H1118pm 09

H1118pm 09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7985 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7986 Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84) Hon. J. Murray Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93) Hon. G.

Collins Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7986 Sumas Energy 2 project and alternative energy production B. Penner University College of the Cariboo K. Krueger Tara Singh Hayer D. Hayer Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7988 Privatization of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell B.C. resort task force T. Christensen Hon. K.

Falcon Privatization of B.C. Rail J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 7991 Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, second report K. Stewart Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7991 Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79) J. Kwan Hon. R. Neufeld B. Suffredine W. McMahon B.

Bennett D. Jarvis

7985 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. MacPhail: Philippe Murat — you know him from CBC Radio-Canada — and his wife, Jasmine, are the proud parents this morning of two beautiful baby girls. Thérèse was born at eight last night. She came in at 5 pounds 9 ounces. Two minutes later Charlotte was born, coming in at 6 pounds — oy — 14 ounces. I just had an initial reaction there. But everybody, appar- ently, is well and resting comfortably.

I'm sure the House will join me in wishing Philippe, Jasmine, Thérèse and Charlotte all the best, and I ask the Speaker to send félicitations on behalf of the entire House. Mr. Speaker: So ordered, and I really appreciated the sound effects. [1405] Hon. L. Stephens: In the House today is Samantha McBride. She is here to assist with the job-shadowing in recognition of Women's History Month. Women's caucus members, through the last couple of weeks, have been hosting young women in leadership and encouraging young women to participate in the politi- cal process.

Samantha is a grade 11 student from Esquimalt High School. She's on the honour roll. She's a member of the rowing team and the vice-president of the student council. Would the House please make Samantha welcome. P. Bell: I am very pleased to introduce to the House today the individual that keeps my life on time and deals with all the issues that we are faced with on an ongoing basis. I'm pleased to introduce Charlotte Groot, my constituency assistant from Prince George. Would the House please make her very welcome. Hon. K. Whittred: Also today in the gallery is Chel- sea Parker.

She, too, is job-shadowing me today as part of the celebration of Women's History Month. Chelsea is a grade 10 student at Mount Douglas Senior Secon- dary in Victoria, and her favourite subjects are litera- ture and drama. She's here today to learn more about politics and government. Will you join me, please, in welcoming Chelsea. M. Hunter: It's my pleasure to introduce today two visitors in the gallery. Mr. George Hanson is the execu- tive director of the downtown Nanaimo partnership, working hard to re-establish our downtown as a vibrant part of our community.

He's accompanied by his mother, Lila Blackman, who is a resident of the state of Maine. Will the House please make them both welcome. Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us today from Robert Bateman Secondary School are 32 students who are studying government, and with them are three teachers: Jeff Crocker, Jinny St-Hilaire and Tia Ash. I spoke to these students a few days ago about government, and today they're here to see the practical reality of govern- ment. I'd like the House to please make them welcome. P.

Wong: Today joining us in the House are a num- ber of dedicated volunteers and a youth group from the Church of Scientology, which is actively involved in educating youth about the harm of drugs so that the youth will make an important decision to be drug-free. The drug-free marshals who have joined us today are Sharon Werner, Jeff Beaumont, Shauntel Braun, Lindsey Scott, Tyler Smith, Kyle Connor and Brandon McGonigal. This group, along with our MLA office, organized a successful street-cleaning day this summer to help clean up Fraser Street. Would the House please help me to make them very welcome. Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me today to introduce a few people to the House, one from my constituency. Today we had a successful oil and gas day, and there were quite a number of oil and gas executives over from Calgary and Edmonton to visit with some of the MLAs. But staying behind was Pierre Alvarez, the presi- dent of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Pro- ducers. I believe — I'm not sure — he might be here: Doug Haughey, the president of Duke Energy.

I have here Ross Curtis, assistant deputy minister of the oil and gas division in my ministry, and from my con- stituency a good friend of mine by the name of Bob Fedderly. He's the president of the Northern Society Oilfield Contractors and represents a lot of folks that are working in the oil and gas industry in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek. Would the House please make them welcome. R. Hawes: In the House today are two former col- leagues of mine and now close associates: the mayor of Mission, Abe Neufeld, and the city administrator, Glen Robertson. Could the House please make them both welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I just ask the House to make wel- come two people who are here with me today. The one who spends most days here with me in the Legislature is Adam Buchanan, who is the executive assistant in my office. With him today, as well, is a gentleman who works out of my constituency office, Mr. Eric Hogan. I ask the House to make them welcome. [1410] I. Chong: Earlier today I had the pleasure of meet- ing with two fine gentlemen to discuss concerns re- garding their profession — the opticians. Joining us in the gallery is Mr. Don Smith, president of the Opticians Association of Canada, and with him is Mr.

Brian May- cock, a highly successful owner of a family-run busi-

7986 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 ness here in Victoria, Maycock Optical. Would the House make them both welcome. J. Kwan: I see that visiting us in the visitors' gallery is Susan Thom, the communications director of B.C. Housing. I recognize her from the days when we were in government, and there were lots of housing an- nouncements and openings of affordable housing. Would the House please make welcome Susan Thom. Introduction and First Reading of Bills PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J.

Murray presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. J. Murray: I move that Bill 84 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Murray: I'm pleased to introduce a bill that makes amendments to both the Park Act and the Pro- tected Areas of British Columbia Act. British Columbia is home to the third-largest park system in North America, behind only the national park system in Canada and the U . S. A . We hav e a p ark s y st e m t o b e p rou d o f .

T hi s g ov - ernment's goal is to continue to make that system even better. We'll continue to welcome and cater to all visitors by providing more choice and more opportunity. With these amendments to the Park Act, we recog- nize there are economic opportunities that exist within our provincial parks that can be accessed while con- tinuing to protect the important environmental and recreational value of our parks.

Further amendments to the Park Act contained in this bill will clarify the rules for directional drilling under lands in the parks and protected area system, consistent with current practices in protected areas and consistent with government's new-era commitment to ensure no mining or logging in our parks. In addition, amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will amend the bounda- ries of seven parks in the schedules of that act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 H o n . G . C o l l i n s p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insur- ance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G.

Collins: This piece of legislation completes the legislative reform of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Insurance Act as it relates to the core review of ICBC and greater provision for optional insurance and com- petition in the optional insurance market. The bill amends the Insurance Act so that it applies a consistent set of statutory provisions to both public and private providers of auto insurance, including the mandatory basic insurance provided by ICBC and op- tional vehicle insurance provided by ICBC and private insurers.

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

part 6 of the Insurance Act governs optional insurance policies issued by private insurers. This act will further competition between the public and private providers as well as level the playing field between the two, re- sulting in greater choice for consumers. This act com- pletes the core review of ICBC announced late last year. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 93 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1415] Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION B. Penner: When will we find out if SE2 will be permitted to build power lines into the Fraser Valley in order to hook up their proposed power plant? That's the question I've been asked repeatedly ever since the National Energy Board wrapped up hearings in the m i d d l e o f S e p t e m b e r .

A l o n g w i t h m a n y F r a s e r V a l l e y residents and municipal leaders, MLAs for Maple Ridge–Mission, Abbotsford-Clayburn, Abbotsford– Mount Lehman, Chilliwack-Sumas and a riding known as Chilliwack-Kent joined the provincial government as official interveners in the process.

During 23 days of evidence and seven days of closing argument, the B.C. government argued strenuously that the Sumas Energy 2 proposal was not a project which fitted the National Energy Board's criterion of "public convenience and necessity." Frankly, it's anyone's guess when the NEB will release their decision, but I think we may hear something by Christmas. Is it just a waiting game at this point, or is there something else we can do? Although the hearings are finished, there is more w e c a n d o . T h a n k s t o B . C . ' s n e w e n e r g y p o l i c y , c l e a n

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7987 sources of electricity are coming on line. The more we can encourage this type of energy production, the less demand there will be for power from projects like SE2. At this moment work is well underway on the Furry Creek small hydro project near Squamish. This is where our Minister of Finance and Minister of Energy announced a tax break for run-of-the-river projects back in August, a move which signals the govern- ment's support for this type of renewable energy.

Along with the members for West Vancouver– Capilano and Burnaby North, I was pleased to be on hand for the announcement. It was rewarding to see people from throughout the Fraser Valley, including Chilliwack, working on the project and earning very respectable paycheques. An even bigger project is un- der construction now at Rutherford Creek, near Pemberton; and the Brandywine Creek project, south of Whistler, was commissioned only a few weeks ago. Other small hydro projects are nearing completion on Vancouver Island. About ten days ago I met with proponents of B.C.'s first-ever commercial wind power project.

They have now completed a power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro, including payment of a non-refundable deposit of $400,000. Now they must proceed through the envi- ronmental assessment process, which I sincerely hope won't take too long. While we're waiting for the deci- sion on SE2, there is, in fact, more we can do, and the good news is that we are doing more. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE CARIBOO K. Krueger: Mr.

Speaker, as you know better than anyone in this House, in 1970 Cariboo College was founded by a group of men and women who knew young people in the interior had a desire to get a post- secondary education close to their homes. I wasn't even old enough for a driver's licence at the time, but I've certainly heard a lot about it since I've been in Kam- loops. When Cariboo College opened, it consisted of little more than its student body and instructors — 500 full- time and part-time students who studied in primitive facilities by today's standards.

Today the University College of the Cariboo has a modern, high-tech cam- pus. It has an e nrolment of more than 10,000 students who come from all over British Columbia, Canada and 49 other countries including China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland. It offers 48 bachelor's degree options in 12 different program areas, 20 di- ploma programs and 34 different certificates in a vari- ety of subjects, and it has a tremendous record in trades training.

It has specialty courses for first nations and pro- grams such as adventure guiding, bachelor of tourism management, respiratory therapy, animal health tech- nology and bachelor of journalism, which are not of- fered anywhere else in British Columbia. UCC has a sports program that rivals any in the country. In fact, UCC varsity athletics has been ac- cepted into the Canada West conference of Canadian Interuniversity Sports. Starting in 2005, UCC athletes will be competing against UBC, SFU and UVic athletes and other top athletes from western universities.

However, as impressive as it already is, UCC has room to grow and get better. It sits on 250 acres of land overlooking the North Thompson valley. It still has 60 acres to expand in — enough land to meet the growing demand for class seats and to build new structures such as the Trades and Technology Centre that opened five years ago, an international building that is now under construction and a new Actors Workshop Thea- tre that opened this fall through the funding of this government.

There is a group of people in Kamloops named the Friends of UCC University Society, who have come together with one goal in mind: to get official recogni- tion, through name, that University College of the Cariboo is a full-fledged university. They have galva- nized the people of Kamloops and the region, who know what opportunities lie ahead for our community and our province if UCC can achieve official university status. I support their efforts, and I know you do also, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank them and pay trib- ute to the work they have done.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Advanced Education, who has listened intently to our proposal. We look forward to more discussions in the near future. [1420] TARA SINGH HAYER D. Hayer: L i k e m a ny o f m y c o l l e ag u e s , I at t e nd e d Remembrance Day ceremonies last week to pay hom- age to the courage and dedication of those who so bravely fought for the freedom we enjoy today. There is another remembrance this week, also for a coura- geous freedom fighter. Today I remember my father, who dedicated his life for a different kind of battle.

With a stroke of his pen, he fought for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom that so many o f u s t a k e f o r g r a n t e d . I e s p e c i a l l y r e m e m b e r h i m t o - day, because five years ago on November 18 my father was assassinated for standing up and speaking up through his newspaper, for defending the freedoms and democracy we enjoy today. To recognize the sacrifice made by my father, Tara Singh Hayer, there will be a memorial service — the fifth annual memorial service — at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey.

The services will be held Fri- day, Saturday and Sunday, with the main service being held on Sunday, November 23, at 10:30 a.m. I invite all in the House who are available to join me on that day to celebrate his life and the contributions he made to further the cause of peace, security, freedom and the preservation of democracy. While I remember the tragedies that have occurred to preserve our way of life, I am also reminded person- ally every day that we have all faced sacrifice. To keep what we hold so precious, we must all be vigilant, and each in our own way we must be willing to defend and preserve it.

7988 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL J. MacPhail: The Premier likes to talk about the supposed benefits that will flow to the taxpayer as a result of breaking his election promise not to sell or privatize B.C. Rail. Today we learn that there may be no benefits to the taxpayer at all if the Premier sells B . C . R a i l t o o n e o f h i s b i g g e s t c a m p a i g n b a c k e r s , C N . Everyone familiar with this file knows that CN is sali- vating over the potentially billions of dollars in un- tapped tax write-offs sitting on B.C. Rail's books.

Now, the Premier may be happy to eliminate com- petition for his big-money campaign backer — more than $107,000 in election donations — but he's got a bit of a problem on his hands on the tax side. To the Pre- mier: is he going to offer CN an indemnity against the possibility that Revenue Canada rules against CN's plans to write off billions of dollars? Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite was in attendance at the transportation conference which was organized with northern representatives and with rep- resentatives from the federal government as well as representatives from the province.

She actually heard the communities of the north saying to this govern- ment directly: "Our recommendation would be for the province to retain ownership of the railbed and rail tracks and their partner to offer freight and passenger services." People from the north said to us that we had to im- prove on the quality of service that B.C. Rail offered. People from the north told us that it was time for us to see some investment in B.C. Rail that would encourage economic development from the Peace to the northwest, to Prince George, to the Alberta border.

Our government is committed to assuring that there is an integrated rail service that meets the needs of the north and the heart- lands of this community so the economies in the north and the heartlands can reach their full potential. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, once again the Premier misrep- resents what a body decided or didn't decide, and he continues to duck the central issue. When he told the voters he would not privatize or sell B.C. Rail, he wasn't telling them the truth, and he just admits that now.

All along, the Liberal government has been plan- ning to sell B.C. Rail, and it was prepared to say what- ever it took to get elected in order to do so. Reality is setting in, and let me just give some of that reality. Let's find out what the benefits to the prov- ince are if it sells B.C. Rail. There's no benefit to the shippers. They'll pay higher rates. There's no benefit to the communities. They'll see reduced levels of services and huge amounts of money leaving their economies. There's no benefit to the employees. They'll see at least 600 jobs disappear. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J.

MacPhail: There's no benefit to the taxpayer, be- cause the government…. [1425] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the member please now put her question. J. MacPhail: Yes, I will. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. J. MacPhail: There's no benefit to the taxpayer… Mr. Speaker: Now, please. J. MacPhail: …because the government appears ready to hand over B.C. Rail to one of its biggest cam- paign donors. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. J. MacPhail: To the Premier: cut the spin, drop the message box, admit the truth. Will he now admit that the B.C.

Rail campaign promise wasn't worth the glossy paper it was written on? Hon. G. Campbell: Here's the truth, Mr. Speaker. B.C. Rail has $500 million of debt. B.C. Rail has had to write off $800 million over the last 15 years. Shippers told us it was time to change — that they couldn't count on B.C. Rail. Communities told us that B.C. Rail had to be integrated into the northern transportation networks or we would not be able to serve their needs.

This government said to communities in the north, who came and said: "We must work together to find a private rail operator to meet the needs of industries — forestry, mining and tourism." The province has given an assurance to retain the ownership of the track and railbed. They're satisfied with that. The mayor of Prince George has said to us that their recommendation was that we retain ownership — we retain ownership, public ownership — of the rail and the railbed.

We will do that so that infrastructure is always there to meet the needs of northern and interior communities in Brit- ish Columbia, and we will do that. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, what this Premier refuses to acknowledge is that he hasn't received one new piece of financial information from the time he prom- ised northern communities he wouldn't sell or privat-

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7989 ize B.C. Rail — not one new piece of financial informa- tion. He likes to talk about the demands of the commu- nity and the supposed benefits that will flow to the taxpayer, but today we learn that there may be no benefits to the taxpayers at all if the Premier sells B.C. Rail to his biggest campaign backer of them all — CN. This government was wrong to try to sell off the Coquihalla. It reluctantly dropped those plans. It was wrong to try to sell off the liquor stores.

It dropped the plan for now, anyway, when he realized the former minister had botched the plan. Now, the Premier has an opportunity to admit an- other mistake — something I know it's difficult for him to do — and he can say to his big campaign donor: "I'm sorry, the $107,000 helped me get elected, but unfortu- nately you can't have B.C. Rail in return. It's just not going to work." Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: Instead of putting the taxpayers… Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. It's time to put the question, hon. member. J.

MacPhail: …on the hook for millions of dollars in a bad deal… Mr. Speaker: Now, please. J. MacPhail: …why doesn't the Premier tell his party to give CN its $107,000 back and cancel this bone- headed plan? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. G. Campbell: Y o u k n o w , w e h a v e a n e n o r - mous opportunity in this House to serve the needs of northern communities, to serve the needs of northern workers, to build an industrial plant in the north that they can count on… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …and that's sustainable for the long term.

It is unequivocal that you need an inte- grated rail service to meet the needs of our customers and the shippers of British Columbia, whether they're in the forest industry or the mining industry. There is no question about that. There is no question that we need an integrated shipping network. There is no question that we need more competitive rates. There is no question that the costs that have been associated with B.C. Rail… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …delivering services have been onerous. So we are doing exactly what the mayors of northern communities asked us to do.

They said to us, and again I quote…. Let me quote directly. The mem- ber opposite had this. She may decide not to read it, Mr. Speaker, but she knows that this is true: "Our rec- ommendation would be for the province to retain own- ership of the railbed and rail tracks and their partner to offer freight and passenger services." Now, that was said once to the member, it was said again at a special meeting of northern mayors, and it was said again at a shippers' conference last December. Following that, what the shippers and what the com- munities said to us was clearly: "Get on with the job. We want the service.

It's time for action." And we will act, Mr. Speaker. [1430] B.C. RESORT TASK FORCE T. Christensen: Well, it may be raining outside here in Victoria, but throughout a number of mountains in the interior it is snowing furiously today. As all mem- b e r s o f t h e H o u s e s h o u l d k n o w b y n o w , m y r i d i n g i s home to Silver Star ski resort, one of British Columbia's most spectacular and fastest-developing resort destina- tions. As part of our…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the ques- tion. T.

Christensen: My constituents have a great deal of interest in what happens at Silver Star ski resort as it is a foundation of part of the economy in the Vernon area. As part of our new-era commitment to stimulate tourism and our plan outlined in the throne speech last spring to establish a B.C. resort task force, the Minister for Deregulation was appointed chair of the task force. I know the Minister for Deregulation has been working hard in terms of the task force's purposes.

I was hoping that the minister could provide my con- stituents with some update on what is happening with the B.C. resort task force and how that is going to bene- fit Silver Star ski resort and other resorts throughout the interior. Hon. K. Falcon: As you know, the Premier back in February toured over a dozen alpine ski resorts and came away with a recognition that these resorts can be huge economic generators. Just to give you an idea, Whistler alone generates over a billion dollars in eco- nomic activity, representing some 10 percent of the tourism revenues of this province.

7990 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 What we said under the leadership of our Premier was t hat we we r e g o i ng t o l o o k at e v e ry s i ng l e re s o rt across the province and see what barriers the govern- ment has put into place and make sure we reduce those barriers. We unleashed the unbelievable power and potential of resorts right across British Columbia to ensure that we capitalize on 2010 and all the folks who will be coming and looking at this great province and realizing what fantastic natural resorts and what great people we have here. PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL J.

Kwan: The one document that the Premier forgot to look at is the new-era commitments that he himself put out, and in it: "We will not sell or privatize B.C. Rail." Maybe the Premier has forgotten that promise. You know, watching the Liberals twist on the B.C. Rail file will make for good entertainment if it weren't for the fact that this flagrant broken promise will hurt jobs and the economy in the north. Recently the north- ern customers of Agricore United, one of B.C. Rail's big customers, passed a resolution condemning the gov- ernment for its broken promise. Here's what one of these B.C.

Rail customers said in a letter to the Premier: "Public ownership of B.C. Rail is crucial to the economic well-being of all British Columbi- ans. B.C. Rail has the advantage of providing competition in the marketplace and direct access to the Asian market- place." This was sent to the Premier just last week. The government is out of exc uses. B.C. Rai l makes money, its debt is manageable, and its customers say its service is dependable. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: Will the minister stop…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Order.

Would the member please now put her question. J. Kwan: Will the Minister of Transportation stop twisting in the wind and just admit that her govern- ment has betrayed British Columbians on B.C. Rail? [1435] Hon. J. Reid: There is so much growth potential in the north and in the rail services, and that previous government could not accomplish any of that growth. We have had to consolidate the services of the freight rail side. There are hundreds of jobs available for the passenger-tourism sector.

There are jobs available in the growth of industry when we get a rail partner who can invest and can see that growth happen. The frustra- tion we've had and industry has had is that there has not been access to more capital for more growth, and that investment is going to create the economic oppor- tunities we all want to see. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: Well, in the free enterprise economy the customer is always right. In their resolution condemn- ing the government, Agricore customers said the B.C. Liberals have no mandate to sell the company.

They say that the sale of B.C. Rail would result in higher freight charges. Employees will be laid off, and north- ern interior lines will be abandoned. These customers say that the vision laid down by W.A.C. Bennett for B.C. Rail still holds true today. Everyone knows the government is — what this minis- ter refuses to admit — selling B.C. Rail to CN. Why is it so hard for the minister just to admit the truth? Does she think British Columbians are gullible enough to believe the deal isn't already done? Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, here's the truth.

British Columbia needs to have a rail system that takes our products to their marketplace. British Columbia needs a rail system that delivers as cost-effectively as possible. British Columbia needs a rail system that de- livers…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order, please. Order! Order! Will the Leader of the Opposition please retract that statement unequivocally. J. MacPhail: No, I won't, Mr. Speaker. I won't re- tract it, because if he's saying it's the truth now, then he was lying before. Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, if you do not retract the statement unequivocally, I have no choice but to ask you to leave the chamber. J. MacPhail: I'm not going to retract the statement, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Then I have no choice, hon. member, but to ask you to leave the chamber. [J. MacPhail left the chamber.] Hon. G. Campbell: The truth is that we need an integrated rail… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …system to meet the needs of our resource communities in the north. The truth is that we are not going to sell the railbed. We are not

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7991 going to sell the tracks of B.C. Rail. We are going to provide for economic investment in the heartlands of this community. The truth is that there are going to be more jobs in the north. There are going to be more jobs in the heartland, because at last we have an integrated transportation system that works for all British Colum- bians. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees K.

Stewart: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations respecting a review of the Insurance Cor- poration of British Columbia, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the homeowner protection office and the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. K. Stewart: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. K.

Stewart: I move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make the following comments. First, I thank the Clerk's office and staff for their continued high level of support to our committee. Our committee is committed to the improvement of reporting and accountability processes of the British Columbia Crown corporations and is pursuing a num- ber of new initiatives to meet this goal, specifically in the areas of performance measurement and govern- ance.

The operation of boards will also be more closely scrutinized for their performance by the committee. [1440] In closing, I would like to thank the committee members for their time, energy and expertise, which allows for the accountability and transparency of Crown corporations for the benefit of all the citizens of British Columbia. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 79. [1445] Committee of the Whole House COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 79; J. Weisbeck in the chair. [1450] The committee met at 2:52 p.m. On

section 1. J. Kwan: You'll have to excuse me for a moment, Mr. Chair. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition was carrying this bill, and I wasn't expecting to do committee stage on this bill until just now. So you'll excuse me if I stumble here and there. Bill 79, the Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, was introduced two Tuesdays ago. Under

section 1, here are some general questions for the minister. In introducing this bill, the minister said this bill would enable the trust to "more efficiently deliver its legis- lated mandate." So let's look at that mandate. It says in

section 4 of the Columbia Basin Trust Act: "4

(1) The purpose of the corporation is to invest, spend and otherwise manage the regional allocation and the corporation's other assets, including any assets that may be transferred to it, for the ongoing economic, environmental and social benefit of the region including, without limitation, for (

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

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

c) the economic development of the region, and (

d) any other prescribed purposes.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) relieves any level of government from any obligations it might have with respect to the region." [1455] It is with interest we note what the present minister had to say about this

section during debate in 1995. At that time he said: "To get back to the question, is the province's responsibility not already the social well-being of the residents of the region? Is the province's responsibility not already the preservation, protection and enhancement of the environment of the region? Is the province's responsibility not the economic development of the region and any other prescribed purposes? One seems very opposite to the other, and what I see — subsection (2) — is really a contradictory statement altogether." The minister, then, was not what one would call a fan of the mandate of the trust.

In fact, he questioned the need for it. I'm sure the minister will understand that there is a certain amount of skepticism in response to the changes he's proposing in this bill. The minister is, with this bill, increasing the power of the provincial gov- ernment as it relates to the management of the trust, and he is not a big supporter of the legislated mandate

7992 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 of the trust. What assurances can the minister provide that the independence and local focus of the trust will be continued with the passage of this bill? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it's great to put on the record that we are not changing how the trust operates. What we are doing with this bill is simplifying a few items, items that no longer need to be there. There are some deregulation initiatives taken. I'll deal in general, if it's the will of the Chair, as the question was general. The trust will still manage its assets the way it always has.

Columbia Power Corpora- tion will still manage the assets along with the trust. The Columbia Basin Trust will still have the authority to spend their share of the proceeds however they want to spend their share of the proceeds, exactly as it was envisioned in 1995. The only difference here is that — and although it's in the next section, I will say it — we're reducing the board from 18 to 12. That's by agreement of the board. They would rather have a smaller board than a large board, so we're accommodating those things.

Nothing changes as to how they want to spend their share of the money that comes forward from those investments. J. Kwan: Well, no. We'll get into more detailed de- bate when we get to the next section, which is, of course, about the makeup of the board. It has substan- tively changed with this piece of legislation. Therefore, what will happen with decisions from the board may result in changes in their decisions because of the makeup of the board. We'll get into that when we get to that section.

The minister did not answer the question, though, in terms of how local focus will be maintained and how the independence of that board will be maintained. The fact is that the makeup of the board is going to be changed. It's no longer going to be community people. How will one ensure that there's local focus with re- spect to the work of this board? [K. Stewart in the chair.] Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to draw us back to

section 1, but let me reassure the member, and I'm going to reassure the people in the Kootenays. The board mem- bers, all 12, will actually come from the Kootenays. They will be people in the community, who live in the Kootenays, in the area that's represented by the Co- lumbia Basin Trust. That will not change. Prior to this change, there were six members ap- pointed by the previous government and 12 from the region. All we're changing is that six will come, again, from the government. The Kootenay caucus has rec- ommended and has processed the names of the people from the region that are acceptable.

At least, I certainly haven't heard or received one letter that said those six people that government appointed are not the people to represent the people in the Kootenays. I can assume from that, then, that the government appointees — the ones that government actually appoints — are satisfac- tory to the people in the Kootenays. The other six will be given to us. Names will be given to government, to board resourcing, by people from the five different regional districts and one tribal council. [1500] Now, I don't know what that member doesn't get about how that's not people from the Kootenays.

It still amazes me that someone can stand in this House and say the people won't be from the Kootenays when they will be from the Kootenays. They are from the Kootenays, and they will always be from the Kootenays. I can't express that more. I hope this mem- ber actually reads the bill to find out how those people are appointed. She may not like a board going from 18 to 12, but I can tell you that the people on the board like it going from 18 to 12. There are some reasons for the matter of fact that we have to appoint all of those by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that should be well understood.

N o o n e i s t r y i n g t o u s u r p a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e Kootenays. This is all about representation from the Kootenays on the Columbia Basin Trust so the Colum- bia Basin Trust can move forward, carry on its business as it normally has with people represented from the Columbia basin. J. Kwan: It simply is not a true representation of how the community feels about the changes being pro- posed in this bill, Mr. Chair. The fact of the matter is that the community is greatly concerned with the proposed change.

What the minister refuses to acknowledge is that with the change in this bill, it actually takes away local representation chosen by the people from the commu- nity — not a government-chosen board on which the government has a bunch of stooges who will simply do what the government tells them to do. That would be their caucus. The minister can pretend all he wants that some- how he's listening to the people, while nothing could be further from the truth. Let me ask the minister this question. Has he received any correspondence from the public, news reports — meetings?

No doubt he's heard a lot of those going on in terms of opposition to this bill. Has the minister received any correspondence or proposal from the current board in relation to the changes we find in this bill? Hon. R. Neufeld: I mean, if we want to discuss this issue, we should really be doing it in the next section, but I'm quite willing to do it in this section. Again, you know, you can stand there and say whatever you want, but the people that are appointed by government to the board are actually people from the Kootenays.

Now, if you're telling me that those six people that we appointed just recently are stooges, I find that a bit offensive. I would think that the folks who just got appointed to that trust by government — those six people and the rest of the people on the board that you refer to as stooges — should all be just a little bit upset with that member.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7993 Now, I don't know who she's referring to as stooges, but that is unacceptable to stand in this House…. Actually, I've heard that member chastise me and others for not paying attention to parliamentary rules, and I can't believe that member stood up in this House and called every member of the Columbia Basin Trust a stooge. Can you imagine how disrespectful, how absolutely disrespectful that is to those folks who put their names forward to sit on the board to make sure that money is expended in the Kootenays for the benefit of the Kootenays?

But then maybe she's referring to past boards. Let me read a few names. I don't know. Is she referring to Dave Bjarnason as a stooge? Or to Jo Brown as a stooge? Or to Ed Conroy? Now, he used to be an MLA i n t h i s H o u s e . H e u s e d t o b e a c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r i n a government that she was in. Is that a stooge? Jim Doyle, also an MLA from the Kootenays who sat in cabinet, I believe, as Minister of Forests — i s h e a stooge? Or is Joanne Partridge a stooge? Is that what that member is referring to — that these people that actually put their names forward are stooges?

One change that will happen under this govern- ment is that we won't appoint MLAs to the Columbia Basin Trust. There are people that are willing to sit on the Columbia Basin Trust for the benefit of the folks in the Columbia basin. They are there now, and there are six of them that were just recently appointed and are spending that money wisely. [1505] I find it offensive, and I would actually ask you, Mr. Chair, to ask that member to withdraw that state- ment. Otherwise all the members that she has ap- pointed….

She was part of a government from 1995 to 2001 that appointed a whole bunch of people, and I could read all their names. Anne Edwards — is that a stooge? I don't know. Fred Parker — is that a stooge? Is that what she's referring to? I'm telling you, Mr. Chair. I think that what you should do…. If she's a bit upset about question period, I'm fine with that. Her member chose to get thrown out of the House — no one else. Her Leader of the Opposi- tion chose to get thrown out of the House. I would ask that that member…. Interjections. The Chair: Members. Members, the minister has the floor. Hon. R.

Neufeld: I would ask that that member remove that statement calling all the people that have been appointed to the Columbia Basin Trust stooges. That is unfair. There are six appointed by government. There are six good people, six excellent people. The other six people that come from recommendations…. Again, Mr. Chair, I say to you that we're going to deal with that in the next section.

Those six that are recom- mended from the five regional districts and from the tribal council, I am sure, will all be good, solid repre- sentatives of the Kootenays who have the Kootenays at heart and should not be subject to being referred to as stooges. The Chair: I'd like to remind the members to keep it in a civil tone. If the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant wishes to restructure her comments, she may. If not, we will continue in a more civil tone. On

section 1, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: Well, here's the difference between the previous bill, the bill called the Columbia Basin Trust, with the makeup of the board and how it changes un- der this government. I will name some of the appoint- ees that this government, this minister has put on that board and give you some background, Mr. Chair, about those individuals, which is why the concern has been raised — that I raise with respect to whether or not the decisions will be in the best interests of that community. Or will there be ulterior…? Well, let me just stop there.

Let me just put on the record the makeup of the trust before. Point of Order Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, before the member asks her question, we ask that the name "stooge" be re- moved and that the member apologize to those folks that have spent time on the Columbia Basin Trust and may spend time on the Columbia Basin Trust moving forward. I'd like to see that happen, please. The Chair: Just one moment, and we'll confer on that. Members, I already mentioned earlier in the strongest terms to keep this conversation at a civil level.

I would caution the members to keep their com- ments on personality in a negative way out of this dis- cussion. We are now talking on

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

section 1 with questions pertain- ing to it. Debate Continued J. Kwan: Let me just outline from the existing piece of legislation that this government is just about to over- ride with Bill 79, the Columbia Basin Trust Amend- ment Act, 2003. The appointment of the board formerly requires that two must be appointed by the board of the regional district of Central Kootenay. Two must be appointed by the board of the Fraser–Fort George re- gional district. Two must be appointed by the board of…. Point of Order Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, if we're done with sec- tion 1, I would just as soon pass

section 1. We're read- ing now the next

section in the bill. If we can just move on forward through it, that would be great.

7994 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 The Chair: Members, in looking at the bill, it does appear that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's comments are more relevant in

section 2. If she would like to allow us to continue on — passing

section 1 or voting on

section 1 — and bring up that discussion in

section 2, I think it would be more ap- propriate. [1510] Debate Continued J. Kwan: I h a v e a w h o l e h o s t o f q u e s t i o n s . A s I mentioned at the beginning of the debate under

section 1, I have a series of general questions for the minister. The minister himself brought up the makeup of the board, specifically, and he had advised that he would not mind answering questions relating to that — which is why I actually went into the makeup of the board per the minister's direction in his answer to my ques- tion.

Section 1 actually deals with the nominating bodies as well as with qualified individuals. When we look at that in a broad scope, we can also look at, really, the specific makeup of that board and who is deemed to be qualified individuals. It is in that context, Mr. Chair, that I am asking these questions. The Chair: Member, I'll just remind you. If you could keep it in the general terms, that would be great, and we can continue on. If it's specific, please hold those till

section 2, and we would be more than pleased to give you your time at that point. J. Kwan: I'll be happy to do so, Mr. Chair. I'll be happy to do so. Then let me go back to ask the minister whether or not the minister has received any correspondence or proposals from the current board in relation to the changes we find in this bill. Hon. R. Neufeld: W e h a v e r e c e i v e d s o m e c o r r e - spondence in regard to

section 2, which actually deals with boards. J. Kwan: The minister says he has received some letters relating to

section 2. Has he received other cor- respondence relating to this bill in general, whether it be

section 2 or

section 3 or any other

section — but with respect to this bill in general? Has he received any correspondence? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I guess I read the media reports on a daily basis, but as far as a lot of letters, no. J. Kwan: Will the minister table the letter from the municipality of Creston — table that document in this House today? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm saying that we have received some correspondence in regard to this, and we have read, obviously, some news media about it. But I would like to get on with passing

section 1 and get on with the boards. J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. Will he table the correspondence from the municipality of Creston in this House? Hon. R. Neufeld: The staff. Actually, I was remiss when I started, but we were waiting for quite a while to start. I have with me Dana Hayden, deputy minister and CEO of Crown agencies secretariat here on my left; Les McLaren, executive director of Crown agencies secretariat; and Arn van Iersel, the comptroller general, Ministry of Finance, right behind me. I g u e s s we h av e re c e i v e d k i n d o f a l e t t e r f ro m t he town of Creston.

It's addressed to the MLA for Nelson- Creston, Blair Suffredine. Interestingly, it's not copied to me, so I guess, in reality, I had it given to me. It was not sent to me. J. Kwan: The minister is in receipt of this letter in any event. Will he agree to table that letter for the bene- fit of all members in this House? The Chair: Just a little direction to the minister. It's your discretion. [1515] Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I won't table a letter that's not sent to me. That would be unfair, and I wouldn't think…. I'm not sure whether I should authorize the tabling of that letter at all.

If the town of Creston wishes to write me a letter as Minister of Energy and Mines, they're quite welcome to do that. In fact, they can get one on the way right now if they're sitting there watching. B. Suffredine: I have a couple of general questions. The first deals with "qualified individual." Earlier, in one of the minister's answers he indicated that a quali- fied individual is, of course, someone resident, but he referred to the board resourcing. How does that change who is a qualified individual? What individuals might be no longer qualified?

For example, would an MLA be qualified to be a member of the board now, and if not, why not? Why would people be excluded? Hon. R. Neufeld: Our policy through boards and resourcing is that MLAs do not sit on boards of either corporations or the Columbia Basin Trust, for instance. I know it was standard practice with the last administra- tion. In fact, to stretch it a little bit, the last administra- tion would appoint the minister in charge of a Crown corporation to a board such as B.C. Hydro or ICBC.

We don't do that, because we think there are hugely qualified people in the region that can actually sit on this board unfettered by any other political affiliation — any of that — and actually make very good deci- sions on behalf of the people that actually live in the Columbia basin. There are a whole bunch of people out there who actually want to do that — who want to

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7995 come forward, spend their time and give us their en- ergy and their knowledge so that we can actually have the Columbia Basin Trust run in a way that the people in the Columbia basin, I'm sure, would like to have it run. B. Suffredine: The letter alluded to by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raises the issue of whether or not there's a change to the mandate of the trust. In it, the town council apparently drew a conclu- sion that somehow the funds in the trust could be used as a bank account or used to pay down the deficit.

Can the minister clarify whether or not there's any sub- stance to those allegations? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, no, the assumption is incorrect. As I said in my remarks earlier and in my second reading remarks and my first reading remarks, government is not going to take away anything that the trust already has under the original Columbia Basin Trust Act. We will not be taking any money away from the Columbia Basin Trust at all.

Their 50 percent pro- ceeds from those investments that they've made in that region continue to flow to the people of the Columbia Basin Trust to be used as they see fit, to be used as they would like to have them used in their region. So, no, government's not going to use it to retire debt or any- thing like that — not at all. I think I explained in my second reading remarks why we're doing what we're doing. The board's in- vestment and program priorities will continue to be guided by the Columbia basin management plan.

They have a management plan in place, one they've de- signed, and they will continue to be guided by that plan as they move forward. We should know that that plan has been developed by folks in the Columbia basin — not by government and not by government influence. At least — let me put this on the record — not by this government's influ- ence. That's probably the correct thing to say: not by this government's influence.

It could have been by the last government, because they appointed MLAs and cabinet ministers to the Columbia Basin Trust, but I don't know that. [1520] They have a master plan that I assume they're happy with, and they'll move forward with it and con- tinue to enjoy the money that they were promised they would get. J. Kwan: Before I got cut off on this issue, I want to actually follow up, Mr. Chair. Interjection. J. Kwan: You know, for the members who are laughing — the member for Nelson-Creston, who is laughing… The Chair: Member, can we keep to the question, please. J. Kwan: …about the rules.

There is such a rule as letting the member finish their flow of questions before they're interrupted by another member. At least the members don't know any of the rules in this House. The Chair: Back to

section 1, please. Interjections. J. Kwan: Well, you know… The Chair: Member, can we get back to

section 1 and get this thing on track. Thank you. J. Kwan: My apologies, Mr. Chair. It's a little bit hard to take. As the only member in this House, in this Legislature, asking questions — pertinent questions — to this minister and to get heckled by the government MLAs who are actually, quite frankly, breaking the tradition of this House…. The Chair: The minister takes the floor. Point of Order Hon. R. Neufeld: I heard heckles coming from that member when our members were asking questions. That's actually something that happens in this House. It's pretty common.

It's just like she's heckling me now while I spe ak o n a poi nt of order. So, M r. Chair, it's a normal procedure. I would hope we would get back to

section 1, pass

section 1 and get on to

section 2. The Chair: That's our intent here, so we'll go back to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to con- tinue on

section 1. Debate Continued J. Kwan: Well, one against 77. I'm sure that's a bit tough for this minister to take. On

section 1 here I was asking the minister ques- tions about tabling letters, and the minister said, with respect to the municipality of Creston — the letter that he has received through his colleague — that he does not intend to table that letter. Let me ask the minister this question: does he intend to respond to that letter? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to repeat this again and a little slower: the letter never came to me. The letter was not copied to me. I don't even respond to letters that are copied to me, because I'd have to have a staff of hundreds to answer those kinds of letters.

No, I won't be responding to the letter, because it didn't come to me. I mean, if the member…. She has the letter. Table it herself. Why doesn't she just table it in the House if she wants to table it? Why ask me to table a letter I didn't even receive or wasn't even copied on? J. Kwan: That was perfect. I will make sure that the people who wrote that letter will get a copy of Hansard so that they know the arrogance of this minister.

7996 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 There are a number of letters, Mr. Chair, that have been sent to the minister with regard to this. Many peo- ple in the Kootenays believe that the changes in this bill are in fact major changes to the management plan and as such must be put to a public meeting. Why did the min- ister choose not to engage the public in these changes? Hon. R. Neufeld: We have been in discussions with the Columbia Basin Trust board for a year and a half or maybe even more — two years, I would say, by now — on a pretty constant basis.

It doesn't change any way that the trust manages its money. They still have 50 percent of the proceeds. They can continue forward investing that money however they want. We have done a fair amount of consultation. I have met with the board chair and the treasurer, I believe, on quite a number of occasions. Staff have worked closely with the board. There has been a lot of input to the changes in this bill. I would say that they actually are looking forward to these changes. [1525] You know, when the member talks about consul- tation, we actually have gone out and consulted. We went through core review.

We had a process where the Columbia Basin Trust chair and people came for- ward with ideas about the Columbia Basin Trust and how we could actually move forward with it. We took that information. We've actually worked with people and with the board to try and design something that still represents what the Columbia Basin Trust folks want. This bill in no way alters that, other than a few mi- nor changes, but changing from 18 to 12…. They still have the same rights, the same management plan, the same moving forward with the plan and spending their money in the basin.

I think probably the only people who don't get it would be the opposition. J. Kwan: Well, funny how the minister says that the only person who doesn't get it would be the opposi- tion. Maybe the city of Revelstoke doesn't get it either. Here's a letter written on November 12 by the city of Revelstoke, signed by the mayor: "On behalf of the city of Revelstoke, I am writing to you to request the formal adoption of Bill 79 related to the governance of the Columbia Basin Trust, but delayed until such time as there has been an opportunity for public consultation with residents of the Columbia basin.

"As you're aware, the Columbia Basin Trust was established to benefit communities in the Columbia basin and to provide benefits to residents to mitigate the effect of the flooding of large areas within the basin. The city of Revelstoke believes it is important that residents of the basin be consulted to determine how best the agency should be managed. "Sincerely." It is signed by the mayor of the city of Revelstoke. Could the minister please advise: do the city of Revelstoke and the mayor of Revelstoke not get it ei- ther? The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J.

Kwan: I take it from the non-response from the minister that it is his opinion. He would otherwise rise up to correct me. Perhaps in his opinion, the city of Revelstoke and the mayor of Revelstoke don't get it either. The interesting thing is it isn't the city of Revelstoke that has written about this issue. Other people have as well.

Here's another letter, this one written to the Pre- mier, and it's from the Creston Museum and Archives: "I'm writing on behalf of the directors, volunteers and staff of the Creston and District Historical Society to share our concerns about Bill 79, regarding amendments to the Columbia Basin Trust Act. As you know, the Columbia Basin Trust is an important source of funds for many basin organizations. As funds from government continue to decline, the importance of the trust in this respect can only increase.

Since the trust has until now been run by basin residents, it has done an admirable job of identifying and meeting basin needs within the scope of its mandate. We do not believe this job can be done from Victoria. "During the debate in the Legislature when this bill came up for second reading, the government was adamant that the amendments to the Columbia Basin Trust Act would not remove control from local hands.

If you are so concerned about leaving control of the Columbia Basin Trust in local hands — and, in fact, are heartily congratulating yourselves for having done so — why does the Lieutenant-Governor have the ability to decline any nominee provided by the local nominating bodies? According to

section 5(3) of the amendment act, the Lieutenant-Governor merely has to decline nominees twice before being able to disregard local wishes entirely. This does not seem a suitable safeguard for keeping control of the trust in local hands. "Furthermore, under what circumstances may the Lieutenant-Governor decline nominees provided by the local nominating bodies? Those circumstances are not spelled out in the amendment act. Why not? If you're really concerned about keeping control of the trust in local hands, you must have put a great deal of thought into what would justify removing it.

Why did you not specify that justification when writing this amendment act? "We're also concerned about the government's desire to allow the Lieutenant-Governor to remove a director of the trust at the written request of the minister. Again, under what circumstances may the minister make such a request? Does that ability not significantly undermine local control of the trust? [1530] "Also, why should the Lieutenant-Governor have the ability to change the term of office of any director or determine the terms or conditions of that term of office?

Should this not be — is it not — spelled out in the documents creating the trust in the first place? One of your stated goals for enacting this legislation is 'to delete unnecessary requirements that are duplicated by other statutes and processes.' By including the stipulation in the amending act, are you not in fact creating one of the duplications you seek to eliminate? It is also interesting that you think duplication necessary in this instance, but not in the far more significant area of conflict of interest.

Even if such a stipulation does not need to be included in the amendment act, wouldn't it be better to leave it to those local people to determine those terms and conditions? Since you want to ensure that control of the

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7997 trust remains in local hands, we certainly see the logic of this. "Mr. Bennett states in Hansard, November 4, 2003, that 'it's important on a board like this that the terms of office are staggered and that they all don't come up for renewal at the same time. I mean, with a board of 12 people you would want to have two or three coming for renewal at one point and then, perhaps six months later, a few others.

That's the reason why the Lieutenant- Governor has maintained that kind of flexibility around the appointments.' "Many organizations have removed this problem simply by including in their bylaws a statement to this effect: 'The term of office for a director shall be two years except for the first year in which these bylaws are effective, in which year the term of office for half the directors shall be two years, and the term of office for half the directors shall be one year.' Why can't you include such a statement in the amendment act instead of leaving it to the Lieutenant-Governor's discretion indefinitely?

Would this not be more likely to promote local control of the trust? "I wonder why you feel it is necessary to eliminate the advisory committees. The minister states in Hansard, November 4, 2003, that: 'the trust board is now enabled to appoint advisory committees as required instead of on an ongoing basis, saving taxpayers unnecessary costs'. An admirable goal, but the amendment act itself simply states that

section 13 of the Columbia Basin Trust Act is repealed — not amended for the better, as the minister suggests. "Mr. Bennett — Hansard, Tuesday, November 4, 2003 — makes quite an issue out of the skills matrix that will be used in selecting nominees for the trust board. He states: 'Each director is expected to have an advanced understanding and a working connection with a significant number of people in the basin.

There's supposed to be a multicultural component on the board and the ability to work effectively with people of all races, religions and persuasions; the ability to work effectively in a group; superior communications ability; understanding and experience with board structures and processes. They should be respected in their fields and have the ability to represent the wider perspective of the basin rather than the perspective of the appointing body.' "These are absolutely necessary requirements for the director of an organization such as the Columbia Basin Trust.

However, the amendment act states only that qualified individuals be appointed and defines qualified individuals as residents of the region. Where are all these other qualifications enshrined? Surely Columbia basin residents are capable of identifying and appointing local residents without the Lieutenant-Governor's help. Even though the qualifications of the current appointees are very high, where is it ensured that subsequent appointees will have equal credentials? "Mr.

Bennett also states: 'The three fundamentals of the trust success include invest wisely, spend wisely and engage basin residents.' If those are the three fundamentals, why are they not listed among the required skills enshrined in the trust legislation? Notice, also, that Mr. Bennett refers to the trust's success. If the residents of the Columbia basin have been able to nominate and appoint the leaders of the trust who have brought about the success in the past, surely we can be trusted to continue to do so. Why is it suddenly necessary to put these appointments solely in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor?

"It was stated several times during the second reading debate that the board of 18 directors is unwieldy, and that is the primary reason for the reduction to 12 stipulated in the amendment act. Although this could be considered a weak reason, it is by no means invalid. But why does it follow that all the reductions have to come from among the directors appointed to represent the Columbia basin? Why is there no reduction in the number of directors representing government?

If you're really serious about leaving control of the trust in local hands, why have you not made provisions for nine local representatives and three government representatives? "The words of the Liberal government concerning the Columbia Basin Trust, as recorded in Hansard, appear to be very reassuring, but the legislation being enacted by the same government is not. At the risk of employing a cliché, actions do speak louder than words. Your government has repeatedly expressed concern for the heartlands and loudly declares its intention of supporting the interests of the residents of the Columbia basin.

If these are more than fine words, you will match your actions to your words, take this piece of legislation off the table and fix it. Enshrine the safeguards you claim to want in the legislation — not just in carefully crafted speeches. Better yet, let the residents of the Columbia basin decide for themselves what is in their best interests. According to your own government, we have been doing that successfully for years. Let us continue. We look forward to your responses to our inquiries." [1535] It's signed by the manager of the Creston and District Museum and Archives.

The Creston and District Mu- seum and Archives — are they out to lunch as well? Hon. R. Neufeld: No. I was referring to the mem- ber as being out to lunch, not anyone else. Actually, you know, regardless of how you look at this, Mr. Chair, the members of the Columbia Basin Trust have to be within GRE, the government reporting entity. That's a fact of life. Otherwise, we could end up having to write off over $200 million. The world is changing. We're moving to general ac- counting principles, which actually bring different re- sponsibilities onto government than we used to have.

I think they're probably good responsibilities. These changes are made to represent that, but we should not forget that all the members must come from the Columbia basin, from the defined area. That includes the ones that are appointed by government and the nominees that are nominated by the regional district and the tribal council. Those people must be residents of the Columbia basin. There is a border, an area that's in the bill, which we haven't changed. It defines the Columbia basin. So it's a bit unfair, I think, to characterize this as "govern- ment appointees will be from Victoria." No, they won't.

Those six people that are appointed by government — exactly the same as there were six people appointed by government before — will be people from the basin, who actually have the basin at heart and want to move forward doing things in the basin — some of the good work they've already done and continuing on with that in their master plan. Nothing changes. We move from 18 to 12, all from the Columbia basin — none from Vic- toria.

7998 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 J. Kwan: We'll get to the makeup of the board when we get to

section 2, as the minister insisted. I know the minister is the minister, Mr. Chair, and that this government decides what it wants to do and sets the rules in accordance to their own pleasure. But you know what? I'll respect the rules and ask the ques- tions with respect to the makeup of the board under

section 2, and I'll dispute the comments from the minis- ter then. Interestingly, though — about the letters that I just read on record — the city of Revelstoke and the Cres- ton and District Museum and Archives have written to the Premier and members of this House, concerned about Bill 79. The minister just stood in this House moments ago to say that I, the opposition, am out to lunch because I oppose what this government is doing and I'm challenging this minister on what he's doing. Well, the people who wrote these letters are also challenging what this minister is doing.

They say that this bill is actually not good for the Columbia basin, that it is not good for the Kootenays and that they dis- agree with what this government's doing. The city of Revelstoke was very clear in saying to the government that they need to consult with the people in that com- munity. So let me ask the minister this question. If he says that they are not out to lunch, then why won't the min- ister act in accordance to the requests from these indi- viduals? The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: Well, the best thing for the minister to do is to simply ignore those people.

That has been the ap- proach from this government. If this government doesn't agree with members of the public, from those British Columbians who dare question their decisions, then the thing to do under this so-called consultative gov- ernment is to simply ignore them. Ignore them as this minister has just done — not answer their questions, not pay any attention to them. Just ignore them. Hear no evil; see no evil.

That is the approach this minister is taking with respect to the concerns — valid concerns — that have been raised by the city of Revelstoke, by the mayor of Revelstoke and by the Creston and District Museum and Archives. [1540] They are not the only people who have concerns with this bill, with this minister. There are many people with many concerns. I have several more letters. I'm going to wait for a moment, though, before I put those letters on the record. The government's sacrificial lamb on this bill, I be- lieve, is the member for Nelson-Creston. He is on re- cord voting against his own community.

It's not a first. He's not the only one. The member for Vancouver- Burrard has done so as well. Many members in this House will continue to do so. I don't doubt that for one moment, because they are the people who will just do whatever the government tells them to do, irrespective of the wishes of their constituents. According to that member, the member for Nelson- Creston, the reason for this bill is to ensure that quali- fied people from the Kootenays make the decisions on the board. Well, the implication here, then, is that the current board has at least some members who are un- qualified.

Can the minister tell us how many of the current board members are unqualified? Hon. R. Neufeld: The member for Nelson-Creston or the member for Vancouver-Burrard…. He actually isn't affected by this bill, but his name was brought up. The member for Nelson-Creston represents his con- stituents very well. I can say that confidently because I've had lots of meetings with the member for Nelson- Creston over an array of issues in the area he repre- sents.

I've met with the whole Kootenay caucus quite a n u m b e r o f t i m e s t o m a k e s u r e t h a t w h a t w e ' r e d o i n g actually is representative of what those elected repre- sentatives would like to have happen in their region with the Columbia Basin Trust. As I said before, the master plan doesn't change. The money doesn't change. The ability to spend the money doesn't change. Having the members come from the Columbia Basin Trust boundaries doesn't change. There are very few changes here. The Leader of the Opposition, I think, made remarks that we were going to take a whole bunch of things away.

We're not taking anything away. We're actually allowing the Co- lumbia Basin to empower themselves, as they were before, just with 12 members on the board instead of 18, to actually move forward and do all the things they want to do in the Columbia basin. I believe the member for Nelson-Creston repre- sents his constituency quite well, as do all the mem- bers that are representative in the Columbia basin. They all represent their members well. They all have been voted in, quite substantially in some cases, by people from those areas. I assume they're bringing forward the wishes of the general population.

They questioned me while we were developing this, while we moved through this. I know it's probably a different process than what the member of the opposition used to be accustomed to in the last administration, where a member would find out about something like this once the minister stood in the House. This caucus is different. We have processes that we have to work through. We have to work through committee processes to actually bring…. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: It's interesting. The member sits there and laughs about it. That's how much she thinks about actual good process, isn't it?

That's what she thinks about really good process. Interjections. The Chair: Members, members, the minister has the floor.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7999 Hon. R. Neufeld: We actually take these processes through committees… Interjections. The Chair: Members. Interjection. The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please allow the minister to continue. [1545] Hon. R. Neufeld: …and talk about them at length, actually talk at length — two years with the Columbia Basin Trust board and those people. We have had lots of consultation with the people in the Columbia basin. It's just that some people in this House don't get it. In this House — that's what I'm saying.

People in this House just don't get it and want to play politics with this kind of thing and try to scare people. That's fear- mongering. It's not the truth. If you read the bill, you'll find the truth. You can scatter around it all you want, and that's what we're witnessing here today. Instead of talking about the benefits of the bill, we have someone trying to actually tear it apart and make it as though it is something it is not. This is a bill that still represents the best interests of the people in the Columbia basin. J. Kwan: You know why I was laughing, Mr. Chair?

I was laughing at the statement the minister made to suggest that the member for Nelson-Creston and those members from the Kootenays are representing their con- stituents. I was laughing at that notion, because you know what? The community from Nelson-Creston are saying: "Where is the MLA?" Now, they actually used the real name of the MLA, and they asked: "Where is the MLA?" There is no voice from the MLA representing them.

On this issue, not only did the MLAs from the Kootenays vote against the wishes of the people, sup- porting their own government's wishes, but they are not representing their people by raising their concerns. The letters that I just put on record are not from my community. They're from communities elsewhere. I don't hear the members from those communities rising up saying: "I received this letter, and people are very concerned about it." Where is the member from Rev- elstoke? It is the mayor of Revelstoke who has sent this letter to that member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, saying: "Hold off on Bill 79.

We don't like it. Consult with us." I don't hear the MLAs rising up in this House raising their concerns, so it's left for the opposition to do that. I'm bringing forward these concerns. I'm not making them up. I'm not fabricating these things. I put the letter on the record, signed by real individuals. To just pretend — I know in the fantasy world of the min- ister — that somehow the government MLAs are rep- resenting the constituents is simple fantasy. It is just that. Here's another letter — not my constituent — from a constituent from the Columbia Basin Trust commu- nity.

Here's what the individual has to say: "My mom spoke to Mr. Rushton at the MLA for Nelson-Creston's office today, who explained to her that the bill" — the bill they are referring to is Bill 79 — "would allow them to make changes in the things that the Columbia Basin Trust funds. They won't be funding any" — and I quote — "'damn butterfly study that doesn't bring any money in.' "He also restated how the Columbia Basin Trust should be funding the Needles bridge.

When my mom said that the Columbia Basin Trust shouldn't be funding things that the government is supposed to fund, he replied: 'Well, we're not funding the Needles bridge.' "Several times he mentioned that projects should 'bring money in'" — and 'bring money in' is in quotes.

"I'm concerned that if we don't show people evidence that indeed major changes are planned, they'll see our protest of the appointment procedure as nitpicking." Here's a constituent who actually went to the MLA for Nelson-Creston's office and spoke with his staff, and the staff person said that they're not funding any "damn butterfly study that doesn't bring any money in." So the whole funding notion is centred around bringing in money. The government says: "Don't worry." The minister says: "Don't worry. Nothing will change.

The decisions and all of those things will re- main exactly the same." If that's the case, the question's been asked, why make the changes when nothing is broken — even if the minister suggests that the board is too big and 18 people is too unwieldy. [1550] From the letter that I read on the record from the Creston and District Museum and Archives, who made a suggestion that if you think 18 people is too big, well, change it. Change it to 12 with six appointments. Sorry. Let me just find exactly the wording here, because I don't want to be misrepresenting what the individual said, particularly relating to this.

The individual says that you can change the num- bers by having…. Instead of the government appoint- ing, by the Lieutenant-Governor, the members and the makeup of the board, why don't you leave it for the community to pick their own people, as it was under the Columbia Basin Trust bill, but reduce the number of people? They were wondering: "Why don't you do that?" That would still reduce the number of people on the board to address the concern about the unwieldi- ness of having too many people but at the same time keep the control within the community. Why doesn't the minister do that? Hon. R.

Neufeld: I want to reassure again, for quite a few times now, that members nominated by the five regional districts and the tribal council are actually people they want to have on the board, not people that we're choosing. Government gets to choose six. They're people from the basin. They're people that the Kootenay caucus, the people that are representative of the Kootenay caucus, want to have on the Columbia Basin Trust. The other six representatives are actually

8000 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 people that are nominated by the specific regional dis- tricts and the tribal council. All that authority still lies within the Columbia ba- sin. It is not removed from the Columbia basin at all. J. Kwan: I found the specific passage. Here's what it reads: "It was stated several times during the second reading debate that a board of 18 directors is unwieldy, and that is the primary reason for the reduction to 12 stipulated in the amendment act.

Although this could be considered a rather weak reason, it is by no means invalid — though why does it follow that all of the reductions have to come from among the directors appointed to represent the Columbia basin? Why is there no reduction in the number of directors representing government? If you are really serious about leaving control of the trust in local hands, why have you not made provisions for nine local representatives and three government representatives?" [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, 18 is unwieldy.

The agreement with the Columbia Basin Trust board was that we would move to 12 — six appointed by gov- ernment, and the other six will be nominated by the regional districts and the tribal council and will be ap- pointed by government. That, we think, brings the whole process into the government reporting entity, which will actually have us not write down over $200 million this year but still have the authority in the Co- lumbia basin to move forward and expend their funds on whatever they want to expend their funds on in the Columbia basin.

Again, I stress, and I keep stressing to the member, that the 12 people will all be people from the Columbia basin. I would hope and I would think that the deci- sions those 12 people make from the Columbia basin will actually be in the best interests of the people in the Columbia basin. In fact, further on we'll get to a

section where there could be removal, and that's not just the Lieutenant-Governor. So we can move forward with this, and I would like to move forward with this. I think we've given enough reassurance, through all the questions that were asked, that the people of the Columbia basin will continue to enjoy exactly what they did before, but in a much sim- pler and more efficient fashion. J. Kwan: With the exception that the people from that community disagree with the minister.

He may say all he wants that nothing has changed, but interest- ingly the people who live in that community have a different opinion They're asking the minister this ques- tion: why has there been no reduction in the number of directors representing government? [1555] There are six appointed government representa- tives on the board — f o r m e r l y w i t h 1 8 p e o p l e — the majority of which would be community-appointed individuals. Now, with this change, there are six to be appointed by government. The numbers for the government-appointed individuals have not changed.

Why didn't government reduce that number to address the unwieldiness of the size of the board? The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 1. J. Kwan: Unable to answer the question. Well, I actually suspect what the answers might be. But let me ask the minister this question first: can the minister tell the House how many of the current provincial gov- ernment appointees to the board contributed money to the Liberal Party? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I have no idea if they contributed money to the provincial party. For all I know, they might have contributed to the NDP. J.

Kwan: If the minister claims that he talks to the member for Nelson-Creston as often as he does, then the minister would have known, I presume, that one of the board appointees is actually a fellow named Ben Arcuri. You know what? Mr. Arcuri just happens to have been the campaign manager for the member for Nelson-Creston in the last election. Oh. And you know what? Ron Miles contributed to the Liberal campaign in the last election. So did Michael Rouse. More than that, I should say that Mr. Rouse is a former vice- president of Tembec, and they gave substantially to the Liberal Party.

He is the former vice-president of Crest- brook Forest, which also gave substantially — some $28,000 — to the Liberal Party. No connections there. It just so happens that some members of the board in fact have donated to the Liberal Party, and others have worked for it — campaign manager, no less. Does the minister consider those appointments to be an ac- ceptable level of patronage? Or is it too much or too little? Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, that's a real interesting question, isn't it? Somebody found that a few of the six people that we appointed to the Columbia Basin Trust worked for the B.C.

Liberal Party, actually gave money to the B.C. Liberal Party, and that eliminates them. It's an interesting comment, isn't it? Maybe that member could tell me: when she was in government in 1995-96, when Ed Conroy and Jim Doyle — two previous MLAs that sat in this House, that sat in cabinet and that probably gave money to the NDP party…. I would think they probably did. They may not have. I know both of those gentlemen fairly well. But that's not patronage. This is NDP. This is where you can't do two things at one time, but this member tries to do it.

You know, if you're an NDP member, you can sit on the Columbia Basin Trust, and that's just fine — right? But if you're a B.C. Liberal per- son that's actually worked for the party, that's actually donated to the party, then that's political patronage. Actually, it's absolutely unbelievable that this member would stand here and say those kinds of things.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8001 The Columbia Basin Trust was created in 1995. In 1995 we had Ed Conroy and Jim Doyle. I only pick on the MLAs. I'm not going to pick on people, because I think that's unfair. I'm going to pick on the ones that were elected here at one time and that represented the area. Now, that's not patronage. In 1996-97 we had Jim Doyle and Erda Walsh. Erda Walsh represented…. She was an MLA from the basin. Oh, that's not patronage? Oh, okay. I guess NDP-style, that's okay. Let's go to '97-98, and all of a sudden Anne Ed- wards showed up.

Now, Anne Edwards was a member of this House also — actually was a Minister of Energy and Mines at one time. I know Anne quite well. That was okay, because that was then and this is now. That was NDP and this is B.C. Liberal. [1600] Let's continue on. In 1998-99 we had Anne Edwards on there again; 1999-2000, Anne Edwards; 2000-01, Anne Edwards. You know, the list goes on and on. I don't know the relevance of this at all, to be per- fectly frank. I'm not sure about the relevance of this discussion about those people. You know what? Those people were from the Kootenays. Those people had the Kootenays at heart.

Those people lived in the Columbia basin. They wanted the best for the folks in the Colum- bia basin. Not once did this government ever say…. Let me correct this. Not once did I — because I'm speaking for myself — ever say publicly that any one of those people should not be on the Columbia Basin Trust. What I am saying is that we move forward now. Those six members…. I want to thank them publicly for allowing their names to stand, even with members of the opposition calling them stooges — which I think is totally unfair. These people are knowledgable about the Kootenays. They've lived in the Kootenays.

They make their lives in the Kootenays. They raise their chil- dren in the Kootenays. They have the Kootenays at heart. Because they happen to belong to a certain po- litical party should play no

part in it at all, the same as prior to when we were in government. Now, the last government chose to appoint elected representatives. There is a clear distinction here. We have said in this government that we will not appoint elected representatives to boards. I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again. That is because there is a whole host of people out there who live in the Colum- bia basin and are very bright and very wise and have the Columbia basin at heart.

They want to see those funds expended in the Columbia basin under the plan that's there, that's not changed, that's moving forward and actually looking after the interests of the people in the Columbia basin. J. Kwan: I just want to set the record straight for this minister's information. Yes, the MLAs that were appointed under the former board were government appointees, but you know what? You have to note the fact that there were 18 people on that board. Only six were government-appointed individuals, and some of them were MLAs. The majority of them were ap- pointed by the community. You know what, Mr. Chair?

Anne Edwards was appointed by the commu- nity, by the regional district, not by the government. The change in this legislation speaks right to the heart of the issue here. The people this government has picked on the board, at least the ones I have mentioned here, just happen — by coincidence, Mr. Chair — to have donated substantially to the Liberal Party, to have actually worked as a campaign manager for the MLA for Nelson-Creston. Just a coincidence. Nothing unto- ward there. When I mentioned the issue around stooges, Mr.

Chair — I want to clarify it for the record — I meant the government MLAs who sit around this bench, who will not rise up to represent their community. That is the issue. The Chair: Member, that is absolutely unparlia- mentary language. I'll ask you to withdraw it. J. Kwan: You know, the minister, Mr. Chair…. The Chair: Member, I will ask you to withdraw that statement. That is an absolutely unparliamentary statement — to call a member of this House that par- ticular name. I'll ask you to withdraw it, please. J. Kwan: Okay, Mr. Chair. Maybe they're not stooges. Already my colleague….

The Chair: Member, please take your seat. I'll ask you to withdraw that statement. J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will withdraw that. You know what? My colleague the opposition leader has already been challenged by the Speaker to- day for challenging the Premier on an issue. The Chair: Member, member. You know the rules o f t h i s H o u s e . Y o u k n o w t h a t c e r t a i n l a n g u a g e i s n o t accepted in this House. J. Kwan: I withdraw. The Chair: The member formally was asked to withdraw for stating unparliamentary language. I'm asking you now to proceed with the debate. We are dealing with

section 1, and I'll ask you to be relevant to

section 1. J. Kwan: Well, I withdraw. The Chair: Member, I think we've had…. J. Kwan: I withdraw, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Member, just take your seat, please. We usually give a lot of latitude in

section 1, and I think we've gone beyond that point at this point. I'd ask you now to focus your questioning on

section 1 and only

section 1.

8002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 [1605] J. Kwan: Well,

section 1 deals with what the minis- ter likes to call qualified people — qualified people under the

definitions of

section 1 to be appointed to the board. I was asking questions of the minister around who was qualified and who was not qualified and about the people who donated to the Liberal Party, the people who worked on the campaign — as the cam- paign manager for the member for Nelson-Creston in the last election — whether or not those individuals are qualified or not qualified and whether or not those are patronage appointments or not. It was the minister who claimed that I called people stooges, and I want it to be clear on the record who I was referring to in that regard, Mr. Chair.

Just so that we k now what was s aid i n this House — and I know this Liberal government has the major- ity, and they can threaten and heckle and intimidate all they want. Already the Leader of the Opposition, by challenging the Premier in question period today, is not allowed in this chamber. I am the only opposition member, along with the independent member for Prince George–Omineca, who may raise questions to challenge this government. Perhaps this government and this minister and the MLAs around the government bench would like to see complete silence on questions raised for this govern- ment.

Under a critical bill that will change the face and the makeup of the Columbia Basin Trust, that will un- dermine the control of the Columbia Basin Trust and that will take away the control from local authorities, the government decides to do that under the auspices that the board is somehow too big and unwieldy.

Community members have written to the Premier asking a simple and valid question: why did the Pre- mier, the government and the minister not reduce the government-appointed MLAs or the government- appointed members on the trust — reduce those num- bers from six to three or two, let's say — rather than reducing the community-appointed individuals? Why didn't they do that if the issue is about the size of the board? Or is the issue about qualifications?

It just so happens that a number of the people sitting on that board appointed by this government happen to have donated to the Liberal Party, happen to have worked as a campaign manager, no less, for a Li

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1118pm 09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1118pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8744a4809e09cad3910bed1b604993b3080c9426

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).