2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Private Members' Statements

Rural transportation infrastructure

B. Lekstrom

D. Chudnovsky

Workers' rights

C. Puchmayr

L. Mayencourt

Grandparents raising grandchildren

K. Whittred

K. Conroy

Learning from other jurisdictions

D. Cubberley

J. Nuraney

Motions on Notice

Electrification of Highway 37 (Motion

52)

D. MacKay

J. Horgan

B. Bennett

L. Krog

R. Lee

R. Austin

B. Lekstrom

G. Coons

R. Cantelon

[ Page 7889 ]

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

K. Whittred: In the gallery today are several grandparents.

They are part of a task force group that unofficially represents a cross-section

of grandparents raising grandchildren in British Columbia. They are led by the

executive director of Parent Support Services of B.C., Marion Gracey. Please

join me in making them welcome to this chamber.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Richmond: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

RURAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

B. Lekstrom: It is a pleasure to be here this morning to

speak to this assembly about rural transportation infrastructure, something that

I think is one of the most important parts of our province, our economic

well-being and, truly, our quality of life.

We have quite a history when it comes to transportation

infrastructure and particularly with rural transportation infrastructure in this

province. I think it comes as no surprise to anybody who lives here, but we are

truly an export province. We produce and live off the many resources we have

that benefit our quality of life. We are only 4.4 million people in this

wonderful province and, as a result, the amount we produce, we need our export

markets.

In order to flourish as an economy, we need a transportation

infrastructure that is second to none. We face significant challenges in this

province, and we are diverse. From the north to the south and from the east to

the west, our needs vary in this wonderful province. When we look at how our

roads were built — and I'll speak to many areas of the rural parts of our

province — we're facing some challenges.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Our rural roads were never built — 40, 50, 60, 80 years ago — to

withstand the types of traffic that we see on them today. The heavy industrial

traffic that we see today is not what we had envisioned when we began to build

these roads many decades ago.

[1005]

Traditionally, a good portion of these roads was built based on

the agricultural sector and on our access to those fields. But even agriculture

in today's world that we live in…. The equipment they use and the machinery they

have to pull to get to their fields is significantly heavier, and it plays havoc

with some of our roads.

What has changed? Well, many things, as I've said — the way we do

business, the way our quality of life has changed and the distances we travel.

What's happened is that we are playing catch-up in our province, not catch-up

from five years ago or ten years ago but truly decades. We are playing catch-up

because as our infrastructure is in need of repair, in many cases, no longer is

it enough to just lay gravel.

I'll speak about the issue of gravel. Many of my roads in Peace

River South…. We have 2,900 kilometres of road, most of which are gravel. We

certainly enjoy the pavement we have on our highways, and we're beginning to lay

some blacktop down and seal-coating in the rural areas, but by far the vast

majority of our roads are gravel.

Before, when a base was all right — and I talk about the base of a

road that we build — you could go in and upgrade it by topping it with some

gravel and making sure that the travelling surface was up to grade. Today what

we face right across this province is the challenge of being able to upgrade

that road.

No longer is it satisfactory just to lay a three-inch or four-inch

lift of gravel because in many, many areas of our province the bases of our road

infrastructure are gone. If you want to do it right, it costs more money and it

takes more time. We have to no longer just top-dress our roads with gravel. We

have to dig the bases out, rebuild them from the bottom up and then carry

forward with a top dressing of gravel and, if you're very fortunate, in some

areas some asphalt.

What do we have to do? We have to do a number of things. I think

that first and foremost, we have to recognize the differences in this province.

I represent the truly rural riding of Peace River South, and I'm very proud to

do so.

Making sure that the constituents that I represent understand the

different infrastructure needs in our province…. Whether it be the Gateway

project or projects such as public transit, port expansion, rail or the ferry

systems, we all coexist. We can have the most wonderful rural transportation

network in this province, but if our ports are jammed up, if our products can't

get to market or to port and our trucks can't travel, the goods and services

that we provide aren't going to get to the markets they need to.

A key issue for us as legislators is that we come down here with

our own views as to how we can make our constituencies a better place and how we

can make our province a better place, but you have to have an open mind. You

have to have the ability to understand each and every one of the unique needs in

this province. As a rural MLA, I've spent a great deal of time trying to

understand what is needed in the Greater Vancouver area, because those needs are

significantly different than the needs of the constituents I represent.

Our users have changed over the years. The industry we have,

whether it be mining, agriculture, forestry or oil and gas…. With the economy

going the way it is,

[ Page 7890 ]

everybody is using these rural roads. As we use these roads, it's important

to recognize the impact they have on them.

One of the most important aspects that I take to the table is my

first priority. This is no slight against industry, but it's to make sure that

the families that live in our rural areas of this province can get to and from

their homes, that their children can get to and from school via the school bus

and that they can get their children into the community to participate in the

sports events that they've chosen.

I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that it's hugely important to

recognize the contribution that industry has made. I'll speak to the northeast

sector of the province, in which the oil and gas sector, the mining industry,

the forestry sector and agriculture have come together to highlight some

initiatives on what has to be done.

Tourists are a huge part of our economy in British Columbia. I

represent Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway, a wonderful community called Dawson

Creek. We have roughly 300,000 tourists travel through our community and up that

great Alaska Highway each and every year. Many of them, as all of us have tried

to work towards tourist initiatives, have begun to stay an extra day in our

communities. That transcends not just the north but right across this province.

[1010]

As they do, and we ask them to get out into the rural, beautiful

part of British Columbia, we want them to be able to travel safely on roads that

will not knock their vehicles too terribly hard. When we go out into the back

part, we expect a road probably not the same as Highway 1 down south but that

they are able to travel and not have to take their vehicle back to a shop to get

the wheels realigned following that.

Ditching is another part that I think people…. I talk about this,

and I'm sure some people may scratch their heads, but ditching is probably one

of the most fundamental areas that we need to focus on. We can build the best

roads this province has ever seen, but if we can't drain the water from the

bases of those roads, we are going to be in big trouble.

I look forward to the response from my colleague on the other

side, and I look forward to closing remarks on what I think is one of the most

important issues we can deal with in this province.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to my friend from Peace River South

for his opening comments. As is often the case, I think the member makes some

very, very important points and ones that we need to take heed of as we look to

the future of the province.

I note that the member stated near the end of his comments

something that I certainly agree with wholeheartedly, which is that our first

responsibility — whether we are rural MLAs or urban MLAs, as I am — is to the

families of the folks who live in our constituencies. And notwithstanding the

attention we need to pay to industry and industrial development and regional

economic development, when it all comes down to it, we're talking about the

folks who live in our constituencies, the families and the communities we

represent.

The member reminds us, too, of a very, very important truism about

our province, which is the diversity of the province and the fact that while we

are sometimes…. And I would suggest respectfully that sometimes those on the

other side of the House are seduced by billion-dollar transportation

infrastructure projects in the lower mainland. We need to remember that there

are needs, and important needs, with respect to infrastructure across the

province. It's a vision for that development that the member reminds us of and

that I think we want to take note of.

What vision with respect to rural transportation infrastructure

development? It seems to me, and I would expect that my friend would at least to

some great extent agree with this, that there are two pieces to what should be

our understanding. The first should be, as the member suggested: what are the

needs in terms of capital expenditure, in terms of expansion, in terms of the

rebuilding of some of the roads from the base up? The second is the maintaining

of that infrastructure so that it continues to provide the opportunity for both

individuals — the families we talked about — and various industries to use it.

Let's talk about the first one. I think that with respect to a

vision for development and expansion, there is a lack of that vision on the

other side of the House, and that's unfortunate. We need, for instance, in terms

of development, to do more than just put up signs that say: "Highway 97 is about

to be expanded." The member will know very well that the expansion of Highway 97

is, to a great extent, an expansion in billboards and not an expansion in

blacktop, and that's something we need to be very concerned about.

We need to be concerned about a vision for regional economic

expansion which includes development at Prince Rupert which is equal to the

developments at Deltaport. We need to look to inland port facilities in various

areas of the province. That's a part of the vision that needs to be looked to.

[1015]

I want to speak briefly to maintenance. There is a challenge and a

problem with road maintenance in this province, especially in the rural areas,

that is well known. Notwithstanding the excuses we've heard from time to time

from the minister, the members opposite are well aware that this winter there

has been a crisis in road maintenance across the province, especially in rural

areas. That's something we need to take note of.

I know that my friend from Peace River South, despite the advice

he gets from time to time from members of the cabinet, is just as aware as I am

that the issues of maintenance of roads, potholes, water on the roads, snow

removal, ice safety, ditching, all of those issues, are alive and problematic in

the rural areas of the province. I think we need to take note of that and to

rededicate ourselves. I encourage those opposite to rededicate themselves to

finding solutions to those issues.

[ Page 7891 ]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your time, and I look forward to the

response from my friend opposite.

B. Lekstrom: I would like to thank the member for

Vancouver-Kensington for his response to my comments regarding rural

transportation infrastructure.

I think we all recognize the challenges, and sometimes we think

that money will solve that challenge. There are points in time, especially with

the economy the way it is, that all the money in the world can't be utilized

because of how busy, sometimes, people are in the road construction business.

Again, I'm going to transcend politics. I look at the solutions

that our province has been working on over the last decade, for instance. The

Island Highway expansion, I think, was probably a huge benefit to the residents

that live on Vancouver Island.

The new port expansion that's taking place is going to benefit

each and every British Columbian. The Gateway project is one of those things

that as a rural MLA you try to study and understand. I do believe that it is

going to be a benefit for the movement of goods and services and people.

The twinning that the member had touched on earlier from Prince

George south…. I will note, although that doesn't go north through the Pine

Pass, that we've had significant upgrades in the Pine Pass, which takes you to

the east side of the Rocky Mountains.

The expansion of the SkyTrain and public transit — which is

significantly different in rural British Columbia than it is in urban British

Columbia. This real, true investment in the northeast part of our province has

been very welcome news.

I do want to close with this. It is important for each and every

member of this Legislative Assembly and truly all British Columbians to

understand the unique differences when it comes to transportation infrastructure

and how we depend on one another, whether you be rural or urban. Our needs are

different, but our end goal is the same, and that is a strong economy and a

quality of life for each and every one of us and our families to enjoy in this

province.

Without question we have to continue to invest in our road

infrastructure, which I see is happening. Will it ever be enough? I'm not sure.

I think there's always that debate in whatever we do, but we will continue to

invest. We will continue as MLAs to do our jobs, to bring the needs of our

constituents forward and what we think will improve not only for our

constituents but for the economy of our great province.

Transportation is the backbone to a strong economy. It always has

been, in my mind, and it always will be — whether it be rail or ferries or

roads. I mean, there is a vast array of what we can all do in this Legislative

Assembly.

Our Minister of Transportation is a gentleman that I deal with on

a regular basis. I deal with roads in my constituency. Probably if it isn't the

top, it's certainly in the top three issues that I deal with on a day-to-day

basis because it is highly important for our families and industry to be able to

move their goods and services and move themselves down these roads. As well, if

that can't happen, they can't contribute to the economic well-being of

themselves and their families, let alone the province.

I close with this, Madam Speaker. All British Columbians, I

encourage you to recognize and learn from one another, and together we will

continue to build a transportation infrastructure in this province that is

second to none.

[1020]

WORKERS' RIGHTS

C. Puchmayr: I'm going to speak today about asbestos and

how it relates to and affects people in British Columbia. I will go a bit beyond

that, as well, and give a little bit of a history of exposure to asbestos.

It actually goes back to early Egyptian days, where workers

working with asbestos, weaving the materials, had a very high incidence of

fatalities. So it's been identified as going back an extremely long time.

In British Columbia and in Canada, particularly about 1917,

certain insurance companies stopped underwriting people who were exposed to

asbestos because they could see then — back in 1917, 90 years ago — that there

was a very serious issue with people that were exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos was a miracle ore that was pulled from the ground and was

found to be fire-protective or fire-preventive. It's used in brake shoe linings;

it's used in boilers. It was used as this new formula for preventing fires. It

was used in shingles in old houses; it was used in lots of different

applications.

What has happened over the years is that many workers have become

exposed to high degrees of it. I recently was up in Trail, and I met with some

workers that worked in the smelter in Trail. There were about 36 of them that

had active cases. I think there are 35 now; one just passed away. Some of them

are spending the last years of their lives in extreme pain and agony.

What asbestos does is cut the linings of the lungs into small

scars in the lungs. The scar tissue heals, which causes a contracting of the

lungs. That gives you less lung capacity and damages the air sacs in the lungs,

so it's a very painful death.

When you get cancer from asbestos — mesothelioma — it's extremely

painful, and it's a terminal disease. There's no cure for it. Often people that

are exposed to it and are dying from it will actually die from heart failure

because the heart is working so hard trying to pump oxygen into the bloodstream

so that you can function. It is an extremely painful disease.

Currently, there are about 100,000 Canadians that are exposed to

it. People are still exposed to it today. We had an incident in a school in New

Westminster where workers were instructed to take some flooring material out.

The flooring material did contain asbestos.

Asbestos, when it's contained, when the particles aren't airborne,

is fairly safe. It's once those structures are moved or demolished that the

particulates become airborne and the fibres get drawn into the lungs and

[ Page 7892 ]

start to cause the damage. The longer the exposure, and the more exposure

there is, the more damage is done, and the higher the chances person has of

getting cancer from asbestos exposure.

It's even been found in cases of family members in some of the

asbestos mining operations, where family members were actually exposed to

asbestos by doing the laundry or just by living in the area. What's shocking is

that in parts of Quebec, where asbestos was being mined, they even found

asbestosis in wild animals that were in the vicinity of the mine site.

It's an extremely toxic, dangerous material that needs to be

eradicated. It needs to be taken out of the stream. Modern technology has

certainly replaced asbestos with other formulas that are equally as good at

being fire retardant and at fire prevention, and that's the direction that we

need to go.

I myself was exposed to asbestos when I worked in the brewing

industry. A lot of asbestos was capped. The old cookers — the grain cookers and

rice cookers — had asbestos insulation. It was well capped. When maintenance

needed to be done on them, workers were sent in merely with little paper masks —

a small paper mask with an elastic around the back of your head. That was the

protection that was provided to prevent exposure to asbestos.

[1025]

Many workers in industry then and today are still being exposed to

it. Some by accident will come by asbestos, not understanding that it's

asbestos, and will be exposed to it. A lot of workplaces have been tested and

found to have high degrees of asbestos because of insulation that has broken

loose and broken open, and the particulates will float through the air.

A good friend of mine is debilitated right now. He came to Canada

from India in the '60s, worked in a place where he was mixing the mud, pouring

asbestos powder into a giant blender, blending the mud and applying it to pipe

insulation. This was without any protective device whatsoever. Now to see a man

in his 50s with a young family and grandchildren, and to see what he has to go

through just to walk somewhere, just to get by, and the pain that he suffers….

It's a terrible exposure. It's one that doesn't need to happen.

It's one that needs to be addressed by governments. It's one that needs to be

addressed by underwriters, including Workers Compensation and WorkSafe.

It's one that can be eradicated. It takes an effort. It's going to

cost some money. But at the end of the day, the cost to humanity and society on

just the quality of life you're going to give to people who should be gardening

and playing with their grandchildren…. Instead, they're debilitated. They can't

breathe; they're coughing. They're bringing up fluids, including blood from

their lungs.

It's a very sad exposure to the families, to the people themselves

and to the grandchildren that no longer have the quality of life with their

grandparents because of it.

I will turn the floor over to whoever will be responding to this.

I anticipate some interesting remarks.

L. Mayencourt: I want to thank the member very much for

bringing this very important issue to the attention of this Legislature. It's

something that government has to look at constantly — and we do, through the

Workers Compensation Board and a number of studies that we do — to make sure

that the workplace is safe for all employees.

As the speaker was talking about the toxic nature of asbestos and

the need to remove this dangerous substance from the workplace, I was reflecting

on some of the other things that government needs to do. Obviously, there is the

environment in which someone is working which has to be dealt with. In addition

to that, there are other examples where government can become involved in

ensuring that there is a safe workplace for all employees.

An example of that would be Grant's law. Grant De Patie was a

young man — I think he was from Maple Ridge — who was trying to apprehend a

person stealing gas from his gas station and who was killed as a result of that.

That's a very sad example of what can happen in the workplace, and government

has responded by creating a piece of legislation that deals with that.

I think there are a number of issues that come forward. Certainly,

there are the farmworkers issues that have been so eloquently spoken about by

both sides of the House — about the need to ensure that worker rights are

recognized and that we abide by those.

I also wanted to speak for a moment about an important issue that

I've been pursuing, which is also about workers' rights. I want to give credit

for this topic to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. The

issue I want to talk about is an issue that is very much in the forefront:

workplace bullying. Bullying is usually seen as acts of violence or verbal or

psychological efforts to isolate a person in the workplace or to harm them in

some way.

Currently, there is little in the way of occupational health and

safety legislation that is available to protect workers from incidents of

bullying in the workplace. There are some exceptions, of course. For example,

Quebec has brought forward legislation to deal with this issue.

I think it is also time for our government to take a look at this

as a very important issue that we should move forward on. I think that it really

is a way for me as a MLA to move forward with…. You know, I've been involved in

the Safe Schools Act, which is about dealing with bullying in our school system,

and I think that now the time has come to start dealing with bullying in the

workplace.

[1030]

Some examples of what bullying is about are: spreading malicious

rumours, gossip or innuendo that's not true; excluding or isolating someone;

intimidating a person; removing areas of responsibilities without cause;

changing the work guidelines constantly; withholding information necessary to

succeed; yelling; using profanity; and belittling a person's opinions.

It's sometimes hard to know if bullying is happening within the

workplace, but many studies acknowledge there is a fine line between strong

management

[ Page 7893 ]

and bullying. Comments that are objective and are intended to provide

constructive feedback are not bullying, but rather intended to assist the

employee with the work.

Bullying can affect an individual for a long period of time, as we

know from the school setting, but there are also things that happen in the

workplace. An employee can suffer from shock and anger; feelings of frustration

and helplessness; a feeling of vulnerability; loss of confidence; physical

symptoms like loss of appetite, inability to sleep, stomach pains, headaches;

panic or anxiety disorders; family stress; inability to concentrate; and low

morale and productivity.

Other ways bullying can affect the workplace are that it will

increase absenteeism, increase turnover of staff, increase stress, increase cost

for employers in terms of their employee assistance programs, increase risk of

accidents and incidents that might injure other workers; decreased productivity

and motivation; decreased morale; and most importantly, a reduced sense of pride

in the workplace for those employees, which quite naturally bleeds into the

marketplace.

Where a company that is serving a business, or what have you, has

employees that have been bullied, the morale is low and the productivity is bad.

That transfers into the actual delivery of those items to a customer.

If you feel like you're being bullied in your workplace, the

important thing to do is firmly ask the person that's bullying you to sit down

with you and stop the bullying. I encourage all members to encourage workers

that they know to work to end bullying in our workplace.

C. Puchmayr: I'm pleased that the member from across made

some comments with respect to bullying in the workplace. Not only bullying in

the workplace, but the way workers are treated when they are disabled almost

meets the test for being bullied as well.

Recently an employee or a worker that was retired…. Now when

workers are retired, they don't receive a pension. With asbestos, that pension

need isn't identified often until the person has reached 65 or older, because it

sometimes takes 30 years to manifest itself into the debilitating disease that

it is.

Recently there was a judgment in the Supreme Court, William

Cowburn v. the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, where the board

of directors of the Workers Compensation Board came to a decision with respect

to a disease of disability from asbestos, where the actual disability manifested

itself to a greater degree. The board of directors of Workers Compensation tried

to state that this was a new injury, even though the person had been retired and

sustained the industrial disease many years prior.

To me, that is akin to bullying. When a worker in his or her dying

days is battling a system that is so unfair to working people…. I don't know

what other kind of bullying there is. It's shocking in this day and age that

somebody can't be underwritten by a private insurer and is supposed to fall

under the historic compromise of the Workers Compensation Act, which is where

workers do not sue their employers for exposure.

In this case, the judge allowed the lawsuit. They allowed it to go

forward only in the case that they proved that the board of directors of the

Workers Compensation Board erred in law. They cannot make rules that go beyond

this Legislature. This Legislature has given them enough authority now to take

away from workers' rights, to take away from rehabilitation, to limit the scope

of rehabilitation, to cut pensions, to cut payments — no more bridging of wage

loss.

[1035]

I'm pleased that the member for Vancouver-Burrard phrased it in

such a context as bullying in the workplace, because this is clearly bullying in

the workplace when you're using every ounce of energy to try to just live

another day, to hear the birds one more day, to smell the flowers one more day.

You're battling this bureaucracy that has set up these rules — then to find that

the bureaucracy is even going beyond those rules and making their own rules.

Madam Speaker, thank you for your time. Thank you to the member

across for his comments.

GRANDPARENTS RAISING GRANDCHILDREN

K. Whittred: Many of us in this House experience the joy of

grandchildren. Last weekend I watched my grandchildren play baseball and soccer

and spent some time with my beautiful new baby granddaughter. However, at the

end of the day they went to their home with their parents, and I went to my home

and put my feet up. But this is not the case for many grandparents. I would like

to share with you a story that is becoming ever more common.

In February of 2005 Elizabeth sent her husband into the downtown

streets in search of her five-year-old granddaughter. She had just received word

that Sharon was in the care of her drug-addicted mother in violation of court

orders. Hours later the child was found at a Salvation Army shelter, and a new

chapter in the girl's life and that of her grandparents began.

Sharon became one of thousands of children who permanently fall

under the care of grandparents who had thought that their child-rearing days

were behind them. "I thought that this was in my past," said Elizabeth, 70, a

mother of three. "I never expected to have to do this again."

Elizabeth's story is far from unique. According to the 2001

Canada-wide census, there were 56,790 grandchildren being raised by their

grandparents. In B.C. that number was about 8,800. There are more than 6,000

grandparents raising the children of their children. Close to 80 percent of

these are single grandmothers. The census trends show that the number of

children being raised by grandparents is growing at about 20 percent per year.

When reports from the 2006 census are prepared later this year, we

may very well have over 16,000 children in British Columbia being raised by

grandparents. While this trend of grandparents raising children is

[ Page 7894 ]

evident across all ethnic groups, research shows that the aboriginal

population is most represented. I believe that the number is probably much

higher. Many instances of grandparents raising children are not official. They

are simply informal arrangements.

To have children being raised within the family is a very positive

situation. Research supports the notion that social, emotional, educational and

health outcomes for children raised by relatives are much better than for those

raised in care. Having a child raised within the family by a grandparent is all

good news for the child. It means the culture of the family is passed from

generation to generation. The continuity of the family is intact. The child has

the opportunity of seeing and knowing the biological parents, where appropriate.

However, across our communities there is not a great awareness

about the challenges facing grandparents raising grandchildren. Many

grandparents are raising grandchildren pretty much in isolation. There are not

very many social or counselling supports. There are few educational

opportunities, and little respite is available. Grandparents raising

grandchildren have no grandparents to drop off the kids at for a few hours or a

weekend for a bit of a break. There are no grandma-and-me activities at the

recreation centre.

[1040]

Grandparents are outside the social network of young families and

all the activities that surround them. Many grandparents live in senior-oriented

communities. Their social network does not generally include younger families,

and they are not always able to tap into the valuable resources gained by being

in the loop with younger peers.

For every grandparent raising a grandchild, there is a story of

heartbreak and loss involving the parent of the child. Research shows that

children usually end up in the care of grandparents when their parents succumb

to substance abuse. Each and every one of us in this House can think of people

within our own circle of friends or family who are in that situation.

Many of the children in the care of their grandparents have

behavioral challenges. Most come from difficult home situations and face

attachment disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other psychological and

physical challenges. Children may be grieving over the separation from their

parent. Grandparents must deal with all of these issues as well as the anxiety

around their own child, and too often they are very much alone.

Many legal issues face grandparents raising their grandchildren.

The laws they face are complicated, even more so when dealing with

interjurisdictional boundaries. Lawyers' fees are expensive and often out of

reach.

In a situation where a grandchild has to be taken to emergency,

they may be denied medical service until proof of legal guardianship,

authorization by a parent or a birth certificate is presented. This may be very

difficult to do when the parents may be missing on the street or simply

unavailable to provide the needed signatures and documentation. Similar factors

are barriers when attempting to access benefits, such as the child tax credit.

I have made this statement today to help create awareness about

the magnitude of this issue. I wish to illustrate the vital and invaluable role

played by grandparents in the larger context of our child welfare system.

Grandparents need to be on the radar screen. Taking the responsibility for

raising a child is to be commended. They are doing something very special.

K. Conroy: I would like to thank the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale for raising this important issue. I too am a grandmother. In

fact, I'm Granny Kat to five grandchildren. At the age of 42, I was rather

shocked when I learned I was going to be a granny, but now I'm very happy and

proud to be a grandmother and very pleased to spend time with my grandchildren.

I, too, spent the weekend with them. They came and spent the

weekend at our home, three of them. Five of them ended up at the house, and it

was a fun time for the grandchildren. They came with me in the parade in Silver

City Days, and two of the oldest grandchildren got to throw out candy in the

parade. They love coming and partaking in Granny's life.

A few weeks ago my daughter, who lives here in Victoria, had a bit

of a child care crisis. Three of her children ended up here in the Legislature

with us. I want to thank all the members who helped me out that day with the few

hours of child care we had to give for that child care crisis. Staff and members

alike were very supportive.

It's a difficult thing to raise children nowadays. I commend

grandparents who do this. It's really not easy, especially in today's world.

I've talked to grandparents in my own constituency who are raising their

children's children.

One mother spoke to me and said that her daughter had two

children. She was a single mom, and she was on social assistance. She said to

her mom: "I need to go back to school." She wanted to become a nurse. She was

young and needed the support to do it. This grandma said: "I'll do anything I

can to help you."

[1045]

She had to provide child care for this young mom, because there

was no child care available for her. There was a wait-list at the child care

facility at the college. The grandmother said, "I'm going to do what I can," and

so she did.

What ended up happening was that the grandma, who owns her own

business, had to set up a space in the back of her store for the grandchildren

to be at during the day so that mom could go to school and become a nurse. Here

was grandma, juggling to serve customers while taking care of her grandchildren.

This obviously is not an optimum situation for the children, the grandma or the

mother.

It caused a very stressful situation in the family, and the mother

said to me: "Can you help us out in any way?" And the grandmother asked for

help. They were struggling to make ends meet, just to ensure that this mom and

these children would be able to have a decent life.

The grandma said to me: "These children should be in a child care

facility. They should be in a facility

[ Page 7895 ]

where they can play with children their own age, where they have licensed

caregivers who could take care of them appropriately. I'm doing the best I can,

but I don't think it's the best for my daughter or her children."

It was a tough thing for her. She said to me: "I want to be the

granny that gets to give them treats and take them to the park and play with

them and have fun. But I'm a disciplinarian grandmother. It's tough."

I talked to another woman recently at a child care resource and

referral program. This grandma has taken on the care of her grandchildren so

that her daughter can juggle being able to get only a day a week of child care

and also working. This grandma said that she never expected to be a permanent

caregiver for her grandchildren. Often she has them at nights because this mom

works night shifts and can't get other care.

What this grandma said to me is that one of the things that worked

for her was the services she got at the child care resource and referral

program. She actually did go there with a number of other grandmas who came, and

they were incredibly thankful for the service. They came and used the toy

lending library. They came to the drop-in service, where they could talk to

other grandmas and moms who had their children there — talk about what was

happening.

They also used the resources available. One grandma said to me

that she went and took her first aid. She said: "I never thought about that when

I was raising my own children. You just dealt with things. But I took a first

aid course, and it was amazing. I've used it a number of times." She got the

support to do that.

She was extremely concerned because the cuts to the local child

care resource and referral program were going to mean that some of these

services would be lost in the community. She said she was really concerned. She

didn't know what she was going to do. She said that there are other grandmas.

There were four of them meeting there with me.

They said they weren't quite sure how they could keep the support

they had going just with themselves. They said that it was invaluable and that

it was great for the children. The grandchildren were able to play with other

children. They were in a play group. They had licensed caregivers working with

them even for a couple of hours a week, and it was really important.

I want to commend the grandparents for the work they do but also

acknowledge that the lack of early childhood services in the province is

difficult for the grandparents also.

K. Whittred: I thank the member opposite for her remarks

and particularly for sharing with us real anecdotal stories from her community.

But the question remains: what can we do to make the lives of grandparents

raising grandchildren a bit easier? I would like to make the following

recommendations to government.

First, that we create a strategy around grandparents raising

grandchildren, where policy could be in a framework that would be articulated

all in one place. Currently there are at least eight ministries that address the

kinds of issues that I have raised. Amongst those of course would be Children

and Family Development, Employment, seniors, Health and Education…. The list

goes on and on.

Second, I would recommend that government evaluate the variety of

supports that are available. It is quite heartening, actually, that in British

Columbia we have a number of programs in place that do provide help.

Grandparents as kith-and-kin providers are eligible to receive up to a maximum

of $450 per month. They can also apply for the child tax benefit, which is about

$267 per month, for a grand total of $717 per month. Of course, if the child is

under six, the grandparent is eligible to apply for the universal child care

benefit of $100 per month.

[1050]

But within this recommendation, I would like to really recommend

that the social and legal aspects of these issues be addressed, because my own

research and my own observations in community indicate that these are at least

as important.

The third recommendation I would make is that across our

communities and across our ministries, we all endeavour to put the issue I have

raised here — grandparents raising grandchildren — on the radar screen. Let's

see if we can increase awareness.

I mentioned earlier about the fact that there are all sorts of

parenting network programs for new moms with babies. I know that. I have a new

grandchild. My daughter goes to several programs every week. This creates a

network of support and information and help.

There is no equivalent for grandmothers doing this. Perhaps it's

simply a matter of raising this in our community centres and in our health

regions to make them aware that we do have a number of people who are not new

moms. They are in fact doing it a second time around.

LEARNING FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS

D. Cubberley: Thanks to the House for an opportunity this

morning to talk a little bit about learning from other jurisdictions, which —

following along on some other themes that I've presented in here — has to do

with learning from other jurisdictions in the area of transportation planning —

in particular, planning for transportation systems and implementing those

systems, systems that can reduce our dependence upon the automobile and increase

our use of physically active transportation.

I'm going to talk a little bit about personal experience this

morning, because I've been fortunate enough to have worked in, visited and

learned about three different jurisdictions that I think offer important lessons

to the province as we embark on a path of trying to reduce our contribution

towards climate change.

I think this is very important because we will not significantly

change the impact that we're having on climate in British Columbia unless we

change the way we get around our urban regions. That means we are going to have

to substantially shift people from the

[ Page 7896 ]

exclusive use of the single-occupant vehicle to get around and involve many

more people in using their legs, bicycles or public transit. Public transit is

obviously going to carry the largest share of those things.

I want to talk a little bit this morning about Portland, Oregon,

which is a public transit success city. It's a city that I got to visit for the

first time back in the early '90s as a municipal councillor when I was fretting

over the lack of a regional plan to get transit out of the same congestion that

cars were stuck in and to begin to give it an advantage. I was quite taken with

the idea of light rail transit as a first step in beginning to give transit its

own rights-of-way, and I wanted to see what success looked like.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So I organized to go down to Portland, Oregon, with a large number

of other local councillors and mayors to spend a couple of days looking at what

they had done. At that point in time, Portland had completed the Eastside Max,

the Metro Area Express Line, which was a 15-mile LRT line, which was immediately

so successful that they began building the second leg of it. They completed the

first leg in '86. They were just about to go into construction of the second

leg, finishing the planning, when I was there in '92.

Portland is fascinating to me in that they made the courageous

decision to forgo investing in a very expensive and controversial freeway that

they were going to use to try to jump ahead of the congestion curve and give

themselves room to move in the region. They made the choice to invest

substantially in a new form of public transit that would give them an altogether

new people-moving capability. That was to invest in light rail.

[1055]

They have been investing in it since. They have numerous lines now

— lines serving the airport, lines to all areas of the tri-metropolitan urban

region. They have been using LRT to attract ridership away from automobiles, to

forgo investing in freeways and to achieve a far more compact urban form.

I pick up on the comment made by the member for Peace River South

this morning. As he opened, he said: "If you want to do it right, you have to

spend more money." In fact, if we want to do it right in transit, if we want to

address climate change and get more people onto it, we have to spend more money

than we currently spend.

In fact, we spend virtually no money on light rail transit outside

of the lower mainland. Really, there we are only just beginning to spend money,

having jumped to a heavy rail system without going through the initial phase,

which is typically to develop ridership using light rail transit.

Portland is tremendously successful, and as a result of the

investments, MAX alone carries 26 percent of afternoon rush hour commuters

travelling from downtown back out to their communities. Westside MAX is the

equivalent of adding 1.2 lanes of highway capacity in each direction, and of

course the ridership on it can be grown on an ongoing basis. So as ridership

builds — and it has built every year that they have operated the light rail

transit — they can attract more customers.

A quarter of all commuters on all the major corridors in Portland

are riding on light rail transit. What's truly interesting is that 70 percent of

the riders per day are riders of choice. That is, they have chosen to use the

vehicle over their automobile when they had the alternative to do that. They are

not people who are using transit of necessity. They're using it by choice.

One of the lessons from Portland is that if you want to build

ridership, you need a system…. There are two lessons. One is that you need a

system that gets transit out of the congestion that cars are stuck in, and the

second is that you need to develop it as a retail business. You have to apply

some of the knowledge we have of retail marketing to a transit operation, which

is the opposite of how we tend to run our bus systems. We don't conceive them as

a retail business; we conceive them as a kind of social service.

In fact, LRT in the Portland instance bumps you up into a league

where you can actually market it to people. It's a mode of transportation they

will choose, and it supports a lifestyle that happens to works with, among other

things, a reduced environmental impact and living in more complete communities.

If I had more time, I would go into transit-oriented development

and what Portland has done to it, but my point really is that there are sterling

examples of success out there.

Another example of success, from Oregon again, that I came upon as

a municipal councillor looking for a way to begin improving the conditions for

cycling and in particular for cycling as a mode of transportation in this region

and to get more people commuting to and from work and school by bike…. I looked

for a jurisdiction that had had some success in this and in short order came

upon Eugene, Oregon, which is a city that I have had a long relationship with

since discovering it.

Eugene is a remarkable city in having attracted, by supplying

separated rights-of-way….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Nuraney: I think the member for Saanich South has raised

a very important topic this morning about transportation and learning from other

jurisdictions. Portland is a very good example, and so are various other cities

around the world which have faced these challenges over the years.

During my younger days I was in London, England. I would say

without any hesitation that London, England, has got one of the best

transportation systems in the world. Their buses, their tubes and their trains

are so well coordinated that I don't remember ever driving a car during those

days when I was in London, England. The public transportation took me wherever I

wanted to go without the use of an automobile.

[1100]

[ Page 7897 ]

Transportation indeed is a very important issue. This has come

about because of the mushrooming growth that metropolises and townships and

cities have experienced in the last decade or two. This growth has been so

phenomenal that it has outpaced the abilities of governments — local, provincial

and federal — to meet the demand that they were faced with.

What is happening now in terms of our being able to try and meet

those challenges? I think our government has invested quite a few dollars in the

last years and has budgeted to spend an enormous amount of dollars in terms of

infrastructure. The Gateway project is going to be, I believe, a leader in terms

of how to meet those demands of transportation that are put on us at this stage.

There are several other initiatives, if I may suggest, Mr.

Speaker, to deal with the transportation situation. This is again a model from

Europe, for example, where there is a mixture of residential, industrial and

business communities rather than a sector in a city that is confined to

industries, where people will have to travel back and forth from their

residential areas to their place of work.

What has happened in Europe over the years is that they've created

satellites of communities where there is industrial, business and residential

all existing in the same area. Maybe that is a model we should look at for

municipal growth in the future — to allow people to be, to stay, to work and to

play in the same area.

These are what I call the innovative concepts of building new

communities. Our funding for LocalMotion that we announced recently has this

element in it. It is not only to create pathways and greenways and to make

communities more active and also encourage them to not be so reliant on their

automobiles, consequently trying to reduce the gas emissions. It is also to

encourage local municipalities to create this innovative way of building

townships where people stay, work and play in the same area. I think this is a

very innovative way of looking at this. They are not just building roads that

could be an answer.

Various people have to come to the table to address this problem

of transportation. Certainly we have to learn from other jurisdictions. There is

no question in my mind that any good idea that comes either from within our own

group or from outside — it can well be from outside our own borders — we have to

look at and learn from.

Transportation and commuting from one place to another are

challenges that this government will be facing in times to come. The programs

they've now got in place will greatly help those who are at this time facing

those huge delays in getting from one place to another.

I have no doubt that this very important subject that the member

for Saanich South has raised must be on the front burners of any government.

D. Cubberley: I thank the member for his comments, even

though I will have to differ with his analysis of what's being done at the

present time. It very much is a combination of two things. One is a lack of

commitment to a regional growth strategy, which we see playing out currently

with the revamp of TransLink and the disrespect for local governments around

that region.

In my own region here, the capital region, there's a complete

marginalization of the growth strategy that we have by senior government, and

there's really no coordination of any investments around it.

Money is very important at the end of the day, because it takes a

large amount of money to build transit systems, as the member opposite suggested

earlier. Of every 100 pennies collected in tax in Canada, 92 cents is collected

by senior governments — 92 cents. That leaves eight cents for all the services

that are supplied out of local government, and it is simply an inadequate

funding device to allow local governments to supply rapid transit or to retrofit

roads for cycling and walking. The transportation financing equation has to

change and change substantially.

The ten cents a litre plus GST that the federal government takes

on every litre of gas and the seven or eight, depending upon what region it is,

that the provincial government nets from every litre of gas — that money needs

to be redirected into investments in transportation infrastructure prioritizing

transit, walking and cycling.

[1105]

What's intriguing is how far advanced the United States is in this

regard compared with us — and has been for 30 years. Why did the Eastside MAX

get built? Why could that community make that courageous decision to jump ahead

of climate change and do that back in the 80s?

It's because 83 percent of the money was supplied by the federal

government in the United States, and the remainder — 17 percent — was split

between state and local. Even under George Bush, the federal government is still

supplying 60 percent of the I-205 Portland Mall MAX light rail that's being

built as we speak, and state and local are splitting the remainder.

That is a viable transportation financing equation. What we have

in place today is no equation. There's been no increase over the last six years

for the bus systems that we have in place. Until very, very recently they were

forced to do with what they had, and as a result of that, they have flatlined in

terms of the number of people riding it.

The commitment that the member speaks of is an important

commitment, but the provincial government is very far behind communities in

supplying them with the resources to allow them to get on with the job of

addressing climate change. Given that 40 percent of our emissions come from the

transportation sector in British Columbia — 40 percent — we will never meet

targets which will involve us reducing those by 45 percent by 2020. We will

never meet those targets without major investments by the province.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call private member's Motion 52.

[ Page 7898 ]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Motion 52 without disturbing the priorities of the

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

ELECTRIFICATION OF HIGHWAY 37

D. MacKay: I'm pleased today to introduce Motion 52 in my

name.

[Be it resolved that this House support the electrification of Highway

37 so as to minimize greenhouse gas emissions in the north-west region of the

province.]

Mr. Speaker, this makes me think of a TV show on The

History Channel where it says that it's about time. The motion that's before the

House today to be debated — I think it's about time that motion was on the floor

for debate by members from both sides of this House.

It's interesting, when you stop to think about electricity, how we

all take it for granted — clean electricity. British Columbia today is blessed

with 90 percent of our electrical power coming from clean renewable resources in

our province, the majority of that coming from hydroelectric power. And it's

only responsible for 3 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions.

The province is blessed with a great deal of electrical energy. We

do have challenges today to be self-sufficient, but we are working to that goal,

and there's no doubt we're going to reach that self-sufficiency.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The idea of getting hydroelectric power, the grid, up Highway 37

north says volumes for the people that live up there. You might ask yourself:

why is this so important today? I'd like to remind people of this province that

the remainder of the province, with the exception of the northwest part and more

particularly 37 north, is tied into the electrical hydro grid that was built

years ago.

One part of the province was left out, and that was Highway 37

north. Of course, there really wasn't a great deal of reason to build a hydro

line up there, but that's changed. I just want to remind everybody that there

are in fact people and communities located along the Highway 37 north corridor.

They for the most part run on diesel generation.

It may surprise some people to know that the electrical grid

actually reaches its apex at Meziadin Junction and then drops down into the port

of Stewart. From Highway 37 north from Stewart or from Meziadin Junction up to

the tie-in with the Alaska Highway, there's no electrical grid up there at all.

Those communities up there deserve the electrical power, the cheap rates that we

enjoy throughout the province.

I think it's important that we look at the throne speech that was

read in this chamber in February of this year where we talked about the strategy

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know you can't reduce greenhouse gas

emissions if you have to rely on diesel generation. The plan to reduce

greenhouse gas emission outlines the steps that all of us — citizens,

communities, industry…. We all have to work together to reduce those greenhouse

gas emissions.

[1110]

Mr. Speaker, you might ask why it is necessary to build the hydro

line up Highway 37. Let me tell you a little bit about Highway 37. There's

roughly 500 kilometres of road travelling north throughout the northwest part of

the province where there is no energy provided from hydroelectric power. There

are communities up there that are struggling economically. There's no forestry

taking place. There's a vast forest of trees up there waiting to be harvested

and processed, but nobody is doing it because of the cost associated to produce

energy to process those trees.

There's another thing taking place up Highway 37 that is really

important, and it will benefit the entire province. That is the mining industry.

The mining industry has come back into our province in a big way. They are

extremely busy in the northwest part of the province, having spent $128 million

last year on 196 projects just in the northwest part alone. There are

approximately 12 mineral deposits presently in exploration stages or development

stages as we speak.

It's interesting, because all of those mining projects will

require electricity to operate. They will, if we don't do something to move that

hydro line up there, operate on diesel generation. Those mines are developed and

planned to operate on the more expensive diesel generation.

If we're going to meet our commitments to the province through

Kyoto and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's important that we build that

hydro line up Highway 37 — to meet the government's commitment to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, create a great deal of

employment opportunities for people in the northwest.

I can tell you that in Smithers, it's absolutely exciting. I

couldn't believe it on Saturday of this week, driving downtown and seeing the

activity taking place in my community where I've lived for 26 years. I've never

experienced that before. There is so much happening there. There is so much

building going on. It's all attributed to one thing, and that is the mining

industry along the Highway 37 corridor. That is extremely exciting for me.

I'm awfully pleased to stand up in the House today and introduce

private member's Motion 52, which will see our province move to put the

electrical grid along Highway 37 north — to benefit the province as a whole and

the people who live up there, and for the economic opportunities that await the

province along the Highway 37 corridor.

[ Page 7899 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Motion 52, and I will now

yield the floor to others to hear comments from them.

J. Horgan: I, too, am pleased to rise in my place today to

speak to Motion 52 on the order paper in the name of the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine.

It is a challenging time in the northwest. I know two of my

colleagues, the member for Skeena and the member for North Coast, will be

speaking on this motion later in the morning. The challenge we have when we look

at the electrification question is twofold. Firstly, what about the traditional

territories of the first nations in that area? What do the Tahltan people say,

what's their view, what's their vision for economic development in their

community, and how does electrification of the highway fit into that plan?

Certainly, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine is correct that

there are a multitude of economic development opportunities in the northwest.

Many of them hinge on access to energy, and we need to address that in the long

term.

In the short term, $326 million is the ballpark figure that I've

heard for a power transmission line up the 500 kilometres that the member

referenced, and a $326 million capital project is not an insignificant

undertaking. Of course, the B.C. Transmission Corporation would have to go to

the B.C. Utilities Commission to seek approval from the regulator to make an

expenditure of that magnitude.

[1115]

I'd have to say, on the face of it — although I certainly wouldn't

want to presume to guess what the Utilities Commission will do when it has an

issue before it — based on the population in the region, the service area that

would be accessing residential power at residential rates, that a $326 million

expenditure seems a little bit over the top. But we do live now in a climate

change environment, in an era where we want to look at as many opportunities as

we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As the member rightly says, industrial activity in the corridor

currently is dependent on diesel generation. Certainly, Eskay Creek, the largest

mine in production in the region and near its end, has been dependent on diesel

generation for the life of the mine. As we look at other prospects and

opportunities like Galore Creek and Red Chris and others in the area, access to

the transmission corridor would be a benefit to that industrial activity.

I would suggest, hon. Speaker — and to this House for

consideration — that if the mining sector is going to be the largest beneficiary

of the project, then perhaps the mining sector might want to pay for it. I don't

believe that's out of the realm of the possible.

The member for East Kootenay, who will be speaking shortly, may

have some thoughts on the matter. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

A $326 million expenditure to service the most remote portion of

British Columbia is something, I would suggest, that the Utilities Commission

will not look upon favourably, certainly not unless we can demonstrate — the

proponents in the mining sector or perhaps even some of the wood sector can

demonstrate — that that's an expenditure that's worthwhile.

When we contemplate what other options are available to the people

in the area, we can look at bioenergy — I know it was a significant component of

the energy plan — at wind power, at run-of-the-river power.

They're all interruptible, unfortunately, with the exception of

the bioenergy proposals. Interruptible power is not sufficient to run a mine —

we all know that — so we need some certainty in supply, and that's where the

transmission line comes into play.

If we look at moneys available to subsidize or further subsidize

this endeavour for the mining sector, we need look no further than a

contribution that was proposed by the federal government some months ago — a

$199 million package for greenhouse gas reductions. It's a part of their

repackaged Clean Air Act, I believe.

The $199 million would come to the people of British Columbia. It

would come to this Legislature, and it would come to the appropriate ministries

for disbursal. It's been suggested that some of that money may well go toward

Highway 37.

I think we need to look at the extent of the greenhouse gas

emissions that result from the industrial activity and the residential usage

that are there now and then weigh that against the cost of the capital

expenditure. That's an appropriate way to do business; it's an appropriate way

for us to deal with the people's business. But to wish for something to happen

just because it might work out later on is certainly not the way we should

proceed.

Metal prices are at their highest, hon. Speaker. You know that.

You and I have had some discussions about commodity prices and the importance of

high prices to success in the mining sector. A $326 million expenditure and a

tanking copper market would be disastrous for the people of the northwest, and

it would be disastrous for the people of British Columbia.

I would submit that although I appreciate the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine bringing this resolution to the House…. I know that my other

northern colleagues will speak about the importance of economic development in

the northwest corner, and I support that.

I support the mining sector. I've said that in this place; I've

said that outside of this place. But the question is not for us to decide. The

expenditure is a capital expenditure by the B.C. Transmission Corporation

regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Until such time as there's a

proposal before it, I believe this motion is premature.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more, if I

might, about some of the alternative energy proposals that people are talking

about in the northwest. Along the Charlottes, wind farms are becoming a cause

célèbre, I know. Perhaps my colleague from North Coast will be talking about

that. I'm looking forward to discussions with the proponents in and

[ Page 7900 ]

around the Charlottes and in the Haida Gwaii region — to talk to them this

summer about their proposals and how they would move that power.

Without electrification on Highway 37, where is that wind energy

going to go? Certainly, we've heard ad nauseam from the Governor of California

that he and others are prepared to pay a premium price for green power. If B.C.

Hydro or private interests on behalf of B.C. Hydro can harness that power, I

think that'll be to the benefit of all of us — certainly to the benefit of those

on the north coast.

[1120]

To look at the power corridor in isolation, to not factor in the

cost of capital in other parts of the province…. I canvassed this at length in

estimates with the Minister of Energy— the capital plan for the B.C.

Transmission Corporation. Highway 37 was not part of that capital plan.

What we'll need to do — and I'm delighted to work with colleagues

from the north and certainly the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — is come up

with innovative ways where we can approach the mining sector, particularly those

projects that are on the verge of starting up, to see if we can find ways to

reduce what would be a blatant subsidy to that sector and perhaps to see a

significant capital contribution from the mining sector to get the project

underway.

I think that would be in the interest of the sector, provided that

copper prices stay high. It would certainly be in the interest of the Tahltan

people, who have said that they're delighted to work with Galore Creek — to move

from Eskay Creek to the new project at Galore Creek — all in the interests of

economic development for their community and for their people.

I know my colleague from Skeena will be talking about the

importance of this to the residents of Terrace. With that, I'd like to thank the

member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for bringing this forward and again offer to

him my assistance to work with him and with proponents in the northwest to see

if we can get this forward without a significant subsidy from the people of

British Columbia.

B. Bennett: I'll be very clear. I'm in support of this

motion. I won't equivocate in any way. I think, in fact, it is long past due. I

disagreed with the member who spoke before me when he said that the motion is

premature. I think the people of the northwest have been waiting far too long to

get the same low-cost electricity that the rest of us in the province take for

granted.

I thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for his motion. I

think it's very timely, and I support it.

In fact, I'd like to thank the member for something else. When I

first came down here in 2001, I knew precious little about the northwest corner

of this province. In addition to my former roommate the member for North Coast —

I think I can use his name because he's no longer here; Mr. Belsey — the member

for Bulkley Valley–Stikine also spent a lot of time educating me and my other

colleagues about the northwest and all the potential that's there and some of

the struggles that the northwest has gone through over the past 20 years with

their economy.

I also want to thank the member for Peace River North, because the

member for Peace River North has been a longtime supporter of taking electricity

up the Highway 37 corridor. It takes that kind of high-level cabinet support and

interest, I think, to ever make something this big finally happen.

When I became Minister for Mining in 2005, I learned very quickly,

through my initial briefings, all of the potential mines that were at that time

exploration projects in the northwest. In fact, I decided I should go have a

look for myself, and I drove up there last summer and spent three weeks driving

around the northwest.

I spent a lot of time on Highway 37. I stayed at places like Bear

Paw lodge and went into Telegraph Creek and of course went to Dease Lake. I

tried fishing and didn't catch any fish, but that's probably a reflection on the

fisherman, not on the quality of the fishing.

The opportunity that exists in northwestern British Columbia today

really is amazing and is beyond what most people in the province would have any

idea of. The size of the territory — it's the size of a country. It's bigger

than many countries in the world.

In terms of mining, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine quoted a

number in the order of $130 million or $140 million or $125 million, thereabouts

— in the range of — that was spent last year on mineral exploration.

As minister, I became familiar with a lot of those projects, and

they have a lot of potential. They'll develop at their own pace.

There's also coalbed gas, and I don't think we should be afraid to

say that there is coalbed gas there. It's in the Klappan. It's a very sensitive

area. It's an area that's very important to the Tahltan. There is coalbed gas

there, and Shell has the rights to that coalbed gas. In fact, they may be able

to, if they get their permits, find ways to extract that gas in a way where they

make a minimal impact on the ground. But that remains to be proven.

[1125]

Certainly, with our new policy around coalbed gas, which does not

allow the discharge of any water onto the surface — water that's produced from

coalbed gas wells — that guarantees a much better approach to the exploration

and extraction of coalbed gas.

There's also opportunity up the Highway 37 corridor for IPPs,

independent power projects. There's one large project, the Forrest Kerr project,

already underway, but there's tremendous opportunity for other IPPs up that

corridor if we have a power line and if we have a grid that goes up there that

they can tap into. That's green power. So it's important that we give that part

of the province an opportunity to generate that green power.

Tourism — the same thing. There's tremendous opportunity for

tourism up the Highway 37 corridor. The people that live in the area don't want

just mining jobs. They don't want just jobs in the industrial sector. There are

people that want to start small tourism busi-

[ Page 7901 ]

nesses. They can do that and depend on the traffic going up and down Highway

37, but it's a lot easier for them to do that if they've got electricity.

Finally, in terms of the support for putting power up the Highway

37 corridor, the communities of the northwest…. I don't pretend to know the

communities nearly as well as the members from both sides of the House that come

from there, but I have spent a lot of time in Prince Rupert and Terrace and

Smithers and the smaller communities like Stewart. I don't know how many members

of the House have been into Stewart. I've been into Stewart three times in the

six years that I've been an MLA.

All of those communities want this power line to go up Highway 37.

The mayors, the councillors, the chambers of commerce — they all want it. I

think that should be something that directs us. I thank the member again for

bringing forward the motion.

I'm not the kind of guy who uses the word "pristine" all that

easily. You won't hear me using it very often in the House, because I think it's

an overworked word. From what I've seen of the northwest, especially when you

get north of Meziadin Junction, there is territory that is pristine.

When I talk about all this opportunity and all this potential, we

have to find a way to extract those resources in such a way that the character

or the integrity of the regional environment is not sacrificed.

In the short time left, I also want to say that I got to know a

number of Tahltan people when I was minister. I've talked to some of them since

— people like Chief Clarence Quock of the Tahltan band in Telegraph Creek. I

think Clarence lives in Dease Lake. Former Chief Jerry Asp, Bill Adsit, Curtis

Rattray, Chief Marie Quock, who is the Chief of the Iskut people — I've met with

all these folks.

Sometimes we have this sense that first nations people ought to be

homogenous in their views of things, but really they're the same as we are.

There are differences of opinion within the Tahltan Nation as to what degree of

development they want. Many Tahltan people want more than the Galore Creek mine.

They want other mines. They want IPPs.

We have to be careful when we say what it is that the Tahltan

people want. They will tell us, but it will probably be with more than one

voice.

In terms of the cost of the power line up Highway 37, our

government won't support spending the money it takes to build a power line up

there unless there is at least one major industrial customer to help defray the

cost of that power line. That power line will go only as far as it makes sense

to take it to service the people in that Highway 37 corridor and to service that

industrial customer.

As other industrial customers come along and as they see fit to

pay their fair share, then the power line can be taken up further. I'd like to

just say that the critic's comments about the ratepayers footing the bill for

this are very much off the mark. We're not going to do this as a government

unless there are major industrial customers that are going to help pay for it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I thank

the member for bringing forward the motion.

L. Krog: I had the opportunity when I was on the Finance

Committee of this House to actually listen to submissions from folks living in

that part of British Columbia, who seemed extremely supportive of the

proposition of electrification of rural Highway 37. It was also a significant

push by the mining industry, who is clearly going to be the major beneficiary of

this.

We know that there is something like 650 households in the area

presently powered by diesel. To build a line to reduce the greenhouse gases

produced by those diesel consumers simply is not viable and not logical.

The fact is that this is about a proposal to allow for the

industrial development of the northwest. That's the way we have to talk about

it, and that's the way we have to look at it.

One of the concerns I have is that that model of development

throughout this province's history — the government stepping up, the W.A.C.

Bennett schemes of power and electrification and pushing roads into places that

were largely uninhabited and pushing electricity into areas of the province that

were largely uninhabited — was one model.

[1130]

I think we have to pay attention, in this particular case, to

other models of industrial development around the mining industry. One is what

most of the members have already talked about this morning, and that is

run-of-the-river projects, smaller hydro projects. The concept of tying everyone

into a large grid now and building transmission lines over great distances at

great expense — with the significant disruption to wildlife and the landscape

and all of those things — may not, in fact, be the model.

What I am suggesting is a note of caution here. Before we start to

commit ourselves to the prospect of electrifying Highway 37, let us look at all

the reasonable alternatives that will allow those people in that part of British

Columbia, who do make a significant contribution to the economy and have an

opportunity to make an even more significant contribution to the province…. Let

us consider some alternatives that are perhaps more environmentally sensitive.

My friend the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca also raised the

issue of aboriginal land title claims and rights, which are clearly some things

that need to be dealt with before any projects could succeed.

We also have to consider whether this is an expense that the

taxpayer should be bearing. Or should the largely industrial users be bearing

it? There is no question that the amount of electricity that will be required in

that part of the world is not going to be consumed by George and Sally in their

house. It is going to be consumed by major mining companies. In the modern

world, particularly given the strongly free-enterprise bent of the government,

do we want that cost to be borne, indirectly or directly, by the taxpayers, or

do we

[ Page 7902 ]

want it to be borne by the user? In this case, the users would be the mining

companies.

I know there's always a great sense of urgency about these things:

"We have to get on with this project. We have to get on." Dave Barrett said

rather wisely a number of years ago that minerals don't rot in the ground, and I

think that rather cheeky truism holds true today as well. The minerals that are

there won't rot in the ground.

The development of those minerals for use by British Columbians,

for use by mining companies, is something that we need to look at very carefully

in terms of aboriginal land claims, environmental impact and what kind of

society we want to create.

I think the concept of all of us living in communities that are

not, in a sense, self-sufficient and that require us to transport either goods

or services over great distances is becoming a thing of the past. It's not going

to happen overnight, next year or even in the next decade, but how we occupy the

planet is changing. How we live is changing.

I think that this proposal, which is significant, presents an

opportunity for all of us to carefully consider what exactly it is we as a

province want to do in that part of our province, which is a significant portion

and, also, what the people there want. Have they considered, have they been

given an opportunity for, other alternatives?

I think this is a great topic to debate this morning. Clearly,

it's not going to get settled, and whether or not we pass this motion won't make

that much difference in some respects. But it is an opportunity for us to open

up our minds once again in this House and consider what the future of northern

British Columbia looks like.

R. Lee: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to support

the electrification of Highway 37. As I listen, it seems that the member for

Nanaimo and also the member for East Kootenay also agree that some industrial

customers should come forward to support this project and to help finance this

project.

I would like to say that electricity is very important in our

society. As people living in a city, we know that for appliances, computers,

machinery, communication equipment, food processing, accommodations and

transportation, we all rely on electricity. In cities like Vancouver and L.A. —

the big cities, especially — when we have some potential shortage of electricity

or the potential of a blackout, we are very concerned about the supply of

electricity. Living in our society, we cannot get rid of electricity at this

moment or for a long time.

[1135]

The importance of distribution of electricity is a concern here.

In the northwest of this province we know that almost one-third of our province

is lacking a distribution grid. So the hydroelectric grid in that area is

important, as we heard.

Also, power generation. Without a grid we cannot distribute the

power, but power generation itself is important too. The vision for our province

to have green energy generation in the future is very, very important.

What I would like to say is that with the pine beetle infestation

in the area and also with the old growth — how to harvest the old growth in the

northwest sector — and the mining sector…. Those are economic development areas

we want to emphasize.

We know that in the city of Vancouver we enjoy lower costs in

electricity. The cost in Vancouver is 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour — compared to

San Diego, 12.5 cents U. S., and San Jose, 10.7 cents. So we enjoy a low cost of

electricity in our city.

This motion will put some emphasis on the resource sector. We want

to create more employment in those sectors. We know that the province also

invests heavily in the aboriginal community. The unemployment rate in the

province right now is very low, the lowest on record. We want to have

sustainable growth in this economy. All cylinders are firing.

We know that electrification of Highway 37 will help the

aboriginal community, our industries and our economy. And it will help to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in this province. That is a win-win situation for our

free economic development.

R. Austin: It's my privilege to rise today to speak to

Motion 52, brought forward by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. As the

representative of the community of Terrace, I also am excited at the prospect

that we will finally have electricity coming up Highway 37.

As the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine mentioned, he went home

and was very excited to see the amount of activity happening in Smithers around

the expansion of the mining resource sector. Of course, those of us who live in

Terrace hope to be able to grab a portion of that business, not necessarily

taking away from Smithers but sharing in some of the increased opportunities

that are going to happen as the resource sector increases in northwest B.C.

As has been alluded to here, our economy in Terrace is struggling.

With the downturn in forestry for the last number of years, we are certainly

looking towards the mining sector to bring forward some jobs.

I think this motion, however, speaks to increasing electricity

grid for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. In fairness, I think that's

slightly disingenuous. Let's be honest here. The communities of Dease Lake,

Iskut and Telegraph Creek have perhaps 1,500 people in total living there. The

amount of electricity they consume, even though it's on diesel, probably makes a

fairly insignificant addition to the greenhouse gas.

However, the mining industry, if it wants to prosper, requires

enormous amounts of electricity. So let's be clear. The reason why we need to do

this — if indeed the government decides to go ahead with it — is of course to

assist the mining sector.

I believe that the new mine, the Galore Creek mine — which got

approved recently and, hopefully, is going to start to be built this summer —

alone requires 60

[ Page 7903 ]

megawatts of power. Nobody wants to see that electricity generated by diesel.

My understanding is that there is a possibility of a micro-hydro

project to assist in electricity to the mine. But of course that is not firm

power. If the river is low in water, then that mine requires the offset of firm

electricity. Certainly, electrifying Highway 37 will help to do that.

[1140]

Going back to Galore Creek, I think it's an interesting project

because this is one that's been supported by the first nations — by the Tahltan,

who live in that territory — and also by the environmental non-government

organizations who have come forward in support of Galore Creek.

There are, of course, many deposits, as other members here have

alluded to, in northwest B.C. Many of them were discovered in the '50s and '60s,

and certainly now it's an economically feasible time for them to go forward.

I believe it's important we use the model that was successful in

putting forward Galore Creek and ensure whatever electricity line that is built

along Highway 37 takes into consideration the desires of the people who live

there. The member for East Kootenay mentioned that, in his travels up there, he

recognizes that that area is a pristine part of British Columbia.

I think the people who live there want to ensure that whatever

development takes place doesn't take away from the place where they live or

alter their lives in any substantial way other than, of course, giving them

employment, which they need. Places such as Terrace will benefit greatly from

this, as the camps that are created for the mining industry, for the projects,

will be fly-in and fly-out, similar to what's going on in Chamiss. Certainly,

there are a lot of people in my town and my area who are looking to maybe join

the mining industry.

The locals should be allowed to decide and to be involved in the

discussions in terms of the projects that go forward. Then that should serve to

help the government make a decision as to what size of line needs to be built up

Highway 37.

I would finally just like to make a quick comment with regards to

where the electricity will come from. I hope, and obviously the government will

be attempting to ensure, that whatever electricity goes up Highway 37 does in

fact come from hydro or from green energy and not from any kind of coal. I also

want to ensure that, as I represent the community of Kitimat, which has gone

through a very long debate with regards to their problem with Alcan….

They were at one time promised a 500,000-tonne smelter, which in

fact this government supported when in opposition. They are now having to accept

a 400,000-tonne smelter and the ability of Alcan to sell power. It's certainly

not in the interests of the government or my community for power to be taken

away from Alcan, simply to be sold and put up Highway 37.

I hope that when power comes to Highway 37, it is new power,

because it's not in the interests of any community in British Columbia to take

power away from one community to serve another. With that, I will end my

comments.

B. Lekstrom: It is a pleasure to rise in support of Motion

52 put forward by my colleague for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

We've heard a number of presenters here this morning speaking to

this, about the impact that this extension could have. And we've heard a lot of

talk about the industrial development and the opportunities, but every bit as

important is the impact it will have on the residents and the families that live

in this region.

We in British Columbia are blessed and, in many cases, sometimes

take for granted what we have and sometimes don't turn our thoughts to some of

the areas that are a little less served than other areas of this province.

Highway 37, when it comes to the provision of an electrical grid going up there,

is one such case.

I think industry will benefit from the extension of this power

line up Highway 37, and that benefit will actually resonate with our families

and our children for years to come. We've heard here that we think industry

should come to the table, as well, on this development, and I agree with that. I

think they should, and I believe they will come to the table.

They recognize that this isn't about having just British

Columbians pay for this extension so that they can benefit. I think industry is

a responsible part of our economic well-being, and I believe that they will do

the right thing and come to the table. I believe they probably already are

discussing within their own circles what they can do to bring their portion to

the table.

This is about rural development. It is about developing the remote

areas of our province in a balanced and sustainable way that allows us all to

benefit, not just the people that will work and live in the northwest and up

Highway 37.

[1145]

As we extract resources in a sustainable manner — one that we can

live with and treats our environment in a respectful manner — we all benefit as

British Columbians. It's about quality of life — and I touched on that earlier —

for the families and the children that live there and for the workers that

hopefully one day, with this extension up Highway 37, will work there and earn

their living to provide for their families. It's about the environment and what

we can do to improve it. I think people sometimes overlook that.

Right now the diesel generation that is used in this area is their

only means of power. We need power. Mr. Speaker, we've all become…. I don't know

if I would say "soft" in the lives that we have today, because there are still

many challenges, but electricity is something most of us take for granted. Very

few go without electricity in this great province of ours, and those that

actually don't have access to it find a means to produce it. Certainly, up there

on Highway 37 diesel generation is a key issue.

[ Page 7904 ]

The other thing that hasn't been touched on is that although the

cost — and I know that cost is still being worked on — is significant to move

this up, I think the return to the province will be significant. In saying that,

it's a return to each and every one of us. With the developments that take place

up there and the job creation, the tax revenue back to the province will allow

all of us to move forward.

One of my colleagues had touched on it. I had the opportunity to

chair the Finance Committee, and this was an issue brought before us on numerous

occasions in full support, asking us to try and move this forward.

I know there's a number of speakers, so I'm sort of getting the

nod that I should wrap up here fairly soon.

I think we want to be cautious, though. A couple of speakers have

talked about "We don't want this being built" and only that area seeing a

benefit. As I said earlier, I think the entire province will see a benefit from

the electrification of Highway 37.

The other issue is…. I've heard people say: build it and they will

come. I think all of us are probably not old enough but mature enough to

understand that that's a great saying but that industry will come to the table.

That's my belief, and I'm hoping that they will.

Again in closing, this is about not just industrial development;

it's about our families and our children. We all want our children to be able to

grow up in the communities in which they're raised and have an opportunity to

stay close to home and work and keep that family together.

I think this is a great opportunity to show what we can do as

British Columbians to help the people along Highway 37 and benefit all of us in

British Columbia.

G. Coons: It's an honour to talk to Motion 52. I thank the

hon. member for bringing this forward. It's a motion that I fully support and we

on this side fully support — electrifying Highway 37. I'm proud to display the

button in my office: "Electrify Highway 37, and empower Highway 37." In the

brief time I have, I'd like to look at the benefits of the mining that will come

— the regional benefits, the environmental benefits and, obviously, the first

nation components that we have to look at as we look at opening up the north.

We looked at the benefits when I was at the Minerals North

conference in Terrace, which I spoke to in this House — the benefits that we're

going to see, the dozens of projects and the excitement in people, especially in

Stewart, the one component of my riding that is depending on the electrification

of this highway. We can dwell on that for a long time. There are definite

benefits that are going to come to the region, and there are going to be the

beneficiaries — the mining companies and this huge capital expenditure. There

needs to be that component to take into effect that the money needs to come from

the people that are going to benefit the most.

When we look at the environmental benefits, the one thing that I

have concern with in this motion is the limitation to it — that we're going to

electrify Highway 37 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. If that was the only

component to us doing that, why would we spend the multimillion dollars — over

$300 million — when it could be done for less than $30 million to compensate for

the diesel usage in the area?

If the purpose of the motion is only to get people off diesel,

there are better alternatives. As was mentioned, there is bioenergy, there are

micro-hydro projects — under public control, obviously. There's wind power.

[1150]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When we look at wind power, we can look at what's happening in

Haida Gwaii, the Nai Kun development and the partnership that's happening with

the Haida Nation. I do have to mention that in the environmental assessment

process the Haida Nation have equal footing as far as their comprehensive

evaluation of what's happening in their territory.

That draws me into the first nations component. We look at the

Tahltan. They've got a major concern with too many projects at one time. They

want to develop one resource project at a time in the right location. Sequential

regional mining operations — they would like to look at this with their input

and the respect given to them.

If we look on the website for powering Highway 37, Mike

Farnsworth, who is a chair of the first nations and community relations

committee for the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines, says that they embrace the

infrastructure and must consider the needs and aspirations of first nations.

There must be effective consultation and accommodation with first nations with

respect to cultural and heritage issues and respect for traditional territories.

I believe that sustainable practices coupled with social

responsibility are key to the future of the mining industry. But a key to the

future of the mining industry means total cooperation from everybody involved.

On those aspects I do want to commend, again, our colleague for bringing this

forward.

Again, I would like to see the motion include the environmental

aspects, the first nations aspects and the importance of mining in the region.

That's what I find missing from this motion.

On that, I pass it on to the next member.

R. Cantelon: I'd like to make a few remarks before moving

the debate forward.

The members opposite seem mostly in support of this and presuming

that electrification would be a great benefit to the social communities up

there.

I have to say that I recently had the benefit, on another standing

committee, Aquaculture, to visit these areas. I was certainly struck by the

beauty of the country and the resilience of the people and their energy and

optimism. Part of that optimism is buoyed by the expectation of electrification

of the highway. I think that would be a wonderful benefit to the community, not

only for personal but for the industry that is verging on breaking forward.

The members opposite talk about concerns about aboriginal

entitlement, about environmental concerns. Of course, those are all well taken

into consideration in

[ Page 7905 ]

any plan that will advance mining. In fact, it's an important and necessary

requirement.

I would like to comment on a couple of things that the members

opposite said. One member opposite…. I think we come from the same city.

Minerals do not rot in the ground, I think the comment was. This is certainly

true. Minerals do not rot in the ground, but I would submit that economic

opportunity does.

We can simply leave them there and take them out when we please,

whether or not the market, I suppose, wants them. Well, I think this is a very

warped view — in fact, a very…. Well, I won't say an unintelligent view, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection.

R. Cantelon: I'll have to be careful. Thank you.

An Hon. Member: Illogical.

R. Cantelon: An illogical approach.

The market cycle is high for commodities. It may not always remain

high. Now is the time to advance the electrification so we can take advantage of

the market that's there. There's no purpose in bringing our minerals forth, as

we might attempt to do, if there's no market for them.

This is not a premature motion. This is one that we need now and

must advance now. I strongly support this motion.

The people of the north coast want it, and their time is due. I

would have to say, certainly, that the energy and the optimism are there, but

they now need the tools. Electrification is certainly one of those tools that

they urgently need to take advantage of the marketing and mining opportunities

that exist for us in the world today. I would conclude these remarks to support,

and noting the hour, I would move that we adjourn debate.

R. Cantelon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175