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)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Jomar Lanot

P. Wong

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Volunteers in Burquitlam

H. Bloy

Mountain pine beetle symposium

W. Cobb

United Way

I. Chong

Oral Questions

Funding for HIV/AIDS strategy

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Closing of long-term care beds in Golden

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Damage to Prince Rupert gas pipeline

B. Belsey

Hon. R. Coleman

Changes to laboratory services

P. Nettleton

Hon. C. Hansen

Cancellation of 2004 B.C. Disability Games

R. Stewart

Hon. G. Abbott

Regulation of agriculture industry

S. Brice

Hon. J. van Dongen

Second Reading of Bills

British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued)

B. Belsey

J. Les

B. Kerr

Hon. R. Coleman

R. Visser

J. Wilson

R. Harris

H. Bloy

Hon. G. Plant

V. Roddick

Hon. R. Thorpe

B. Penner

B. Lekstrom

Hon. J. Reid

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

S. Orr

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

[ Page 8303 ]

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Tributes

JOMAR LANOT

P. Wong:

Hon. Speaker, I would like you and the members of the Legislature to join me as

we extend our condolences to the Lanot family. Their son Jomar Lanot, a grade 11

student at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary, was attacked and killed this past

weekend. It's my hope that we'll be able to extend a comforting hand of support

to them and for them to know their grief is shared not only by their family and

friends but also by our whole community.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like you and the members of the Legislature to join me as we

extend our condolences to the Lanot family. Our hearts go out to them.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Bond: I would like to introduce several visitors that we have in the gallery

today from the College Institute Educators Association of B.C. We're pleased to

welcome today Cindy Oliver, the president; Roseanne Moran, the staff

representative; and Dileep Athaide, the secretary-treasurer. I'm certainly

looking forward to a productive discussion with them this afternoon. Would the

House please help me make them welcome today.

S. Orr: I

have introduced many people in this House, but today I have two of the most

special people that I've ever had to introduce, simply because my husband and I

created them and I delivered them. This is just a random sampling of my

gorgeous, beautiful, healthy, good-looking, intelligent children.

The first

one, who I have just totally embarrassed — but I'm allowed to do that because

I am, of course, their mother — is my eldest son, Robin. Robin used to be a

fish farmer — and I'm not even going to go down that path as to how I feel —

but he is now moving forward, and he's going to become a free enterpriser. He is

from Tofino. My other son is called Liam, and he is changing his career. He just

launched his first album and went on tour in hip-hop music. To all of you who

are probably not so informed in this, he is a rapper. I would like the House to

make my sons incredibly welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: They're both now a brilliant shade of red.

R. Lee: In

the gallery today we have Mr. Johnny Fong and Mrs. Susanna Fong. Mr. Fong is a

member of the Multicultural Advisory Council as well as a recipient of the 2002

outstanding achievement award from the Ethno Business Council of British

Columbia. He's the president of a well-run Burnaby company, International

Sources Ltd. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan:

The opposition joins in welcoming Mr. Johnny Fong and Mrs. Fong to the

Legislature. In addition to the long list of accomplishments that the member

from Burnaby had identified for Mr. Fong, he's also most recently been made an

honorary member of the Chinese Cultural Centre, which happens to be in my riding

and which also happens to be celebrating their anniversary with a fundraiser

coming up, I believe, on Monday. I would invite everyone in this House to

welcome Mr. Fong, and I hope to see you at the Chinese Cultural Centre

fundraiser.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: In the precincts today is a group of auditors from the office of

the auditor general of Canada, the office of the auditor general of British

Columbia and the office of the auditor general of New Brunswick, who are

collaborating on a joint examination of the management of the sustainability of

wild salmon and salmon aquaculture. I ask the House to please make all of these

auditors welcome.

Nettleton: A gentleman by the name of Ian Mott, of the United group of

companies, has asked me to introduce him. He indicates that he has worked

cooperatively to establish lands for the PNE in North Surrey. Please welcome Mr.

Mott.

Penner: It's a great privilege for me to introduce to the House Erwin and

Leona Janzen of Yarrow, British Columbia. They like to tell people that when I

was a child growing up, I probably spent as much time at their house as at my

parents' house because I was best friends with their late son, Dan Janzen.

Together we embarked on many adventures and assorted mischief and had a great

time right through elementary school, high school, college and university. Today

Leona and Erwin continue to be a source of considerable guidance for myself, so

if you have any complaints, take them to them. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

Visser: Today in the House we have Ken Kapps, Aaron Badesso and Jack Lavis

— all here from both TimberWest and Weyerhaeuser. I'm going to try to keep a

straight face doing this, but what's important about these folks is that they

have managed to bring to life for me and some of my colleagues the arcane and

byzantine world of stumpage through their colourful regression analysis and

market-sensitive…. Oh, I'll tell you, they have made my life new and complete,

and I just hope the House can make them welcome today.

P. Wong:

I am pleased to introduce a high school mate of mine, Celia Chan, a computer

systems analyst who came from Calgary to visit the Legislature. Also,

[ Page 8304 ]

in respect of Johnny Fong in the gallery, Mr. Fong co-chaired with me at the

Chinese Community Forest Fire Relief Campaign, fundraising for the North

Thompson fire relief fund as well as the Vanderbilt community outreach network,

totalling over $300,000 this year. Would the House please make them most

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) VOLUNTEERS IN BURQUITLAM

H. Bloy:

Today I would like to congratulate the 20 winners of the Local Hero Awards in

Burnaby. I can only mention a few in particular. At just 12 years old, Greg von

Euw has made a name for himself as a great protector of our salmon-bearing urban

streams. I've known Greg's family for a number of years, and despite his young

age, the folks at the DFO will tell you he's a wise little veteran when it comes

to his stream. Fish are finally returning to Silver Creek to spawn, and we have

Greg to thank for that.

Another

nominee is Carol La Croix, who has been a Scouts Canada volunteer for many, many

years. She's worked her way up through the ranks as a Beaver leader, and now

she's an Area Service Scouter who has created a number of programs and

successful handbooks. I've worked with Carol under her direction. She also

played a key role in the formation of Camp Woodchip for Beavers in North

Burnaby.

We also

have Jay McGarva, who is a great volunteer in Burnaby with the Burnaby Board of

Trade, the Burnaby Symphony Orchestra and the Burnaby Metro Rotary Club. She

also runs her own successful business.

We have

Keith Beedie, who has provided funding to Burnaby Hospital, the Interurban 1223

restoration project and the Burnaby Christmas Bureau, to name just a few.

Finally

there's Jeanne Fike, who heads up the Burnaby Family Life Institute. Jeanne is

one of the best-known personalities in the Burnaby community because of the

outstanding work she does with new immigrants and with women and children in

abusive situations.

It is clear

that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Burquitlam. I'd like to

pass along my congratulations and sincere thanks to all 20 winners.

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE SYMPOSIUM

W. Cobb:

Earlier this month I attended the mountain pine beetle symposium in Quesnel.

There were local environmentalists, industry experts, community leaders, forest

managers and first nations coming together to find solutions to this epidemic.

This year alone, the pine beetle has consumed four times more of B.C.'s forests

than the summer fires. The fires have been subdued, but our forests are still

under attack. The Premier is committed to taking whatever action is necessary to

stop the beetles.

The

symposium also brought about a chance to highlight the positive opportunities

that exist to salvage the wood and sell it to new markets, while also expanding

the value-added sector. The Premier spoke of his recent mission to China and

their interest in wood products. However, as we discussed ways to stop the

beetle and find positive ways to utilize the huge amount of beetle-kill, we

found our efforts being sabotaged by large-scale environmental groups using

inaccurate information to commit economic treason on British Columbia.

I know the

David Suzuki Foundation was invited to the symposium but declined. However, they

didn't decline the invitation to join in the boycott of B.C. woods, including

beetle-kill and fire-damaged timber.

A number of

environmental groups have decided to make it their mission to destroy as many

forest jobs as they can in B.C. I want to quote Ric Careless, at the B.C.

Environmental Network, who did accept the invitation. He wished to separate

himself from those radical enviro-terrorists. He said: "I would just like

to say to the Premier that I applaud your efforts in Asia to develop new

markets. We are all in this together. We don't need any more nonsense. This is

yesterday's world."

[1415]

With

support like this from local groups, I know we can move ahead and build a

strategy to fight the beetle epidemic.

I look

forward to the Premier's report in January. I ask the international

environmental groups to catch up with the times. Don't do any more harm to their

fellow environmentalists or the hard-working families in the forest industry.

UNITED WAY

Chong: Today I wish to highlight one of our most significant and

long-serving local non-profit charity organizations, the United Way of Greater

Victoria. The United Way promotes volunteerism and currently supports 39

community human care agencies in their efforts to provide a better life for all.

Donations received are invested locally, and one in three Victorians will

utilize a service offered by United Way–funded organizations this year.

The

United Way of Greater Victoria has a proud 60-year history of helping people and

some years ago focused its funding on five social priorities: poverty, isolation

and loneliness, family stress and breakdown, violence in society, and substance

abuse.

September 17 of this year campaign chair Dr. Elizabeth Ashton, the president of

Camosun College, kicked off the annual fundraising campaign by announcing this

year's community goal to raise $4.3 million. Last year's goal of $4 million was

surpassed when $4.1 million was eventually raised. To date just over $3.6

million has been raised, and I believe this year's goal is achievable, even

though the campaign is now winding down. It is through a variety of charity

events, corporate donations and individual contributions that the United Way is

able to succeed in reaching its goal.

[ Page 8305 ]

Just one

example of a charity event is the annual Chinese community fundraising dinner

generally held in October of each year. This event was initiated about six years

ago under the stewardship of a Queen's Jubilee recipient community leader, Ms.

May Lou-Poy. Her goal was to bring together community members, businesses and

organizations from the Chinese community where they can learn more about the

programs and services of the United Way and its partner agencies. I am pleased

to report that it is always a sold-out event. However, the success is better

measured by the number of new donors who attend every year.

Services of

the United Way can range from providing funds for a community organization to a

volunteer driving and delivering a meal to a housebound senior, to a volunteer

calling on a grief-stricken family due to the sudden loss of a family member.

When you consider the wide range of services the United Way provides for our

community, it is no wonder so many lives are made better by the United Way and

that their slogan remains "Change the world one way at a time."

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR HIV/AIDS STRATEGY

MacPhail: Today is World AIDS Day. B.C. has the highest proportion of

Canadian deaths due to AIDS. HIV is one of four leading causes of death in B.C.

amongst people ages 24 to 44.

Recently

the B.C. Ministry of Health Services put forward an HIV strategy. AIDS

prevention organizations say that the strategy contains laudable goals, but they

are concerned that the provincial government hasn't funded its objectives. Can

the Minister of Health Services explain why at the same time that AIDS is on the

increase in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals are not funding their own AIDS

strategy?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The new AIDS strategy was developed by the Ministry of Health

Planning, and my colleague the Minister of Health Planning has had

responsibility for that. Obviously, we work very closely with them. As Health

Services is responsible for the delivery of health programs in the community,

we've certainly been working with those community organizations. I know my

colleague has met with them on many occasions as that strategy was developed. We

have recently added funding for new medications that are particularly important

in the treatment of AIDS, and we're certainly looking to make sure that those

programs are available to communities throughout British Columbia.

MacPhail: Well, it's actually the regional health boards for which this

minister is responsible now, health authorities that deliver the AIDS strategy.

The cost of each new HIV infection is $225,000 in direct costs and $750,000 in

indirect costs. AIDS is on the increase in British Columbia, and infections are

predicted to increase. AIDS prevention organizations are warning that without

any resources, new resources, the province won't be able to achieve its goal and

the epidemic will get worse. These organizations are meeting with the government

tomorrow.

[1420]

Again to

the Minister of Health Services: what steps are he and his government prepared

to take to ensure that the grave concerns of AIDS prevention organizations and

patients in B.C. are addressed with adequate dollars to fight the increasing

spread of this disease here in British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member is quite right. It is the health authorities that have

responsibility for the delivering of the programs which fall under the Ministry

of Health Services. One of the things that we did to better integrate those

programs with the other delivery of health services at the community level was

to shift the funding for those programs and organizations to the health

authorities so that they could actually be better integrated at the community

level. At the same time, all of the funding programs that have been in place for

AIDS programs have been maintained, and health authorities are now responsible

for delivering those programs at the community level.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, it's not exactly as the Minister of Health Services said.

When the provincial government actually transferred contracts for AIDS service

organizations to the regional health authorities, funds were not transferred to

support their work. That means that the prevention and educational programs have

suffered. Even in the government's own strategy document released just a couple

of months ago, they incorrectly said that the incidence of HIV infections

amongst drug users is on the decline, when in fact it went up last year.

Today AIDS

organizations are sounding the alarm. As recently as this morning, Maxine Davis,

executive director of the Dr. Peter Centre, said things are getting worse here

in British Columbia. They say that the provincial government is not meeting its

commitment to stop the spread of disease. When the minister and his government

meet with these AIDS organizations tomorrow, will he commit to providing the

dollars that health authorities need, and have made clear to the minister they

need, to fight AIDS?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member is not correct. In fact, the funding for the contracts

for those programs was transferred to the health authorities as part of their

allocations, in each of the health authorities. We have given to the health

authorities the flexibility, for the first time, so that they can actually meet

the priority needs of their communities that they are trying to serve. I know

the health authorities are working closely

[ Page 8306 ]

with those organizations to make sure that those needs get met as best

possible within the financial frameworks that we have.

CLOSING OF LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

IN GOLDEN

J. Kwan:

Residents of Golden are very concerned about the closure of long-term care

facilities in their community. The interior health authority has shut down eight

residential care beds at the local hospital. Now the government is adding insult

to injury by closing four more beds at the Durand Manor, a residential care

facility in Golden. That's resulting in long waiting lists and patients being

transferred out of the community. Residents are saying that they are having no

luck in getting the attention of their local MLA. So let me ask the Minister of

Health Services this question: why is his government breaking their promise and

closing beds for seniors in Golden?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Again, I think the opposition members have some faulty research

behind them. In fact, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has been a very

vocal and active advocate for the residents of Golden on this matter. She has

certainly been to see me many times on this issue. I am pleased to inform the

member, because she may not be aware, that there is $530,000 allocated for the

renovation of Durand Manor so it can better meet the needs of seniors in Golden.

That's as a direct result of the advocacy and the work by the member for

Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

In fact, the residents of Golden just contacted us today with their concern. You

know what, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

You know what? The residents of Golden are saying they're having no luck in

getting their local MLA to respond to their needs. The renovation dollars…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…that the minister mentions do not help the residents, because the fact is

that the residential care beds are being closed right now, and the government is

going to proceed with their renovations tomorrow. The Minister of Health has

actually received some 800 letters protesting this move and demanding that

Durand Manor remain fully open until a replacement facility is available in

Golden. Spending $530,000 on renovations to Durand Manor would still result in

fewer residential beds, which will cause a problem for the seniors. How can the

minister justify that move while he's moving the seniors out?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would just like to point out to the member that if you're going to

renovate a room in a long-term care facility to modernize it and make it better

available to meet the needs of the residents, it's usually best to actually move

the resident out of that room prior to commencing renovations.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

DAMAGE TO

PRINCE RUPERT GAS PIPELINE

Belsey: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last Friday there was a

landslide that took out a natural gas line in the Prince Rupert area. About

4,000 businesses and homes were without heat and continue to be without heat.

There are schools and businesses closing, and there are a number of homes that

have to rely on space heaters to warm their homes as well as possible. They're

eager to know when this gas line will be restored. In the meantime, every effort

needs to be continued to ensure that the residents of Prince Rupert and Port

Edward and surrounding areas are comfortable during this difficult time. Can the

Solicitor General explain what is being done to resolve the situation and what

efforts are being made to assist the residents affected?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The landslide actually took place on Friday. It was about a

thousand feet across — about 350 metres. It took out a natural gas pipeline.

This is an event that takes place in this particular area of British Columbia

about once every two to three years. There's a lot of unstable ground there, and

it does cause some difficulties. The gas line was taken out.

Over the

weekend we were unable to actually get in there to repair the line because the

unstable ground was still there, and the weather was too severe for people to

get in there. They are working on it now. They expect to try and get in there

and finish this, to get the gas line operating, in the next three to five days.

I can tell

the member that over the weekend 32 people spent nights in the evacuation centre

within his community, because those were activated under the provincial

emergency program. Emergency social services, which normally runs 72 hours, has

been extended to the end of the event so that anybody who needs the assistance

of emergency social services under the emergency program will have it. Nobody

will be left wanting.

[ Page 8307 ]

At the same

time, I want to say to this member and to this House that of all the events

we've handled — and we've handled many emergency situations in the last year

or so — the communities of Prince Rupert and Port Edward have been remarkable

in the way they have adapted and handled this in a really strong,

community-based manner with everybody helping out — neighbour helping

neighbour. They should be commended.

CHANGES TO LABORATORY SERVICES

Nettleton: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Why has the

minister rejected the offer of the British Columbia Medical Association and

laboratory doctors to work collaboratively on the structure of lab reform and

instead chosen a route of confrontation that has led to both a legal challenge

in the courts and yet another arbitration with the doctors? What will the

minister do? Furthermore, if the court ruling — expected any day now — rules

against the government, will he resort to an order-in-council or legislation?

How will the minister respond?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: As the member knows, none of us in cabinet can comment on cases that

are currently before the courts. But I can reassure the member that we have

developed an approach to lab reform, which is long overdue in this province,

that will involve all of the labs, and that will involve both the public and

private sector pathologists. Through the provincial lab coordinating office, we

are embarking on a process of lab reform that we expect will provide better

service to patients around the province and also provide a more cost-effective

process.

Currently,

with our lab service that we have today, we are by far the most expensive on a

per-capita basis, and we are also significantly more expensive compared to even

the second-highest province. Through this process, which is very much a

collaborative process, we expect that we'll get better service and better value

for the taxpayers of this province.

CANCELLATION OF

2004 B.C. DISABILITY GAMES

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. My community of Coquitlam was looking forward to being able to host

the B.C. Disability Games this summer. However, the Coquitlam school district

decided to charge $36,000 for the disabled athletes to camp in a school — more

than 20 times the actual cost to the district. That works out to about $80 a

night per athlete, more than the local hotel. A great many of my constituents

are outraged that the school district would try to make a profit off a group of

disabled athletes. As a result of the decision, the 2004 B.C. Disability Games

have now been cancelled. Can the minister tell us how this could have happened

to such a worthwhile event?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I was recently advised by B.C. Disability Sports about their very

difficult decision to cancel the 2004 Disability Games. Certainly, it is not a

decision that we welcome, but it is a decision that we understand, given the

circumstances that confronted the games.

We did

check into this situation. Neither I nor any of the games society staff are

aware of any precedent anywhere, where school facilities have charged for the

Disability Games. It is, in short, an unprecedented situation. Certainly in

Kelowna in 2003 and certainly in Nanaimo in 2005, there are no charges for

school facilities for the Disability Games. So it's sad and unfortunate that the

games are lost for 2004, but we know that they will be very successful in

Nanaimo in 2005.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Saanich South. [Applause.]

REGULATION OF

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Brice: I have a question today for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries. I get such a rousing round of applause from my colleagues in the

House here because they know that I am constantly advocating for the issues that

are important to the farmers of the Saanich Peninsula.

The

question I have for the minister is…. The farmers in my area contend that they

are unable to bring heavy equipment onto their property to clear a stream or to

dig a ditch without engaging in a pretty extensive process of permits. Adding to

this is the fact that some of those are municipal, some regional, some

provincial and some federal. I would ask the minister if the Saanich farmers can

hear from him as to what he is contemplating in order to alleviate some of this

undue workload.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Certainly the issue of proper drainage is a big issue for

agriculture not only in Saanich South but in many farm communities in British

Columbia. Not only farmers are frustrated, but also local governments and our

ministry. We've had a lot of frustration on this issue.

[1435]

Really, the

main culprit is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have worked very

diligently, through many channels, to work with DFO on these issues. We have a

committee called the Partnership Committee on Agriculture and the Environment.

We've done a lot of work with DFO through that committee. Our ministry has done

a lot of advocacy on this issue on behalf of farmers. We have developed good

relationships with the minister and senior management on these issues. Still,

that organization has failed to deliver and failed to break out of the

bureaucratic, fraught-with-uncertainty and untimely process that it has.

What we are

doing now is putting the issue in the hands of a deputy ministers committee,

along with a

[ Page 8308 ]

whole range of other issues with DFO. I will be working with the Minister for

Intergovernmental Relations to get this issue to a very high level within our

government and in our relations with the federal government.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I call for further debate on second reading of Bill 89.

Second Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

(REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Belsey: It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 89, the

British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003.

One of the

early founders of Prince Rupert, Charles Hayes, had a vision that Prince Rupert

would become a major port. Now we have a Premier of a province and a Minister of

Transportation that are going to see that vision come true. This is probably one

of the most significant things that has happened in my riding certainly in

recent times.

I was there

when Fairview Terminals was built back in the mid-seventies, and it was

incredible — the amount of construction work, employment, for those living in

the community. Many from outside of the community participated in building that

structure. A little later on, it was expanded. They put on another length of

wharf.

A few

months back I had a committee come up there, the Select Standing Committee on

Finance, and I took them around to a number of the industries in my riding in

the Prince Rupert area. One of the visits we made was to Fairview Terminals.

That terminal was built to handle what they called break-bulk freight and

commodities. That has been slowly dying off, getting less and less annually.

What has

been increasing is containerization, until it's reached such a point in my

riding that the buildings that used to house the crews, pulp and some of the

products that were shipped through that terminal are now empty or house

forklifts and tow motors, equipment trucks. None of them have moved, probably,

in a year and a half to two years.

Now we have

an opportunity to convert that facility to a container port. That has everybody

in my riding, everybody in the north, excited about the opportunity it is going

to bring to northerners, not just in Prince Rupert. It's going to be exciting

for people all across the north. Whether you're a specialty grain shipper in the

Peace who needs to take genetically modified grain that can't be shipped with

all the other grains due to the concern for cross-contamination…. They'll be

able to put that grain into containers and take it into Prince Rupert and get it

to the Asian markets at least a day and a half quicker than they're doing now.

[1440]

If you're a

log home builder in Smithers, you'll be able to take that log home, put it into

a container and ship it to Asian markets, something that has been beyond our

ability — to ship products from the north. It was too expensive to load it

into containers to get it all the way down to Vancouver and ship it out. We'll

soon be able to do it through the port of Prince Rupert.

I want to

share with you some of the local heroes that have worked so hard to see that

port move ahead, the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Don Krusel, the CEO, and many

of his staff — Shane, Joe, Dave, Michelle — have all worked tirelessly to

move this project forward. The mayor and council, both in the present and the

past, have worked tirelessly to promote this project and to get it moved ahead.

There are many others across my riding and in the north — private citizens,

businessmen, companies, organizations — that see the benefit of building a

container port in northern British Columbia.

This is a

partnership, a partnership that means jobs and opportunities. The members

opposite sit here in the House, and they are constantly reflecting on another

broken promise. They like to use that: "Another broken promise."

Penner: They would know something about that.

Belsey: They would.

What they

don't understand, what they don't want to understand and what they go to great

lengths to make sure the public doesn't hear is that it's a partnership. It's a

partnership for British Columbians, joining with a company that has a proven

track record, an excellent track record in their ability to move freight on

rails across this continent. It's a partnership where what we've done is taken

BCR and changed it into CNR. We took the B out, and we put a C in. The B is

where the billion dollars comes from, the billion dollars that have gone into

northern British Columbia and along the rail line.

A billion

dollars will be spent in British Columbia in northern communities along that

rail line in the form of taxes, in the form of buildings and structures. In my

riding, $17.2 million is going to go into the conversion of a terminal that's

not being used today, for putting in rail lines, purchasing cranes, straddle

carriers. There's another $15 million that's been committed by CN to work on

tracks so that they can handle containers, to work on the tracks between Prince

Rupert and Prince George so that those tracks will be able to handle container

freight.

The other

important aspect is that they're committed to spend some of that $15 million on

the changing of the current tunnel structures. The problem there is very simple.

To move double-stacked containers, a certain amount of clearance is required to

get a train at full speed through those tunnels with that type of

[ Page 8309 ]

freight, and right now that can't be done safely because of the movement of

the trains.

[1445]

They have

agreed to go in there and clean out those tunnels just enough so that they meet

the safety tolerances. Then they can move double-stacked containers, which that

might be coming from any part of the eastern seaboard of the U.S., any part of

northern Alberta or maybe British Columbia. Those containers will be able to

come right out to the port and head to the Asian markets. Also, containers

coming from Asian markets, landing in Rupert, can be loaded on rails and shipped

right through to the east and mid-central U.S. and points further south. Prince

Rupert is uniquely positioned. It has train and rail service that CN has been

operating for years, so to have CN now operate B.C. Rail is an excellent fit for

our community.

Something

else needs to be mentioned. There were a number of meetings that I attended as

we worked our way through this process, and every time I was asked what my

concerns are about B.C. Rail. I mean, I don't live near where B.C. Rail was

servicing British Columbia, but I was always given the opportunity to say what

was important about rail service, about who was going to take over that rail

service on that north-south run, the B.C. Rail run. Every one of my concerns was

addressed in this agreement. I applaud the minister for looking into that and

taking those considerations. She and her staff have done an excellent job.

We have a

new leader for the opposition, and, you know, there's not a lot of difference

between what she has come out with and what the member opposite, the past

leader, has said in the past and certainly in this House. She plans to travel

around British Columbia, and I have no doubt in my mind she'll find her herself

one day holding a meeting in Prince Rupert. I just hope those who have nothing

better to do than attend that meeting will ask them some very important

questions. I hope the longshoremen in Prince Rupert that have struggled, as

we've seen this transition from bulk shipping to containerized shipping….

I hope

those longshoremen go to that meeting and just suggest to her: "What's

wrong with this B.C. Rail–CN partnership?" Tell those longshoremen that

this is a bad deal, that this shouldn't happen. They're going to be one of the

bigger winners — a potential for 300 to 500 new jobs. They'll be the ones

that'll be put to work. Again, their families will be able to live a lot better,

certainly, than the difficulties they face today.

Talk to the

rail workers. Talk to the rail workers who are looking at the potential jobs in

moving that freight around on those lines, who will do the maintenance work on

those lines, who will do the maintenance work on some of that rolling stock.

Talk to them, and tell them that this is a terrible deal, that this is bad for

Prince Rupert, that this is bad for B.C. Rail.

You know,

with the suggested up to 500 jobs in the Pacific Northwest, just think of what

that means. I hope some of the teachers go to this meeting. If you bring 500 new

jobs to an area, that's up to 500 families. That's families that own houses.

Those houses will employ carpenters and plumbers and electricians. There will be

more school teachers needed for those families, for the children that will be in

our schools. There will be more nurses and doctors required for that kind of

development, for that many new jobs. All of those are good points. I hope

somebody challenges that new leader, when she visits Prince Rupert, as to why

this is such a bad, bad deal.

[1450]

This

partnership and this deal that the minister and her staff have worked out mean

billions of dollars over the life of the contract. I mentioned earlier the $17.2

million for containerization in Rupert, $15 million from CN's commitment to work

on the track. There's approximately $8.3 million in municipal taxes that will go

to communities along the old B.C. Rail right-of-way. On average, that's 4.5

times greater than the current funds that they get from the province for grants

in lieu of taxes. That's a tremendous boost for these communities. There's $135

million going to go into the north for the northern development initiative, and

out of that, four regions will be developed. Each of those regions will receive

$15 million. This is great news.

This

partnership, this agreement, is going to be a tremendous boost for northerners.

Another exciting initiative that's come through with this deal is the new

tourism and passenger travel service. Imagine — with the improvements in

passenger service that will come with this initiative — being able to get on a

passenger train in Prince Rupert and heading to Whistler. It's unheard of.

Imagine being able to do that. I could get on a train there, head down to

Vancouver, take a plane across and be in Victoria. It might be better than some

of those air flights I've had down here. This is a tremendous opportunity for

the province.

I'd like to

look at some of the comments that the member opposite, the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made when she spoke against this agreement. She said:

"It's clear this deal is not what it was cracked up to be." Well,

she's right. It's better than that. This deal is better than any of us could

have imagined. This deal is putting money into the north. It's putting jobs

first. It's putting northerners first in so many areas. This deal is better than

any of us ever would have thought.

She also

mentioned: "The lost dividends from B.C. Rail will go into the pockets of

private companies." Well, think of it. That's another way of saying that

profits are bad. That's what they built…

An Hon.

Member: They still don't get it.

Belsey: They still don't.

…their

whole decade on. Imagine an industry making a profit. Could there be anything

worse? Imagine a company having a strong balance sheet. Could there be anything

worse? Imagine a company with the money to expand and create additional jobs.

Imagine a company with a strong balance sheet and paying taxes. Imagine all

that. It's a great thought.

[ Page 8310 ]

As I

mentioned earlier, the dividends that will be lost from B.C. Rail…. Well,

think of the 4.5 times greater taxes they'll receive compared to what they used

to get from the government in payment in lieu of taxes.

Another

comment: "It's yet another broken promise. This government, this Premier,

this Liberal government, has no credibility." Well, again I say that this

is not a broken promise. The promise that was made was that we wouldn't sell or

privatize B.C. Rail. We didn't sell it. We didn't privatize it. We still own the

right-of-way. We still own those tracks. We have a partner now that's running

the rolling stock and running the service. That's a good deal for British

Columbians.

[1455]

There have

been a number of letters and comments made by people around the province. I'd

just like to mention a few of them — one from John Winter, president and CEO

of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to read his statement:

"Today's

agreement between the B.C. government and CN Rail is a win on all accounts.

This is more than a billion dollar injection into the B.C. economy. This is

about opening the interior economy in a way that we've not seen in decades.

"Cutting

rail transport costs by an average of 7 percent and knocking two days off the

shipping time to Chicago will help to secure the jobs of tens of thousands of

interior forest workers."

Another one

from Darcy Rezac, Vancouver Board of Trade:

"This

is an important signal to the world that the province is open for business and

is nothing short of an excellent business deal for B.C. We congratulate both

CN and the province on the excellence of the agreement. "

This

is a vote of confidence in B.C. by a high-quality investor, CN — one of the

leading railroads in North America. Particularly noteworthy is that this is a

landmark public-private partnership that will distribute the benefits widely

throughout the province and especially in the northern communities. This

partnership gets the provincial government out of the business of railway

operations."

There

are many from financial institutions and the investment community — one from

Morgan Stanley: "Given past labour and congestion issues at other west

coast ports, it is quite conceivable that Prince Rupert could evolve into a

significant growth engine for CN in the future. As a sign of that potential,

CNI announced that it is now shipping iron ore from the Upper Michigan iron

range to Prince Rupert for vessel delivery to China." This is about

creating jobs and opportunities, and this is the spinoff you get when you put

together a good deal.

Let me

explain this just a little more, because it's worth mentioning. We have a coal

terminal in Prince Rupert, Ridley terminal, that has been struggling for two,

three or four years now with the elimination of a couple of coalmines that are

no longer economical. They have struggled to try and find other products and to

find other sources of product and other markets to ship to. They have worked

extremely hard. Greg Slocombe, the CEO, and his staff have worked very hard to

find another product that they could ship through the coal terminal that would

be able to come in and be handled by their railcars, their stack of reclaimers

and their conveyer systems to get the coal into piles and then out of piles and

onto ships. Well, they found something. They found iron pellets from Michigan

iron range, a company in Michigan that needed access to the Asian markets.

[1500]

When the

minister brought this deal together, what she gave them the opportunity to have

those iron pellets loaded on railcars. They can be loaded on ships. Those ships

can go to the north end of Lake Michigan, up into the Thunder Bay area, off of

those ships and onto the rail lines, be moved directly through to Prince Rupert

and be taken into the Ridley Terminals facilities for shipping to Asian markets.

This is a great opportunity. That's a fine example of how you can make a deal, a

partnership, with another group and how the community can benefit from it and

how the north can benefit from it.

In closing,

I just want to say that the minister, her staff, the Premier, B.C. Rail and CN

should be commended for what they've done for my riding, for the community, for

the people, for the families and for all of northern British Columbia. I take my

hat off to them. I thank them all very much, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the

opportunity.

J. Les:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. In this House, we get

many opportunities to speak, but I have to say that on this particular bill I

really wanted to speak. Just so that you're very clear, Mr. Speaker, I want you

to know that I am absolutely, fully, completely and unalterably in favour of

this legislation. It is probably one of the more important pieces of legislation

that we've dealt with so far in our term of government.

I, as well,

want to congratulate the minister and her staff for all the hard work they did

to bring this deal home. For sure it took an awful lot of work, and it was an

awful lot of work that was done in the face of a lot of orchestrated opposition

by self-interested groups. So it wasn't a slam dunk at anytime along the way.

The minister persevered. She exhibited tenacity and, I think, came away with a

deal that was far better than many, if not all, of our skeptics were even

prepared to think about. It really is one of these signature events in the

history of the province.

I think

that as a government, we have demonstrated clearly that we're prepared to

reorganize the assets of the province in a way that they can do some real good

for the province, for the people of the province and for our collective future.

There is no question that the British Columbia railroad was a real asset.

There's also no question that that asset was seriously underperforming in its

current configuration. By the same token, there's also no question that as we

move forward with this new lease with CN, the assets of B.C. Rail are going to

contribute to the economy of the province in a way that they have not been able

to for quite some time.

Some of our

skeptics have asked: would W.A.C. Bennett have approved of this deal? I have no

qualms

[ Page 8311 ]

at all in suggesting to this House that he certainly would have. I was a

great admirer of W.A.C. Bennett. He truly was one of the great builders of this

province, and he would have recognized, as we stand here in the year 2003, that

in the modern era this is how you build the province. Much as he undertook

initiatives in his day that added significantly to the economic potential of

this province, he would have recognized instinctively that this arrangement with

CN Rail is a huge step forward and will bring great economic growth to the

central and northern interior of British Columbia.

One of the

more immediate benefits that we see with this lease to CN is that, of course,

there's a billion dollars that CN invests in this lease. Given that billion

dollars, one of the first things we will be doing is dissolving $500 million

worth of debt. Some people have kind of waved that off and said: "Well,

that's not really that important, because B.C. Rail was responsible for that

debt." Somehow they try to leave the impression that British Columbia

taxpayers were not on the hook for this money eventually.

Well, I

have to tell you that taxpayers in British Columbia certainly are on the hook

for that money, just as they were on the hook for the $860 million that was

written off some years ago. That $860 million, I regret to inform this House,

we're still paying interest on, and we'll be paying the interest on that money

for a long time to come. My grandchildren will still be paying the interest on

the $860 million that was written off on B.C. Rail.

[1505]

I would

really like to see a day when members of the opposition understand simple

economic facts like that, but they set their hair on fire, and they've got all

kinds of weird and wonderful explanations on how that's not so. Again, I

underline: the $860 million worth of B.C. Rail debt that was written off will be

paid for by our grandchildren for a long, long time to come. When they try to

suggest that the $500 million of debt that was written off with this deal

somehow wouldn't have ended up on the plate of taxpayers, they are sadly

mistaken.

We have

altogether too much of a long litany of government misadventures in British

Columbia, where we have the fast ferries, for example — $465 million

essentially all written off. You know, we've gotten beyond that nightmare in

some ways, but again there's $465 million that's been written off, which our

children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay the interest on for

years and years and years to come. That's in addition to Skeena Cellulose,

another several hundred million dollars worth of debt written off. These

government misadventures have got to stop. With B.C. Rail we have accomplished

that, in addition to providing many more opportunities for the future.

There is no

question that anytime major changes are implemented, it's tough for a lot of

people. I understand that; I get that. Everybody wants to make progress, but

nobody seems to want to make change very often. Certainly, change can be

disorienting and can be disruptive. I'm sure there will be some restructuring in

people's lives that will need to happen as a result of this B.C. Rail deal as

well, but some of our opponents have tried to invent every Chicken Little

scenario that they could possibly imagine and get people to believe.

Given that

we're talking about railways, I remember — I think it was about 15 or 20 years

ago — when railways across Canada decided that cabooses were an archaic

feature of the past and really weren't necessary anymore on our modern-day

trains. So they brought forward an initiative to get rid of cabooses on the ends

of trains. If you had listened to the public debate at the time, you would have

thought that trains were going to be derailing everywhere and that there was

going to be a train wreck at every train crossing. Well, the cabooses were duly

removed, and I am not sure there's any indication that there's been any

commensurate loss of public safety or safety of operating trains on railway

systems anywhere. But we were assured back then and reassured many times over

that this was going to detrimentally affect the safety of railroading in Canada.

We've been

given many doomsday scenarios around the B.C. Rail deal as well. I suspect what

actually will happen is that we will be looking back five, ten, 15 or 20 years

from now, and we will all very much in unison be in agreement that this was one

of the major turning points in British Columbia's economic history — that it

was and it is, in fact, a very, very good deal for the residents and for the

taxpayers of British Columbia.

When we

look at the financial performance of B.C. Rail as it is today and we compare

that to CN, we see some very interesting factors as well. Before I get into

those comparisons, I want to point out that CN Rail also has a very interesting

history. It was at one point a federal Crown corporation, and it had the apron

strings cut some years ago. It is now fully in the private sector, and it is one

of the three top railways in all of North America. It is the envy of railroading

in North America. It's been a huge success story, and it started right here in

Canada. I'm not sure about other members in this House, but I'm very proud of

that — that a Canadian railroad has had such an impact on the economy of North

America.

[1510]

If we look

at some of the comparisons between B.C. Rail and CN Rail, we find that CN Rail

processes about 260 carloads of freight per employee per year. That compares to

127 carloads per employee per year for B.C. Rail, so you can readily see that CN

processes about twice as many carloads of freight per year per employee.

In terms of

railcars per locomotive, CN has over 4,000 railcars per locomotive where B.C.

Rail has only 1,400. CN Rail has 207 annual carloads of freight per kilometre of

track where B.C. Rail has only 76. So on some of those very direct economic

comparators, we can readily see where the efficiency of the BCR railway

operation is going to be immensely improved as this arrangement goes forward.

There's one thing that makes an economy hum more than anything else, and that is

efficiency of operation. Those efficiencies will

[ Page 8312 ]

translate into lower prices and greater availability of cars to the shippers

of this province.

One of the

things that I am most excited about is what this will do for communities like

Prince George and Prince Rupert. My colleague from North Coast was speaking

earlier this afternoon about all of the tremendous benefits this deal will

provide to Prince Rupert in terms of making it a major deep-sea port on the

Pacific Rim. Positioned as it is, at a location where shipping from Prince

Rupert as opposed to Vancouver gets you a day and a half closer to Asian ports,

and then when you factor in railroading from the American Midwest to Prince

Rupert instead of to other west coast ports — how that gets you another day or

two closer — there is absolutely no question whatsoever in my mind that the

port of Prince Rupert has an enormous future ahead of it. I feel particularly

good for the member for North Coast, given the extremely hard work that he puts

in on behalf of his constituents in the North Coast riding. It's satisfying to

me to see this major new initiative moving forward, which is going to provide

some payoff for all the hard work that he's put in, in his riding.

The city of

Prince George, as well, is going to be a major transportation hub not only in

terms of the railroad but in terms of the airport. A significant amount of the

money out of this deal is going directly into the airport in Prince George for a

major upgrading program there. That's going to employ a great deal of additional

people, and perhaps we'll see the kind of growth at the Prince George Airport

that we've seen recently in Kelowna, where that airport is one of the

fastest-growing airports in all of Canada. I have no doubt that that kind of

future is available to the Prince George Airport as well. There are enormous

amounts of economic growth that can happen in the heartland of our province, and

I really believe that with this deal, we have unlocked the barriers to that

growth.

The other

communities, all the way from North Vancouver on up, are also going to feel an

immediate benefit in terms of their tax revenues. This is very significant. It's

an increase of about $7 million in local tax revenues that these communities are

going to enjoy. I know, having been involved in municipal politics for a while

myself, that's going to be very welcome to the mayors and the councillors of

those various communities. I would hope, in addition to maybe finding new things

for that money to do, that they would pass some of that along in terms of a

property tax decrease for their residents in their various communities. I think

that's another way of passing along a benefit of this B.C. Rail arrangement to

the folks in the communities along the line.

[1515]

So as I've

examined this deal, I've come to the conclusion that it is a very sound

proposition. It enables the heartlands of British Columbia to fully take

advantage of all of the opportunities of the future. We all know that an

integrated transportation system — whether it's by rail, by air or by road —

is extremely important for an economy to advance and to move forward. With this

deal, you're going to see that in the several years ahead, there's going to be a

tremendous ramping up of transportation infrastructure. There's going to be a

new confidence in the heartlands of this province. There are going to be new

opportunities for many, many employees and their families. It's one of those

times in the history of this province where we have done something we can all

feel tremendously good about.

I've noted

in the last several days that those who were predicting gloom and doom before

this deal was made public have had to reposition a little bit in terms of their

rhetoric. They're now probably in the "yeah, but" phase, but they have

had to say that the deal looks pretty good. That comes from some people who were

most vociferously opposed in the weeks and months leading up to the

announcement. Hopefully, as time moves forward, they will look at the results as

they flow, they will get beyond the "yeah, but" stage, and they, too,

can become enthusiastic participants in what's going to be part of the economic

renaissance of the heartland of British Columbia.

With that

said, I join other members of this House who have spoken enthusiastically in

favour. I would encourage the members of the opposition, as they get used to all

the good things that are included in this deal, to maybe change their minds, as

well, and come out in favour so that we can move forward in a united way in

British Columbia and provide opportunities for all of the residents that we

represent.

B. Kerr:

I rise to support the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment

Act, 2003. I think it's a tremendous deal. I have to say that I wasn't planning

on speaking because, being on Vancouver Island, I didn't think it would affect

us that greatly, except to the extent that it affects British Columbia as a

whole. I thought I would let my colleagues who are more affected by this

specific act speak on it — the people that are on the rail line, the

municipalities on the rail line. But some of the comments that have been made by

the opposition members and the members opposed to the act have just compelled me

to stand and speak and address some of those more specific issues they've

commented on. I think there are some times when you hear things, and you just

say: "Boy, that's why I entered politics." With some of these

arguments against this particular act, I've certainly heard that.

When I was

going to speak, I sat down to crunch some numbers. Then I realized that my

colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound actually did a very adequate job of

doing an analysis on the financial statements of B.C. Rail to look at where B.C.

Rail really is.

I'm sure

some of the feelings about B.C. Rail are sentimental. Like my colleague from

Chilliwack-Sumas mentioned, it's like the caboose. I get stopped at a train

crossing sometimes, and I count the trains going by, which I'm sure all of us

have done. Even when we're on holidays with our kids, we've all counted the

trains going by. We wait for the caboose and it's not there. It's sort of a

funny feeling. It's like something's missing,

[ Page 8313 ]

but there's no real purpose for that caboose, so it's not there anymore.

colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound mentioned the increase in debt, the

reduction in sales, the poor return on capital. All that leads to a decrease in

investment and no ability to open up the north with a decrease in investment and

no ability to increase capital that you need to compete in the marketplace. It

is a competitive marketplace, and it is losing a lot of its market share to

alternative delivery services. He looked at the financial statements, and he

said: "Well, this company is weak. It can maintain the status quo, but it

can't expand and deliver what we need in an expanding economy." I think

that's absolutely critical, and I think that's what we're going to get with this

deal.

As I

mentioned earlier, I'd like to comment on some of the detractors of this deal.

I'll quote them, because I pulled out Hansard , and I've taken some quotes

from what they've said. The first comment I'd like to discuss is from the member

for Prince George–Omineca.

[1520]

You know,

the easiest thing in the world is to say no. I quite often think of bankers.

When you go in to get a bank loan, the easiest thing in the world for that

banker to do would be to say no, because he can quantify his risk and he knows

he'll never have to have that risk. But he can't quantify the lost opportunity

cost. That's what we're talking about here if we don't go ahead with this deal.

Should this deal have been done ten years ago? Maybe it should. If it had been

done ten years ago, how much better off would we be? We don't know, because we

can't quantify that lost opportunity cost. But we can certainly quantify the

$800 million that we had to write off by having B.C. Rail as a Crown

corporation, and we can certainly quantify the $500 million more in debt that we

are.

The easiest

thing is to say no, because you can never be wrong. I'd just like to give you a

quote from the member for Prince George–Omineca. He stood up, and this is a

quote: "What I'm about to say may alarm some because I'm cautiously

accepting of what has been achieved by this unified effort coming from all

corners of the province. But I will be voting against this B.C. Rail bill on

principle."

Excuse me?

He thinks it's a good deal. He recognized a unified effort from all parts of the

province, but on principle he's going to be voting against it. I'm trying to

figure this out. Are his principles no to new jobs? Are his principles no to

economic development? Are his principles no to fulfilment of the future

potential of the north? Are his principles no hope for the future? They're

certainly not my principles.

I don't

know. Maybe he's just trying to cop out and take the easy way out by voting no.

Then he doesn't have to worry about, when he goes back, retracting what he's

been saying by making all the comments and the suppositions he's been making in

the past. Certainly I don't know where his principles lie, because my principles

are for growth. They are for economic development. They are for opening up the

future potential of the north, and they are for creating new hope and prosperity

in the north and all the along the line of B.C. Rail.

Now, I have

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I'd like to quote one of the things

that she said. She was speaking of B.C. Rail, and she was going on about how we

say the time to deliver to Chicago would be less. We can deliver the product

faster now to Chicago. We're saying that's a real plus, and, Mr. Speaker, it is

a plus.

Her comment

was: "CN already has the capacity." She said in the press conference:

"They have a new train that's already doing it, and the president of CN is

proud of his company's achievement in cutting the time from nine days to 90

hours." So he's saying essentially that CN has the capacity to do that, but

B.C. Rail doesn't have the capacity to do that.

CN has the

capacity to do that. Here's where the synergies come in. If CN takes over B.C.

Rail and becomes a partner with B.C. Rail, then B.C. Rail can do that, and

that's what we need for the north. What she's suggesting, I would assume — I'm

not sure, but I guess — is that we should continue to fund a company that's

not competitive, because CN can out-compete us with the new locomotive they

have, and we don't have the capital or the capacity to get those type of

locomotives or cars that can do that.

But in her

idea….

Penner: Skeena Cellulose.

B. Kerr:

I'll get on to that in just a minute. I was going to get on to it.

colleague from across the way mentioned Skeena Cellulose. I was going to bring

that up. We've pumped in $800 million in this transaction, supporting B.C. Rail.

We've written off $836 million. We've got $500 million of debt that we can now

pay off. We've written off $400 million, which I'll mention soon.

I would

imagine what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant would have us do is

continue to pump money into this non-competitive entity similar to what happened

in Skeena Cellulose where they pumped in — I think it was — $300 million to

$400 million. To what end, what result? Eventually it went under because if a

company can't compete now, it won't be able to compete in the future if it only

has sufficient funds to keep it going.

You need

money. You need additional money to keep things going to expand, to replace

existing equipment, to modernize. That's what a company needs. That's the

capacity that the B.C. Rail corporation didn't have, and that's the capacity

that it will have now under this deal. Again, I support this deal because,

regardless of who got it — who bid for it, who got it — it will give the

capacity to open up the north.

Now I'd

like to comment on the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Some of the comments she

made, I just lit up because sometimes we need reinforcement in our political

life. I lit up, and I said that's why I got into politics. She has just said the

exact reason why I got into politics. I'll get on to that in a couple of

minutes.

[ Page 8314 ]

[1525]

She said:

"I note the government said it's not profitable. Isn't that awful B.C. Rail

had to write down the debt accumulated by the Bennett government in the

eighties?" She said: "Nobody got upset when they invested $600

million." She said: "My government" — meaning the former

government — "was forced to write off $600 million in debt." You

know, the point is not about who invested in it and who didn't invest in it. The

point is about risk. Why should the provincial government, the people of British

Columbia, take on the risk when we can have another entity take on that risk and

provide greater service? There's an expression: "Why buy the cow when you

get the milk free?" Why do we have to own the entity when we can have

everything we need to develop the province without having to take on the risk?

The member

for Vancouver-Hastings wants us to continue to take on the risk. Then she

complained about how it wasn't really a billion dollars we're getting. Really,

it's only $750 million we're getting, because $250 million of that billion is

just buying tax credits. Well, that means we'll get $250 million more. I don't

care if they're buying tax credits. They're tax credits we wouldn't get with

B.C. Rail as a Crown corp. We're still getting that $250 million. It's still a

billion dollars cash the government is going to get to be able to open up the

north, pay off the debt and still have money to do even more development.

The real

comment she made, the one I just have to mention here because it was the one

that really woke me up…. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a habit. She

likes to hold up pieces of paper. She got up in question period and held up a

piece of paper like this, and she said that business analysts were predicting

that as a result of buying B.C. Rail, CN will get — wait for it — a minimum

18 percent return on their investment. They're going to make a profit. Isn't

that exactly what we want them to do — make a profit? Why else would anybody

invest in something if they didn't plan on making a profit?

Well, she's

talking as if "profit" is a pejorative. It's not a pejorative in my

lexicon. Profit is a great word. When I see profits, I see expansion of an

economy, I see reinvestment in new capital equipment, and I see new jobs. Profit

is a good word. You know, profits to a corporation are like breathing to a

person. If we don't breathe, we die. If a corporation doesn't have profits, it

dies. You have to have profits to carry on. Without profits, you won't exist. In

my lexicon, profit is a good word.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Now, she

actually quantified the profits. She said: "It's going to be a minimum of

18 percent return on their investment." I don't want to go through the

mathematical calculation of what that is, but let's just look at it, because

there's something that nobody has mentioned to date. I've got a secret. Maybe we

should just share it in this House and not share it with the members of the

opposition, because I think maybe this is the problem they had in the past

decade when they were running in the nineties. They didn't understand about

profits. Here it is. Here's the secret: companies that make profits pay income

tax.

An Hon.

Member: No.

B. Kerr:

They do. It's amazing the way it works. That's how they contribute to the social

programs we have in British Columbia — through income taxation.

Now, I

would like to go on with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the

member for Vancouver-Hastings. They went on and talked about the $137 million in

dividend income we're not going to get back, which they got from B.C. Rail. Over

20 years we got $137 million in dividend income that we're going to forgo.

They also

said there was no difference between tax-supported debt and taxpayer-supported

debt. Let me tell you, if we did in fact get $137 million from the Crown

corporation, if they weren't using money to pay off this entity-supported debt,

they would have got that much more. There isn't a difference. Debt is debt. When

you pay money to service debt, that much less is used to pay for social

programs.

[1530]

Here's the

kicker: $137 million over 20 years. If CN lives up to the expectations the

member for Vancouver-Hastings has and gets an 18 percent return on its

investment, without going through the calculations, that works out to about $17

million a year — the provincial portion of the debt that we'll collect as a

government. If we multiply that over 20 years, it comes to about $351 million.

Let's work

this out: $137 million, plus all the risk, plus writing down $836 million of

debt, plus accumulating $500 million more debt and get $137 million; or no

investment, $500 million in the province's coffers that can be used to open up

the north, no risk, no writing down of future assets and $350 million of revenue

coming over to the province in 20 years. Gee, where am I going to place my

money?

I don't

know how these people can say anything. What really got to me when I heard that

was that the former government was all about making sure nobody has a profit and

nobody pays income tax. We're not about that. We're about expanding the province

— creating jobs, creating capital investment, inviting businesses back into

British Columbia. The more businesses we invite back into British Columbia, the

more work CN will probably get and the more profit they will get and the more

taxes they will pay. When they pay more taxes, we can put more money into social

programs. It's a connect-the-dots; you don't have to be a rocket scientist.

Those are

some of the things I wanted to bring up that I think are vitally important. Here

we have an increase in tax revenue to the province; we have opening up the

north; we have huge potential revenue; we've got no more debt. We've got more

money coming to all

[ Page 8315 ]

the municipalities along the line, which will allow them to develop their

communities better. They'll get more property from the redundant assets that are

going to be given to some of the municipalities from which they can create an

even greater tax base for themselves. In absolutely every respect, Mr. Speaker,

this is a win-win situation. It's a win for the province because we're going to

get more money without the risk, and it's a win for CN because they're going to

make a profit.

With that,

I'm going to sit down and turn the floor over to somebody else. I say that I

support this deal 100 percent. I think it's absolutely terrific for the province

of British Columbia.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I rise to speak about the B.C. Rail Investment Partnership and this

piece of legislation, because it's good news for British Columbia. It takes the

leadership of a Premier who has a vision for the province and the hard work and

leadership of a minister to get it to where it is today. We should be thankful

that both of those people have been working on behalf of British Columbians to

achieve this for all of us.

Before we

get into what this partnership is about, maybe I'll try and crystallize for the

members of the opposition and the member for Prince George–Omineca what it

means. You see, as we came through this process, you continually heard members

of the opposition say that B.C. Rail was profitable, but they always wanted to

ignore the fact that somebody sometime had to write off $850 million in debt

against this company, and it owed another $500 million. In my math, that's $1.3

billion in debt — money that's got to come out of the pockets of B.C.

taxpayers. The $850 million just went right out of health care, education and

social programs, because it had to be written off.

Of course,

the opposition says…. Actually, this is what they think. They think the way to

make a business profitable is that you start it, and you burden it with

successive amounts of ridiculous debt until such point that the debt is so

groaning that the company can't survive. Then rather than actually recognizing

you've got a bad business model here, you write off the debt and let them start

back at the beginning again so they can then go along and accumulate some more

debt until the pressure groans on the company again and write it off again.

[1535]

That's how

Crown corporations look at it. That's how — before we became government,

without professional boards that would actually go out and analyze a company —

governments looked at Crown corporations. At least, socialist governments did.

They went out and spent $500 million on the fast ferries. They actually bought a

pig in a poke; it doesn't work. Who pays the bill? The taxpayers of the

province. It overburdens, again, another Crown corporation with the ability to

actually function, to think forward and to make an investment in itself, because

it's under debt. Debt that is badly, badly put together because — you know

what? — governments can't run rail services. Governments shouldn't be in the

business of running a rail line.

We own this

property, Mr. Speaker. We own the right-of-way. We own the land. We own the

railbed, and we own the tracks. We still own the railbed, the right-of-way and

the tracks. We still own the B.C. Rail company. We actually own B.C. Rail. But

what we did is woke up one morning and said: "Maybe if we could find a

private partner that knows something about running a railway that could be

internationally integrated into a North American system, that might actually pay

off for the people of British Columbia."

Now,

somebody must have figured that was a pretty good idea, because CN is paying the

province $1 billion for the right to run a railway on our rail system — the

one that we own as a province. It's a billion dollars to acquire the outstanding

shares of the company, B.C. Rail Ltd., along with a right to operate on B.C.

Rail's railbed over a 60-year lease. The railbed, like I said, is going to

remain in public hands. Now, what does that do for us? Think about it. Holy

mackerel, you've got to think about this. This is great.

We've

already had to write-off the $850 million. That's gone for B.C. taxpayers. But

the $500 million that was accumulating — which would have put a burden on the

company down the road that would have had to be written-off — is now going to

get paid off because of this new investment coming into British Columbia. That

means for every single year after this deal is made, British Columbians are

going to save a minimum of about $30 million in interest. Think of how much that

interest is, if you wanted to compound it. Just think of the straight multiple:

$30 million times 60 years is $1.8 billion.

But

everybody knows that interest compounds. Everybody knows that the compounding

loss of opportunity that you'll have if you actually don't pay off that debt to

begin with is such a multiple that you can't even imagine how that alone is so

good for British Columbians — for the opportunity for taxpayers' money to do

other things like help with policing, help with schools, help with education and

health care, help with post-secondary education, to actually put the fiscal

house of government in order so that we can do the things we need to do.

We need to

do this with companies like this, because it is not our business. We'll hold our

asset. We'll own our asset, and we'll make it work for the benefit of the

taxpayers that own it. That's what this partnership is all about. This is

nothing new. People have been doing partnerships in housing with non-profit

societies and municipalities for ages, successfully putting together projects

where the asset is used to leverage for the long-term success and benefit to a

community. That's what we're doing here — something that's absolutely

spectacular for the people of this province.

Imagine

that at the same time you could do it, you could get rid of a staggering amount

of public debt that faced you for the future, for your generation and the

generations beyond. At the same time, recognize that the burden of that debt

along with just the basic main-

[ Page 8316 ]

tenance costs of the railroad were such that it would never, ever be able to

become an innovator. It never, ever would have been able to be visionary,

because it never would have had the capital or investment money to go forward

and do the great things it needs to do.

So what do

we get as a result of this, in addition to a billion dollars and paying off the

debt? CN is actually going to go out and purchase 600 more centre-beam cars.

Now, what the value of that is that we knew, when we had our people go — we

put in a professional board and good management who had a look at B.C. Rail —

that our shippers were saying to us: "You know what? We don't mind using

this railroad, but we never know whether we can get a car on time. We never know

when we want to ship our product whether the cars are going to be there with the

capacity to move our product to the marketplace."

[1540]

We knew

that we would have to make an investment in additional railcars. Oh, that would

be more debt in addition to the $500 million we already had. Now we have a

partner that is going to go out, in addition to the billion dollars it's giving

us for the right to run the railway, and make the investment in the cars. That's

going to increase the capacity for our forest shippers in particular, because

this is where the majority of forest products in British Columbia come from —

along this corridor and in this area. The 1,500 boxcars will help ensure that

customers have access to railcars where and when they need them, and faster

transit times will also improve the availability of the cars by 800 cars.

You see,

one of the things we talked about when we were talking about this thing is the

Chicago express. We talked about synergies between two railways coming together.

We talked about better planning as far as you ship things. Everybody knows, if

you've ever been in any business that moved any goods and services, that if your

truck is on the road for two days — or your railcar — when you could be

using it for only one day, you'll actually get two days if you had it out there

for only one day. But if you do that with a railway, it's the same compounding

effect.

Imagine

this. You have 500 railcars that have to take three days to go somewhere and

take three days to come back. If you could send them in a day and a half and get

them back in another day and a half, you could get them out in another day and a

half and coming back in another day and a half. That's like giving yourself

double the number of cars, and that's what this deal does. Just by improving the

shipping times, improving the efficiencies, it's like adding another 800 cars to

the rail system on top of the 600 new cars that we brought into the system, and

that's pretty impressive.

What's more

important is that we've always known we need to open up gateways. We've always

known that in order for goods and services to move, for industrialized provinces

like ourselves and particularly those with resource communities, you have to get

your goods and services to the marketplace. You've got to retain the ability to

do that, and alternatives, and get them through ports and what have you into an

international marketplace. You have to keep your rates competitive so that you

will continue to attract the customer and so they won't go find an alternative

way of delivering those products to the marketplace, because you need to be

competitive.

What's

going to happen is that the shippers that are actually on interline shipping in

this deal are going to get about 7 percent for interline rate shipment cost

reduction, combining savings also from the rate reductions to about $7 million

annually. They're no longer going to be subject to additional switching at the

Vancouver interchange, helping further reduce transit times from Prince George.

Now, that

doesn't sound like much, but it is. It's like what I said a minute ago. If the

car is moving and it's getting there quicker and your goods and services are

getting there quicker and you're getting paid, your accounts payable are coming

in quicker. That means you can reduce your interest costs of the operation of

your company or your carrying costs. You can actually pay your staff and look

for an expansion and modernization of your mill, because you're actually getting

the business done.

The

downstream benefit of improved shipping actually affects the actual operation of

a business, the actual operation of its efficiencies long-term and the

investment it might want to make in expanding the mill in Quesnel, Williams

Lake, Prince George or in and around Prince Rupert. That's simply because people

will recognize that by getting the savings and getting these products to the

marketplace, they can actually expand and access more of the marketplace,

because they know they can deliver those goods and services better.

One of the

things I like about this is the improved access to marketplaces, and there are a

number of them, amazingly enough. It's like a buffet of great things to do with

shipping and getting products to the marketplace, and I want to tell you about

them. You're not going to hear it from the members of the opposition. You might

get an epiphany on the way to the finalization of this deal from the member for

Prince George–Omineca, but he doesn't want to vote for it because he doesn't

want to believe that anything good could be done in the province —

particularly right in his riding, where this has a huge impact. However, I

stray.

The

improved access to markets is this way. You're going to cut down about 30

percent of the shipping time from Prince George to the lower mainland. That gets

all of those products into that system quicker. It moves them back quicker, as

far as getting the cars back and the efficiencies in the system, like I

mentioned before. Then you're going to have this Chicago express. Can you

imagine? Prince George, in the centre of British Columbia, will have a Chicago

express into the major commodities trading market of the United States and its

connections — two days shorter as a result of the Chicago express.

[ Page 8317 ]

When our

forest companies go down and our mining companies go down…. Anybody else with

a commodity that comes out of British Columbia can go down and say: "You

know, we can get our products to you quicker than you can possibly imagine from

any other area. You think we're a long way away. Well, let me tell you

something. We've got this express that runs out of Prince George. We actually

move this stuff through. We'll get it down to you. We'll ship you the goods and

services on time so they can get into your marketplace."

[1545]

CN has got

this figured out. They've made a deal with Great Lakes shipping recently, and

they have some other ore they need to move back out, so they want to bring it up

through and out to the port of Prince Rupert into the Orient. Oh, another market

to be opened up. But this one's remarkable because we're going to put a $15

million investment into the port of Prince Rupert, and CN's going to make an

investment there. On top of that, they're actually going to go along that rail

line and fix it, so that the tunnel is a little bit higher and so they can do

double-stacking of containers and turn Prince Rupert into an international

shipping port. They're going to be moving goods and services across to Rupert.

What's so

important about that? It's a day and a half closer to the Orient, to the Pacific

marketplace, than Vancouver or Seattle or the other ports on the west coast —

a day and a half. Now we're going to move it quicker to start with, and then

we're going to get it into a ship and a day and a half quicker to the Asian

marketplace. You don't think that this guy wants to see his product get there

quicker and get paid quicker? You don't think the guy at the other end of that

wants to get that product sooner so he can get it into that huge market that he

wants to sell it into and get his return on investment? This is great news for

Prince Rupert. This is great news for the whole northern corridor, as far as

being able to ship goods and services across the north into the gateway that

we're going to build.

There's

more. We have an airport in Prince George. Prince George is a hub of an area of

British Columbia where you have Quesnel and Williams Lake. You have the

northeast and the northwest. You have all kinds of opportunities that are going

to come out of the Olympics and everything we do with resorts and everything

else. What do we need to do? We need to be able to get people into these

communities. So we're going to do an expansion at the Prince George regional

airport, and we're putting $4 million into that to boot, as a result of this

deal. That's just going to make the access and the movement of people and

investment easier into Prince George and the entire north region and the

Cariboo-Chilcotin.

What's even

more important is that this initiative, as it was done by the Premier and the

Minister of Transportation, was done with keeping the entire province of British

Columbia in mind and particularly recognizing that the huge opportunities to

open up the north and create jobs and opportunities up there had to be dealt

with.

Let's just

talk for a second about Prince George as a gateway up there. We're going to have

a new office for northern development initiative, which I'm going to talk about

in a second. The province is going to provide, like I said, the $4 million to

the airport. A B.C. north division office will be established, ensuring better

service, improved forest shippers, located so the 75 percent of B.C. forest

shippers that are located within 200 miles of Prince George will particularly be

affected by having that office there.

CN is also

going to invest in jobs in Prince George, with a wheel shop, and make an

investment in there of $1 million in a state-of-the-art wheel shop that will

actually have people working in Prince George and learning another trade and

bringing opportunities to that city. I'm sure as CN sees the ability of

northerners just in that one wheel shop and the other things that we do, CN is

going to say: "You know what? We got some other operations across North

America and across these lines that should be in these communities, because

we've got skilled workforces and we've got a dedicated group of people who are

hard-working and committed to building the province and building and performing

for us. Maybe we should invest even more and put more in there."

There are

also benefits for every community along the line. We had a thing called grant in

lieu of taxes that we did with regard to communities across British Columbia,

where Crown corporations came through. Canadian National is actually going to

start paying taxes, the level of property taxes which exponentially in

communities…. I know the member from Williams Lake, the member from Prince

George and the members from all along this line have already identified this in

their speaking, or will do — the fact that the financial benefit of that

coming into the tax base of the local community can start to enhance services at

the local level for other issues and other things that they want to do in local

communities with regard to this. That's important, because I think those tax

dollars have to come to communities. Those tax dollars need to come to local

governments so that they can do what they need to do.

[1550]

There are

other benefits. One that I like particularly is, just as an example — and I

know it's going to happen in communities along the line — that the excess

lands that aren't used for the railbed, the right-of-way and the tracks are

going to be made available to the communities for redevelopment. This is just an

unbelievable opportunity. Whether you take the community of Squamish, which will

get about 71 acres down on the waterfront area or close to it…. Some of it is

waterfront in Squamish, where they could actually do an entire redevelopment of

that community, which is in between Vancouver and Whistler and at the hub of a

couple of other significant resort developments that are on their way to British

Columbia. So you can see that if they get that opportunity to reinvigorate an

entire community with good community planning as they

[ Page 8318 ]

build a base for their revitalization in Squamish, it will have an impact on

the affordability of housing and activities all the way up and down the Sea to

Sky corridor. This is good.

In Prince

George they're actually going to get some land for a park, and they'll have

other redevelopment opportunities in that community, as well, off the lands from

B.C. Rail. If you look at the north, we're actually opening up a line that had

been previously closed, so we can move the grain and other issues in and out of

that area with regard to shipping and that sort of thing.

Then there

is this whole concept of actually investing some of the money that comes from

this particular deal in northern communities directly to northern communities

— in addition to paying down the debt for all British Columbians, saving the

interest for all British Columbians, saving the operating costs for all British

Columbians. One of the biggest and most important things for all British

Columbians is that the breadbasket of opportunity that's up there, that area of

development and tax base that actually supports health care and education, needs

to be supported by all British Columbians through this deal.

That's why

there is going to be a number of things that take place up there. There will be

$60 million divided among four regions: Prince George, the Peace, the northwest,

and the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Lillooet. That's money that's going directly into

those communities so those people can decide where to invest it, whether it be

for the benefit of tourism, other forms of development or other types of

infrastructure for the benefit of their communities. They are the people that

have been there for us for a long time, feeding British Columbia with taxes and

support from the rural regions.

Then

there's the $50 million for a general trust to support cross-regional

investments tied into this other $60 million, and a $25 million endowment with

the interest used to support the operations of a northern development initiative

centred in Prince George. Great stuff, because it gives people in those regions

the seed capital to actually go out and come up with initiatives and ideas to

build the future of their communities, build their resource-based communities

and build other opportunities in there, this beautiful area of the province that

they call home. It is good because there's also another $15 million for a first

nations benefit trust, a trust that will go to the first nations along the line

with regard to this, so that they can also seek out and go after the

opportunities.

You know,

some people are going to ask you about the process. Now, I'll tell you. As a

member of cabinet, I can tell you that the minister and this government

processed this right down the line. I know that the people who were involved,

the MLAs from all across the regions, were part of a process to discuss this, to

work on it, to get what was best for the people of the province where B.C. Rail

served. I can tell you that we do not do process that isn't fair. We do fair

process, and when the fairness commissioner reports out on this deal, I am

confident that everybody will find out that this was handled properly, correctly

and fairly for the benefit of all British Columbians. That's how it should be;

that's how governments needs to perform when it does a deal like this.

[1555]

The

frustration that's put out there by our opponents in opposition is: "Darn.

They did it. They actually got an unbelievable deal for British Columbians, and

they kept the asset." That deal pays down debt, reinvigorates areas of the

province, creates all kinds of job opportunities and opportunities for people in

all areas of British Columbia, and they did it fairly. And while they did it,

which was very frustrating for the opposition to this deal, they refused to

breach the professional protocol of how a business deal is done with people when

you have confidentiality agreements about trade information that shouldn't be

shared between bidding and competing partners.

That was

the process, and as we went through that process, we were really looking for

four things. Community benefits. I think I've described those — up and down

the track, whether it be taxation or jobs or investment opportunities or

improvement of a rail line or shipping quicker and actually saving all

businesses money, getting more investment and seeing this huge explosion over

the next number of years in northern and central communities in British Columbia

as a result of the B.C. Rail deal. I think that's probably a community benefit.

Growth

opportunities. I'll tell you, you are never going to get the expansion and the

growth and the shipping across the north and expansion of the port of Prince

Rupert if you can't get the double containerization. If you can't get to there

and move the volume of goods that everybody else can move down another rail line

to compete with you, you weren't going to get there. But you are going to get

there because of the investments being made in both the port and the line just

on that growth opportunity alone.

Then you

have the Chicago express, and then you have the reduction of costs to shippers,

and then you have the certainty for the ability to move goods and services. Then

you see the investment into the communities and the economic funds that have

been put together — the additional taxation for local government to make

decisions that may be beneficial for future development in their communities

because they know the stability of their tax base. You see growth opportunities

everywhere along this system, including the real estate opportunities.

You needed

sustainability. You can't just go out and get any partner — can you? You

actually have to find somebody who's prepared to make a significant investment,

not just to purchase the relationship with us and the partnership but also to

make the investment in the system, into the rail line, into the improvement of

the rail line, into the moving of goods and services quicker. You needed the

sustainability of a partner that could — and had a track record — be able to

support the long-term economic sustainability of the province of British

Columbia and the diversification of its communities where B.C. Rail was

previously serving.

[ Page 8319 ]

Then you

needed somebody that could be competitive. If you had a rail service in British

Columbia that was more expensive to ship than any other rail service in North

America, then your people who need to ship the goods and services wouldn't be

able to compete in a North American or global marketplace. You had to find a way

that could happen, and we did. We have the competitiveness. The competitiveness

gives us not only the competitive edge with the relationship of B.C. Rail but

also that whole issue in and around improving access and reducing time, which

gives us an overall, global competitive edge as British Columbians.

I don't

think you can underestimate the value of this deal to British Columbia, and it's

with the leadership of our Premier and our minister, as I said, that we're able

to even say that today. People have to have a vision. They have to be able to

see out there. Now, if you're a socialist, the vision is increasing debt,

increasing debt, increasing debt. Write it off; we'll start all over. Increase

the debt, increase the debt, increase the debt. Write it off, and start all

over.

But for us

in this government it is to take something that in actual fact should be run by

somebody better who knows what they're doing. Take it and put it into an

integrated relationship. Get the benefit of the value to the province of British

Columbia. Pay off some debt. Put some economic funds into the kitty to help the

whole province. Then, as a result of the relationship, see a long-term,

sustainable economic opportunity grow in ports, airports and rail lines across

the province. I prefer ours to the socialist answer.

I prefer

ours because I believe that we actually care about making government work for

the people of British Columbia and the Crown corporations that we have, being

accountable in a way that in the long term they are sustainable. This B.C. Rail

deal is something we are going to look back at, and we as members of government

are never, ever going to be ashamed of it.

[1600]

In

summary,

this is what it is: continued and public ownership. We got it; we own it. It's

our land, our railbed, our tracks. No more public debt — $500 million gone —

and the balance is going into investment across the province, because it's a

billion-dollar deal. Some 600 new cars on top of improving 800 cars that we're

already improving by the efficiencies that will be in the rail system through

this partnership. Lower rates and costs to our shippers so that they can get

their goods and services to the international markets at a competitive rate.

Improved access to markets — to the lower mainland, internationally and into

the Chicago express and through our ports — quicker, better access to save us

money and to improve our opportunities to seek investment. Long-term protection

of the rail network — we own it. Part of this deal is protection for the

taxpayers of British Columbia for the railbed and for the right-of-way.

There is

$135 million in initiatives to northern communities, including a $25 million

operating endowment, $60 million divided between the four regions I spoke about

and $50 million for a general trust to support cross-regional investments.

Making Prince George a gateway to the north with a head office for a northern

development initiative. There is $4 million to the Prince George airport and all

those other activities that will come through the relationship as we move

forward. Expanded municipal tax bases across the line and down the road for

everybody so that they can see in their communities the benefits of having

taxation for the local government to look at long-term opportunities. Major

expansion of the port of Prince Rupert so we can get to the Orient a day and a

half more quickly, and we can take double-stacking containers into that port and

build its future as a deep-sea port, as it should be. Benefits for communities

along the way with regard to the land we're making available for redevelopment

for the future of these communities. A $15 million B.C. first nations benefits

trust.

Last but

not least — and I didn't mention it in my remarks — are tourism

opportunities and passenger services that no longer exist on these lines. We had

investors waiting for this deal to be done so they can now enter into long-term

relationships for tourism trains and passenger trains up and down this line.

People will be going to Whistler. People will be going to Prince George and

Prince Rupert and over to Jasper in tourism and passenger trains, because we

will have people investing that actually understand tourism and passenger trains

in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm proud to stand in this House and support this deal, support this

bill and support my Premier and the Minister of Transportation, and to thank

them for the leadership they've shown in building a great future for

transportation infrastructure in British Columbia.

Visser: I just wanted to stand in support of this bill for a couple of

minutes. As this policy was developing and the rollout came last week and the

legislation was tabled, there were a lot of folks questioning my enthusiasm for

it. They were just saying: "Rod, why are you so enthusiastic about this?

What does it mean for the North Island?" I thought it was time I stood up

here and talked a little bit about thinking big, because I think that's what

this deal is about — thinking big. Here's why it works for British Columbia,

and here's why it works for the North Island.

If you get

on the ferry at six in the morning in Port Hardy, you'll be in Prince Rupert

sometime later that night, give or take a couple of hours. Our two communities

are completely connected to each other through a whole series of ways, but one

of the vital links is the ferry. Part of this announcement had an RFP attached

to it for passenger service from Prince Rupert through to Jasper. I keep

thinking about that, and I keep thinking about the opportunities that are going

to open up because of this kind of bold initiative.

That ferry

is very important to Port Hardy. It fills up hotels. It fills up tourism

operations. People get on a bus. They do bus tours. People get in their motor

homes. They get on their motorbikes. They hitchhike. They drive their cars. They

come to Port Hardy, and

[ Page 8320 ]

they stay for a day, for a couple of days or for three days. Sometimes they

go whale-watching. Sometimes they take in some first nations cultural events.

They do some sightseeing. They may do a bit of hiking around Cape Scott. They

may take a little drive out to Holberg. There's a myriad of things you can do up

there.

[1605]

We've been

trying to draw people into our region for a long time. One of the ways we've

done it is to pass them through to Prince Rupert or, conversely, the other way.

I'm thinking about this, and, you know, Prince Rupert has struggled for a long

time. Port Hardy has struggled for a long time from an economic perspective.

They're both fishing towns. They both have strong connections to the forest

industry, and they both have felt the bumps and grinds of the economy — the

global economy — over the past few years. So the North Island has adopted this

notion that what's good for Prince Rupert is good for the North Island. What's

good for Prince Rupert is good for Port Hardy.

The simple

fact that somebody, the provincial government, is going to invest $17.5 million

in the container port facility in Prince Rupert, and CN is going to do another

$15 million of upgrades to the port and the track, and then they're going to put

out an RFP for passenger service to try and make better use of that track to

bring in another partner that can deliver that type of service…. All of those

things add up to some pretty important bonuses for us. It's going to make Prince

Rupert stronger. There's going to be more people in Prince Rupert. There's going

to be more goods going to Prince Rupert, more folks wanting to travel there,

more folks wanting to come down to the Island. It's more traffic on the ferries.

One of the

things that the Premier said and the Minister of Transportation has said, and

one of the things that we're working on with trying to bring in private sector

partners, is: "Increase the ferry service to Prince Rupert from Port

Hardy." That doesn't come without its challenges. In a roundabout but very

direct way, the B.C. Rail announcement is good for daily service to Prince

Rupert.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

It's a

piece of the puzzle. It's how you stack these things up.

Now, is

government going to solve this problem? No, it's not. It never will. We don't

have enough money. We couldn't print enough money. We can't invent enough money.

We can't wish, conjure or otherwise direct enough money to solve this problem.

But the private sector can. If you give them the fundamentals and give them the

opportunity, they can make it work.

Think of

this. In 2010 and in the years leading up to 2010 and the Olympics in Vancouver,

we're going to have the eyes of the world on us. We're going to want to attract

people here. We in the North Island know that we've got a lot to offer. We've

got skiing. We've got the great summer outdoor activities. We've got great

winter activities. We know we can get our fair share of those folks from around

the world to come to our part of the region. We know that if we've got the

facilities and there's opportunity out there, the private sector is going to

come and take advantage of that. We know that if we can get them to our area and

we can get the private sector there and we can get service increased because

these people are here, we're going to get more people onto that train that might

go to Jasper.

Think about

this. You land in Vancouver. You come over to Victoria. Maybe there's a private

sector partner that figures out how to make the E&N work one of these days,

and you can get to Courtenay, and you've got to get from Courtenay to Port

Hardy. We'll find you a way to get there. You get off there and get onto a ferry

from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. You spend a day travelling through the Inside

Passage, through some of the most spectacular scenery in the world. You get off

at Prince Rupert, and you spend a couple of days there. You visit the old

cannery. You visit historic Prince Rupert, and then you get on the train and

travel from there across north central British Columbia to a place like Jasper

or somewhere else. Then you carry on from Jasper to Calgary or some other place

like that, and you get back on your plane and fly home. What a great trip. What

a trip of a lifetime.

[1610]

That can

happen now. That has the potential now. It didn't have that potential before. It

does now because the government thought, and the government knows, that if we

get out of the way and if we create this opportunity, our options are endless.

The options for the private sector are endless. It's up to them to find this

money. It's up to them to create the service. It's up to them to market it. It's

up to them to reach out to the world. We've got all of the tools now to help

plug this in one step at a time. That's why the billion-dollar deal for B.C.

Rail is good for the North Island. It's pretty simple. You make the economy

better in Prince Rupert, you provide better services, and things are going to

get that much better incrementally in Port Hardy. They get a little better in

Port Hardy, and guess what. They get a little better in Campbell River. They get

a little better in Campbell River, and they're going to be a little better in

Courtenay. They get a little better in Courtenay, and they'll get a little

better maybe down Parksville way. They get a little better in Parksville, and by

the time you get to Victoria — you know what? — we've got the package

together.

Interjection.

Visser: I'm just going to talk about the Island, because it's important that

people on the Island understand we're a pretty big province and that we're

pretty interconnected and the opportunities aren't isolated. They're not

parochial. There are lots of little opportunities where we are, but if you start

pushing them together and piecing them together, inviting the private sector in,

those opportunities become endless. That's what B.C. Rail does for my

constituency and those folks in Port Hardy. I thank the Premier and I thank the

minister and all those folks in the government caucus

[ Page 8321 ]

that made this work. Our lives are going to get a little better because of

this.

Wilson: This is probably the best thing I have seen happen in all the time

I've been around here. The B.C. Rail deal was the right thing to do. Once it was

put out, there was some opposition to it. We had a lot of people question this

before it came out, and when it came out, those with an open mind said:

"Hey, this is a very good thing." Those that criticized what we're

doing are probably the same group of people that believe in spending — deficit

spending taxpayers' money. They probably believe that money grows on trees, that

there's never any end to it. Realistically, they do realize it doesn't grow on

trees. It's just that there's no consideration for our children and our

grandchildren and the debt they will have to carry if we continue to deficit

spend. We as a government recognize the importance of getting this economy going

again. This is something I see as probably one of the biggest and best things

that's happened to British Columbia in a long, long time.

Now, you've

heard all of the good things about what this deal does for British Columbia. I

want to maybe put a little different spin on it, from a riding perspective.

Cariboo North sits pretty well right in the middle of British Columbia, and B.C.

Rail is our supplier for freight and has been for passenger service. I live

right beside the tracks, and for a number of years now I've watched the company

go backwards. Ten years ago, eight years ago, the rail line was doing fairly

well. We had passenger service, we had intermodal service, and we had trains

that were carrying freight.

[1615]

That has

sort of slowly but steadily vanished. We still have trains carrying freight, but

that is all we have. I watch those trains. They go south. They're loaded with

lumber, sulphur, coal or whatever comes down. When they come back, they're

empty. All of that freight is moved one way. It's a one-way system. They're

coming back empty, and that's a costly thing.

For a

number of years we had a passenger service, and we had Budd cars that ran up and

down the line. In the summertime they would be reasonably well filled up, in

tourist season, but they ran through the winter. Many, many times I've watched

them rattle by, and there might be two or three heads you can see in the

windows. The rest of the cars were empty. No company, no business can operate

that way and stay in the black. It was a costly thing to operate.

The

intermodal service. The freights coming back from the south would be carrying

trucks to be picked up wherever they were dropped off, at rail destinations. The

freight to take those trucks north, no doubt, was cheaper than it would be to

put two trucks on the highway. As things sort of went downhill, the freight

trains became shorter. We used to always have one or two pots in the middle of

that train pushing as well as pulling. You'd have three or four locomotives up

front, and halfway back there would be one or two. Those freight trains were

very, very long. They have shortened up. Over the last two years they have

shortened up continually to now where we only need to have usually three

locomotives on the front.

recognized there was a big problem in this company, so we went out and talked to

the communities. We talked to the municipal leaders, and we talked to the people

that rely on the rail service, the shippers. They said: "You need to

correct this. You need to do something with it." What you see today, Mr.

Speaker, is the result of those consultations. We can look forward to getting

the interior and the north back on a good, sound economic footing. The fact that

we sold it for a billion dollars, paid off the debt and are reinvesting that

money into northern infrastructure is going to be what makes the north become

the economic engine of British Columbia again.

As these

freights got smaller, it was because the company could not supply the cars to

the shippers. What happened? The shippers had to go and rely on the trucking

industry. Now, the trucking industry is a great industry in this province; it's

a huge industry. We can be thankful they're there. They create a lot of

employment. The problem is that we're running on a highway system in the

interior that was built 40 or 50 years ago. The maintenance today on that

highway is probably better than it has been, that I can remember, in the last 12

years. We're putting more money out for better road maintenance, and that's a

good thing. In the meantime this railway, once it's operating and delivering the

goods and services, will take up some of the truck traffic that we're seeing

increasing at an alarming rate on our northern roads.

That truck

traffic all relates to safety. The northern interior in British Columbia has got

a fatality rate that is 2.6 times the provincial average, and those are hard

numbers to live with. This is the first step in creating our highways that will

be safer for the motoring public. We can take that excess freight and work it

back into the rail system so that the shippers can get better delivery times and

cheaper rates.

[1620]

There is

another aspect to this deal that hasn't been…. It's been touched on, but….

In my riding and Quesnel, where I live, we have a neighbouring community to our

east. It's Wells, and just outside Wells is Barkerville. Barkerville is the

jewel of British Columbia heritage. It is the home of the gold rush in the

Cariboo, and it has been having its problems in the last few years. Numbers are

not increasing the way they should be. Costs keep going up, and we have to do

something to address that.

I see this.

We have put proposals out for rail service. I really believe that when those

proposals come in, they are going to incorporate all of the advantages we have

in the interior and the north into a package, and one of those could be

Barkerville. In the Chilcotin we have wonderful recreational holiday

opportunities for people that are travelling through when they plan a holiday.

They can do the same thing if they wish to go and visit historic Barkerville.

It's a wonderful place to go and a wonderful place to see.

By putting

a transportation system such as this in place, we will allow for the continued

improvement

[ Page 8322 ]

and growth in all of our tourist industry. There are opportunities out there,

whether it be back-country opportunities that people want to take a side trip on

or whether they want to go and visit Barkerville. All of these things will

become interconnected, I believe, with a good, solid passenger service which can

then go, as we say, to Rupert. It can go up through the interior or go east to

the Prairies.

In the end

everyone will benefit — whether it's the tourist operators, the people that

come to British Columbia to see this wonderful province or the people that live

and work here — through better freight rates and better services. By

developing a container facility in Prince Rupert, we are completing an

infrastructure that has been lacking for very many years in this province. I see

only good things happening, coming out of this. With that, I would like to

relinquish the floor to my colleagues here and let them have a word.

Harris: I was just thinking, sitting here listening to some of the members

speaking today, of a comment that the member for North Island made when he

opened his remarks. He said: "Thinking big. This whole act is about

thinking big." The member that just spoke talked about this as the best

thing to happen since he's been in the House, been in government. That is

actually what this bill is about. It's about thinking big. A lot of people

before me, the members before me, have talked about the details of this

agreement. I think what I want to talk about and spend a bit of time on is the

benefits of it, because it is about thinking big.

I think the

minister and her staff did an absolutely incredible job of crafting and

negotiating a deal that is one of the most thoughtful and strategic plans for

economic development in the north that any government in this province has ever

put forward. That is important, and we need to get that. During the last couple

of months, when all of us have been reading ad nauseam all of the criticisms

from the different media and different groups working to their own agendas, this

minister and her staff stayed focused.

They stayed

focused on what people like the mayors council said, stayed focused on what

members of this House said, stayed focused on what the shippers council was

saying, and they continued to negotiate and craft a deal that's going to pay

dividends for every part of this province for a long, long time to come. As a

matter of fact, I think it creates the framework that northern communities have

been looking for, for decades. As the member for North Island referred to, it

actually benefits the entire province, and that's important.

[1625]

I also want

to congratulate and thank the Premier of this province for keeping two very

important promises. One we've heard a lot about is the promise not to sell B.C.

Rail. There's no doubt the integrity of the asset base remains under the control

of the province, with the retention of the tracks, the right-of-way and the

railbed. But he kept a more fundamental promise, and that was a promise I know

he made to myself, to the other northern MLAs, to the communities, to the mayors

and to the people of this province — that he would listen. He would actually

listen to what it is those of us in northern communities have been looking for,

for a long time, and that's just for an opportunity.

This

agreement really builds on that. For years right across the north, you know,

we've talked about what we need to revitalize our communities. With this

announcement, what it puts in place is the infrastructure and the tools every

community in the north and the interior needs to actually start to craft their

own future. I want to spend a little time talking about that.

I've lived

in one northern community or another for most of my life. I can remember when I

first moved to Terrace back in 1990. I was in the fuel business then — a

rather honourable profession, not unlike the Minister of Energy and Mines —

and a lot of our business was moving product up Highway 37. The amount of

business we did up there was incredible. We used to go to an airstrip at Bob

Quinn Lake. Bob Quinn Lake is in the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine's

riding. It was one of the busiest airports in British Columbia, moving product,

fuel and all sorts of different supplies into different mining camps. Snip mine

was going at the time, and a variety of other exploration operations were going.

It was a going concern. Companies like J.T. Thomas out of Smithers…. We used

to haul fuel to them, fill up drums, and they'd take it out to sites where they

were doing mining and exploration work.

The

business I had, to be honest, was actually one of the small players in the game.

The activity up that highway was incredible. We used to deliver fuel into

Stewart to go into bladders to be flown into Red Mountai