British Columbia Hansard — MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (20031027pm-Hansard-v17n9)
20031027pm-Hansard-v17n9
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 17, Number 9
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Tributes
Chuck Connaghan
Hon. G. Campbell
J. MacPhail
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 86)
Hon. G. Collins
Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 87)
Hon. G. Collins
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Canadian Institute for Sport, Learning and
Leadership
S. Brice
Crime prevention in Surrey
E. Brenzinger
Economic links to Asia
P. Wong
Oral Questions
Property crime rate in Vancouver
J. Kwan
Hon. R. Coleman
Funding for addiction treatment and mental health services
J. Kwan
Hon. G. Cheema
Hon. G. Campbell
Impact of loss of income assistance benefits
on community services
J. MacPhail
Hon. R. Coleman
Hon. G. Campbell
Gravel extraction from Fraser River
R. Hawes
Hon. S. Hagen
Housing for women leaving abusive situations
E. Brenzinger
Hon. L. Stephens
Second Reading of Bills
Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)
Hon. K. Falcon
J. MacPhail
R. Nijjar
K. Johnston
L. Mayencourt
J. Bray
Police Complaint Commissioner Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 80)
Hon. G. Plant
J. Kwan
Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)
Hon. G. Collins
Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)
Hon. C. Clark
B. Kerr
L. Mayencourt
J. Bray
J. Nuraney
K. Johnston
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)
T. Christensen
Committee of the Whole House
Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
J. Kwan
Hon. C. Clark
Reporting of Bills
Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
Third Reading of Bills
Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)
V. Anderson
Buron Construction
(1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)
V. Anderson
Committee of the Whole House
Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46)
J. MacPhail
Hon. S. Hagen
[ Page 7523 ]
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003
The
House met at 2:03 p.m.
Tributes
CHUCK CONNAGHAN
Hon.
G. Campbell: Over the weekend a great British Columbian passed away. Chuck
Connaghan passed away after exceptional service as a citizen of our province and
of our country. For 20 years he served in the interests of all of us in British
Columbia. The Legislature would like his wife Erma and his children, Michael,
Susan and Katie, as well as his two grandchildren to know how deeply Chuck will
be missed and how much we appreciate and respect the work he's done on behalf of
all of us.
[1405]
Chuck was
chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission. He chaired the advisory
committee on the B.C. provincial judges' compensation. He was an active chair of
the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He served on the board
of governors for Royal Roads University. He was a recipient of the Order of
Canada and the Queen's Jubilee medal. He was always at work in the community. He
had a strong association with the Boy Scouts of Canada, with the Boys and Girls
Clubs of Vancouver, with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, with the Council for
Canadian Unity and with St. Paul's Hospital. He had an exemplary life of
citizenship.
On behalf
of all of us in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you convey to the
family our deep sense of loss at Chuck's passing.
Mr.
Speaker: So ordered.
MacPhail: I rise to join with the Premier and all government members in
celebrating the life of Chuck Connaghan. He was a man who, besides being a
personal friend, believed very strongly in what we did here in the Legislature.
He always took a balanced approach to every aspect of his life. He was a strong
believer in the labour movement, in trade unions, as well as a strong believer
in a free enterprise economy. He was deeply spiritual. He was very, very active
in his church, as well as doing all of the other wonderful community services
that the Premier has so ably outlined.
It comes as
a shock, I think, to all of us that Mr. Connaghan has now moved up to where he has
as many friends up there as he did down here. While older than some of us, he
seemed so youthful because of his vibrant personality and his commitment to
everything in the community. So it is a very, very sad day that we give
condolences to his family, all of his friends and his church and community. He
will be very, very sorely missed.
Introductions by Members
Sultan: I rise to introduce two guests who have had a measurable fiscal
impact on this government. David Osborne is a distinguished lawyer, president of
the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., a person who has done research on the
human brain at UBC and who represents brain-injured victims in medical
malpractice cases.
Our second
guest is Jeffrey Witton, also a trial lawyer who represents victims in motor
vehicle accidents and routinely goes after six-figure awards. Would the House
please make these two guests welcome.
Hon. C.
Clark: I'm delighted to be able to introduce two good friends of mine today
who are in the gallery. They are Mya and Eric Morgan, both passionate parents
who care deeply about education. I hope the House will make them welcome.
Krueger: With us in the precinct today is a very important constituent of
mine — one of my favourites. I drove up to the buildings with her last night.
We drove up to the back, and there was a gigantic chain-link fence with razor
wire all along the top and a gate and a pickup truck. It looked like they were
still setting it up. She said: "You know, I think your Speaker is going a
bit too far with this security thing." Happily, it turned out they were
taking it down. It was the movie set that had been here over the weekend. I'd
like the House to bid my beloved wife Debbie Krueger, with us today, welcome.
Mayencourt: I rise to introduce three individuals that are from my riding of
Vancouver-Burrard. The first is Cara Thein. Her husband is Joseph Maskell, and
he's joining us today as well. Then my favourite brother, Richard Mayencourt,
has joined us as well. Would the House please make all of them welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003
Hon.
G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.
Hon.
G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon.
G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act
(No. 2), 2003. This act follows on Bill 60, last spring's Business Corporations
Act amending bill, and makes further refinements to the Business Corporations
Act to enable its implementation as planned in spring 2004.
I move the
bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting
of the House after today.
Bill
86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day
for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 7524 ]
[1410]
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003
Hon. G.
Collins presented a message from her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No.
2), 2003. The primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the treatment of court
trust funds under the Unclaimed Property Act. In this regard, the bill provides
for regulations to be made to define when court trust funds will be considered
unclaimed and to define the rights and duties of the non-profit administrator of
unclaimed property in relation to unclaimed court trust funds. These
definitions
and duties will be determined through consultation with the judiciary.
The bill
also clarifies the administrator's responsibilities in cases where the court has
or has not yet made a determination as to the owner of the court trust funds. As
well, the bill provides that only a judge, justice, master or court registrar
may authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer unclaimed court funds to the
administrator.
The bill
also incorporates two housekeeping amendments to the Unclaimed Property Act. The
first is intended to ease regulation of the administrator by eliminating the
requirement for an order-in-council to prescribe where the administrator must
keep administrator records. The second exempts the administrator from the
current
schedule of court document searching and photocopying fees. A separate
schedule of fees may be established in future if warranted by heavy usage of
court document searches and photocopies.
I move the
bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting
of the House after today.
Bill 87
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR SPORT,
LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP
Brice: I am pleased to advise this House of an initiative developed by
Camosun College and PacificSport–Victoria. The Canadian Institute for Sport,
Learning and Leadership will be situated on six hectares at Camosun College
Interurban campus and will be a place where high-performance athletes, dedicated
learners and future leaders will come together to develop their potential and
ensure that our athletes prepare for their post-competitive life by acquiring an
education and serving as role models for our youth.
The
proposed new sports facilities will include a triple gymnasium, all-weather
playing field, stadium, and athlete and student residences. The goal is to have
the first phase of the institute complete by 2005 and all phases fully
operational by 2009, in time to welcome international teams looking for training
facilities and accommodation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
In addition
to assisting B.C. athletes achieve podium performances in 2010, the institute's
holistic approach also includes the delivery of health and wellness services to
the entire community. Through the development of unique partnerships with
schools and community programs, it is believed that the institute can become a
model for the country in terms of our population's overall level of fitness and
good health and a system reducing the incidence of childhood obesity with its
attendant complications.
The
remarkable and talented leaders at Camosun College and PacificSport strive
through this joint project to make the provincial capital the most active
community and to ensure that an enduring legacy of the 2010 Olympics will be
fitter, healthier British Columbians.
CRIME PREVENTION IN SURREY
Brenzinger: I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard, often
thankless work that's done in my constituency by the officers of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police force in cooperation with an action team that was formed
this year by the city of Surrey council. This action team includes the Surrey
RCMP , Surrey fire/rescue services and the city of Surrey's bylaw enforcement
department. The team is aimed at reclaiming some of the rougher parts of Whalley
for its residents and business people.
[1415]
Specifically,
police and other team members have targeted a quarter-mile strip of 135A Street
between 106 and 108 Avenues. "The strip," as it's known locally, has
been deemed by the Surrey RCMP as the number one hot spot in all of Surrey for
open drugs and prostitution. As the stretch of road in question is within a few
blocks of a heavily travelled SkyTrain station, not to mention my constituency
office, it is reassuring to know that steps are being taken to ensure that the
citizens and businesses of Whalley can have their streets back and feel safe in
their own neighbourhood.
Earlier
this month Surrey RCMP reported successes in the war against drug dealers and
prostitution and in their efforts to clean up the area and make it safer for
people through extra police patrols and the effort of the action team. The
cleanup effort was launched in August as Operation Clean Sweep and included
redirecting the strip's traffic and increasing roadblocks, as well as increasing
foot patrols and bike patrols. The program is continually being evaluated.
Surrey RCMP and
[ Page 7525 ]
the city of Surrey are to be congratulated for their efforts and their
successes in this area.
ECONOMIC LINKS TO ASIA
P. Wong:
I participate in the Asian economic development committee, which was formed to
seek ways to stimulate economic development in our province through connections
with the Asian business community and to strengthen B.C.'s ties to Asia-Pacific.
British
Columbia is well positioned to benefit from market growth and economic
opportunities within the Asia-Pacific region. Our geographic location makes us a
natural entry point to Canada, and our natural resources create great potential
to expand our ties to Asia.
Also, we
have many Asian immigrants living in our province. Many have brought immense
skills and expertise with them, broadening our understanding of Asian culture
and business practices. Despite the SARS outbreak this year, both Canada and
Asia have successfully weathered that crisis and are on the road to economic
growth.
We have
known for many years that the Asia-Pacific region provides important export
opportunities for our province. The accession of China to the WTO will allow us
to continue our economic momentum and increase our market share. The Premier
remains committed to growing B.C.'s economy and has already identified
Asia-Pacific as an area of growth. The Premier will be travelling to China and
India to continue relationship-building and to identify additional opportunities
for growth. This benefits every British Columbian. I join all my colleagues in
wishing the Premier and his delegation every success during the upcoming trip.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
PROPERTY CRIME RATE IN VANCOUVER
J. Kwan:
As the B.C. Liberals are finding out the hard way, tax cuts for the few don't
lead to prosperity for the many. B.C.'s economy is dead last in Canada. More
than 200,000 people are looking for work — the most ever. Now we learn that
property crime rates in B.C. are second only to Miami. The board of trade is
calling for a massive infusion of dollars to fight the problem. Can the
Solicitor General tell us if his government is going to respond with new money?
Hon. R.
Coleman: I think that, first of all, the board of trade, when they put out a
report, should give us an opportunity to actually review it when they…. What
statistics are they comparing to what statistics? I can tell you this: the
property crime in Miami is 12,000 per 100,000. It's 7,000 per 100,000 in
Vancouver. It seems like a pretty big gap between Vancouver and Miami, and I
think it's a bit irresponsible for the board of trade to compare us to Miami
when the stats read that way.
Vancouver
is a city that is policed by the Vancouver city police. Frankly, the
relationship between the police and the community and the community groups, as
we try and push back on property crime, is something that everybody is working
on. It would do well for the board of trade to enjoin themselves in that
discussion to find long-term solutions with everybody else.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
[1420]
FUNDING FOR ADDICTION TREATMENT
AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
J. Kwan:
Well, this government doesn't like to listen, but the people who wrote this
report are raising serious alarms. The board of trade points out that with the
Winter Olympics coming, the impact of increased property crime on tourism will
be severe.
They're
calling on the government to put more resources into mental health as well, but
the government is cutting those services. They've cut millions from alcohol and
drug….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let us give each other the courtesy of
listening to the question and to the response.
Please
proceed.
J. Kwan:
While the Liberals have cut millions from alcohol abuse counselling, and just
last month we have learned of cutting millions from mental health at the
Vancouver coastal health authority…. Will the Minister for Mental Health
listen to the board of trade and fight to reverse his government's severe cuts
to mental health programs, which are leading to increased crime and despair? We
don't need to hear from this Minister for Mental Health to go on and on about
how it's the NDP's problem. It's this government's doing…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
…and we want to know how he's going to respond to the problems that he's
created.
Hon. G.
Cheema: The board of trade report made two major recommendations regarding
addiction services in Vancouver. The first recommendation was to improve
services for people who live with both an addiction and mental illness. Our
government has addressed that issue, and we have already integrated mental
health and addiction services to better serve people with a dual diagnosis. We
have done that.
[ Page 7526 ]
The second
recommendation was to increase the duration of addiction treatment. In the past
we have seen that each health authority researches addiction services systems to
ensure that they are providing effective and evidence-based treatments.
Increasing the duration of treatment time does not necessarily improve the
outcome. It is more helpful to…
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. G.
Cheema: …match a suitable type of treatment to meet the needs of the
clients…
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Hon. G.
Cheema: …and the health authorities are working hard to provide a full
continuum of services to serve the needs of the patients.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Thank you.
J. Kwan:
This minister should know, if he doesn't know, that their government is cutting
mental health programs. Clearly, the B.C. Liberals are in denial. They're
presiding over the worst economy in Canada, the highest unemployment rate in a
decade, and they stand up and insist that everything is just fine. Almost 29,000
people are about to lose income assistance, and they say: "Don't worry; be
happy." Hunger is on the increase, and they say: "Not our
problem." Crime rates are going through the roof, and they say: "Me?
Why should we worry?"
The board
of trade is calling for the government to greatly increase treatment beds for
those with drug addiction. Maybe the Minister for Mental Health will take some
responsibility. Is he prepared to respond by earmarking new moneys for drug
treatment beds, which the board of trade is calling for?
Hon. G.
Campbell: First, we welcome the board of trade's report. It's comprehensive
and it's thoughtful.
Secondly,
let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I accept that the members opposite actually care
about these issues. But let's start with this. In 2001-02 we added $15 million
in new funding to mental health services in this province. In 2002-03 we added
$18 million for mental health services. We've added $138 million to provide new
facilities in Prince George, in Coquitlam, in Kamloops and in Saanich. We know
this….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Campbell: We know that 70 percent of the clients that are accessing
addiction services in this province also have mental health problems. We are
working to bring those and integrate those together so that we start, for the
first time in a long time, dealing with those people's true issues.
Mental
illness is something that we have to deal with not with empty promises as the
two members opposite did, not with empty promises of a mental health plan with
no funding and no action but with true action, true funding and true caring for
people with mental illnesses.
[1425]
IMPACT OF LOSS OF INCOME ASSISTANCE
BENEFITS ON COMMUNITY SERVICES
MacPhail: What we do know is that when this government took over, $420
million of mental health funding disappeared from the budget — disappeared
from the budget.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. members, let us extend to each
other the courtesy of listening.
MacPhail: According to a recent report on hunger in Canada, as a result
directly of B.C. Liberal cuts, B.C. food banks are reporting higher numbers and
a huge increase in recipients — many of them mentally ill — and a huge
number going to food banks before their distribution day because those people's
cupboards are empty, completely empty, and so is the refrigerator.
Penticton
Mayor David Perry is warning that with thousands about to be kicked off
assistance, crime in his community will continue to get worse. The mayor made
that same report to the prebudget consultation committee, along with mental
health advocates, saying the programs had been cut. The Minister of Human
Resources is in denial about this growing problem. Perhaps the Solicitor
General…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …can tell us what he's told police in B.C. to prepare for when
people start getting kicked off income assistance. What plans has he got in
place?
Hon.
R. Coleman: Well, you know, the member opposite was a member of a government
that for ten years didn't even have a discussion with police about the
priorities of policing in British Columbia. In the last two and a half years
we've actually built a working relationship with the RCMP and our municipal
forces in an integrated manner for policing in B.C. I'm proud of that.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon.
R. Coleman: In the Okanagan Valley we actually have a regional concept in
policing, and we've ac-
[ Page 7527 ]
tually been working with the communities to improve policing in the Okanagan
Valley. It's interesting that Mayor Perry hasn't called me and asked me about
crime rates in British Columbia. He hasn't made any overtures to myself as the
Solicitor General either at UBCM or at any other time.
Frankly, we
are building a world-class, professional five-year plan for policing in British
Columbia to deal with crime. It's being done because this Premier saw fit to
have a Solicitor General who woke up every morning and thought about crime and
policing in British Columbia.
MacPhail: Maybe the ten government caucus members who are travelling this
province on prebudget consultations don't talk to the Solicitor General either,
because the mayor, over a month ago, told every government caucus member exactly
what he said publicly. Every single member heard that.
Once again,
all we get from this government is a bunch of ministers hiding from the truth.
The board of trade is telling them that crime is going through the roof and more
resources are needed, and the Solicitor General says: "They didn't call
me." Food banks are reporting big increases in usage and numbers, and the
government over there denies that it has anything to do with it. Local mayors
are saying that crime is rising, and the Solicitor General says: "He didn't
call me."
The economy
in this province is dead last in Canada, and unemployment is skyrocketing
through the roof. To the Premier — it's a simple question, and maybe now that
he's back, he can actually answer it: how many people will be kicked off income
assistance starting April 1, 2004? How many?
Hon. G.
Campbell: You know, again I say that the members opposite, I'm sure, are
concerned about this, so they want to base their discussion on the facts. Here
are some of the facts. In the first quarterly report in 2003, the crime
summary
pointed out that the peak of property crime in British Columbia was 86.7
offences per thousand people — in 1996. In 2002, that is down to 64.9 offences
per thousand people. It goes on to point out that property crime, actually the
decline, coincides with the decline in income….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Leader of the Opposition, the courtesy extends both ways.
[1430]
Hon. G.
Campbell: The decline in the property crime coincides directly with the
decline in income assistance caseloads. As this government has gone to work, for
the first time over two million British Columbians are at work. Over the last
two years there are over 100,000 new jobs in British Columbia. That's number two
in Canada.
While the
member opposite may want to spread fear, as she has in other situations, let me
remind the member opposite of this. This is the situation we face with regard to
that: the time limits do not apply to people with disabilities, to people with
temporary medical conditions, to single parents with a child under three, to
pregnant women, to people participating in training and job programs, to women
participating in bridging employment programs, to people participating in ESL,
and many, many more.
As we build
this economy, as we provide literally hundreds of millions of dollars for job
training, we are confident that British Columbians will have a much brighter
future.
GRAVEL EXTRACTION
FROM FRASER RIVER
Hawes: After almost a decade-long federal moratorium against dredging sand
and gravel out of the Fraser River, there's been a massive, massive buildup of
sand and gravel in the river — so much so that navigation is now very
dangerous in parts of the river. What's worse is that the level of the bottom of
the river in parts of the river near Chilliwack has come up by almost a metre.
That means there's one metre less freeboard on the dikes that protect the people
and the property in the Fraser Valley.
My question
is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Can he tell my
constituents and the people of the Fraser Valley exactly what's being done now
to get this gravel out of the river to protect people and property?
Hon. S.
Hagen: Thanks, in part, to the very, very hard work of three MLAs in the
Fraser Valley — the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, the member for
Chilliwack-Sumas and the member for Chilliwack-Kent — Land and Water B.C., in
cooperation with the Fraser Basin Council, will be issuing permits for specific
removal of gravel in the Fraser River between the Vedder and the Agassiz-Rosedale
bridges.
The total
we have approved is at least 300,000 cubic metres of gravel. That permit will be
issued in November. That compares to 70,000 for last year. Work will begin in
January of '04 and will continue through March. There is the potential for the
removal of additional quantities in both this and subsequent years. In the
longer term, LWBC has commissioned an engineering consultant to develop a
five-year plan for gravel removal in the area.
HOUSING FOR WOMEN
LEAVING ABUSIVE SITUATIONS
Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. We
all know that women fleeing violent situations often face added challenges
because of economic dependence on their abusive partner. While a roof over their
head and a warm place to stay is a step to security, what happens when they
leave these places? Can the minister tell me what they
[ Page 7528 ]
are doing to ensure long-term security for these courageous women?
Hon. L.
Stephens: I want to thank the member for her question. It's a very important
one. As part of our new-era vision of safer streets and communities and as part
of our safer communities strategy for women, we are working to ensure that women
leaving safe housing after leaving the transition houses are, in fact,
addressed.
We all know
that housing is a very important factor that allows women to make those positive
changes in their lives. To help them do that, we've established a $25,000
endowment fund, and it's managed by the Cooperative Housing Federation of
British Columbia. This loan program will help women purchase shares in
non-profit housing to access safe and secure housing for themselves and their
families. This initiative has been very well received across British Columbia,
and it's more good news for women in B.C.
[End
of question period.]
[1435]
Point of Order
MacPhail: I rise on a point of order. Last Thursday the Minister of Finance,
after question period, rose in his place on a ministerial statement and
presented to the House a modification of his answers to questions I raised
during question period.
Mr.
Speaker, this point of order is not to call into question your granting the
Minister of Finance the floor, but I do seek guidance from you regarding the
conduct of ministerial statements, specifically in the context of past practice
in this House. I want to raise the point that until recently it was the practice
in this House that the Speaker sought a written copy of a planned ministerial
statement in advance of it being brought to the floor. Indeed, the practice was
that the opposition was also provided an advance copy to facilitate a timely and
appropriate response in the House.
Mr.
Speaker, as you well know…. Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I don't know that. As I now
can inform you, I was not given notice of that; nor was my colleague the member
for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The minister rose in his place, and there was
not an opportunity for a reply. Indeed, had that courtesy been extended, this
point of order could have been dealt with then.
Given the
matters I have outlined, can you please provide this House, at your convenience,
Mr. Speaker, with some guidance as to the conduct of ministerial statements in
the future — whether you will be reaffirming past practice or making a change?
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you for your point of order. I will take it under advisement
and bring back information in due course.
Hon. G.
Collins: Certainly, it is the effort of all governments to try and provide
members of the opposition as well as the Chair, where practicable, with advance
notice of a ministerial statement. The information that was provided to me
arrived at the end of the period. The member had already left the chamber
partway through question period, which is always her prerogative if she wishes
to do so.
The fact of
the matter is that the information was pertinent to the discussion. It was
pertinent to the public interest, and I felt that given the timeliness of it, it
was important to present it to the House at that point in time. There are
practice recommendations. They are just that; they are recommendations for
practice. There are exceptions when the information is of a timely nature and
needs to be brought before the House at that moment.
Mr.
Speaker: I will bring back a response in due course.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: I call second reading of Bill 83.
Second Reading of Bills
PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION
ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT
Hon. K.
Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
As I
explained during first reading, Bill 83, the Pacific National Exhibition
Enabling and Validating Act, will implement a key recommendation of the
government's core services review.
The PNE is
very important to the residents of Vancouver and, indeed, the lower mainland. We
feel the municipal level of government is best suited to manage its role in the
community into the future. The PNE is an essential part of British Columbia's
heritage. It is indeed a cultural institution known and loved throughout our
province. It's also a vital economic engine and a unique feature in British
Columbia's tourism landscape. The PNE generates more than $115 million in
economic spinoff annually and employs 4,000 people throughout the course of the
year — 2,600 of whom are youth. The transfer of the PNE indicates a
responsible, accountable management of public resources and tax dollars while
also reducing the provincial regulatory burden.
[1440]
The
proposed bill also comprises amendments to the Hastings Park Trust that will
address mandate issues. The province established the trust in 1889, granting
Hastings Park to the city as the trustee "for the use, recreation and
enjoyment of the public." Since that time, the use of the land has evolved
and now includes activities that are not necessarily reflected in the original
enabling order-in-council. That means that the terms of the trust had to evolve
as well. The amendments to the trust will authorize the city of Vancouver to
undertake specified uses of the lands that are consis-
[ Page 7529 ]
tent with the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public to better reflect
the current practice. The amendments also expand the powers of the PNE
corporation with amendments to the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation
Act.
This
proposed legislation confirms the land grant of Hastings Park Trust in 1889 from
the province to the city of Vancouver and its predecessors and successors, and
it provides for contemporary
interpretation of the objectives of the trust. The
city of Vancouver will be responsible for permitting any form of authorized
gaming to take place on the trust lands. The city will control advertising and
security and will be able to make decisions regarding building new facilities
for authorized uses of the PNE site.
The city of
Vancouver will also have the ability to authorize future uses and activities at
Hastings Park that are consistent with the legislative objects of the trust. The
Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act gives the PNE its powers to carry
out certain activities. The proposed bill amends these powers to provide greater
clarity and the necessary authority to undertake current activities that
residents and visitors to British Columbia have been enjoying for many years.
This authority includes making or charging for the making of television, movies,
photographs and sound recordings.
The
proposed act removes the province's authority to appoint directors to the board
of the PNE and gives authority to the city of Vancouver, thus effectively
transferring control of the PNE corporation to the city. It also removes the
province's ability to appoint and terminate a chair of the board. As a result of
this, the city has the discretion to determine the number of directors on the
board of the PNE.
This bill
provides clarity regarding the members of the board of the PNE on transfer of
its control from the province to the city of Vancouver on January 1, 2004. It
also ensures that the provincially appointed board members will no longer be
board members after December 31, 2003. City-appointed members will comprise the
PNE board as of January 1, 2004. It's consistent with the direction where we
feel the city of Vancouver is the best suited to manage operation of the PNE
and, based on consultation with various stakeholder groups, develop the future
direction of the PNE.
The
sections of this legislation relating to the Hastings Park Trust come into
effect either on the date of transfer of control of the PNE from the province to
the city of Vancouver — being January 1, 2004 — or earlier by regulation.
The sections amending the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act come
into effect on January 1, 2004. The city of Vancouver will continue to operate
the PNE until 2005 and will work to undertake public consultations with
stakeholders and residents of Vancouver to create a new vision for the PNE.
I am
pleased to move second reading.
MacPhail: I rise to address this issue, and I'm going to do so at length. I
don't know whether I'll take up my full 30 minutes, but if I do, I'm the
designated speaker on this piece of legislation.
I am a bit
taken aback that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, who has
been responsible for the PNE for the last two and a half years, is not leading
this debate. I'm not quite sure why he's not leading this debate. It's of very
great importance to people in Vancouver and, particularly, people who live in
Vancouver-Hastings. For the Minister of State for Deregulation to respond at
second reading is a bit troubling, I must say.
[1445]
I do notice
a pattern amongst this government, where the ministers can't even show up for
their own legislation. Perhaps they have such a weak legislative agenda — this
government — that in order to keep the Legislature even moving, they're having
to sub in with the B team, such as the Minister of State for Deregulation, on
this legislation. Nevertheless, it is troubling — I have to tell you — that
the very minister who has been guiding this process for two and a half years
isn't here to shepherd the legislation through, because it's very important
legislation.
Of course,
it was introduced last Thursday. I spent a great deal of the weekend consulting
on this legislation and talking to my community. Now, of course, here we are:
the legislation is going to be passed. Probably tomorrow the legislation will be
passed.
The reason
I raise that point is because not one single person in that government talked to
me about this legislation. Not one single person talked to me about it, and not
one single person in this government talked to my community either. That's what
I spent the weekend doing, saying, "Okay, who have you heard from in
government?" talking to my community organizations. Not one single person
in the Liberal government talked to anybody.
I guess I
can understand that a government as partisan as this government would continue
to take a partisan approach to the PNE. I can understand their reluctance in
wanting to talk to me, but to ignore the entire community is completely another
issue. So I'm going to use this opportunity to put the history that I've had and
that my community has had around Hastings Park, the trust, the PNE, use of that
site, the city's role in that and how this government has basically said:
"We're going to ignore all of that past history, and we're going to abandon
any consultation with the community whatsoever."
I will
start off, though, by saying that the reaction to this legislation is mixed.
There is a great deal more work that needs to be done within the community on
whether this legislation is viable or not, so I will have many, many questions
at committee stage. At this stage of the debate, at principle stage, the
opposition will not be opposing the legislation, but we will be raising some
pretty substantive issues at committee stage.
I certainly
hope that the minister responsible will be able to answer those questions. There
is certainly nothing whatsoever that I have seen to date of the Minister of
State for Deregulation being able to answer those questions. In fact, it was his
government that stopped the plan of economic rejuvenation for the PNE
[ Page 7530 ]
and the city of Surrey, for which he is a representative — stopped the
rejuvenation of both the PNE and the city of Surrey and abandoned a very viable
plan for the future of the PNE. I'm not sure how much credibility the Minister
of State for Deregulation has on any of these issues.
When I was
preparing for elected politics in 1990, the major issue facing the riding of
Vancouver-Hastings was the future of Hastings Park. It wasn't a partisan issue,
I might add, at the time. It was not at all. The then mayor of Vancouver, who is
now the Premier of this province, and I worked very closely on the future of
Hastings Park.
[1450]
There had
been a huge amount of activity at the local level about Hastings Park. In fact,
back then in those days over a dozen years ago, the site wasn't really even
referred to as Hastings Park by the vast majority of lower mainlanders. It was
referred to as the PNE, the Pacific National Exhibition. The reason for that was
that the Pacific National Exhibition, the agricultural fair in this province,
had been at that site for almost a hundred years. The PNE had a long and
glorious history as an agricultural fair. That history and support, too, has
been abandoned by this government, with their massive agricultural fair grant
cuts. They've cut the grants to agricultural fairs, so the Pacific National
Exhibition has been abandoned as a fair by this government as well.
The
community had come to the conclusion that we needed more green space on the east
side of Vancouver. Now, why was that? Well, the NPA–dominated city council,
who had been in power for absolute decades, and the park board in Vancouver, who
had been in power for decades, had paid very little attention to east-side
greening of space. In fact, there had been studies out that showed that the east
side of Vancouver actually suffered — by more than half — a reduction of
green space versus the west side of Vancouver.
So the
community — many, many community activists, of whom I was not one — came
together and said: "We have this potential jewel called Hastings Park. You
may know it, citizens, as the PNE, but it really is Hastings Park. That's its
legal name, and there's a trust in place. There's a trust in place that
guarantees that site is for the use of the community." Many, many activists
living in East Vancouver joined together and mounted a campaign to return
Hastings Park to community use and to green Hastings Park.
It was that
issue, along with the issue of education, upon which I decided to get involved
in electoral politics. I had just had a son, and his dad and I were terribly
concerned about where he was going to be able to play as he grew up. So we got
involved in restoring Hastings Park as a green space. I was working with the
now-Premier of the province on that. There were huge public meetings. Hundreds
of people came out to meetings about the future of Hastings Park. Even though
the Premier and his NPA–dominated city council and park board had been the
ones that had ignored the east side in terms of greening, he did attend the
public meetings and heard the outpouring of support for the greening of Hastings
Park. Tied up in all of this was the future of the PNE as well, because the PNE
was very, very popular.
I remember
one of the first points of disagreement my son and I had over politics — just
one of the first points of disagreement. I took my son Jack to a public meeting
on the future of Hastings Park. The now-Premier was there as the mayor, and I
was there. Jack was about four, and he listened carefully to the discussion.
Then he came up to me afterward and said: "Mommy, are you talking about
getting rid of Playland? Well, I'm not in favour of that." So it was the
first disagreement — many of which have flowed since then — about
politically divergent views between my son and me.
[1455]
It was over
the future of the PNE that we had a disagreement. I had become convinced by the
people in my community that there could be a bright future for the PNE, but at
the same time we could have a Hastings Park that was a green, east-side jewel.
That may mean that Playland would have a different location and perhaps even a
future that wasn't going to be long-term.
In 1991,
Mr. Speaker, you know that the NDP formed government, and a former mayor, Mike
Harcourt, became Premier of the province, which was excellent news for the east
side of Vancouver. A decade later, that news turned to disaster, but in 1991
that was very good news for the east side of Vancouver — a government who
cared about working people, a government who cared about the poor, a government
who knew that in a city where there really was a divide between the east and
west, the east side of Vancouver was going to have as much attention paid to it
as the west side of Vancouver.
We turned
our minds quickly to the future of Hastings Park, and we listened carefully to
the community, who had mounted many challenges to the city of Vancouver about
what the use was going to be of Hastings Park. There was a young-in-spirit but
old-in-chronological-age man named Guy Faint, who had mounted a challenge to
both the then–Social Credit government and the city of Vancouver about
violations of the 1889 Hastings Park Trust. In 1980, after years of advocacy and
research, Guy Faint, who was born in 1919, brought to the attention of B.C.'s
Legislature the violation of the 1889 trust that gave Hastings Park to Vancouver
"for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public."
Without
this pivotal event by Guy Faint in the struggle to reclaim Hastings Park, the
historic 1996 city-province agreement could not have been achieved. The
sanctuary's now peaceful beauty and the elegant Giardino Italiano — sorry,
giardino means garden — would not exist. That was the beginning of it: Guy
Faint's activities in 1980.
By 1991 it
became abundantly clear to the new government of the day that Mr. Faint's
actions had to be brought to fruition, but we had a rocky start, too, on
[ Page 7531 ]
this matter. I remember having many, many discussions with my own government,
as the local MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, getting my government to realize what
the community wanted at Hastings Park and how that could be achieved in a
cooperative, inclusive way.
Unlike, I
think, the government caucus members of this day, I actually had a voice. Even
though I was disagreeing with my government's initial agenda in this area, I had
a voice. I got my community to have a say in what the government's proposal was.
We actually changed the course. We, at the local level, changed the course of my
own government's actions. I just wish that was possible by the government caucus
members today, but I see none of that.
It didn't
take wild protests from my community. It just took unbelievably close
cooperation and listening to each other — my community members and me as the
local MLA. What was originally put forward by my own government with the
original NDP–appointed board of directors of the PNE as a substantial
reinvestment in that site, but a reinvestment in a way the community ended up
not wanting, was changed.
[1500]
That
original board of directors of the PNE was well-intentioned, came from the
community itself and had only the best of intentions for the future of that
site. But while many thought that more development at the site was what the
community wanted, and perhaps was what was best for the PNE, the community said:
"No, that's not what we wanted. No, we don't want more development at that
site. We actually think the park can be greened and made a sanctuary, and
perhaps there's a role for the PNE as well."
The then
Premier, Mike Harcourt — as was always his way — listened to government
caucus members. In this case, it was me. He made changes in the governance,
those who governed at the PNE — not in any disparaging way to the previous
board. He acknowledged their success but made changes. He said to the new PNE
board of directors — I think it was around 1993, maybe 1994 when he made that
change: "Pay close attention to the wishes of Vancouver-Hastings residents
about the future of the PNE."
Mr.
Harcourt, the then Premier, also appointed a group of government caucus members
of the day to open up negotiations with the city of Vancouver about what would
work best for the future of the PNE. I was very fortunate to continue to work
with my own constituents. We had public meetings. We worked hard together. We
did surveys. We talked to the park board. We brought in experts. We gave options
to the community about the future of that site. We had a president of the PNE,
Ian Aikenhead, who said first and foremost that the PNE must bring the community
to the table about the future of the site.
Mr.
Aikenhead said, along with his board of directors, which was a diverse group
from business, from the community and from the city: "Yes, we support the
PNE, and we want the PNE at this site, but we want to do it in a way that
welcomes the community. Let's see whether we can work toward that." By that
time, the then mayor, Gordon Campbell, had moved on to become the leader of the
B.C. Liberal opposition, and Philip Owen was in the mayor's chair. Philip Owen
said: "Yes, we want to work with the government of the day, the NDP
government of the day, to make sure the community gets what it wishes at
Hastings Park." In the meantime, groups like the Hastings Park Conservancy,
business community members and Burrardview community, just to name a few, were
working hard to ensure that Hastings Park would be turned into a sanctuary.
That
culminated in a historic agreement in 1996 between the province of British
Columbia and the city of Vancouver about the future of Hastings Park. It was a
funding agreement. It also included the racetrack at the time, and it was a
funding agreement about how provincial revenues flowing from the racetrack and
the PNE fair would go to Hastings Park to green Hastings Park. It was, I would
say, a model of consultation and cooperation, and I would also say that as the
city and the province moved toward this cooperative agreement, the then
opposition MLAs were included in all of the discussions as well — all of them,
unlike what this government has done to me. This government has not had one
single conversation with me about the future of my own community.
[1505]
That was
then, Mr. Speaker. That's the decade this government now likes to shout and say
what an awful period of time it was. In fact, what happened around Hastings Park
should stand as a model of open and inclusive and non-partisan cooperation. It
is with dismay that I have to stand and say that has all been set aside now by
this Liberal government.
The
historic 1996 agreement that was signed by the NPA mayor, by me as the local
MLA, by the cabinet minister who was responsible for the PNE, by city
councillors such as George Puil and by local Vancouver MLAs and the community
has proven to be incredibly successful. Hastings Park is a jewel. The PNE is
more successful than it has ever been, and they sit on the site side by side.
Does more
work need to be done? Absolutely. Has more work been planned? Absolutely. But
how will that work continue, and how will it continue in a balanced and
inclusive way? It means that all parties have to come to the table with an equal
voice and an equal say. It can't be the city dominating. It can't be the
province abdicating its responsibility for funding of the site. It has to be
that every voice within the community is at the table as well. It is that open,
transparent, inclusive and cooperative process that I want assurances from this
Liberal government will continue. I want those assurances.
They're
certainly not off to a good start by the way they've treated the community in
not talking to the community or the local MLA. While it is a sanctuary — a
beautiful, beautiful sanctuary — it's an urban sanctuary. It's got a hot
skateboard park that is one of the best in North America, and that skateboard
park is right next to Il Giardino Italiano, which is so beautiful. The
[ Page 7532 ]
gardens are so beautiful. They're formal, European-style gardens that make
you want to sit there on beautiful benches amidst the shrubbery and the statues
and the sculptures and just be at peace.
There's the
Momiji Gardens that were brought in by the very first NDP board of directors and
are a tribute. The Momiji Gardens are a tribute to the Japanese Canadians who
were interned during the Second World War at Hastings Park. There's the
restoration of the salmon stream that is absolutely spectacular, and all of this
greening has taken place at the same time that the PNE has grown and modernized
and adjusted to being located at a park that is a very much different park.
What does
this legislation do to all of that? Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It may be
a simple transfer of the responsibility of the city to now uphold the Hastings
Park Trust and ensure that the city works with the community, or it could be a
downloading, once again, onto the city of Vancouver with the government of B.C.
abdicating its responsibility for using provincial moneys to fund the greening
of Hastings Park.
[1510]
Let me read
into the record a letter from many people from my community to the Premier of
the province. It's dated October 26, 2003. I'll just tell you who it's from.
It's signed by Mariken van Nimwegen, vice-chair, on behalf of the board of
directors of the Hastings Park Conservancy. I will let you know that I am a
member of the Hastings Park Conservancy as well.
"Dear Premier:
"This
week we were informed of the Ministry of Deregulation's first reading of
Bill 83, 2003, the proposal to revise the 1889 Hastings Park Trust to enable the
Pacific National Exhibition to continue in its current form. The intent of the
bill makes us deeply sad.
"In
1980 it was Mr. Guy Faint, a resident of East Vancouver, who first
brought the Hastings Park Trust and the non-conforming uses of the land to the
attention of the then Attorney General. Our organization, having worked with Mr.
Faint in the past, has a mandate to work in the spirit he intended in an honest
effort to right a long-neglected wrong done to the people of East Vancouver. To
hear of the province's attempt, within mere months of Mr. Faint's death in
August this same year, to retroactively legitimize past and possible future uses
by both the exhibition and the racetrack is to feel deeply sad, even more so
because your government chooses to do this on the eve of relinquishing its
jurisdiction over the PNE.
"Moreover,
it takes us by surprise that it is your government that chooses to make
this change to the trust a full 90 years after the non-conforming activities
began and mere months before the city commences its public consultations on the
future of the PNE summer fair.
"Despite
being fully aware of the discrepancies between the intent of the 1889
Hastings Park Trust and the actual uses of the site, our organization's
volunteer community leadership has deliberately chosen and consistently advised
its constituency to not act on this fact through the courts. Clearly, our
community would have had scarce resources to do so. Instead, our group has
always firmly believed in the value of honest and fair consultation and
negotiation with the two levels of government and with both major tenants at the
site.
"In
1995 true progress was made in agreement with all parties involved in
Hastings Park, and a modest re-greening program began. The Hastings Park
Conservancy is and always has been concerned with the long-term future of the
land from the point of view of its social, environmental and economic
sustainability and its healthy relationship with the surrounding residential
neighbourhoods. Given this long-term orientation, we have sought to get
agreements in place about Hastings Park that would transcend the political
climate of the day in order to enable future citizens of Vancouver to shape
their city's destiny.
"The
Hastings Park Trust, quietly existing in the background and unheeded
while commercial activity was condoned by most over the course of decades,
embodied this. It was the moral anchor that validated the legitimate aspirations
of the people of East Vancouver, despite the actions of their successive
governments to the contrary. We now appeal to you, the leader of our city's
senior provincial government, but more specifically to you as ex-mayor of the
city of Vancouver, to remember your previous support of the vision of
re-greening Hastings Park.
"The
trust, vague in places as it may be, nevertheless symbolizes the sacred
trust we had that one day the political leadership would recognize the sincerity
of our aims as well as our decades-long advocacy conducted in good faith and
forwarded accommodatingly and politely but, most of all, patiently.
"We
do not believe that the transfer of ownership of the PNE needs to involve
changing the original intent of the trust. Please deny the alteration of the
original Hastings Park Trust at the eleventh hour of the provincial government's
tenancy at this treasured public site in order to enable proper stewardship of
Hastings Park by the citizens of Vancouver in future.
"These
are our sentiments conveyed to you and expressed,
"With sincerity,
The board of directors of the Hastings Park Conservancy."
[1515]
I joined
the Hastings Park Conservancy less than a year ago because I wanted to support
them in what I thought was a well-established, non-partisan agreement on the
greening of Hastings Park. It was my way of making a very small contribution to
that process. As a result of that, I get their newsletters, and I must tell you
that even before this legislation came down, there were many questions being
raised about the future of Hastings Park, given this government's wont of
expansion of gaming at the racetrack.
For those
of you who have not been at Hastings Park, the racetrack takes up — I hope my
memory is not failing me here — about 40 acres of a 160-acre site. The
racetrack has been there for a long time, and I am a huge supporter of the
racing industry in this province and also of the Hastings Park racetrack. The
community has worked cooperatively with the racetrack, but they were alarmed
about lack of consultation by the government about the expansion of gaming at
the racetrack, with the minister responsible for gaming, the Solicitor General,
saying that there could be a huge expansion of slots.
What I do
know about my community is that if a government consults them, they are always
about find-
[ Page 7533 ]
ing cooperative solutions, just as the letter to the Premier of today said.
They want to be included. They don't want to go to courts, to be in the courts.
They want to negotiate and reach agreements. I think that's what they were
asking for in terms of changes at the racetrack as well. So I expect that today
the very many members of my community are viewing with concern and, in some
cases, alarm the direction this Liberal government is taking about Hastings
Park.
Now, I do
note that we have a city government in Vancouver that, on its own, has made a
commitment to the future of Hastings Park, and I am thankful for that. I also
know, though, that the city of Vancouver is in a great deal of trouble and chaos
because of the downloading foisted on them by this Liberal government.
There are
huge pressures on the social services in Vancouver, huge pressures directly
because of the actions of this Liberal government. Just today, the mayor of
Vancouver wrote a very thoughtful piece that was published in the Vancouver
Sun about homelessness in the city of Vancouver. He wrote a piece about how
homelessness is an ever-growing problem in Vancouver because of the cuts to
social programs and social housing in this province.
The
provincial government denies this. It's like every day they stand up as if
they…. Well, they do have their heads in the sand, but like ostriches, they
can have their heads in the sand and still put their rear ends in the air and
assume that they're doing good for the province. The cuts to welfare, the
draconian cuts to welfare by this province and the cuts in social housing —
the kicking of the mentally ill onto the streets no matter how much the Premier
is in denial about that — are leading to crisis conditions on the street.
[1520]
Here's what
the mayor said, and the mayor is wanting to cooperate with the two levels of
government. He's saying:
"Federal
and provincial governments, which represent all taxpayers and raise the largest
share of taxes, should fund social housing. We can't compensate for the failure
of federal and provincial governments to invest in Canada's and B.C.'s social
infrastructure. But the city must protect itself to the degree it can from the
consequences of that failure.
"The
point is that no one should ever have to be homeless. Someone who loses a
job — for instance, a sawmill worker in a small town in the interior who
travels to Vancouver seeking work — should never have to live on the street.
"No
one is born homeless. Homelessness is the end of the road, not the
beginning of the journey of life. It is our task, society's task, to ensure
there always will be a choice other than homelessness. We are failing in this
task."
The
mayor of Vancouver wants to take a non-partisan approach to solving this matter,
but they, too, can't get answers about how the cuts to welfare will affect the
city of Vancouver. Once again, the Premier today denied giving that information,
refused to give that information so that the city of Vancouver can plan. Even
with their ever-decreasing resources, their limited resources, the city of
Vancouver wishes to make a commitment to new housing programs, but they've
received nothing from this provincial government about new housing programs —
absolutely nothing. Even though they know they're having to pick up the slack
for cuts to child care and they know they are going to be facing almost a
doubling — the prediction is — of the homeless on the streets, they have
still said to East Vancouver: "We want to work with you on a vision for
Hastings Park." I say thank goodness we've got that type of government at
the city level, that we still have some politicians who want to work in a
cooperative way at the local level for the best of the community.
I was
pleased to note that the city of Vancouver announced last week, on October 23, a
PNE–Hastings Park community visioning process. I just want to read into the
record that visioning process, because I want to hold the city to account for
this visioning process. I want to be there for them if they get into financial
trouble because of the downloading by the provincial Liberal government. I want
to be there for them to refer to the record about what they had intended for the
future of Hastings Park. Let me read what the city has planned.
The city
has been "actively consulting the Hastings-Sunrise community and other
stakeholders about the future of their neighbourhood through efforts such as the
Hastings-Sunrise CityPlan initiative…." Considerable and important
community input "has already led to the creation of the Hastings Park
restoration plan completed in 1997."
"In
October 2003 the city launched a community visioning process that will create a
road map to guide future plans for the PNE in Hastings Park. The visioning
process will begin in January 2004, once the city assumes ownership of the PNE,
and will continue through July. Senior planner Sue Harvey will lead the
visioning process. 'The PNE visioning that gets underway in January will
complement and build upon the work already in place and set out a new future for
this 100-year-old institution.'
"The
visioning process will engage all concerned stakeholders, including the
neighbouring community, PNE management and employees, as well as residents from
across Vancouver, to explore opportunities for a new future for the PNE within a
park setting."
[1525]
Other
factors that will or could have an impact on the park are the venues that are
being planned to host some of the 2010 Winter Olympic events and whether or not
city council allows slots at Hastings Park racetrack. The PNE–Hastings Park
visioning process will consider how to mitigate any impacts should slots be
approved at the track.
Well, thank
goodness we have that kind of government at the local level, a city government
that recognizes it's better to consult and include rather than to stiff-arm and
ignore, which is what the B.C. Liberal government has done to the residents of
Hastings-Sunrise community. I wish the city of Vancouver well in their visioning
process.
[H.
Long in the chair.]
I will be
there, alongside my community, to add whatever voice and support I can in making
sure that
[ Page 7534 ]
the community wishes are heeded and, just as importantly, that there's money
there from provincial revenues — as has been the case for the last 12 years
— toward the greening of Hastings Park. Every year for the last 12 years,
money has flowed from the province to the greening of Hastings Park, and it will
be very interesting to note what's going to happen about that. We are a
community that is having buildings for 2010 foisted upon us. I happen to be a
supporter of the 2010 Olympic Games, but I'm not sure that my community was ever
asked by this government about the future of Hastings Park and the Olympics.
I'm not
sure that they were ever asked that, but I'm sure the Minister of State for
Deregulation, as B team, would be able to say whether his government ever talked
directly to the people around Hastings Park. I expect that the answer will come
back: "No." He likes to call….
Interjection.
MacPhail: He likes to talk about a referendum. Well, it wasn't his
government that had a referendum. It wasn't his government at all. Believe you
me, it would be the cheek of all cheekiness for that minister to take credit for
consultation with anybody in Vancouver about the 2010 Olympics — the cheek of
all cheekiness. I certainly hope he won't be going down that path at all.
We have
buildings for the 2010 Olympics that will be developed at Hastings Park. We have
a Solicitor General who likes to suggest that he's not expanding gaming, but
he's going to more than triple the number of slot machines in the province and
increase revenue from gaming by well over 40 percent. Only that Solicitor
General would say that's not an expansion of gaming. But, of course, he has to
revisit history because it was his government that made a promise that they
wouldn't expand gaming. So it's like Liberal-speak. I love that Liberal
"new-error-speak" — and yes, I do say "new-error-speak"
— where they have to say to the public: "No, no, no. Increasing gaming
revenue by 40 percent and tripling the number of slots in the province is not
expanding gaming. How could you possibly interpret it that way?"
Well, at
Hastings Park where, probably, there's a proposal put forward to expand slots or
to add slots to the track…. Now, what has the government done for the racing
industry in this province? What has this Liberal government done? Nothing,
absolutely nothing.
[1530]
The racing
industry creates 7,000 jobs in British Columbia. It has a long and diverse
history. It employs thousands of young people. It's agriculturally based. We
could be a huge and successful racing industry, and we were on the road to
rejuvenating the horse-racing industry right up until 2001. The previous
government paid very close attention to the wishes of the horse-racing industry
and delivered a substantial amount to assist them. I'm not sure what this
government has done, if anything, for the horse-racing industry. I know that the
Minister of Agriculture has done nothing.
Once again
they've downloaded the problem for the future of the horse-racing industry at
Hastings Park onto the city of Vancouver. It will now be the city of Vancouver
that has to do the hard slogging of community consultation about the future of
the horse-racing track at Hastings Park. They are going to do that, but it is
downloading. There's no question it's downloading from this Liberal government
onto the city of Vancouver.
I just want
to say there is much to be answered about in this legislation, Bill 83. There
will be many questions coming from my community about the intent of this
legislation and the intent of this government on the future of Hastings Park. I
will say this, though: I am the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings for another 17
months, and I will work as hard as I possibly can to protect and enhance the
unbelievably wonderful work my community has done to green Hastings Park, to
make it a sanctuary and to work cooperatively with the Pacific National
Exhibition and the racetrack. I will work as hard as I can to ensure that this
Liberal government does not undo any of that hard work and does not backtrack on
agreements that were made at the provincial and city levels in 1996. It is
hugely important that we continue that good work which was carried out around
the PNE.
There was a
very good plan, a very economically viable plan, in place to relocate the
Pacific National Exhibition. But because it was….
Interjections.
MacPhail: Oh my God. This is how out of touch some of these Liberal MLAs are
about the whole city. They're talking about the bog. I have no idea what the
member for Vancouver-Burrard is talking about. They sure got themselves in
trouble there, not being able to pay the money they owe for purchasing Burns Bog
like they promised.
There was a
very viable economic plan to move the PNE to Surrey. The mayor of Surrey was on
board. The business community was on board. The province was on board. There had
been due diligence done about it. There was an incredibly viable plan, but as is
the wont of this government to play partisan politics with everything, they
immediately shut that plan down to the detriment of Surrey.
Of course,
Hastings Park — all of the work my community had done in cooperating with that
plan was thrown out the window. Is the economy doing better because of this
government's great business sense? Hmm — dead last. Dead last in economic
growth.
Interjections.
Deputy
Speaker: Order, members. Order. Let the member speak.
[1535]
MacPhail: Dead last in economic growth in 2002, 2003 and 2004. For the very
first time in British Columbia's history, the only avenue a Finance minister has
[ Page 7535 ]
even attempt to balance his budget is equalization payments from the federal
government — $2 billion under the B.C. Liberals that they'll be getting from
Ottawa in equalization payments, because we're now a have-not province because
of their failed economic policies. We'll be getting $2 billion from Ottawa in
welfare payments. Not one cent of that is going to working people. It's all
going to pay for the tax cuts to the rich that this government gave away and
that failed so miserably to stimulate any economic growth.
They failed
to actually work on an economically viable plan to move the Pacific National
Exhibition to Surrey. They've done nothing to support the horse-racing industry.
They've downloaded social service costs onto the city of Vancouver. They're
expanding gaming at a rate that is unheard of. Now they've brought in this
legislation.
All of
those factors impact hugely on the east side of Vancouver, and this Liberal
government hasn't talked to anyone on the east side of Vancouver. Absolutely no
one have they talked to on the east side of Vancouver. So it will be with great
interest that my community watches this. I will be raising questions, holding
the B team of this cabinet to account on the future of the Hastings Park
Conservancy, because I know absolutely no one in the Liberal caucus gives a whit
about the future of Hastings Park — not a whit.
Nijjar: It is with great pleasure that I listened to the member for
Vancouver-Hastings speak on all the issues under the sun, right from what they
did to bring the economy from number one to number ten, to city council, to the
proposed project in Surrey. Let me touch on some of those.
First of
all, I commend the minister of state for doing exactly what one should do, which
is allow the city to make a decision. What a novel idea. Why shouldn't the
province allow the city to make a decision as to what's best in their community?
Of course, under a socialist regime, one would never think of that, because
everything should be controlled by the province. Only the province….
Interjections.
Deputy
Speaker: Order, order. The Leader of the Opposition should be speaking from
her chair only. Any member in this House can only speak from their chair. They
cannot be standing in the gallery speaking, so I want every member to remember
that.
Carry on,
member.
Nijjar: The notion that only the province knows what's in the community's
best interest is outrageous. However, we went through ten years of that type of
government, who repeatedly told us: "Yes, we want to consult, but while we
do, let us remind you that we know what is best."
I'm from
the east side of Vancouver — born and raised there. I was one of those youths
— the 2,600 youths a year — who got a job at the PNE. I worked there when I
was a teenager for a few years just after high school. Getting older…. We know
the economic viability of the PNE, projected to make about $2.3 million next
year; the heritage aspect of it; the great cultural aspect; the contribution
that it makes as it attracts tourists; and the contribution that it makes not
just to East Vancouver, not just to Vancouver and the lower mainland, but the
message that it gives across Canada that, yes, we have a national exhibition on
the west coast. For generations it has been the heart of our community in East
Van — of which I am a representative — but also the heart of the whole lower
mainland.
I'm not
going to get into the details of how it contributes $115 million to the economy
— we know that; we can read that — and how it creates 4,000 jobs a year —
2,600 jobs for the youth, many of those from my community. There are more
important things than reading out stats, however important those stats are. It's
about how we're going to ensure that the land and the PNE, in whatever form it
may be, can continue if the people in that community want it to continue.
[1540]
We could do
what the former government did, which is spend a decade of wobbling and gobbling
and doing all the little things that they do under that type of regime and then
at the end of it say: "Well, at least we maybe did one thing."
I'll remind
the member for Vancouver-Hastings that the city council they were conversing
with during that time was the NPA. It's very easy to say, "City hall didn't
do this, city hall didn't do that, and we were trying to engage in
consultation" — well, who was the city hall? It was the NPA — and then
to say: "At the same time, though, we achieved a lot." Well, if you
achieved a lot, then whom did you achieve it with, other than the NPA?
On top of
that, the member for Vancouver-Hastings tries to remind us that the NDP city
hall party now is going to have a great consultation process. They've announced
that they're going to have a consultation process in 2004. Well, of course they
are, because they've been working with the minister for the transfer of the
rights to make the decision for the park. Thus, they are having a consultation
process.
The member
for Vancouver-Hastings says: "I'm the representative from that area. They
never consulted with me." Let's ask the residents of Vancouver-Hastings:
"What would you rather have? Would you rather have this government consult
with that one person, or would you rather have us give the authority to your
city so the city can consult with you and plan with you and make a future in
your community?" I don't know of one person in East Vancouver, and I'm from
East Vancouver, that would ever say: "I want you to consult with just my
member."
I actually
am proud of the fact that this government is willing to hand over the reins to
the NDP at Vancouver city hall, even though, as the member tries to point out,
they are this opposition to us. The member for Vancouver-Hastings can call it, I
guess, whatever the member wishes. However, maybe we trust that a city
[ Page 7536 ]
hall that consults with the President of the United States over war in Iraq,
consults with the United Nations and discusses with them and tries to send them
letters about the Star Wars and about the perimeter around North America, a city
hall that is so engaged in world issues…. Why wouldn't they be engaged in
issues in their own community?
If there's
a city hall that this member for Vancouver-Hastings is so fond of, I'm shocked
that the same member then says: "Oh, I'm not happy that you as a government
are going to give that very city hall the right to make the decisions." Let
the public decide. Should a city hall that tries to consult with every member of
this world on almost every global issue, although they are elected to represent
Vancouver…? Are they capable of consulting with them on their own city issues?
That's for them to decide, as residents, because they voted for that type of
city hall. It is not my job to say that I like or dislike a certain level of
government, and therefore, based on that, I'm going to give them or not give
them the authority to govern over their own area.
This
government is doing the right thing. Consultation should take place at the local
level. That is why we took the NDP system of health care from Victoria and gave
it back to the regions by creating regional health authorities. That is why, in
education, we are taking the NDP's control in Victoria and saying that parents
will be allowed, will have the authority to be engaged with decisions in their
communities. It follows, then, that we are saying that whether there should be
more green space or less green space, whether the PNE should stay in the east
side of Vancouver or should move, is a decision of the people who live in that
area. That is the consultation.
[1545]
One of the
opening remarks from the member for Vancouver-Hastings was that she's not going
to oppose this — either that or "We support it in general." Of
course the member does, because a lot of the rest of the part she said was
rhetoric. Of course they support it, because it makes common sense. It makes
sense to allow the city to make its own decision.
One of the
reasons why it makes sense is because we need to get a focus on it. For ten
years there's been unfocus. Sure, there's been some green space there. Does
anybody know where the PNE is going after ten years? No, they don't. Does
anybody know if there's any stability at the PNE as we as visitors go there from
year to year? No, we don't. If, as the member explains, during the nineties so
much was done under Premier Harcourt, then the only question I can ask is: why
did the rat pack from the NDP work so hard to oust the Premier? The Premier only
lasted for a few years. If he was doing such a great job, if so much progress
was made, then why would his own caucus members work to push him out?
I am proud
of the work my government is doing to ensure that the racetrack becomes a viable
business. Under the current structure, all 79 members here agreed that the
future was limited, it was dying, and we had to bring it to the new age of
racetracks and copy what they're doing in Toronto and around the world. We made
the necessary steps. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings says, she supports the
racetrack business. We made the hard decision you have to make in order to
ensure that if you support it morally, it would exist.
It becomes
very easy for an opposition member to say, in secret, "That's great that
the government was willing to do the hard thing, because my government wasn't.
However, now what I can say publicly is: 'Oh, I think you're increasing gaming;
I think you're bringing us more slot machines.'" Who is that message coming
from? A member of a government that tried to bring casinos in all over the place
to the point where their own Premier got his hands dirty on the issue, where he
was willing to sell off his own political career.
An Hon.
Member: The government that approved the slot machines in the first place.
Nijjar: The government that approved the expansion in the first place now
stands up and says: "How dare you, as a government, approve the slot
machines?"
As the East
Vancouver MLA, I'm going to continue to work with my minister on the various
issues that touch my community, including getting rid of regulations that hamper
economic growth. When I was going to university and living in my community of
East Van, our economy was number one. When I used to go to university, we used
to talk about all the things you could do, what kind of career you want, what
kind of job you wanted to get.
I got a job
right in my own community at the PNE when I was going to college. Over those ten
years I saw the number of jobs at the PNE available to youth go down and down
and down. Every year I heard young people say: "I don't think I'm going to
apply at the PNE next year. I don't even know if it's going to be around, so I
better start looking somewhere else." Everybody would scramble for letters
of reference before the board was gone, before the PNE was gone and you wouldn't
be able to find anybody to prove you ever worked there.
[1550]
We have an
MLA, a member of the opposition, who then speaks about the great impact that the
PNE has had on the community and how much they have done around the PNE and
around the province to make this place viable. All along, while I was a youth,
this province went from a number one economy to number ten. It went from number
one to number ten, and then with the greatest majority in the history of this
province, people said: "We want a change." Less than two years later
we have a member — that member, part of that government — standing in the
House and saying: "What are you doing to Hastings Park?" and
"Look at you. Your government is incompetent because your government has
this province at number ten economi-
[ Page 7537 ]
cally." Well, of course this province is number ten. That's because they
brought it to number ten.
Anybody who
understands the economy understands you cannot put a province from number ten to
number one in 24 months. That member knows it also, and that member is playing
with that reality. She believes that if she can just keep saying over and over
again that the B.C. Liberal government is in power and the economy is low,
therefore you associate the government with the economy. Well, I don't think the
public is so ignorant to believe that, although the basis of the member's party
being in existence is trying to make way with misinformation and people's lack
of knowledge.
Let me
repeat: we are making the best sound business decision and regulatory decision
and the best decision as far as the consultative process is concerned by giving
the city control of the trust, control of the board, control of the direction of
the park, control of the green space and control of the future of the PNE. I am
proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in just over 24 months, we have
started moving this province back towards number one. I am proud of the fact
that the minister of state did the right thing in my community, and I'm proud
that my colleagues from Vancouver and the surrounding area are working together
to consult with the people we need to consult with — like our city halls,
regardless of how many Star Wars they're fighting and how many wars in Iraq they
want to fight. We are respecting the wishes of the people of the city and giving
their city council the say.
Johnston: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to second reading
of the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. I listened very
intently to the member for Vancouver-Hastings regarding the PNE, regarding her
passion for the PNE, and I can tell you that I actually share that passion. I,
too, am a Vancouver boy born and bred, and I understand the value of the PNE to
so many people — probably hundreds of thousands — that have worked there
over the last hundred years — or certainly in the last 50. So many youth have
gone forward and worked there. It would be interesting to find out how many
community leaders we have in British Columbia today who actually got their very
first job working at the PNE. I understand that passion, absolutely.
It's an
institution that is ingrained in you, especially when you were sort of born
here. It's just in your blood. Every year I go. I still go. It's incredible —
the smells, the feeling, the donut place in the same spot and Ken's diner or
Ken's Lunch or whatever. You go to the same spots all the time. It's just an
unbelievable feeling.
What I'm
getting out of this today is a little bit of confusion, certainly from the
member for Vancouver-Hastings. We were going back and forth and back and forth.
We started out, and she certainly wasn't opposing this legislation, but on the
other hand she really kind of was opposing it. On the one hand, it was good for
the province to be making this decision. On the other hand, she didn't want the
city dealing with this decision, but then maybe that was okay too. It was
somewhat confusing.
What really
confused me was the passion — again, which I understand — about keeping the
PNE in Vancouver, at Hastings Park, and then the disappointment with the fact
that somehow or another it didn't end up in Surrey or in Burns Bog, where it may
have slipped away into never-never land. Who knows? I was confused with the
messages that were going back and forth, back and forth.
[1555]
I see this
strictly for what it is before us. The government, the province of British
Columbia, has consulted with the city of Vancouver — and I know this — about
who will run the PNE. What it effectively is, is a transfer of control of the
PNE, control of the board, control of the future actions — control. I would
have thought, certainly with the city of Vancouver and the province coming
together, that's good consultation on behalf of both parties, including the
province. I think it's an extremely positive step that will, hopefully, keep the
PNE at Hastings and will keep it there for, hopefully, another hundred years.
I think
it's really, really important, too, that as part of this we know — and the
member for Vancouver-Hastings talked about it — there is going to be a
tremendous consultation process — the visioning from the city of Vancouver to
the stakeholders, which is the right place for it to be at. It should be civic,
and it should be with everybody in the community. It shouldn't be by some
provincial government in Victoria. It should be civic.
That
visioning process is going to start very soon and will be completed by 2005.
There is the opportunity for the people of Vancouver, specifically all
stakeholders and all people in Vancouver, because it affects not just
Vancouver-Hastings folks but also people in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview,
Vancouver-Burrard and, quite frankly, probably the whole region — the whole
GVRD — if not all of British Columbia.
The
province looked at the operation of the PNE and decided, in the best interests
of the fair and of the whole organization, that they should devolve themselves
from it and let that city take over. I've been listening to the debate. I hear
all kinds of things about economics, and this province is turning around. We are
making strides. We are moving ahead. But I've yet to hear absolutely anything
from city of Vancouver or anybody saying that this enabling action is not the
right thing to do. That also confuses me a little bit when I listen.
I hope I've
got this right. I want to paraphrase what the member for Vancouver-Hastings
said. She was talking about the history of the PNE and the work that had been
done over the years. She said something very interesting to me. She said — and
if I don't have it 100 percent right, I apologize: "We at the local level
changed the course of actions regarding the PNE." What that says to me is
that she feels it should be at the local level, yet somewhere in there I thought
I heard
[ Page 7538 ]
there was some sort of debate that it shouldn't be at the local level, and I
agree with that. It should be at the local level, and that's where it's going to
be. That was very confusing.
In terms of
the green space, I think the green-space work that's been done there in the last
ten years is tremendous. It's changed the face and the look of the site, but I
think there is that green space.
I also took
a little exception to the fact that private members…. You know, we get the
standard nonsense all the time: we're not involved in government; we're so far
away; we don't get involved in anything. I can tell you that all of us,
specifically from Vancouver, had the opportunity to look at this plan coming
forward. People talked and discussed and thought this was the best thing the
government of British Columbia could do with regard to the PNE.
The
horse-racing industry has been talked about and talked about, and steps are
being taken to make sure that is a viable industry, because we understand the
importance of the jobs in that industry. We understand the importance of the
breeding that goes out right through the rest of British Columbia. We are
hopeful that will be viable through various policies.
The member
also talked about the B team being here. I appreciate the minister bringing this
forward today, because quite frankly, in my mind, B is for "bright" in
terms of that minister, so I take exception to those type of comments as well.
Interjection.
Johnston: Yeah, you did say that, didn't you? He sent me a note saying to
say that, but anyway….
Hon. K.
Falcon: Sing it.
Johnston: Yeah — supposed to sing it.
I realize
this is the forum to talk about everything in the world except what the
subject's about. I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to say I am proud of
this government. I'm proud of dealing in a consultative manner with the city of
Vancouver. This is the right step regarding the PNE, and I am truly hopeful —
because it's in my blood too — that the Pacific National Exhibition stays in
its present form, in a better form, and that it goes 50 to 100 years into the
future. I know the province has done its part to ensure that.
[1600]
Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. The
amendments we have before us to the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation
Act give the city of Vancouver the authority to appoint board members to the
PNE, which, in effect, gives them the entity, the PNE. It means that the city is
going to put these folks in there, and their term of office will start in 2004.
We think
it's important to do this because the municipal level of government is probably
the most able to manage this particular entity. It has been in the city of
Vancouver for many, many years. There are a great number of people within the
city of Vancouver, many of whom were referenced in the comments of the member
for Vancouver-Hastings, who feel a great deal of passion, as she does and as the
member for Vancouver-Fraserview has, for this particular park — for Hastings
Park and for the PNE.
Anyway,
those folks all have this opportunity now to get together and decide what the
shape and direction will be for the Pacific National Exhibition, and I think
that's where it belongs — in the hands of people in that community. The
amendments also confirm the land grant of Hastings Park to the city of
Vancouver, and it allows the city of Vancouver to authorize future use and
activities on the site that fit within the new parameters that are specified
here.
What kind
of new uses might they envision? Well, you know, in the last few years there has
been a lot of evolution at Hastings Park and at the PNE. As a matter of fact,
just in the last few years it has become a place where there are sound stages.
We have the film industry that has come in and started to use the large
buildings on site here. It's giving the city of Vancouver the ability to expand
opportunities for businesses that are in Vancouver and for community as well.
I've had a
lot of time down at the PNE, also known as Hastings Park, and I just want to
comment a little bit. As all the members have talked about in this House, the
PNE is a great tradition in British Columbia. Almost all of us were there in our
early days, as children, and we take our kids or our grandchildren, as the case
may be, to this wonderful place. It's a great, great park, and it's a great,
great institution. It means a lot to a lot of people.
When I go
around Hastings Park now, I look at the wonderful work that has been done to
green Hastings Park. There are the Italian gardens that were put together by Al
De Genova and a bunch of folks from the Italian community who put in bocce
courts, put in wonderful gardens that you could enjoy, the fountains and all the
wonderful things that are there — great marble work — and the great
craftsmanship that's been put into that park.
It's
beautiful, and it's part of the greening of that park. I mean, it's also an
opportunity that has been taken over the last few years to improve the usability
of that park. For example, there's the best skateboarding spot in all of British
Columbia right in the middle of Hastings Park. It's a wonderful place where kids
that are interested in skateboarding or roller-blading or extreme sports of some
kind can get in there and, in a safe environment, have some fun. That's what
parks are all about. They're supposed to be there for people to use as best they
can.
You look at
the sanctuary, the land around Hastings Park…. There used to be a wonderful
pond there and a stream that ran all the way down to Burrard Inlet. Over the
last several years, we've been restoring that. We put in The Sanctuary, which is
this wonderful pond. It's got wildflowers and wild grasses that grow around
there. More birds have come back to the PNE
[ Page 7539 ]
and Hastings Park than ever before. I mean, it has become a wonderful green
spot.
Over the
next few years, there are plans to take that stream and reconnect it to bring it
right down back into Burrard Inlet. I mean, those are wonderful accomplishments.
Those are things that make this park so beautiful and so unique. You know what,
Mr. Speaker? Even with all the greening of Hastings Park, somehow they managed
to fit the PNE in there. Somehow they managed to accommodate Playland.
[1605]
When I was
listening to the member for Vancouver-Hastings…. I just want to be clear about
this. I have, as does almost every member of this House, great respect for the
member for Vancouver-Hastings. I really do. She's someone that's given a lot to
this province. I won't take any of that away from her, but I want to go back to
one of her comments that was really telling for me. It was when she was speaking
about Jack.
I've met
Jack. He's a bright kid. Jack, at the age of four, said to his mom: "Mommy,
don't take the PNE away. Don't take Playland. I can't support that. Don't do
that." Well, you know what? There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
British Columbians that are saying exactly the same thing.
It used to
be in vogue that everybody wanted to get the PNE out of Hastings Park; it used
to be. People wanted to get it out of there. But you know what? That's changed.
What has changed is that people started to reminisce about what the park meant
to them, what the PNE meant to them.
It's an
agricultural fair. There were so many different opportunities for excitement,
joy, laughter and experiencing life right on the edge. Whether it was the
roller-coaster, the octopus or whatever else, there were wonderful things going
on there. I can remember the logging shows, knowing what our province was about.
There were the guys that were logrolling, and there were the guys that were
chopping down the trees.
I mean, it was
amazing to go to the PNE and see all of British Columbia represented there.
I'll
digress for just a moment because there's one part of the PNE that's gone today,
and I really feel bad that it's gone. That was the relief map of British
Columbia. You used to go into that building and be able to stand over top of the
entire province and see all the highways, the beautiful towns, the mountains,
the valleys and the rivers and all the wonderful things that make up our
province. That should be there too. Do you know what? I think that's the mood or
the feeling in the city of Vancouver, including the neighbourhood that the
member for Vancouver-Hastings represents.
People have
started to take a sober second look at the PNE and Hastings Park and say:
"Wait a minute. We can have green. We can have a green park. We can have a
park that is useful to the neighbours around it. We can have wonderful
facilities here. We can use it for film-making. We can use it for all kinds of
things, and we can still have our agricultural fair. We can still celebrate the
ranchers of British Columbia, the poultry farmers of British Columbia, the pig
farmers of British Columbia. The people that build and create all of the
wonderful things that are in our agricultural industry can be celebrated there,
and we can have a heck of a good time riding the roller-coaster to boot.
"We
can go up on that thing that drops you 500 feet down and lets you do a bungee
jump or get slingshotted around the park with some of the wonderful rides that
are there. We can have those things together, and we can have them in a way that
allows British Columbians to still recognize the wonderful environment they live
in. The birds and the fish and the kids can come to the park and still be part
of British Columbia, still be part of Hastings Park, still be part of the
PNE."
We think
the absolutely best level of government to handle the PNE is the city of
Vancouver. Why? Because they're closer to the ground. They're right there. They
know the issues. They know what it's about.
The member
for Vancouver-Hastings did say a couple of things that I took exception to. One
of them is that she felt she should have been consulted by the minister about
Hastings Park before this piece of legislation came forward. Well, you know
what? I'm an MLA. If I'm concerned about something happening in my riding that a
minister is going to be doing in my riding, I go to the minister and say:
"Hey, what are you doing? Why are you doing it? Have you thought about how
it will impact my riding, or have you thought about how it will impact
others?"
That's the
job of an MLA, and that's what the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings should have done.
She should have gone down to the minister's office and said, "What are you
doing with Hastings Park? What are you doing?" or she could have read the
service plans that have been in place for the last several years to know that
government didn't see this as a core business for our government to be in.
I said a
little earlier that I and many members of this House respect the member for
Vancouver-Hastings. You know what? The ministers of this government…. The
Minister of State for Deregulation respects the member for Vancouver-Hastings.
It's not like she's not going to be welcome in his office or in the office of
any minister, because we all recognize this is a person who knows an awful lot
everything in this province at one point or another, so we recognize that she's
got a talent — something to contribute.
[1610]
I wish that
she'd gone down and seen the Minister of State for Deregulation or read his
service plan or taken some time to just talk this out. I think that had she
talked it out with him or as she listens to the debate, she'll understand that
the very best thing we can do is let the people of Vancouver have Hastings Park.
Let the people of Vancouver have the PNE. Let the people of Vancouver have some
fun, celebrate our provincial agriculture, celebrate all the wonderful things
that are British Columbia, and go on.
Sometimes
when we're in this chamber the member for Vancouver-Hastings will heckle me if
I'm speaking,
[ Page 7540 ]
and sometimes I'll kind of respond back in kind, and maybe that's a little
distracting for her. But she raised a point of her government wanting to move
the PNE out of Hastings Park to Surrey or to Delta or wherever.
I can
remember when the minister then responsible, I think it was Ian Waddell, trotted
out this idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog. That's what I shouted out, because
the whole idea there was to pave Burns Bog. She's been talking about a green
environment, about having a green park in Hastings. I completely agree with her,
but I would hate to see Burns Bog paved and become this amusement park. It just
doesn't make sense to me.
That's why
I raised the issue of Burns Bog. I didn't mean disrespect to the member, but I
do want to say that we have a tradition in British Columbia of trying to
preserve that. This government has been really clear that we want to do that. I
think we're going to be able to do that. Moving the PNE over there was just dead
wrong. There wasn't a single British Columbian I talked to that said it was
right. They all said: "That's wrong; that's a bad idea. Don't do it."
I think we've made the right decision here.
There's
another reason for keeping the PNE in existence. It is about the opportunity —
many of the members have talked about it — for young people, for ordinary
people in British Columbia, to find a job for the summer. I'm really impressed
that over 4,000 people work at the PNE every year. That's a lot of people.
That's a lot of people who are fulfilling dreams and buying hotdogs and buying
cars and buying houses. That's a lot of people; that's economic development.
That's a very significant contribution to the economy of British Columbia; in
fact, it's $115 million every year. I think that's pretty significant. I think
we should be celebrating that.
I think the
people of Vancouver have, in the last couple of years, gone: "You know
what? We don't want to kill the PNE. We like the idea of having a green park in
Hastings Park, and the citizens of Hastings, of that area, certainly deserve a
park that their kids can be in, but there is a way to coexist, and we should
allow that to happen." All this bill does is enable the city of Vancouver
to sit down and go through a visioning process with its citizens to find out
what the best use of Hastings Park is and to determine where the PNE should be.
I don't
know that the PNE should stay in Hastings Park. You know why? Because we haven't
gone through a public consultation process with the people of Vancouver. That's
what we are enabling here. We are enabling the citizens of Vancouver to go down
and talk about what their vision is for Hastings Park. I think that's a
spectacular accomplishment of this bill.
As a matter
of fact, I was reading a little press release. I'll just quote from it. This is
from Mayor Larry Campbell, the new mayor of Vancouver. "Hastings Park and
the PNE are part of the historic fabric of our city," said Mayor Larry
Campbell. "We welcome the opportunity to work with the community and other
stakeholders to build on their vision for the PNE and its role within the
park."
[1615]
I am
confident that Mayor Campbell and his council will sit down with the people of
Vancouver. I would encourage the member for Vancouver-Hastings to attend those
public hearings and to give her input, as she has in this House, in this chamber
today, and as she did with the neighbourhood. I think she said that this is the
one issue that drove her into politics. Good on her. She should be part of that
and be part of the contribution to making this park green, retaining it, making
it useful for the citizens of Hastings and to determining what should happen
with the PNE.
I for one,
if I'm fortunate enough to attend those hearings, will be speaking in favour of
keeping the PNE in Vancouver. I think it's a pretty good thing. I think that
kids from all across British Columbia, when they get their little pass in their
report card at the end of the school year and come down to the PNE, are exposed
to a whole world of entertainment, fun and excitement. They're educated about
their province. I think that's a very important thing to do.
I'm very
much in favour of this bill. I look forward to the continued debate. I look
forward to the public consultation that will take place in the city of Vancouver
on this particular visioning for the park and for the PNE, because I think we're
moving in the right direction. I think the people of British Columbia, the
people of Vancouver-Hastings and the people of Vancouver are empowered by this
act, and I support it wholeheartedly.
J. Bray:
I, too, am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 83, the Pacific National
Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act. I've really enjoyed the debate so far
and hearing the passion, especially from the Vancouver members — the member
for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the member for
Vancouver-Fraserview — who are all very involved with the Pacific National
Exhibition with activities that impact their community and, as the member for
Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, with issues that affect all British Columbians.
I wanted to
add a couple of additional support comments to Bill 83, because the Leader of
the Opposition rose and talked about her great concern about lack of
consultation. Somehow, somebody didn't pick up the phone and call her. As the
member for Vancouver-Burrard correctly pointed out, perhaps as the MLA she could
have picked up the phone and made a phone call. I think that was a very salient
point.
Right in
section 2 of the act, what we actually realize is that this is in fact…. The
first three words are: "The trust condition…." This is a trust
agreement. This is actually an agreement between the province of British
Columbia and the elected officials of the city of Vancouver. In other words, our
government was consulting with the elected officials of the city of Vancouver,
who are responsible for representing the citizens of Vancouver. So there was
great consultation going on with respect to this bill. This is an agreement.
This is an agreement the city of Vancouver says it wants. They sat
[ Page 7541 ]
down at the table with our government, and we negotiated a trust condition, a
trust agreement. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition wasn't sitting at
that table…. Well, the elected officials of that city were there, and that's
what their job is.
The other
thing that was very interesting was her talk about, somehow, lack of private
member involvement. In fact, she spent quite a bit of her debate talking about
and insinuating things about our lack of involvement as members of the B.C.
Liberal caucus. I take great exception to that. Being a Victoria person, I want
to relate, first of all, one of the most entertaining parts about the previous
government's time in this chamber. It was a bit of a sport to sit up in the
legislative gallery when the government was introducing new bills, because you
liked to watch the shock of the NDP government members who had some shock and
dismay when they'd actually find out what legislation they were bringing in.
Their own members didn't even know what legislation was coming forward or what
the public policy issues being dealt with by their cabinet were. That was one of
the great sports we used to have here in Victoria: to actually go and watch how
many NDP backbench MLAs only found out about public policy issues their
government was dealing with when it was introduced in the House.
I'd like to
remind the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague about all the
parliamentary and institutional changes that our Premier brought in on the first
day of government and the way this place is operating differently than it was
during the ten years of the NDP and even before that.
[1620]
First of
all — and I think this is critical in the discussion of parliamentary reform
and the role of private members in this place…. That is the institution of
free votes. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to be one of the first
members to actually vote against government. It wasn't something I enjoyed. It
was on a very emotional and difficult issue, but I exercised my right in this
chamber, and I had the full support of the Premier, the full support of the
House Leader, the full support of the minister in charge of that bill — the
Minister of Labour — and the full support of every single member of this
caucus, because those are the kind of democratic principles we believe in. I'm
proud to be about a government that supports the freedom of MLAs to do their
job.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I wasn't impressed. [Laughter.]
J. Bray:
The Minister of Labour is reserving his judgment on that.
That was
simply one avenue the Premier introduced for the way government will operate now
and into the future as long as you have a B.C. Liberal government. That was an
institution called a government caucus committee. Now, a government caucus
committee was, in fact, five different areas of public policy whereby ministers
would come to those caucus committees to discuss the public policy issues they
were dealing with, to discuss their budgets, to discuss their service plans
before they went to Treasury Board, before they went to cabinet, to allow us as
caucus members direct input into those service plans, direct input into those
public policy decisions.
I sit on
the Government Caucus Committee on Economy and Government Operations, but I am
free to attend any of the government caucus committees on any issues that are
important to me. Certainly, one that I participated a lot in was the Government
Caucus Committee on Health, when the Minister of Children and Family Development
was dealing with the school programs his ministry dealt with. I was free to
participate and provide my input.
It's very
interesting. We're discussing Bill 83, which is the Pacific National Exhibition
Enabling and Validating Act. I'm an MLA here in Victoria, so obviously the PNE
isn't particularly close to me. But this public policy issue came to my
committee to be discussed — not the actual bill but the public policy issue
— so I still had input into looking at it from the perspective of a British
Columbian as opposed to perhaps an MLA from Vancouver — to provide my input,
for my opportunity to give advice.
I can tell
you that when the NDP were in government, their caucus members never had that
kind of discussion. At best, they carried the briefcases of ministers around the
buildings, but they certainly were never able to give advice, comment and change
public policy direction the way we do here in this caucus. That's because the
Premier recognized that there are 75 exceptionally talented British Columbians
on the government caucus side and that the best way for us to govern British
Columbia is to take opportunities to use the talents of every single member of
this government. That's what we do every day of the year.
Now,
there's another issue. There are several institutions within this building that
deal with financial issues and legislative issues and what issues come before
the House. Those are organizations like Treasury Board, agenda and priorities,
legislative review. Primarily, in historic times those were all cabinet
ministers who sat on there. Well, the Premier recognized, again, that we have an
exceptionally talented caucus, so these committees have private members who
participate in them. In fact, the member for Okanagan-Vernon is on the
legislative review committee. The member for Victoria-Hillside is a member of
Treasury Board. Those are significant opportunities for private members, caucus
members, to have huge influence on government policy and to represent their
constituents' and British Columbians' views. That never happened under the NDP.
There's
another key element that changed. We said during the election we were going to
reinvoke and reinvigorate the select standing committee process. Prior to 2001
the Select Standing Committee on Education had not met…. Now, are you ready
for this, Mr. Speaker? K-to-12 education, the second-largest budget item in this
province, one of the most fundamental public institutions in our society, and
the Select Stand-
[ Page 7542 ]
ing Committee on Education had not convened and reported since 1974.
An Hon.
Member: Shame.
[1625]
J. Bray:
That's just absolutely shameful. The public had no opportunity to speak directly
to MLAs about education. The Select Standing Committee on Health — the number
one budget item, the item that affects every British Columbian every single day
of the year — had not met and allowed British Columbians to participate since
1983. Well, we committed to reinvigorate this critical parliamentary function,
to reinvigorate MLAs' abilities to represent their constituents on broader
public policy issues.
We have had
the Select Standing Committee on Finance tour the province. We're just
completing our third tour in three years. The Select Standing Committee on
Health toured the province in 2001 and produced one of the most detailed reports
of any select standing committee in the history of this country. Last year that
same committee convened again, heard some witnesses, to actually see where
government was at in implementing its recommendations from the previous year —
in other words, following through on its recommendations. The Select Standing
Committee on Education produced an exciting and forward-thinking document for
advice to this Legislature about education issues in K-to-12. The Select
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs toured this province in advance of the
referendum to listen….
Deputy
Speaker: Order, member, for a moment. I'd like to bring you back to Bill 83
and the intent of what we're speaking about here today.
J. Bray:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps a couple of other examples pertinent
to Bill 83. We've heard in the House two-minute statements where members from
Vancouver have talked about the importance of the Pacific National Exhibition.
They've used that opportunity — that's new since our election — at prime
time in this House to talk about the Pacific National Exhibition and how
important it is. We never heard NDP MLAs ever stand up doing two-minute
statements, because they were never given the opportunity. They were never even
asked about their opinions from their cabinet ministers, from the Leader of the
Opposition when she was a cabinet minister.
Interjection.
J. Bray:
There you go.
I do take
great exception to the Leader of the Opposition when she somehow suggests that
the private members, on bills like Bill 83, have no input, because I've just
detailed several examples where private members haven't just had input but
they've been the drivers of public policy in this province. They've been drivers
of issues that affect their constituents. They've been key to the way this
government has opened up this place, become more accountable to our constituents
and more transparent than ever before. Bill 83 is just another shining example
of how this government has changed this place to make it responsive to the needs
of British Columbians.
I'm pleased
to support Bill 83, and I thank you for this opportunity.
Hon. K.
Falcon: Bill 83, the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating
Act, will do something that has been echoed by many members of this House,
something very important; that is, it will transfer ownership and management to
the city of Vancouver.
This, by
almost any definition, is just really positive news, and yet we had to listen to
the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, go on and on
about how this was a bad thing or maybe could be a bad thing. She's kind of
hedging her bets. She went off on a tangent and talked about the economy, how
they destroyed it, though she's trying to point the finger at us for the
challenges the economy faces. It was a fascinating dissertation that had little
or nothing to do with this act. I guess I was left thinking to myself: how on
earth could even that member turn this very positive thing into such a negative
thing? How on earth could turning the operations and management of the PNE over
to the city of Vancouver possibly be a negative thing?
Hon. G.
Bruce: She didn't trust them.
Hon. K.
Falcon: She doesn't trust them. That's a very good point that the Minister
of Labour points out. Is it an issue of trust? I'm not sure. Part of me thought,
well, surely that member must still know what's going on in her riding. I mean,
I recognize she lives on the west side now, but I would think she's aware of
what's happening over on the east side of Vancouver.
I want to
quote the mayor of Vancouver for that member, because maybe she's not aware of
how excited the mayor and the city of Vancouver are about this. The mayor of
Vancouver said: "We welcome the opportunity to work with the community and
other stakeholders to build on their vision for the PNE and its role within the
park."
Hon. G.
Bruce: The mayor said that?
Hon. K.
Falcon: The mayor said that. That is positive news. Then — and this was
the best part — she talks about the great plans her NDP government had to
relocate the PNE. Well, that is fascinating.
[1630]
Let me just
review those great plans, because some of our viewing public…. I hope the
member for Vancouver-Hastings is among them. Actually, it would be helpful if
she would hang around and listen to some facts, because that would actually
educate her on the importance of these facts. I'll go over them for her, be-
[ Page 7543 ]
cause I think it's important that we all are aware of the facts.
Firstly,
they planned on relocating to Burns Bog. They wanted to pave Burns Bog, so they
lent $25 million to a private investor so they could develop a theme park on
Burns Bog. Well, I can tell you that under the leadership of our Premier, we as
the B.C. Liberal opposition were deadly opposed to that ridiculous,
poorly-thought-out plan, and thankfully, the public of British Columbia was
totally opposed to that ridiculous plan. They blew it out of the water and
killed that ridiculous concept. In fact, I'm proud of the fact that we are
actually working to buy that for future generations of British Columbia to
conserve it as the important environmental asset that it is — as the lungs of
the lower mainland.
Deputy
Speaker: I would like to remind the House that the minister is closing
debate on this bill.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Was that the only ridiculous plan?
Hon. K.
Falcon: No, it wasn't the only ridiculous plan, as the Minister of Labour
reminds me. In fact, the second thing that the member for Vancouver-Hastings
referenced…. I want to draw attention to it and respond to it directly,
because it's very relevant. She talked about the very viable plan they had to
move this to Surrey, and she was astounded that I could have possibly opposed
it. Well, she also made reference…. Perhaps she slipped. Perhaps she wasn't
thinking when s