2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Hilda Rook

R. Hawes

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report

No. 1,

2008-2009, An Audit of Joint Solution Procurement and the Revenue

Management Project

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Hon. T.

Christensen

Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking

When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Mineworkers Safety Act, 2008

(Bill M204)

Puchmayr

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Workplace safety

C. James

Grant De Patie and Day of

Mourning for workers

R. Hawes

City of Victoria Youth Council

Fleming

Richmond 911 Awards

J. Yap

Commemorative pin for Day of

Mourning for workers

Conroy

Biodiesel businesses

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Funding for school playgrounds

C. James

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

G. Coons

L. Krog

J. Kwan

Simpson

Farnworth

Release of report on B.C. Place

roof

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Petitions

K. Conroy

C. Puchmayr

Second Reading of Bills

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14) (continued)

Austin

J. Brar

Puchmayr

Simpson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative

and the Olympics

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. Kwan

H. Bains

[ Page 11607 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm very pleased to be able to introduce

some special people who are with us today. I would like us to recognize and

thank, on behalf of the government and all British Columbians, a few of the

public servants who have devoted most of their waking hours, I would say, over

the last four months to prepare the government's carbon tax legislation.

The six public servants in the House today are from the core of

that team. They represent a larger team of public servants from my ministry's

tax policy branch, the Ministries of Attorney General and of Small Business and

Revenue and a small number of area specialists from the Ministries of

Environment and of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Their creativity, hard

work, dedication and professionalism surely represent the very best in British

Columbia's public service.

[1335]

On behalf of all British Columbians, I'm pleased to introduce and

thank Anne Foy and Chris Dawkins, tax policy analysts with the ministry's tax

policy branch; Elizabeth King and Ann McLean, legislative counsel and drafting

team solicitor respectively, Ministry of Attorney General; Joel Fairbairn and

Pat Parkinson, revenue administration experts from the Ministry of Small

Business and Revenue.

I would also like to thank Glen Armstrong, director of tax policy

branch of the Ministry of Finance, for his leadership in this matter. Glen is

not with us today. He stands back from taking the front of stage, but Glen has

put in remarkable work on our carbon tax policy.

So please join me in thanking these public servants and their

colleagues for their creativity, hard work, long hours and devotion to duty.

They truly give meaning to the B.C. public service motto "Where ideas work."

Also in the House today are some other very special guests, some

key representatives from British Columbia's academic and environmental

communities. British Columbians should be very proud of our province's legacy of

environmental awareness and commitment to sustainability, and this government is

looking forward to continued engagement and cooperation as we work to build a

greener, brighter future for British Columbia.

Please join me in welcoming Prof. David Green, UBC economics,

author of the open letter signed by 70 B.C. academic economists in support of a

revenue-neutral carbon tax; from Sierra Club B.C., Susan Howatt, director of

campaigns and community engagement; Colin Campbell, marine campaign coordinator;

Martin Golder, board chair. From the David Suzuki Foundation, Peter Robinson,

CEO; Ian Bruce, climate change specialist. From Voters Taking Action on Climate

Change, Kevin Washbrook, director; Quincy Young, director; Estella Bastidas,

director. From the Pembina Institute, Matt Horne, acting director, B.C. energy

solutions program. From B.C Sustainable Energy Association, Peter Ronald,

provincial coordinator, and Naomi Devine, board member. From the Western Canada

Wilderness Committee, Andrea Reimer, executive director. Please join us in

making these special guests very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Minister of Finance introduced

everybody.

C. Evans: The Minister of Finance just missed two important

people that I'd like to help her out with. To whatever extent I ever look

competent or able to do this job, it's because Joanne Pagnini and Sandy Korman

make that possible. Anybody here who actually wishes to show any appreciation

for anything I've ever done, clap now, because they did it.

M. Polak: Today joining us in the gallery, we have a group

of grade 11 students from the King's School in my riding along with their

teacher Laurena Hensel. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Krog: Not to contradict the Minister of Finance a third

time here today, but joining us in the gallery are some people who haven't been

introduced — in particular, some folks from the B.C. Real Estate Association who

had breakfast with the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and myself this

morning.

I'd like the House to make welcome president Andrew Peck; Bill

Benoit, who is well known; and Subhadra Ghosh, the new president of the

Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. Accompanying them are Messrs. Francis,

Limer, Beehan and Tillie. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Lee: Last September I had the opportunity to visit China

with some friends from Williams Lake as a delegation, and one of the delegate

members here today in the gallery is Willy Berger. He's the president of the

B.C. Northern Real Estate Board. He was eagerly promoting B.C., and I would like

to welcome him in the House — and also his colleagues.

R. Austin: I'd like to make a couple of sets of

introductions today. Firstly, I'd like to thank the members of the B.C. Northern

Real Estate Board for the information that they shared with some members of the

caucus today. In the House I'd like to welcome Gary Shannon, the vice president;

Joannie Brown, director; Shawn McCloughlin, who is the director and provincial

government liaison committee chair; and lastly, Dorothy Friesen, the executive

officer. I'd like to thank them for being here.

[1340]

Secondly, I would like to follow my fellow member from

Nelson-Creston and thank my two CAs, who do incredible work for me. I'd like to

introduce Denis Gagné from Terrace and Roberta Walker from Kitimat.

[ Page 11608 ]

Hon. L. Reid: I would like this House to welcome Lonie

Belsey. Her husband Bill Belsey served the North Coast with absolute distinction

and served this province. I would ask the House to make Mrs. Lonie Belsey very

welcome today.

C. Puchmayr: I would like to introduce to this House

Sherrill Gullickson, who is my constituency assistant. Lynn Osborn is also an

assistant, but she could not make it today. Sherrill does incredible work as an

advocate for the people of British Columbia, especially on homelessness issues

and housing issues. So please make Sherrill feel extremely welcome.

I. Black: There's a constituent of the Minister of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the

Olympics with us today. He's also a good friend to many in this House. His name

is Buzz Knott, and he was good enough to be my lunch date today. Would the House

please join me in helping make him feel very welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the gallery are my three

constituency assistants, Sheryl Seale, Carly O'Rourke and Donann Kinar. They do

a great job of keeping our very busy office going. Would the House please join

me in welcoming them.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the

president of the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, Willy Berger, who is from

Cariboo South — my riding. Along with that, I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming Gisela Janzen, who also belongs to that same board. They have come a

long way to share information with us with regards to how they would like to see

improvements made here in British Columbia. If the House would join me in making

them feel welcome.

Likewise, in addition I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming one of my constituency assistants, Marc Woons, who has joined us here

for a couple of days. Marc is one of my assistants who makes us all look better

in the Cariboo by ensuring that our jobs are extended across all the

constituents in Cariboo South.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like to welcome representatives of

the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board and the South Okanagan Real Estate

Board, Dianna Smith, Rob Shaw and Joe Pearson.

I would just pass on to the Minister of Finance that when I met

with these folks this morning, both boards support the government's commitment

to reducing greenhouse gas and to the carbon tax. I would ask this House to

welcome these members to the Legislature.

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity for a couple of

introductions. The first is Victor Pristey from the B.C. Northern Real Estate

Board from Prince Rupert. We had an opportunity to listen to their progressive

initiatives and strategies improving the quality of life throughout our

community. So I welcome Victor.

I'd also like to introduce two of my CAs, Pauline Woodrow and

Erika Rolston, who keep me on the straight and narrow whenever I return to my

constituency, no matter how crooked a path I do take.

D. Hayer: On behalf of the Surrey MLAs, I'd like to welcome

members of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board: Valerie Burg, Sandra Benz, Vic

Hryhirchuk, Debbie Jay, Kelvin Neufeld and Bernie Scholz. Would the House please

make them all very welcome.

K. Conroy: I'm continually reminded of what a small world

we live in. On March 1, I attended a conference in Rock Creek, where over 150

early childhood educators were meeting. I entered into a discussion with a woman

who was going to get to buy the last available handcrafted logging truck made

from pine beetle wood. This led me to such a reminder.

Birgit Larsen, who is now from Penticton, was born and raised in

the same community as my mother in Frederikssund, Denmark. Her sister and my

aunt were very close friends, and her mother remembered my mother, who had

immigrated to Canada and now has a daughter in politics.

Today it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Birgit to

the Legislature while she is here in Victoria to celebrate her son's birthday. I

look forward to further discussions with her, and I ask you all to welcome

Birgit here.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Kootenay–Boundary has one more

introduction.

[1345]

K. Conroy: It also gives me a great deal of pleasure to

introduce my constituency assistants, who keep me on the straight and narrow

while I'm trying to keep all these guys on the straight and narrow. To Sheren

Spilker, Edena Brown and Elaine Whitehead: thank you so much for all you do.

D. Routley: Nice to follow up the Whip for this sort of

thing, isn't it? She does keep us on the straight and narrow, but we thank our

CAs for keeping us on track. They equate it to cat herding. The most common

question is, "Where's Doug?" and they always answer it somehow. Please make them

welcome. They are Leanne Baird, Debra Toporowski and Patty McNamara.

D. Thorne: I, too, would like to welcome my CA, who is

sitting up in the gallery, Laura Gullickson. She's new in my office, and I feel

like she's been there forever.

I'd also like to say hello and thank you to my CA who is not here

in the gallery, who's keeping the doors open back in the office, Linda

Asgeirsson.

I would also like to welcome all the members of the Real Estate

Association of B.C. whom I had the honour of addressing this morning, and we

look forward to the dinner tonight.

[ Page 11609 ]

Tributes

HILDA ROOK

R. Hawes: Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a

birthday party for one of my constituents, who has just finished putting out a

DVD of her favourite religious songs. I'd just like the House to recognize and

help celebrate the 100th birthday of Hilda Rook from my riding.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I think the House may recognize that we have a

constituency assistants conference going on here. I would like to welcome one of

my constituency assistants who very ably represents me in the real North Island,

in my Port McNeill office, Norm Prince, who is quite new to my staff and does an

admirable job.

I would also like to recognize my staff in Campbell River who will

be joining the conference later, Lynne Stone and Kathy Smail.

J. Brar: Height does matter sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join my colleagues to welcome my CAs who are here

— Ruby Bhandal, who is just sitting right there, and Murray Bilida. They do the

fine work, in fact, when it comes to credit and when people give me the credit.

So I would like to say thank you. I would ask everyone to please make them feel

welcome.

N. Simons: I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming

my CAs who keep me on neither the straight, luckily, nor the narrow. Both Maggie

Hathaway and Kim Tournat are in the House, and I'd like if we can make them

welcome.

I further ask indulgence of the House to introduce some family

members and caregivers of people affected by the closure of Corner House here in

Victoria. They are Mike Schultz, Barb Schultz, Konrad Schultz, Trevor Schultz,

Annetta Orrick, Angel Wybert, Mary Collins, Penny Gill and Liz Wortman. Would

the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I want to join my colleagues in introducing my

CAs — Rachel Garrick, who's here with us today, and Brenda Tombs, who will be

joining us later — and to thank them for all the work they do to take care of my

office and do all the casework that comes into my office.

I'd also like to introduce my spouse, my bride Cate Jones, who is

here with us today. Please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I'd like to thank all

of our constituency assistants, who do a tremendous job for all of us when we're

in the office and outside of the office. In particular, I would be remiss if I

don't mention Stuart Alcock, who is not only my constituency assistant for the

last five years; he was also one of the two teams, who were the two members in

this Legislature, who took on a tremendous amount of work on behalf of many

British Columbians. I'd just like to thank him for his hard work.

[1350]

G. Robertson: In the spirit of inclusivity, I would like to

welcome my CA Joni Sherman from Vancouver-Fairview and also Chantile Viaux,

who's keeping the doors open on the home front. I'd just like to thank them for

all the work that they do supporting me and, more importantly, serving the

community in Vancouver-Fairview.

M. Farnworth: Well, everybody else's CAs have been

introduced except mine. I guess it's because mine is on a holiday in Hawaii, but

I know she's watching.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the

Auditor General's 2008-2009 report 1, An Audit of Joint Solution Procurement

and the Revenue Management Project .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SOCIAL WORKERS ACT

Hon. T. Christensen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Social Workers Act.

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that the bill be introduced and

read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 35, the

Social Workers Act. This new legislation will replace the almost 40-year-old

Social Workers Act, bringing it up to date with other modern statutes for

professional self-governance.

The legislation will replace the existing Board of Registration

for Social Workers, where members are appointed by government, with a

professional governing college where the majority of board members are elected.

These changes will enhance the professional governance of registered social

workers in British Columbia and improve protection of and accountability to the

public.

A new college will represent the public interest while serving the

professionalism of registered B.C. social workers. Under this legislation, a

self-governing college of social workers will be created with a board

accountable to its members.

Public protection will be enhanced by strengthening the college's

disciplinary powers and by requiring employers to report terminations for

misconduct to the college. All registered social workers will be required to

report suspected abuse of clients by another registered

[ Page 11610 ]

social worker. The college will be required to provide public notification of

disciplinary decisions, and the college will have the authority to make bylaws

in all areas necessary for professional governance.

These legislative changes support government's goal to build the

best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs,

children at risk and seniors.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next siting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Social Workers Act, 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.

MOTOR VEHICLE (BANNING SMOKING

WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. J. van Dongen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When

Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce the Motor

Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008. The

legislation fulfils a throne speech promise to protect the health of our

children by amending the Motor Vehicle Act to ban smoking in vehicles when

children are present.

More than 4,000 chemicals can be found in secondhand smoke,

including carbon monoxide, nickel, formaldehyde and arsenic. Secondhand smoke

has also been measured to be significantly more toxic in the enclosed space of a

vehicle than in a home. Although secondhand smoke is dangerous to anyone, it is

particularly hazardous to children who are at greater risk due to their smaller

lungs and the fact that their bodies are still developing.

[1355]

The amendments ban smoking in motor vehicles where children are

present and provide authority for police to issue violation tickets to drivers

and passengers who contravene this legislation. Unpaid violation fines will

result in refusal to issue drivers' and vehicle licences, as with all other

unpaid fines under the Motor Vehicle Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36, Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present)

Amendment Act, 2008, 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.

CARBON TAX ACT

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Carbon Tax Act.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 37, the

Carbon Tax Act, 2008. Bill 37 introduces a groundbreaking revenue-neutral carbon

tax that will encourage all British Columbia families and businesses to lower

their carbon footprint and will help meet our goal of reducing emissions by 33

percent by 2020.

As announced in the budget, the carbon tax is based on five key

principles. First, the tax will be revenue neutral. The bill requires the

Minister of Finance to table a three-year carbon tax plan with the estimates

every year. This plan must show how carbon tax revenues, including excess

revenue collected in previous years, will be returned to taxpayers over the

following three fiscal years through tax cuts.

Second, the tax rate will start low — the equivalent of $10 per

metric ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions — and will rise gradually to

$30 per tonne by 2012. This phased-in approach provides certainty and will allow

all taxpayers time to make adjustments to reduce their emissions.

Third, low-income individuals and families are protected. The

low-income climate action tax credit, to be paid quarterly, will ensure that

those with lower incomes are, on average, more than compensated for the carbon

tax they pay.

Fourth, the carbon tax has the broadest tax base possible, given

current technological measurement and data limitations. The tax will apply to

virtually all fossil fuel combustion emissions that are included in the National

Inventory Report, representing about 70 percent of total emissions in B.C.

Finally, the carbon tax will be fully integrated with other

greenhouse gas reduction measures. The carbon tax has been designed to help us

achieve a very important objective while minimizing the impact on taxpayers, the

competitiveness of B.C. business and the economy.

I'm very pleased to move first reading of Bill 37, the Carbon Tax

Act. I move that the said bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Carbon Tax Act, 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.

MINEWORKERS SAFETY ACT, 2008

C. Puchmayr presented a bill intituled Mineworkers Safety Act,

[ Page 11611 ]

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of the Mineworkers Safety

Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

C. Puchmayr: These amendments to the Workers Compensation

Act and the Mines Act transfer the authority of occupational health and safety

for mineworkers to the jurisdiction of WorkSafe B.C.

These amendments and implementations and recommendations come from

the Sullivan mine inquest — that the mines regulations be amended to meet or

exceed WCB standards with regards to confined space and occupational health and

safety regulations.

The amendments will provide an increased level of protection for

mineworkers and non-mineworkers in British Columbia and will acknowledge that

workers deserve access to the highest occupational health and safety available

in British Columbia.

[1400]

These amendments bring British Columbia in line with other

provinces in which mine safety falls under the jurisdiction of provincial

occupational health and safety regulations and the Ministry of Labour.

I move that the bill be placed on the order paper for second

reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M204, Mineworkers Safety Act, 2008, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) WORKPLACE SAFETY

C. James: Last year 139 British Columbians left their

families and loved ones for work and never returned home. Many thousands more

who did return suffered from workplace injuries, often very serious. For these

injured workers, life will never be the same, and for the families of those

killed, the grief will last forever.

Every year on this day we join together with B.C.'s trade union

movement to honour the sacrifice of these British Columbians. At Day of Mourning

ceremonies throughout the province British Columbians are gathering in public

places, at workplaces, in houses of worship and in their homes to remember those

lost and injured. These ceremonies express our collective responsibility to

ensure that every worker in B.C. is safe and treated with respect.

Every road that is built, every tree that is cut, every berry

picked and every window washed takes great effort and sometimes comes with the

risk of injury or death. Some workers, like farmworkers, have too few

protections and often work for very low wages. These workers are the most

vulnerable in our society, and it is for these workers that we must measure our

commitment to safety and to justice, because one worker lost to a workplace

accident is more than anyone should bear.

Today in this House we should renew our commitment to making all

workplaces healthy and safe for every British Columbian.

GRANT DE PATIE AND

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

R. Hawes: I never met Grant De Patie. From all accounts he

was a wonderful young man, full of life and full of all the promise that a

24-year-old can hold. On March 8, 2005, he made the kind of decision that a

conscientious young man who knew right from wrong might make. He tried to stop a

gas-and-dash at a local gas station where he was employed and tragically lost

his life.

Most of us could not begin to imagine the grief and sense of

helplessness at losing a son or daughter in such a senseless act of violence.

While our hearts went out to the De Patie family, they began to tirelessly

advocate for further protection for gas station employees. They wanted to ensure

no one would be victimized, as Grant was, ever again.

On February 1 of this year Grant's law regulations made it

mandatory for motorists to pay for gas before they pump. This, along with the

working-alone regulations enacted at the same time, ensures that British

Columbia's workers are better protected.

This is the annual Day of Mourning for workers who have lost their

lives or who have been injured as a result of their work. It's a day to remember

lost colleagues and reaffirm our resolve to ensure that everybody goes home

safely after a day's work.

As we remember Grant, we remember the 139 British Columbians who

lost their lives during 2007 as a result of workplace accidents or occupational

disease. Our deepest sympathies go out to all the families of these workers, and

we mourn with the parents, the spouses, the sons and the daughters.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join in a moment's silence

to remember Grant and all of the workers who have tragically lost their lives.

CITY OF VICTORIA YOUTH COUNCIL

R. Fleming: Today in this House I would like to recognize

the city of Victoria's Youth Council. Those familiar with our country's

demographic challenges and skill shortages know that this country needs a better

plan for continued prosperity as we progress as an aging society, a plan that

would view young people as our country's greatest asset.

That means we can't complacently allow one in four young people

not to complete high school. It means we cannot leave aboriginal youth and young

people from poor backgrounds on the outside, at the margins of society, unable

to access higher education.

[1405]

While governments need to do everything they can to ensure that

opportunities are offered broadly and equally to youth from different

backgrounds, we also need to ensure that we're not just asking youth to study

[ Page 11612 ]

harder for more credentials. Both government and the private sector need to

engage young people to participate and define what citizenship in a democracy in

this 21st century means to them.

Many municipal governments have found that by giving youth a voice

in shaping decisions that affect their lives, cities can craft smarter policies

and solutions. The city of Victoria formally established the Victoria Youth

Council with terms of reference in July 2005. This council aspires to create

opportunities for youth to become connected to their community by encouraging

participation in civic life. The council is creating a collaborative learning

environment where youth attain skills and experience to develop as leaders in

their community.

Recently the council expanded their mandate to engage in more

community collaborations between neighbourhood organizations and the

municipality. These young people are being engaged to work with the community on

problems related to the environment, planning and transportation, and to give

insights into local social problems. Youth council members also shadow

councillors, and they serve as volunteer representatives in every neighbourhood

in the city.

The City of Victoria Youth Council is initiated through a group of

dedicated and dynamic young people from all areas of Victoria. They meet

approximately two or three times a month, and they encourage youth who are

curious and interested to learn about what they are doing.

I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating

the current youth council and coordinator Katie Shaw for their enthusiasm and

hard work to bring youth a voice in Victoria.

RICHMOND 911 AWARDS

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize some exceptional members

of my community. On April 23 the Richmond Chamber of Commerce hosted the sixth

annual 911 Awards to celebrate heroes among us, the first responders to

emergency calls. Each year the awards are given to first responders and others

who have demonstrated outstanding bravery and made significant contributions to

the community. Those honoured include personnel from the fire department, RCMP,

Coast Guard and ambulance paramedics as well as those in the community safety

sector.

There were 13 recognition categories this year, and all the

nominees deserve to be recognized. The 911 Awards went to truly exceptional

individuals — individuals like Const. Wayne Laviolette, who was named Police

Officer of the Year for his outreach efforts with youth, and Insp. Tony Mahon

and Cpl. Ron Paysen, who were honoured with the police officer Career

Achievement Award.

Paramedics Karen Treffry and Glenn Shale were named Paramedic Crew

of the Year for their exemplary efforts in dealing with the Richmond

airplane-tower crash last October. Also honoured for their heroic efforts at the

plane crash were Battalion Chief Glenn Tinkley, Capts. Doug Harris, Kirby Graeme

and Brian Flett and their crews, who received the Fire Rescue Crew of the Year

Award. Coast Guard employee of the year award went to Capt. Craig Rackham and

First Officer Scott Bennett and crew, who braved gale force winds in a rescue

mission last year.

The Community Safety Initiative Award went to longtime Richmond

community leader Bob Ransford for his tireless efforts to raise funds for the

Richmond RCMP's onside youth outreach program.

Richmond's 911 Awards are unique for honouring all first

responders. I thank the Richmond chamber and all the corporate and community

sponsors who recognize the value of this awards program.

I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating

the winners and nominees of this year's Richmond 911 Awards. They are all

heroes.

COMMEMORATIVE PIN FOR

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

K. Conroy: Today to help commemorate this workers' Day of

Mourning, we are all wearing a pin that has come to symbolize health and safety.

The pin shows a canary in a birdcage. As I'm sure most of you know, in the early

days of coalmining, miners were sent into the mines carrying canaries in a

birdcage to determine the air quality in the shafts. If the bird died, the

miners had to quickly evacuate, or perish themselves.

Steve Hunt, a member of the United Steelworkers, designed the pin

after sitting through Westray mining disaster hearings. The Westray mine was a

coalmine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia, where in 1992 a methane explosion killed 26

miners.

Steve felt that the Day of Mourning required a symbol that would

ensure we not forget the tragedy of the miners and the lives lost. He took the

image of the canary and used it to symbolize the plight of workers worldwide.

Nothing got done until the canary died. It's much the same for too many workers

today.

[1410]

Today this pin is being worn across Canada and the United States

not just by Steelworkers but by thousands of people from many different unions

and by politicians like us on both sides of the House and both sides of the

border. I want to thank the Steelworkers for their ongoing commitment to ensure

worker safety and the creation of this pin, and also for their daily struggle to

make sure workers in B.C. are safe on the job.

To the members of Local 480 in the Steelworkers union: thank you

for providing all the members of the Legislature this pin that we can wear in

solidarity as we remember workers who have died or been injured on the job and

their families who are left behind.

BIODIESEL BUSINESSES

H. Bloy: Reuse. Reduce. Bioenergy. I had the pleasure last

Friday of attending and speaking at the announcement of the opening of three new

biodiesel

[ Page 11613 ]

stations in the Lower Mainland, one on Main Street in Vancouver and two in

the city of Burnaby.

This is the largest ever opening of biofuel stations in one day in

North America. Cascadia Biofuels is led by Mr. Curtis Mearns, who is known as

the biodiesel guy in Canada. Cascadia Biofuels is the leader in providing

alternative fuels in Canada.

At the event I met a former colleague, Ken Johnston, who is

president of Novex Transportation and runs all of his vehicles on alternative

energy.

I met Grant Saar of West Coast Biodiesel, who supplies the 100

percent pure biodiesel which is then blended with petroleum. West Coast

Biodiesel is the largest supplier in western Canada, and they also sell to B.C.

Transit and a number of municipalities.

I also met Mike Vanstone of New World Energy, who employs over

2,000 people in Indonesia growing an oilseed crop called jatropha, which is a

non-edible source for the protection of biodiesel. It is grown on land that is

not suitable for food production.

I met Rand Cowell of Cowell Volkswagen, who has a number of

biodiesel cars available for test driving — and for sale, of course. Mac

Christie, a longtime friend, was also at the event — a longtime advocate within

the biofuel industry.

It makes me proud and should make all British Columbians proud to

see private business, like the Cascadia group, leading the way in green energy.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS

C. James: For the second time in two months, the B.C.

Liberals have completely botched a program that was designed to help B.C.

children. Schools across this province need new playgrounds, but this

government's misguided approach is shutting out many of the schools and

communities that need them the most.

The government said that the program was needs-based, but two

elite private schools in Vancouver, St. George's and York House, got funding

while many east side Vancouver schools, who needed the money the most, were shut

out. So were Surrey schools, Nanaimo schools, Burnaby schools, inner-city

schools across this province — all left out.

To the Solicitor General: it was his program. How can he justify a

playground program that gives handouts to elite private schools and leaves out

the neediest schools?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's an interesting question from

the Leader of the Opposition, who has a long career in public education. It's

ironic that during the decade that the member's party was actually in

government, they did zero to help parents in British Columbia with playgrounds

in this province. And let's be clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. We've said that

there are gaps, and there needs to be a look at the criteria. In fact, the

Solicitor General and I have already discussed how we will move forward with

those criteria. But I'll make this point — $7 million, the first time ever in

British Columbia, to help parents with playgrounds.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Well, let's take a look at a couple of the

schools that the government money went to. The annual tuition at York House is

between $12,000 and $14,000. At St. George's it's $13,000 to $16,000.

[1415]

Let's take a look at St. George's own website and see how the

government's supposed needs-based handout is helping that school. St. George's

has two gymnasia, an indoor swimming pool, three Plexipave tennis courts, four

outdoor basketball courts, a full fitness centre and a multi-activity

playground.

Again, my question to the Solicitor General: will he admit, after

two botched attempts, that his government's playground program is broken, it's

unfair and it certainly isn't needs-based?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear. Today across British Columbia

over 182 schools and organizations are receiving grants to help them with their

playgrounds. That is something we are proud of.

Maybe it's time for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and

say definitively whether or not she supports independent school education in

British Columbia. I urge the member opposite to stand up. We believe in choice,

we believe in independent school opportunities, and we're going to continue to

support independent schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The minister left something out. There's one

thing that her government certainly doesn't believe in, and that's needs-based

funding to make sure that those who need it the most get it. Both times the

government botched this playground funding, and they actually required matching

funds from the schools. That's a big part of the problem.

Many of the neediest schools can't actually fundraise and match

those funds. The parents in those communities are already stretched. They're

already trying to fundraise for other things in the school. The opposition has

heard from many parents whose

[ Page 11614 ]

schools didn't even apply because they knew there wasn't a hope that they

could fundraise matching funds.

Again, my question to the minister…. This program is clearly

broken. Will the minister commit today to a full audit so we can fix it and get

the funds to the schools that need them the most?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, last week we said that indeed the

Solicitor General and I are going to look at the criteria to ensure that there

is equity of access for those schools, for example, that don't have a parent

advisory council. But let's be clear. The member opposite makes comments about

that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just remind the members opposite that

this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that parents have ever

received any assistance from any government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing, Member. Just take your

seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: This is the second time this government has

used an unfair process to allocate grants for playgrounds in B.C. — the second

time eligibility criteria have been used to prevent schools from applying and to

screen people out. So if you don't have a parent advisory council up and running

at your school, you need not apply. If you don't have matching funds available,

you're not going to get on the list. If you don't have the agreement of your

school to install the equipment if the grant is approved, you're not going to

get the grant.

Despite all those barriers to getting a grant, we see a news

release that crows about this being based on demonstrated need.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: Maybe the minister could clarify for the

parents who are watching. Is the demonstrated need that of the kids who need

playground equipment at their schools, or is it the insatiable need of Liberal

MLAs for photo opportunities in their constituencies?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: We've said clearly that we do have concerns.

There are schools in British Columbia that do not have parent advisory councils.

We have said that we are going to work with BCCPAC to ensure that perhaps we

will be able to find a way for those schools to apply. In addition, we will

reconsider the opportunity for those schools to apply without the matching

criteria.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, this is the second time now that

precisely those criteria have been used to keep those schools out of the

application process. So it comes a little bit late.

I guess how the world looks to you depends upon where you're

sitting. If you're one of those well-heeled schools with a lot of equipment

already and you've got a grant, I guess it's the icing on the cake. If you're

one of those schools that doesn't have any equipment at all and you're

struggling to get money together to buy equipment, I guess it looks like: "Let

them eat cake." That's what this government's process amounts to.

I think we have to ask the minister. Are you at a point,

Minister…?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

D. Cubberley: Are you at a point, Minister, where you are

prepared to set aside reward-and-punish games around the allocation of these

grants and put a fair process in place — and commit to it right now — that will

put a playground within reach of every child in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, last week we already made the

commitment to clarify the criteria and to make sure that there would be access

in place.

You know, perhaps the members opposite would like to say to the

parents at the Wells Barkerville PAC or the Chilcotin Road Elementary PAC or, in

fact, the Somenos Rural Traditional School or Brooke Elementary School…. It's

182 organizations across the province that have never received this kind of

assistance before. We will continue to make sure that parent advisory councils

and schools which do not have those councils have the opportunity to apply for

grants that have never existed in this province before.

[ Page 11615 ]

G. Coons: Perhaps the minister could make a few commitments

to the constituents in Prince Rupert. Here's another example of this botched

program. Kanata School, in my riding, was scheduled to receive $17,000, but it's

scheduled to close in September and lose its playground funding.

Another school, Pineridge Elementary, is desperately seeking

funding to build an accessible park for the community. There's not one

CSA-approved park in the city of Prince Rupert.

Will the minister ensure that Pineridge Elementary gets the

funding slated for the school about to shut down, so Prince Rupert can have at

least one CSA-approved park?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite knows well that he sent a

letter to the Solicitor General outlining his concerns. In fact, the Solicitor

General responded immediately, saying that he would refer that matter to the

gaming branch for consideration.

Let's be clear. One of the PACs that was mentioned there, I think,

was a benefactor of $50,000 through the Rick Hansen playground program that this

government created.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Perhaps the minister can take a leadership role,

then, today.

Pineridge's application to the minister was turned down.

Apparently, it wasn't needy enough compared to the elite private schools in

Vancouver. Prince Rupert has the third-highest level of vulnerability for

students entering school in the province. As the minister said, it did receive

$50,000 from the Rick Hansen Foundation. [Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Coons: I hope that the clapping goes after the minister

makes her announcement that she will commit to funding for the school. But….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second. I

can't hear you.

Members.

Member, start again.

G. Coons: Pineridge has got $88,000, including the money

from that foundation. But if the $100,000 is not accumulated by June of this

year, they will lose that funding.

Again to the minister: will she commit today to a real needs-based

program and make sure communities and schools that need it most get the funding?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite knows that the Solicitor

General received the letter and has referred it for consideration. But let me

remind the member one more time that the money that is in fact in the Rick

Hansen playground program was provided by $2.5 million from this government that

is being funded for that parent advisory council.

L. Krog: I represent the third-poorest constituency in the

province of British Columbia. I've got some of the neediest kids in the province

living in my constituency.

Prince George schools got 11 percent of the funding under this

program. Nanaimo got nothing — nothing. So to use the minister's own words,

perhaps she could clarify the criteria for me and my children and my parents

today. How is it that Nanaimo got nothing and Prince George gets 11 percent?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's read the criteria…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …that were actually posted on the Ministry of

Solicitor General under the gaming branch criteria. In fact, here is what the

criteria said. The school had to have "no playground equipment or with equipment

that is scheduled for removal during or shortly after the current school year or

equipment that has already been partially removed; support from the local school

authority…and matching funds already raised."

Those were the criteria that were posted on the website, and all

of the grants were determined in an independent process by the branch, as it

does with all other gaming grants.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I'm wondering what part of the concept of being

poor this government doesn't get. When you represent people who struggle every

day to feed and house their children, they don't have the time or the energy to

raise matching funds. They're out trying to do the best they can for their

children.

I'd like this minister in this House today to apologize to my

constituents and commit openly here today that Nanaimo will get the funding that

its needy children deserve.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, let's be clear. The member's passion

would have best been expended in the last decade when zero help was provided for

any playground in this province.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat again.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: We have recognized that we are concerned

about those playgrounds and those schools

[ Page 11616 ]

where there are challenges meeting these criteria. We are going to review the

criteria. We will revise the criteria, and we hope to expedite the second round

of applications to allow those schools also to apply.

J. Kwan: What is very clear is that these playground grants

are anything but needs-based. We don't have Plexiglas tennis courts in our

community, and we don't have swimming pools. Some of my principals call their

playground spaces, frankly, mud pits. That's what they call them. None of these

schools in my riding actually got the grants.

So my question to the minister is this. If she is going to rectify

this problem, will she commit today to ensure that every one of the schools that

need these playground moneys will be granted those dollars and announce that

today in this House?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we will simply reiterate the fact that

for the first time in British Columbia, $7 million will go to assist playgrounds

in schools across this province. We've said that we are going to look at the

criteria. We will make sure that we take into account those PACs that cannot

raise the matching funds and also may not have a parent advisory council. We've

made that commitment. We will meet with the groups in terms of BCCPAC and gaming

over the next couple of weeks and make those adjustments.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister said, "Well, don't worry," back in

March when the gaming grants were given on the basis of a lottery process. Now

in April they say there's a needs-based grant that is being given to schools for

playground purposes. Some of the neediest schools didn't get any of that

funding. My riding only happens to be the poorest riding in all of Canada, and —

guess what — those neediest schools didn't get any money. The minister says:

"Don't worry. We'll fix it."

Well, you know what? My question to the minister is this. Will she

admit that they were wrong and commit that every school in British Columbia

which should have gotten the grant will be granted that money today?

Hon. S. Bond: We've said clearly that there needs to be a

revision of the criteria. We are committed to doing that. We will have the

discussion over the next two weeks. We hope to expedite the next round of

grants. In fact, we will continue to ensure that playgrounds across British

Columbia receive support from this government for the first time in history.

S. Simpson: I had the opportunity to talk to the chair of

the PAC at A.R. Lord School, an inner-city school in my constituency of

Vancouver-Hastings. She told me how she had been a student at A.R. Lord, and

they have the same playground equipment that was there in 1971 when she was a

student. She told me how, over the past five or six years, they have put

together — through bake sales and small fundraising — $17,000 to support a

playground. Then she told me how they applied for this money and were dismissed

for some administrative glitch and got nothing.

So my question to the minister is this. The minister is saying

here that she's going to relook at criteria. Will the minister commit that those

schools that actually need the playgrounds will get them? No more talk.

Playgrounds for those kids.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the only talk that we've heard is from

the other side of the House. The action was actually on this side of the House.

For the first time in British Columbia, you know, parents….

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Minister.

Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, all of us want to make sure that

schools across this province have playgrounds for children. The difference

between this side of the House and that side is that when we heard that concern,

we took the opportunity to find $7 million. For a decade the members opposite

did nothing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This minister wants to talk about action. Well,

the action we saw is a $220 million tax break for banks. Then the kids of the

executives of those banks that go to York House and St. George's — they got

playgrounds. East side kids got nothing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just sit down for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

S. Simpson: That's the Liberal answer to action — money for

the most elite private schools in this province. The action British Columbians

want…. They want real needs-based action. They want schools in constituencies

like Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, like Vancouver-Hastings, like Nanaimo and across

this province where there are kids who need help…. They need those playgrounds.

Fund those playgrounds, and quit funding your friends.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 11617 ]

Hon. S. Bond: You know, week after week we continue to hear

from the members opposite that apparently they don't support options for

families that include independent schools in British Columbia.

Let's just look at a couple of the independent schools, the other

independent schools that actually got funding. Let's listen to this description.

Oh, it's the Sun Haven School in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Let's look at the

rationale for that school. In fact, their playground consists of a rope.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: This independent school — their playground

consists of a rope swing, an open field and forest area. No other equipment for

the children to play on or to develop physical skills. We're going to support

that school along with dozens of others across British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: This government's criteria were clearly off

base. My question to the minister is this. The minister says that she wants to

review the process. She wants to review the criteria. Well, did she not think of

that when she reviewed the list of where the money is going and saw that it was

going to St. George's and York House? Or did the fact that 11 percent of the

money is going to Prince George, which has 2 percent of the population, just

happen by coincidence?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure the member opposite is well aware of

the process used by the gaming branch in order to actually select grants and

grant programs. In fact, I did not see the list of schools. I did not make a

decision about the applicants. In fact, that process was done by public servants

in the gaming branch.

RELEASE OF REPORT

ON B.C. PLACE ROOF

N. Macdonald: Two years ago the NDP asked the government if

the roof of B.C. Place needed to be replaced before the Olympics, and we were

assured that the roof was fine. Now almost two years later, the government is

scrambling to put a new roof up at the last minute. Today we hear that we have a

price tag in the range of $200 million. With spending needed everywhere, the

public deserves to know the sequence of events that brought us to this point.

[1440]

In June of 2006 the government — this minister — received a report

on the state of B.C. Place, but the government has chosen to keep that secret.

Will the minister commit today to releasing that 2006 report? Will he release it

undoctored immediately?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased that the critic opposite

is finally taking an interest in B.C. Place. As I said before, the critic

admitted to me just a few weeks ago that he'd never been inside the place, so

I'm really pleased that he spent some time looking at this.

What I can say to the member and to the people of the province of

British Columbia — through you, Mr. Speaker — is that the government has made a

decision to keep B.C. Place. The government has made a decision to replace the

roof at B.C. Place, and we are awaiting a report from David Podmore, who is

doing a lot of work to bring some proposals and some recommendations to the

government which the government will then act on.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I think the whole world knows the state of

the roof on B.C. Place. They all saw it collapse.

What this minister was asked two years was: "Is that roof sound?"

And we were assured it was. It is not. The government is at this moment

scrambling to do a complete refit of B.C. Place. It is going to cost us more. It

will be limiting our options, and the public needs to know what information the

minister had. Will he release that 2006 report? Will he do it immediately?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: I wish the member would get new writers,

because he's been asking the same question for several weeks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer to the question is just what I've

said. David Podmore is presently working on some options for the government to

consider. The government will fully consider those options. When we get that

report from Mr. Podmore, we will do the work that we need to do. We'll make a

decision, and we will present that decision to the public.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Conroy: I have 1,726 petitioners here asking the

Minister of Health to keep the publicly funded beds at Castleview Care Centre

open and not revert them back to private beds that were converted on the

unfortunate death of Fanny Albo.

[ Page 11618 ]

C. Puchmayr: I have petitions here from the steelworkers of

British Columbia to the Premier and the Forests Minister asking for assistance

in the drastic job loss that is going on in this province today in the forest

industry.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second

reading debate of Bill 14 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the

information of members, continued discussion on the estimates for the Ministry

of Economic Development.

Second Reading of Bills

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

(PORT MANN TWINNING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

R. Austin: I rise today to speak to Bill 14, Transportation

Investment Amendment Act, 2008, and I'd like to make a few comments with regards

to this. Perhaps people are surprised that somebody who represents a northwest

B.C. riding is standing up to speak to a bill that involves the twinning of the

Port Mann Bridge and setting up a new Crown corporation.

[1445]

But I think it's important, as we see a province that is spending

huge amounts of dollars to build increasingly large infrastructure here in the

Lower Mainland, that there is a point of view to be expressed from those of us

who live in rural B.C.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

We know there is a continual rise in the population of those who

live in the Lower Mainland. Quite correspondingly, we expect any government —

not just this government — to make large investments for those population

increases. But what is very troubling is this. What we see here in this bill is

the creation of a new Crown corporation essentially to manage a public-private

partnership.

When a large investment is made of this magnitude, we want to see,

of course, that we get the best value for dollars. We want to ensure that those

parts of the province, such as the riding that I represent, the area of

northwest B.C. — where, in large part, our roads are falling apart at the

seams…. We want to make sure that whatever dollars are spent in the Lower

Mainland give good value so that we can then see some dollars, at least a few

crumbs, coming to northern British Columbia.

What we see in this bill is a new Crown corporation being created.

I have to ask the question: why do we need a new Crown corporation to do this?

We have many very talented bureaucrats who work within the Ministry of

Transportation. In fact, the Minister of Transportation has spoken very highly

of his staff and told us many times in the House and in the little House that he

is so proud to work with such a group of individuals who are able to run these

kinds of projects.

But we see a time here where we're not using the skills and

talents of the bureaucracy in this province. Instead, we're setting up a new

board. We have to ask ourselves: why is there a new board being set up?

I think it speaks a great deal to what's happening in terms of the

whole private-public partnership. We see private-public partnerships, and those

of us on this side have a very different view as to how they operate and what

benefit they bring to British Columbians. I want to just express for a moment

what our concerns are with regards to private-public partnerships.

We have seen many jurisdictions around the world that have gone to

P3s. Of course, the advantage of going to a P3 model is that for a large amount

of money, a big project like this, you get to keep the debt off the books. You

get to design something and bring in a private company that has to raise the

funds. They get to raise the funds at a much larger rate of interest than if

government was to raise the funds, and then they get to manage that and get

guaranteed certain moneys that come back to compensate them for assuming that

risk.

What we've seen in other parts of the world with private-public

partnerships is that many years after they take place, the chickens come home to

roost. In point of fact, the end result to the taxpayer is not that a major

infrastructure was built at the best price.

In fact, what we've seen in other jurisdictions around the world

is that it's sort of like taking a gigantic credit card on behalf of British

Columbians and saying: "Well, yeah, we're going to build this hospital or this

bridge or this road. It's going to cost X billions of dollars. We don't have to

assume that debt right now."

Somebody else assumes it. It's not on the books, so that makes the

government look better. Then that private company that builds that hospital or

road or bridge gets to charge a fee. By the time all those fees add up and the

payments that are made for however long the contract runs, whether it be 20

years or 30 years…. If you add up those total payments, they often come to a far

greater sum of money than if the government had actually borrowed the money and

run the project itself. Then at least the public would own that at the end of

the day.

I think for those of us who live in northwest B.C. and see a

project like this going ahead…. Seeing the kind of governance structure that is

set up, we are very, very concerned about it, because it's not going to save

British Columbia taxpayers in the long run when you have this done as a private

partnership.

As if that isn't bad enough, on top of that, what we see is a new

Crown corporation being created and another whole slate of people who have to be

paid inordinate sums of money. Obviously, they'll probably be friends of the

government who will be appointed to this board by the government. They will be

managing this project.

[1450]

I don't see why we have to have a new body to manage this project.

We have Partnerships B.C.

[ Page 11619 ]

Partnerships B.C. has been managing P3s. Why can they not carry on and do

this role? What this is, is an opportunity for the government to reward many,

many friends and put them on another Crown corporation — one that's not needed

and that will increase the costs. What does that do for all of us in northwest

B.C. or in the regions of this province?

Those of us who live in rural B.C. cry out for the crumbs left

over for those things that aren't spent in the Lower Mainland. We can understand

that to a certain extent. I'm not suggesting that we don't expect the majority

of public dollars to be spent on a region where the majority of the public

lives. That's obvious. But what we do expect is a sense of fairness that enables

us to have some kind of quality of life, whether it be on our road system or in

our health care or our education.

What we see with Bill 14 is an opportunity for the government to

waste money — money that maybe could come to those of us who live in rural

British Columbia and are seeking improvements to our road system.

Let me speak for a minute about one of the things that has been

asked for in an area where I live. Last year, as we all know, there was a

massive slide on Highway 16. The communities of Terrace, Kitimat, Prince Rupert

and others were cut off for several days as a result of this slide. Yet there is

another road that would have enabled us to actually use it had it been more

upgraded, and that's the Cranberry connector.

People who live in northwest B.C., the city of Terrace and others

lobbied hard to get this road, which is only a forestry road, to be upgraded to

give us a sense of safety so that if anything happens on Highway 16, depending

on where it happens, we will at least be able to have a safe route in and out

for all of those who live in northwest B.C. But what do we get? Almost nothing,

hon. Speaker. Almost nothing.

So when we see the kinds of dollars that are going in to create a

new Crown corporation here in British Columbia, to manage a large P3 project

such as the twinning of the Port Mann, it begs the question for all of us who

live in northwest B.C. Surely we can do this in a more cost-effective way.

Surely we can actually build these megaprojects down in the Lower Mainland and

still have a few dollars, just a few crumbs, that can come back to those of us

who live in northwest B.C.

Highway 16 is the only road that takes us west of Prince George

all the way to Prince Rupert. When we speak to those who work on the roads for a

living, who transport goods and services, they tell us very clearly that this is

a road that is literally falling apart. There are so many parts of it that have

been patched endlessly that it's simply not able to be maintained as a

high-quality transportation highway. So I don't think it's a good idea at all

for this government to be setting up another level of bureaucracy here to manage

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

I do think that another reason they are doing this, of course, is

to make sure there is an element of safety away from this P3. As I've mentioned

earlier, in five, ten or 15 years the chickens will come home to roost. At that

point people will be able to assess how P3s actually work. The bills will be

coming in, and we'll then finally realize what it costs for us to be actually

building these large infrastructure projects under the P3 model. At that point,

of course, it will be very useful indeed for there to be some distance between

those who managed the project and the government itself.

I think what we see here is another way for the government to set

up a system that enables them to benefit their friends with a cushy job on a new

Crown corporation board. It enables them to recognize that if things go badly

with this P3 model and if in ten years' time — oh, my goodness — the cost of

this bridge ends up being far more than it would have been, then at least they

can say: "Oh, it's not our fault. It's the fault of the independent Crown

corporation. They were responsible for doing this." In reality, of course, it's

the Minister of Transportation who should be held accountable for that.

I want to just say that I think this is the wrong approach. I

think this is something that's going to damage all of us who live in rural B.C.

I think it's not fair in terms of how the dollars are being spent.

[1455]

We would expect that after all these infrastructure projects are

built in the Lower Mainland, there would be sufficient funds for us to have an

adequate level of transportation on our highways that gives us a sense of

safety. We live in some of the areas that have the worst road conditions and the

strongest winters — far worse than anything experienced in the Lower Mainland.

Here we are witnessing a waste of money and a method of governance

by this government that is not going to bring this in at a specific price. We

don't even know what the costs are going to be, and I think it is simply wrong.

With that, I cede the floor to my colleague.

J. Brar: I would also like to speak to Bill 14. The member

just finished talking about the different perspective from the rural area when

it comes to building projects. We talk about bridges and roads. I bring a kind

of local perspective because I am, of course, from Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

I would like to start and look at the history, where the idea of

this twinning the Port Mann Bridge was conceived. October 2004 was the first

time that this government was going to face the first test about its policies,

because they had been in power since 2001. The test was the by-election in

Surrey–Panorama Ridge. That was a huge test for the Liberal government who had

been in power for almost three years at that time.

Of course, that by-election was very, very important, and the

government was looking for an issue they could stand on and could talk about

with the people of Surrey. When you try to short-list those issues, the first

issue could be education. The tuition fees at that time had gone up in many

areas 200 percent and in some areas over 300 percent. Tuition, education, was

not an issue this government could stand up and speak to the people of Surrey

about.

[ Page 11620 ]

The second issue you can talk about which actually impacts

people's lives is health care. As you know, Madam Speaker, and as many people

know, health care in Surrey is in a crisis. It's a very, very serious crisis. In

the ER people have to wait sometimes eight, nine or ten hours just to see a

doctor. Many patients just go back. There was no ground to stand on for this

government on health care to the people of Surrey and say that they have done a

great job. That was not the case as well.

So what else is left? The other issue which this government could

stand and talk to people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge about at that time was

probably the traffic congestion issue. That's where — somewhere in a remote

corner — the member at that time from Surrey or the minister at that time, the

Transportation Minister, conceived this idea of building what we talk about as

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

So that's the history. When we went into the election campaign and

there was a debate on that, I was very surprised to see that the government was

out there talking about a huge project — the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge

and many other components of it and the Gateway project — and they don't even

have a business plan to start with.

In my previous life I used to work as the executive director of a

non-profit organization called SEEDS, which is Self-Employment and Entrepreneur

Development Society, in Surrey, which basically trained new entrepreneurs. Even

if the project is $5,000, every client has to have a business plan. But here

we're talking about billions of dollars. Here we're talking about a project

which could go on for years, and this government had no business plan at that

time.

Of course, the government was not sure when they were going to

start. The government was not sure when they were going to finish. They were not

sure what the cost will be. They were not sure how the project is going to be

built. But this was the issue, a priority to this government, at that time.

[1500]

Now we're talking about after three and a half years, and we still

don't know and the Minister of Transportation still does not know when they're

going to start the project, if there's any project. The minister still does not

know many of the questions as to what the total cost of the project will be. The

minister still does not know many of the questions as to who is going to fund

this project, and they still don't have a complete business plan on this

project.

So the question: why, after three and a half years — when this has

been a priority for this government and this government has gone out and spoken

to everyone about this project — do we need a new Crown corporation? I don't

understand that. I don't understand the rationale for that. The only thing I can

understand is this. The minister wants to hide behind this Crown corporation.

We have seen that — a pattern of this government — whenever

something goes wrong. You talk about the Canada line. A lot of small businesses

are being hurt by building the Canada line on Cambie Street. The answer we have

heard many times from the minister and the government is that this is not their

job. "Talk to somebody else, because this is not our job. It's an independent

Crown corporation."

In the same way, what we see here is that after three and a half

years we have this new idea of having a Crown corporation — very, very

surprising. When the minister does not have the answer, it's very fine to hide

behind this new corporation. That's the purpose this Crown corporation is going

to serve. That's what I think at this point in time. Other than that, I would

like to hear from the minister what the rationale at this point in time is for

bringing in a new corporation.

The other thing I want to say is this. In Surrey we do have a

couple of bottlenecks when we talk about traffic congestion issues. When we talk

about the Port Mann, that of course is a huge traffic congestion issue. But we

have the other one, which is a relatively smaller issue. That is 72nd and 91.

That's a much smaller issue as compared to twinning the Port Mann Bridge, which

is a huge project going to billions of dollars.

Here at 72nd and 91 this minister had money from the federal

government under the program called the border infrastructure program. There

were six or seven components of the program, and one of the components was to

build an overpass on 72nd and 91, which is the second bottleneck when we talk

about traffic congestion in Surrey.

Guess what. This minister cannot provide leadership and resolve

the issue with the city of Delta and, probably, a private individual who wanted

access to the overpass. That project has been cancelled. That's a tiny, small

project, and this minister could not complete the project, could not provide the

leadership to finish the project.

Now we're talking about a project which is a huge-sized project,

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, going from a $2 billion estimate a few

years ago and going up to probably $6 billion now — about that. That tells you

the ability and the commitment of this government on the Gateway program. We

have been talking about it, as I said, for the last four years now, but we don't

have a lot of answers.

I have said in the past that when we talk about building something

like twinning the Port Mann Bridge and other components of the Gateway project,

one must have a complete, fully developed business plan, talking about every

possible component we need to include in that plan. But I am very surprised to

see that the minister, when he talked about Surrey, failed to talk about public

transit, which is a huge issue in Surrey.

According to the mayor of Surrey, the city of Surrey needs more

than 500 buses now. The time line which we have got under this bill or about

this project in the past goes beyond 2013 at this point in time. What it means

is that basically, there will be no other buses until we're past 2013.

[1505]

As the Surrey mayor said, some of the components of this project

even go up to beyond 2020. That's a lot of

[ Page 11621 ]

time. People need help now. Surrey's population has grown significantly

during the last ten years. We need help now. We cannot wait until 2013 or 2020.

People need that help now.

We cannot wait until 2013 or 2020. People need that help now, and

that component — the public transit piece, which is very, very important — is

missing from this discussion. Whatever we have heard from the minister until

today, that is not a piece…. Without that, I don't think that it makes any sense

or that it will make much sense or that the bridge will be very, very productive

for us because we don't have the transit plan to support the bridge.

The other thing is the Crown corporation. The purpose which I see

it will serve under this government is to manage a P3, because that's a new

trend we have seen. The announcement is made, and after an announcement is made

— after six, seven announcements — then you have a new announcement that this

will be built under a P3.

I have seen that about Surrey Memorial, where seven different

announcements were made by the minister and the Premier. After about two years

of announcement after announcement after announcement, what we heard was that

now it will be a P3 concept.

What we saw under that was that as soon as the P3 concept was

announced, the price of that project went up from $126 million to $151 million,

which is almost $30 million more. Also, there was a delay of one year. The new

out-patient hospital has been delayed by one year. The emergency room expansion

has been delayed by one year as well.

My fear is that after three and a half years of discussion…. A lot

of civil servants have spent a lot of energy and put together a lot of different

plans for this, and now we hand it over to a board which will be handpicked by

the Minister of Transportation, and they run with it. That does not make any

sense, because we have very, very professional people among the public servants

at this point in time.

My fear is that the Crown corporation, its introduction in midway

now…. What we will hear is that the project will be delayed further and the cost

will go up, you know, as whatever we have. It has gone up almost triple already.

I don't know how much it will go up because of this new component of a Crown

corporation.

People of Surrey, people on both sides of the Fraser River, are

very clear that we need to have a crossing on the Fraser River. I think that's

not something debatable. That is clear. Everybody knows that. But at the same

time as we need to do it as quickly as possible, we need to make sure that the

business plan is complete and that it has a strong public transportation

component to it, which is missing at this point in time.

People also want to know. I have spoken to many people in my city.

One of the components which we don't know is tolling — whether we are tolling

this bridge or not, whether we are tolling this bridge alone or other bridges in

the province — because this bill doesn't say anything about it. It's silent. I

know that if you toll….

The cost which was thrown by the minister, I think, about a year

and a half ago was $2.50 for one crossing. If somebody's working on the other

side, it will cost $5 per day. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money

for average families, for working families, and people are very, very concerned

about that.

The concern is this, Madam Speaker. The cost is one thing, but

usually what happens is that when you put a toll on any bridge, you need to

provide an alternative. There is no alternative in Surrey, and the Minister of

Transportation, who comes from Surrey himself, knows very well that there is no

alternative in Surrey if you twin the Port Mann Bridge and put a toll on that.

The only name which I heard from the minister until today as the

alternative route in Surrey is the Pattullo Bridge. Every person in Surrey and

probably in the Lower Mainland and probably in the province of British Columbia

knows very well, knows very clearly — you don't need to do any research — that

the Pattullo Bridge does not have any more capacity.

[1510]

Actually, the Pattullo Bridge needs to be replaced at this point

in time. It is the most dangerous bridge we have in the region, and that is

thrown as an alternative for twinning the Port Mann Bridge.

As I said earlier, it doesn't make any sense to bring in now, in

the midway, a Crown corporation. The only purpose it's going to serve is, first,

that whenever the minister does not have the question, the minister will use it

as a shield, as it has been used in the past.

The second purpose it will serve is that it will bring in and

manage the P3, which is actually, in the long run, going to cost more to the

people of British Columbia as compared to less, because the private corporation,

of course, needs to have profit out of this.

The third thing — what I've seen from this government in the past

— is that as soon as you introduce the P3 concept, the project is delayed. So

when we look at the benefit to the people of British Columbia, I don't see any.

The Crown corporation…. If it's going to benefit anyone, it will

be the minister himself. The minister can hide behind it. The minister can

appoint his own friends on the Crown corporation and give direction to them,

whatever way the minister wants to.

As I said before, there was a small conflict when we talked about

building a very small overpass on 72nd and 91 involving only one municipality,

the municipality of the city of Delta, and one individual. Only three people,

including the minister, and the minister failed to resolve that issue. So that's

why we see now that the only way the minister can control these things is to

have a Crown corporation, appoint his own friends to that and do whatever the

minister wants to do. Other than that, I don't see this Crown corporation

serving any purpose.

I would like to conclude by saying…. The other component, before I

finish that, is the environmental assessment. At this point in time, what we see

is that on one side the environment and climate change is high on the agenda of

this government. But when we

[ Page 11622 ]

talk about twinning of the Port Mann Bridge…. The level of environmental

assessment which is done is very, very low at this point in time. It does not

have the quality we need to ensure that this project will be a green project at

the end of the day, as the minister sometimes talks about. Having said that….

An Hon. Member: Do you support it?

J. Brar: I've said that from the very beginning, from the

very first day. I've said that from the very first day.

I need to have a complete, full business plan to say what I do.

You guys failed to provide a business plan until today. Is public transit part

of that? We don't know. Are you going to do anything before 2013? We don't know

the answer. What is the cost of this project? We don't know the answer. When are

you going to start? What is the answer? We don't know about those things. What

will be the tolling of one side? We don't know the answer.

We don't know anything about this bridge for the last three and a

half years. How can I support something I don't know anything about? Where is

the business plan? Now you want to hide behind it. That's what it is.

There is no plan in this. These guys talk about public transit.

The Surrey mayor, who is friendly to this party, is on the record as saying that

Surrey needs 500 buses today, and there's no comment on that from the minister.

The only comment we have is that they are going to do that after 2013, so that's

what it is.

I cannot support something baseless. I cannot support something

which is totally incomplete. I cannot. I have said from the very first day that

we need to see a full-blown business plan….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Brar: You did not have that when the by-election was

there, you don't have that today, and I cannot support something you don't have

complete information on.

I have said that the people of British Columbia from both sides of

the Fraser River are very clear that we need to have a crossing on the Fraser

River. But we need to have a complete business plan. We need to include the

public transit in that, because people want to see that the average person can

move around. People want to see that this bridge is fully utilized, that we can

maximize the benefit from this bridge.

[1515]

I would like to conclude, once again. The Crown corporation

concept is a bit surprising to me after, as I said, four years of discussions.

Suddenly, now we have a new body to basically manage this project. The only

purpose it's going to serve is, as I said before, that the minister now is free

to appoint his own friends to it and then will control the decision-making the

way the minister wants.

Of course, the second thing will be that, under this, whenever

something goes wrong, the minister has a shield to hide behind: "Oh, this is

their fault. Because it's a Crown corporation, it's independent."

It's very common. We hear that from this minister on Cambie Street

and many other projects. That's a very common response. This is nothing more

than serving the minister, not the people of British Columbia.

Having said this, I would like to conclude by saying that I cannot

support Bill 14.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I

would like to remind members of the House that if you wish to participate in the

proceedings, you must be sitting in your own seat.

C. Puchmayr: I came to work today, and a debate broke out.

So it's good to know that the other side is listening.

Bill 14 is certainly…. You read the legislation, and it's

interesting how suddenly there needs to be another governance body overseeing a

you need smaller government and that you need less government. Yet we've seen

the democracy of people in British Columbia…. We've seen their democratic rights

eliminated.

We certainly saw it with TransLink, where they had elected mayors

and councillors that sat on that governance board, people that you could at

least go to the polls if you weren't pleased with their decisions. You could

vote them out of office. You could create a campaign against them and vote them

out of office.

Here this government decides that they are going to have a

handpicked board that's going to overtake those very initiatives. They meet in

secret, they meet with virtually no requirements for disclosure, and they meet

in a way that shields them from the freedom-of-information and privacy process.

It's odd, when you look at people who like to tell you that they

believe in smaller government, that we've seen the Premier's office go from 36

people under the former NDP to over 200 in his office right now. That's almost

three times those who sit in this House and who are actually controlling the

business of the province without scrutiny, without debate, without adequate

disclosure.

We've seen some of the legislation that's come forward, especially

on the environmental legislation, where the alarm bells are being sounded by the

Information and Privacy Commissioner saying that legislation that prevents the

public from having disclosures of what is going on is not healthy legislation.

We have to agree with that. If we want to live in and enjoy the benefits of a

democratic society, we have to take what comes with that democratic society.

That's disclosure, that's freedom of information, and that's the ability to

[ Page 11623 ]

scrutinize the moves and the actions of the government.

We're seeing that eliminated as opposed to being built in a

stronger sense, and that's all from a government that ran the last campaign

saying that they would be the most transparent and open government, bar none.

They even had a couple of open cabinet meetings. That didn't last very long.

That was part of their image of this new openness and disclosure so that the

people of British Columbia could see the internal workings of government — the

cogs, the mechanisms and the machinery.

It was how we could follow the genesis of legislation from there

all the way to this table for hardy and healthy debate — and, hopefully, healthy

and hardy amendments to the debate — so that the public is informed, so that we

see where the legislation is coming from and so that, if there are concerns,

people can actually go and inquire. They can go to the Privacy Commissioner, and

they can make requests for information so that we have that transparent system

in place.

[1520]

It's really odd that suddenly there is this requirement for

another piece of governance that deals with the Port Mann Bridge and with the

twinning of the bridge. Certainly, you have to ask yourself what those reasons

are. I think that by asking what those reasons are, you need to look at some of

the other initiatives of this government.

You know, we looked at B.C. Rail when the B.C. Rail deal, the

900…. It wasn't sold; it was leased for 999 years or some-odd years. That's just

a shocking revelation — that we would give away a railway and then advertise it

and characterize it in such a manner as to lead people to believe that it still

belongs to us. Wow, will there even be a planet there when that time comes to

get that railroad back again?

Then to look at the cost of building…. If we look at the cost of

the Evergreen line, we look at the cost of the Millennium line, we look at the

cost of the Expo line, we look at the cost of the Canada line…. Just to imagine

for the small fee that CN Rail actually paid to lease that railbed for ten

centuries, what would that cost to build? You know, the cost to build that is

absolutely priceless. So somebody certainly got a bargain.

Then what happens right after the railway turned over? I remember

I was still on city council, and we received letters from concerned businesses

up in the north. They were concerned because they weren't able to get railcars

to their facilities any more. We received correspondence from people saying that

the quality of the railcars wasn't that great because a lot of the good rolling

stock, of course, was put on the north-south boundary.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Order, Member.

C. Puchmayr: Did I say something?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would remind you that the bill

under debate is Bill 14, the Transportation Investment Amendment Act. If you

could direct your remarks to that bill, please.

C. Puchmayr: I have been directing them to that bill. My

comments are with respect to the establishment of this other form of governance,

and why there seems to be a need to create this other form of governance only to

oversee a project that the government is proposing. So we have to look at other

examples of that. We have to look at other examples of where this government is

trying to take away the public scrutiny of this.

This bill, again, will take away some of the public scrutiny on

overseeing the development of that project. And by virtue of whoever's

handpicked to sit on this…. Again, does it take into consideration the needs of

the municipalities?

So this bill, I would have to ask myself and my municipality of

New Westminster…. This bill is going to impose sort of a different governing

body. Who will they represent? What are their terms of reference? What is the

business case that is being put forward for this? Is it purely to see that you

can get an outside developer to come in and build this project, build it in the

3P model and build it for profit? Or is it to really look at the long-term

growth of the Fraser Valley, of the Cascadia airshed strip that we live on, to

ensure we have adequate goods movement and traffic flow, but also, that we don't

create further accumulations of greenhouse gases?

Again, you have another entity that is taking the public input,

the public disclosure and the public participation out of it. It concerns me

when you have a board or a panel that is handpicked by the government, that is

really doing the work of the government, but they don't have to come into this

House and give a disclosure to the people of British Columbia and to the

official opposition so that we can actually ensure that it's a model that is

necessary and is actually paying dividends for the people of British Columbia.

That's being stripped from this by the introduction of this bill.

That is certainly a concern on this side. It's a grave concern on this side.

[1525]

The thing that happens when you sort of privatize…. We're seeing

some examples of it in England now. One of the original examples of

privatization was under Boris Yeltsin in Russia when he handed a lot of the

Crown corporations over to the business community to run, and it was a colossal

failure. People became millionaires overnight — I'm not saying that this will

happen here with this — but it became a colossal failure. It created a greater

cost of providing services for the people of the country, all at the expense of

the people of the country so that a few people could profit from it.

Again, you know, with this government I always have to be guarded

and ensure in my debate that we're bringing in legislation that has, at the end

of the day, the ability for a full and complete scrutiny by the public and by

the Privacy Commissioner. I certainly don't see that in this type of

legislation.

[ Page 11624 ]

There are some needs that we certainly have with respect to goods

movement. There is no doubt that we need to move goods through the province. My

city, New Westminster, didn't embrace but certainly understood the needs for the

north-south infrastructure program — the 91, 91A north-south goods-movement

corridor. We did so by making some sacrifices, but we understood that there

needed to be a parallel movement of goods on both the north and south sides of

the Fraser and that it had to be implemented with some incredible mitigation so

that we didn't have rat-running and people abusing the small, fragile

neighbourhoods when we were encouraging more traffic to go into those areas.

When you do the Port Mann, you have to look at what has the best

impact on the environment, what has the best impact on those communities that

now don't have a voice any more in controlling the flow of traffic in their

areas. So what I look at first of all is the air quality issue. If I were to

build a bridge as significant as a bridge across the Fraser River or doubling

the capacity across the Fraser River, the first concern has to be: what is it

going to do to the air quality? How do we get goods from Penticton into

Vancouver and down to the docks but do so without creating greater pollution in

the airshed?

You have to look at some kinds of trade-offs. Here's a government

that just introduced a cap carbon trade and cap-and-trade legislation and a

carbon tax. Now look at the impacts of that type of a bridge development. If

you're going to move trucks quicker over that corridor, wouldn't it be prudent

to try to move more people into transit, into a type of a rapid transit model,

so that there's an incentive for people to get out of their cars, get on to a

train or a SkyTrain or some form of rapid transit and use a new corridor and a

new bridge over the Fraser River?

What you've done now is you've taken steps to protect the

environment in that very sensitive Cascadia airshed. You've also taken people

out of vehicles and started the mitigation on the communities that would be

affected by a huge volume of additional cars going through that community if you

were to implement other means of building that bridge.

If you're now giving the private sector the ability to provide

that service for you by setting up this type of a board, how are they going to

maximize profit on building that type of a bridge? Are they going to be going

after the trucking community and trying to gouge them for moving over the

bridge? I don't think that's a really good idea if we're talking about goods

movement and the viable economics of Penticton, the Kootenays and Vancouver. No,

that may not be a good idea. So what would an independent builder do?

[1530]

They would look at a toll, of course. A toll would have to

maximize returns. So how would they best maximize that return? I guess more

single-occupancy vehicles, because it's the vehicle that's actually tolled.

You're not tolling the cyclist. Maybe they will toll the cyclists, but it's

usually the vehicles all over the world with the little bar codes on the window.

That's where you actually create your profit base and your volume of monetary

return, and the tolling is by vehicles.

We now have conflicting issues here with respect to the

environment, the airshed and the ability and rights of a private proprietor that

builds that bridge and needs to get a 25- or 30-year return out of that. The

best return for that individual will be single-occupancy vehicles.

The bridge could very well be built in total conflict with what

the government is now trying to project — this new greenwash green policy. Why

can't there be a board that consists of cyclists, pedestrians, transit users,

the mayors of the affected communities — the mayors of Vancouver, of the

Tri-Cities and of New Westminster? Why can't this group of people get together

and sit down and look and say: "What are the issues here?"

The issues are that we don't want to create more pollution, but we

need to move people and need to move goods. So what solutions would they come

to? If there's no profit in it for them and if it's merely to do something

that's good for the community, they may not go with tolling. They may not go

with expanded use of single-occupancy vehicles. They may go with more HOV lanes

and a streamlined transit system, rapid transit system or automated transit

system, over that bridge — totally inconsistent.

You have two things going against each other. You have a company

that needs to profit for their investors, which is…. You know, it's not a dirty

word. I guess that's free enterprise. Somebody gets a bunch of investors

together and says: "Look, we're going to build this bridge. Here is what I can

do for you. I can maximize your profit. I can build a whole bunch of

single-occupancy vehicle lanes, and here's the return you'll get." Or you could

say: "Well, the real return we need is a cleaner environment and a cleaner

airshed, so we need to build a different type of model here."

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Now you have the environment coming up against the market, which

is: how can I make a profit for my investors who I've already guaranteed a

certain amount of return over ten, 25 or 30 years in the bonding formula?

When you have those types of debates that you need to have, you

can't not factor those in there. You can't be blind to the reality that they

conflict with each other. They absolutely conflict with each other.

If we're talking about this new green direction and green

environment, why aren't we setting up a green twinning plan — one that has less

impact on the communities, one that moves people, one that doesn't put pressure

on the wetlands and the green spaces, and one that has alternatives to cars and

yet is still able to move the goods from the Alberta border to the ports of

British Columbia so that we can have a good, strong, vibrant export market as

well?

This doesn't do it. I'm sorry. This will not do it. As soon as you

have somebody going in there building a project for capital return for their

investors, those

[ Page 11625 ]

things are secondary. I'm sorry. When you have a race for profit, those

things don't equate. That's not part of the argument.

Look at how long people have been trying to say that global

warming is a hoax. Look at the scientists who used to say that, who have come

over to the green movement because they feel guilty that they were actually

misleading people on what's happening to the environment.

[1535]

Now you have profit going against what could be a green bridge. If

you go into this type of governance, I'm afraid you're not going to get a green

bridge. You're going to get a bridge that has to maximize the profits for that

investor for 20, 30 or 40 years — whatever the agreement ends up being. That's

the wrong way to go.

The cleaner, cheapest way — the way that will create less damage

to the lungs of the children and young people who live out in the Fraser Valley

and the seniors who live out in the Fraser Valley — is to build a green model,

to look at a green model. This takes that out of the equation. This completely

takes that out of the equation, because no one is going to come along and build

something that they can't maximize their return and their profit on.

Living in a community that is inundated with traffic, New

Westminster, with 300,000-plus cars a day going through my city Monday to Friday

— every day — because we're in the absolute dead centre of Metro Vancouver….

Living in an area like that, I would put a more people-and-environment approach

to this.

I'm sure a lot of those communities around there would as well,

not only because they're in the heart of it. They may not experience the same

amount of traffic. But it's logical, and it's what everybody is talking about

these days. It's less pollution in the airshed.

The producer of the bridge — is that producer going to now pay a

carbon tax for all the extra cars that that proprietor has to put over that

bridge to make a profit for investors in New York and other parts of the world?

No, I don't think so.

There are already huge exemptions to some of the top 30 polluters

in the province. They're already exempt from a lot of the green legislation. Who

knows what will happen when all of this other legislation goes privately behind

closed doors? We won't even know what regulations or who's involved in drafting

those regulations.

The airshed is a very important issue. I know that often there

will be weather warnings, and they'll go as far as Hope. You hear that people

living in Hope with respiratory problems are being warned not to go outside that

day or that week because of the air inversions and the noxious gases that are

building up in that valley. If somebody isn't looking at that when they're

looking at twinning the Port Mann, something is really disingenuous in this

House. That is probably going to be one of the largest contributors to

greenhouse gas if we don't build that bridge properly.

Once we allow the market to dictate the profit over that bridge,

eventually that bridge will be full, and there will be no farmland or very

little farmland left. It will be like parts of California where it's just being

gobbled up or parts of Chilliwack where it's literally coming out of the ALR and

turning into condominiums and houses.

Once that's gone and everybody is moving out into those areas

because real estate may be cheaper, we're going to have to twin it again. We're

going to go to the same model, and it will be the same proprietor saying, "Jeez,

I can get you a deal like I got on that last one," and now we've got 15 lanes of

cars going over that bridge.

So we need to have the right focus. If we're sitting in this House

or rising in this House and talking that we care about the environment and care

about the airshed…. This model of this bridge is a disingenuous example of that.

With that, I will end my comments.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to stand in

my place and add a few comments in relation to Bill 14, the Transportation

Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008. As I start, I would note

that there's been some discussion about what this bill is related to. I would

note that in brackets in the name of the bill, it talks about the Port Mann

twinning, but I find it interesting that when you read through the bill, in the

actual bill itself, nowhere does it talk about the Port Mann twinning. I think

it references "bridge" once in the entirety of the bill.

[1540]

So what is the bill about if it's not about the title? Well, I

think the bill has a lot more to do with the government's ideological

preoccupation with privatization. We know that this government has that

preoccupation, and it's particularly interesting that this government and this

minister in particular would be looking to create more bureaucracies by creating

the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is the Crown corporation

created by Bill 14.

I'd remind people that in a previous incarnation, this was the

minister who was responsible for deregulation, and he went on and on in those

days about cutting regulations. Now, of course, he's the minister who's looking

to create more bureaucracies. I suspect that when I look at that, it makes

sense. I understand that. I understand that what Bill 14 does is add another

layer to shielding this government from being accountable for their actions.

This government has a track record of doing everything they can do to not be

accountable for their actions.

Frankly, the Minister of Transportation is one of the leading

lights when it comes to trying to not be accountable for his actions. You know,

we just have to look. Most recently we saw it with B.C. Ferries and the pay

raises in B.C. Ferries. The minister gets up and says: "Oh, I don't like those

pay raises either, but there's nothing I can do about them."

Well, somebody should remind the minister that there is one

shareholder for B.C. Ferries, and of course, that shareholder is the people of

British Columbia represented by the minister. I'm sure that if the minister

[ Page 11626 ]

wanted to deal with those pay raises, he'd have dealt with them. But that

would have required a level of accountability by the minister that he's

hard-pressed to show.

You know, this is a question of accountability, and Bill 14 is an

accountability question. So what about accountability? We, of course, also saw

as part of the privatization — and my argument would be that Bill 14 is about

advancing privatization — this government and this minister basically rip

authority away from local mayors and local councils with TransLink and give it

to his friends, with a private board appointed essentially by him. So that's

what we have.

Now he has privatized planning of transportation in the Lower

Mainland, and that was just another removal of accountability. This is the

minister who, whenever TransLink does anything, will say: "Oh, it's not me; it's

TransLink. I'm not responsible for it." Of course, it's his board that he put in

place that will in fact do the work and call themselves TransLink — not the

mayors and not the councillors who are accountable.

So this is the issue. This is the minister who is full of bluster

in this House whenever he gets an opportunity, but when you really look past it,

sometimes you've got to really wonder whether the minister has the courage of

his convictions to stand up for the stuff that he believes in. Not so sure of

that.

Let's talk about that a little bit. It's quite relevant to Bill 14

because Bill 14 creates an infrastructure. It creates an infrastructure that

allows the minister to be less accountable on all of these matters. Let's take,

for example…. The government rammed through the Canada line when, in fact, the

priority was to be the northeast sector. Everybody agreed the northeast line was

to be the priority, but the government chose to ram the Canada line through

first.

Canada line was clearly on the list — there's no doubt about that

— but it certainly was not the top of the list. The Evergreen line, the

northeast sector, was the top of the list, but the government chose not to do

that.

What did they do? They avoided, and they avoided, and they avoided

supporting the Evergreen line, the northeast line. Now the minister was up…. I

saw him the other day, making announcements about which route it would be. We're

all pleased to see that, and I know the people who live in that part of the

province are hopeful that this time it might actually result in building it.

I note that the minister doesn't want to talk about the fact that

if they hadn't killed the Evergreen line, the northeast sector line, it would be

operating today. If it wasn't for this government's irresponsible action, that

northeast line would actually be functioning today. But that's neither here nor

there as far as this bunch is concerned.

[1545]

Let's talk about promises. I just heard the minister talk about

promises, and I think that's important. We should talk about promises. Let's

talk about the promise not to sell B.C. Rail. That was a promise. I seem to

remember the government making that promise. The government said first of all

back in the '90s that it was going to sell B.C. Rail. Then, of course, they lost

an election on that one. So they came back in 2001 and said: "Oh no, we won't

sell it." But lo and behold, they sold it. It was a broken promise and a bad

deal, but this is a government full of broken promises and bad deals. That seems

to underlie this government's action.

Let's talk about what the bill does. What the bill does is create

a structure for public-private partnerships. That's essentially what it does.

That's okay. It does raise a question here about what the role of Partnerships

B.C. is. What is the role of Partnerships B.C.?

Partnerships B.C. was put in place. I believe its executive

director, its CEO or whatever the title that Mr. Blain has…. I haven't checked

in the last while, but I think he was just about the highest-paid person in

government — to run Partnerships B.C. That's okay, but you would think that

maybe Partnerships B.C. would have the capacity to do the kind of work that the

Transportation Investment Corporation has been set up to do. But apparently not.

I suspect the reason for that is that when you get to looking at

what the premise behind public-private partnerships is supposed to be, you

realize where this thing starts to unravel for the government. That's why the

Transportation Investment Corporation gets put in place. The argument around

public-private partnerships is supposed to be that you bring in the private

partners, and you pay a premium for that, but they accept a degree of the risk

in order for that to occur. The private partner takes risk, and in return for

that, there's a premium.

Well, what we know is that almost without exception, private

partners don't have the capacity to borrow at the same kind of preferred rates

that government does. That's a reality. So it costs more. Also, of course,

there's always the profit margin in there, as there has to be with private

partners. That's their reason for being. So it should be. The profit margin is

there as well. So they have to build that in — something that isn't there

necessarily when something is done in the public interest by a public player.

That's what is supposed to happen. The trade-off is supposed to be

that the private partner takes the risk. The private partner does the job, and

they make their profit. We pay some premium for that. There's the trade-off. In

return for that, among other things, we trade ownership of the asset. They'll

say that somewhere down the road we may acquire the asset back, and in some

cases, that may be the case. We'll look forward to seeing contracts at some

point that actually tell us that.

But the problem here — and I suspect this is the reality of the

case — is that it's getting pretty hard to find those private partners who have

the wherewithal and the capacity to borrow that money and to borrow it at rates

that they can afford. So what the private partner now says is: "Government, you

create a Transportation Investment Corporation. You create this corporation

that's put in place, and this corporation" — which the bill says — "has the

capacity to in fact do that borrowing and to put that money in place."

[ Page 11627 ]

What happens, in fact, is that we now have a situation where a

Crown corporation begins to borrow the money on behalf of those private partners

and presumably takes a share of the risk. We're borrowing the money, so we're

taking the risk on this. So it starts to raise a question about the P3s — that

the trade-off was supposed to be the risk for the profit.

Well, now we're all of a sudden taking the risk too. That's what

Bill 14, I see, is doing. It begins to put in place a situation where, in fact,

we take the risk rather than the private partner, which was supposed to be their

part of the deal. That was supposed to be what they did.

This becomes increasingly a problem, because when you look at

transportation plans…. I would call your attention, hon. Speaker, to one of the

most recent announcements of the government. The government announced quite a

grand plan, $14 billion of a grand plan for transportation. What we know is that

in that $14 billion plan it was announced…. There wasn't any money actually

attached to it, but it was announced. So the rhetoric was pretty good — no

dollars, but lots of rhetoric.

[1550]

What we start to see is: where are the dollars? So the government

of British Columbia says about $4.7 billion of that plan is to be paid for by

this government, by B.C. taxpayers through the government, and then another $3

billion and a bit by the federal government. Then TransLink and local

governments will pay their share.

So we say: where is that $4¾ billion? Hon. Speaker, I've got to

tell you that I was talking to somebody who spent time in this House, a long

time as a member here, and they said: "Whenever you hear promises from the

government around the good works and things they're going to do, take a look at

the budget and see if there's any money attached to it. That's always a good

place to start. Look for the money."

We look in this budget that just came through, the budget that

we've just dealt with, and what do we see? Well, for transit we see about $826

million for roads and bridges in this budget, but for the $14 billion transit

plan, we see $63 million for this year. What do we see here? One year, $826

million for roads and bridges; over the next four years, about a quarter of that

in commitments for transit. That's why people in the northeast sector are

concerned. They can read the budget too. What they see is more hollow promises.

You know, these commitments of the government have a time frame

that runs to about May 13, 2009 — the day after the election. If they can get

through that, they're all good to go.

What we have here is a government that is talking about a plan

that there's no money for. We have a government that says the federal government

will give us in excess of $3 billion. What have we seen? I think the commitment

that we saw from the federal government was about $60-odd million. That might

have been over two years too. I'm not quite sure. That's the government. They're

on a long way there. If we're going to get this built by 2020, the time line on

this, we're sure going to have to see a whack of money in later years. But

that's really not what this is about. This is about empty promises, because

empty promises are what we have.

As we move and look at this, we really need to ask ourselves: what

is the public interest in all this? I think that has to be the question we ask

ourselves on any piece of legislation that comes forward. Is it fair

legislation? Is it effective legislation? Is the public interest served by the

legislation?

Well, Bill 14, in terms of the public interest, creates a

bureaucracy that…. It's dubious at best as to why we need this, until we start

to realize that the reason we need this is because the private partners that

this minister and other ministers have, in this sort of ideological bent for

privatization of British Columbia…. They need to have the government underwrite

the private partners, because those private partners are saying: "We're happy to

own all your public assets, but we really don't want to have to pay for them, so

you better set up the financing for us, and it better be at preferred rates."

In terms of transportation, we create the Transportation

Investment Corporation as the tool to provide that for the private partners. If

we're going to do private-public partnerships, then we should at least have a

situation where the private partners step up and do their bit. Their bit says

that they come, they take their risk, they borrow their money, and they make

their investments. This bill says: "You get a pass." That's not in the public

interest. That doesn't serve the public interest well.

[1555]

I know that we'll get an opportunity and look forward to talking

about this when we get to committee stage and talk about the detail as to what

this bill does and doesn't do, and I look forward to that discussion absolutely.

At the in-principle stage, the question has to be asked: does this bill serve

the public interest? Does it serve the public interest to move forward on this?

Does it serve the public interest even on the projects that it purports to

support?

I was at a meeting yesterday. I had the opportunity to meet with

some people from the Burns Bog Conservation Society. We know that they've raised

concerns about the South Fraser perimeter road. We'll look forward to seeing how

that all plays itself out as to whether the bog gets protected without too much

incursion on agricultural land. That is the debate there, so we're going to see

what they do there.

We have a government here, when we're trying to look at strategies

to get trucks off the road and looking at strategies and talking about the need

to move to road-to-rail strategies for the movement of goods…. Of course, that

would have been a much more effective thing to do. If we hadn't sold B.C. Rail

for a song, then we actually could have developed a road-to-rail strategy. Then

we could have developed a road-to-rail strategy.

But this government is sort of: "Just pave it." This government

has one mentality. This minister is the pave-it minister.

It's interesting. The message that I got, I would say, from the

folks at the…. There were a number of

[ Page 11628 ]

experts. There were a number of scientists out there talking about the bog

yesterday. They were talking in quite a bit of detail about the biodiversity and

the ecology of the bog. Of course, to a person, those scientists said that the

biggest threat to the bog was the provincial government.

What did we hear about? I listened to Vicki Huntington, a

councillor in Delta, out there. Vicki Huntington is certainly no New Democrat.

Vicki Huntington talked about the biggest threat to the bog being the Liberal

government in British Columbia. The biggest threat is the Liberal government in

British Columbia.

To a person, folks were saying that's the risk to this bog — this

government. Quite remarkable. So what does the government do? It adopts Bill 14.

And what does Bill 14 do? It creates the Transportation Investment Corporation.

You know what we can be assured of? We can be assured of this

investment corporation…. When this corporation is investing in projects that

nobody in British Columbia but their friends wants, what we will see is the

minister saying: "Oh, I have nothing to say about that. It's a Crown

corporation. It's distant from me. Don't ask me to do my job. It's distant from

me."

It's another level of this government and this minister in

particular essentially walking away from their responsibility, walking away from

accountability, walking away from transparency, but of course we've seen the

litany of this.

The list is very long, and getting longer by the day, of this

government walking away from responsibility — whether it's these matters or it's

the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources being embarrassed by the freedom-of-information and privacy

commissioner into pulling back on some of the most egregious attacks on that act

that we've seen, trying to hide things from people in British Columbia. They

were embarrassed to the point where they finally had to pull back on that — and

a good thing. We were pleased to see that after raising those issues, but there

we go. That's those ministers.

Who knows? Maybe somebody will embarrass the Minister of

Transportation into rethinking Bill 14 too, but I'm not so sure that will

happen.

Bill 14 is a bill that has only one purpose. The purpose is to

advance an ideological notion of this government to privatize as many British

Columbia assets as possib