

containerization. The province announcing $17.5 million for the port of Prince

Rupert — more good news.

I was born

and raised in Prince George. I know the passion of the people and the

entrepreneurial spirit of the northern communities. I know and believe that a

railway is important. I know how difficult this decision has been, and the

results have been a challenge for the people where I live. I've spent a lot of

time listening to those people who were concerned that we were simply going to

give it away, sell it away, give it up. We're simply not prepared to do that.

The north

needs leadership, and it needs a plan. It needs bold and courageous ways to

revitalize our economy so that our children and our grandchildren have a future

not just in the province but in Prince George where we choose to make our homes.

This agreement says that northerners deserve to be full partners in the success

of British Columbia. Today we begin moving forward to our goal of creating

economic growth and sustainable communities. We believe in the north, and we now

have the tools to construct a stronger economy.

As we move

forward, as we face the days ahead, we know there is much work yet to be done in

Prince George and in the north. But I believe that through this bill, through

this deal, through this partnership, we've given the north the tools, the

opportunity and the hope that it absolutely deserves.

Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 89, to

revitalize B.C. Rail. During the past two years or so that I have been in this

House, I have travelled all across the central interior, throughout the Cariboo

and up north as far as Dawson Creek. Everyone I spoke to up there told me their

concerns about B.C. Rail, because that transportation system is the economic

lifeline for the forest industry in all those communities that I visited.

What I find

so encouraging about this bill that we are speaking about today and about this

new partnership between B.C. Rail and CN Rail is that it has the support of the

mayors and the councils in the central interior and in the north. Prince

George's mayor, Colin Kinsley, says that this partnership is exciting. All the

things we asked, the government was able to negotiate, and the MLAs worked hard

to negotiate that on behalf of them. The Prince Rupert mayor, Herb Pond, called

the announcement of this agreement an exciting day for the people of Prince

Rupert and anyone else who lives along the transportation corridor. Fort St.

John mayor, Steve Thorlakson, says: "I really believe this is

progress."

Those

comments give me the strength and conviction that this agreement is a good deal

for all of British Columbia, and it gives me confidence in responding to the

constituents who say they are not happy with this decision because they believe

we are selling off assets to balance our budget. This simply is not true. The

revenues government gains from this partnership will go to transportation

improvements, to paying off B.C. Rail's enormous debt, to revitalizing the

northern economy.

[1530]

B.C. Rail

was not consistently a moneymaker. It was not earning enough to improve its

services or to buy the necessary rolling stock. Its income was not sufficient to

keep it going over the long term. However, this partnership will ensure that

what is now B.C. Rail

[ Page 8271 ]

continues as a viable, successful and efficient transportation system. In

fact, without this partnership with CN Rail, which Premier Campbell has so

vigorously pursued, the future of B.C. Rail was in great doubt. That means that

the economy of the north, already so battered by the softwood lumber dispute and

pine beetle epidemic, would be in jeopardy. While B.C. Rail has been making a

modest profit sometimes over the past couple of years, half of the profit was

going to interest payments on its enormous half-billion-dollar debt. B.C. Rail,

without this partnership, is unsustainable over the long term. It is not making

enough money to replace aging rolling stock. It is not making enough money to

ensure its future.

The B.C.

government, over the past 15 years, has written off almost $900 million of debt

of B.C. Rail. That is taxpayers' money. This partnership not only ensures B.C.

Rail will become more efficient and effective, but it also eliminates a huge

taxpayers' debt. It strengthens the economy of the north and the interior, and

it will translate into tremendous economic spinoff that will create jobs, ensure

security for families and ensure British Columbia's products will continue to

flow to foreign customers.

As I

mentioned, I have visited most of the areas along the B.C. Rail corridor. I have

been to Prince Rupert, which will benefit greatly from this agreement through

the development and expansion of its container port. I have been to Terrace,

Kitimat, Smithers, Houston and Prince George. All of these communities will see

their economies grow, their prosperity increase and their residents enjoy

long-term security because of this agreement and this bill we have been debating

today.

I have also

toured the Houston sawmill, which is the most modern lumber mill in the world. I

understand they also have plans to construct the largest and most efficient mill

in the world in Houston. This bill will ensure that those sawmills will continue

to create jobs and employ people in good-paying jobs, because now they will be

able to — and they are assured they will be able to — get their products to

the markets quickly. In fact, I'm told that by utilizing CN's network of tracks

and system, B.C. lumber will now be able to get to the markets such as Chicago

two days sooner. That speed and efficiency translate into saved costs, greater

profits, more money in the pockets of those who work and live in the northern

communities.

I travelled

through the Cariboo, visiting Williams Lake, Quesnel and 100 Mile House. These

communities are forest-dependent, and the forest industry is dependent on

effective rail service. This agreement will ensure that the residents of those

communities will have jobs and a future and their families will have a

comfortable lifestyle.

There has

been some talk of job loss within B.C. Rail, but my understanding is that the

net impact of this will be minimal, if at all, because there will be other jobs

created, other industries moving in those towns. Premier Campbell has assured us

that all of that $135 million resulting from this agreement will be directed to

the northern communities to invest there to create more opportunities.

CN will be

building a state-of-the-art wheel plant in Prince George. It will establish a

divisional headquarters in the northern city, and it will bring locomotive and

freight car repair work to the city. This means jobs, and it means prosperity

for all those towns. As well, as part of this agreement, the government will be

providing Prince George with $4 million to support airport improvements. Another

$17.2 million will be going into Prince Rupert for its container terminal, and

the revenue the communities currently receive in property taxes from B.C. Rail

will see the source go up more than four and a half times.

[1535]

Prince

Rupert is 440 miles closer to the Asian markets than any other port in North

America. That makes the travel time to Asia two days less than currently

available from anywhere in North America, and that means more ships, more money

going into our northern coastal communities and communities all along the B.C.

Rail line.

The list of

benefits goes on and on. That is why I am encouraged by the support this

agreement has from interior mayors and councils and by the prosperity that this

agreement ensures for the residents of the north. This partnership is good for

the heartlands, and it is good for British Columbia. That's why I wholeheartedly

support this bill.

Krueger: I also am delighted to rise and support this bill today in the

Legislature.

What is a

railway, Mr. Speaker? I saw that Michael Smyth wrote a bit of a humorous column

the other day and referred to Gordon Lightfoot's Canadian Railroad Trilogy .

It's a trilogy, a group of songs that are some of my wife's favourite music. It

starts out: "There was a time in this fair land when the railway did not

run, when the wild majestic mountains stood alone against the sun."

The

railroad has always been part of Canadians' understanding of the character of

Canada. Our transcontinental railways were symbols of the opening up of a new

land — as Gordon Lightfoot said: "Bringing goods to a young, growing

land." But when Canadians think about that, when they think about

railroads, I suggest that they think about the right-of-way, the railbed and the

tracks. Everything else is pretty much under attack by Mother Nature all the

time. Whether it's the rolling stock, the offices, the buildings, the cars or

the locomotives, it's subject to rust, rot, and wear and tear. But the railway

is the track; the railway is the railbed; the railway is the real estate.

When I see

people setting their hair on fire about privatizing B.C. Rail, I suggest that's

absolute nonsense. Everything that was a part of this deal is replaceable. I'm

thrilled that a private sector operator that knows how to run a railroad and has

a tremendous reputation around this continent is going to assume that

responsibility and, in the process, open a

[ Page 8272 ]

whole new world of opportunities for northern British Columbians.

We had an

old steam locomotive sitting in Riverside Park in Kamloops for decades. I used

to climb on it when I was a kid, when we visited there. It was out of

commission. It was one of those pieces of rolling stock that had reached the end

of its useful life, so it was set there as a souvenir of the way things used to

be in the steam days. A lot of railroaders felt pretty badly about how it was

corroding and were worried about children getting hurt on it. Eventually it was

fenced off. After a time, a group of them formed, and they took that locomotive

out of the park. They put it in a big shed and worked for thousands of hours

restoring it, and now it runs like a living piece of history, like a

user-friendly museum on a track around the Kamloops area.

Well, we

aren't interested in looking backwards with regard to BCR. We are looking

forward. This is not the privatization of a railway but the entering into a new

partnership, a new and exciting partnership that will be wonderful for all

British Columbians but especially for northerners. It's a great deal when you

can have your services provided by someone with the expertise of a CNR and you

can have all of the benefits that my colleagues have been talking about in this

House — including, fantastically, the paying off of $500 million in debt. What

a phenomenal thing that is.

Debt is

something that most Canadians historically have been pretty leery of. We don't

like having to pay interest; we don't like that debt looming over us and binding

our hands as to what we can do in the future. It's an issue that the past

government wasn't particularly worried about, and we saw that with their

approaches to business, with $300 million dumped into Skeena Cellulose, with

nearly half a billion dollars dumped into the fast ferries — all sorts of

failed efforts to be in competition with the private sector, in business as

government.

[1540]

This

government has said very clearly, before we were elected and since, that we

don't really believe that government should be in the business of doing

business. We believe in steering; we don't believe in rowing. We believe that

the private sector does a better job of that. So everything that we have sold in

this transaction is something that is corruptible by nature, something that will

have to be replaced. We have a private sector partner with deep enough pockets

to take on that responsibility and fully intend to make money at it, which I'm

sure they will, with no risk to British Columbians of any further debt

accumulating, with no responsibility to pay $30 million a year in interest any

longer and with all of these tremendous investments in the north country. What a

fantastic thing that is.

If you

lease your car, Mr. Speaker, do you privatize your driveway? Of course not. What

a silly question. Some of the things we're hearing from our critics are just as

silly as that. If all of this angst is just political stuff, of course, we can

laugh that off. We can deal with it. The NDP can set their hair on fire all they

like. They've got their track record. They took a debt of $16.5 billion

accumulated over 125 years of B.C. government and transformed it into a debt of

$34 billion in ten years, where we're left paying almost $3 billion a year in

interest, even though interest rates are the lowest we've ever seen them in our

lifetimes. They don't have too much in the way of credentials to speak from, but

it never seems to give them pause from speaking anyway.

They

demonstrated throughout their term in office that they know absolutely nothing

about running businesses and that they didn't learn anything in those sad ten

years they were in power. They also don't understand debt or the fact that it's

always the same taxpayer who has to shoulder that debt — the same taxpayer

we're talking about. I've listened in amazement to their response to second

reading in this House and how they just do not believe it. I think they honestly

do not believe that B.C. Rail's debt was public debt, never mind the fact that

they absorbed $840 million into the taxpayers' general debt as a result of the

accumulated losses of BCR. We still have a $500 million debt to pay off with

this transaction. The NDP has always appeared to believe that if they can

somehow assign the debt to some other public entity, they don't have to consider

it public debt.

The day of

us pouring billions of dollars into deficits created by government's failed

attempts to run businesses — whether it's B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, Skeena

Cellulose or anything else — are happily over. We don't want taxpayers to have

to continue to absorb carrying charges, and now they won't — at least with

regard to this venture.

legislative assistant just sent a copy of an e-mail to me in the House, and it

says:

just had a charming and ecstatic phone call from one of your constituents, who

unfortunately refused to give me her name but wanted me to tell you how

thrilled she was about the B.C. Rail deal. She thinks it is a tremendous

'psychological benefit' and holds true to Bennett's vision of 'keeping the

north open.' She is grateful for everyone's hard work but wanted to call you

especially, as you are her MLA. She also sends you a kiss."

I liked that part. Apparently it was an elderly lady. I don't think it was my

mom, because she wouldn't have said I'm her MLA. She lives in Salmon Arm.

That's how

people feel. I'm not getting any negative calls in my constituency office.

People see very clearly what the government is doing in embracing this wonderful

opportunity.

I'm old

enough to remember W.A.C. Bennett really well, and I really respect him and his

legacy. He had my parents' tremendous loyalty. They were Social Credit people.

They didn't like being called Socreds; they were Social Credit people. They

really respected W.A.C. Bennett.

I met him a

number of times at conventions and so on, and I treasure his legacy and the

things he left to British Columbians — the vision he had and the courage he

had to march forward with that vision. I hate it when people call him Wacky

Bennett, which of course

[ Page 8273 ]

is a play on his initials, but it's wrong to use that adjective in relation

to such a great man who did so much for British Columbia. My colleagues have

talked about his vision and his ability to deliver, whether he was building dams

or allowing Phil Gaglardi to build highways or building the railway. Things he

created for us have served us well up until now, and it's time for renewal of

them. That's what this government, to my considerable pride, is doing.

[1545]

I remember

when the railway, the BCR, came through our farm. I grew up on a homestead north

of Fort St. John. My dad was a war veteran. He got a war veteran's opportunity

to homestead land. We had 1,600 acres. I spent my boyhood helping him knock down

trees and pick roots and break land and carry rocks around and turn it into a

farm.

I remember

our joy when the BCR came through that land, because we felt like we were a long

way from anywhere, and we were. We were 18 miles — well, actually, more than

that — into the bush from mile 73 of the Alaska Highway. It was Peace River

gumbo road, and when it rained, which it did a lot, it was like it turned into

grease, and it was hard to haul your products out to market.

I remember

one time my dad was heading out with a loaded grain truck. It was very valuable

to us. Sometimes you didn't get your crop in that country because it rained

right to winter, when it turned to snow. He had a big truckload of grain. It had

started raining, so he tarped it up and carried on. The road was too greasy, and

the truck ended up tumbling onto its side in the ditch and spilling all the

grain — a real catastrophe, because we couldn't afford insurance.

When the

railway came through, we knew there would be a lot better way to get the

products to market for us, for our neighbours and for people all up the line.

The people of British Columbia are tremendously fond of the BCR, and I am very

happy to see that it has a bright, new future.

I was a

teenager after the railway was completed through our farm and it was in use. I

was grouse hunting one day and walking along with my .22 rifle when a Budd car

came through with W.A.C. Bennett standing on the back. In those days a Premier

didn't have to worry if he saw a kid with a rifle right by the railway track. He

was going by, and he waved to me, and I waved to him. I feel this tremendous

fondness for him, and I often think of that picture of him waving at me as the

Budd car disappeared down the track. I know full well how the people feel about

the railway up there and how they feel about living in the north.

We've heard

the member for Peace River North, now the Minister of Energy and Mines, say for

years in this House how the people of the heartlands…. We didn't call it that

then, but it's a very good word for it that we use now, because they are the

heartlands where the lifeblood of this province's economy comes from.

That member

would say how the people from the heartlands always saw their resources,

resources they worked to put into the economy, disappearing down to Victoria and

Vancouver, down to the big city, and you had to go cap in hand begging for

anything to come back to your constituents. We've all been thoroughly tired, all

our lives, of seeing that happen up there.

I remember

one day when my mother met Phil Gaglardi when he was Highways minister and our

roads were the gumbo I've described. He went to shake her hand. She shook his

hand, but she wouldn't let go, which would be sort of a startling thing when you

think about it. She just wouldn't let go and kept shaking his hand. He was

getting a little wild-eyed, and she said: "I'm going to keep shaking your

hand until you promise that you'll gravel our roads." He did promise in the

end, and the next week the gravel trucks were out.

It didn't

last in that country, because the base is Peace River gumbo, so they take

constant work. This government has already poured a tremendous amount of money

into the highway infrastructure and has done a really good job of improving the

all-weather quality of the road so that the wealth of that area can continue to

be brought out to the benefit of all British Columbians.

I worked

for CNR when I was a newlywed, still a teenager. We used to chuckle at the BCR

then, because the locomotives didn't have the pulling power of the CN

locomotives. People would say that three of our locomotives would take a loaded

train over to the switch yards, and it would take half a dozen BCR locomotives

to snortingly haul them away. I never knew if that was an exaggeration or not. I

do know that the railway has struggled to keep up with the times. I understand

things have gone better in recent years.

Back then I

had a friend who was a manager for B.C. Rail. He received very rough treatment.

His name was Les Wilson. There's a judgment on the books because he had to sue

for the way he was treated as a manager. It struck me then, as it often has

since, that managers in businesses owned by government just do not have the same

accountability as managers in the private sector, because a lot of them don't

really worry about the bottom line. They do their jobs, they draw large

salaries, and they just aren't accountable to their shareholders the way private

sector people are accountable to theirs. You see them do things that are just

clearly wrong, and they do them anyway because they don't tend to suffer the

consequences. I think we will all be so much better off with this arrangement.

[1550]

I heard my

colleague from Prince George–Mount Robson talk about how some people just do

not seem to understand what a lease is. In Kamloops and region we have

tremendously successful first nations people. They're very progressive. They

think long term, and they're very smart. The Kamloops Indian band has a

development of 2,000 homesites on their property along the flanks of Mount Paul,

and together with a gentleman named Georg Schurian, they're developing the Sun

Rivers project.

The people

who are building there, and they're building all the time, have 100-year leases

paid in ad-

[ Page 8274 ]

vance. When I was talking to Chief Bonnie Leonard some months ago about the

advantages of a lease such as this one has turned out to be, she said: "I

don't know what all the excitement is against leases. They work so well for us.

Look at all the infrastructure we've built because we enter into lease

arrangements. The land never goes away; the land will always be ours. It works

well for the people who are leasing from us, and it works very well for

us." They are considered one of the leading aboriginal bands, first nations

people, in this province. They've done tremendously well for themselves.

I want to

congratulate the government, the Premier and the Minister of Transportation. She

really worked on this deal, and we saw that. She had her nose to the grindstone,

her ear to the ground and her shoulder to the wheel, but she only had eyes for

the prize. She never gave up, and she brought the deal home. We were proud to

attend the press conference the other day and to see the excitement in the room

and, since then, to hear the excitement of our constituents and people from all

over British Columbia, because something is finally happening here in British

Columbia.

We knew it

in our hearts that the approaches would work — that if you cut people's taxes

to the lowest income tax in Canada for the first $60,000 of income, if you

cleared away unnecessary regulation, if you broke the barriers to success that

had been built in and become hardened all around our economy in British

Columbia, you could start to undo some of the damage.

I've lived

in Smithers and been to Prince Rupert many times. When I lived there in the late

seventies and early eighties, it was a bustling area. There was lots going on,

and it's broken my heart to see people go through what they've gone through in

the northwest with the demise of Skeena Cellulose and all the things that have

dominoed since then.

The member

from the coast, from Prince Rupert, brought us — I was going to bring them in

the House today, but I forgot, unfortunately; I was going to do it, even though

we're not supposed to have props — canned salmon one time. It was called

"big red" salmon or something like that — because of his hair, I

think. It had a warning label on it that said: "Be careful about eating

this, because it's liable to cause you to have all sorts of ideas, like a

container facility in Prince Rupert, like an expanded port, like an improved

railway service." I know the minister used to be a shellfish farmer. I

suspect she's been eating some of that salmon, because she has delivered on all

of those things that product warned us we might start thinking about if we ate

it.

Prince

George has been through boom times and bust. I've lived there twice. People on

the Finance and Government Services Committee always tease me about all the

places I've lived, because wherever we toured, it seemed like I had lived there

before. I've lived there twice, and it was boom times on both of those

occasions. Again, it's been so sad to hear of the economy shrinking and people's

house values dropping. Most British Columbians can really grasp that if that's

happening to you, you really feel bad, because to a lot of people their home is

their retirement package. They expect to be able to downsize one day and put the

difference in their pockets and retire on it, along with what they've saved and

what they have in pensions. But when your house value is dropping and you can't

even sell it at the reduced price, it must feel really, really bad. I am so

pleased for Prince George, so excited about the commitments the government has

made that all of these revitalization initiatives are going to take place, that

we are going to see Prince George thrive and boom again. That's a wonderful

thing.

To put so

much of the money in the hands of people who live in the north, again, is a

tremendous thing. It's an annoyance and, worse than that, it's kind of a

humiliation to always see that your provincial government doesn't trust that

you, the people who live in an area, are smart enough to make decisions like

that for yourselves. Clearly, this government does. This government is setting

up local people with the opportunity to take this tremendous investment and do

the things that make sense for the north and for the areas where they live.

[1555]

In closing,

I want to just congratulate the Minister of Transportation and congratulate the

Premier. I may have to congratulate a few more people than I thought, because

one of my colleagues is on his way to the House, I gather.

It's been a

long time coming, a long time that British Columbians have waited for the chance

to truly be empowered, to really be involved in what government decides, what it

does with the money that comes to it and that is entrusted to it. Here at last

we see a government moving in those directions, a government that got the

economy perking again with the tax cuts and the regulatory changes and that

since then has won the Olympic bid and created an incredible amount of

excitement — a huge number of opportunities in this province — and now is

moving throughout the province, including some of the most neglected areas of

the province over the last 20 years, to bring home what we promised in our

new-era platform in the year 2001 — hope and prosperity, a whole new vision

for British Columbia.

Hon.

J. Reid moved adjournment of debate.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 90.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2003

Hon. G.

Plant: I move second reading of Bill 90.

In addition

to housekeeping, transitional and consequential amendments, Bill 90 makes a

number of

[ Page 8275 ]

substantive changes to various statutes of British Columbia. In some cases,

it restores the original policy intent of the provisions in the statutes being

amended. In some cases, it modernizes and updates legislation — for example,

by accommodating electronic filing systems. It adds clarity where necessary to

avoid potential negative impacts. Finally, it includes some amendments that are

deregulatory in nature, reflecting our continuing review and upgrading of

regulations in British Columbia.

At this

time, let me review in a little bit more detail the provisions of this bill.

Bill 90 contains amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority

Act. Currently, the Assessment Act requires assessment rolls and assessment

notices to be prepared for all properties in the province that are liable to

assessment. However, according to the judgment of the hon. Chief Justice Finch

of the B.C. Court of Appeal, interpreting the language of the provisions that

are now being amended — the existing language — in his view, meant that an

assessor has no authority under the act to assess lands owned by the Crown or

other tax-exempt entities because "assessment" is defined as a

valuation for taxation purposes.

If this

reasoning is used successfully to challenge assessment for tax-exempt

properties, the potential financial implications of the court decision could be

as much as $125 million to the province and to municipalities, between the taxes

paid by the occupiers of tax-exempt properties and the grants in lieu of the

taxes paid by owners of many tax-exempt properties. Loss of transparency in the

property taxation system is also possible, since there would be no record of

tax-exempt properties on the assessment roll.

[1600]

This is not

the intention of the provisions of the Assessment Act, and accordingly there are

amendments to it in Bill 90. Any potential challenges or impacts can be

addressed by amending the Assessment Act to parallel the wording of similar

legislation in Ontario and New Brunswick, as was in fact suggested by Chief

Justice Finch in his judgment in the decision, which has given rise to the need

for this amendment.

Bill 90

also addresses legislative changes that the credit union sector has requested.

They have sought changes to the Credit Union Incorporation Act and the Financial

Institutions Act. These changes are intended to allow Credit Union Central of

British Columbia to amalgamate financial services with other approved Canadian

financial institutions. The ability to combine resources that would flow from

any amalgamation that might occur here would mean a higher level of service at a

lower cost to all B.C. credit unions and their members. The provisions are

intended to be enabling, and any actual amalgamation would require the approval

of both government and member credit unions.

There are

amendments to the Election Act contained in this bill. These amendments are made

at the request of the chief electoral officer, and what they do is remove the

requirement that a general enumeration be conducted next year. The current

provisions of the Election Act contain a formula for requiring a general

enumeration to be conducted on a regular basis. It is required in the third

calendar year following a general election.

The very

essence of this framework was designed for an era when elections were called, if

I may say this, at the whim of the Premier, and that is no longer the law in

British Columbia. As you know, we now have fixed election date legislation, and

elections are to take place at regular intervals. We know that the next general

election in British Columbia will be in May 2005. The question arises, then,

whether it would be in the public interest — whether it would be

cost-effective, whether it would be efficient — to conduct a general

enumeration next year, which would be a whole year before the general election.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

The chief

electoral officer is of the view that it would not be cost-effective or

efficient to conduct a general enumeration on that basis, and I agree. The last

general enumeration in British Columbia was conducted in 1999. I believe it cost

$4 million, and for that $4 million investment, there were some 28,000 names

added to the electoral rolls. That is a lot of money for not much return.

Admittedly, that was an enumeration conducted by mail.

It is

possible still, of course, to conduct enumerations by other methods like

door-to-door canvassing. The budget estimates for door-to-door canvassing

enumeration of the entire province range up to $15.4 million. Again, there is

not much sense in conducting that kind of enumeration a whole year ahead of a

general election in circumstances where, as is the case, we live in a province

filled with people who move around a lot.

We are

continually looking at ways to conduct a kind of continuous enumeration process

to make sure there's always work being done to keep the election list up to

date. We are going to continue to work with Elections B.C. in the months to come

to look for the best possible way to ensure we have the most up-to-date election

list in British Columbia come May 2005. In the meantime, it's necessary to

repeal this existing statutory requirement to conduct a general enumeration.

If we don't

repeal it now, then the chief electoral officer has to get to work, I believe,

before the end of the year to prepare for an enumeration, an enumeration which

— as I've already said, I think, and this is certainly the chief electoral

officer's view — would be potentially an awful lot of money spent for not much

return in terms of an improved voters list.

[1605]

We are

continuing that work, and this legislation will allow us to do that work. It

will maintain in place some existing provisions that have been there for some

time to allow for local or targeted enumerations in cases where the chief

electoral officer believes that is the best solution to addressing particular

challenges with the voters list. Really, our work over the next few

[ Page 8276 ]

months is, I think, to look for ways to ensure that we have an election list

for general election purposes in May 2005 that is as up to date as possible. One

of the things we've been looking at is the idea that we could use the voters

list kept by Elections Canada, which we believe could be merged with our voters

list at very little cost to British Columbia, to generate a much more up-to-date

voters list.

There are

amendments before the House to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. The

intention of these amendments is to add the province to the list of payees to be

paid out when payments are received from a support payer. This amendment will

allow the province to be reimbursed for provincial assistance paid to a support

recipient to cover missed support payments. The amendments don't have any impact

on the payments made to recipients. What they do is ensure that the province can

be reimbursed for any amounts it pays to a recipient when the payer defaults.

There are consequential amendments made to the BC Benefits Statutes Amendment

Act to allow for this change.

Bill 90

will reduce unnecessary government bureaucracy by amending the Health Care

(Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act by dissolving the Health Care and

Care Facility Review Board in recognition that the work of this board can be

more effectively done through other existing dispute resolution processes. The

Health Care and Care Facility Review Board reviews, upon request,

consent-to-care decisions made by substitute decision-makers such as family

members who act on behalf of adults who are not capable of making their own

health care decisions. The amendment will dissolve this board, because among

other things the board was created in the year 2000 and since then — in its

entire life — has held a total of eight hearings. It is the case that other

informal review processes exist within the health authorities to protect the

rights of these vulnerable patients. This board, we believe, is no longer

necessary to maintain in the public interest.

There are

also amendments to the Medicare Protection Act that will dissolve the Medical

and Health Care Services Appeal Board. This board hears disputes related to

applications by beneficiaries for enrolment in the Medical Services Plan that

have been denied or cancelled. This board, which I believe may have come into

existence in 1997, has at least since that time — in the six years since 1997

— held only seven hearings. Again, there are other review processes that exist

that will provide an alternative mechanism for people who wish to dispute an MSP

decision regarding their enrolment.

[1610]

Consequential

amendments will be made to repeal references to both of these boards in other

legislation. The decision to repeal these two boards is consistent with the

findings and recommendations of the administrative justice project, which has

been hard at work for two and a half years to make sure that we have in place in

British Columbia the best administrative justice system in Canada. As you know,

certainly for the first part of the work of that project, a significant part of

their activity consisted of reviewing the entire spectrum of administrative

justice agencies — I believe some 60 or so agencies — and identifying those

which, for one reason or another, no longer served a compelling public purpose.

The two changes that are being proposed in this miscellaneous bill give effect

to decisions and recommendations that came out of that analysis.

In 1999

there were amendments made to the Land Title Act. They were passed. They were

not brought into force. Those previous amendments, which I remember debating in

this House, relate to the electronic filing of land title documents. After a

great deal of work, those amendments will at last be brought into force early in

2004 in support of the electronic filing system project.

In order to

ensure that this work can be done and completed — or gotten underway, I guess,

at long last — Bill 90 contains some complementary amendments to the Land

Title Amendment Act that will complete the framework. These amendments will

support the electronic filing system, and they'll allow that project to be

rolled out and, hopefully, significantly reduce the reliance on regulations.

What the

amendments do is accommodate the electronic receipt of a form that accompanies

every transfer of strata property. With this amendment, strata property

transfers can be received electronically and the electronic filing system can be

implemented as scheduled. The amendments further authorize the director of land

titles to specify requirements for electronic forms rather than relying on

regulations. The point of this is to make the filing system more responsive,

more flexible, by ensuring that the director has the ability to act more

immediately to impose or direct requirements for the content of forms. It's

really the director that should be doing this work rather than cabinet. That

will be what happens if these amendments pass.

Mr.

Speaker, there are amendments to the Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992, and

I leave it to you to consider the appropriateness of introducing a bill called

the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to amend the Miscellaneous

Registrations Act. No doubt you will have a series of miscellaneous thoughts

about that subject.

At any

rate, the purpose of these amendments is to provide a mechanism for government

claims to be registered in the personal property registry. These amendments will

clarify the regulation-making powers in the Miscellaneous Registrations Act and

redefine the definition of "financing statement," which is a technical

term in the act and in the Personal Property Security Act, to reflect mandatory

electronic filing. Furthermore, the amendments will provide the authority to

apply regulations under the Personal Property Security Act to filings being made

under the Miscellaneous Registrations Act, thereby simplifying the legislative

scheme. No doubt the users of the scheme can hardly wait for that

simplification.

With Bill

90, regulation-making powers will be added to the Mortgage Brokers Act and the

Real Estate

[ Page 8277 ]

Act to allow for the introduction of proposed new fee structures. The new fee

structures are designed to update fees by bringing them more into line with

those of other jurisdictions — that is, more closely matching the fees to the

actual administrative costs and coordinating them with broader changes to

regulatory requirements. The new fee structures are part of a larger initiative

to modernize and streamline regulation of the mortgage broker and real estate

sectors.

Finally, an

amendment is also proposed to the Strata Property Act in Bill 90. This amendment

will correct an error and restore the original intent of the legislation. The

new

section will clarify that the requirement for strata corporations to obtain

owner approval before commencing a lawsuit is an internal procedural rule for

the benefit of the owners and that failure to obtain this approval does not

invalidate the lawsuit.

[1615]

Let me put

that into practical terms. There is an important requirement in the Strata

Property Act to obtain owner approval before commencing a lawsuit. The point of

that requirement is to ensure that as a matter of internal management of the

strata corporation, the members are brought into a consideration of the question

of whether or not they want to commence the lawsuit. There are requirements

around a vote that must be held and the outcome of the vote as part of the

framework of the act.

When the

Strata Property Act was reformed some years ago, it was intended to put these

provisions in place as a tool for, if you will, internal accountability within

the strata corporation. It was never intended that those amendments could be

used by a prospective defendant in a lawsuit as a tool for getting rid of the

lawsuit. That is, it was never intended that compliance or non-compliance with

this internal rule of owner approval could be raised as a defence to a claim by

someone who had broken a contract with the strata corporation or had committed

negligence to cause harm to the strata corporation. This issue, however, was

raised and became part of an argument made in defence to a leaky-condo action. A

defendant in a leaky-condo action raised a defence that because the strata

corporation had not complied with this rule, the lawsuit was fatally flawed and

should be struck out.

The problem

is sort of twofold. Not only is there this issue about whether or not this

internal procedural requirement was ever intended to be used as a complete

answer to a lawsuit by someone who has nothing to do with the internal affairs

of the strata council, but there's also the fact that in a number of cases

limitation periods may expire or may have expired between the commencement of

the lawsuit and the decision by a court, relying on an unintended

interpretation

of this provision, to strike down the lawsuit. By the time the court decision

comes along to strike down the lawsuit, it may be too late for the strata

council members to go back and hold the meeting and dots the i's and cross the

t's and make sure the requisite approval standard has been complied with. That

was not intended, either, by the legislation when it was originally drafted.

Unfortunately,

however, it was an issue that was raised in court. It appeared to the judge

hearing the case that what I have described as the intention behind these

provisions was not given adequate expression in the language of the provision of

the act, and so a decision was made to strike down the lawsuit. There are now a

number of people out there who are victims, perhaps of contractor negligence or

architect or engineer negligence or perhaps of local government or other

negligence, who may have their right to pursue those claims denied them by

virtue of what can only fairly be described as an unintended technicality.

We've had

this brought to our attention, and we are correcting the problem by amending the

provision in the act to state more clearly the original intention, which is that

this is an issue of the internal management of the corporation. In order to

ensure that the people who might have had a cause of action but might have lost

it as a result of this court decision are not, in fact, prejudiced by something

that was never the intention of the Legislature when they reformed the Strata

Property Act, the provisions in Bill 90 will operate retroactively. The

intention here is to demonstrate government's commitment to the owners of leaky

condos by ensuring that lawsuits cannot be defeated simply because of an

internal procedural error of the strata corporation.

These are

the highlights and the key amendments addressed in Bill 90, and I look forward

to an opportunity, if called upon, to provide further elaboration on the details

of these provisions during committee stage debate.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[1620]

Bill 90,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 95.

Committee of the Whole House

RAILWAY AND FERRIES BARGAINING

ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 95; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:21 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

[ Page 8278 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I move that we rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:22 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 95,

Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate of Bill 94.

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 94; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:24 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: I'm just delighted to be debating Bill 94. Here we are. We're

going to be here for three days next week, and I don't know why. There are all

sorts of Liberal MLAs to debate the B.C. Rail legislation, but it turns out

they're not going to do that. They must be ragging the puck so that they can

justify coming back next week. In fact, we all know that's what they're doing.

[1625]

Anyway,

here we are on Bill 94,

section 4. This one is about preventing workers'

collective agreements from containing any "provision that in any manner

restricts, limits or regulates the right of the designated private sector

partner to contract outside of the collective agreement…." How does this

language compare to the language used in Bill 29?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The language in this is virtually the same as that in Bill 29 —

does virtually the same thing.

MacPhail: So why is it here?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It extends the same rights to the public-private partnership as those

that are utilized by the health authority under Bill 29.

MacPhail: So in

section 4(1), if there is a collective agreement with a

designated private sector partner that, let's say, restricts contracting out,

and that private partner has a workforce where employees are put to work in a

number of different jobs or sites, and one of those sites is the construction of

a P3 hospital, it seems that Bill 94 — this clause in particular — voids

that provision of an agreement. A private sector, freely negotiated contract

that contains language around contracting out is now void.

It seems to

me that would mean the employees of a contractor, working at a completely

different site altogether — for instance, the contractor is building a

hospital and building apartment blocks — would lose their protection from

contracting out. Is that the intention or not? Can the minister clarify and

explain in the context of this language how that is not possible?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is specific to the provisions of non-clinical services. It does

not apply to the construction of facilities and, in the words that are there,

"outside of the collective agreement for the provision of non-clinical

services at or for a designated health care facility." I want to be very

clear we are not talking about a construction contractor being able to utilize

the rights of this provision in their work.

MacPhail: Okay. I'm sure people will have to go for that

interpretation, but

it's good to have it on the record. People will have to look to the Hansard

debate to understand that.

Bill 94

does also say that for health care facilities, Labour Code protections are

removed for non-clinical services workers. The successor rights and the

restrictions on contracting out that are laid out in the Labour Code,

specifically

section 35, are being nullified in

section 4(4) of this bill.

On top of

that, this bill also says that common employer protection against what is known

as double-breasting does not apply. I want to explain, for the benefit of those

who may be listening, that double-breasting is the practice of a unionized

company establishing a non-union spinoff company and operating as both union and

non-union at the same time. That's a practice that has been outlawed virtually

all across this country and, of course, is restricted under

section 38 of the

Labour Code.

[1630]

The reason

why it's restricted in virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada, as well as

here, is that companies would be created so that the parent company's existing

collective agreement could be ignored. However, Bill 94 removes that restriction

against the creation of double-breasting companies. In fact, it announces

basically open season for double-breasting. It basically says: "Go ahead,

companies. Double-breast to your heart's content, if you want to get rid of a

collective agreement." Therefore, it opens it up to be a race to the bottom

in terms of wages and working conditions.

What it

also means is that any of the players along the chain of private partners in

this two-tiered private health care system we're now creating can eliminate

union certifications and collective agreements by contracting out, even if

they're now contracting out to their

[ Page 8279 ]

own dummy corporations and double-breasting. Where am I wrong on that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This language here is virtually, again, the same application of that

which is in Bill 29. As we had mentioned earlier on in this discussion several

days ago, what we're attempting to do is…. Where we have the health authority

being able to build and run facilities for the care of patients, now we're

allowing that under the P3 model of the public-private partnership, of which

very clearly there has to be a public component to be able to extend or take

advantage of the Bill 94 rights. That which is in Bill 94 virtually mirrors that

which is in Bill 29.

MacPhail: I assume, by the minister not answering my question about where my

analysis is wrong, that I must be right in my analysis. Not only does such legal

permission of double-breasting of companies to avoid having to enforce a

collective agreement exist in the health care sector now, it exists in the

private sector in this government's creation of a new private sector delivery

model of health care. I assume I'm right, and of course the minister knows I'm

right.

Section

4(3) removes the requirement of consultation with the affected union prior to

contracting out. In what manner in this new world of employee rights — and I

use that term pejoratively now — will affected workers learn if their jobs are

about to be contracted out, given

section 4(3)?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Nothing stops the employer in this from consulting with the employees

about what is transpiring and what is on the table to take place. What it does

do, though, is stop that there can be the written word within the legislation

that can stop the process from moving ahead.

[1635-1640]