2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Drinking Water Protection

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M235)

Sather

Public Interest Protection Act,

(Bill M236)

Simpson

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Mining industry in Fort St. James

Rustad

Ann Elmore Transition House

Trevena

CPR training in schools

R. Hawes

Healthy food options for

low-income people

J. Kwan

Constituency assistants

Bennett

Tree farm licence forest

management system

Fraser

Oral Questions

Pope and Talbot bankruptcy

proceedings

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Audit of tree farm licence land

removals

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Closing of Canfor mill in New

Westminster

Puchmayr

Hon. R.

Coleman

Medical Services Commission

decision on Copeman clinic

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Government action on farmworker

safety

Chouhan

Hon. P.

Bell

Reorganization of Children and

Family Development Ministry

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Severance pay for Crown agency

CEO

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

Children and Family Development

Ministry credit card purchases

Gentner

Hon. T.

Christensen

Government liquor store gift card

expiry dates

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities

authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2007

Petitions

Simons

MacKay

Conroy

Whittred

Puchmayr

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)

On the

amendment (continued)

Hon. K. Falcon

Point of Privilege

G. Gentner

Second Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43) (continued)

On the

amendment (continued)

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)

Royal Assent to Bills

Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act (Bill 45)

First Nations Education Act (Bill

46)

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act (Bill 44)

[ Page 9593 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2007

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of

constituents from Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Firstly, the mayor of Sooke, Janet

Evans, and she's joined by her chief administrative officer Evan Parliament.

We're also joined by a famous resident of the Highlands, a good constituent of

mine, Vicky Husband.

Would the gallery and the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: We are delighted today to have three people

in the Legislature in the gallery with us that have really worked to make a

difference in British Columbia. They've made a special effort to be here today

because they are looking so forward to royal assent later this afternoon.

They're here to celebrate the passing of the First Nations

Education Act, and I know all members of the House who supported that bill will

be very pleased to welcome today Tyrone McNeil, who is the president of the

First Nations Education Steering Committee; Nathan Matthew, who is the chief

negotiator; and Christa Williams, the executive director.

Each one of these people has contributed for a very long time to

bring this to the place we're at today. I'm so thrilled they made the time to

come to the gallery to witness this afternoon. Thank you for joining me in

making them welcome.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is Julian West.

He's the federal NDP candidate for Saanich–Gulf Islands, and accompanying him is

Howard Green, one of my constituents. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like the House to please welcome Loyola

Sullivan, Canada's Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, and a senior adviser,

Michele Tomlinson-Wells. Also joining them today is Cathy Hohnsbehn, the

executive administrative assistant to my assistant deputy minister in our oceans

and marine fisheries division.

They're seated in the gallery, and I would ask the House to please

make them welcome.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is Mr. Geoff

Dubrow from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. He's here today

working away from the nation's capital in Ottawa. He's no stranger to the public

accounts committees in the provinces across Canada, and he works with the House

of Commons as well.

He's here to take in question period and have meetings with

various ministries this afternoon. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Gentner: Last week my sister visited the gallery. She

was so impressed that she gave a report card to the rest of my family, who have

come here on the last day. Would the House please welcome my mother Doreen; my

sister Shelley, whose son is playing in the B.C. football championship — they're

in Richmond playing against Seaquam from North Delta; and of course, my other

sister Leona Warway.

I know that two of the three are definitely New Democrats, and I

still have hope that the other one will come across. Will you please give them a

good welcome.

[1340]

D. Cubberley: My constituency is home to a number of

quality high schools, and one of the foremost among those is Reynolds high.

Reynolds is well known for its soccer programs, sports programs in general and

for band, but it also has a very long tradition of an active interest in civics

and governance. In that vein, today in the precincts, perhaps in the gallery, we

have 27 grade 11 students, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Todd Hallett.

Will the members please join me in making them welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome Kathy and

Mark Moore. Mark was the headmaster of Princess Margaret School in my riding and

was past president of our chamber of commerce. He's currently working to

establish a new chamber visitors info centre. They participated in a fundraiser

and actually contributed money to come here, be my guests and have lunch with

me. I'm sure that's easy for the other side to imagine as a very prize-worthy

endeavour.

I'd like all of us to help make them welcome to the Legislature.

B. Bennett: It's my very great pleasure to introduce the

best constituency assistant in the whole province of British Columbia, Courtney

Magro from Cranbrook. Welcome, Courtney.

S. Fraser: Ah, last but not least.

I have a large contingent of visitors from Alberni-Qualicum, too

many to name, but I'd like to make them all feel welcome. I would like to make

one name made available here, because he's visited a number of times, and I've

used the same excuse every time. So would the House please help me welcome the

contingent from Alberni-Qualicum and Mike Kuriliak.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

M. Sather presented a bill intituled Drinking Water Protection

Amendment Act, 2007.

M. Sather: I move introduction of the Drinking Water

Protection Amendment Act, 2007.

[ Page 9594 ]

Motion approved.

M. Sather: British Columbians are becoming increasingly

concerned about the health of their drinking water. From concerns about surface

water on the Sunshine Coast to concerns in Maple Ridge about groundwater to many

other areas of the province, citizens want to know that government and industry

are working together to ensure the safety of their water.

However, changes to the Drinking Water Protection Act in 2001 have

taken away the authority of the provincial health officer to designate an area

for the purpose of developing a drinking water protection plan. This bill amends

the Drinking Water Protection Act to give the provincial health officer

authority to put in place the development of a drinking water protection plan

and to require the affected parties to participate in the process.

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

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M235, Drinking Water Protection Amendment 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.

PUBLIC INTEREST PROTECTION ACT, 2007

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Public Interest Protection

Act, 2007.

B. Simpson: I move introduction of the Public Interest

Protection Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: This bill will make a single-clause amendment

to the Forest Act in order to guarantee the protection of the public interest

when a company requests a removal of private lands from tree farm licences.

The bill requires that the public be immediately notified when an

application is made to release private lands; that public consultation be

conducted with affected communities and workers, including meaningful

consultation with affected first nations communities; that a transparent

appraisal be done to determine what compensation would be required if the lands

were to be released; and that the minister bring forward a recommendation to the

Legislative Assembly in response to the release application.

The bill enables the Legislative Assembly to make the

determination as to whether private lands will be released from tree farm

licences and on what terms.

This bill is needed to restore transparency and accountability to

the process of releasing private lands from tree farm licences. Today Pope and

Talbot is in court, and the status of their private lands is part of the

proceedings. The people of the Kootenays need to know that the fate of their

communities and workers will not be determined by a bankruptcy proceeding. They

need us to expedite passage of this bill to give them some peace of mind.

[1345]

Given the urgency of the need to have this bill passed by the

Legislature, I ask leave of the House to suspend Standing Order 81 to permit

this bill to advance through all three stages this day.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to make the referral motion now?

B. Simpson: I move that this bill be tabled for the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill M236, Public Interest Protection 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) MINING INDUSTRY IN FORT ST. JAMES

J. Rustad: People from different areas of B.C. often look

at mining from different perspectives. Sometimes people look unfavourably

towards the industry, but more and more people are looking towards mining as an

opportunity to build a bright future.

In Fort St. James people look at mining as an economic driver.

Fort St. James is known as one of the most forestry-dependent communities in

B.C., and for many years it has looked for opportunities to diversify its

economy. The Fort has explored tourism and secondary manufacturing, and they

have some agriculture, but they haven't been able to build sustaining diversity.

Located along the mineral-rich Quesnel Trough, Fort St. James has

the potential to become a hub of mining activity and exploration. Mining can

hold the key to diversification for many communities, and Fort St. James is

moving towards this opportunity with open arms.

Just north of Fort St. James lies a very promising mineral deposit

owned by Terrane Metals. The Mount Milligan project is well defined and was

originally permitted in the 1990s. Once the Mount Milligan project commences, it

will create a thousand construction jobs and 300 to 400 permanent jobs. Over the

proposed 25-year life of the project, the community of Fort St. James will

realize significant benefits.

When you consider the challenges the forest industry is facing due

to a high Canadian dollar, weak demand from the U.S. housing market and

uncertainties surrounding the pine beetle infestation, communities need

diversification. Mount Milligan will provide that diversification for Fort St.

James, and mining in general will become an increasingly important component for

many communities' economic future.

[ Page 9595 ]

I salute Mayor Rob McDougall and all of his council for leading

Fort St. James towards diversifying through mining. I ask all members of the

House to join me in promoting mining in B.C. and the tremendous benefits that

mining can bring.

ANN ELMORE TRANSITION HOUSE

C. Trevena: I'd like to mark the 20th anniversary of the

Ann Elmore Transition House. For two decades it has been serving the women and

children of Campbell River and the region.

Named in recognition of Ann Elmore Haig-Brown, who long helped

women in need, the transition house has always been accessible 24 hours a day.

Violence against women, sadly, happens at all hours, and this refuge for women

and children keeps its doors open throughout the year. Almost always full, it

started up with just four beds, and twice since then it has expanded the number

of beds, spaces for children and common areas. Now there are 20 beds with

government funding for 11.

In the 20 years more than 4,000 women and children have been

housed and many more supported through groups in counselling which run out of

the house. Women can stay with their children for a month. Sadly, that's too

short a time for many women in the dire straits that forced them out of the home

that they had been living in.

Under the continued strong leadership of Valery Puetz, the

executive director, the transition house is now looking at expanding its

services again to provide second-stage housing, a place where women and their

children can stay longer and start to rebuild their lives.

I think we all have to ask the question why, when there is

violence in an intimate relationship, the women and their children leave home —

women, who are usually the victim; women, who are usually earning less than

their male partner; women, who are responsible for the children. It is

inevitably women who flee, and no matter how supportive, how good that temporary

shelter is, women are forced from their homes.

Luckily for the women in Campbell River and the area, they have

the refuge of Ann Elmore House. The sad point is that they have to seek refuge

at all.

[1350]

CPR TRAINING IN SCHOOLS

R. Hawes: Your chances of recovery from a sudden cardiac

arrest in British Columbia are between 10 percent and 15 percent. Your chances

of recovery from a sudden cardiac arrest in Seattle are about 25 percent. In

Seattle 80 percent of the population have CPR training; in British Columbia it's

less than 25 percent.

These are figures that were supplied last week by the B.C.

paramedics and the ACT Foundation when they were here giving CPR demonstrations,

along with a number of students.

The one thing that is indisputable is that if someone suffers a

cardiac arrest, the faster that CPR is applied, the better. Time is of the

essence. Four to five minutes produces brain death. Unless CPR is applied, brain

damage will occur.

The month of November is CPR Month in British Columbia, and the

ACT Foundation, which is the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation, and the

B.C. paramedics began a program last year in which they are going to schools

across British Columbia and teaching CPR training to students in high schools.

They have so far reached out to about one-third of the high schools in British

Columbia.

I would urge the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health

to consider this program as a prerequisite in the curriculum in high schools.

The more people trained in British Columbia for CPR, the safer our population

is, and after all, the life that could be saved is your own.

I'd like to congratulate the B.C. paramedics and the ACT

Foundation for the work that they're doing. It's all on a volunteer basis, and I

urge them to keep going with it. They're making us a safer place to live.

HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS FOR

LOW-INCOME PEOPLE

J. Kwan: Recent years have seen the creation of major

public campaigns promoting better nutrition and fitness as a way for all of us

to reach and maintain better health. This includes B.C.'s ActNow program.

I don't doubt for one minute that improved diet and exercise are

important to our health and for children's healthy development. However, a

common misconception is that information and education are the keys to improving

food choices. But the reality is that many low-income individuals, especially

those living in poverty, cannot afford to eat nutritiously.

A case in point. There are nine days until your next cheque comes

in, and you have $15 to buy food for you and your two boys. Fifteen dollars will

buy you a bag of apples, a bag of oranges and some grapes, or a box of macaroni,

two pounds of regular beef, a package of wieners and buns, two cans of tomato

soup and two loaves of bread. What would you choose?

HungerCount 2007 , a report by the Canadian Association of

Food Banks, states that over 76,000 individuals in B.C. use food banks and that

36.3 percent of these were children. These figures are greater in some places.

The Vancouver Food Bank reports that 39 percent of recipients are children, and

the Surrey Food Bank gives a figure of 45 percent being children and babies.

For several years the Dietitians of Canada, B.C. region, and the

Community Nutritionists Council of B.C. have researched and published The

Cost Of Eating in B.C ., which calculates the cost of Health Canada's basic

food basket of nutritious food for various family sizes and then looks at the

proportion of income this may represent.

The 2007 edition of this report was published yesterday. The

report has a list of recommendations that aims to end poverty so that healthy

food choices are an option for all. It has been endorsed by an additional 20

[ Page 9596 ]

organizations. I encourage all members of the House to read this report, and

I hope that they could get their support.

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

B. Bennett: Members regularly get up here during

introductions and expound upon the merits of their constituency assistants. I

did so just a few minutes ago myself. I want to donate my final two minutes of

glory this session to honour my two constituency assistants and also to honour

the constituency assistants from all of the constituencies around the province —

both sides of the House.

Let's be honest. I think we all know that the constituency

assistants do the real work. They get to have those long conversations with Mrs.

Jones out there in Jaffray that phones in and says she has a cougar in her

backyard, and could they please come out and get rid of it.

[1355]

They get to field those cranky calls in February about the icy

roads, and they get to write those hundreds and hundreds of diplomatic and

empathetic letters that go out from all of our constituency offices. And of

course, in my case, they now also get the opportunity to answer all my e-mails.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Bennett: We all know this is true. Our CAs believe in us

personally, and isn't it nice in our business to once in a while feel like we

have a few people in our corner?

In my case, Lois Dettling has been with me since my first day on

the job in 2001. Lois was born and raised in Cranbrook. She knows absolutely

everybody, and she knows who everybody is related to in the community. She tells

me whether I'm doing a good job or a bad job, and that's hard to find.

Courtney, who I introduced earlier, was also raised in Cranbrook.

Courtney is a 20-something who went away to university, to McGill. She got a

great education there and then made a very conscious and deliberate decision to

come back to the Kootenay region and plant her roots there, which I commend her

for. She is articulate, bright, a self-starter and would make a great MLA. I

want to say to the caucus chair: she's not coming to Victoria.

So let us celebrate all of our constituency assistants today.

Let's pay them our sincere respect for the work they do for us and for the

people of the province.

TREE FARM LICENCE

FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

S. Fraser: In 1956 the hon. Gordon Sloan, the Chief Justice

of British Columbia, completed the 800-plus page royal commission report

entitled The Forest Resources of British Columbia .

In his report Justice Sloan stated that the basic reasons for the

award of tree farm licences were, first, stability of employment in dependent

communities, and second, establishment of permanent forestry on private lands.

The tree farm licence, or TFL system, was initially designed in

the '40s and '50s in response to concerns about the long-term sustainability of

B.C.'s forest industry, forest workers and forest communities. Under the TFL

forest management system, forest companies contracted to combine their private

timberlands with much larger areas of Crown timberlands in a single TFL, the

entire area of which was subject to Crown regulation and control.

In return for placing their land under the regulatory framework of

a TFL, the licensees gained access to a guaranteed supply of public timber,

timber that was intended to support local jobs and to provide forest-dependent

communities with certainty over their economic lifeblood.

The private lands were to be managed as if they were public lands.

The essential arrangement was designed to ensure perpetual sustainable forestry

uses on both Crown and private lands for both economic and environmental

reasons.

The TFL social contract was supposed to be permanent, because the

consequences of breaking this contract would be too severe for many communities

that were built on it.

Justice Sloan had it right some 50 years ago, hon. Speaker. To

stray from this most fundamental premise would mean the dismantling of a system

rightly adhered to by all governments for decades and would unravel the very

basis for B.C.'s forest health and would, no doubt, cause Justice Sloan to roll

over in his grave.

Oral Questions

POPE AND TALBOT

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

C. James:

Section 18.3 of Pope and Talbot tree farm licence

23 says: "If the licensee commits

an act of bankruptcy, makes general assignment

of its creditors or otherwise acknowledges its insolvency, the licensee is

deemed to have failed to perform its obligations under this licence." In that

case, the minister has the power to remove the licence from Pope and Talbot.

Mr. Speaker, that asset is the only asset that workers, loggers,

contractors and communities have access to in order to guarantee they will be

paid for their hard work. So my question is to the minister. Will he commit

today to remove the licence from Pope and Talbot, under the bankruptcy

provision, to ensure that B.C. workers and businesses are treated fairly?

Hon. R. Coleman: This provision has been there a long time,

and it's never been used — not when you were in government and at no other time.

The reality is this. This matter is before the courts.

[1400]

[ Page 9597 ]

I have a legal

summary from today's proceedings. The advice is to

leave it alone, at this point in time, because there are offers on the table

that — and I know that you may not like to hear this — may actually end up with

two mills being purchased, with the tree farm licence and the jobs continuing to

be protected and operating in the Kootenays.

Now, I know you'd rather interfere in the court proceedings and

put all those jobs at risk, and that opportunity for those communities. That's

fine, if that's the way you wish to look at it. The legal advice I have is that

we will proceed through this process, and we will protect the interests of the

province of British Columbia with our legal counsel.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

C. James: The only certainty in British Columbia is that

this minister and this government have abandoned communities when it comes to

forestry in British Columbia. The minister says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member.

Continue.

C. James: The minister says we should let the process

continue. Well, communities can't wait.

Today, in reply to a question from the member for Nelson-Creston,

the judge overseeing the hearing said that Pope and Talbot is in fact insolvent.

Lawyers in the court confirmed that if Pope and Talbot disperse their assets

without intervention from the minister, workers and businesses will be last in

line and will receive dimes on the dollar.

The only way workers and businesses will be treated fairly is if

the minister actually intervenes and takes back TFL 23. So my question is again

to the minister. Will he do that on behalf of the communities today?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite might want me to act

outside of legal advice, but I have legal advice as to how we should proceed.

There's a stay of proceedings in the court. This is in CCAA. The member should

know that.

We're trying to reconstruct the company so maybe they can survive

and continue to do business in this marketplace.

Now, I'm frankly going to take, at this stage of the game…. I will

take the legal advice of my lawyers over the member's advice today.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: Forest-dependent communities have been waiting.

They've been waiting and waiting for this minister to say anything — anything

that will give them some hope that he understands the crisis that the industry

is under.

Yet what do we hear today? We hear the Minister of Finance say

that all we can do is be spectators as we watch forest communities collapse.

Well, that's not good enough. The Minister of Forests has been a spectator for

far too long, and now he must act. He has the power to act under the law.

Workers, families, businesses, contractors — everyone is pleading

for help. Today's developments put the ball in the minister's court. If the

minister wants to be a spectator and do nothing, then will he just give up the

job to someone who will actually care about communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: The only people that don't care about the

people in those communities…. It's the member opposite here. You don't care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: All you want to do is get in the way of

any legal advice that might protect jobs and opportunities. All you want to do

is stop people from making investment so they can have modern mills in the

future to be able to be in the marketplace. All you're interested in is now

trying to give me some politically motivated advice and step into the middle of

a court proceeding, as the member opposite….

Just look back to Carrier Lumber and tell me how that worked out

for the province of British Columbia. You know, there's an offer on the table,

Member. There's actually an offer on the table, before the courts, that could

actually have two mills and that TFL operating long-term in that area.

Do you want to throw that out? I don't agree with that approach. I

will take the legal advice I have in front of me, and I will proceed in that

way.

Mr. Speaker: I'll remind members: through the Chair,

please.

B. Simpson: We're not interested in whether or not the

minister will take politically motivated advice. We want the minister to show

political leadership at this time of crisis in the forest industry and in

particular in the Kootenays.

[1405]

What the minister fails to inform this House is that we have a

transfer of that licence occurs, or the minister can use the fact that the judge

said that they are insolvent — Pope and Talbot is insolvent — to take back the

licence, go out to the communities, and engage the communities and the workers

[ Page 9598 ]

Quite frankly, who cares whether the thing has been exercised or

not? The fact is that the minister has been saying he has not exercised that

right, because Pope and Talbot was not insolvent.

The judge said today they are insolvent. Will the minister do the

right thing and take the tree farm licence back, go out to the communities, and

paid?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The purpose of the CCAA is to give some

protection to insolvent companies. One of those protections is a stay of

proceedings while they try and restructure their business. That's what's going

on right now in the courts in British Columbia.

The legal advice today is to let those proceedings proceed because

there are some offers coming in with regards to this. You may not like that. But

if at the end of the day the one offer is successful, I'd like to see the

members from the Kootenays stand up and say: "Gee, isn't that great. That

company bought those two sawmills and that TFL, and they're operating and

running those jobs in British Columbia."

The opposite is to go in and interfere in the process today, put

it in jeopardy, and then lose the two mills and lose all the job opportunities

in the Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Again, the minister fails to understand what

we're asking him to do. He persists in being a spectator of what is going on in

the forest industry. He hides behind the dollar. He hides behind softwood. He

hides behind all the things that he can't do.

The Minister of Finance got it right today. The Minister of

Finance got it right today when she said that all this government can do is sit

down and be spectators.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: The point here is that Interfor does not have

to walk away. Interfor's offer can still be on the table. The fundamental

workers who deserve the right to be paid and be heard? Or the court, the judge?

This minister has it at his discretion to make that determination

today. Will he do the right thing and take back the licence, go out to the

communities and work with Interfor to make sure our communities get the benefits

of the public forests that they deserve?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer is the same. I'm going to take

the legal advice that I have in front of me — that we should allow the stay of

proceedings to proceed to see if this company can restructure so that we can

protect the jobs in British Columbia.

AUDIT OF TREE FARM LICENCE

LAND REMOVALS

S. Fraser: We learned this week, through the committee

stage of the Maa-nulth treaty, that the Minister of Forests was negotiating to

pay compensation to Western Forest Products over TFL 44 lands, which were going

to be removed through the treaty. During these negotiations this minister handed

Western Forest Products 28,000 hectares of land. That's pretty tough negotiating

on the part of the province.

Will the minister support the call for the Auditor General to

expand his investigation of this government's forest giveaways, which include

TFL 44 in 2004?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that the Auditor General

is an independent officer of the Legislature, and he'll make whatever decisions

he wants to make with what he wants to look at.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The Minister of Finance's quote that "all we can do

is sit down and be spectators" certainly applies to the minister's position

here.

[1410]

The minister is willing to bend over backwards to compensate

forest giants at public expense but is unwilling to compensate communities that

need it the most. Again to the minister: will he support the call for the

Auditor General to formally expand his investigations to include TFL 44

giveaways that have ravaged the communities of Port Alberni? Will he look at

that as in the interest of the public interests, not the private interests?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's something I should point out to

the member opposite about some facts. First of all, the Auditor General is an

independent officer of the Legislature.

But there are a couple of facts I'd like him to remember with

regards to TFL 44 and Island Timberlands. He always comes out and says these

things about all the logs that are being exported out of the country and all of

this stuff, so let me give him some facts.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, they don't.

These are some log export numbers for the member. There were

225,873 cubic metres logged by Island Timberlands in 2005, and 17,000 cubic

metres got exported. The other thing is that in 2006 there were 77,802, and

9,000 got exported. The reason I say that to the member is because he always

wants to take the facts and not remember one other fact in the Alberni Valley.

[ Page 9599 ]

There is a process going on with SOVA, who are actually meeting

with my ministry in the next couple of weeks with regards to a response to a

report. But you've got to remember that there's a fluid piece of business in

forestry in British Columbia.

Do you know that there are more logs that come into the Alberni

Valley from the Queen Charlottes and northern Vancouver Island that are actually

taken out of the Alberni Valley?

CLOSING OF CANFOR MILL

IN NEW WESTMINSTER

C. Puchmayr: Well, that last answer was quite shocking.

Maybe when the minister is sitting around being a spectator, he should read his

files so that he knows what's going on in that industry.

In New Westminster another 130 jobs will be eliminated when the

Canfor mill closes as early as next week — 130 direct jobs and many indirect

jobs. This represents a significant loss in forestry jobs in my community. This

mill produces an environmentally sound product. It produces that product using

used pallet boards and waste wood.

Will the Minister of Forests do something to protect this viable,

green business in New Westminster and preserve those jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm aware of the Canfor closure, the west

fibreboard plant. I know they tried to sell it for a number of years and had no

suitors. I also know they have a company that is trying, frankly, to position

itself to be there as a company in British Columbia after this particular

downturn in the forest industry is done.

At the same time, on November 11 when I was at Remembrance Day,

one of the members from that mill came and asked me if they could meet with me.

They met with me the following day. They asked if I could make arrangements for

them to sit down with the senior management of Canfor, which has been arranged,

and they're trying to work out something together.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I assure the minister that nothing is

being worked out. As a matter of fact, the time lines have gone from January 9

to possibly the seventh of December. So that's what the minister's intervention

has done.

The machinery used in this mill is being sold as we speak. It will

follow raw logs into the United States. The waste wood that is currently being

utilized in this mill will end up in landfills, and it will end up being

incinerated.

Again to the minister: does he not think that a value-added mill

with such an environmental component deserves the serious attention of this

minister and this government?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I know the members opposite would

like us to go buy every mill in B.C. that shuts down, continue to operate it,

lose money and have the government go broke, because that's what they want the

companies to do. The reality is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Get over it. It doesn't. You know what?

The member opposite knows this. They just don't want to get to the fundamentals

that are facing us today. Our industry is facing tough times because of the

dollar, housing starts, sub-prime mortgage rates, and that's where our major

market for our products…. I know, the member goes like this because he doesn't

want to know.

But you know what? I'm working with the companies. I'm meeting

with all of them over the next few weeks. We're going to build together to make

sure there's a sustainable forest industry in British Columbia.

[1415]

I know you don't like that, because you'd just as soon force them

to lose money and go broke. Then there would be no jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

MEDICAL SERVICES COMMISSION

DECISION ON COPEMAN CLINIC

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health. The

Medical Services Commission has made its decision in the Copeman case, and the

Minister of Health now apparently believes it's okay to charge a $3,900

membership fee to see a family doctor.

The minister knows the reasons for the decision, Mr. Copeman knows

the reasons for the decision, but the public has been kept in the dark. Will the

Minister of Health fully disclose the reasons the Copeman decision was made?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks an excellent question. Why

would

section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act exist, which limits the

disclosure?

Well, the reason it exists is that it was passed by the NDP

government in 1992. There was no

section 49 before 1992. In the 1995 amendments

to the Medicare Protection Act that were considered, there was no change to

section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act.

I can tell this House, though, that I don't believe

section 49

provides an appropriate balance between transparency and privacy. I've asked my

staff to look at it. That was a heck of a lot more than that group did for ten

years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

[ Page 9600 ]

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Health is correct on this

much: the only reason there is a Medicare Protection Act in British Columbia is

because the NDP was in government.

He, the Minister of Health, is the first Minister of Health who

thinks it's not enough that patients pay taxes and MSP premiums and live in

British Columbia — that they have to pay fees to see a family doctor. That's his

decision. He's taking no action now.

British Columbians were pretty clear in the Conversation on

Health. They said no to more user fees. They said no to more for-profit health

care. But the minister doesn't agree with them. So I'm asking the minister. He's

making the decision. He said that the Copeman decision is okay with him. He says

it's okay in British Columbia to pay $3,900 to see a family doctor.

Maybe the Minister of Health can tell us this. Why does he believe

that, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. G. Abbott: When I look across the House here, I see

one, two — perhaps more — former Ministers of Health of the former NDP

government. There may have been more than two. They changed seats fairly quickly

back in the latter years. I also look across, and I see….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: I see the former chief political adviser to

the government of the late 1990s, the NDP government. So where was that former

chief adviser? Where were the former Health Ministers when the False Creek

Surgical Centre opened in March of 1999? Where were these people when the Cambie

Surgery Centre opened in April of 1996? Where were they? What I'm also seeing

besides former Health Ministers over there is a lot of misplaced hypocrisy and

sanctimony from that group.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: It has been more than eight months since three

farmworkers were killed in a terrible accident that might not have happened if

the Liberals had acted on recommendations from a coroner's inquest into previous

fatal accidents. The RCMP has made recommendations to the Crown, but to date no

charges have been laid. We don't have a date for a coroner's inquest.

This fatal accident happened on March 7. This is a very serious

matter. People died. My question is to the Deputy Premier. When will charges be

laid, and when will we have a coroner's inquest?

Hon. P. Bell: The member refers to an ongoing

investigation. I'll take that question on notice.

REORGANIZATION OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY

N. Simons: Three years ago the Gitxsan Child and Family

Services Society asked the Ministry of Children and Families for resources to

address the epidemic of suicide in their communities. They were told that funds

would be made available through the northern aboriginal authority.

Three years later the community has yet to receive these funds.

Can the minister confirm that the money transferred to the northern aboriginal

authority for families sat in a bank account for three years unused, because the

authority had not yet been legally established?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated yesterday, we take the

issue of aboriginal youth suicide very seriously. There is $10 million within

the child and youth mental health plan that is specific to aboriginal child and

youth mental health.

We are working with aboriginal communities in the north as well as

across the rest of the province to ensure that, in moving forward, we are

working with those communities to identify the strategies that can be put in

place to address the tragic situation of aboriginal youth suicide.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: For three years that funding was sitting idle

while first nations were crying out for assistance. This is exactly what Ted

Hughes worried about. This is exactly what the representative pointed to — mass

confusion, chaos and disorganization.

The Minister of Children and Families should answer this question.

Will he direct his officials to review the entire aboriginal regionalization

process to ensure that the first nations aren't just consulted as contractors

but have a leading role, have an essential role in that regionalization process?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's obvious that the member hasn't

been paying attention to the aboriginal regionalization process. It has been the

most collaborative and open and consultative process ever undertaken in this

province with aboriginal people with respect to aboriginal child and family

services.

We have established an interim authority on Vancouver Island. We

are hopeful that over the course of this next year, it will become a permanent

authority. We have an interim authority in the Fraser Valley. We have planning

committees in another three regions in the province, all of whom are working

with aboriginal communities to ensure that as we move forward, we can do our

best to reach consensus around how we can better serve aboriginal children and

families.

The members opposite may choose to denigrate that process, but I

can tell them all this. We have made more progress in working with aboriginal

people around child and family welfare over the course of the last five years

than those members did in the complete ten years that they were in government.

[ Page 9601 ]

SEVERANCE PAY FOR CROWN AGENCY CEO

R. Fleming: The CEO of the Innovation Council of B.C. was

terminated last week after only seven months on the job. He will earn almost as

much by departing this job as he earned on the job — $118,000 in severance. This

Crown agency originally said they didn't even have to disclose this hefty

payout. They were wrong.

Now that the taxpayers know how much the leadership crisis is

costing them in the agency, does the minister think that one month's severance

for one month's work is appropriate? Can he tell the House: is this the new

gold-standard parachute of his ministry and this government for severance?

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: I can assure the member that the severance

package given was in full compliance with the Public Sector Employers Act. I can

also assure the member that in 2002, when we became government, we limited

payouts for senior executives. If the member would like a list of the payouts

under the NDP, I'd prefer to give it to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister has clung to this idea that it's

compliant with his own internal policies, but part of the question was whether

he thinks it's appropriate to get one month's severance for every month worked

when you get terminated from your job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: The member forgets that under the NDP, there

were no limits. In 2002 we actually brought in limits for severance for senior

executives. I can remember that under the NDP rules, $700,000, $300,000,

$400,000….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: That's why we brought in the amendments to

limit the amount that would be paid to civil servants.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY CREDIT CARD PURCHASES

G. Gentner: Time after time this session, we have seen this

government…. It has misplaced its priorities.

My question is simple, and it's to the Minister of Children and

Family Development. What on earth is his explanation for the fact that his

ministry spent $389.84 for escort services last year?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: Obviously, an expenditure of that

nature would be inappropriate. There are audit processes in place to review

expenditures on any ministry credit cards.

The member seems fond of raising these types of allegations in

this House, as he did last session. I would be very pleased…. If the member

wishes to provide the specifics of his allegation to my office, we will

determine exactly what has occurred in this case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

GOVERNMENT LIQUOR STORE

GIFT CARD EXPIRY DATES

M. Farnworth: We are fast approaching the holiday season,

the gift-giving season. If you go to Canadian Tire and give someone — your

partner, spouse, whoever — a gift card, it doesn't come with an expiry date. If

you go to Bill Vander Zalm's garden centres and give a gift card, it doesn't

come with an expiry date. Yet for some reason the province of British Columbia

does not extend that same courtesy to the taxpayers of this province.

Can the Solicitor General tell us why, when you go to a B.C.

government liquor store and buy someone a gift card, it comes with an expiry

date? And when will he end that practice?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Les: Well, I'm looking forward to getting my gift

card from the member opposite, even with the expiry date.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this is something that we are moving on in

British Columbia. Clearly, the retailers in Canada — and we've been consulting

with them over the last several months — are already moving in that direction.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Speaker, I respectfully present the

guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year

ended March 31, 2007, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8).

[ Page 9602 ]

N. Simons: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a

petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

N. Simons: I have a petition here from over 1,300 people

from the upper Sunshine Coast requesting the government to restore home support

services to the levels that existed in the mid-'90s.

I have another petition from approximately 500 people registering

their concern about the logging practice in the Chapman watershed by Columbia

National Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I'm getting some business out of the way right

now. I don't think we're going to be here tomorrow.

I have another petition from a number of residents from the

Sunshine Coast urging the government to address the serious problems around the

highway, route 101.

Mr. Speaker: Member presents another petition. Have you got

any more?

N. Simons: A couple more, sir, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

N. Simons: I beg your indulgence.

Interjections.

N. Simons: I'm being heckled by both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Can you do anything about that?

I have another petition today from residents of the Sunshine Coast

protesting the use of private managed forest land for development into

residential properties.

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Interjections.

N. Simons: The members opposite are very adept at deductive

reasoning.

This is a petition from over 1,000 residents of the upper Sunshine

Coast who are respectfully asking the government to reconsider the meat

regulations so that small farmers can continue farm-gate sales.

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here — just one

petition — signed by people from Vancouver Island and the central interior,

asking the province of British Columbia to reactivate the Select Standing

Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in light of the issues arising out of the

Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth treaties.

K. Conroy: I, too, have a petition. This is 280 signatures.

It brings to a total of over a thousand signatures from concerned citizens

asking the Minister of Forests not to release the private lands from TFL 23 and

to engage in public consultation with the affected communities.

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from 7,609

residents of North Vancouver and West Vancouver in support of the North Shore

Youth Safe House.

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

C. Puchmayr: I have just learned a tactic in filibustering

with petitions.

This petition is from the legion in New Westminster asking to

extend the time limit to allow them to continue to use their state-of-the-art

smoking room for the old veterans.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call continued second

reading debate of Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Transportation on the hoist

motion. Proceed.

Hon. K. Falcon: I rise today to speak to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. Member for Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I stood to speak.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation is speaking on

the amendment.

[1435]

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, you know, I have had the

pleasure or perhaps, honestly, displeasure of listening to hours and hours of

delay tactics and filibustering by the members opposite on Bill 43. It has never

made it so clear to me just how out of touch that side is on the needs and the

interests of folks in the lower mainland.

It is also, sadly, very apparent to me that the members opposite

have not spent sufficient time — if, frankly, any time — on making themselves

familiar with the legislation that they have decided to so vehemently oppose.

It's actually quite embarrassing. Worse still than that, I think, the opposition

has done a disservice to the public by filibustering and attempting to delay

this bill for their own political reasons rather than actually utilizing the

more than 20 hours of debate

[ Page 9603 ]

time thus far to get into the details of the bill and provide what — who

knows? — could have actually been some constructive input.

It is worth reminding the House that this is a bill that has been

on the order paper for seven months. There have been seven days now of over 20

hours of fulsome debate involved in discussing this bill. I was reminded just

how vacuous and empty most of that debate has been on the other side when I met

with a couple of young UBC students the other day.

These young UBC students had come to talk to me about the bill. I

can tell you that the questions they asked, the level of detail and

understanding that they knew on that bill was actually far better than anything

I'd heard from the opposite side of this House in the 20 hours of debate that

has gone on.

Now, having said that, I'd like to take the opportunity to talk

about some of the rather interesting things the members opposite had to say

while they were commenting on Bill 43 through this motion. There's a lot of

material out there, so I'll just try and pull out some of the real interesting

ones.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The Transportation critic, for example, suggested that it was

somehow absurd for the public to want to know who their representative is on

TransLink. I ask the member: how can one have accountability if you don't know

who to hold accountable? That is what is really absurd when you hear those kinds

of criticisms.

The opposition has said that Bill 43 is an attack on

municipalities. In fact, if you listened to the members — there are some who are

quoting Churchill — you would think that the whole essence of democracy is

somehow under assault here. In fact, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin wondered

why mayors and councils aren't rising up against this bill.

Where is that tsunami of opposition that the members opposite are

praying for, hoping for, believing must be out there? Well, I can tell you why

there has not been a rising up. It's because the local government leaders

recognize and understand that we have a dysfunctional structure in the current

TransLink model set up by that opposition. The only thing that the mayors and

councils have risen up against that I've seen publicly is, in fact, their

current structure.

I'd like to refresh the memories of the member opposite. I'm glad

to see the Transportation critic will be paying attention, I have no doubt, as I

go through some of these things. Vancouver Sun , March 9, 2006. The

individual quoted here is Mayor Derek Corrigan, not exactly a friend of the

government — in fact, a prominent, strongly left-wing NDP supporter and member

who has been, frankly, the shill for any criticism that the NDP or the members

opposite want to make of this government. You can be sure to count on Derek

Corrigan being right there.

This morning, from The Sun , Corrigan is quoted as saying:

"He said he has no confidence in the panel. He said he has always regarded

TransLink as a way for the former NDP government to offload some of its

responsibilities on the region." Now, that is one of their friends, if you can

believe it.

The Vancouver Sun , June 22, 2004, Larry Campbell, the mayor

of Vancouver at the time and TransLink board member. His quote: "Quite frankly,

I don't see it working." He's referring to TransLink. "We have to get rid of the

parochialism."

[1440]

Vancouver Sun , June 22, 2004, Doug McCallum, at that time

the mayor of Surrey, the chair of the TransLink board, somebody who has sat on

the board for years. His quote: "We have serious structural problems in

governance."

An editorial in The Vancouver Sun , June 23, 2004. What does

the editorial say? It says: "What we need is a structure that can override the

inherent conflict that has paralyzed the current board, which is comprised of

local mayors and councillors yet must act in the interests of the entire

region." It's an editorial calling for action by the province to fix what is

clearly a structural problem.

Another in the Delta Optimist , August 10, 2005 — a quote by

the mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, who today is the chair of the GVRD. What did

she have to say on August 10, 2005? "I believe we should have every single mayor

on the TransLink board, and we don't need five representatives from somewhere

like Surrey and Vancouver."

Members of this House, those are actually the people that served

on the TransLink board, are involved in local government and have worked with

the structure that the members opposite are apparently so intent on defending.

This apparently is the grand model of corporate governance and transportation

governance that they want to hold up and protect and defend. My goodness, if we

think about changing it, we are wrecking the underpinnings of democracy,

according to that opposition.

They talk about the assault on municipalities. They've repeatedly

suggested that this is somehow doing something bad to municipalities. I have to

say that that's a little bit rich coming from those members that were part of a

government that actually has a record when it comes to local government.

They have a record that is there for everyone to see, and it is

quite contrary to the flowering words we have heard over the last seven months

about the importance of local government. I certainly remember how that

opposition, when they were in power, in 1996 slashed transfer payments to

municipalities by $113 million and again by $40 million in 1999. That absolutely

poisoned the relationship between local municipal governments and the government

of British Columbia.

To put that in perspective, that slashing of transfer payments to

local government of $113 million in 1996 — without any warning, by the way, just

announcing it…. What effect did that have? Well, those cuts meant a $17.2

million funding cut to the city of Vancouver, equalling 60 percent of the

Vancouver Public Library budget, equivalent to city funding for all of their

community centres and the cost of 180 police officers.

[ Page 9604 ]

That's the reality of the NDP when they were in government and how they dealt

with local governments.

In a letter to the editor the current member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant — who was the Municipal Affairs Minister in 1999, when the further

slashing of $40 million was made against the local governments, to their

detriment — explained the cuts by saying: "Tough fiscal choices would be needed

in order to protect health care and education in the current economic downturn."

The problem with that is that the entire decade of NDP government

was a current economic downturn. They mastered the art of the "current economic

downturn."

Since taking government office in 2001, our government has worked

hard to build what I would say very proudly is today a great working

relationship with local governments. By working together, we have achieved an

awful lot for British Columbians, and I'm going to actually take a moment and

remind the members opposite, because they conveniently forget this.

I'll tell you that if you want to see any evidence of that, I just

encourage the members opposite, as I know they do, to attend the annual

convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and look at the standing ovation

the Premier of British Columbia gets every year when he stands in front of those

local government municipalities.

He gets that because the one thing we don't do is slash $113

million in transfer payments without notice to local governments, and we don't

do it again a few years later with an additional $40 million of slashing

payments to local governments. That's not how you build a great relationship.

[1445]

Let's look at what we do. We've got our B.C. Spirit Squares

program — $20 million.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that's interesting. The member for

Delta North is yelling out. Maybe it's the rage he feels from sitting on council

when the NDP government made those massive cuts.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you don't refer to people,

whether they're in the House or not.

Hon. K. Falcon: You're right, Madam Speaker. You're correct

to point that out.

You know, for the members opposite, generally, it could be the

rage that they feel having sat there and been victimized by the NDP government

as they instituted these harsh, massive cuts in transfers to local government.

No doubt that would explain the outbursts that we may hear occasionally from the

members opposite.

Let's talk about some of the things that our government has done,

and I can tell you it sure doesn't involve making massive slashes to transfer

payments to the local governments. We've got our B.C. Spirit Squares program —

$20 million for local governments to help improve outdoor public meeting or

celebration spaces on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis with local government. It's

something that was widely applauded by the local governments.

We've got our LocalMotion program — $40 million over four years to

provide bike paths and walkways and pedestrian paths so that we can encourage

people to get active and be more involved in the communities, to reduce air

pollution, to conserve energy and to create a more active, healthy community.

We've got the Towns for Tomorrow program — a program of $21

million over three years to communities with a population under 5,000,

specifically targeted to those small rural communities that need that kind of

assistance. We will provide 80 percent of the cost for infrastructure projects

for those small communities.

We've got the Green City Awards. Imagine this: a $2.5 million

program over five years for communities of all sizes. What it's doing is

recognizing excellence and leadership in those communities that are helping to

build greener, healthier, more sustainable communities.

At the UBCM, just this year, Premier Campbell presented the

first-ever Green City Awards to communities that could stand up with pride and

accept the awards and the recognition from their colleagues and from their

province about the great job they are doing in trying to keep their communities

green and our environment healthy.

We've got the traffic fine revenues. Now, remember this. I believe

our original commitment when we ran in 2001 was to return half of traffic fine

revenues to municipalities. The Premier in fact decided that, no, we're going to

return 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to municipalities.

To give you an idea of what that has meant for local

municipalities, since 2004 we have transferred an additional $159.8 million to

municipalities for public safety. That is almost $160 million that

municipalities can now utilize to hire more police officers, improve lighting,

make the kind of steps that will create a safer society for British Columbians

and the communities in which they live. Of course, the NDP voted against that,

just as they voted against all these initiatives.

We've got the resort municipality revenue sharing project. To date

we've had six resort municipalities that have signed this agreement, which

allows them to share a portion of the provincial hotel room tax, so that we can

help those resort communities profile and promote their communities and make

sure that they've got the opportunity to get the word out about the great

communities they have and the resort opportunities in them.

We've got the Canada–British Columbia municipal rural

infrastructure fund, and that is a three-way funding partnership between the

federal government, provincial government and local governments where we can

participate in providing $220 million in capital projects for B.C. communities.

Another example of how we work together with our local communities.

We've got unconditional grants to local government. The Finance

Minister provided $40 million this year alone as part of our continuing

commitment to

[ Page 9605 ]

double our small community grants program by 2009 to a total yearly

commitment of $54 million.

[1450]

We've got the gas tax transfer agreement. We and the Premier and

the Finance Minister and ministers of cabinet worked so hard with the federal

government to try and get a situation where we could get some of those gas tax

revenues — where we could steer them back from Ottawa into local communities and

keep them here in British Columbia to help meet their needs.

To put that in perspective, from the year 2005 to 2010 that will

represent 635 million new dollars to local governments to help them meet their

needs and build projects. That is the kind of arrangement that we have been

entering into with local government.

We've got the gas tax transfer agreement, where we help to arrange

over $48.5 million over five years to be earmarked for regional districts —

almost 8 percent of the total gas tax transfers.

They talk about how this is an assault on municipalities. That is

absolutely shameful — worse than that. We're all used to the kind of rhetoric

you hear from the NDP members opposite — completely devoid of the reality that

they governed for ten years and the reality of what they actually did to this

great province of British Columbia, taking it from the number one economy to

dead last, breaking virtually every record in terms of the economic turmoil that

they afflicted on British Columbia.

In spite of that record, they still try to spout the rhetoric that

they were somehow friends of local government. The evidence is absolutely

contrary to everything we've heard for the last seven months.

Now, we talk about our structure, and the opposition stressed

repeatedly — and you heard this over and over during the rants against Bill 43 —

that there is no need for a professional board. How could this government think

for a minute that you ought to have professionals involved in overseeing a

large, complex organization making multi-billion-dollar infrastructure

decisions?

Well, that's just crazy to the NDP. It's just lunacy to them that

we would think about something so outrageous as to suggest that maybe we should

have people with a chartered accountancy background or maybe we should think

about having some engineers or some finance professionals or people that know a

thing or two about managing and operating large organizations. No, we must never

go there. That must somehow be an assault on the democratic foundation on which

our country was built.

I want to quote what the Transportation critic had to say. Here's

what the Transportation critic had to say on this point about professional

boards: "Frankly, the chartered accountants — their hands are all over this. The

funding formulas here are so complex that they had to have come out of the hands

of chartered accountants. If it's not a make-work project for chartered

accountants, I don't know what is."

That's the Transportation critic acknowledging that the

Transportation critic doesn't understand the financial formulas in the bill. I

promise you that I am quoting directly from what the Transportation critic said.

Imagine that. The formulas are just too complex. There must be chartered

accountants that have their fingerprints all over this.

Well, I say thank goodness for that. I say thank goodness we've

got chartered accountants involved in an organization responsible for billions

of taxpayer dollars in British Columbia.

I have news for the NDP members opposite. Large organizations are

complex. These are big decisions that are being made. Undertaking the

construction of large infrastructure projects is a complex business. Expertise

in finance can only make sense in an organization responsible for delivering

large infrastructure programs.

If there was ever a group of people that ought to have learned

that lesson, it is the NDP members opposite — the ones who were written up in

business journals on how not to manage major projects. That was the legacy of

the fast ferries. They will live in infamy, because from this point on, business

students in Ontario will now look to them as a case study on how not to manage

large, complex projects. That was the NDP contribution to the business schools

of British Columbia.

The lack of understanding….

[1455]

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm hearing voices. Is there an echo, or am

I hearing voices opposite?

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. The member raised an issue of

the convention centre. I would like to say to the member that the one word that

never crossed the Auditor General's pen or mouth was that there was no waste

involved in that project. The one thing I have never heard the members opposite

say — and we acknowledge…. We wish we had done that project as a private-public

partnership.

We on this side wish that we had done it as a private-public

partnership. I'll tell you that the only reason we didn't is because we hadn't

yet, in government, developed the understanding and knowledge about

private-public partnerships. But it is convenient. It is interesting to me that

the 19 public-private partnerships underway in British Columbia are being

characterized by two things.

Two things they've been characterized by, which the members

opposite never talk about: on

schedule and on budget, ladies and gentlemen. That

is the truth. That is something that the members opposite have yet to

acknowledge or recognize.

I continue. The lack of professionals. They are upset because we

are going to dare to have a board of professionals to oversee TransLink. That

apparently is something that really astounds them.

Talking about the bill, it was interesting to me…. As I sat here

and listened to the members opposite go on, it quickly became apparent to me

that many of them had not even read the bill.

[ Page 9606 ]

I know that seems shocking. That seems shocking, but it was

readily apparent. It's all over Hansard — their statements, which are

totally diametrically opposed to what's actually in this bill.

They make reference to the board being handpicked by the province.

This is apparently the great crime that the members opposite see. When they know

in fact — they should know if they've read the bill — that the selection of the

board rests with the council of mayors. It's the mayors that will actually be

choosing who is going to sit on the board. Apparently, they hadn't read the

bill.

There is a screening panel, and if they'd read the bill, they

would know this. The chair of that screening panel was actually the former NDP

Premier of the province, Mike Harcourt — someone I actually have a great amount

of respect for.

The former Premier had this to say about the candidates that were

being put forward.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: You might want to listen to this. This is

your former leader. He said: "We had a pool of about 250 people to choose from.

We had a choice between excellent and superb." That's what the former Premier of

the province had to say.

He went on to say that all 15 of the panel's recommended

candidates are distributed throughout the Metro Vancouver region to allow for a

geographically balanced board and that they include people with experience in

transportation, land use, real estate, major construction projects, finance and

human resources. Exactly the kind of things, the kind of skill set that you

would want to see on a professional board — at least, most British Columbians

would want to see, except of course for the members of the NDP.

You know, when I hear them go on about, "How dare we have a board

with professionals on it?" I think back to their own record of board

appointments. The board that always comes to mind….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. One of my colleagues has

reminded me that one of the boards that always comes to mind is the one called

Catamaran Ferries International. That was a B.C. Ferries subsidiary board. They

appeared to have made a mistake, because initially they put some people on there

who knew a thing or two about overseeing large organizations. One of them, of

course, was Lucille Johnstone, who had a long distinguished career in the

shipping industry.

I remember Kevin Murphy, who was a respected businessman. Michael

Goldberg, a university professor, was on there. But there was a problem. There

was a problem because this professional board was asking really uncomfortable

questions about this project that the NDP had in mind, called the fast ferries.

The board had the temerity to suggest: "Does it really make sense

that we go forward with a project without a business plan? These numbers seem

problematic. Have you really done your homework?"

[1500]

So what did the NDP do? Well, the first thing they did, of course,

was fire that board. "We can't possibly have a board asking those kinds of

unsettling questions." What did they do? They put a new board in place. And who

did they make chairman of the board? Well, of course, it's got to be that

individual with the kind of background and experience in large complex

organizations that the NDP love. The big labour boss Jack Munro — that's who

they chose to be the chair of Catamaran Ferries International.

Do you know what Jack Munro said? Do you know what he said after

the fast ferries debacle started to unroll? I love this. I'm going to paraphrase

roughly what he said. He said, "What the hell do I know about building boats?" —

in Jack's inimitable style. It is so classic.

I want British Columbians to know that that's who the NDP wants

overseeing large, complex projects. That's what they're fighting for. That's

what 20 hours of rhetoric and debate have convinced us of. They want to go back

to the good old days of people with no experience, who haven't got a clue about

boatbuilding, chairing boards responsible for a major boatbuilding episode.

As I say and as I reminded the members, they did such an amazing

job that they have now enshrined themselves in history as a case study for

business students trying to figure out how not to undertake major projects.

That's the NDP. That's the kind of leadership we saw from the NDP.

If the fiasco of the fast ferries did tell us one thing, it really

talked and made it very clear — the Auditor General certainly confirmed that, as

did the other two reports — that you've got to have people on the board that

understand how to manage and have the expertise to oversee large operations and

infrastructure projects.

Then the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith wondered: where were the

groups who would challenge the bill? "This was a rallying point." My goodness,

sooner or later they should come out of the woodwork, and they should be on the

front steps of this Legislature begging us not to go forward with this bill. It

was such an atrocity, apparently, on the democratic republic that we know so

well.

N. Simons: What republic are you talking about?

Hon. K. Falcon: The truth is, Member….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know the member opposite gets excited,

and he's well known for his excitement level. I want the member to listen

carefully, because he often doesn't. If he listens carefully….

I am always hopeful, because I'm an optimist, that maybe one day

the NDP members opposite might actually learn a lesson from the dismal decade

that they

[ Page 9607 ]

inflicted on British Columbia — that somehow, somewhere, at some point it

would leach through to them and they might learn something.

Why didn't people respond to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith,

who wanted to know, with his rallying cry, where all the people were behind

them? Why is it that the NDP are by themselves with their rallying cry and no

one follows? Well, the fact is that the one thing these members opposite have

never understood is that, actually, people want to see change.

The people in the lower mainland want something that works for

them, that delivers results, that executes on a good transportation strategy.

That's what they want, and that's what they're going to get under the new

structure that we intend to put in place.

Then they talked about parochialism. This got really interesting

for me. The opposition seems to have had a hard time deciding whether the issues

of parochialism were even happening in the lower mainland with regard to transit

decisions.

There seems to be some confusion. It is not uncommon in the

members opposite that there is confusion. I've noticed that there's a lot of

confusion on major decisions. They have real difficulty finding what the Leader

of the Opposition calls consensus positions.

Consensus positions. They're apparently very elusive for the

members opposite. It must be a difficult group to get any kind of consensus

with. Nevertheless, their position on whether or not the current TransLink

structure is parochial is perhaps another example of this NDP style of consensus

decision-making.

The former Transportation critic, my good friend the member for

Vancouver-Kensington, said — I'm going to quote directly: "It's really important

that we take seriously this notion that TransLink is parochial, because it is

absolutely untrue." That was the former Transportation critic denying

categorically…. "It is not parochial. How could they say and suggest it's

parochial?"

[1505]

But there's a problem. The current Transportation critic, the

member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, then got up to explain why TransLink is indeed

so parochial. Here's what she said: "What else would a municipality do but

represent its own municipality?"

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite cheers.

On the one hand, apparently there is no truth to the fact that

there is parochialism; on the other hand, the current Transportation critic

says: "Of course they have to be parochial. They must be parochial. They're just

representing their own community." Guess what.

Here's the problem. The problem is that we've never taken argument

with the fact that they're representing their municipality. What we have said is

that the regional interest is being sacrificed by that kind of parochialism.

We're going to fix that with this bill that gets people thinking regionally.

I don't know where the members opposite were on the issue of

Canada line. I've lost track of trying to figure out where they stand. To the

best of my understanding, they still oppose the Canada line. That's the best I

can figure out.

It's been years now. They rail against it regularly, so I'm

assuming they're probably against it, although I'm not sure if it's a consensus

position. I don't know if the Leader of the Opposition is going to come out and

actually try and pretend she's definitive, and say she's taken a position. I

rather doubt it, but nevertheless the fact of the matter is that transportation

is a regional issue. It must be addressed and approached from that perspective.

The current governance structure provides ample evidence that

we've had anything but that kind of thinking and that kind of leadership. That's

why we're bringing about that kind of change. And then….

G. Gentner: Why do you appoint your representatives to the

board?

Hon. K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here? Or is it just

that same member, who will go unmentioned, who happens to come from a region in

Delta, who is so particularly vociferous.

The new TransLink structure proposed in Bill 43 will provide a

balanced approach to decision-making, with all the mayors from the region being

involved at the same time, unlike the current structure where you've got —

amazingly enough — a system of rotating terms with residents having no clue as

to who actually sits there and who apparently is representing their interests on

that board.

The creation of a council of mayors in fact increases

accountability. What it means is the public knows exactly who they need to go to

when they want to talk about the vision and the future of transportation in the

region. They can go talk to their mayor. There's no misunderstanding about who

they should talk to or who will be held accountable.

The fact of the matter is that there will finally be an

opportunity for all of those communities who were excluded from the TransLink

board, who were excluded and didn't have that voice, to now sit as part of the

council of mayors and have involvement in making decisions in what the future of

transit should look like in the lower mainland region.

It is funny. As I sat here listening to the members opposite…. You

know, the one thing that I get a real kick out of is so many of the members

opposite love to talk about the Minister of Transportation — myself — and they

talked about how this minister gave a speech, and he apparently talked about how

he likes the Chinese governance system, and oh, they railed against that. This

Minister of Transportation, who wants to turn the government into a Chinese

style of governance — somehow that's the kind of plot this minister has.

It is so typical of the humourless socialists. They can never,

ever even understand when a minister is giving a speech to local government

representatives in Harrison Hot Springs and the minister makes a joke at his own

expense — which brings down the house, by

[ Page 9608 ]

the way. And those members opposite, the humourless, negative socialists who

can't possibly find humour in anything: "Oh, my goodness. That means that the

minister must be serious about this when he talks about comparisons with what

happens in China." That is exactly the kind of humourless, negative,

destructive, pessimistic kind of approach that we're so used to seeing from the

members opposite.

[1510]

Their comments surrounding the Gateway, perhaps, were the

highlight of the discussion that I heard around this bill. The member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin — remember that this is their Transportation critic, I

hasten to add, who demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what

actually goes on in the lower mainland. I actually ask this question in dead

earnestness, because when I hear this member talk about the Port Mann Bridge, I

don't think this member has even driven across the Port Mann Bridge. I question

whether this member actually even understands anything.

She is a member from the Island. The entire time I've ever heard

this member talk prior to becoming the critic for the Minister of

Transportation, all she talked about was the Island — Island this, Island that —

and never talked about the lower mainland. The words "Port Mann" never crossed

her lips.

Now, suddenly, she's making comments about Gateway. As I say, I'd

sure love to know whether she's actually ever driven over that bridge, because

the comments that she made are so hard to believe for anybody who actually lives

there, it's unbelievable.

She claims that you could put buses on the Port Mann Bridge

tomorrow and the problem would be solved. Unbelievable.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I've got the member from a region

that otherwise will be known as Delta who is yelling out at me.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you sit down just for a

second.

Member, you don't have to reach the same stridency in response.

Thank you. Just a little order — both members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate that interjection, because I

sat very patiently, and mostly quietly, listening to the members opposite go on

about this bill. You know, the member opposite just yelled out: "What about the

Pattullo?" Again, I just sadly have to say this. He hasn't done his homework, as

usual. It's not a provincial government bridge.

I'm sorry, Member. It's a TransLink bridge, and that's your

organization you're defending that you want to stay the same, which hasn't done

a thing about it. That is an interesting position for that member to take. That

he criticizes the province without even knowing what he's talking about is so

typical.

The fact of the matter is that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin,

the Transportation critic, said that you can fix the problem on the Port Mann by

adding buses tomorrow. I can tell you, it is an amazing statement to make. It's

actually a brave statement to make, to be honest with you, because it shows such

a complete disconnect from what actually happens on that bridge. It's a

remarkable thing.

The fact of the matter is that everyone in the lower mainland

understands one thing: if you tried to add buses to that current bridge, you

would achieve nothing. It's an embarrassment and as insult to folks south of the

Fraser and north of the Fraser to pretend that that is a solution to the problem

of the Port Mann Bridge.

Now, if she doesn't believe the residents who have to suffer the

congestion every day, maybe she might believe her former leader who, the other

day, was speaking at the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce. Again, I refer to Mike

Harcourt. He had this to say. I hope the member for Vancouver-Kensington is

listening, because I know that this will be dear to his heart.

I want to quote directly. "If any of those Commercial Drive,

cappuccino-sucking condo dwellers want to know what it's all about, just a drive

either way on the Port Mann during rush hour ought to do it."

That's an interesting comment. That actually shows some pretty

interesting insight. What, in effect, Mr. Harcourt is saying is that a lot of

people who are making these kinds of criticisms, including the Transportation

critic, actually don't know what they're talking about because they haven't

driven it. They need to actually go and drive that bridge to figure out what the

reality is.

If the members opposite could just move beyond that narrow

ideology, as the former Premier has, they could show some support and

constructive solutions for alleviating the congestion on the Port Mann Bridge,

which is approaching 14 hours a day of rush hour congestion. It's absolutely the

worst anywhere in the province by a long shot.

As Madam Speaker well knows, we put in place, in cooperation with

TransLink, a $180 million rapid bus system as part of the newly twinned Port

Mann Bridge. Not only are we extending HOV lanes all the way out to Langley; not

only are we adding $50 million of cycling across the bridge and across every

intersection connecting all the way down to Vancouver to hook up with the local

cycling paths; and not only will the new bridge be designed to handle rapid

transit in the future, when population growth justifies that kind of investment;

not only all of that, but we will also have a $180 million commitment for rapid

bus.

[1515]

Rapid bus means a bus that bypasses the existing queues of traffic

and gets people where they need to go quicker, more efficiently — in some cases,

more efficiently than rapid transit. It will mean that an individual going from

Langley to the Coquitlam SkyTrain station can get there in 23 minutes. That is

actually responding to the reality of congestion, not coming forward with

ridiculous ideas of just adding buses to the existing situation.

[ Page 9609 ]

Only someone totally unfamiliar with Surrey and out of touch with

the cities south of the Fraser could possibly believe, as that Transportation

critic apparently does, that you could put buses back on the bridge tomorrow and

fix this problem.

The second suggestion she had — rather amazing — is that we should

be tearing up blacktop, as if that is any kind of solution to the transportation

dilemma that faces folks south of the Fraser River. She described the Scott Road

station as a transit hub. Well, I hate to break it to the Transportation critic,

but if she knew Surrey at all, as the members from Surrey would be happy to tell

her, the Scott Road station is surrounded by industrial land and a handful of

single-family homes.

The transit hub is actually the Central City station. That's where

we're seeing the density. That's where we're seeing the ridership that's going

to feed the system. It would be helpful if the members opposite did their

homework and understood where the transit hub really was in Surrey.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite asks…. I just heard a

voice again echoing through the hallway about: when was the last time I was down

on Scott Road? Actually, I was on Scott Road last week.

You know, Member, if you actually took the time to drive down to

Scott Road, you might turn left on Highway 10, because you'll see part of over

$200 million of road improvements we're doing to Highway 15, Highway 10, Highway

91A. New overpasses — that's the kind of thing you'll see if you take the time

to drive down Scott Road.

The Transportation critic then criticizes the Gateway plan by

saying that transit isn't part of the plan. Well, apparently they missed the

press conference and the front-page news stories that talked about the $180

million transit plan that was part of the Gateway.

You know, I don't often like to, necessarily, quote too much at

liberty from the members of the media that are here with us every day, but I do

have to just quote directly from something that a very highly esteemed columnist

who writes for The Vancouver Sun had to say with regard to the

NDP's criticism of the Gateway project, particularly the Transportation critic's

comment that transit isn't part of the plan.

I want to quote directly, because I think it actually says it

better than I could ever say it, with apologies to the columnist, who probably

doesn't necessarily want to be read into the record but will be: "It's like they

didn't even look at what the government was actually proposing to do. I mean,

say whatever you want in rhetorical terms, but to come out and suggest this is

all just about getting cars across the bridge, you haven't even read the basic

papers on it."

That's exactly what I am saying. I think, just for once, it would

be nice if the opposition NDP members' rhetoric actually matched the facts. I

actually don't mind constructive criticism. I think it's actually welcomed, and

it would have been nice as part of this debate had we been able to engage in a

debate on the merits of the actual bill.

Sadly, we were forced to listen to filibustering and rhetoric that

was, in most cases, divorced from the reality of what was in the bill. That, I

think, is a tragedy for British Columbians, who deserved to have the kind of

debate and discussion on this bill that I think would have elucidated the facts

and would have helped the public understand exactly what was happening in this

particular case.

I thought when it came to Gateway…. I actually thought a couple of

months ago that the Leader of the Opposition had finally, after two years, taken

a position. You know, I was the most excited person in government about this,

because I was waiting for them to take a position on the Port Mann Bridge.

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition emerged, and she sure sounded decisive

about her position. She said: "We are absolutely against that bridge. It's the

wrong bridge for the wrong time." She had some little fancy quote around that,

and she tried to sound decisive, and there was rejoicing in the streets.

[1520]

Unfortunately, the only rejoicing took place mostly in the streets

around maybe the houses of the NDP members opposite, because I can tell you what

the public reaction was. It was just a little bit different than perhaps what

the NDP thought it might be, and they got roasted. They got roasted. I don't

believe I've ever seen the Leader of the Opposition take it on the chin so hard

as when she went on Bill Good and had caller after caller absolutely

vilify her for the position she took.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, it was interesting, and that

position started to soften almost immediately. Suddenly, this very decisive,

hard position…. I was getting confused, because I had my colleagues…. The

members opposite from Surrey were in their local ethnic media saying: "Oh no,

no. That's not what she meant. We actually support the twinning of the bridge.

Oh, we're a hundred percent behind it."

I was kind of confused, because I was saying to myself: "Well,

wait a minute. I thought I'd just heard the leader take a position." I was

actually excited, and I gave her credit. I said, "It's the first time I've heard

her take a real, strong position on anything," and I thought that ought to be

applauded. But it did not take but a matter of days before that position started

to move. Now, actually, I couldn't even tell the public…. I can't honestly tell

the public where they are on that bridge anymore.

Maybe they can get up and take another position. I don't know if

it will be a consensus position, or if it will just be her position, or they'll

all take differing positions, or whatever. It would just be nice to know where

they actually stand on that project. But I do know one place where they won't be

standing. They will not be

[ Page 9610 ]

standing on the stage trying to get credit when we open up that new Port Mann

Bridge and we open up the new opportunities for folks south of the Fraser.

It is interesting, because as a member I have the great privilege

of sitting in this House and listening to so much of the debate not just on my

bills but on other bills. I'm always interested in the members opposite, because

I actually wish somebody would take the time to put a list together of what they

say one day and what they say the other day. It is a remarkable feat of

gymnastics. In fact, if it was an Olympic sport, there would be gold medals

handed out to every single one of the members opposite. It is really quite

something to behold.

I'm just going to give a few examples that I gathered just while

I've been sitting in this House listening to the discussion on the environmental

bill.

We've got the member for Delta North, who is always one of my

favourite members. He's always one to be heard and yelling out hysterical

comments. Here's what he said in support of Bill 44. This is on November 21,

2007, so if the members opposite want to check Hansard , they'll see it

there. The member says: "I stand in support of this Bill 44." That's November

21, 2007. The next day — mind you; only 24 hours has passed — the member says:

"This bill is a joke. It is a complete joke." That's an interesting

juxtapositioning there, if you ask me.

Another example….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you're on Bill 43.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am on Bill 43, Madam Chair, and I

appreciate you….

What I'm trying to do is recognize that the positions that the

opposition are taking on this bill are part of a pattern of opposition that is

devoid from the facts and is contrary to statements that they've actually made

prior to that. I'm trying to reflect that this is not an isolated case in the

case of the amendment on Bill 43, that there is….

An Hon. Member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Point of order.

Point of Privilege

G. Gentner: I reserve the right to raise a matter of

personal privilege.

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, on CFAX radio, November 21, 2007,

we've got another example where the Leader of the Official Opposition said: "I

am certainly pleased that we finally see the Premier doing something on climate

change." The next day, amazingly enough, on second reading of that bill, the

Leader of the Opposition said: "It's with regret that I stand here today and say

that I don't believe that the government is doing enough in the fight against

climate change."

I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make here is that this

is a problem for the opposition, because their rhetoric is so often divorced

from the facts. I guess as members of government, you know, we are held to the

facts. If we do not put out the right facts, we will be held accountable, as we

should, but the members opposite unfortunately aren't held to that same

standard.

[1525]

I think it's unfortunate, because I think it does a disservice to

the public when they continually go on and on in a manner that is completely

divorced from the reality or the facts or even the bill itself — which, in many

cases, they haven't even read and which would give them the guidance and the

information that they obviously need.

To be honest, I guess the comments aren't altogether surprising,

considering the record that the NDP has on the environment and its dealings with

municipalities. You will recall that the other thing they're saying is that this

bill is a real assault on municipalities. I talked about the examples of the

real, true assault that actually took place in the 1990s on municipalities.

I want to also give another example that the members opposite will

conveniently forget. They may recall that during their tenure they did a project

called the Millennium line. The first thing the NDP did, of course, is exempt

the Millennium line from undergoing the same environmental review process that

they required everyone else to go under, because they wanted to fast-track this

project for political purposes.

The Environment Ministry was out of the picture. They were driving

this project through, and they ignored the environmental regulations and rules

that applied to everyone else. That's the actual record of the opposition when

they were in government. They went ahead with the Millennium line.

This is the

part I find really interesting, because I sat here and

listened to the NDP defend the GVRD. They talked about: "My goodness, how

important this GVRD is. How could this government have a situation where they

appear to be ignoring the interests or the wishes of the GVRD?" Yet I actually

had to check the record because I didn't think they could be so blatant in

saying something in the House that would be so completely divorced from their

own record.

I actually went back and checked, and sadly, I had to come to the

conclusion that I was right. In fact, when they went ahead with the Millennium

line, they did so against the wishes of the GVRD, this organization which they

apparently hold so dear. In fact, as I was doing that research, I looked and saw

a quote about the Millennium line from the TransLink president, Pat Jacobsen,

who said: "There was never a business case for this line. It was never the

region's priority."

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we get right to the crux, right to the

very core of the NDP opposition's argument against this bill. They try to

suggest that this is a terrible assault on municipalities, that we ignore

municipal input, that we don't listen to the GVRD, that this is a terrible

assault on municipal input and decision-making. Yet when they were in power,

they acted

[ Page 9611 ]

absolutely opposite to everything we've had to listen to in this House for

the last 20 hours of discussion and debate on this bill. That's what we've had

to listen to.

It is incredible to me that even though it wasn't the region's

priority, even though the GVRD opposed it, they jammed it forward.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I hear a voice that sounds similar to the

Minister of Environment critic, who amazingly enough is standing there yelling

out comments when it was them in government that exempted the Millennium line

from environmental rules and regulations. That is embarrassing. That is

shameful. That is appalling.

I will say one thing. The environmental process we go through is

rigorous, it is long, and it can even be frustrating. But I tell you this: I

respect the process. I know how important that process is. I know how important

it is that everyone has an opportunity to have input into major projects.

But when they were in power, when the critic for the Minister of

Environment was in power, what did they do?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. K. Falcon: They exempted a major project from

environmental regulation. What a shame.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just a minute. Minister, sit

down, please.

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Chair, I apologize for having to

raise my voice, but it's difficult to hear over the shouting, so I will only do

that as a last resort. I want to assure the Chair of that.

Again, just to remind the members opposite. The president of

TransLink was very clear. There was never a business case for the line. Well, no

big surprise there, of course. They never had business cases. But it was never

the region's priority. Yet I have had to listen to the most unbelievable

diatribes about how we're not listening to the region and how the municipalities

are not involved. I mean, it's unbelievable.

What else did people say? Well, I sure like the comments of the

ICBA on this issue. Their comments were: "It was a politically driven project

with a politically driven timetable." It goes on to say that what it shows is

that the NDP government really doesn't have any clue of how proper, ethical

business practices are undertaken. That was just another in the many, many

comments that were made.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, and I keep hearing the voices opposite.

How, when the truth gets put onto the record, it creates some

sensitivities. How it creates some sensitivities with the members opposite. I

get that. I know how difficult it can be, but I'm going to make you weather it

just the way I stoically and patiently and kindly weathered the diatribes that I

heard for over 20 hours on this bill.

They're going to have to listen to the facts, because I will say

this. This is a minister and a government that will put the facts on the table.

We will be held accountable for putting the facts on the table, unlike the

flights of fancy that I hear from the members opposite.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. K. Falcon: Time after time the members opposite have

shown themselves to be totally unfamiliar with the communities that they purport

to defend and, evidently, completely unfamiliar with the legislation itself. I'm

going to refresh their memories and reiterate why moving forward with Bill 43 is

actually very, very important and why it is something that is being embraced and

welcomed by the public in the lower mainland.

At the end of the day, I do know one thing. The public wants

results. They actually want government that's going to deliver results. Results

for the members opposite may be process and arguing and debating and fighting

and getting nowhere. But to the public, the result is that when they have a bus

come by on Broadway, they actually can get on that bus and get to their

destination. That's the kind of result the public wants.

When the members opposite talk about: "Oh, we're concerned about

security at stations…." For ten years apparently that security didn't amount to

anything. We get in power, and we're going to make sure there are turnstiles and

gated entrances to rapid transit stations so that people can actually feel safe

at a rapid transit station. That's what we're going to do. That's the difference

between that government and ourselves.

Let me talk about Bill 43 and why….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's right. The Minister of Energy and

Mines reminds me that a trip was made by the member opposite, at that time….

Hon. L. Reid: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant —

thank you — went with, I believe, nine bureaucrats to London to examine the

system of turnstiles and see whether this made some sense. My recollection….

This is going back many years, but I know that trip cost well over $50,000.

They came back, and what happened? Well, what usually happened.

Absolutely nothing. Nothing addressed the legitimate security needs that women

have when they're at that station, particularly at night. Nothing moved forward

that would actually address

[ Page 9612 ]

this issue that is so important to the public, which they constantly go on

about and pretend they care about.

The fact of the matter is that we're dealing with it. We're going

to get those gated systems up. We're going to make sure people feel safe. We're

going to protect the public of the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Let's take an opportunity to talk about the bill. I think this is

an important bill that gets to the core of how we're going to strike the balance

between delivering a transportation system that works for the public…. These

major projects and decisions help get put together by people who have the

background, the knowledge, the experience — whether it's in accountancy or

finance or human resources or engineering or what have you — that will be there

overseeing major projects, overseeing what is, after all, a billion-dollar

annual operating budget and have to make decisions that, frankly, will last for

generations in the lower mainland.

I can tell you one thing that I used to hear all the time, and not

just from the current board members. I quoted into the record what the existing

and past members of the TransLink board had to say about the structure, and none

of it was particularly flattering.

I will say this too. I've spoken at great length with many of the

current members of the board, including the chair, Malcolm Brodie, who I think

has done an exceptional job trying to work with a very difficult structure on

how to actually move transit decisions forward and trying to deal with the

challenges of a growing lower mainland and a transit system, frankly, that has

not kept up with the needs of the folks in the lower mainland.

The one thing that always came up — the one thing that was so

apparent to the public and why the public is happy to see this change come about

— is that it was so clear that we had a governance structure problem. It's not

that there weren't good people who sat on the board, because there were. It's

the fact that you had a structure in place that absolutely guaranteed that what

you would get is parochialism and in-fighting, and that regional interests — the

larger, broader public interests of the transportation needs of the region —

would be lost. That's exactly what was demonstrated since the NDP put that

unbelievably byzantine structure into place.

[1535]

As you know, we've got a situation now where you've got less than

half of the municipalities….

An Hon. Member: Fewer. Fewer than half.

Hon. K. Falcon: Fewer than half of the municipalities in

TransLink's service region are actually represented on TransLink's board at any

time.

I ask you: how on earth does that give them representation? Half

of them aren't even represented on the board. Yet not once did I hear any member

of that opposition talk about that. Not once did I hear them talk about the

travesty that it was that less than half of the members' municipalities were

represented on the TransLink board. I never heard a word about that from the

members opposite.

Oh no. They had to defend this byzantine, bizarre structure that

they set up at all costs, in spite of all the evidence. They had to defend it

and pretend that any attempt to tamper with the TransLink governance structure

was in fact tampering with democracy itself. That's what we heard from the

members opposite. Remember that.

Yet not even once did I hear them talk about the fact that less

than half of the municipalities in the region are actually represented on the

board. How do you think those municipalities feel about that? How do you think

they feel?

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member from Langley-Aldergrove yelled

out: "Awful." He's right to say awful. I can tell you that when I meet with

mayors of Langley, they sure don't feel like they're getting a good deal out of

the regional transit system that the NDP put in place. When I talk to the mayor

of Surrey — and she said it publicly — she sure doesn't feel like she's getting

a good deal out of the transit system that they continue to defend.

When you talk to almost anybody in the public, they will tell you

that they don't feel that they're getting the right service, the right level of

service, the right decisions being made or that the interests of the region are

being looked after. They don't tell me that.

Only those members opposite in their usual negative, destructive,

pessimistic way will just cling, as if their very lives depended on it, to a

structure that virtually nobody else will defend. But they will. And any change

to that must be the end of democracy as we know it, according to the members

opposite.

Let's look at the structure. It is a rather fascinating structure.

It's a structure only a socialist could put together, because nobody can figure

it out.

They talk about accountability, so you're going to love this whole

vision of accountability that I'm about to put in front of you, which is the

current structure. Members get elected to their various councils around the

lower mainland. Then from their councils they get appointed to a board called

the GVRD. Then from the GVRD board, people get appointed onto this other board

called TransLink.

Once they sit on that TransLink board — here's the best part,

because less than half of the municipalities are even represented on this board

— they just revolve them every year. That's a good way to develop constructive

oversight of a billion-dollar operation with multi-billion-dollar commitments.

That is the kind of structure that the opposition fights to

preserve. In fact, the very democratic system that we apparently have in place

is at risk if we move away from this paradigm of democracy, this paradigm of

accountability.

When you walk around the lower mainland, as I do, and ask people,

"Could you please name me one person that sits on what is known as TransLink?"

they can rarely name a single person who sits on that board.

[ Page 9613 ]

How in any universe, except the one that they live in, could that make any

sense to anybody but the NDP?

One-year board terms, as is currently provided for — I have to

remind the members — are hardly conducive to the kind of long-term planning and

decision-making and oversight you want to see on a large, complex organization

like TransLink.

You know, I remember, as we were going through the debate over the

Canada line, the province and the Premier were insisting that that project must

be built and constructed as a private-public partnership. We insisted on that.

TransLink, especially the left-wing members that are allies of the

NDP opposite, were beside themselves. "How dare they demand it be a P3? We want

to build this ourselves. We can do it better." Imagine that. People like David

Cadman and Derek Corrigan would be overseeing a $2 billion complex

infrastructure project. That's what the allies of the NDP wanted to see.

No. We insisted it was going to be developed as a private-public

partnership. If we were going to put $435 million of provincial taxpayer dollars

into that project, it was going to be a P3.

[1540]

The federal government agreed with us, and guess what. Today it is

being built as a P3 on schedule, on budget. It'll be delivered for the benefit

of the lower mainland residents.

Yet the lengths to which they will go to say just completely crazy

things devoid of any reality never ceases to amaze me. The member from Maple

Ridge stood up the other day. He was talking about a TransLink project. It

happens to be a P3. The Golden Ears bridge is a project which, by the way, is

proceeding very well on

schedule and on budget. The member stands up and says —

listen to this — that it was $600 million over budget.

What? Like, where does this come from? Can you imagine if I could

just stand up and make up numbers and throw them out there? I just sit here, and

I am amazed that they can say this kind of stuff.

I happened to be in the House at that time, and I said: "Are you

kidding me? Where do you get a number like that?" It's like a deer in the

headlights, you know. He was looking at me: "Well, it is."

Hon. R. Neufeld: "Sounded good to me," he said.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, it sounded good to him.

I plead with the opposition: let's have debate, but let's at least

have a factual basis to the opposition critics. It would be so beautiful to the

public of B.C. if they could hear them utilize real facts.

What else? Well, we've got a board that, as you know, is a

challenge because decision-making often falls victim to parochialism. I'll take

the critic for Transportation…. I'll take her comments quite as she put them.

She thinks: "Yes, that's exactly right. That's what they should be doing. They

should be fighting for the municipality."

The problem is that we're not talking about their municipality.

We're actually talking about the region. We're talking about a transit system

that will work for the region. That is what was absent. That was what we did not

see, and that is what we are going to fix as part of the new structure.

You will now have a professional board — a board made up of

professionals that come from a background of finance, human resources,

engineering, legal and the kinds of skill sets that you would want overseeing

the complex decisions around procurement, around overseeing very large, complex

and in some cases multi-billion-dollar projects. That's the kind of

professionalism you want.

Then you will have a council of mayors made up of all the mayors

in the region — not some of them, not less than half of them. All of them will

be part of the council of mayors. What they will do is set the vision and the

direction. They will be saying: "Here's what we want the transportation system

to look like over the next ten and 20 and 30 years in the region."

[1545]

That's what they do best. That is what they will do best. They

will have input into the construction and building of those visions. They will

work with the professional board. They will meet with the professional board at

a minimum of four times a year. That is a minimum.

The members opposite talked about that like it was a cap. "How

outrageous," they said, "that they would only meet with the professional board

four times. This is an outrage." No, Members. You hadn't, again, read the

legislation. It is a minimum of four times, and the council of mayors will work

with these professionals.

I guarantee you this. I, in fact, know this. I know because I know

all of those mayors. I work with all of those mayors on a regular basis, and

that's why they're working with us to make this work. I know that they're going

to do a fantastic job. They're going to work with that professional board, and

they will deliver a transportation system we can be proud of in the lower

mainland of British Columbia.

Then we have the poor public under the current structure. They

don't know who their representatives are. The representatives are changing all

the time. They're seeing the infighting and the warring going back and forth.

They're not seeing anything actually happen that would provide them benefits.

Or, when it does happen, like the Canada line, it's only after a long-drawn-out,

internationally embarrassing circus that went on for far, far too long.

They say to themselves: "Who are the ultimate decision-makers?"

The structure that the NDP put in place is so complex that the GVRD and the

TransLink board are often diametrically opposed on the kinds of issues they're

supposedly working together on. We've seen them be on the opposite sides of some

key transportation issues — like Gateway, for example, or the priority of

whether it should be Canada line or the Evergreen line.

R. Hawes: Oh, say it's not so.

[ Page 9614 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely. This is exactly the kind of

thing that has gone on for too long. Apparently, our fault is that we actually

said: "You know what? We're going to fix it." We're not going to pretend that

there's not a problem here. We're not going to pretend that there's not a better

way of actually dealing with transportation issues than what we've had go on the

last number of years in the lower mainland. We're actually going to put into

place a process that will work and will actually deliver results for the public.

That's really what the public wants to see.

The members opposite…. Bless them, because they do give me joy

when I am speaking on issues like this. They actually give me more than joy.

They give me so much material on the things they say in this House that I can

then read into the record and hold up to the bright light of accountability and

show how it is completely at variance with things called facts. That's what they

always have difficulty with.

This structure called TransLink, which they are fighting so hard

to defend, was an interesting thing. They set up a ten-year plan, but they

didn't actually fund the plan. They were pretty good at saying: "Here's the kind

of things that we want to build and add and get done and do to the transit

system and get all this stuff put in place." But they didn't identify what

sources of revenues were going to be necessary to pay for them. So we had a

situation where, starting in 2009, they would be running significant deficits.

By a couple of years later the organization would effectively be bankrupt if

they just proceeded with the existing plan.

I actually don't think, as a Minister of Transportation

responsible for transportation across the entire province of British Columbia,

that it is a structure that not only is not giving the public any confidence. It

certainly is not inspiring the Minister of Transportation with confidence that

this is the right model for going forward when our Premier and our Finance

Minister and our government actually want to deliver some big changes in

transportation.

We want to see exciting things happen. We want to meet our

33-percent greenhouse gas reduction target. We want to make sure TransLink is

working with us and that they have the right skill set, the right governance

structures, so they can execute a transit plan that is going to work for the

lower mainland of British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here on the last day of our

session where, sadly, we have not had the opportunity to engage in a real debate

of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis, because we have an opposition that has

had this bill in front of them for the last seven months. This bill has been on

the order paper.

Interjection.

[1550]

Hon. K. Falcon: They apparently are slow readers. So says

one of my colleagues, and I would agree with that.

I would have to say that it is unfortunate. I actually think that

the members of the opposition have really done a disservice to British

Columbians. For the last 20-plus hours over seven days on a bill that's been on

the order paper for seven months, when we could have had the opportunity to have

substantive debate on this bill….

I might remind the members opposite that I had a better debate

with a couple of UBC students about the merits of the bill than I heard from

across that aisle for the entire 20-plus hours that they've been filibustering

this bill. That, I think, is really a shame. I actually told the UBC students

that. I congratulated them. I said: "You know what? You've actually done more

homework. At least you've read the bill."

It's remarkable. We had people standing up talking about the bill

who didn't have a clue what they were apparently talking about. They hadn't

actually read the bill. It was just absolutely remarkable.

Madam Speaker, we as a government have in this House — and I'm

pleased to say, with the support, finally, ultimately of the members opposite —

passed a bill, which actually sets in legislation for the first time that I'm

aware of in this country hard targets that government must meet in terms of

showing our leadership and doing our bit for the reduction of greenhouse gases

in the province of British Columbia. We do that, and we undertake those steps,

because we are absolutely serious about showing that kind of leadership.

In the other areas that we have moved towards, transportation is

going to be a big part of that. We cannot achieve t