British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, November 6, 2007 (38th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H1106pm-04) (H1106pm 04)

H1106pm-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC THIRD SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

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

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

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

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 9105 Statements..................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 9105 Message of appreciation Mr. Speaker (Hon. B.

Barisoff) Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ......................................... 9105 British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2007 (Bill M225) C. Wyse Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 9105 Surrey Business Excellence Awards D. Hayer B.C. Electric Railway S. Hammell West Vancouver spirit square J. McIntyre Deepak Binning Foundation R.

Chouhan Healthy eating programs for children V. Roddick Cowichan sweater D. Routley Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 9107 Government response to gang violence C. James Hon. J. Les L. Krog M. Farnworth Pope and Talbot bankruptcy proceedings B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman K. Conroy C. Evans Reorganization of Children and Family Development Ministry N. Simons Hon. T. Christensen M.

Karagianis Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................... 9112 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2006-07 Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 9112 C. Evans Hon. R. Thorpe

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 9112 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued) On the amendment (continued) M . K a r a g i a n i s D. Chudnovsky C . P u c h m a y r H. Lali B . R a l s t o n D. Routley S. Simpson

9105 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce a long-term friend, Deepak Binning's father Paul Binning, the founder of the Deepak Binning Foundation. He's in the gallery. Please join me to welcome him. R. Sultan: In the manner of a delayed acknow- ledgment, yesterday afternoon we had in the pre- cinct four organizations devoted to the perpetuation and health of our outdoor environment — namely, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Guide Outfitters of B.C. and the B.C. Trappers Asso- ciation.

In coming here, they presented the member for East Kootenay with the Canadian Outdoor Heri- tage Alliance Award for initiatives that benefit all Canadians in creating the B.C. outdoor caucus and for his private member's bill on the heritage right to hunt and fish, passed by this Legislature in 2003. Would the House please acknowledge these four organizations. D. Hayer: Today I have the pleasure of introdu c- ing over 70 grade 5 students from Surrey Christian School, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're joining with their teachers, Kara Bisschop, Miss Jackie Hofstede and Miss Janice MacDonald.

Also, they have many volunteer parents who have helped them to come over to Victoria to learn about how the govern- ment works. Would the House please make them very welcome. [1335] Statements MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have a note from our colleague Sindi Hawkins. "Dear colleagues and friends, "It would be hard to find a better group of people to work with. Both my colleagues in the chamber and the staff have been supportive and encouraging. I've received calls, notes, voic e mail messages, etc., which have truly lifted my spirits.

"Knowing that so many of you are keeping me in your thoughts and prayers helps me understand that I am not alone and that there are many of you who are walking beside me as I go down this road once more. "Many thanks to each and every one of you." From our colleague Sindi Hawkins. [Applause.] I hope Sindi was watching. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BRITISH COLUMBIA RAIL CORRIDOR SAFETY ACT, 2007 C. Wyse presented a bill intituled British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2007. C. Wyse: I move the introduction of the British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act for first reading. Motion approved. C.

Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to rise today to introduce a bill that protects the safety and economic security of livestock owners in British Columbia whose grazing land runs ad jacent to publicly owned rail corridors, by placing several obligations on any railway operating on those corridors. First, a railway must ensure that there is adequate fencing that would prevent livestock from entering rail corridors. Second, a railway has to construct adequate farm crossings for farm purposes. Third, a railway must contact landowners when their livestock has been hit by a train.

The bill also mandates that rail operators manage the spread of invasive weeds. This bill will ensure the same level of safety and economic security for livestock owners in B.C. that existed before the Liberal govern- ment sold the operation rights of the former B.C. Rail. I move the motion. Bill M225, British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2007, 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) SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS D. Hayer: Each year I rise with pride to speak of the success of businesses, busine ss people, not-for-profit organizations, their employees and volunteers and the recognition their successes receive in my city of Surrey. Last week I attended the annual Surrey Board of Trade Business Excellence Awards. Because there are so many businesses and not-for-prof it organizations within the city of Surrey, just to achieve nomination status is a victory.

I served on the board of directors of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce for many years and was its president from '96-97, so I know how important it is to recognize the contributions of all those organizations, their employees and their volunteers. With that, the 2007 Surrey Business Excellence Award winners and nominees are: first, the business person of the year was my constituent, Tom Sundher of Coast Clear Wood Ltd.; runners-up, Bruce Hayne

9106 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 of Thornley Hayne Creative Communications and Paul Wheeler of the Semiahmoo House Society. Not- for-profit association of the year, Phoenix Drug and Alcohol Recovery and Education Society; runners-up, Art Council of Surrey and DiverseCity Community Resources Society. Student entrepreneur, Plaxin Pro- ductions; the runners-up were two of the students from my high school, North Surrey Secondary in my constituency, Dandee Bags, Bonker the Clown, Leedylawns, Lesley Ann Wilson and Brandon Krueger, a 13-year-old.

The business with one to five employees, Notti Biscotti; runners-up, 5-Star Catering at Sunrise Banquet Centre and Façade Catering. A business with six to 20 employees, Common Exch ange; and runners-up, Honeybee Centre and Organic Grocer. The business with more than 21 employees, Patton and Cooke Co.; runners-up, Ram Construction and Zinetti Foods. New business of the year , Jobrox Solutions; runner- up, Peekaboo Beans and the Uptown Box Co. I ask everybody in the House to join me in congratu- lating all these businesses, their staff and their customers and the volunteers. [1340] B.C. ELECTRIC RAILWAY S.

Hammell: In Surrey, on the corner of the busy in- tersection of 152nd and 64th Avenue, there is a new green barn. Geographically, this new green barn is right in the middle of the city — a strange place for a barn. But if you look closely, you will realize that this is no ordinary barn. If you look inside, you will see the original B.C. Electric Railway car 1225, one of the old interurban trams — part of the first transit system operating in the lower mainland. In this railway barn a group of railway enthusiasts are restoring car 1225 and hope to run her from Newton to Sullivan station during the Olympics.

The Fraser Valley Railway Heritage Society is painstakingly refurbishing each component of the tram, from the nuts and bolts on the wheels to the slats of wood on the seats. There were originally 80 cars running on six lines in the lower mainland: the Burnaby Line; the Central Line ran from Vancouver to New Westminster; lines ran from Vancouver to Marpole, from Marpole to Steveston and from Marpole to New Westminster. The longest line ran from New Westminster to Chilliwack. These lines were shut down in the '50s, as people discovered the freedom of the car but had yet to discover road rage and gridlock.

All but seven of these cars were burned under the Burrard Street Bridge. The railway beds of this former transit system still exist, and one of the legs that is in use by the Southern Railway of B.C. runs past Scott Road SkyTrain station out the valley to Chilliwack. There is a movement around the world to reclaim old railway beds and create new community railway systems. Perhaps future light rail can be reconstructed from the past. They see th is as a new hydrogen railway. Could you all encourage these railway enthusiasts. WEST VANCOUVER SPIRIT SQUARE J. McIntyre: Spirit squares.

What exactly is a spirit square, you may well ask. Most every town and city has a park, a centre, a common public place that people traditionally enjoy, either on their own or with loved ones or friends and neighbours. Our notion of spirit squares, however, goes beyond a place for people to meet and spend leisure time. It focuses on uniting communities together, enabling people to explore, reflect and learn more about the various cultures and diversity within their own communities. It also emphasizes developing greener, healthier living spaces.

As the concept both unde rscores the importance of community gatherings and promotes a healthy lifestyle, it's my pleasure as the MLA for West Vancouver– Garibaldi to encourage and salute West Vancouver's in- terest in building a spirit square, which when completed will stand as a proud legacy of our province's upcoming 150th anniversary. This spirit square will be formed by creating a 325- square-metre atrium connecting the new community centre with the aquatic centre. It will adjoin the south plaza containing a dramatic rock fountain, the great lawn and informal seating areas.

Fully retractable walls will seamlessly connect the atrium, the heart of this new civic site, to surrounding outdoor gathering spaces that, combined, will hold 9,000 people. Plans for the north plaza, also part of this larger civic centre project, will include a musical garden with seating, chimes, wind gongs and talking tubes. This intriguing site will be further enhanced by displaying public art to be commissioned in partnership with the Squamish Nation.

I'd like members of the House to join me in applaud- ing and congratulating the efforts of the district of West Vancouver and extending a sincere thanks to all the workers involved in making this project, which for some is a dream, become a reality in our community. It's an outstanding exampl e of community partnership and innovative efforts. The creation of West Vancouver spirit square in the new civic atrium will be a place to bring people together. DEEPAK BINNING FOUNDATION R. Chouhan: Deepak Binning Foundation is a B.C.- based, non-profit society committed to the advancement of cancer research.

This fo undation was established in April 2000 by Paul and Jas Binning after the untimely death of their son at the age of 19. [1345] Deepak was not an ordinary young man. Even as young as two years, Deepak began to show that his life would be far from ordi nary, embracing his Punjabi roots and teaching himself to play the dhol, a tradi- tional Indian drum. Following in his father's footsteps, Deepak at the age of 14 played dhol with many big- name artists from India. He played all over North America and helped many organizations, including the Canadian Farmworkers Union.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9107 During the three years of his battle with cancer, whenever he felt strong enough, the first thing he would do was pick up his dhol and play it. Despite the challenges imposed by his illness, Deepak graduated in 1999 from H.J. Cambie Second ary School in Richmond. After a long battle with cancer, Deepak passed away on December 7, 1999. Since its establishment, the Deepak Binning Foun- dation has raised more than $300,000.

The money has been distributed to various charitable organizations such as the Cancer Society, Children's Hospital and Canuck Place in Vancouver. A couple of weeks ago the foundation committed to donate $250,000 to the Kelowna campus of UBC for community development scholarships. On behalf of th is House, I would like to thank Paul and Jas for their hard work to keep Deepak's memory alive. HEALTHY EATING PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN V. Roddick: Another first for British Columbia.

The B.C. school fruit and vegetable program, coordinated by Ann Britton, has won the Canadian Agri-Food Award of Excellence for education and awareness. I t i s t h e f i r s t o f a k i n d i n C a n a d a . I t b r i n g s B . C . - grown produce to B.C. children in a classroom setting, where they gain awareness of health benefits and learn about the fruits and vegetables that are actually grown in B.C. Administered by Lindsay Babineau and the B.C. agriculture in the classroom foundation, partnerships have been formed with the Overwaitea Foods group and the B.C. Dairy Foundation to showcase B.C. produce.

This program also goes hand in hand with the ActNow B.C. strategy. The World Health Organization states that our government commitment to supporting the goal of making B.C. the North American lead in healthy living and physical fitness is innovative and forward-thinking. In fact, the minister of state for ActNow and MLA for Surrey–White Rock was a keynote speaker at the third IUHPE World Conference on Health Promo- tion and Health Education just last week. Our province has a bold approach that is certainly being seen abroad as a vanguard in developing and delivery of successful programming.

By working with educators throughout the province, these programs have managed to capture the most important audience of all — our children. Healthy eating is imperative, because we still all have to eat to live. COWICHAN SWEATER D. Routley: What makes us proud of our commu- nity? Who is it in our expe rience that defines grace? What icon of culture can make us well up with the emotion of attachment, loyalt y, even identity? In the Cowichan Valley, one famous sweater fills all those roles. The Cowichan sweate r has been worn by prime ministers, presidents and the Queen.

Now, we in Cowichan suggest there could be no better vehicle for the expression of reconciliation than to integrate the Cowichan sweater into the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics. A little more background. They were traditionally made of local wools from sheep introduced by European settlers in the mid-1800s. This early economic partner- ship is, I believe, at the root of the loyal attachment to the sweater today. The raw wool was processed without chemicals, which allowed the fleece to retain much of its natural lanolin. Rain just rolls off a Cowichan sweater, and that's a good thing here in B.C.

Recently, with less local production of sheep and therefore wool, the Cowichan knitters have had to resort to imported wools but still seek the most lanolin-rich supply. [1350] As a boy growing up in Cowichan Valley, the sweaters were, to me, an ever-present reminder of our shared heritage. With their beautiful first nations de- signs and soft texture, they are embedded in and with the character of Cowichan.

In the words of the local newspaper, the News Leader and Pictorial, which put this excellent idea forward: "Each hand-crafted piece is as different as a snowflake." Queen Elizabeth II has one and so did Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Diefenbaker and even Bing Crosby. Our Premier and current International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge both have them. Emily Sawyer- Smith, a Cowichan knitter who has been making the sweaters for over 40 years with designs handed down from generation to generation within her family, knitted the Premier's sweater, whic h sports the Olympic rings flanked by maple leaves.

I think it would be a fitting tribute to our shared heritage and a worthy commitment to our shared future for the Cowichan sweater to be part of the Canadian Olympic team. They will march proudly into a west coast Olympics in an icon of Coast Salish culture, the Cowichan sweater. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO GANG VIOLENCE C. James: West Vancouver Police Chief Kash Heed, a well-respected veteran, says it's time to have a serious public debate about a regional police force to fight gangs. But the Solicitor General says that Chief Heed was out of line, that his comments were unhelpful.

Now we learn that even Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan thinks it's an important debate. With gangland killings on the rise, why is the Solicitor General, who has no policing experience, attacking people like Chief Constable Heed without even listening to them? Hon. J. Les: I want all members of the House to know that I am actually very proud of the initiatives that we've taken over the last several years to integrate police resources around the lower mainland. As well, I am very proud of the a dditional investments that we've been able to make in policing across British

9108 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 Columbia. Today we have 900 more police officers on the streets of British Columbia. Hon. K. Krueger: How many? Hon. J. Les: An additional 900. As well, we have approximately 600 officers in British Columbia who are involved in integrated policing so that we can have seamless law enforcement in our province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. C. James: I think the people living on the lower mainland would say right now to the Solicitor General that there's room for impr ovement.

Chief Constable Heed is simply saying that the fight against organized crime and gangland killings requires a public debate about regional policing. What is wrong with having a public debate and a discussion on the issue? It's a fair point, coming from a longtime veteran, but the Solicitor General said that he's simply out of line. What with gangland killings taking place daily, why is it out of line for a respected police chief to call for a debate and call for a discussion?

My question, again, to the Solicitor General: who should British Columbians trust — a police veteran who has experience in the field or a do-nothing Solici- tor General? Hon. J. Les: Well, the member opposite talks about regionalization. I guess that's amalgamation by any other name. So I would like the member opposite to suggest…. Is she actually in favour…? Is she advocating for the police force from Burnaby being amalgamated with the city of Vancouver? Is she advocating that the West Vancouver police department should be amalgamated with that of the city of Vancouver?

Are those the things that she's advocating? Is she advocating that the police force in Saanich should be amalgamated with the police force from Victoria? That's what she's talking about. If that's what she's advocating, I'd like her to let this House know. [1355] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. C. James: I'd like to tell the Solicitor General that this side of the House is in favour of having a discussion about how to actually address gangland issues today in British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Just take your seat for a second.

Continue. C. James: A gangster from Richmond known to police was gunned down in a restaurant last week. A crime boss and major player in the national drug trade was shot on a quiet street in Shaughnessy. Now two gang members were shot dead in a drive-by shoot- ing in the middle of Granv ille Street. The police are calling it "absolute madness," and that's a quote from the police. Will the Solicitor General finally admit that this government's strategy to fight gangs has to change? When will he start listening to people in the field, like Constable Heed, instead of attacking them and dismissing their advice? Hon.

J. Les: We have here another case of where the members opposite talk one tune on the one hand and actually talk about something else on the other hand. For example, several years ago when we invested another $122 million a year in policing, what did the opposition do? They voted against. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Solicitor General, just take your seat. Continue. Hon. J. Les: We have in British Columbia one of the most advanced police information-sharing sys- tems on the continent. We invested $40 million in that program. What did the opposition do? They voted against that innovation.

Every step of the way when we've taken progressive steps in British Columbia to lead the country in integrated policing, the NDP has been opposed. L. Krog: I would have thought that with the number of people murdered in the streets of our province in the last few days, the Solicitor General might have taken a more serious approach to what the public actually sees as a serious issue. It's clear to the opposition that the government wants to make po litical points here today instead of talking seriousl y about something that is actually important.

Seeing as how the Solicitor General doesn't seem to c a r e t o t a k e a d v i c e o n t h i s i s s u e , p e r h a p s h e ' d l i k e t o take the advice of a former well-known jurist in this province, who in 1994 said he believed it to be "impera- tive that a major crime unit be established for the lower mainland and for Greater Victoria so that intelligence and investigating information be shared." That would be the present Attorney General. It's very clear from Chief Heed's remarks and from Mayor Sullivan's remarks that it isn't working.

So I simply ask the Attorney General today: will he step up to the plate and tell this House what he's going to do today to stop the gangland violence in the streets of the lower mainland? Hon. J. Les: Well, I'm interested that the member opposite refers to the report from 1994. If my math is correct, I believe the NDP was in power for seven years

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9109 after that fact. What did the NDP do with that report? Nothing. Zero. [1400] When we came into office in 2001, we started putting in place the essence of that report, which was an inte- gration of police resources. That is in place today. Once again, they talk a toug h line, but they did nothing. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental. L. Krog: Well, I might remind the Solicitor General that it's not 1994. It's 2007. The face of crime in this province has changed sub- stantially since then. It requ ires a different response.

It requires a real response. The fact of all these killings in the last few days proves that the government's response is not working. Instead of turning our str eets into real-life gangster movie sets with real blood and real bullets, I want to again ask the Attorney General what he's going to do today. Since the Solicitor General doesn't appear to be interested in doing anything, what is he going to do today to stop the crime on our streets? Hon. J. Les: Well, once again, the hypocrisy of the members opposite is rather disappointing. Those mem- bers are all members of the federal NDP — every one of them.

In November of 2006 there was a serious bill in the House of Commons in Ottawa, which took away the op- tion of conditional sentencing for serious crimes. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: He hasn't finished yet. Members. Continue, Solicitor General. Hon. J. Les: And what did the federal NDP members of the House of Commons do, Mr. Speaker? They gutted the bill. Members here today are again talking tough, but their federal cousins in Ottawa are gutting the very legislation that would help us and give us the tools that we need to fight this crime. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. M.

Farnworth: I'd like to remind that former Liberal candidate — federal Liberal candidate — that the federal Liberal Party also voted against that. So he might want to talk to his federal cousins. But let's get back to the issue at hand, hon. Speaker. The fact is that this minister seems to say, "Business as usual" — that we're doing all the right things. Well, tell that to the families of the victims who were killed in Surrey. Tell that to the parents who are concerned about their kids being sucked into gangland violence.

Tell that to the deputy ch ief of police of Vancouver, who this morning said: "We are overwhelmed with the number of people out there that are involved in drug trafficking and are involved in gun violence, and we probably need a look at the scale of what we've got in order to deal with the problem the way we've got, as they did in Ontario." The need for more resources, hon. Speaker.

Will the Solicitor General commit to this House and the people of this province that, while this government is sitting on a $4.1 billion surplus, they will make the fight against organized crime and gangland violence a priority and get more resources on the street to fight this scourge and these thugs? [1405] Hon. J. Les: W e l l , M r . S p e a k e r , w e d o n ' t n e e d t o make this a priority. We already have. If the members would care to become informed on the issue, I'll just name a few examples of what we have done over the last several years.

We have turned over all traffic fine revenue to the municipalities of British Columbia. That is $58 million a year going to municipalities across the province. We have invested, on top of that, another $122 million a year in policing and hiring extra police resources across the province. As I said earlier, we've invested $40 million in a world-class police information management system across the province. It's not because we haven't invested. We have invested a lot of resources over the last several years, and the member opposite should know that. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. M.

Farnworth: The minister says it's a priority. Well, it's so much of a priority that neither he nor any other minister in this government could be bothered to pick up the phone to call the federal Immigration Minister and have a deportation order on a known organized gangland criminal who is walking the streets of Vancou- ver on $1,000 bail enforced. In fact, the Attorney Gene ral refused to intervene. Is that an example of this government's commitment to fighting organized crime and gangland crime? Hon. J. Les: Well, let me say that these are serious issues.

The Legislature is probably a poor place to start making decisions as to what s h o u l d h a p p e n w i t h a n investigation. I think we have police on the streets of the lower mainland and around British Columbia to do that. For a change, I would like to see that member opposite express some confidence in the efforts of the police. POPE AND TALBOT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests has stated categorically that he's had no discussions with Pope and Talbot about the release of private lands from the tree farm licences. Last week in this House he stated:

9110 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 "There has been no release of private lands from tree farm licence 23." No discussions, no releases — pretty clear. I'd like the minister to explain to me, then, why his signature is on a private land release from tree farm licence 23, dated February 26, 2007, of this year. If there have been no discussions and no releases, why did he sign a release in February of this year? Hon. R. Coleman: The member asked some questions in the Legislature with regards to some information that was inside a filing of the courts.

I told the member I had had no discussions with Pope and Talbot with re- gards to that, and I had not. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. B. Simpson: My response to the first answer is: huh? In the 2006 annual report Pope and Talbot indicated to their shareholders they were in financial trouble. They were planning on selling off some assets. On February 26 the minister released private lands from tree farm li- cence 23 so that they could sell some private assets. There must have been some kind of discussion go on there.

On April 19 the minister admitted in estimates de- bate with me that he had had a discussion with a senior VP of Pope and Talbot about the state of their business. In September, Pope and Talbot listed their private lands for sale. In October the CEO told a court in Ontario they were sold. My question to this mini ster…. The facts are clear. The chronology is clear.

If he is crystal-clear that they do not have the right to sell those lands, will he commit today to write to the court in Ontario and state, on behalf of British Columbia, that they do not have that right and that they're to withdraw those lands from their affidavit? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we intervened on Thursday in the courts in Ontario to have those proceed- ings moved to British Columbia to protect the interests of British Columbia. The member doesn't like to hear this. [1410] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R.

Coleman: Because I said in estimates I had a discussion with a company with regards to the state of their business, you think I actually had a conversa- tion with something you want to draw a parallel to, which is contained in some court filings with regards to an application that hasn't reached my desk. You can go ahead and draw whatever parallels you want, hon. Member. The fact is — to the member — that's not related to the same conversation, and you know it. You know that, hon.

Member, but you always want to twist something, because that's the only way you can get to somewhere to find out the actual facts, and the fact is this. The facts are clear. This is clear. They are allowed to make an application. They've made an application. Nothing has come to my desk with regards to the ones the member has brought up in this House in the last week or ten days. K. Conroy: It's interesting, because as of this morn- ing there's absolutely no sign on the website for the bankruptcy that the minister or the ministry has put any documentation forward. So that's very interesting.

Pope and Talbot have sought bankruptcy protection. We are talking about what's at stake here — over 1,800 employees, hundreds of contractors and local businesses, the future of dozens of communities and 2.7 million acres of public land. To the minister: what permission did Pope and Talbot have from the Minister of Forests to put their public forest lands up on an auction block in the court of Ontario? Hon. R.

Coleman: Maybe I'll just clarify for the member opposite from Cariboo North, first of all, that there was a request for 65 hectares removed, the removal to deal with some tailing ponds with regards to a tree farm licence by Pope and Talbot — nothing to do with what this member here is asking about… Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please. Hon. R. Coleman: …with regards to the filings in Ontario. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is this.

There has been nothing come to the desk of the minister making any recommendation whatsoever with regards to the lands that the member refers to in the filings by Pope and Talbot in the courts of Ontario. The fact of the matter is that they can't se ll those lands unless they come out of the TFL. They're not out of the TFL. There's nothing on my desk with regards to it, and no recom- mendations today. C. Evans: You know, hon. Speaker, I have known or met and often argued with Ministers of Forests all the way back to Ray Williston, and we used to argue about what the public interest is.

This minister has performed a miracle. He's made me nostalgic for Social Credit. Even the ones I argued with understood public land and public interest, and they got that job to defend the public interest. I went to a meeting a couple of nights ago in Nakusp — 150 loggers, every single person in the room or a member of their family a logger. The mayor called the meeting. She said to them : "How much do you think you're owed?" It looks like it could be $5 million just for the people in the room in the arena that night. They asked me, through you, hon.

Speaker, to ask the "Minister of forest dissolution" whether or not he would agree that the wood in the water and on the landings, which they produced by their labour, will be frozen and put at auction to pay their wages and that Pope and Talbot doesn't haul a single stick to the saw- mill until they get paid.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9111 Hon. R. Coleman: I had a conversation with the mayor of Nakusp today, at length, and went through some of the processes with regards to that municipality and gave her a connection back to community services. I should also tell the member this. Member, when they go into CCAA, the assets are frozen with whoever owns them at the time. The fact of the matter is: it's not that somebody can walk up and say that that piece of log can't go somewhere if it's already an asset of that co mpany. It is under federal legislation with regards to that.

It will go through the process it has to go through with the courts, and we actually don't have the powe r to step in and do what the member just described. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [1415] C. Evans: Yeah, hon. Speaker. Is "nonsense" parlia- mentary? Can I say "nonsense"? According to the March 1, 2000, tree farm licence between the minister and Pope and Talbot, it says that if Pope and Talbot breaks the terms of the licence, then all the wood belongs to the Crown. They can't haul a thing.

Section 18.03 says: "If the licensee" — that would be Pope and Talbot — "commits

an act of bankruptcy, makes a general assignment of its creditors or otherwise acknowledges its insolvency, the licensee is deemed to have failed to perform an obligation under this licence." So my question to the minister is…. Now that they have done all three of those things, you have the right to claim that they are out of contravention and take back the licence, take back the logs and auction them off. Has the minister informed Pope and Talbot that they are in contravention of the TFL, which is a right to harvest public land in the public interest, and to pay the loggers back? Hon. R. Coleman: You're right. The

section in the act does exist. They are in CCAA. They are not in bank- ruptcy. They are not in rece ivership. So they have not yet stepped over that line to where I could act under the act. REORGANIZATION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY N. Simons: In 2001 the Premier promised. He said that he would stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring that's drained resources from the Ministry of Children and Families. But the very next year he cut 23 percent of their budget and announced the creation of regional authorities.

Then if that wasn't enough, the Premier imported a new deputy minister to undertake a so-called transformation of the ministry's services. Will the Minister of Children and Family Develop- ment confirm that, in fact, regional authorities have now been dumped after six years of wasted money, wasted resources and wasted staffing time? Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure where the critic for the opposition has been, but if he'd been watching over the course of this last year, he would note that we have actually created an interim authority here on Vancouver Island.

He would also be able to note that we've created an interim aboriginal authority for the Fraser Valley. Both of those steps forward are part of a very col- laborative relationship with aboriginal people in this province, with aboriginal service providers, to find a means to reverse the historic trend of far too many abo- riginal children in this province being in care. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. N. Simons: At no point in my question did I mention the regional aboriginal auth orities.

I'm talking about the regional authorities that were the original plan of this government, which have failed after six years and after millions of dollars. I'm asking the minister again. If he wants to talk about regional aboriginal auth orities, let's save that for another day. But for now, what about the regional au- thorities that have obviously failed from the start to the end? What is the minister going to do about that, to explain that to the people of British Columbia? Hon. T. Christensen: We are committed to region- alizing the delivery of services by the Ministry of Chil- dren and Family Development.

We have established regional directors of child protection in all five regions of the province. We're in th e process of continuing to consult with communities to determine how we can ensure they have an effective engagement with our min- istry offices so that we can have a community approach to better serving children and families. Let's look at the progress that we've made over the course of the last seven years. Let's look at the fact that in the Prince George area, for example, we have 38 percent more front-line child protection workers than we did at the end of the 1990s.

Let's look at the fact that in the last two and a half years alone, we've doubled the number of family group conferences occurring. We've doubled the amount of mediation occurring. We've increased the amount of fam- ily development response, all in an effort to be working better with families to ensure the children are protected. [1420] M. Karagianis: Mr. Speaker, the chaos in the Minis- try of Children and Families continues on and on. The deputy minister was brought in on a special assign- ment here to reorganize, transform the ministry.

One of the major parts of this was going to be regional au- thorities to be created. This was the Premier's big plan. Leaked documents have now shown that in fact, that whole plan has been scrapped — another one of the flavours of the day of the Premier now on the dust- bin. The documents we have read also say that the potential costs of this reorganization, which has been going on for five years, were never established.

9112 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 My question is…. After five years, the B.C. Liberals have poured time, money and staff into a reorganiza- tion plan that's now being scrapped. Who is responsi- ble, and what is the government going to do about this waste of money? Hon. T. Christensen: Let's look at what we've done over the last five years. We've doubled funding to chil- dren and youth with mental health issues in the province, something that was ignored for a decade under the NDP in this province. We've more than doubled the funding to support children and youth with special needs.

Over the last two years, the budget to provide services to children in need of protection and other family supports has gone up by over $164 million. This government remains committed to working with our community partners, to working with our ser- vice providers, to working with all British Columbians who are interested in improving services to children and families. [End of question period.] B. Simpson: I reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege. D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members D.

Hayer: We have a second set of students from my constituency, grade 5 students from Surrey Christian elementary school. They are from the riding of Surrey- Tynehead. Along with them are their teachers Ms. Jackie Hofstede, Ms. Janice MacDonald and Kara Bisschop. Would the House please make all the students, their parents and volunteers very welcome. They're here to learn about the government. Tabling Documents Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia's annual report for 2006-07. C. Evans: I'd like to present a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions C.

Evans: I'd like to present a petition from 150 log- ging families in Nakusp asking that they be paid before their tree farm licence is sold. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd ask all members of this House to join me in celebrating the 63rd birthday of the mem- ber for Peace River North today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 43. Second Reading of Bills GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 (continued) On the amendment (continued). M.

Karagianis: I stand here today to actually speak in favour of the hoist motion that was placed before the House just before the break. I would like to speak to that. [1425] To begin with, I'd like to talk a bit about chronology in support of this hoist motion, because I think it's im- portant for us to look at all of the foundation that takes us today to a place where the opposition is compelled to ask for a hoist on this bill. [H. Bloy in the chair.] If we look back several years to June 1998…. At that time the NDP Transportation Minister, Ms.

Joy MacPhail, introduced legislation to create the Greater Vancouver transit authority, more commonly known as TransLink. That was back in 1998. Interestingly enough, in the debate on the introduc- tion of that legislation, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now Premier of the province, said that he in fact supported the creation of TransLink. He called for legisla- tion that would protect the autonomy and independence of TransLink from provincial interference.

I think this is an impo rtant piece of information because it speaks to the incredible transition we have seen since 1998 until we stand here today debating Bill 43. If we look at what the now Premier, then opposition leader, had to say here, he was very specific about the need to protect the autonomy and independence of TransLink from provincial interference. Here we are a decade later, and we see that the Pre- mier and the province are doing the absolute opposite of that.

Everything within this bill speaks to taking away the autonomy and independence of TransLink and imposing upon it enormous provincial interference. If we look at 1999, TransLink was launched then. We move forward now to January of 2004. The now Minister of Transportation actually began to foreshadow the bill we see before us as early as January of 2004. He said in those early days when he was appointed Minister of Transportation…. He promised to direct major transportation investments towards his own community o f S u r r e y .

S o a l r e a d y , i n t h e v e r y e a r l i e s t d a y s o f t h i s minister's term as the Tr ansportation Minister, we immediately see the inklings of the change in policy towards TransLink. Even in those early days back in 2004, the minister began to foreshadow the need for the twinning of the

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9113 Port Mann Bridge. A few months later on May 7, 2004 TransLink — the duly elected and democratically represented TransLink board that had been put in place in 1998 — votes, in a debate, against the construc- tion of the Richmond-Airpo rt-Vancouver transit line, commonly known as RAV, which has since been called the Canada line. Very interestingly, back in 2004 TransLink votes against this.

I think it's really important for us to follow the chronology of this because what we'll see through this is the demise — the slow dismantling by this gov- ernment — of the very foundations of TransLink, which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that a hoist is the only possible outcome for this bill at this time. If we look back, TransL ink votes against the con- struction of this line.

Thei r reasons for the opposition included the project's high cost, the fact that the regional priority for rapid transit was the northeast sector and, interestingly, the Minister of Transportation's insistence that it proceed as a public-private partnership. The duly elected, democrat ically represented TransLink board decided in 2004 that a number of criteria were not being met in their strategic plan for TransLink, and so they voted against it.

It's very interesting because from this we begin the genesis of the series of events that fol- lowed with this particular Minister of Transportation. [1430] On June 18, 2004, TransLink, again in debate, votes against the construction of the Canada line. Very interesting. We see TransLink, this duly elected and democratically represented board, making decisions for their communities based on their understanding and knowledge of their own livable region strategy and municipal planning proce ss, and they vote against the Canada line.

Four days later the Minister of Transportation an- nounces a plan to twin the Port Mann Bridge, with the declaration of a $600 million expenditure — which, coin- cidentally, has now ballooned to $1.5 billion, of course. But I guess that will be a discussion for another day, because in fact, that had nothing to do at that time with the dismantling of the Tr ansLink board. Or maybe we'll find out later that it may have.

The following day, following TransLink's decision to vote against the Canada line a second time, the Min- ister of Transportation states, and here I want to quote: "I would be dishonest if I didn't tell you that my confi- dence in TransLink's ability to make regional transit decision has been severely shaken." Isn't that interesting. This is a duly elected, democrati- cally represented TransLink organization representing municipalities across the Greater Vancouver regional district, and the minister has lost confidence in their abili- ties because they don't like the project that the minister has proposed.

Is this the inkling of a bit of a grudge match that we're going to see? One would have to speculate that that's possible. Interestingly enough, even at that dis- cussion on June 23, 2004, the minister suggests that he would support a governance model with unelected officials. Well, bulletin. There we have it. Back in June 2004 the minister foreshadows the process that he is going to p u r s u e o f s l o w l y t a k i n g a part TransLink, discrediting TransLink and then following the model that he pre- fers, which is unelected officials.

I think that chronology alone, in 2004, speaks to the need for us to hoist this bill and to have a closer look at both the history that's led us here and, certainly, the components of the bill, which I will get to shortly. It's very interesting that not too long after the min- i s t e r s p e c u l a t e s o n t h e i d e a o f a g o v e r n a n c e m o d e l that's represented with unelected officials, we have the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — and I don't think any of us are under any illusion about the close, friendly, chummy relationship that the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce and the government have — beginning to mirror exactly the same comments as the minister. I don't know who planted the idea in whose head, but certainly, we then s ee the Chamber of Commerce coming out and talking about the parochial interests of the duly elected and democratically appointed board of TransLink, and we have now some speculation. We have a number of speculative comments begin- ning to drift out there — beginning to pour a little rumour into the public ear, shall we say. Governance model that doesn't work. Parochialism. Immediately we begin to see where this is going to take us.

All of the basic structure and skeleton of this bill were apparent years ago. We move forward. In June 2004 TransLink, for a third time, votes on the Canada line, but this time, under great pressure, they begin to tentatively give approval for the project. And why no t? The minister has specu- lated out loud about thei r competence. They've got their friends at the Chamber of Commerce now talking about what a parochial board this is, and they are being subtly forced to shift their opinion. That's fine.

It's up to the government to try and get their pet project on the table, and we can see how ag- gressive this government often is on getting their pet p r o j e c t s u p a n d r u n n i n g . S o i t ' s n o s u r p r i s e t h a t t h e y force-fed this to TransLink. In July 2004 the GVRD board — which is, of course, very closely linked to the pr e-existing TransLink board — asked the province to hold off proceeding with the Port Mann Bridge until environmental assessments could be performed. One of those pesky environmental assessments popping its head up again.

I'm sure the minister couldn't have been any too happy about that. On December 1, 2004, TransLink finally officially capitulates and approves the Canada line. I'm sure we'll have lots of time in the future to talk about the Canada line. Of course, we know that it has gone over budget, over time, closing businesses down, and there's lots of evidence here about the political shambles that this has created for the government. [1435] Let's go back, though, to the dismantling of TransLink. On December 3, 2004, the minister calls TransLink parochial.

Now here again we have this co- incidental use of language, using similar language to his friends over at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He

9114 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 calls TransLink parochial an d the Canada line debate disturbing and circuitous. How could we ever stand for that? The democratic process is a bit circuitous. It is often a debate, it is often raw, and it is often a conflict of mutual interests around municipal representation, around a board like TransLink. You bet. It is probably a very disturbing process for the minister to watch, because he's already said he'd lost faith in their ability. They voted against his pet project, and he'd lost faith.

Now he's suggesting that somehow the natural debate process…. We go through it here all the time. We debate very strongly, very aggressively, very energetically in this House every single day. That is disturbing. That is cer- tainly a disturbing part of the democratic process. If everybody could just knuckle under to what's being presented to them, I guess we wouldn't have any dis- turbing and pesky debate. But it is a process, and you bet. It is lively. Very interestingly, the Transportation Minister…. He doesn't like it. This whole debate on the Canada line, his pet project….

They turned it down a couple of times. They finally capitula ted under pressure, and he was not happy with the process because it didn't happen at his first request. He suggests the provin ce may take over the TransLink board — December 2004. In fact, we already see the intent very clearly. This government intended then to take over the TransL ink board, to dismantle it, to run it according to their own desires and policies. For that very reason, this bill needs to not only be hoisted. This bill needs to be thrown out. Let's hoist it forever.

Then we go on to talk for the next couple of months, and the minister continues to move us towards this new model. In March 2006 the minister announces the crea- t i o n of an i n dep e n d en t g o ve rn an c e re v i e w bo a r d . N ow he has taken it upon himself to not only discard the rights of the democratically elected TransLink board that was in place. In fact, now he's calling for a governance review panel. He's so angry that they dared to twice turn down his Canada line project that he now has to have some independent governance panel.

No doubt there was a certain amount of support around the region for that. You bet. Always, at the mu- nicipal level, municipal government is prepared to say: "We are open. We are transpar ent. We are prepared to have you examine our governance." Absolutely. I don't doubt that there was all kinds of compliance at that point. But the minister states very openly that after eight years, it's time to examine the current governance structure to determine whether this is the right model to maintain public confidence.

These are duly elected municipal representatives that sit around this board, yet the minister is question- ing the right of this board to govern and whether it's the right model. Of course, we've already seen…. The minister has been foreshadowing for years the kind of model that he wants — a new governance model that does not have elected officials, that's not so parochial, that doesn't spend so much time debating issues and that doesn't vote against the government's pet projects. We see the minister then begin to put this together. S o h e p u t s t o g e t h e r a p a n e l m a d e u p o f … .

I ' m s u r e i t wouldn't take very much to look at the credentials of those original panel members — all very government- friendly people. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. In fact, one of the members of that original panel was even a huge contributor to the B.C. Liberal Party. You know, those things happen, don't they, hon. Chair? They happen when you're in the world of govern- ance, when you're starting to look at how you take apart a duly elected, democratically represented board and put in place something new, something profoundly different, something profoundly disturbing.

Then you absolutely need to have some friends and comrades carry that out. [1440] I see very clearly here th e path of destruction. On March 9, 2006, the minister said the governance review was necessary because TransLink has become parochial — again this word "parochial." That's what we call representation by municipal leaders standing up for their community, representing them in a collective body like the GVRD or Tr ansLink. We call that parochialism in this House, rather than democratic representation — fair and just democratic representation. However, the minister says that the board has be- come parochial.

It was responsible for the political fiasco that nearly stopped the Canada line. Yes, you're right, hon. Speaker. They voted against the Canada line — not once, not twice. Only on the third time did they begin to capitulate. Yeah, absolutely. We see the minister catego rizing this as a political fiasco. "That darn representation of the public by elected officials is a political fiasco." Again, he says that the organization lacked expertise — a group of mayors, many of whom are running huge multi-billion-dollar municipalities very effectively, very efficiently.

Many of them have been elected over and over again because the public had great confidence in their skills and abilities to run a municipality. But the minister is saying: "They voted out my favourite project a couple of times. I'm really tired of the pesky debate that has to occur in the democratic arena. It's parochial, it's getting on my nerves, and — darn it — it lacks expertise." They've only been running communities all over the lower mainland for years and years, Somehow, for the minister, he wants more. He wants something different. Let's go back to what he said in June 2004.

"We should have a governance model without unelected representatives." So there we have it. The minister has still got blood in his eye for this pesky democratic process that is too parochia l in representing the con- stituents of the lower mainland and their transportation and transit needs. April 2006. As we move closer to the date, the min- ister says that the debate over the Canada line has been conducted in a circus sort of atmosphere and that you've got people opposing it for reasons that are not even remotely connected to the merits of the project.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9115 Well, that would be in the eyes and views of the minister, not necessarily the mayors — the duly elected municipal representatives who sat around that table and discussed at great length , as they should, the pros and cons of investing in th e Canada line. They debated it hard, they debated it lo ng, they debated it thor- oughly, and they did their duty to their constituents, as they should when spending the taxpayers' dollars.

We have the minister here saying that it was a circus, that they were not looking at reasons that were remotely connected to the merits of the project. Well, I don't know what those would have been. You know what? I sat at the municipal table.

I sat there for nine years, and I know that when major projects came forward, you debated them thoroughly because it was the taxpayers' dollar out of the tax- payers' pocket that you were spending, not some endless, bottomless Treasury Board pit of money that will just keep flowing — taxpayers' hard-earned money, property taxes scraped together every single year to pay into the co ffers of municipalities. That's what you are doing. You are taking money out of people's pockets, and all of those discussions on how it's spent should be long and arduous and thoughtful and respectful. I don't see that happening here.

As the minister says, it's all a circus — people opposing it for issues that are entirely parochial and backyard politics in nature. Let's examine what that could have been. Oh yes. "Is my community, my municipality going to get good value for the tax dollars that we are taking from their properties every single year, out of their pockets? Is my community going to get good value?" That's what mu- nicipal representatives at that table were arguing, as they rightly should. As the minister, unfortunately, couldn't sell his project right off the top, they voted against it a couple of times.

"You don't like my project? Well, aren't you parochial? Aren't you just wasting our time here, defending your constituents and their tax dollars, when I've got this pet project that I want to move forward?" The minister un- dermines the nature of that very legitimate debate that took place. [1445] I know we've had some laughs in the House over the minister's comments on May 12, 2006, where he ruminated on the Chinese governance model. I know there was a lot of laughter here in the House about it, but in the grains of humour is always, of course, truth. Is there something Freudian in this?

It was clever off the top, but where did that come from? Interjection. M. Karagianis: No conspiracy theory, as the minis- ter is calling out — nothing of that nature. I'm saying that this is a completely Freudian statement that popped out of the minister's mouth in a moment of jest, which we are seeing play out here. We are taking away all democratic rights in Bill 43 — all democratic rights for the constituents of the lower mainland to have their elected officials sit at a table and make the decisions about how their tax dollars are going to be spent on their transit system.

We are actually moving to this great Chinese model that the minister so wittily and Freudianly slid into his comments. On that basis, we are here supporting this hoist motion because, in fact, this model of governance shouldn't be a Chinese model. This governance model here needs to be about a more democratic, more fairly represented, more open and accountable representation to the taxpayers of the lower mainland. Let's get past the minister's jest about the Chinese governance model that he has insidiously planted in many parts of this bill, and let's get on to September 22, 2006.

As we move closer and closer to the current date, the GVRD board votes against twinning the Port Mann Bridge on the basis that it is inconsistent with their livable region strategy. This is the second pet project the minister has taken before TransLink. I can only imagine how annoyed he must have been to have his second pet project voted out by this group. So what happens? The minister dis- misses the vote as inconsequential. We have all of the groundwork here for what we've seen.

We have a minister speculating out loud for a number of years on how annoying and irritating the democratic elected process is in getting in the way of his pet projects. We have him talking about how gov- ernance should be run by a bunch of unelected people, because then you wouldn't have all those pesky de- bates where they represent their constituents. Now we have him dismissing outrig ht the vote of the GVRD board against his second pet project.

On March 8, 2007, the governance review panel that has been put in place, this handpicked group of individu- als, one of whom contributed $32,300 to the Liberal Party in 2001 — a close, good, inside pal, one of the many peo- ple on this governance revi ew panel…. They released their report called the Tran sLink governance review. It proposes — and wait for this; this will be just a shock to everybody, I'm sure — eliminating the elected board and replacing it with a board of appointed professionals. Does that surprise us? Absolutely not.

We have seen the government for three years speculating about how they can get rid of the municipal representatives on this board so that they can move ahead. Now they have a governance board which has fulfilled exactly that. Interestingly enough, the mi nister then promises that the province will not be appointing these professionals. Remember that as well, hon. Speaker. The province will not be appointing these. Yet you know what? We see the province's fingerprints all over every bit of the next piece of this work. We move on, then. In Ap ril 2007, Bill 36 is intro- duced.

The Greater Vancouve r Transportation Author- ity Amendment Act is introduc ed in the Legislature. I will have to give some breadth here for a bit more dis- cussion, because I'm sure that anybody reading the debate right now or listening to the debate says: "Well, you're debating Bill 43. What is this Bill 36?" It's again one of these interesting little conundrums, because in fact the original legislation, Bill 36, was

9116 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 introduced. But that's not what we're debating here. That sat on the order paper for the spring session, in limbo through the summer, but was yanked in this fall session and replaced with another bill. I have some theories on some of that, which I'm sure we'll discuss as we move through this debate. [1450] We have the bill introduced. Of course, it's got all the things that we've had the minister speculating, hinting and promising for years. They're all in there.

It reflects the governance panel's report but goes further in creating a new screening panel that will effectively appoint the new professional board. Screening panel. That would be doublespeak for "The government's hands will be all over this thing," despite the fact that the minister said that government will not be appointing these professionals.

The screening panel — that's the code for "The government will have control over this." We know, as we've had the debate here for some days now, that the screening panel would consist of the board of trade, the Gateway Council, the chartered ac- countants — we needed them just to try and weed our way through the unbelievable intricacies of the funding formula; I think we needed all the chartered accountants in order to do that — and the Minister of Transportation. Oh, wait.

Didn't the Minister of Transportation say here earlier, in March of 2007, that the minister promises the province will not be appointing these professionals? Oops, there we are. We're there in the screening panel. The minister is going to ha ve some considerable sway over who's appointed. It's very interesting that in April of 2007 legislative reporter Vaughn Palmer, on his show, actually said: "Okay, replacing the elected board with a corporately appointed board might be a good idea." He speculated that. "It might be a good idea ." I personally don't think so, and I'm happy to have that debate with him anytime.

The next day a GVRD staff report argues that in fact, it's not a good idea. Staff comes forward from the GVRD. Let's get back to the facts and the reality here. It is their duty to represent th eir constituents, whose tax dollars are paying for this, whose hard-earned money is coming out of their pocket and out of their house- hold to pay their taxes. It is the right of those ma yors, councillors and people appointed to that board to fight long and hard and to debate thoroughly, thoughtfully and intelligently on how that money is spent. It is thei r right.

It is, in fact, their duty as elected officials to protect the taxpayers' dollars and — certainly, in the setting of the GVRD or any other collective that's been built out of elected repre- sentatives — to argue long and hard. Staff comes forward and says that in fact, this model is not a good idea. It points out that there's no evidence of parochialism at TransLink, contrary to the minister's claims, and that the governance makeover proposed by the government will result in less, not more, accountability — less accountability, not more. It also raises the questions about corporatism.

It states: "The whole concept of what is considered to be politics and democracy versus what is considered to be business may be under reconstruction." Those particular words are the most prophetic of all. In fact, that is what th is bill and this debate are about, and that is what th is hoist motion is about.

The whole concept of what is politics and democracy versus what is business is being reconstructed, be- cause we are in a position of seeing a government remove the politically, democratically elected repre- sentatives right out of the picture and su pplant that with business interests, business professionals and business expertise. You can dress it up any way you want, but they are not elected. They are not re sponsible to constituents. They have no accountability whatsoever to anyone. They only need to speak wi th themselves. They don't need to consult. They can't be elected.

More impor- tantly, they cannot be unelected if people do not like the way they are running this. That is at the heart of what is going on here. In fact, we are seeing a reconstruction here that is so signifi- cant that I urge this House to support this hoist motion, because I believe that a larger discussion needs to take place in this province about this shift of allowing busi- ness interests and non-elected boards to do the busi- ness of government. In fact, if we allow this to happen here, we are not only on the slippery slope.

We are over the edge and fly- ing down the slope of losing governance and democracy here in the province. I know that the government laughs about this. They think this is really hilarious. [1455] Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. M. Karagianis: I am the designated speaker, hon. Chair. I know that the government thinks this is quite hu- morous — all this talk of democracy and all this talk about how disturbing it is as we move towards this new model. But in fact, this is a very serious discussion. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members, will you please allow the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to have the floor.

M. Karagianis: I think that this is the most important discussion we may be having in this House at this time and maybe in this entire session. What is happening here is a monumental shift in thinking that will allow us, then, to use this new model, this proposed model of unelected representatives, to actually run the business of allocating taxpayers' dolla rs to projects for transpor- tation and transit. If we allow this shift of taking it out of the hands of elected officials and putti ng it into the hands of business experts, this will be a model that I think is a prototype for everything across government.

You could make an excuse and an argument that everything in government could be run that way.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9117 Why would you need to have a Legislature? You could just have a bunch of business experts run the province — right? Let's do that. Let's not have…. D. Chudnovsky: Directly, rather than indirectly, the way it is now. M. Karagianis: Directly, rather than indirectly. Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your com- ments through the Chair. M. Karagianis: Yes, thank you very much, hon. Chair.

When we look at the history of what has brought us here, I think it's important for us to say that we are going to take a strong position now, that we will hoist this bill and have a broader discussion about whether or not it is appropriate for us to remove democratic representation from the ta xpayer and instead supplant that with a new business model — a group of business experts that could be appointed by anybody, anywhere, anytime, for any purpose, or that government certainly has a huge, huge play in.

I will go back again to the minister's comments on March 8, 2007, where he promised that the province would not be appointing these professionals. Their hands are all over how they are being appointed. Not only that. They have then gone even further, because the structure of this Bill 43 — the entire struc- ture of it — is so insidiously undemocratic that it occurs to me that this, in fact, may not even be legal. Bill 43, in reality, may not be legal. I would question whether or not we can actually pass a legislative bill that is illegal in its essence, that creates illegal acts.

I turn to a story that ran here in The Province just r e c e n t l y t h a t s p e a k s v e r y s t r o n g l y t o e x a c t l y w h a t I ' m saying. This appeared here under the title "New TransLink Board Seen as an Erosion of Democracy." We have Prof. Patrick Smit h at Simon Fraser Univer- sity, who says, "Democracy will be the loser when the province changes how TransLink is run. Legislative…Bill 43, which turns the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority into the South Coast British Columbia Trans- portation Authority, resumes next week" in the House. This was last week.

"Smith objects to the 'erosion of local democracy' represented by the proposed nine-member board of industry professionals that will run TransLink." He goes on to say: "The new appointed board will be able to raise property taxes, change taxation classifica- tions, accumulate property and run its own police force." If that doesn't sound like the beginning of a banana republic, for one thing…. Spooky enough. But without wanting to be too facetious about this, I am very con- cerned about the legality of these actions.

Interestingly enough, in the further comments in here Patrick Smith says that the new board fails the democracy test — right? It is designed to have the Transportation Minister's agenda move ahead with the fewest hiccups. [1500] We know from the history going back here that the minister himself was very disturbed when that pesky old democratically elected board on TransLink — representing their taxpayer s and their taxpayers' dol- lars fairly, ethically, thorou ghly, thoughtfully, intelli- gently — deemed that they wanted to reject a couple of the minister's pet projects.

He then began to plan to dismantle this and supplant it with a business model that would be handpicked. Further in this

article we have municipal legal ex- pertise in the form of Jonathan Baker, who's also very critical of this. "'I think it fails the administrative test,' said Baker, a lawyer and former Vancouver city coun- cillor." So he has both legal…. D. Chudnovsky: And no friend of the NDP. M. Karagianis: And no friend of the New Democrats, absolutely. This is an individual who's a lawyer, a former municipal councillor, and sa ys: "I think it fails the administrative test. It seems outrageous that you have an appointed body doing that sort of thing.

It seems to me the public should have the right to vote out of power someone who levies a property tax if they don't like it. Didn't someone once say that taxation without representation is tyranny?" That's from the Vancouver Sun . I would say that in this hoist motion, one of the seri- ous considerations that we should be discussing and thinking about here and that should affect a vote in favour of this hoist motion is whether or not these actions in this bill are legal. I would have to say that they are probably not morally and ethically supportable, and I also believe that they are not legally supportable.

We've talked here about the minister's and the gov- ernment's systematic pursuit of the dismantling of the TransLink board. It happened over a number of years. It was foreshadowed for a very, very long time. Despite the fact that the Premier himself, when in opposition, said that you should not ever allow the autonomy and independence of TransLink to suffer from provincial interference, we have the government doing exactly that. You have to wonder about the saliency of w h a t t h e P r e m i e r s a i d i n o p p o s i t i o n v e r s u s w h a t h e i s doing now. That in itself is quite disturbing.

We have here a group of communities who have gone through decades of work in planning their own livable region strategy, pl anning how transportation infrastructure would be expa nded, where the priorities were for the next leg of expansion — for SkyTrain, for bus routes, for growth into their communities, all of that carefully planned. Having sat at the municipal table, I know that when you do these regional growth plans, they're immensely important. Based on that plan is how communities go forward and do their land use planning, because one aspect cannot be done without the other.

You cannot have your transportation infrastructure and your tran- sit being planned without an understanding of your land use. In fact, those are two pieces of a very, very intricate puzzle, which need to be balanced at all times, because where you propose to put your transit expan-

9118 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 sion and your transportation infrastructure, there will be growth of your community. Those things are very ca refully discussed around a regional district table. I know that the regional growth strategy done in the lower Island here has been for many years the genesis of the growth that's occurred in the Western Communities. We are now grappling with the lack of infrastructure pl anning around that growth and trying to stay ahead of it.

Certainly in the GVRD, it is even more imperative that the regional plan that's been laid out for ten years or longer be a very specific and important component in the discussion on transit expansion. In fact, now what we have is the livable region strat- egy thrown to the side. This document has been kicked to the side and is no longer a part of the consultation process proposed for this non-elected, non-democratic, appointed board of business leaders.

Nowhere in there is there any expectation that that board will have to use the livable region strategy and the municipal framework that's been established for over a decade as the very basis for their planning — nowhere in here at all. In fact, much of the language that we see in this bill moves away from that completely.

There is a continued reference to some kind of super- ficial consultation, but absolutely no directive anywhere in this bill that says any of the work that's gone previ- ously, any of the work done by the municipal leaders, any of the work that's been done by TransLink in their own planning up to this point needs to be adhered to, needs to be respected, needs to be the backbone of this new body. [1505] That in itself is disturbing enough. It means that all of the work that communities have done in planning their own future has now been relegated to the back burner. What is going to replace it?

Well, we don't know. There is no clarity here whatsoever on what the inten- tions, the plans or the long-ran ge vision is of this new, non-elected, non-democratic, appointed board. What are their goals going to be? Well, if you look at the membership of this board, I think first of all you will see very clearly that on this board…. We have recom- mendations that have come from the board of trade, recommendations that have come from the province, recommendations that have come from chartered ac- countants, recommendations from the gateway and one lone token representative from the mayors' council.

They will sit there, and they will develop the recom- mendations — 15 members, nine of whom will ultimately be chosen to run this new body. Based on those recom- mendations, do we see the kind of expertise that we were promised? Let's look back. The minister has said all along that we need more expertise. All of these municipal leaders, despite their capacity to run very efficient and effective huge multi-billion-dollar communities…. Somehow their expertise is just not of a depth that's required for this new TransLink model, but the expertise that these business-centric appointees will bring is all that's needed.

I would say there is a complete lack of expertise at this table. Again, that is one more reason to support this hoist motion. In a time of climate change, in a time of immense complications in how municipal planning is going to be in the future — based on directives that we have from the provincial government and some moral directives that many of us have in our own lives about creating a smaller footprint, living a smaller life, getting out of our cars more often…. A whole shift, a whole paradigm shift in thinking, a social shift is occurring here.

I don't see any of that reflected in what is basically an old-school model of a board. This really harkens back to the old models, where you get a few prominent business leaders and because they're chartered accountants or they're on the board of trade, that gives them all the expertise they need. That makes them suddenly experts in transit, climate change, land use planning — all of the very complex things that go on every single day in the social hub of a metropoli- tan city. Suddenly a business leader has that expertise. Frankly, I've met a lot of business leaders in my life.

Often they have great skil l and acumen in their own area of interest and expertise. But I've rarely met many business people who are complete Rhodes scholars, where they know all things about all complex projects, everything about running a metropolitan centre. I think that is why you have planners, administrators and engineers in municipalities — lifelong, career-based expertise. That's where you get true expertise. You can tap into experts like that, but you will not get those from a handpicked board whose goal is completely different than what elected officials would be.

First of all, the membership and this reliance on some evasive expertise from this board do not give me any comfort whatsoever. Now, let's look at what this group is going to be tasked with. As soon as they're appointed, regardless of any expertise they might have in transit and trans- portation, they are immediately going to embark on a 30-year strategy.

They are going to develop a 30-year strategy without considering in any way, without the reliance, without the backbone of even the livable region strategy and all the other work that municipalities have been doing for decades to get to the place where they are now deter- mining their own future for transportation infrastruc- ture expansion. [1510] That's all being taken away from them. Instead, this brand-new board of business leaders is going to put together a 30-year plan. That is an extreme move.

That is the kind of move that would take even the mayors sitting around doing a strategy an enormous amount of time to come up with a 30-year long-range plan. I would bet that in their livable region strategy, there are probably all the seeds of a long-term plan. However, we are going to see this new governance model put in place a board that immediately embarks upon a 30-year plan that will commit the lower mainland to the vision of this group of individuals —

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9119 non-elected, non-representa tive, not accountable to the public. Nobody can unelect them for doing a bad job. They have now got the sole responsibility for drawing up a 30-year plan that will set the course for the future of transportation in the lower mainland and, I will add, not just the lower mainland. In fact, this group of indi- viduals is being given broad powers.

I'd like to talk a little bit about those powers in just a moment, but I want to really focus on the fact that this is a group of individual s t h a t a s s o o n as t h e y g e t put into the authority positions, appointed to the board, their first job is to enact a 30-year plan. That is a daunting task for anybody who has been in municipal govern- ment for years, let alone a group of people who have never sat around planning the transit system and the transportation infrastructure of the entire metropolitan hub of the lower mainland — out of the blue.

They're going to sit down and do this monumental job, unelected, inexperienced in the whole world of transportation or transit. It's very, very peculiar that the government would have so much faith that they would immediately charge this group with coming up with a 30-year plan. Let's talk a little bit about the powers that this group of unelected, undemocratically represented board of members is going to have. What kind of powers are they going to have? They're going to immediately embark on a 30-year strategic plan, and they're going to be given some powers.

One of the things the bill sa ys is that they are going to be given powers equal to a municipality. I'd like to go back to the Premier's comments when in opposition, on July 29, 1998, where he said he supports the creation of TransLink and calls for more legislation that will protect the autonomy and independence of TransLink from provincial interference. We also know that the Premier for a great number of years continued to push the whole concept of autonomy of municipalities through the Community Charter. It was the great promise made to communities.

I actually sat around many round tables in this province through UBCM, though AVICC, when I was a municipal council- lor, and talked about the Community Charter in the process of creating the Community Charter and giving municipalities more authorit y over their own affairs, more authority over managing directly the tax dollars that were taken out of their taxpayers' pockets to build infrastructure, to keep their communities operating, to go to schools and hospitals and all of those important services that we enjoy around the province.

At the Community Charter table we were promised over and over again that there would be authority and autonomy given to us to manage our affairs and that the province would not overstep the boundaries, that they would honour that autonomy. The Premier is quoted many, many times throughout the course of the last number of years on his belief in the Community Charter. Of course, the government, almost immediately after instituting the Commun ity Charter, did bring in Bill 75, which allowed them to steamroll over any deci- sion that municipalities had made in order to endeav- our to fulfil their own agenda.

So even as early as Bill 75, we were seeing that this government did not hesitate to kick the municipa l authority to the curb in favour of their own agenda. And there you go. It's not a secret, I don't think, after you see what was done with Bill 75.

In some ways, maybe we shouldn't be s u r p r i s e d t h a t B i l l 4 3 i s k i n d o f t h e n e x t p i e c e o f dismantling local government authority. [1515] While the government, on the one hand, is saying, "We recognize in the Community Charter your auton- omy, your authority," on the other hand: "Your repre- sentation around TransLink, all that pesky democratic debate, has been annoying.

So we're going to take that apart and get ourselves a board that doesn't give us all that pesky flak from your constituents, all that pesky accountability around how tax dollars are spent or raised or lowered" — which leads me, then, to the powers that this board is going to be given. We have a group of business leaders now appointed to run all of the transporta tion authority in the lower mainland and beyond. They'r e not elected; they can't be unelected. They're hand picked by the government and friends of the government, and they're going to put together a 30-year plan. How are they going to pay for this?

In fact, one of the main fights that happened in this parochial TransLink board for so many years, as the minister was discrediting it, was that they were fighting over far too few funds to fulfil the transportation expansion that was necessary in their communities. That's why they sat and debated long and hard — too few dollars, too many places to put it. You have to have a hard debate on how you spend that money. Now we see, very interestingly, that the government, in Bill 43, is giving the powe rs to tax to this group of unelected, undemocratic, business board representatives — the power to tax.

A 30-year plan, the power to tax, an authority equal to a municipality. I don't understand why we are seeing the government hesitate whatsoever to come out and just say it blatantly: "No more municipal government. We do not recognize you as a level of government. We do not recognize your autonomy. The Community Charter is a complete joke. It's not worth the paper it's written on because we can invoke bills all day long that override your authority." Bill 75 means we can streamline projects into your community without any hesitation.

Never mind what your regulations are, and never mind what your land use restrictions are. We can go in there on behalf of developers, our friends, major projects, and steamroll over your land use decisions. Here in Bill 43 we can actually give the power and authority to a group of a ppointed individuals who are not elected and who cannot be unelected. We're going to give them powers equal to municipality and the power to raise your property taxes. That in itself is bad enough. Again, I speak back to my earlier comments about the legality of this act. I

9120 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 cannot for one moment imagine that that is going to be left unchallenged in the co urts, that you could take away municipal authority and give to a board of direc- tors — a handpicked board of business leaders — the right to tax, to reach into the taxpayers' pockets with no authority, no electability and no unelectability, and take money out of the taxpayers' pockets at will. I cannot imagine that that is legal. I sure know it's not ethical, but I can't believe that it is legal. Then not only do we see them with the power to tax.

We also see that this unelected board has the power to alter classifications for business tax, so they can tax property taxes. They can raise property taxes for the citizens of the lower mainland, and they can also change classifications. Why would you want to do that? Well, because the business community for years has fought with munici- palities around the classifications for property taxes for business. Now if you can have a board of business leaders get in, they can ra ise property taxes and can alter classifications. What do you think is going to happen there?

They have powers equal to a municipality, they can raise prop- erty taxes, and they can change classifications. I would say that on that basis alone, we have got to support this hoist motion because this cannot go unchallenged. Since when in the province of British Columbia can you take taxpayers' money out of their pockets without any accountability? Since when? The very foundation of taxation is that you only get to do it if you can elect and unelect your representatives, if you can look them in the eye and hold them accountable.

Since when in this prov- ince would we allow an unel ected board of individuals to have sway over taxation and tax classifications? [1520] Boy, if that's not letting the mice into the cheese factory, I don't know what is. But the government is throwing open the doors an d saying: "Come in. Have at her." When this happens in one community, it is the prototype for the same kind of action in every other aspect of governance across British Columbia. I go back to whether or not this is even a legal act, whether this can legally happen.

We'll have discussions here at the committee stage, because I know the minister continues to rail away: "Oh, you're not reading the act." I've read the act. In fact, I've read it so many times that I couldn't believe when I sa w emerging from this the language that allows a group of business leaders to tamper with classifications of taxation. Interjections. M. Karagianis: I understand it thoroughly. I under- stand it too well. I understand the bill very well. I have read it thoroughly and completely numerous times. In fact, I had to go back and read it again.

When I realized that the government was going to give this kind of au- thority to an unelected group of people, I was astounded that that could happen. It was imperative for the opposition to put a hoist motion in place on this because we cannot allow this legislation to be put into place. I certainly believe it is going to be subject to a legal challenge. I would be astounded if mayors across this province would allow the government to take away all of their rights and autonomy and authority and gi ve it to a bunch of busi- ness leaders. If it can happen here, it can happen everywhere.

Next you will see this kind of model used elsewhere. We'll get to that soon, because I know this is a government that's not really interested in governing. They love to have this business model put onto everything because this pesky accountability to the taxpayer does get in the way of your own agenda. Certainly, we have seen the minister foreshadowing his own agenda, his pet projec ts, over and over again. When the board voted agains t them, he dismantled the board. We can see this blind ambition evident here in the government's moves to dismantle the elected body of TransLink.

Let's talk a little bit more about some of the other powers this board is being given. In addition to the abil- ity to tax and to change ta x classifications and powers equal to a municipality — and the language says that right in the bill — this is a body that's also being given the power to land-bank. I know it's one of those terms that people say: "What's wrong with land banking?" Well, let me talk about what's wrong with land banking, because hand in hand with this, the minister himself has said to communities in the lower mainland that he wouldn't be afraid to expropriate land either.

This board will be able…. They're doing a 30-year plan. They're going to sit and do a 30-year plan, and they're going to say: "This is where we are going to ex- pand, and this is where we are not going to expand. This is where bus lines will run. This is where the SkyTrain will be built or not built." We saw them throw aside the Evergreen line for the Canada line, and they've continued to use that as a politi- cal puppet. The Evergreen line gets dangled out like a carrot to communities every time they begin to show con- cern about the effectiveness of the government's plan.

When they complain abou t the destruction to busi- nesses because of the Canada line and the Cambie Street fallout, the government swings out the old Evergreen line: "We're going to build it. We're going to build it." But we don't know that. We know that a 30-year plan is going to be put together by a group of business leaders, and they're going to get to land-bank. Let's just think about how that might work. Let's think about how land use planning is done around transit expansion. If you knew ahead of time where you were going to build the line, you could go and acquire land there.

Th en you could push through your transit corridor. And guess what. The land value around that corridor, an d certainly around hubs, would go sky-high. Then you could divest that as you wished. You could bank it. You could acquire that land and save it, or you could let it go on the market to your friends. [1525]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9121 Insider trading. That's wh at insider trading is about — exactly that. Land banking is the essence of insider trading. A group of business leaders, well connected to the board of trade and other corporate interests, now has the ability to do a 30-year plan on where transpor- tation is going to expand.

They can raise your property taxes, they can change the classifications for business, and they can land-bank and begin to plan far in ad- vance where expansion is going to go and make sure that those who capitalize on that plan will be people they know and trust and like. Anybody who thinks that's not true is fooling themselves. Beyond that, we also have kind of the last little piece to fall into place here in th at the authority of the new board is going to be expanded beyond the lower mainland. So now they're not even going to be confined to the re- gional geographic areas that gave birth to TransLink.

Now their authority is going to expand beyond the GVRD — it says in the bill — as far north as Pemberton, up to Hope and, as the language says, more and beyond. They can embark into th is expansion without any kind of barriers, without any accountability, without any agreements, and I'll bet they can evoke Bill 75, the Streamlining Act. Whenever the pesky old governments and communities get in the way, they'll steamroll through it with Bill 75. What an insidious set of bills. What an insidious set of partners, bookends for the corporatization — I think we saw that term here — of transportation infrastructure.

This is not just about SkyTrain. This is not just about the buses. This is about every transportation decision that will be made in the lower mainland for the next 30 years. This is like Gateway on steroids. This is a group of individuals who will now begin to map all of the major expansion for the next 30 years, and not one environmental interest sits at that board. Not one rider or user of the transit system sits at that board. Frankly, I don't see anything in the language here that says climate change will be a lens that has to be in- cluded in this.

You know, we've got a Premier who's had the green epiphany, who shook hands with Al Gore, and now he is the new green guru of British Columbia. We've yet to see anything tangible come out of this, but there is a declaration that we will reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2020. That is good because for the longest time, everything in this House seemed to stop at 2010. I'm glad to hear that the world does not cease to exist the day after the Olympics and that there are plans beyond 2010. The only one we have, of course, is reducing green- house gases.

There's not another plan in government that goes beyond 2010. But we have a huge expectation here that we are going to get people out of their cars, into public transit and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Now we have the body that's going to do that for us. Isn't that interesting? We have the body that's going to do that for us. Yet again I go back to: what is it made up of? Busi- ness leaders. They can tax you. They can shift the tax classifications for their business pals. They can land- bank. They have powers equal to a municipality.

They can expand beyond the GVRD, and in their hands are the decisions for transportati on infrastructure for the next 30 years. No one in this House — with the exception of maybe a couple of really young MLAs — will be around to debate this in 30 years. Most of us will be in our late 90s and, hopefully, not in a seniors care home that's run by one of the privatized companies that the government has put in place. However, when we look at the nature of the power being given to this group of individuals and the lack of expertise around there….

In fact, all the way through the lead-in, the chronology of time that led us to create Bill 43, everything we saw there was about discrediting the municipal leaders around the table and saying that somehow this new expertise and skilled professional board needed to come in. [1530] Yet we see a group who are taxed with enormous powers in an extraordinary time in our province where the challenges to reduce g

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1106pm-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1106pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b2504e804c7c494d68f265b18719b8ffc59fcf4e

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