British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 3, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1103pm-16) (H1103pm 16)

H1103pm-16

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, November 3, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 16 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, November 3, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7717 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7717 Ken Middleton S.

Brice Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7717 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) Hon. K. Falcon BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85) Hon. R. Neufeld Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7718 Saanich police patrols on Halloween S. Orr Abbeyfield housing for seniors G.

Trumper Repairs to Highway 3 in Kootenay area B. Bennett Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7719 Privatization and viability of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Police services in Vancouver and funding by traffic fine revenue J. Kwan Hon. G. Abbott Funding for mental health services in Vancouver J. Kwan Hon. G. Cheema Privatization of B.C. Rail P. Nettleton Hon. J.

Reid Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7722 B. Bennett Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7722 Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. K. Falcon J. Kwan K. Johnston R. Nijjar R. Hawes L.

Mayencourt Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7745 Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)

Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7745 Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7746 Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88) Hon. S. Hagen J. MacPhail B. Suffredine M. Hunter G. Trumper B. Bennett K. Stewart T. Christensen B. Belsey R. Visser D. MacKay J. Les B. Penner J. Bray P. Bell Hon. S. Hagen

7717 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge 16 second- and third-year political science students from Linfield Col- lege in McMinnville, Oregon, which is just south of Portland and one of the oldest colleges on the Pacific coast. They're here with their professor, Dr. Dawn Nowacki. They met this morning with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the Leader of the Opposition and myself as they further their studies on British Colum- bia's political system. I certainly wish them luck.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Hon. C. Clark: Today we are joined by a resident of White Rock, someone known to all of us. If you tuned into 690 on your AM dial this morning, you would have heard he wasn't there. That's because he's here on what he calls a fishing trip. I hope all members of the Legislature would make Rick Cluff — known to many British Columbians through his good work on the radio — very welcome. Tributes KEN MIDDLETON S. Brice: I w o u l d l i k e t o m a k e b o t h a n a n n o u n c e - ment and an introduction.

On a sad note, I'd like to advise the House of the death of Ken Middleton. Ken worked for Saanich for 45 years and in his retirement was the special events coordinator. In June of 1992 he was made a freeman of the municipality of Saanich, and a plaza was dedicated in his honour. He leaves his wife, Evelyn, and five children. Ken will be remem- bered as a sterling example of citizenship and selfless dedication to our community. [1405] Introductions by Members S. Brice: O n a h a p p i e r n o t e , M r .

S p e a k e r , i t g i v e s me great pleasure to introduce 16 grade 11 students visiting from Pacific Christian School in my constitu- ency of Saanich South. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Reems, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House please make them welcome. L. Mayencourt: I have in the gallery today two very dear friends of mine, David and Frauke Owen. David has been a real great support to me. He has been some- one that's gone out and campaigned with me. Regu- larly we have breakfast together so that he can tell me what our government should do.

I would ask that the House please make them both feel very welcome. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have a special guest visiting today from Ottawa: Carole Norton, our daughter-in-law. Would the House please make her very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS STREAMLINING ACT H o n . K . F a l c o n p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sig- nificant Projects Streamlining Act. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 75 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K.

Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining Act. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act allows cabinet, by a desig- nation, to assign special status to projects deemed to be significant and to have broad benefits for the eco- nomic, social or environmental well-being of British Columbia. There have long been concerns from investors and local governments about the lack of timeliness in ob- taining project approval decisions in British Columbia.

In fact, our province has garnered a reputation as hav- ing one of the most difficult and lengthy approval processes for major projects in North America. Ineffi- cient review and approval processes result in many potential investments and investors waiting far too long for decisions from government. Long delays are often caused by conflicting requirements from multiple ministries and approval authorities. This particularly affects the viability of projects sponsored by local gov- ernments and the provincial government that seek key partnerships with the private sector.

Designation under this act will ensure that project reviews and approvals are addressed within reason- able time frames and that all parties involved can rec- ognize and address potential problems in a way that is positive and cooperative. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act creates a framework that encourages project proponents and all levels of government to place a discipline on themselves to work together to head off problems before they arise. The act does not in any way change provincial or federal environmental, health or safety standards associated with the devel- opment or operation of a project.

This legislation is consistent with government's direction to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden for British Columbians and follows through on the commitment to create a strong and vibrant provincial economy. Bill 75 creates an innovative framework for dialogue and cooperation on projects that are in the best interests of all British Columbians, and it ensures that project reviews and related activities for significant projects are carried out in a manner that is timely and efficient.

7718 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 75 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. BC HYDRO PUBLIC POWER LEGACY AND HERITAGE CONTRACT ACT Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 85 be read a first time now.

Motion approved. [1410] Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act. You'll recall that on November the 25, 2002, gov- ernment's new energy plan was released. There are four pillars in that energy plan: first, low electricity rates and public ownership — and I want to emphasize the public ownership as there seem to be some people that don't understand public ownership; second, secur- ing reliable supply; third, more private sector opportu- nities; and fourth, environmental responsibility.

The energy plan reflects the desire of British Co- lumbians to retain public ownership of B.C. Hydro's core assets and the benefits they provide in securing a reliable, low-cost source of energy for the province. Low electricity rates make B.C. an attractive place to raise a family and invest in. Low electricity rates help B.C. businesses and new investors compete in an in- creasingly global economy. The energy plan's first pol- icy action is a legislative heritage contract to preserve B . C . ' s l o w - c o s t e n e r g y a d v a n t a g e .

I t i s m y h o n o u r t o introduce enabling legislation to create the regulatory framework to establish the heritage contract. This act fully protects public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and distribution as- sets. With this act the investment that B.C. residents have made in B.C. Hydro continues. Also included in the bill is the repeal of the B.C. Hydro and Power Au- thority Privatization Act to eliminate outdated restric- tions imposed on tariffs and gas. The new act ensures that B.C.

Hydro's assets re- main in public hands so that British Columbians con- tinue to enjoy electricity rates among the lowest in North America. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 85 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. R. Harris: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Harris: I noticed in the gallery today….

I can't see them all, but we have a significant portion, if not all, of the North Central Municipal Association. I would like the House to please make them welcome, because they're down here for the next couple of days having meetings. They're going to be meeting with the northern caucus later this week to talk about a lot of the things that are going on in the north and, in fact, draft some strategy for how we actually improve everybody's lives. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SAANICH POLICE PATROLS ON HALLOWEEN S. Orr: I have the privilege of serving two munici- palities. Half of my riding is in Victoria, and the other half is in Saanich. At Halloween last year I went out with the Victoria police, and this year I went out with the Saanich police. Halloween can be great fun for small children, but when they go home, it seems a lot of devils come out and all hell breaks loose.

At the Saanich police depart- ment it was all hands on deck — a large contingency of police officers, auxiliaries, detectives, a police board member, plus the police chief Derek Egan and even the mayor himself, Frank Leonard. What a night — over 200 calls. Saanich has the largest population of youth, and of course, UVic is in Saanich, which has a student popula- tion base of at least 20,000 students. We were driving from one out-of-control party to another, and of course, with the consumption of booze and drugs they get out of control very quickly.

Although the police were incredibly organized, Saanich's sheer size makes for a lot of driving in re- sponding to these hundreds of calls. The police moved swiftly, efficiently and respectfully through a very cold night, confiscating everything from booze to illegal drugs and fireworks — but possibly the most danger- ous of all, homemade fireworks. It was an exhausting evening and night for the Saanich police, but they did an exceptional job. The citizens of Saanich and Victoria-Hillside can be proud and confident that their safety and issues relating to policing are well taken care of. They are in good hands.

Well done, Saanich police. ABBEYFIELD HOUSING FOR SENIORS G. Trumper: As we seek to find appropriate hous- ing for seniors as the population ages, non-profit or-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7719 ganizations will play an enormous role in helping us to meet the needs. While there are a number of organiza- tions across the province that assist with seniors hous- ing, today I would like to talk about Abbeyfield. [1415] Abbeyfield is a charity that builds non-profit hous- ing for seniors. It is responding to the growing needs of seniors who are unable to live alone but do not need the services of a home for the aged or a nursing home.

Abbeyfield offers a warm, family-style house and a balance between privacy and companionship, security and independence, combined with a special caring element provided by dedicated volunteers and the con- sistency of single-house management style. Abbeyfield was the name of a street in Bermond- sey, London, England, where in 1956 the first Abbey- field House was established. Today there are Abbey- field societies in 14 countries around the world. In Canada there are 27 Abbeyfield Houses, 22 of those located in British Columbia.

The Abbeyfield Houses Alberni Valley Society is a non-profit organization that began by looking for a solution to the valley's seniors housing issues in 1986 and became incorporated in 1995. When the old West Coast Hospital was torn down, the city of Port Alberni agreed to lease the extended care unit to the Abbeyfield Society. Today it provides housing to 18 seniors in the Alberni Valley. Each resident has a self-contained unit and receives an appropriate level of care and services.

Abbeyfield's guiding principles clearly demonstrate the excellence of the support and care philosophy that provides a safe and secure housing option for seniors who need some assistance or who were just lonely liv- ing on their own. I want to congratulate all those who worked so hard to open the doors of Alberni Abbey- field seniors residence. REPAIRS TO HIGHWAY 3 IN KOOTENAY AREA B. Bennett: Last year at about this time — in fact, on September 26 of last year — there was a horrible, tragic automobile accident in my riding on a

section of Highway 3 that we know as Steamboat Hill. That acci- dent was covered by BCTV. It was a horrible thing to look at on television. There was a gas truck involved, and there was a big, burning flame. Unfortunately, a young couple from Fernie lost their lives in that acci- dent, leaving young children behind. As a result of that, hundreds of my constituents put together a peti- tion that I'll ask to have tabled later this afternoon.

What I want to say now is that as a result of our Min- ister of Transportation and as a result of the Premier and as a result of the policies we've put forward in this gov- ernment, even under some very challenging times within the context of balancing our budget, we have been able, as a government, to fix that corner. The con- struction to fix Steamboat Hill, to make that a safe place for people to drive, is happening today. Now, this corner has been there for 20 years. For 20 years the people of the East Kootenay have been asking that this corner be fixed.

I'm proud to say that as of a week ago, construction started. We are now fixing Steamboat Hill so it will be safe for people to use Highway 3 in that area. M. Hunter: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members M. Hunter: I want to welcome and ask the House to help me welcome 12 grade 11 ESL students from Malaspina College in Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr. Butler, and two accompanying adults. Will you please help me welcome these folks. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY OF B.C. RAIL J.

MacPhail: Let me put on record a letter from Ron East, a well-known Liberal activist in Prince George. I quote from him: "Mr. Premier, you promised you would not sell B.C. Rail, and we voted for you because we believed in you. No sooner were you elected than you started your campaign to deceive us into believing our rail company is a money-loser. Shame on you." Can the Minister of Transportation tell us why her party's own supporters are saying her government is de- ceiving them into believing B.C. Rail is a money-loser? [1420] Hon. J. Reid: B.C.

Rail is a vital transportation ser- vice for the north of this province. It's vital for the in- dustries that are served by it. Transportation is one of their highest costs. We have industries from the north who take their product and put it on trucks and ship it into other provinces to put on rail. We have industries in the north of this province which have been saying that the service isn't sufficient for B.C. Rail because the cars aren't available. We have industries in the north of this province which have been complaining for many, many years that the operations of B.C.

Rail are hinder- ing their ability to be competitive. We've listened to that; we've listened to the com- munities that have concerns about the sustainability. W e h a v e l o o k e d a t t h e p u b l i c g o o d t h a t n e e d s t o b e protected, which is the continued public ownership of the track, of the right-of-way and of the railbed, and we are looking for an operating partner for sustainability for long-term good for the communities and the indus- tries of the north. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: One has to listen very carefully to the new message box. It's true; the Minister of Transporta-

7720 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 tion today didn't call it a money-loser. She's challeng- ing their competitiveness, though. I guess the minister hasn't seen the new document. Let me just tell the minister about this. She can say any- thing her spin doctors tell her to, but what they're do- ing is privatizing a B.C. Rail company that not only is profitable but is highly competitive. The opposition today, just this morning, obtained brand-new… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …internal B.C. Rail documents… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Let us hear the question. J. MacPhail: …showing the year-to-date financial results for B.C. Rail. The new report says that the profit margins for regional carriers remain above Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and any other class of rail- ways, with B.C. Rail being the highest in the industry for their quarter profits and their year-to-date profits. Again to the Minister of Transportation: why is she saying that B.C.

Rail is not competitive and is not effi- cient when, indeed, they have the highest productivity rate amongst all rail lines and they are the first rail line to have an operating margin of below 70 percent — better than any other rail company in North America? Why is she not telling that aspect of a rail line? Hon. J. Reid: I'm very pleased the member has been able to recognize that under this government's leadership, B.C. Rail has taken a very aggressive ap- proach on the freight rail side. We have concentrated on that part of the operation to cut the bleeding that was taking place. That was very difficult.

There are still opportunities. I was in Prince George on Friday this past week, and at that time the people were saying that this needs to be sustainable in the long term. They said: "You know, we've got double shifts on the mills here. This isn't going to last. We have to make sure, with the vari- able trends in the forest industry and without the coal production for B.C. Rail, that we have sustainability in the long term." For that reason we're looking at the long-term picture, and we're going to make sure there is an operator there who's going to be able to run that operation for the long term. J.

MacPhail: Well, isn't the bar shifting every single time this minister's confronted with a new report about how well B.C. Rail is doing. We now know it's profit- able; we now know it's competitive. She stands up with this new information and says: "Oh, but we're worried we can't sustain it." What do they do? What does this government do? A profitable, competitive publicly owned railway — and she wants to sell it off. We know that's not in her message box. According to this report that we've obtained just this morning… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1425] J. MacPhail: …B.C.

Rail has the highest profit mar- gin of all regional carriers. In this year's third quarter alone B.C. Rail made a $21 million profit, and that's in American funds. In fact, they've got the highest year- to-date profits of any rail line. If the minister pushes ahead with her plans to sell B.C. Rail, British Columbians are going to lose a company that is making big profits and that is completely and most competitive. Again to the minister: given all this good news about B.C. Rail, why is she breaking a promise and selling one of North America's best-performing rail com- panies? Why is she breaking the promise?

Hon. J. Reid: It is a fact that B.C. Rail has a debt of over $500 million. It is a fact that that is part of…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. J. Reid: If this member understood business, if this member understood how to read a balance sheet, if this member understood…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the answer. Hon. J. Reid: If this member understood the neces- sity of being able to sustain and what that means, and what investment is required…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon.

J. Reid: If this member understood anything about the economy of the north and what's going on in the forest industry right now, this member would un- derstand what sustainability means in the long term. Taking on an operating partner for B.C. Rail is the very best move to provide that sustainability, to make sure

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7721 that cars are available, to change technologies to just- in-time delivery. Once again this member thinks that government is better at running businesses, but I would suggest the customers and communities will be better served by the operating partner. POLICE SERVICES IN VANCOUVER AND FUNDING BY TRAFFIC FINE REVENUE J.

Kwan: Over the weekend Inspector Jones of the Vancouver police said: "The population has doubled, the number of bars has grown, and bars are now al- lowed to stay open until 4 a.m., yet the number of po- lice officers has remained the same." During the election the Liberals promised a transfer of 75 percent of traffic fines to municipalities for in- creased policing. That promise wasn't kept in the 2001 budget, in the 2002 budget, in the 2003 budget, and ap- parently it won't be kept in the 2004 budget. That's over $200 million that should be going to increased policing.

The people living in the West End aren't going to be fooled by yet another phony election promise in '05. Will the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services deliver on the promise now so that the people in the West End can have the policing that they need today? Hon. G. Abbott: We certainly will be fulfilling that election promise, no question about it. What we may not be able to undo is the outright breach back in 1996 — I think this member may remember it — of the Local Government Grants Act that was undertaken by this government. Mr.

Speaker, $113 million was cut unilat- erally and arbitrarily by the NDP government straight out of the coffers of local government in the province of British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Abbott: They didn't offer the modicum of respect of even advising the municipalities before they undertook the breach of their own Local Government Grants Act. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Local Government Grants Act that the NDP brought in, which was going to provide stability, certainty, pre- dictability — all of these fine things, that Local Gov- ernment Grants Act….

One day the NDP got up in the Legislature and breached it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the difference between that government and this govern- ment is that we actually keep our promises. [1430] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: I would advise the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that the Leader of the Opposition is using up your time in question period. You have a supplementary question. J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN VANCOUVER J.

Kwan: The people in the West End want the po- licing money now, not just before the election. Inspec- tor Jones also said there is a growing underclass in the West End who can't get access to much-needed facili- ties for the mentally ill, and that's contributing to an increase in crime. On Thursday the provincial health services author- ity announced further cuts to mental health programs, including psychiatric services. To the Minister of State for Mental Health — and please spare me, minister, and spare the mental health patients the spin provided in your binder that you're looking for.

It will not have the answer, so just answer this question. Can he explain why, with crime on the increase, he's closing psychiatric programs for transient, multi- problem and vulnerable British Columbians and forc- ing those patients onto the street? Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, let me give them a history lesson for the mental health funding. In the year 2000-01… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Cheema: …funding for mental health and addiction services totalled only $855 million. In 2001-02 funding was $925 million. In 2002-03 funding was $1 billion.

In 2003-04 funding is projected to be $1.067 billion. That is an increase of $212 million. The NDP broke their promises on mental health. We are fulfilling our promises on mental health. PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL P. Nettleton: Opposition to the government's pro- posed sale of B.C. Rail is an issue that has transcended political affiliation. The leader of the B.C. Green Party, Adriane Carr, has requested through the Speaker's office that I ask the following question of the Minister of Transportation. It has been proven that B.C.

Rail produces profits for B.C. taxpayers and stimulates economic growth in rural B.C., generating close to $30 million worth of b u s i n e s s a y e a r i n P r i n c e G e o r g e a l o n e . I n N e w Z e a - land privatizing public rail resulted in loss of rural rail services and the decline of many rural communities. In

7722 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 light of these and other facts that have surfaced, as well as the groundswell of public opposition to the sale of B.C. Rail, does the minister see any similarity between B.C. Rail and the Coquihalla situation? Is the govern- ment monitoring or paying any heed to the rising pub- lic sentiment in their deliberations of this issue, and could the minister tell the people of B.C. what the gov- ernment's response is to this strident public outcry? Hon. J. Reid: The member knows, as I believe he's sharing with us, the importance of B.C.

Rail to the northern communities. We have talked about the im- portance to industries, we have talked about the impor- tance of sustainability, and we have talked about pre- serving the public good, which is a long-term owner- ship of B.C. Rail — of the railbed, of the right-of-way, of the tracks — to be able to know that it's going to be there for the future. [1435] We believe this approach is going to provide that confidence moving forward. It will provide a better service to the industries that depend on B.C.

Rail, and it's going to provide a better assurance to the taxpayer that they're not going to have to write down another billion dollars' worth of debt in the future for B.C. Rail. [End of question period.] Petitions B. Bennett: I would like to table a petition. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 83. Committee of the Whole House PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 83; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:38 p.m. On

section 2 (continued). J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell us what the history is, requiring clause 2. Hon. K. Falcon: What clause 2 does is provide some explanatory parameters around the

definitions that were provided in the original trust agreement of 1889, of course. It stated, to paraphrase, that it was for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Vancouver. What this does, in fact, is add flesh to the bones of that original 1889 definition and provides an update of the activities that have evolved over the last 100-plus years on the site. J. MacPhail: What wasn't working under the trust? Hon. K. Falcon: I think, over time, the reality is that we're looking at a document that's over 100 years old. As I say, the activities on the site evolved over that 100- plus years.

What this does is actually provide some parameters around what level of activities have taken place over those 100 years and recognize the reality of what's taking place on the ground right now on those Hastings Park Trust lands. [1440] J. MacPhail: T h a t w a s n ' t m y q u e s t i o n .

W a s t h e r e some challenge to the trust, or was there some im- pediment to the current trust that the minister felt he needed to include everything up to and including this clause: "to implement security procedures including, without limitation, the restriction or prohibition of ac- cess to all or any part of Hastings Park"? What problem is this minister trying to resolve? Hon. K. Falcon: No problem at all, actually. The member will be happy to know that there is no prob- l e m .

I n f ac t , wh at we are d o i ng i s c e d i ng t o a re q u e s t from the city of Vancouver staff to make sure we have in there explanatory parameters around the definition of what the use and enjoyment of the lands are. That includes a

section that the member read out, which of course is the normal sort of security that has been un- dertaken on those lands for as long as anyone can re- member. All this does is give confirmation to some- thing that, in fact, has been going on for many decades. J. MacPhail: The minister may be pleased to know that there were lots of people watching the debate in the Legislature on Thursday, who were quite taken aback at his

interpretation of the history and of what t h e c o m m u n i t y r o l e a n d , i n d e e d , w h a t m y r o l e h a d been in all of that — were quite taken aback. In fact, mainly they said the minister got it wrong from top to bottom. Here's the question that they asked: in whose inter- est is it to interpret an 1889 trust agreement to say that all of these activities have been allowed, when in fact there's also an opportunity to interpret the original trust agreement in a far different fashion to say that the use and enjoyment by the public does not include all of these activities?

Who was it — the minister or the city — that drafted this clause? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, the city asked for that clause. I'll say this to the member: I mean, at what point is this member having a challenge in understand- ing that there's a whole bunch of activities that have been taking place there for well over 100 years? I believe, if I'm understanding the direction this particular member is going in — I'm not sure, but maybe she can clarify…. Is she suggesting that she

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7723 would prefer to have language that would potentially disallow everything that has taken place and has taken place for the last 100 years? Maybe you could be a little more helpful in clarifying what it is you're driving at. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect, that entire executive council bench needs parliamen- tary procedure training. I find it unbelievable that every single time this minister rises, he talks directly to me not only in a disrespectful way but in an unparlia- mentary way. Hon. R. Thorpe: Oh, come on. Oh, come on. J.

MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There are only two of us and 75 of this government, and they can learn proper parli ame nt ary proc edu re . It jus t goes to show how l ittle some of the executive council knows. So if the member could please go through the Chair in a respectful fashion. Mr. Chair, it is not up to me to answer the questions of the minister, but here's what I would advise him. Here's what I would have advised him: it is not up to me to say what the community wants and would prefer without asking the community. What this government failed to do was ask the community their wishes at all.

H e r e ' s w h a t I d i d h e a r b a c k f r o m t h e c o m m u n i t y over the weekend. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the community, talked to them on the phone and received substantial feedback. I know that's an unusual concept for Liberal MLAs. Their question was: why did this government decide to interpret an as-yet- unchanged trust in a fashion to include every single action that may have taken place in violation of a trust? [1445] Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Chair, through to the member, that is the member's

interpretation of that. But as I said — and I believe we canvassed this quite extensively in our last conversation — there has been no successful legal challenge to the terms of the 1889 trust. I'm fasci- nated by her continuing emphasis that there was, when there wasn't. All this does is actually accede to a re- quest from the city of Vancouver to ensure that we include language in the bill transferring responsibility to the city of Vancouver — that, in fact, all the existing uses that are currently taking place there are recog- nized and identified. That's exactly what we've done. J.

Kwan: Well, the opposition has different infor- m at i o n, a nd t hi s i s s e nt as re c e nt l y as M o n d ay o n t he issue around consultation. That's October 27, on Mon- day. I'm going to put the issues raised by the commu- nity on the floor with the minister by quoting this e- mail. "The community was just informed this week of the Minister 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 of 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 consultation 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 the agreement with all parties involved in Hastings Park, and the 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 neighbours. 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 this city's destiny.

"The Hastings Park Trust, quietly assisting in the background and unheeded while commercial activity was condoned by most over the course of the decade, embodied this and was the moral anchor that validated the legitimate aspirations of the people of East Vancouver despite the actions of the successive governments to the contrary. "We now appeal to you, the leader of our city's senior provincial government, but more specifically to y ou as e x- m ay or of t h e c it y of V anc ou v e r , t o r em e m be r your previous support of the revisioning 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 the transfer of ownership of the PNE needs to be involved in 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 of 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." It is signed by Mariken van Nimwegen, the vice- chair, on behalf of the board of directors of the Hast- ings Park Conservancy.

7724 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 [1450] The issue here around the trust is the notion, his- torically, of how it was put in place and the spirit be- hind it and the intent behind it. So what's changed? That's the question. What went wrong with this trust that the minister now feels that he has to bring in legis- lation to change the entire intent behind the trust? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member will be happy to know that we're not changing the intent at all. In fact, just to respond to a statement the hon. member has made, along with her colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings….

They repeatedly suggest that this is something that apparently has been cooked up in the last few weeks by this provincial government, and I want to emphasize that we have been in conver- sations and consultations with representatives from the city of Vancouver for almost two years now. I believe the correct number is about 22 months. What is the purpose of that consultation? Well, the purpose is actually to achieve everything those fine folks who wrote that e-mail are trying to achieve. That is, the city will be engaging in a visioning exercise. What is the purpose of this visioning exercise?

Well, the purpose of that visioning exercise, as I understand it, is that they wil l be al lowi ng a very broad consulta- tive process to take place with all the stakeholders and all the interested groups from across Vancouver and East Vancouver and the west side of Vancouver and whoever else wants to be involved. They will have every opportunity to share their particular belief as to how they would like to see the future of that site, and I think that's a very positive thing.

I also believe it's most consistent that the level of government closest to the people is the level of gov- ernment that is the most appropriate to engage in that kind of a discussion, and so I welcome that. I think the member should feel some good feeling about the fact that the visioning exercise will be undertaken, and there will be, up till the year 2005, every opportunity afforded for folks to have input into what their particu- lar vision of that site is. J.

Kwan: Well, the issue that the community takes is actually with this government, and it's about this piece of legislation, Bill 83, entitled Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, within which the terms and trust conditions are being altered. That is the issue which the community takes with this gov- ernment. When the minister rises up and says he's been con- sulting for two years and, "Don't worry…." Who from the community did the minister consult with? Hon. K.

Falcon: As I've said many times before, we engaged in consultation with the appropriate level of government, which is in fact the city government in Vancouver. That is as it shoul d be. It's entirely appro- priate. They are the representatives of the people of Vancouver, and we undertook our consultations and negotiations with the appropriate representative of the residents of Vancouver. J. Kwan: When the minister says he appropriately undertook his consultation with the residents of Van- couver…. Aside from city council, who from the public did this minister or this government consult with?

Did they contact the Hastings Park Conservancy, as an ex- ample? Were they contacted, and were they consulted about Bill 83? Hon. K. Falcon: I think it is very important to un- derstand this. I believe it would actually be very pre- sumptuous for the province of British Columbia to step over into the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver and start engaging in discussions with groups like the one that was mentioned by the member. I don't believe that is at all the appropriate way to proceed with something like this.

What we did over the last 22 months was spend our time discussing and consulting with the elected representatives and the staffers from the city of Vancouver, and that government has given its com- mitment — very publicly, I might add — that they will be engaging in a broader visioning exercise that will incorporate and allow the opportunity for groups such as the one the member mentioned to have every oppor- tunity to bring forward their vision of that site. [1455] J.

Kwan: With the exception that it is this govern- ment and this minister who are bringing in legislation that will alter the conditions of the trust that was estab- lished in 1889 and that talked about the intent of the trust. It is not city council who is bringing forward this piece of legislation. It is this government who's doing that, who's altering the thrust of the conditions of the trust. The minister should own up to his responsibility in terms of consulting. After all, it was this minister, through the New Era document of this Liberal government, who campaigned on consultation with the public.

Yet, lo and behold, on the major piece of legislation that impacted a neighbour- hood that has long expressed its views around the Hast- ings Park site and its uses — and its non-conforming use, I may add, of the site…. They've expressed their concerns for a long, long time. There is lots of debate in the community, and it never occurred to this minister for one moment that he might stop and consult with the people that are impacted on the ground as a result of this change and this piece of legislation.

This letter, the e-mail I read on the record, was ad- dressed to the Premier — not to the city council but to the Premier. It states very clearly how they were not informed of this change until Monday, when the government intro- duced this bill, and they were deeply sad as a result of that. The change here around the trust is about the whole issue around the use and the non-conforming uses to al- low the PNE to continue in its current form. Why shouldn't the neighbourhood be consulted on this? Why would the minister be as arrogant as he is, to simply say, "To hell with the neighbourhood, and we're

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7725 not talking to you because you're not relevant," and presume with such arrogance that somehow the people on the ground who are impacted should not have the right to be consulted on this piece of legislation? Hon. K. Falcon: I'm inclined to remind the member of the speech that was just given by her colleague about par- liamentary appropriateness of behaviour, but instead I will try to answer, yet again, that particular question. I think it is important, when we talk about this….

The member and even her colleague appear to get very exercised over the fact that the province somehow should be engaging in very extensive consultations. Putting aside the city of Vancouver's obligation or right to do that, the province should somehow be doing this. I'm reminded of when, back in January of 1999, that member's NDP government announced they were moving and relocating the PNE to Burns Bog. I sure don't recall any consultations that were undertaken with the local members of that particular community. I'm a member from Surrey, and I recall when they were planning on moving the PNE to Surrey.

I do believe they consulted with the elected officials, as is appropri- ate, but I certainly don't recall any meetings being held in Surrey having to do with that relocation. I am, I must confess, a little baffled over what ap- pears to be a double standard on this thing. I repeat again: this is a validating act. This validating act gives life to the original

interpretation of the use, betterment, recreation and enjoyment of the public for the Hastings Park Trust lands. That's what it does. What it does do is provide explanatory parameters, which are very clearly laid out, that essentially realize the activities that have taken place for many, many decades on that particular site. J. MacPhail: Here's how wrong the minister is from a historical perspective. We actually were a govern- ment that, yes, proposed something and went and con- sulted through our MLAs. The Surrey MLAs consulted on that at the time at the public level, and we didn't proceed with that plan.

We drafted a new plan, and there were…. Hon. K. Falcon: And what about the residents? J. MacPhail: Yes, the residents. Everybody was consulted — everybody. Interjections. The Chair: Members, I'd just remind members to bring it through the Chair, please. J. MacPhail: Yeah. Really, I don't know what the…. The minister's got some weird idea of decorum that a minister should have, some very weird idea, but….

Actually, I think I'll just leave it at that. [1500] What my constituency is talking about here is that not once did they hear from a Liberal cabinet minister, a Liberal-appointed bureaucrat, a government bureau- crat, about impending changes. Then, they say that if indeed anyone had asked them, there might have been a different clause 2. But they didn't even get a chance to have input — didn't even get a chance. Now we have legislation before us where it's irrefutable. Never, never in the past has any government, Social Credit or NDP, ever done this to the community — never made it ir- refutable.

Let me ask the minister this: prior to introducing legislation…. No, I'll start with this: under this legisla- tion, how can changes to the trust and what applies under the trust take place? Is it by regulation or legisla- tion? Hon. K. Falcon: Changes to the trust, because it's part of a legislative piece — a statute — would have to be made through the Legislature. Changes to regula- tion are coming up. If the member wants to jump ahead to that section, we can do that. That would be done by regulation. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure. Maybe the minister did answer my question, but let me break it down into two parts.

Prior to Bill 83, am I correct in understanding that any changes to the trust had to be done through legislation? Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. J. MacPhail: With the, I hope, not passage…. But if this legislation is passed, how will changes to the trust take place after this legislation, Bill 83, is passed? Hon. K. Falcon: There would essentially be three potential forums for that. One would be legislatively, the other would be through regulation, and the third would be through some delegated authorities that you'll see in the act have been delegated to the city of Vancouver. J.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could explain to me how it would still be that it would require legislation when, indeed, changes can now be made by regulation. Hon. K. Falcon: If I'm understanding the question correctly, and I hope I am, if you wanted to make changes to the Hastings Park Trust, you would require legislative changes to do so. What you will find here in the bill is that many of the uses that currently take place are already spelled out to avoid that requirement. As long as activities are within the context of those parameters we've provided here — under

section 2(1)(

a) to (

f) I believe it is — then that would be fine. If there's anything that's going to be outside of those par- ticular uses, then you would require regulatory change through the province. [1505] J. MacPhail: I'm actually going to pursue that line of questioning under

section 4 further on that. Can the

7726 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 minister point to me what

section it would be here where they would allow for greenspace? Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 4 has been put into place specifically at the direction and request of the city of Vancouver so that when they complete their visioning exercise, for any such changes they may want to move forward with, they will have the ability to do so with- out having to come back to the province. J. MacPhail: Is that the minister's answer to where you would do greenspace? Hon. K. Falcon: Again, this member keeps leap- frogging forward to an exercise that hasn't taken place yet. There will be a visioning exercise that will deter- mine, you know, what the future uses of the parks will be. That member can take

part in those exercises and determine how much greenspace you wish to have — whether the whole thing should be greenspace, the existing greenspace, reduce the greenspace…. That will be up to the residents of Vancouver through the vision- ing process. J. MacPhail: Thank God I asked that second ques- tion. I now know the minister doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. My question was…. Under

section 2, the minister has said this is a clarification of everything that it's allowed to take place at Hastings Park. It was a 14-year-old kid who pointed out to me…. Where does it say we get a park, greenspace? I'm asking the minis- ter: in sections 2(1)(

a) through (h), where does it man- date that there has to be greenspace there? Hon. K. Falcon: I'd be happy to point that out to the 14-year-old in question. Under sub-subsection (

g) it says: "(

g) to do one or more of develop, undertake and pro- vide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at Hastings Park if the council of the City of Vancouver determines…." I don't need to continue. Sub- subsection (

h) says: "(

h) to do anything that is authorized under the regulations." To help out the member, when we say, "to develop, undertake and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged," it means that the green area — the park, as the member referred to it — that is in place and does take place would have every ability to continue to take place. J. MacPhail: Well, I guess that 14-year-old will just have to read into the minds of this Liberal government that they endorse greenspace.

Isn't it interesting that we have the terms of the trust that just clarify, accord- ing to this government, the activities that have taken place over 100 years there, and there's not one mention of greenspace, playing fields, trees, water, birds — nothing. It's all about gaming; it's all about security. It's about exhibitions, displays, sports, entertainment and amusement, and not one

section about saying there will be greenspace — not one. Oh, what does the minister say? "Well, you have to read that into the

section that says to do one or more of 'develop, undertake and provide any other uses.'" Isn't it interesting that this government feels it absolutely necessary that they protect the right to hold gaming events at the site, but they don't in any way feel it nec- essary to protect access to greenspace. [1510] Hon. K. Falcon: With respect, the government also doesn't talk about the pavement and the flower beds and whatever else this member wants to talk about.

What we're talking about here are the activities — not in the passive, but the actual activities — that take place which need to be enunciated — at the request, I might add, of the city. Again, I say to this member, as I have on every other occasion, that the visioning exer- cise that is going to be undertaken by the city of Van- couver will afford every opportunity for folks to come down and have their input and discussions about what it is they would like to see as the future of that land. J.

MacPhail: It's absolutely ridiculous that this gov- ernment says it's just protecting the activities — but there's a whole sector of the east side of Vancouver that wants the land protected — and that those activities interfere with the protection of the land and the green- ing that has taken huge leaps in the last seven years at that site. Now all of that has to be at the will of some

interpretation of regulations. How is the money that flowed from the provincial level into the greening of Hastings Park going to con- tinue? Hon. K. Falcon: There has never been any money coming out of the province. It actually has come out of the PNE. J. MacPhail: Okay. I understand the minister trying to split hairs like that, but the PNE is a Crown corpora- tion where the revenues, if not flowing to the park, would go to the provincial government — correct? Hon. K. Falcon: There is no operating subsidy from the province to the PNE.

The PNE actually spends in excess of almost $2.8 million for the ongoing operations of that particular greenspace in maintaining it and keeping it up, etc. J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister doesn't want to be forthcoming on this matter. Is the minister suggesting that no provincial revenues that otherwise would have flown into the provincial coffers go to the greening of Hastings Park? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. J. MacPhail: Then how has the greening of Hast- ings Park taken place to date? Hon. K.

Falcon: As I understand it, every year the park board in the city of Vancouver goes to council and makes a request for an appropriation of funds to in-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7727 clude a whole bunch of park activities, which includes the greening of the site at the PNE. J. MacPhail: I'm a little bit taken aback by this dis- cussion we're having, quite frankly. I really am. But far be it from me to challenge it at all. It is my recollection that revenues that would have otherwise flowed to the provincial government flowed directly into the green- ing of Hastings Park, to the tune of about $1.5 million a year — if I'm wrong, I'm wrong — either through rac- ing revenue or PNE revenue. Hon. K.

Falcon: Chair, through to the member, you're correct in that you're wrong. That is racing revenue you're thinking about. Racing revenue flows through; PNE revenue does not. [1515] J. MacPhail: O h m y G o d . I s i t t hat I 'm ju s t as k i ng the wrong questions? That money from racing would have flowed either to the PNE or to provincial reve- nues. Instead, it went into the greening of the park. Let's not split hairs. I don't know why this minister thinks we're all fools and that somehow…. All right.

Was there around $1.5 million of money from that site, which otherwise would have flown into provincial coffers, that went into the greening of the park on an annual basis? Hon. K. Falcon: There is a separate operating agreement with the city and the racetrack that has nothing to do with us. In terms of the contributions made for that specific area, there were, through the PNE, operations costs that were covered by the corpo- ration of the PNE that went into the greening of that particular land. J. MacPhail: Mr.

Chair, I'm going to put my own version of this on the record, and we'll let the voters of East Vancouver decide who's playing games and who's splitting hairs. There was an agreement, which my government did with the racetrack, the PNE and the community, to say that as you stay on that site, there must be revenue that flows from that to the greening of the park. It was about $1.5 million per year. In fact, that's how the major portion of the greening has taken place. Let me ask this of the minister: is that agreement, as a result of this legislation, null and void with the race- track? Hon. K.

Falcon: The short answer to the last ques- tion is no. To go back to the question the member was talking about, the agreement the member made reference to was an agreement that I believe she was involved with in 1995. There have been subsequent agreements since then, so that may explain some of the confusion in your thinking that agreement was still in force when there have been subsequent agreements after that particular agreement. J. MacPhail: I am a bit shocked at how little pride those who were with the PNE before have taken in all of the achievements they've made in greening that park.

I am really quite upset about the fact that the PNE is now claiming they did nothing, absolutely nothing, for the greening of that park. I have quite a different recollection of the contri- bution that the provincial Crown corporation made to the greening of that site and the racing and the pressure that the corporation, the community and the government of the day put to get that funding in place. That funding would not have been there without provincial government and Crown corpora- tion pressure. My last question before voting against

section 2 is in terms of the consultation. The minister is saying over and over again that the city asked for this. Would he mind standing up and naming names, please? [1520] Hon. K. Falcon: The consultations began initially with Mayor Campbell. Mayor Campbell then went to his council and received direction to engage in a nego- tiation with the province over the issue of the Hastings Park Trust lands and the PNE.

The council designated a civil servant named Brent McGregor from the city of Vancouver to undertake those negotiations, and we have been negotiating in good faith with the duly ap- pointed individual, Mr. McGregor, for the past…. As I say, I think it's coming up to two years. J. MacPhail: Yes, and in April of 2003 there was an announcement: "The province of B.C. announces the city of Vancouver will take over management and op- eration of the PNE." I of course, not to play any favour- ites, found out about that at the time of the news an- nouncement.

Neither the PNE nor the city nor the province bothered to inform me at all, even though I'm the local MLA. I'm talking about what's happened since then. The minister has said over and over again that the city of Vancouver asked for clause 2. That's what I'm inter- ested in. Who in the city asked for clause 2, and who wrote that? He also intimated that the city of Vancou- ver wrote that clause. Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, as is so often the case — and the member would know this from her years in gov- ernment — what happens is that an individual civil servant would receive direction from the mayor after receiving direction from council to undertake those discussions and negotiations. He is probably assisted by some very able staffers. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you which specific staffer may have requested this particular section, but I can tell you that the staff involved in the negotiations with the province were duly appointed and given the due authority they needed to make these requests.

We've acceded to their requests and worked with them to provide the city with what they needed so that they could move for- ward and begin their visioning exercise.

7728 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 J. MacPhail: T o d a t e i t ' s b e e n t h e V a n c o u v e r p a r k board who have been greening the site there and doing the public consultations — people like Peter Rutgers, etc. People are well aware that the greening of Hastings Park has taken place under the guidance of the Van- couver park board, so what role did they play in this? Hon. K. Falcon: One of the things I think is impor- tant — and I touched on it in a recent answer, I think, to your colleague — was that it would be….

The mem- ber makes reference to the park board and what con- sultations took place with them. I, at least from this side of the House, can tell you that I would view it as pretty presumptuous for us to engage in negotiations or consultations with the park board over an issue like this when in fact that's the role and the responsibility of the city of Vancouver.

What I can tell you is that at the announcement you referenced, in April I believe it was, when we made an announcement of the historic trans- ferring and our intent to transfer responsibility, the park board was there in attendance with the mayor. [1525] J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm asking about clause 2. I'm trying to get a theme going here. It might be a little hard for the minister to keep track, but there's absolutely no mention in activities of green- space — absolutely none.

There is nothing here to indi- cate anything other than there'll be a Disneyland used during the Olympics, and that you can now have slot machines and extra gaming activities. That's the way, if you were reading this clause 2, one would interpret it. So I wondered why they — the community voices and the level of government that participated in the greening of the park at the same time that the PNE was there — were not part of this discussion around clause 2. Is the minister saying that all of that should have been done through the city of Vancouver? Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, this is a process that pro- vides the city of Vancouver the opportunity to go through what they're referring to as the visioning exer- cise to ensure that all stakeholders can have the oppor- tunity to share their vision of a site that is entirely greened, if necessary. As to the member's comment about why we're not specifically talking about the green

section here, it's for the same reason we're not talking about the light stan- dards and we're not talking about the pavement and the flowerpots. It's not that they're not important and not that they're not there; it's just that those are not activities that are happening on the site. What we are saying is that the annual raffle, the bingo and the limited casino events that take place on the site are things that are, in fact, taking place. We recognize that we've got a greenspace there that is used by the public and will continue to be used by the pub- lic. There is tremendous opportunity, I think, for mem- bers from that member's riding, if they feel strongly — the

section of the community that feels strongly that the whole rest of the park should be greenspace — to have every opportunity to bring that belief forward at the visioning exercise. I think that's a wonderful thing. J. MacPhail: Only a member such as this member would suggest that greenspace is not an activity. Only a member such as this minister would suggest that greenspace is equivalent to a light standard. He clearly does not have any idea of the history of what's hap- pened at this site, where the community fought long and hard to have greenspace designated as a use.

That's exactly what happened in the late 1990s be- cause of community efforts, because of provincial gov- ernment efforts, because of the PNE efforts, because of the park board efforts, and now he says a greenspace isn't a use. Well, I can hardly wait to hear the feedback from the community on that statement from the minis- ter. I'll tell you that the combination of the lack of men- tioning greenspace anywhere in the legislation and this minister somehow saying that this

section clarifies uses has many people afraid of what's going to happen to the greenspace on that site. What we have here is a 114- year-old trust and a community that advocated on how that trust should be interpreted.

Just short of having to go to court, it got the ear of the Social Credit provincial government of the day, who acknowledged that the trust should be interpreted in a way that moved that park toward more community use and greater green- space. [1530] Twenty years later they have the greenspace, they have the playing fields, they have the sanctuary, and they have the gardens — all of which are used, all of which are activities on the site. They're not passive matters, such as a light standard or a flower box. None of that has this government chosen to include in its new clarification of the trust.

It's on that basis, amongst many others, that the opposition will be voting against this clause. K. Johnston: I guess I interpret what I'm reading in

section 2 somewhat differently than the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I read this, and I don't see any- where where greenspace is precluded from being an active condition of enjoyment and recreation to the public. The question to the minister is: in terms of

section 2 and the conditions of trust that started in, I guess, 1889, is that condition of trust continued on in this particular act and amendments to this act? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it is. In fact, what this

section does is provide some explanatory parameters around the original definition that was provided in the 1889 trust for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Van- couver. I think that's very important. To touch on something that you alluded to, based on what the last member had been saying, you're absolutely right that it is there. Again, I look at sub-subsection (g): "…consistent…uses and activities…." It can't be much more clear than that in terms of it will not "undertake

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7729 and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at Hastings Park…." It's as clear as it could ever be, so I do think it's sometimes incumbent upon hon. members to make sure that they don't try and un- necessarily frighten people or unnecessarily suggest to people that things are as they really aren't. I'm glad to confirm that for the hon. member. K. Johnston: I guess I'm also looking at the original intent of 1889. It's hard to know what they were think- ing back then, but I think it's pretty clear.

The interpre- tation for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the pub- lic…. There's been a fair amount of debate and discus- sion regarding the current uses being offside. I get that. My question to the minister is: has there, in fact, been an

interpretation that those uses that have gone on for the last 90 years are not for the enjoyment and recreation of the public? Has there been some sort of a commercial

interpretation? Hon. K. Falcon: I think that's an excellent question, because what it really does is ask the question: what was the original purpose? What did the authors of that original trust mean when they stated, "the use, enjoy- ment and recreation of the public" back in 1889? P a r t o f t h a t w a s a n s w e r e d w i t h s o m e o f t h e v e r y early things that took place on that site. As early as 1910 we know that horse racing began.

Very shortly thereafter you had essentially what became a modern midway start up, where you had spinning games and the kind of typical gaming you would see at circus car- nivals, etc. So really that use and enjoyment, in the minds of residents of Vancouver, clearly evolved.

Today, with 4,000 employees working on that par- ticular site — 150 of them full-time CUPE members, the member for Vancouver-Hastings might be interested to know — and 3,850 part-time members — 2,600 of which are young people — I would suspect a lot of those folks and a lot of their families are quite happy with how things have expanded. [1535] In fact, one thing you might find interesting is back in January of 1999, when the former government an- nounced that they were going to relocate the PNE to Burns Bog — again a decision that was done without consultation and cancelled very quickly two months later once they realized the impact of that — the PNE undertook a survey by Angus Reid.

This was the PNE corporation at the time of the member's being in gov- ernment. I thought it had some interesting figures in it, and one of them I'd just like to read into the record. One of the survey questions was the whole question of: do you support or not support extending the existing lease of the PNE at the current site? Interestingly, within a 16-to-20-block radius — that's the folks right around that PNE area, who would certainly have the greatest interest — 81 percent supported extending the PNE lease. The number one reason that those support- ers gave is because they liked the location.

You know, I think that consultation is a very, very important thing, and there are different kinds of con- sultations. The PNE — b ac k in t he m e m b e r's d ay , t he Leader of the Opposition's day — had the corporation do a poll, which showed quite strong support in that area right around the PNE for it to extend and stay. Nevertheless, they looked at other options that didn't prove quite as popular.

I think the principle of consulting with the people is a hugely important one, and that's why I am absolutely convinced that the visioning exercise that the city of Vancouver is putting together as a result of the piece of legislation that we are here debating will allow them to undertake several years' worth of discussions — at least a couple of years, I should say — with the public to determine what the people of Vancouver, broadly speaking, really do want to see as the future of that site.

That is something I give credit to the mayor of Van- couver and to the leadership of his council for doing, because it's the right thing to do. K. Johnston: Well, I'm certainly in agreement on the consultation side of it. I have to ask the question, in terms of consultation…. With regard to the mayor and council of Vancouver, I'm kind of interested if there was really any objection from those parties to this agreement. Hon. K. Falcon: The process of consultation, as I alluded to earlier on, was a fairly extensive consulta- tion period that really has taken some 22 months of to and fro.

When you engage in any kind of a consulta- tion or negotiation like that, there is the normal toing and froing that you get between, frankly, mostly staff people. The city of Vancouver operates very similarly to the way the province operates, where we appoint some very competent staff people to go and give them the direction in which we would like to see this move. Our core review very clearly stated that it's not the province's interest to be running an amusement park.

We bring no particular magic to running amusement parks, although I must say we financially did a rea- sonably good job at turning around a money-losing operation. Nevertheless, the opportunity now is really for the city to seize on the opportunity. Interjection. Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sorry. I'm being interrupted by a member. I'm trying to answer the question of another member. The Chair: To the Chair, please. J. MacPhail: I'm just repeating his question. The Chair: Member, you'll have your opportunity to ask a question. [1540] Hon. K.

Falcon: Through the Chair to the member for whom I'm answering the question, right from the beginning, I do know that the minister that held re-

7730 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 sponsibility for this file prior to myself — the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — had some discussions with the mayor. I can't pretend to tell you any details; I wasn't party to those discussions. But I do know that the process really went very well over the last 22 months in terms of the negotiations that took place between the staffs from the respective ministries. K. Johnston: Yeah, I think consultation at the level closest to the public, which is the civic level, is very important.

There was a question earlier regarding the fiasco at Burns Bog and trying to move the PNE there. I think there was a question about consultation. According to Hansard of 1999 — June 5, I believe — the minister of the day was asked the question about consultation in Delta and, in fact, answered by saying that, yes, he did consult with the mayor and council of the day but thought it was too early to actually go out to the public. I just wanted to draw a parallel there.

I guess my question to the minister is: did the city of Vancouver, in fact, ask the province to go ahead with a public consultation process ahead of their vi- sioning process? Did they ever make that request? Hon. K. Falcon: That's an excellent question. No. At no time did the city ask the province to undertake a separate consultation process that would have worked either alongside or in contravention of the visioning process they had laid out.

I think it is an excellent ques- tion because you did touch on something that we keep hearing from the members opposite about this duty of consultation that we've apparently violated, where we forgot to talk to all these groups, and yet we know, as you correctly pointed out, that in the Burns Bog situa- tion there was no consultation outside of some consul- tation with the elected members. That was the same thing in Surrey. I know because I was in Surrey watching it very closely, wondering why a government could be so crazy to pay that kind of a price for that kind of land in Whalley.

It was of interest to me, because I was wondering where the consultations would be, and there weren't any. I think that as we talk about this, we have to at least be consistent.

What we're doing is absolutely consistent with what the previous government did — and that is, when you are engaging in a change like this, you con- sult with the local level of government; you make sure that you have the to and fro you need to have at those two levels, appointed by their residents to act on their behalf, and that they now will be engaging in a vision- ing exercise that will open it wide-open to all the resi- dents of Vancouver, so that every opportunity and every stakeholder will have a chance to have their in- put and their say, as they should. K. Johnston: Was there ever any indication…?

Have you got any information on what the visioning process would be? In Vancouver they've done a lot of community visioning in various sections of the city. Would it be like a public hearing? Do we have any in- put back on that, as a government? Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that the city is just undertaking that process and is going to be rolling that process out very shortly, in terms of how this par- ticular visioning exercise will be undertaken. I'm not privy to all the details of how the city of Vancouver will engage in that process. K.

Johnston: I'm not sure I'm getting ahead of my- self on this question, because I'm having a hard time determining where it's at. In terms of the restructuring of the transfer and the new board that's proposed…. I believe it's seven people. How can I put this? How will the public be ensured that this board will represent the interests of the trust? Have we as a government or as a province had to put in any stipulations regarding the board? [1545] Hon. K. Falcon: The city of Vancouver will now be responsible for appointing the board — as of January 1, 2004.

We didn't tell them how many members they should have on the board. That will be up to the city of Vancouver. That board will then make its own direc- tion and recommendations on the future of the opera- tions of the Pacific National Exhibition. K. Johnston: With regard to the PNE operation, why — if it was a profitable business — did we as a province decide to devolve it, get away from it, give it to the city, transfer it, or whatever the terms are? Hon. K.

Falcon: As the hon. member may know, the lands and buildings are owned by the city, and one of the decisions of core review is that this is not a core service of government — to be running an amusement park. In fact, we did not feel any sense of expertise in this particular area, and fortunately there are people much more talented than we are that could undertake this.

I will say on that point, though, that when we in- herited the PNE, you'll know we removed the previous board that was appointed by the previous government and put into place some individuals — actually, some public servants who really deserve a lot of credit. I just want to make mention of them here on the record.

We had Steve Hollett, former Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and vice-president of Partnerships B.C.; Doug Callbeck, who is an assistant deputy minister of man- agement services of the Ministry of Competition, Sci- ence and Enterprise and also an ADM in the Energy and Mines ministry; Chris Nelson, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines; and of course the presi- dent at the time, Annette Antoniak. They became the board.

What is consistent with how we always oversee the operations of Crown corporations is that we put a board in place with good people and we tell them we expect them to run it efficiently and effectively, and

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7731 that's exactly what they did. So they actually took the PNE from a $3.5 million negative equity situation in 2001 up to today, where we now have a $500,000 nega- tive equity position in the PNE corporation. Really, a lot of credit goes to those folks and of course the em- ployees, who have done a very good job of turning that situation around. K. Johnston: One final question from me. Is the province contributing financially towards this takeover by the city of Vancouver — anything on this particular transfer? Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

Under the terms of the agree- ment, we have guaranteed to the city of Vancouver that there will be two things that will happen. One is a $2.2 million transfer from the province to the city to deal with any mitigating issues that they could conceivably think may arise. The second was that we would ensure we would take care of the negative net equity situation of half a million dollars that currently exists, and we would make sure it is returned to them with no nega- tive net equity. R.

Nijjar: To the minister: what type of consultation process did the NDP government undertake when it came to consulting with the community of East Van- couver? [1550] Hon. K. Falcon: What I need is perhaps a little more detail on what time period we're looking at or which particular year. You know, this thing went on from the early nineties well into 2000. Maybe you can just be a little more specific about what particular year we're talking about, or give me a marker there. [H. Long in the chair.] R. Nijjar: In the early 1990s, in the Harcourt era, what type of consultation took place? Hon. K.

Falcon: My understanding is that the pro- vincial government engaged in some community-based public meetings. These are not citywide public meet- ings, but they're specific to the community. I believe there were some public meetings that took place within that specific community. Interjection. Hon. K. Falcon: Well, to the best of my knowledge. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please, when the minister has the floor. Thank you. Hon. K. Falcon: For those viewing, I'm being inter- rupted by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is chattering away about who knows what.

I would en- courage her, if she has a question, to do so through the Chair. Hopefully, that's helpful to the member for Van- couver-Kingsway. R. Nijjar: These consultations were open to the public in the sense that it was open to groups or socie- ties or individuals in the east side or in the vicinity of the PNE. Hon. K. Falcon: You know, frankly, I have to be candid. I don't have any particular intimate knowledge of what the NDP government was doing in the east end of Vancouver in the early nineties in terms of their community-based public consultation.

I have to accept the chattering I hear from the other side of the House suggesting that it did take place. Interjection. Hon. K. Falcon: At length, apparently. I'm prepared to accept the word of the member for Vancouver-Hastings that it did, in fact, take place. It's unfortunate it didn't take place in the other communities. Apparently, that would have been a nice thing to have happen in Surrey, and it certainly would have been nice to have it happen in Delta. Nevertheless, I guess in this case that particular commu- nity — not citywide but that community — did receive some consultation process apparently. R.

Nijjar: Does the minister have any knowledge of an attempt to consult with specific groups — i.e., minor sports organizations — that made use of the facilities on the grounds? Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. We'll wait for the minis- ter. Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think that's an excellent question. It's an excellent question because what is not often known by folks who may be from outside of that particular area is there are numerous activities that take place — with kids' minor hockey, figure skating — and that in fact the PNE corporation subsidizes to the tune of $150,000-plus a year, I think it is.

I would surely hope those folks were consulted. Again, I'm just not privy, unfortunately, to the details of what consulta- tions took place on that weekend in East Vancouver back in the early nineties. [1555] J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I find it hilarious how, for the very first time, members from Vancouver decide they want to get up and find out what went on in the 1990s. To ask this minister for any expertise, other than him trying to do a total recall of all NDP MLAs — and failing miserably at that — is ridiculous.

He was, in the late 1990s, trying to do a total recall of all NDP MLAs, claiming not to be a Liberal, and it turns out here he is

7732 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 talking about what went on in the city of Vancouver. Here's the member for Vancouver-Kingsway trying to talk about consultation. Well, I'll give the history of that consultation. It wasn't one weekend of consultation. It was weekend after weekend of consultation — specific consultation with minor sports leagues, specific consultation with seniors groups. It was open. There were displays. And you know what the result was of all of that?

The com- munity rejected the Disneyland-like approach that the Harcourt government initially was going to take at the PNE site, and so we redid it all — and consultation after consultation. Here's what I find very curious about this govern- ment: they have two defences when they're caught out. First, they say: "Oh, we're just as bad as the NDP was." I love that; I love it. "We're just as bad as the NDP was." Well, isn't that a sterling defence of their government's activities? Then their second approach is: "Well, it's not our problem. It's someone else's problem. It's the school board's problem.

It's the health authority's problem." Now it's the city of Vancouver's problem. Well, let me just tell you about what previous governments, includ- ing Social Credit governments, didn't do. They didn't bring in legislation to alter forever what can or cannot take place at that site. Let me ask this question to the minister: when was the Hastings Park Trust last legislated? Hon. K. Falcon: The member's going to have to clarify her question. I have no idea what she's trying to say. J.

MacPhail: The minister, along with his back- bench government caucus — I was going to use an unparliamentary word, so I won't — is trying to make the case that this government's just doing exactly the same thing as every other government did. What I'm actually saying…. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order, order. J. MacPhail: I actually listened. I didn't speak out once. Interjections. The Chair: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. J. MacPhail: Not once did I speak out. The government's trying to say….

I'm just trying to target their first defence, which is: "We're just doing what the big, bad NDP did. We're no worse than them." My question is: when was the last time the Hastings Park Trust was legislated? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, if I'm following through on the theatrics that are taking place from the opposite side there, I will say to the member: in 1889. J. MacPhail: H e r e w e h a v e a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e — gosh — that big, bad government….

"They did just as much an injustice as our government is doing" is basi- cally the argument, and it turns out that no, the Hast- ings Park Trust has not been touched by any govern- ment until this government. [1600] Let me ask this question: when was the PNE act last changed, and how was it changed? Hon. K. Falcon: The last change to the PNE was in 2001. I'm not going to be entirely certain on the month, but that would be when we brought in a change to the board and how many individuals would sit on the board. R.

Nijjar: I find it absolutely amazing how the member for Vancouver-Hastings talks so explicitly about consultation processes and what great consulta- tions took place. She describes them in so much detail. Then when the minister says we are giving the city the authority to do the exact same thing, all of a sudden it is such a dirty and bad thing to do. How funny it is that some people that were in government like consul- tation when they can control the outcome they want but don't like consultation when it is open-ended and can actually go any direction. How funny that is.

All of a sudden consultation is a bad thing. The member for Vancouver-Hastings spoke so much about how even the NPA city council worked in a consultation process. Now we are giving the NDP in the city control over consultation, but because that isn't closed-ended, because it doesn't give that member's Hastings Park Conservancy all the control of the direc- tion and all the control over public consultation and all the control over the voices of the east side of Vancou- ver, all of a sudden consultation is a bad thing.

My question to the minister is: other than the ama- teur sports teams he expressed receive benefits from the facilities there, what other economic benefits are there for particular organizations and industries? Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for the delay, but I was thinking about all the activities that take place there. This really is significant, because it speaks directly to the use and enjoyment of the site for the residents of Vancouver. It includes things like junior hockey.

It in- cludes things like the Vancouver Giants, who are at- tracting some real interest among the public who use and enjoy that particular opportunity to watch the team. It includes religious events, trade and consumer shows that take place regularly on the site, filming — which is increasingly becoming a real opportunity in some of the those buildings and on location to help our burgeoning movie sector — and concerts. The amuse- ment park itself obviously provides enormous enjoy- ment. There's a whole range of activities there that British Columbians and local residents have enjoyed for a very long time.

I think it comes back to this whole discus- sion about consultation. What is the duty of the prov-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7733 ince to consult? It just seems really clear to me that we ought to follow in the path of consultation with the appropriate level of government, which we have done — and done very cooperatively, I might add — with the city of Vancouver. This was not a negotiation that was filled with acrimony or bitterness or that started off on the wrong foot. This is something that is very cooperative. Vancouver sees this as a real positive for the city as they move forward with their visioning ex- ercise. [1605] Again, I just have to say this.

When the member op- posite is going to stand up and talk about this lack of consultation, I am going to continually remind that member of her government in January '99, when they said they were going to move the PNE over to Burns Bog without consultation when their own polling showed that 81 percent of the folks that lived within a 16-to-20- block radius of the site supported extending the lease for the PNE. I'm just fascinated by that dichotomy, but I hope that answers the member's question. J. MacPhail: And I'm going to allow the words of the Liberal MLAs from Vancouver to speak for them- selves.

It's been fascinating so far in terms of the public reaction. I just want to point one thing out to the minister as he makes this comparison. I know he was busy in Prince George and Prince Rupert, trying to do total recall — and he failed miserably at that — during that period of time, but I just want to point out the differ- ence between his government and the previous gov- ernment. It's symbolized in things like Coquihalla, where this government….

Not only do they not do any consulta- tion, but they then bring in legislation that just slaps aside one point of view completely — not that that point of view should dominate. I think the member from Kingsway is trying to say that there are people in our community who want it all to be greenspace. He's so out of touch with it that he completely fails to un- derstand that the community actually welcomed the PNE to stay there about two years ago.

He completely misunderstands that there can be joint and consensual use at the site but that you actu- ally have to discuss with all aspects of the community about the future of the site — unlike this government, where they just ignore one point of view. They bring in legislation so that no matter what happens, this gov- ernment's point of view prevails. It's like the Coqui- halla. Yes, the previous government looked at privatiz- ing the Coquihalla.

We consulted, we investigated, we had our MLAs look at it, and we came back and said: "No, it's not going to work." It's like when one minister of our Crown floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog. We went out and talked to city council. We actually talked to the Burns Bog Conservation Society. We talked to the Van- couver community, and in fact…. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order. J. MacPhail: I just love it how the member for Van- couver-Kingsway is finally doing what he considers to be his job. We rejected — withdrew — the proposal. We didn't proceed with it.

In fact, this government says: "Oh, we're just trying to do exactly the same thing as the previous government." Well, no. Here's the difference: they're actually not consulting with the community, and they're proceeding with legislation anyway. That's why I specifically asked the minister when the last time was that this legislation was changed, and it was 1889. No government has dared interfere with the trust except his government. No government has dared ignore one part of the community and still pro- ceed. Make that comparison to 1999 and moving the PNE to Burns Bog.

What government in 1999 floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog and still pro- ceeded in spite of community criticism? No govern- ment except his government has proceeded with ac- tions in the face of community opposition. Only his government has done that. The Chair: Minister? Some Hon. Members: There was no question. Hon. K. Falcon: There was no question, but surely there's an opportunity for me to enjoy the repartee.

The member again brought up the January '99 in- formation, and I do think that discussion is worthy of exploring, because it actually comes into the whole question of: what is consultation? The member has been very critical about our apparent lack of consulta- tion. She just went on and told this House that they engaged in consultations with the Burns Bog Conserva- tion Society and the elected members of Delta, pre- sumably. It must have been quite a conversation you had with the Burns Bog Conservation Society, because within not even 24 hours they were out and they were v e r y a n g r y .

I t s o u n d s l i k e i t w a s a n o t i f i c a t i o n t o m e , not a consultation. Nevertheless, I'll allow the member to decide what level of consultation that was. I was never in Prince George having anything to do with recall, you'll be happy to know. [1610] Interjection. The Chair: Order, member. Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's fascinating that this member talks like this, because it shows such a dis- jointed approach to the reality of what took place. There was Burns Bog Conservation Society.

I can tell you that the Burns Bog Conservation Society consulta- tion probably went something like this: "We're putting a park inside your bog. Hope you'll enjoy it. We think it's a great idea." You know, the reaction pretty much

7734 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 typified how folks would feel if they got a consultation like that. I also, again, just can't help but think that at the same time this member is going on about consultation — keep this in mind, folks, because this is fascinating — she's doing it in the climate of her own Crown cor- poration undertaking a poll showing that 81 percent of the people within a 16-to-20-block radius actually don't want it moved. But they're announcing in January '99 that it's getting moved. It's going to Burns Bog.

Now, after spending a couple of million dollars of wasted money on consultants and everything else inves- tigating the Burns Bog thing, they then flipped over and said: "Let's put it in the PNE." Well, here comes round two of the consultation approach according to the mem- ber for Vancouver-Hastings. That followed pretty much the same scenario that happened under the Burns Bog approach. That was a phone call to the mayor, perhaps to some of the city staffers, and that was the extent of the consultation. I'm pretty sure that the member from Vancouver-Whalley didn't hear anything about this.

I'm certain I can tell you that the member

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1103pm-16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1103pm 16
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9b9f4e5643a190380d8df6c3eb8986f837621dee

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