2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ken Middleton

S. Brice

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

Hon. K.

Falcon

BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and

Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Saanich police patrols on Halloween

S. Orr

Abbeyfield housing for seniors

G. Trumper

Repairs to Highway 3 in Kootenay area

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Privatization and viability of B.C.

Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Police services in Vancouver and

funding by traffic fine revenue

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Abbott

Funding for mental health services in

Vancouver

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Cheema

Privatization of B.C. Rail

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

Petitions

B. Bennett

Committee of the Whole House

Pacific National Exhibition Enabling

and Validating Act (Bill 83) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

J. Kwan

K. Johnston

R. Nijjar

R. Hawes

Mayencourt

Reporting of Bills

Pacific National Exhibition Enabling

and Validating Act (Bill 83)

Third Reading of Bills

Pacific National Exhibition Enabling

and Validating Act (Bill 83)

Second Reading of Bills

Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill

88)

Hon. S.

Hagen

J. MacPhail

Suffredine

M. Hunter

G. Trumper

B. Bennett

K. Stewart

Christensen

B. Belsey

R. Visser

D. MacKay

J. Les

B. Penner

J. Bray

P. Bell

Hon.

S. Hagen

[ Page 7717 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge 16

second- and third-year political science students from Linfield College in

McMinnville, Oregon, which is just south of Portland and one of the oldest

colleges on the Pacific coast. They're here with their professor, Dr. Dawn

Nowacki. They met this morning with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the Leader

of the Opposition and myself as they further their studies on British Columbia's

political system. I certainly wish them luck. Would the House please make them

feel very welcome.

Hon. C.

Clark: Today we are joined by a resident of White Rock, someone known to all

of us. If you tuned into 690 on your AM dial this morning, you would have heard

he wasn't there. That's because he's here on what he calls a fishing trip. I

hope all members of the Legislature would make Rick Cluff — known to many

British Columbians through his good work on the radio — very welcome.

Tributes

KEN MIDDLETON

Brice: I would like to make both an announcement and an introduction. On a

sad note, I'd like to advise the House of the death of Ken Middleton. Ken worked

for Saanich for 45 years and in his retirement was the special events

coordinator. In June of 1992 he was made a freeman of the municipality of

Saanich, and a plaza was dedicated in his honour. He leaves his wife, Evelyn,

and five children. Ken will be remembered as a sterling example of citizenship

and selfless dedication to our community.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Brice: On a happier note, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

introduce 16 grade 11 students visiting from Pacific Christian School in my

constituency of Saanich South. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Reems, as well

as several parent volunteers. Would the House please make them welcome.

Mayencourt: I have in the gallery today two very dear friends of mine, David

and Frauke Owen. David has been a real great support to me. He has been someone

that's gone out and campaigned with me. Regularly we have breakfast together so

that he can tell me what our government should do. I would ask that the House

please make them both feel very welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have a special guest visiting today from Ottawa:

Carole Norton, our daughter-in-law. Would the House please make her very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

STREAMLINING ACT

Hon. K.

Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that Bill 75 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 75, Significant Projects Streamlining

Act. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act allows cabinet, by a designation,

to assign special status to projects deemed to be significant and to have broad

benefits for the economic, social or environmental well-being of British

Columbia.

There have

long been concerns from investors and local governments about the lack of

timeliness in obtaining project approval decisions in British Columbia. In fact,

our province has garnered a reputation as having one of the most difficult and

lengthy approval processes for major projects in North America. Inefficient

review and approval processes result in many potential investments and investors

waiting far too long for decisions from government. Long delays are often caused

by conflicting requirements from multiple ministries and approval authorities.

This particularly affects the viability of projects sponsored by local

governments and the provincial government that seek key partnerships with the

private sector.

Designation

under this act will ensure that project reviews and approvals are addressed

within reasonable time frames and that all parties involved can recognize and

address potential problems in a way that is positive and cooperative. The

Significant Projects Streamlining Act creates a framework that encourages

project proponents and all levels of government to place a discipline on

themselves to work together to head off problems before they arise. The act does

not in any way change provincial or federal environmental, health or safety

standards associated with the development or operation of a project.

This

legislation is consistent with government's direction to reduce red tape and the

regulatory burden for British Columbians and follows through on the commitment

to create a strong and vibrant provincial economy. Bill 75 creates an innovative

framework for dialogue and cooperation on projects that are in the best

interests of all British Columbians, and it ensures that project reviews and

related activities for significant projects are carried out in a manner that is

timely and efficient.

[ Page 7718 ]

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 75

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

BC HYDRO PUBLIC POWER LEGACY

AND HERITAGE CONTRACT ACT

Hon. R.

Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that Bill 85 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[1410]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and

Heritage Contract Act.

You'll

recall that on November the 25, 2002, government's new energy plan was released.

There are four pillars in that energy plan: first, low electricity rates and

public ownership — and I want to emphasize the public ownership as there seem

to be some people that don't understand public ownership; second, securing

reliable supply; third, more private sector opportunities; and fourth,

environmental responsibility.

The energy

plan reflects the desire of British Columbians to retain public ownership of

B.C. Hydro's core assets and the benefits they provide in securing a reliable,

low-cost source of energy for the province. Low electricity rates make B.C. an

attractive place to raise a family and invest in. Low electricity rates help

B.C. businesses and new investors compete in an increasingly global economy. The

energy plan's first policy action is a legislative heritage contract to preserve

B.C.'s low-cost energy advantage. It is my honour to introduce enabling

legislation to create the regulatory framework to establish the heritage

contract.

This act

fully protects public ownership of B.C. Hydro's generation, transmission and

distribution assets. With this act the investment that B.C. residents have made

in B.C. Hydro continues. Also included in the bill is the repeal of the B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act to eliminate outdated restrictions

imposed on tariffs and gas.

The new act

ensures that B.C. Hydro's assets remain in public hands so that British

Columbians continue to enjoy electricity rates among the lowest in North

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 85

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Harris: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Harris: I noticed in the gallery today…. I can't see them all, but we have

a significant portion, if not all, of the North Central Municipal Association. I

would like the House to please make them welcome, because they're down here for

the next couple of days having meetings. They're going to be meeting with the

northern caucus later this week to talk about a lot of the things that are going

on in the north and, in fact, draft some strategy for how we actually improve

everybody's lives. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

SAANICH POLICE PATROLS ON HALLOWEEN

S. Orr: I

have the privilege of serving two municipalities. Half of my riding is in

Victoria, and the other half is in Saanich. At Halloween last year I went out

with the Victoria police, and this year I went out with the Saanich police.

Halloween

can be great fun for small children, but when they go home, it seems a lot of

devils come out and all hell breaks loose. At the Saanich police department it

was all hands on deck — a large contingency of police officers, auxiliaries,

detectives, a police board member, plus the police chief Derek Egan and even the

mayor himself, Frank Leonard. What a night — over 200 calls.

Saanich has

the largest population of youth, and of course, UVic is in Saanich, which has a

student population base of at least 20,000 students. We were driving from one

out-of-control party to another, and of course, with the consumption of booze

and drugs they get out of control very quickly.

Although

the police were incredibly organized, Saanich's sheer size makes for a lot of

driving in responding to these hundreds of calls. The police moved swiftly,

efficiently and respectfully through a very cold night, confiscating everything

from booze to illegal drugs and fireworks — but possibly the most dangerous of

all, homemade fireworks.

It was an

exhausting evening and night for the Saanich police, but they did an exceptional

job. The citizens of Saanich and Victoria-Hillside can be proud and confident

that their safety and issues relating to policing are well taken care of. They

are in good hands. Well done, Saanich police.

ABBEYFIELD HOUSING FOR SENIORS

Trumper: As we seek to find appropriate housing for seniors as the

population ages, non-profit or-

[ Page 7719 ]

ganizations will play an enormous role in helping us to meet the needs. While

there are a number of organizations across the province that assist with seniors

housing, today I would like to talk about Abbeyfield.

[1415]

Abbeyfield

is a charity that builds non-profit housing for seniors. It is responding to the

growing needs of seniors who are unable to live alone but do not need the

services of a home for the aged or a nursing home. Abbeyfield offers a warm,

family-style house and a balance between privacy and companionship, security and

independence, combined with a special caring element provided by dedicated

volunteers and the consistency of single-house management style.

Abbeyfield

was the name of a street in Bermondsey, London, England, where in 1956 the first

Abbeyfield House was established. Today there are Abbeyfield societies in 14

countries around the world. In Canada there are 27 Abbeyfield Houses, 22 of

those located in British Columbia.

The

Abbeyfield Houses Alberni Valley Society is a non-profit organization that began

by looking for a solution to the valley's seniors housing issues in 1986 and

became incorporated in 1995. When the old West Coast Hospital was torn down, the

city of Port Alberni agreed to lease the extended care unit to the Abbeyfield

Society. Today it provides housing to 18 seniors in the Alberni Valley. Each

resident has a self-contained unit and receives an appropriate level of care and

services.

Abbeyfield's

guiding principles clearly demonstrate the excellence of the support and care

philosophy that provides a safe and secure housing option for seniors who need

some assistance or who were just lonely living on their own. I want to

congratulate all those who worked so hard to open the doors of Alberni

Abbeyfield seniors residence.

REPAIRS TO HIGHWAY 3

IN KOOTENAY AREA

Bennett: Last year at about this time — in fact, on September 26 of last

year — there was a horrible, tragic automobile accident in my riding on a

section of Highway 3 that we know as Steamboat Hill. That accident was covered

by BCTV. It was a horrible thing to look at on television. There was a gas truck

involved, and there was a big, burning flame. Unfortunately, a young couple from

Fernie lost their lives in that accident, leaving young children behind. As a

result of that, hundreds of my constituents put together a petition that I'll

ask to have tabled later this afternoon.

What I want

to say now is that as a result of our Minister of Transportation and as a result

of the Premier and as a result of the policies we've put forward in this

government, even under some very challenging times within the context of

balancing our budget, we have been able, as a government, to fix that corner.

The construction to fix Steamboat Hill, to make that a safe place for people to

drive, is happening today. Now, this corner has been there for 20 years. For 20

years the people of the East Kootenay have been asking that this corner be

fixed. I'm proud to say that as of a week ago, construction started. We are now

fixing Steamboat Hill so it will be safe for people to use Highway 3 in that

area.

Hunter: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hunter: I want to welcome and ask the House to help me welcome 12 grade 11

ESL students from Malaspina College in Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr.

Butler, and two accompanying adults. Will you please help me welcome these

folks.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY

OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: Let me put on record a letter from Ron East, a well-known Liberal

activist in Prince George. I quote from him: "Mr. Premier, you promised you

would not sell B.C. Rail, and we voted for you because we believed in you. No

sooner were you elected than you started your campaign to deceive us into

believing our rail company is a money-loser. Shame on you."

Can the

Minister of Transportation tell us why her party's own supporters are saying her

government is deceiving them into believing B.C. Rail is a money-loser?

[1420]

Hon. J.

Reid: B.C. Rail is a vital transportation service for the north of this

province. It's vital for the industries that are served by it. Transportation is

one of their highest costs. We have industries from the north who take their

product and put it on trucks and ship it into other provinces to put on rail. We

have industries in the north of this province which have been saying that the

service isn't sufficient for B.C. Rail because the cars aren't available. We

have industries in the north of this province which have been complaining for

many, many years that the operations of B.C. Rail are hindering their ability to

be competitive.

We've

listened to that; we've listened to the communities that have concerns about the

sustainability. We have looked at the public good that needs to be protected,

which is the continued public ownership of the track, of the right-of-way and of

the railbed, and we are looking for an operating partner for sustainability for

long-term good for the communities and the industries of the north.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: One has to listen very carefully to the new message box. It's

true; the Minister of Transporta-

[ Page 7720 ]

tion today didn't call it a money-loser. She's challenging their

competitiveness, though.

I guess the

minister hasn't seen the new document. Let me just tell the minister about this.

She can say anything her spin doctors tell her to, but what they're doing is

privatizing a B.C. Rail company that not only is profitable but is highly

competitive.

The

opposition today, just this morning, obtained brand-new…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …internal B.C. Rail documents…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …showing the year-to-date financial results for B.C. Rail. The

new report says that the profit margins for regional carriers remain above

Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and any other class of railways, with B.C.

Rail being the highest in the industry for their quarter profits and their

year-to-date profits.

Again to

the Minister of Transportation: why is she saying that B.C. Rail is not

competitive and is not efficient when, indeed, they have the highest

productivity rate amongst all rail lines and they are the first rail line to

have an operating margin of below 70 percent — better than any other rail

company in North America? Why is she not telling that aspect of a rail line?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm very pleased the member has been able to recognize that under this

government's leadership, B.C. Rail has taken a very aggressive approach on the

freight rail side. We have concentrated on that part of the operation to cut the

bleeding that was taking place. That was very difficult. There are still

opportunities.

I was in

Prince George on Friday this past week, and at that time the people were saying

that this needs to be sustainable in the long term. They said: "You know,

we've got double shifts on the mills here. This isn't going to last. We have to

make sure, with the variable trends in the forest industry and without the coal

production for B.C. Rail, that we have sustainability in the long term."

For that reason we're looking at the long-term picture, and we're going to make

sure there is an operator there who's going to be able to run that operation for

the long term.

MacPhail: Well, isn't the bar shifting every single time this minister's

confronted with a new report about how well B.C. Rail is doing. We now know it's

profitable; we now know it's competitive. She stands up with this new

information and says: "Oh, but we're worried we can't sustain it."

What do they do? What does this government do? A profitable, competitive

publicly owned railway — and she wants to sell it off.

We know

that's not in her message box. According to this report that we've obtained just

this morning…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1425]

MacPhail: …B.C. Rail has the highest profit margin of all regional

carriers. In this year's third quarter alone B.C. Rail made a $21 million

profit, and that's in American funds. In fact, they've got the highest

year-to-date profits of any rail line.

If the

minister pushes ahead with her plans to sell B.C. Rail, British Columbians are

going to lose a company that is making big profits and that is completely and

most competitive. Again to the minister: given all this good news about B.C.

Rail, why is she breaking a promise and selling one of North America's

best-performing rail companies? Why is she breaking the promise?

Hon. J.

Reid: It is a fact that B.C. Rail has a debt of over $500 million. It is a

fact that that is part of….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: If this member understood business, if this member understood how

to read a balance sheet, if this member understood….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. J.

Reid: If this member understood the necessity of being able to sustain and

what that means, and what investment is required….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. J.

Reid: If this member understood anything about the economy of the north and

what's going on in the forest industry right now, this member would understand

what sustainability means in the long term. Taking on an operating partner for

B.C. Rail is the very best move to provide that sustainability, to make sure

[ Page 7721 ]

that cars are available, to change technologies to just-in-time delivery.

Once again this member thinks that government is better at running businesses,

but I would suggest the customers and communities will be better served by the

operating partner.

POLICE SERVICES IN VANCOUVER

AND FUNDING BY TRAFFIC FINE REVENUE

J. Kwan:

Over the weekend Inspector Jones of the Vancouver police said: "The

population has doubled, the number of bars has grown, and bars are now allowed

to stay open until 4 a.m., yet the number of police officers has remained the

same."

During the

election the Liberals promised a transfer of 75 percent of traffic fines to

municipalities for increased policing. That promise wasn't kept in the 2001

budget, in the 2002 budget, in the 2003 budget, and apparently it won't be kept

in the 2004 budget. That's over $200 million that should be going to increased

policing.

The people

living in the West End aren't going to be fooled by yet another phony election

promise in '05. Will the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

deliver on the promise now so that the people in the West End can have the

policing that they need today?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We certainly will be fulfilling that election promise, no question

about it. What we may not be able to undo is the outright breach back in 1996

— I think this member may remember it — of the Local Government Grants Act

that was undertaken by this government. Mr. Speaker, $113 million was cut

unilaterally and arbitrarily by the NDP government straight out of the coffers

of local government in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Abbott: They didn't offer the modicum of respect of even advising the

municipalities before they undertook the breach of their own Local Government

Grants Act.

You may

remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Local Government Grants Act that the NDP brought

in, which was going to provide stability, certainty, predictability — all of

these fine things, that Local Government Grants Act…. One day the NDP got up

in the Legislature and breached it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the difference

between that government and this government is that we actually keep our

promises.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: I would advise the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that the

Leader of the Opposition is using up your time in question period. You have a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the

floor.

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

IN VANCOUVER

J. Kwan:

The people in the West End want the policing money now, not just before the

election. Inspector Jones also said there is a growing underclass in the West

End who can't get access to much-needed facilities for the mentally ill, and

that's contributing to an increase in crime.

On Thursday

the provincial health services authority announced further cuts to mental health

programs, including psychiatric services. To the Minister of State for Mental

Health — and please spare me, minister, and spare the mental health patients

the spin provided in your binder that you're looking for. It will not have the

answer, so just answer this question.

Can he

explain why, with crime on the increase, he's closing psychiatric programs for

transient, multi-problem and vulnerable British Columbians and forcing those

patients onto the street?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, let me give them a history lesson for the mental health

funding. In the year 2000-01…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …funding for mental health and addiction services totalled only

$855 million. In 2001-02 funding was $925 million. In 2002-03 funding was $1

billion. In 2003-04 funding is projected to be $1.067 billion. That is an

increase of $212 million. The NDP broke their promises on mental health. We are

fulfilling our promises on mental health.

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

Nettleton: Opposition to the government's proposed sale of B.C. Rail is an

issue that has transcended political affiliation. The leader of the B.C. Green

Party, Adriane Carr, has requested through the Speaker's office that I ask the

following question of the Minister of Transportation.

It has been

proven that B.C. Rail produces profits for B.C. taxpayers and stimulates

economic growth in rural B.C., generating close to $30 million worth of business

a year in Prince George alone. In New Zealand privatizing public rail resulted

in loss of rural rail services and the decline of many rural communities. In

[ Page 7722 ]

light of these and other facts that have surfaced, as well as the groundswell

of public opposition to the sale of B.C. Rail, does the minister see any

similarity between B.C. Rail and the Coquihalla situation? Is the government

monitoring or paying any heed to the rising public sentiment in their

deliberations of this issue, and could the minister tell the people of B.C. what

the government's response is to this strident public outcry?

Hon. J.

Reid: The member knows, as I believe he's sharing with us, the importance of

B.C. Rail to the northern communities. We have talked about the importance to

industries, we have talked about the importance of sustainability, and we have

talked about preserving the public good, which is a long-term ownership of B.C.

Rail — of the railbed, of the right-of-way, of the tracks — to be able to

know that it's going to be there for the future.

[1435]

We believe

this approach is going to provide that confidence moving forward. It will

provide a better service to the industries that depend on B.C. Rail, and it's

going to provide a better assurance to the taxpayer that they're not going to

have to write down another billion dollars' worth of debt in the future for B.C.

Rail.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Bennett: I would like to table a petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 83.

Committee of the Whole House

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 83; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section

2 (continued) .

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell us what the history is, requiring

clause 2.

Hon. K.

Falcon: What clause 2 does is provide some explanatory parameters around the

definitions that were provided in the original trust agreement of 1889, of

course. It stated, to paraphrase, that it was for the use and enjoyment of the

residents of Vancouver. What this does, in fact, is add flesh to the bones of

that original 1889 definition and provides an update of the activities that have

evolved over the last 100-plus years on the site.

MacPhail: What wasn't working under the trust?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think, over time, the reality is that we're looking at a document

that's over 100 years old. As I say, the activities on the site evolved over

that 100-plus years. What this does is actually provide some parameters around

what level of activities have taken place over those 100 years and recognize the

reality of what's taking place on the ground right now on those Hastings Park

Trust lands.

[1440]

MacPhail: That wasn't my question. Was there some challenge to the trust, or

was there some impediment to the current trust that the minister felt he needed

to include everything up to and including this clause: "to implement

security procedures including, without limitation, the restriction or

prohibition of access to all or any part of Hastings Park"? What problem is

this minister trying to resolve?

Hon. K.

Falcon: No problem at all, actually. The member will be happy to know that

there is no problem. In fact, what we are doing is ceding to a request from the

city of Vancouver staff to make sure we have in there explanatory parameters

around the definition of what the use and enjoyment of the lands are. That

includes a

section that the member read out, which of course is the normal sort

of security that has been undertaken on those lands for as long as anyone can

remember. All this does is give confirmation to something that, in fact, has

been going on for many decades.

MacPhail: The minister may be pleased to know that there were lots of people

watching the debate in the Legislature on Thursday, who were quite taken aback

at his

interpretation of the history and of what the community role and, indeed,

what my role had been in all of that — were quite taken aback. In fact, mainly

they said the minister got it wrong from top to bottom.

Here's the

question that they asked: in whose interest is it to interpret an 1889 trust

agreement to say that all of these activities have been allowed, when in fact

there's also an opportunity to interpret the original trust agreement in a far

different fashion to say that the use and enjoyment by the public does not

include all of these activities? Who was it — the minister or the city —

that drafted this clause?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, you know, the city asked for that clause. I'll say this to the

member: I mean, at what point is this member having a challenge in understanding

that there's a whole bunch of activities that have been taking place there for

well over 100 years?

I believe,

if I'm understanding the direction this particular member is going in — I'm

not sure, but maybe she can clarify…. Is she suggesting that she

[ Page 7723 ]

would prefer to have language that would potentially disallow everything that

has taken place and has taken place for the last 100 years? Maybe you could be a

little more helpful in clarifying what it is you're driving at.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect, that entire executive

council bench needs parliamentary procedure training. I find it unbelievable

that every single time this minister rises, he talks directly to me not only in

a disrespectful way but in an unparliamentary way.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Oh, come on. Oh, come on.

MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There are only two of us and 75 of this government,

and they can learn proper parliamentary procedure. It just goes to show how

little some of the executive council knows. So if the member could please go

through the Chair in a respectful fashion.

Mr. Chair,

it is not up to me to answer the questions of the minister, but here's what I

would advise him. Here's what I would have advised him: it is not up to me to

say what the community wants and would prefer without asking the community. What

this government failed to do was ask the community their wishes at all.

Here's what

I did hear back from the community over the weekend. As a matter of fact, I had

a meeting with the community, talked to them on the phone and received

substantial feedback. I know that's an unusual concept for Liberal MLAs. Their

question was: why did this government decide to interpret an as-yet-unchanged

trust in a fashion to include every single action that may have taken place in

violation of a trust?

[1445]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Mr. Chair, through to the member, that is the member's

interpretation of that. But as I said — and I believe we canvassed this quite

extensively in our last conversation — there has been no successful legal

challenge to the terms of the 1889 trust. I'm fascinated by her continuing

emphasis that there was, when there wasn't. All this does is actually accede to

a request from the city of Vancouver to ensure that we include language in the

bill transferring responsibility to the city of Vancouver — that, in fact, all

the existing uses that are currently taking place there are recognized and

identified. That's exactly what we've done.

J. Kwan:

Well, the opposition has different information, and this is sent as recently as

Monday on the issue around consultation. That's October 27, on Monday. I'm going

to put the issues raised by the community on the floor with the minister by

quoting this e-mail.

"The

community was just informed this week of the Minister of Deregulation's first

reading of Bill 83, 2003, the proposal to revise the 1889 Hastings Park Trust to

enable the Pacific National Exhibition to continue in its current form. The

intent of the bill makes us deeply sad.

"In

1980 it was Mr. Guy Faint, a resident of East Vancouver, who first

brought the Hastings Park Trust and the non-conforming uses of the land to the

attention of the then Attorney General. Our organization, having worked with Mr.

Faint in the past, has a mandate to work in the spirit he intended in an honest

effort to right a long-neglected wrong done to the people of East Vancouver.

"To

hear of the province's attempt within mere months of Mr. Faint's death in

August of this same year to retroactively legitimize past and possible future

uses by both the exhibition and the racetrack is to feel deeply sad, even more

so because your government chooses to do this on the eve of relinquishing its

jurisdiction over the PNE. Moreover, it takes us by surprise that it is your

government that chooses to make this change to the trust a full 90 years after

the non-conforming activities began and mere months before the city commences

its public consultation on the future of the PNE summer fair.

"Despite

being fully aware of the discrepancies between the intent of the 1889

Hastings Park Trust and the actual uses of the site, our organization's

volunteer community leadership has deliberately chosen and consistently advised

its constituency to not act on this fact through the courts. Clearly, our

community would have had scarce resources to do so. Instead, our group has

always firmly believed in the value of honest and fair consultation and

negotiation with the two levels of government and with both major tenants at the

site.

"In

1995 true progress was made in the agreement with all parties involved in

Hastings Park, and the modest re-greening program began. The Hastings Park

Conservancy is and always has been concerned with the long-term future of the

land from the point of view of its social, environmental and economic

sustainability and its healthy relationship with the surrounding residential

neighbours. Given this long-term orientation, we have sought to get agreements

in place about Hastings Park that would transcend the political climate of the

day in order to enable future citizens of Vancouver to shape this city's

destiny.

"The

Hastings Park Trust, quietly assisting in the background and unheeded

while commercial activity was condoned by most over the course of the decade,

embodied this and was the moral anchor that validated the legitimate aspirations

of the people of East Vancouver despite the actions of the successive

governments to the contrary.

"We

now appeal to you, the leader of our city's senior provincial government,

but more specifically to you as ex-mayor of the city of Vancouver, to remember

your previous support of the revisioning of re-greening Hastings Park. The

trust, vague in places as it may be, nevertheless symbolizes the sacred trust we

had that one day the political leadership would recognize the sincerity of our

aims as well as our decades-long advocacy conducted in good faith and forwarded

accommodatingly and politely but most of all patiently. We do not believe the

transfer of ownership of the PNE needs to be involved in changing the original

intent of the trust. Please deny the alteration of the original Hastings Park

Trust at the eleventh hour of the provincial government's tenancy of this

treasured public site in order to enable proper stewardship of Hastings Park by

the citizens of Vancouver in future. These are our sentiments conveyed to you

and expressed with sincerity."

is signed by Mariken van Nimwegen, the vice-chair, on behalf of the board of

directors of the Hastings Park Conservancy.

[ Page 7724 ]

[1450]

The issue

here around the trust is the notion, historically, of how it was put in place

and the spirit behind it and the intent behind it. So what's changed? That's the

question. What went wrong with this trust that the minister now feels that he

has to bring in legislation to change the entire intent behind the trust?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, the member will be happy to know that we're not changing the

intent at all. In fact, just to respond to a statement the hon. member has made,

along with her colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings…. They repeatedly

suggest that this is something that apparently has been cooked up in the last

few weeks by this provincial government, and I want to emphasize that we have

been in conversations and consultations with representatives from the city of

Vancouver for almost two years now. I believe the correct number is about 22

months.

What is the

purpose of that consultation? Well, the purpose is actually to achieve

everything those fine folks who wrote that e-mail are trying to achieve. That

is, the city will be engaging in a visioning exercise. What is the purpose of

this visioning exercise? Well, the purpose of that visioning exercise, as I

understand it, is that they will be allowing a very broad consultative process

to take place with all the stakeholders and all the interested groups from

across Vancouver and East Vancouver and the west side of Vancouver and whoever

else wants to be involved. They will have every opportunity to share their

particular belief as to how they would like to see the future of that site, and

I think that's a very positive thing.

I also

believe it's most consistent that the level of government closest to the people

is the level of government that is the most appropriate to engage in that kind

of a discussion, and so I welcome that. I think the member should feel some good

feeling about the fact that the visioning exercise will be undertaken, and there

will be, up till the year 2005, every opportunity afforded for folks to have

input into what their particular vision of that site is.

J. Kwan:

Well, the issue that the community takes is actually with this government, and

it's about this piece of legislation, Bill 83, entitled Pacific National

Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, within which the terms and trust

conditions are being altered. That is the issue which the community takes with

this government.

When the

minister rises up and says he's been consulting for two years and, "Don't

worry…." Who from the community did the minister consult with?

Hon. K.

Falcon: As I've said many times before, we engaged in consultation with the

appropriate level of government, which is in fact the city government in

Vancouver. That is as it should be. It's entirely appropriate. They are the

representatives of the people of Vancouver, and we undertook our consultations

and negotiations with the appropriate representative of the residents of

Vancouver.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says he appropriately undertook his consultation with the

residents of Vancouver…. Aside from city council, who from the public did this

minister or this government consult with? Did they contact the Hastings Park

Conservancy, as an example? Were they contacted, and were they consulted about

Bill 83?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think it is very important to understand this. I believe it would

actually be very presumptuous for the province of British Columbia to step over

into the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver and start engaging in discussions

with groups like the one that was mentioned by the member. I don't believe that

is at all the appropriate way to proceed with something like this. What we did

over the last 22 months was spend our time discussing and consulting with the

elected representatives and the staffers from the city of Vancouver, and that

government has given its commitment — very publicly, I might add — that they

will be engaging in a broader visioning exercise that will incorporate and allow

the opportunity for groups such as the one the member mentioned to have every

opportunity to bring forward their vision of that site.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

With the exception that it is this government and this minister who are bringing

in legislation that will alter the conditions of the trust that was established

in 1889 and that talked about the intent of the trust. It is not city council

who is bringing forward this piece of legislation. It is this government who's

doing that, who's altering the thrust of the conditions of the trust. The

minister should own up to his responsibility in terms of consulting.

After all,

it was this minister, through the New Era document of this Liberal

government, who campaigned on consultation with the public. Yet, lo and behold,

on the major piece of legislation that impacted a neighbourhood that has long

expressed its views around the Hastings Park site and its uses — and its

non-conforming use, I may add, of the site…. They've expressed their concerns

for a long, long time. There is lots of debate in the community, and it never

occurred to this minister for one moment that he might stop and consult with the

people that are impacted on the ground as a result of this change and this piece

of legislation.

This

letter, the e-mail I read on the record, was addressed to the Premier — not to

the city council but to the Premier. It states very clearly how they were not

informed of this change until Monday, when the government introduced this bill,

and they were deeply sad as a result of that. The change here around the trust

is about the whole issue around the use and the non-conforming uses to allow the

PNE to continue in its current form.

Why

shouldn't the neighbourhood be consulted on this? Why would the minister be as

arrogant as he is, to simply say, "To hell with the neighbourhood, and

we're

[ Page 7725 ]

not talking to you because you're not relevant," and presume with such

arrogance that somehow the people on the ground who are impacted should not have

the right to be consulted on this piece of legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm inclined to remind the member of the speech that was just given

by her colleague about parliamentary appropriateness of behaviour, but instead I

will try to answer, yet again, that particular question.

I think it

is important, when we talk about this…. The member and even her colleague

appear to get very exercised over the fact that the province somehow should be

engaging in very extensive consultations. Putting aside the city of Vancouver's

obligation or right to do that, the province should somehow be doing this.

I'm

reminded of when, back in January of 1999, that member's NDP government

announced they were moving and relocating the PNE to Burns Bog. I sure don't

recall any consultations that were undertaken with the local members of that

particular community. I'm a member from Surrey, and I recall when they were

planning on moving the PNE to Surrey. I do believe they consulted with the

elected officials, as is appropriate, but I certainly don't recall any meetings

being held in Surrey having to do with that relocation.

I am, I

must confess, a little baffled over what appears to be a double standard on this

thing. I repeat again: this is a validating act. This validating act gives life

to the original

interpretation of the use, betterment, recreation and enjoyment

of the public for the Hastings Park Trust lands. That's what it does. What it

does do is provide explanatory parameters, which are very clearly laid out, that

essentially realize the activities that have taken place for many, many decades

on that particular site.

MacPhail: Here's how wrong the minister is from a historical perspective. We

actually were a government that, yes, proposed something and went and consulted

through our MLAs. The Surrey MLAs consulted on that at the time at the public

level, and we didn't proceed with that plan. We drafted a new plan, and there

were….

Hon. K.

Falcon: And what about the residents?

MacPhail: Yes, the residents. Everybody was consulted — everybody.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, I'd just remind members to bring it through the Chair,

please.

MacPhail: Yeah. Really, I don't know what the…. The minister's got some

weird idea of decorum that a minister should have, some very weird idea, but….

Actually, I think I'll just leave it at that.

[1500]

What my

constituency is talking about here is that not once did they hear from a Liberal

cabinet minister, a Liberal-appointed bureaucrat, a government bureaucrat, about

impending changes. Then, they say that if indeed anyone had asked them, there

might have been a different clause 2. But they didn't even get a chance to have

input — didn't even get a chance. Now we have legislation before us where it's

irrefutable. Never, never in the past has any government, Social Credit or NDP,

ever done this to the community — never made it irrefutable.

Let me ask

the minister this: prior to introducing legislation…. No, I'll start with

this: under this legislation, how can changes to the trust and what applies

under the trust take place? Is it by regulation or legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Changes to the trust, because it's part of a legislative piece — a

statute — would have to be made through the Legislature. Changes to regulation

are coming up. If the member wants to jump ahead to that section, we can do

that. That would be done by regulation.

MacPhail: I'm not sure. Maybe the minister did answer my question, but let

me break it down into two parts. Prior to Bill 83, am I correct in understanding

that any changes to the trust had to be done through legislation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That is correct.

MacPhail: With the, I hope, not passage…. But if this legislation is

passed, how will changes to the trust take place after this legislation, Bill

83, is passed?

Hon. K.

Falcon: There would essentially be three potential forums for that. One

would be legislatively, the other would be through regulation, and the third

would be through some delegated authorities that you'll see in the act have been

delegated to the city of Vancouver.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could explain to me how it would still be that

it would require legislation when, indeed, changes can now be made by

regulation.

Hon. K.

Falcon: If I'm understanding the question correctly, and I hope I am, if you

wanted to make changes to the Hastings Park Trust, you would require legislative

changes to do so. What you will find here in the bill is that many of the uses

that currently take place are already spelled out to avoid that requirement. As

long as activities are within the context of those parameters we've provided

here — under

section 2(1)(

a) to (

f) I believe it is — then that would be

fine. If there's anything that's going to be outside of those particular uses,

then you would require regulatory change through the province.

[1505]

MacPhail: I'm actually going to pursue that line of questioning under

section 4 further on that. Can the

[ Page 7726 ]

minister point to me what

section it would be here where they would allow for

greenspace?

Hon. K.

Falcon:

Section 4 has been put into place specifically at the direction and

request of the city of Vancouver so that when they complete their visioning

exercise, for any such changes they may want to move forward with, they will

have the ability to do so without having to come back to the province.

MacPhail: Is that the minister's answer to where you would do greenspace?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, this member keeps leapfrogging forward to an exercise that

hasn't taken place yet. There will be a visioning exercise that will determine,

you know, what the future uses of the parks will be. That member can take

part

in those exercises and determine how much greenspace you wish to have —

whether the whole thing should be greenspace, the existing greenspace, reduce

the greenspace…. That will be up to the residents of Vancouver through the

visioning process.

MacPhail: Thank God I asked that second question. I now know the minister

doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. My question was…. Under

section

2, the minister has said this is a clarification of everything that it's allowed

to take place at Hastings Park. It was a 14-year-old kid who pointed out to

me…. Where does it say we get a park, greenspace? I'm asking the minister: in

sections 2(1)(

a) through (h), where does it mandate that there has to be

greenspace there?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'd be happy to point that out to the 14-year-old in question. Under

sub-subsection (

g) it says: "(

g) to do one or more of develop, undertake

and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at

Hastings Park if the council of the City of Vancouver determines…." I

don't need to continue. Sub-subsection (

h) says: "(

h) to do anything that

is authorized under the regulations." To help out the member, when we say,

"to develop, undertake and provide any other uses and activities that are

or may be engaged," it means that the green area — the park, as the

member referred to it — that is in place and does take place would have every

ability to continue to take place.

MacPhail: Well, I guess that 14-year-old will just have to read into the

minds of this Liberal government that they endorse greenspace. Isn't it

interesting that we have the terms of the trust that just clarify, according to

this government, the activities that have taken place over 100 years there, and

there's not one mention of greenspace, playing fields, trees, water, birds —

nothing. It's all about gaming; it's all about security. It's about exhibitions,

displays, sports, entertainment and amusement, and not one

section about saying

there will be greenspace — not one.

Oh, what

does the minister say? "Well, you have to read that into the

section that

says to do one or more of 'develop, undertake and provide any other uses.'"

Isn't it interesting that this government feels it absolutely necessary that

they protect the right to hold gaming events at the site, but they don't in any

way feel it necessary to protect access to greenspace.

[1510]

Hon. K.

Falcon: With respect, the government also doesn't talk about the pavement

and the flower beds and whatever else this member wants to talk about. What

we're talking about here are the activities — not in the passive, but the

actual activities — that take place which need to be enunciated — at the

request, I might add, of the city. Again, I say to this member, as I have on

every other occasion, that the visioning exercise that is going to be undertaken

by the city of Vancouver will afford every opportunity for folks to come down

and have their input and discussions about what it is they would like to see as

the future of that land.

MacPhail: It's absolutely ridiculous that this government says it's just

protecting the activities — but there's a whole sector of the east side of

Vancouver that wants the land protected — and that those activities interfere

with the protection of the land and the greening that has taken huge leaps in

the last seven years at that site. Now all of that has to be at the will of some

interpretation of regulations.

How is the

money that flowed from the provincial level into the greening of Hastings Park

going to continue?

Hon. K.

Falcon: There has never been any money coming out of the province. It

actually has come out of the PNE.

MacPhail: Okay. I understand the minister trying to split hairs like that,

but the PNE is a Crown corporation where the revenues, if not flowing to the

park, would go to the provincial government — correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon: There is no operating subsidy from the province to the PNE. The PNE

actually spends in excess of almost $2.8 million for the ongoing operations of

that particular greenspace in maintaining it and keeping it up, etc.

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister doesn't want to be forthcoming

on this matter. Is the minister suggesting that no provincial revenues that

otherwise would have flown into the provincial coffers go to the greening of

Hastings Park?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes.

MacPhail: Then how has the greening of Hastings Park taken place to date?

Hon. K.

Falcon: As I understand it, every year the park board in the city of

Vancouver goes to council and makes a request for an appropriation of funds to

in-

[ Page 7727 ]

clude a whole bunch of park activities, which includes the greening of the

site at the PNE.

MacPhail: I'm a little bit taken aback by this discussion we're having,

quite frankly. I really am. But far be it from me to challenge it at all. It is

my recollection that revenues that would have otherwise flowed to the provincial

government flowed directly into the greening of Hastings Park, to the tune of

about $1.5 million a year — if I'm wrong, I'm wrong — either through racing

revenue or PNE revenue.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Chair, through to the member, you're correct in that you're wrong.

That is racing revenue you're thinking about. Racing revenue flows through; PNE

revenue does not.

[1515]

MacPhail: Oh my God. Is it that I'm just asking the wrong questions? That

money from racing would have flowed either to the PNE or to provincial revenues.

Instead, it went into the greening of the park.

Let's not

split hairs. I don't know why this minister thinks we're all fools and that

somehow…. All right. Was there around $1.5 million of money from that site,

which otherwise would have flown into provincial coffers, that went into the

greening of the park on an annual basis?

Hon. K.

Falcon: There is a separate operating agreement with the city and the

racetrack that has nothing to do with us. In terms of the contributions made for

that specific area, there were, through the PNE, operations costs that were

covered by the corporation of the PNE that went into the greening of that

particular land.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to put my own version of this on the record,

and we'll let the voters of East Vancouver decide who's playing games and who's

splitting hairs. There was an agreement, which my government did with the

racetrack, the PNE and the community, to say that as you stay on that site,

there must be revenue that flows from that to the greening of the park. It was

about $1.5 million per year. In fact, that's how the major portion of the

greening has taken place.

Let me ask

this of the minister: is that agreement, as a result of this legislation, null

and void with the racetrack?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The short answer to the last question is no.

To go back

to the question the member was talking about, the agreement the member made

reference to was an agreement that I believe she was involved with in 1995.

There have been subsequent agreements since then, so that may explain some of

the confusion in your thinking that agreement was still in force when there have

been subsequent agreements after that particular agreement.

MacPhail: I am a bit shocked at how little pride those who were with the PNE

before have taken in all of the achievements they've made in greening that park.

I am really quite upset about the fact that the PNE is now claiming they did

nothing, absolutely nothing, for the greening of that park.

I have

quite a different recollection of the contribution that the provincial Crown

corporation made to the greening of that site and the racing and the pressure

that the corporation, the community and the government of the day put to get

that funding in place. That funding would not have been there without provincial

government and Crown corporation pressure.

My last

question before voting against

section 2 is in terms of the consultation. The

minister is saying over and over again that the city asked for this. Would he

mind standing up and naming names, please?

[1520]

Hon. K.

Falcon: The consultations began initially with Mayor Campbell. Mayor

Campbell then went to his council and received direction to engage in a

negotiation with the province over the issue of the Hastings Park Trust lands

and the PNE. The council designated a civil servant named Brent McGregor from

the city of Vancouver to undertake those negotiations, and we have been

negotiating in good faith with the duly appointed individual, Mr. McGregor, for

the past…. As I say, I think it's coming up to two years.

MacPhail: Yes, and in April of 2003 there was an announcement: "The

province of B.C. announces the city of Vancouver will take over management and

operation of the PNE." I of course, not to play any favourites, found out

about that at the time of the news announcement. Neither the PNE nor the city

nor the province bothered to inform me at all, even though I'm the local MLA.

I'm talking

about what's happened since then. The minister has said over and over again that

the city of Vancouver asked for clause 2. That's what I'm interested in. Who in

the city asked for clause 2, and who wrote that? He also intimated that the city

of Vancouver wrote that clause.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, as is so often the case — and the member would know this

from her years in government — what happens is that an individual civil

servant would receive direction from the mayor after receiving direction from

council to undertake those discussions and negotiations. He is probably assisted

by some very able staffers. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you which

specific staffer may have requested this particular section, but I can tell you

that the staff involved in the negotiations with the province were duly

appointed and given the due authority they needed to make these requests. We've

acceded to their requests and worked with them to provide the city with what

they needed so that they could move forward and begin their visioning exercise.

[ Page 7728 ]

MacPhail: To date it's been the Vancouver park board who have been greening

the site there and doing the public consultations — people like Peter Rutgers,

etc. People are well aware that the greening of Hastings Park has taken place

under the guidance of the Vancouver park board, so what role did they play in

this?

Hon. K.

Falcon: One of the things I think is important — and I touched on it in a

recent answer, I think, to your colleague — was that it would be…. The

member makes reference to the park board and what consultations took place with

them. I, at least from this side of the House, can tell you that I would view it

as pretty presumptuous for us to engage in negotiations or consultations with

the park board over an issue like this when in fact that's the role and the

responsibility of the city of Vancouver. What I can tell you is that at the

announcement you referenced, in April I believe it was, when we made an

announcement of the historic transferring and our intent to transfer

responsibility, the park board was there in attendance with the mayor.

[1525]

MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm asking about clause 2. I'm trying

to get a theme going here. It might be a little hard for the minister to keep

track, but there's absolutely no mention in activities of greenspace —

absolutely none. There is nothing here to indicate anything other than there'll

be a Disneyland used during the Olympics, and that you can now have slot

machines and extra gaming activities. That's the way, if you were reading this

clause 2, one would interpret it.

So I

wondered why they — the community voices and the level of government that

participated in the greening of the park at the same time that the PNE was there

— were not part of this discussion around clause 2. Is the minister saying

that all of that should have been done through the city of Vancouver?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, this is a process that provides the city of Vancouver the

opportunity to go through what they're referring to as the visioning exercise to

ensure that all stakeholders can have the opportunity to share their vision of a

site that is entirely greened, if necessary.

As to the

member's comment about why we're not specifically talking about the green

section here, it's for the same reason we're not talking about the light

standards and we're not talking about the pavement and the flowerpots. It's not

that they're not important and not that they're not there; it's just that those

are not activities that are happening on the site.

What we are

saying is that the annual raffle, the bingo and the limited casino events that

take place on the site are things that are, in fact, taking place. We recognize

that we've got a greenspace there that is used by the public and will continue

to be used by the public. There is tremendous opportunity, I think, for members

from that member's riding, if they feel strongly — the

section of the

community that feels strongly that the whole rest of the park should be

greenspace — to have every opportunity to bring that belief forward at the

visioning exercise. I think that's a wonderful thing.

MacPhail: Only a member such as this member would suggest that greenspace is

not an activity. Only a member such as this minister would suggest that

greenspace is equivalent to a light standard. He clearly does not have any idea

of the history of what's happened at this site, where the community fought long

and hard to have greenspace designated as a use.

That's

exactly what happened in the late 1990s because of community efforts, because of

provincial government efforts, because of the PNE efforts, because of the park

board efforts, and now he says a greenspace isn't a use. Well, I can hardly wait

to hear the feedback from the community on that statement from the minister.

I'll tell

you that the combination of the lack of mentioning greenspace anywhere in the

legislation and this minister somehow saying that this

section clarifies uses

has many people afraid of what's going to happen to the greenspace on that site.

What we have here is a 114-year-old trust and a community that advocated on how

that trust should be interpreted. Just short of having to go to court, it got

the ear of the Social Credit provincial government of the day, who acknowledged

that the trust should be interpreted in a way that moved that park toward more

community use and greater greenspace.

[1530]

Twenty

years later they have the greenspace, they have the playing fields, they have

the sanctuary, and they have the gardens — all of which are used, all of which

are activities on the site. They're not passive matters, such as a light

standard or a flower box. None of that has this government chosen to include in

its new clarification of the trust. It's on that basis, amongst many others,

that the opposition will be voting against this clause.

Johnston: I guess I interpret what I'm reading in

section 2 somewhat

differently than the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I read this, and I don't see

anywhere where greenspace is precluded from being an active condition of

enjoyment and recreation to the public.

The

question to the minister is: in terms of

section 2 and the conditions of trust

that started in, I guess, 1889, is that condition of trust continued on in this

particular act and amendments to this act?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, it is. In fact, what this

section does is provide some

explanatory parameters around the original definition that was provided in the

1889 trust for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Vancouver. I think

that's very important.

To touch on

something that you alluded to, based on what the last member had been saying,

you're absolutely right that it is there. Again, I look at sub-subsection (g):

"…consistent…uses and activities…." It can't be much more clear

than that in terms of it will not "undertake

[ Page 7729 ]

and provide any other uses and activities that are or may be engaged in at

Hastings Park…." It's as clear as it could ever be, so I do think it's

sometimes incumbent upon hon. members to make sure that they don't try and

unnecessarily frighten people or unnecessarily suggest to people that things are

as they really aren't. I'm glad to confirm that for the hon. member.

Johnston: I guess I'm also looking at the original intent of 1889. It's hard

to know what they were thinking back then, but I think it's pretty clear. The

interpretation for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the public…. There's

been a fair amount of debate and discussion regarding the current uses being

offside. I get that.

My question

to the minister is: has there, in fact, been an

interpretation that those uses

that have gone on for the last 90 years are not for the enjoyment and recreation

of the public? Has there been some sort of a commercial

interpretation?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think that's an excellent question, because what it really does is

ask the question: what was the original purpose? What did the authors of that

original trust mean when they stated, "the use, enjoyment and recreation of

the public" back in 1889?

Part of

that was answered with some of the very early things that took place on that

site. As early as 1910 we know that horse racing began. Very shortly thereafter

you had essentially what became a modern midway start up, where you had spinning

games and the kind of typical gaming you would see at circus carnivals, etc. So

really that use and enjoyment, in the minds of residents of Vancouver, clearly

evolved.

Today, with

4,000 employees working on that particular site — 150 of them full-time CUPE

members, the member for Vancouver-Hastings might be interested to know — and

3,850 part-time members — 2,600 of which are young people — I would suspect

a lot of those folks and a lot of their families are quite happy with how things

have expanded.

[1535]

In fact,

one thing you might find interesting is back in January of 1999, when the former

government announced that they were going to relocate the PNE to Burns Bog —

again a decision that was done without consultation and cancelled very quickly

two months later once they realized the impact of that — the PNE undertook a

survey by Angus Reid. This was the PNE corporation at the time of the member's

being in government. I thought it had some interesting figures in it, and one of

them I'd just like to read into the record. One of the survey questions was the

whole question of: do you support or not support extending the existing lease of

the PNE at the current site? Interestingly, within a 16-to-20-block radius —

that's the folks right around that PNE area, who would certainly have the

greatest interest — 81 percent supported extending the PNE lease. The number

one reason that those supporters gave is because they liked the location.

You know, I

think that consultation is a very, very important thing, and there are different

kinds of consultations. The PNE — back in the member's day, the Leader of the

Opposition's day — had the corporation do a poll, which showed quite strong

support in that area right around the PNE for it to extend and stay.

Nevertheless, they looked at other options that didn't prove quite as popular.

I think the

principle of consulting with the people is a hugely important one, and that's

why I am absolutely convinced that the visioning exercise that the city of

Vancouver is putting together as a result of the piece of legislation that we

are here debating will allow them to undertake several years' worth of

discussions — at least a couple of years, I should say — with the public to

determine what the people of Vancouver, broadly speaking, really do want to see

as the future of that site. That is something I give credit to the mayor of

Vancouver and to the leadership of his council for doing, because it's the right

thing to do.

Johnston: Well, I'm certainly in agreement on the consultation side of it. I

have to ask the question, in terms of consultation…. With regard to the mayor

and council of Vancouver, I'm kind of interested if there was really any

objection from those parties to this agreement.

Hon. K.

Falcon: The process of consultation, as I alluded to earlier on, was a

fairly extensive consultation period that really has taken some 22 months of to

and fro. When you engage in any kind of a consultation or negotiation like that,

there is the normal toing and froing that you get between, frankly, mostly staff

people. The city of Vancouver operates very similarly to the way the province

operates, where we appoint some very competent staff people to go and give them

the direction in which we would like to see this move.

Our core

review very clearly stated that it's not the province's interest to be running

an amusement park. We bring no particular magic to running amusement parks,

although I must say we financially did a reasonably good job at turning around a

money-losing operation. Nevertheless, the opportunity now is really for the city

to seize on the opportunity.

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm sorry. I'm being interrupted by a member. I'm trying to answer

the question of another member.

The

Chair: To the Chair, please.

MacPhail: I'm just repeating his question.

The

Chair: Member, you'll have your opportunity to ask a question.

[1540]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Through the Chair to the member for whom I'm answering the question,

right from the beginning, I do know that the minister that held re-

[ Page 7730 ]

sponsibility for this file prior to myself — the Minister of Competition,

Science and Enterprise — had some discussions with the mayor. I can't pretend

to tell you any details; I wasn't party to those discussions. But I do know that

the process really went very well over the last 22 months in terms of the

negotiations that took place between the staffs from the respective ministries.

Johnston: Yeah, I think consultation at the level closest to the public,

which is the civic level, is very important.

There was a

question earlier regarding the fiasco at Burns Bog and trying to move the PNE

there. I think there was a question about consultation. According to Hansard

of 1999 — June 5, I believe — the minister of the day was asked the question

about consultation in Delta and, in fact, answered by saying that, yes, he did

consult with the mayor and council of the day but thought it was too early to

actually go out to the public. I just wanted to draw a parallel there.

I guess my

question to the minister is: did the city of Vancouver, in fact, ask the

province to go ahead with a public consultation process ahead of their visioning

process? Did they ever make that request?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That's an excellent question. No. At no time did the city ask the

province to undertake a separate consultation process that would have worked

either alongside or in contravention of the visioning process they had laid out.

I think it is an excellent question because you did touch on something that we

keep hearing from the members opposite about this duty of consultation that

we've apparently violated, where we forgot to talk to all these groups, and yet

we know, as you correctly pointed out, that in the Burns Bog situation there was

no consultation outside of some consultation with the elected members.

That was

the same thing in Surrey. I know because I was in Surrey watching it very

closely, wondering why a government could be so crazy to pay that kind of a

price for that kind of land in Whalley. It was of interest to me, because I was

wondering where the consultations would be, and there weren't any.

I think

that as we talk about this, we have to at least be consistent. What we're doing

is absolutely consistent with what the previous government did — and that is,

when you are engaging in a change like this, you consult with the local level of

government; you make sure that you have the to and fro you need to have at those

two levels, appointed by their residents to act on their behalf, and that they

now will be engaging in a visioning exercise that will open it wide-open to all

the residents of Vancouver, so that every opportunity and every stakeholder will

have a chance to have their input and their say, as they should.

Johnston: Was there ever any indication…? Have you got any information on

what the visioning process would be? In Vancouver they've done a lot of

community visioning in various sections of the city. Would it be like a public

hearing? Do we have any input back on that, as a government?

Hon. K.

Falcon: My understanding is that the city is just undertaking that process

and is going to be rolling that process out very shortly, in terms of how this

particular visioning exercise will be undertaken. I'm not privy to all the

details of how the city of Vancouver will engage in that process.

Johnston: I'm not sure I'm getting ahead of myself on this question, because

I'm having a hard time determining where it's at. In terms of the restructuring

of the transfer and the new board that's proposed…. I believe it's seven

people. How can I put this? How will the public be ensured that this board will

represent the interests of the trust? Have we as a government or as a province

had to put in any stipulations regarding the board?

[1545]

Hon. K.

Falcon: The city of Vancouver will now be responsible for appointing the

board — as of January 1, 2004. We didn't tell them how many members they

should have on the board. That will be up to the city of Vancouver. That board

will then make its own direction and recommendations on the future of the

operations of the Pacific National Exhibition.

Johnston: With regard to the PNE operation, why — if it was a profitable

business — did we as a province decide to devolve it, get away from it, give

it to the city, transfer it, or whatever the terms are?

Hon. K.

Falcon: As the hon. member may know, the lands and buildings are owned by

the city, and one of the decisions of core review is that this is not a core

service of government — to be running an amusement park. In fact, we did not

feel any sense of expertise in this particular area, and fortunately there are

people much more talented than we are that could undertake this.

I will say

on that point, though, that when we inherited the PNE, you'll know we removed

the previous board that was appointed by the previous government and put into

place some individuals — actually, some public servants who really deserve a

lot of credit. I just want to make mention of them here on the record. We had

Steve Hollett, former Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and vice-president of

Partnerships B.C.; Doug Callbeck, who is an assistant deputy minister of

management services of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise and

also an ADM in the Energy and Mines ministry; Chris Nelson, an Assistant Deputy

Minister of Energy and Mines; and of course the president at the time, Annette

Antoniak. They became the board.

What is

consistent with how we always oversee the operations of Crown corporations is

that we put a board in place with good people and we tell them we expect them to

run it efficiently and effectively, and

[ Page 7731 ]

that's exactly what they did. So they actually took the PNE from a $3.5

million negative equity situation in 2001 up to today, where we now have a

$500,000 negative equity position in the PNE corporation. Really, a lot of

credit goes to those folks and of course the employees, who have done a very

good job of turning that situation around.

Johnston: One final question from me. Is the province contributing

financially towards this takeover by the city of Vancouver — anything on this

particular transfer?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes. Under the terms of the agreement, we have guaranteed to the

city of Vancouver that there will be two things that will happen. One is a $2.2

million transfer from the province to the city to deal with any mitigating

issues that they could conceivably think may arise. The second was that we would

ensure we would take care of the negative net equity situation of half a million

dollars that currently exists, and we would make sure it is returned to them

with no negative net equity.

Nijjar: To the minister: what type of consultation process did the NDP

government undertake when it came to consulting with the community of East

Vancouver?

[1550]

Hon. K.

Falcon: What I need is perhaps a little more detail on what time period

we're looking at or which particular year. You know, this thing went on from the

early nineties well into 2000. Maybe you can just be a little more specific

about what particular year we're talking about, or give me a marker there.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Nijjar: In the early 1990s, in the Harcourt era, what type of consultation

took place?

Hon. K.

Falcon: My understanding is that the provincial government engaged in some

community-based public meetings. These are not citywide public meetings, but

they're specific to the community. I believe there were some public meetings

that took place within that specific community.

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, to the best of my knowledge.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please, when the minister has the floor. Thank you.

Hon. K.

Falcon: For those viewing, I'm being interrupted by the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, who is chattering away about who knows what. I would

encourage her, if she has a question, to do so through the Chair.

Hopefully,

that's helpful to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

Nijjar: These consultations were open to the public in the sense that it was

open to groups or societies or individuals in the east side or in the vicinity

of the PNE.

Hon. K.

Falcon: You know, frankly, I have to be candid. I don't have any particular

intimate knowledge of what the NDP government was doing in the east end of

Vancouver in the early nineties in terms of their community-based public

consultation. I have to accept the chattering I hear from the other side of the

House suggesting that it did take place.

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: At length, apparently. I'm prepared to accept the word of the member

for Vancouver-Hastings that it did, in fact, take place. It's unfortunate it

didn't take place in the other communities. Apparently, that would have been a

nice thing to have happen in Surrey, and it certainly would have been nice to

have it happen in Delta. Nevertheless, I guess in this case that particular

community — not citywide but that community — did receive some consultation

process apparently.

Nijjar: Does the minister have any knowledge of an attempt to consult with

specific groups — i.e., minor sports organizations — that made use of the

facilities on the grounds?

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. We'll wait for the minister.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, I think that's an excellent question. It's an excellent

question because what is not often known by folks who may be from outside of

that particular area is there are numerous activities that take place — with

kids' minor hockey, figure skating — and that in fact the PNE corporation

subsidizes to the tune of $150,000-plus a year, I think it is. I would surely

hope those folks were consulted. Again, I'm just not privy, unfortunately, to

the details of what consultations took place on that weekend in East Vancouver

back in the early nineties.

[1555]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I find it hilarious how, for the very first time,

members from Vancouver decide they want to get up and find out what went on in

the 1990s. To ask this minister for any expertise, other than him trying to do a

total recall of all NDP MLAs — and failing miserably at that — is

ridiculous. He was, in the late 1990s, trying to do a total recall of all NDP

MLAs, claiming not to be a Liberal, and it turns out here he is

[ Page 7732 ]

talking about what went on in the city of Vancouver. Here's the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway trying to talk about consultation.

Well, I'll

give the history of that consultation. It wasn't one weekend of consultation. It

was weekend after weekend of consultation — specific consultation with minor

sports leagues, specific consultation with seniors groups. It was open. There

were displays. And you know what the result was of all of that? The community

rejected the Disneyland-like approach that the Harcourt government initially was

going to take at the PNE site, and so we redid it all — and consultation after

consultation.

Here's what

I find very curious about this government: they have two defences when they're

caught out. First, they say: "Oh, we're just as bad as the NDP was." I

love that; I love it. "We're just as bad as the NDP was." Well, isn't

that a sterling defence of their government's activities? Then their second

approach is: "Well, it's not our problem. It's someone else's problem. It's

the school board's problem. It's the health authority's problem." Now it's

the city of Vancouver's problem. Well, let me just tell you about what previous

governments, including Social Credit governments, didn't do. They didn't bring

in legislation to alter forever what can or cannot take place at that site.

Let me ask

this question to the minister: when was the Hastings Park Trust last legislated?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member's going to have to clarify her question. I have no idea

what she's trying to say.

MacPhail: The minister, along with his backbench government caucus — I was

going to use an unparliamentary word, so I won't — is trying to make the case

that this government's just doing exactly the same thing as every other

government did. What I'm actually saying….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, order.

MacPhail: I actually listened. I didn't speak out once.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MacPhail: Not once did I speak out.

The

government's trying to say…. I'm just trying to target their first defence,

which is: "We're just doing what the big, bad NDP did. We're no worse than

them." My question is: when was the last time the Hastings Park Trust was

legislated?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, if I'm following through on the theatrics that are taking

place from the opposite side there, I will say to the member: in 1889.

MacPhail: Here we have a situation where — gosh — that big, bad

government…. "They did just as much an injustice as our government is

doing" is basically the argument, and it turns out that no, the Hastings

Park Trust has not been touched by any government until this government.

[1600]

Let me ask

this question: when was the PNE act last changed, and how was it changed?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The last change to the PNE was in 2001. I'm not going to be entirely

certain on the month, but that would be when we brought in a change to the board

and how many individuals would sit on the board.

Nijjar: I find it absolutely amazing how the member for Vancouver-Hastings

talks so explicitly about consultation processes and what great consultations

took place. She describes them in so much detail. Then when the minister says we

are giving the city the authority to do the exact same thing, all of a sudden it

is such a dirty and bad thing to do. How funny it is that some people that were

in government like consultation when they can control the outcome they want but

don't like consultation when it is open-ended and can actually go any direction.

How funny that is. All of a sudden consultation is a bad thing.

The member

for Vancouver-Hastings spoke so much about how even the NPA city council worked

in a consultation process. Now we are giving the NDP in the city control over

consultation, but because that isn't closed-ended, because it doesn't give that

member's Hastings Park Conservancy all the control of the direction and all the

control over public consultation and all the control over the voices of the east

side of Vancouver, all of a sudden consultation is a bad thing.

My question

to the minister is: other than the amateur sports teams he expressed receive

benefits from the facilities there, what other economic benefits are there for

particular organizations and industries?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I apologize for the delay, but I was thinking about all the

activities that take place there. This really is significant, because it speaks

directly to the use and enjoyment of the site for the residents of Vancouver. It

includes things like junior hockey. It includes things like the Vancouver

Giants, who are attracting some real interest among the public who use and enjoy

that particular opportunity to watch the team. It includes religious events,

trade and consumer shows that take place regularly on the site, filming —

which is increasingly becoming a real opportunity in some of the those buildings

and on location to help our burgeoning movie sector — and concerts. The

amusement park itself obviously provides enormous enjoyment.

There's a

whole range of activities there that British Columbians and local residents have

enjoyed for a very long time. I think it comes back to this whole discussion

about consultation. What is the duty of the prov-

[ Page 7733 ]

ince to consult? It just seems really clear to me that we ought to follow in

the path of consultation with the appropriate level of government, which we have

done — and done very cooperatively, I might add — with the city of

Vancouver. This was not a negotiation that was filled with acrimony or

bitterness or that started off on the wrong foot. This is something that is very

cooperative. Vancouver sees this as a real positive for the city as they move

forward with their visioning exercise.

[1605]

Again, I

just have to say this. When the member opposite is going to stand up and talk

about this lack of consultation, I am going to continually remind that member of

her government in January '99, when they said they were going to move the PNE

over to Burns Bog without consultation when their own polling showed that 81

percent of the folks that lived within a 16-to-20-block radius of the site

supported extending the lease for the PNE. I'm just fascinated by that

dichotomy, but I hope that answers the member's question.

MacPhail: And I'm going to allow the words of the Liberal MLAs from

Vancouver to speak for themselves. It's been fascinating so far in terms of the

public reaction.

I just want

to point one thing out to the minister as he makes this comparison. I know he

was busy in Prince George and Prince Rupert, trying to do total recall — and

he failed miserably at that — during that period of time, but I just want to

point out the difference between his government and the previous government.

It's

symbolized in things like Coquihalla, where this government…. Not only do they

not do any consultation, but they then bring in legislation that just slaps

aside one point of view completely — not that that point of view should

dominate. I think the member from Kingsway is trying to say that there are

people in our community who want it all to be greenspace. He's so out of touch

with it that he completely fails to understand that the community actually

welcomed the PNE to stay there about two years ago.

completely misunderstands that there can be joint and consensual use at the site

but that you actually have to discuss with all aspects of the community about

the future of the site — unlike this government, where they just ignore one

point of view. They bring in legislation so that no matter what happens, this

government's point of view prevails. It's like the Coquihalla. Yes, the previous

government looked at privatizing the Coquihalla. We consulted, we investigated,

we had our MLAs look at it, and we came back and said: "No, it's not going

to work."

It's like

when one minister of our Crown floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog.

We went out and talked to city council. We actually talked to the Burns Bog

Conservation Society. We talked to the Vancouver community, and in fact….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: I just love it how the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is finally

doing what he considers to be his job.

We rejected

— withdrew — the proposal. We didn't proceed with it. In fact, this

government says: "Oh, we're just trying to do exactly the same thing as the

previous government." Well, no. Here's the difference: they're actually not

consulting with the community, and they're proceeding with legislation anyway.

That's why

I specifically asked the minister when the last time was that this legislation

was changed, and it was 1889. No government has dared interfere with the trust

except his government. No government has dared ignore one part of the community

and still proceed.

Make that

comparison to 1999 and moving the PNE to Burns Bog. What government in 1999

floated the idea of moving the PNE to Burns Bog and still proceeded in spite of

community criticism? No government except his government has proceeded with

actions in the face of community opposition. Only his government has done that.

The

Chair: Minister?

Some

Hon. Members: There was no question.

Hon. K.

Falcon: There was no question, but surely there's an opportunity for me to

enjoy the repartee.

The member

again brought up the January '99 information, and I do think that discussion is

worthy of exploring, because it actually comes into the whole question of: what

is consultation? The member has been very critical about our apparent lack of

consultation. She just went on and told this House that they engaged in

consultations with the Burns Bog Conservation Society and the elected members of

Delta, presumably. It must have been quite a conversation you had with the Burns

Bog Conservation Society, because within not even 24 hours they were out and

they were very angry. It sounds like it was a notification to me, not a

consultation. Nevertheless, I'll allow the member to decide what level of

consultation that was.

I was never

in Prince George having anything to do with recall, you'll be happy to know.

[1610]

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I think it's fascinating that this member talks like this, because

it shows such a disjointed approach to the reality of what took place. There was

Burns Bog Conservation Society. I can tell you that the Burns Bog Conservation

Society consultation probably went something like this: "We're putting a

park inside your bog. Hope you'll enjoy it. We think it's a great idea."

You know, the reaction pretty much

[ Page 7734 ]

typified how folks would feel if they got a consultation like that.

I also,

again, just can't help but think that at the same time this member is going on

about consultation — keep this in mind, folks, because this is fascinating —

she's doing it in the climate of her own Crown corporation undertaking a poll

showing that 81 percent of the people within a 16-to-20-block radius actually

don't want it moved. But they're announcing in January '99 that it's getting

moved. It's going to Burns Bog.

Now, after

spending a couple of million dollars of wasted money on consultants and

everything else investigating the Burns Bog thing, they then flipped over and

said: "Let's put it in the PNE." Well, here comes round two of the

consultation approach according to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. That

followed pretty much the same scenario that happened under the Burns Bog

approach. That was a phone call to the mayor, perhaps to some of the city

staffers, and that was the extent of the consultation. I'm pretty sure that the

member from Vancouver-Whalley didn't hear anything about this. I'm certain I can

tell you that the member — myself — was not made aware of any consultations

that were being undertaken before the city, before the province.

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I know, but I was a member of the public. That might surprise the

member opposite — that a resident of Surrey might actually be interested in

what's going on.

So what

happened was that government, under the leadership of that particular member,

actually went into Surrey, and they paid over $20 million for a piece of land

that nobody in the private sector would have paid anywhere close to that price.

Nobody would have paid that price.

Here this

member, having overpaid for this land, now is in a situation where the interest

costs alone on this land that they bought — a decision made in the days prior

to the election being called — were costing the hard-working taxpayers of

Surrey $100,000 a month — that clock just ticking away on this irresponsible,

poorly thought out, no-business-plan proposal that this government, the

government of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, went forward with.

Where is it

today? Today the members of this House will be saddened to yet again learn that

another deal that they were involved with will be costing millions of dollars

for the taxpayers of British Columbia. The hard-working folks in this province

are going to have to take a bath to the tune of millions of dollars when that

land is resold, because the offer they currently have in place is millions of

dollars less than what her government paid for it. That is truly a shame.

I think

that we have canvassed quite extensively….

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, absolutely not. That is my understanding….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Will the Leader of the Opposition wait for the minister to finish.

Hon. K.

Falcon: That is my understanding — that there is an offer….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order. Order.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Apparently I keep getting interrupted….

The

Chair: Order, minister. Will the Leader of the Opposition please let the

minister finish before responding. You will have your opportunity.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Absolutely. No, I didn't misspeak at all. In fact, the Land and

Water B.C.… It's my understanding that there's an agreement in place that is

substantially below the amount that the member for Vancouver-Hastings's

government purchased that land for. I believe that you will be made aware of

that information in the very near term.

[1615]

MacPhail: I would just be interested in knowing this last information that

the minister put on record there. He's alleging a loss of millions of dollars,

so could he please specify exactly what piece of land he's talking about. He

just alleged that in the House. No, he stated it in the House. What piece of

land, and what's the price differential, please? He's the one that brought it

up.

Nijjar: This is the version of NDP consultation. We all know what happened

at Burns Bog. It wasn't consultation. The minister is very correct. The version

of consultation at Burns Bog is the same version of consultation that the NDP

had for ten years. They decided amongst themselves on a whim or through some

type of process, probably with Adrian Dix or whoever it may have been:

"Hey, let's pave over a great environmental part of our community and a

sanctuary that is an example all over the world, actually." Apparently

there's only about one other site in North America that even comes close to it.

"Let's just pave it over."

The public

was so upset, so irate, and the complaints were so loud that the government had

no choice but to back down. Did they fight? Of course they did. They didn't back

down in a day. This went on for quite a while. What's amazing is they tried

everything they possibly could to make it work, probably because they had

already invested and they knew they were going to lose dollars.

When it

comes to consultation now, to the Hastings Park site, a lot is the same thing.

Sure, they call it consultation, but it's really consultation if they control

the direction, just like with the budget. There wasn't really

[ Page 7735 ]

respect for the public where you disclose what's really going on. As one of

the member for Vancouver-Hastings' colleagues, a minister of the NDP government,

said after the '96 election: "Well, you know, government can do anything.

Government can lie. That's okay. As long as you get away with it, you can do

anything. Ha, ha, ha. We're on this side of the Legislature, back in

government."

If there

was consultation, the NDP version of consultation, how much did consultation

cost for the process they undertook at Burns Bog?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The total cost that was expended in looking into the relocation

options and all of those such things was $2.1 million. Now, I might add one more

thing. In the House the other day I did inadvertently state that the cost of

actually moving the exhibition from Vancouver to Surrey was between $80 million

and $100 million. In fact, I was corrected by my very capable staff here. That

cost would have been in excess of $200 million, which I think you will find

helpful in terms of thinking about the whole viability of that particular lack

of planning.

Nijjar: Just to clarify, the minister is saying $200 million was spent on

not just the consultation process, I assume, but the whole hiring of consultants

for the business plan, etc. — on everything to do with moving the PNE from

Vancouver to Surrey.

[1620]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Just to clarify, $2.1 million was spent on the consultants and

reports, etc., determining a relocation to Burns Bog in Surrey. The $200 million

was not expended, thank goodness, because we cancelled that project very quickly

upon getting elected. The $200 million it would have cost to move the exhibition

over to Surrey fortunately wasn't expended, and so we thus saved the taxpayers

of British Columbia the opportunity of having another major white elephant take

place.

Nijjar: What more can be said about $2.1 million being spent on something

that was an exact, absolute, abject failure in Surrey? Yet again, just like with

the Burns Bog, they tried to force it in there. Was there ever a complete

business plan or any degree of a business plan being shown to the public?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That is a very important question, because we are able to tell the

member that there was no viable business plan that was approved by government.

Certainly, there was no business plan that was presented into the public realm

for the public to see what was driving these almost impossible-to-imagine

decisions relating to the relocation of the PNE from Vancouver to Surrey.

Nijjar: Well, it's not a surprise at all that there was absolutely no

business plan or at least no business plan forthcoming to the public — much

like there was no business plan for the fast ferries and much like there was no

business plan for almost every single big project that they undertook.

The

Chair: I'll remind the member — if we could stay to

section 2, please.

Nijjar: Like the SkyTrain they built, which was of course the great

overrun….

Now, in the

2010 Olympic business plan, what relationship is there to the use of facilities

at Hastings Park?

Hon. K.

Falcon: In terms of the facilities that will be involved in 2010, the

Agrodome will be a training facility for figure skating. The Coliseum will be

used for skating and short-track skating. There will also be a temporary

facility where the barns used to be that will replace the barns and will also

provide short-track training opportunities for the athletes.

I must say

this. In speaking, really, in the spirit of some of the great things that 2010

will achieve, I cannot think of a more exciting opportunity for all the young

kids in that neighbourhood and all the neighbourhoods around Vancouver who will

be able to see world-class athletes training in front of them. What an

inspiration for the young girls and boys in the community.

[1625]

MacPhail: Back to the question about the sale of land. The minister himself

brought this issue up, so I'd like to know the parcel of land that he talked

about where the province is going to lose, he said, millions of dollars on.

Could he please tell us what the two figures are and when this information was

made public?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Certainly. What I can tell the member opposite is roughly, in

general terms, what I tried to tell the member opposite, and that is that there

is a conditional sales agreement in place. The terms of the conditional sales

agreement, as is standard in an agreement such as that, are confidential, so I

won't be able to release to the member the confidential nature of it.

What I can

say to the member is that I have a high degree of confidence that the amount

that will ultimately be transacted in that particular sale will be less than the

amount that your government paid for that particular land. Any private sector

investor and developer will have told you — in fact, most of their heads

snapped back in shock when that acquisition was announced, because that actually

set a new yardstick for land prices in the Whalley area…. Only a government

led by folks such as yourself would have paid that kind of enormous amount of

money for such a marginal piece of land.

MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, he specifically said millions of dollars will

be lost, so he didn't have any trouble with the confidentiality agreement then

— when he was standing up, spewing off. He specifically

[ Page 7736 ]

said millions of dollars, so I assume there isn't any confidentiality

agreement. Name the figures, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: As I mentioned, there are confidentiality provisions. What I

said….

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: No, I made a prediction that I suspect the amount that will be

realized on that will be substantially millions less than what that member's

government paid for it. However, what I would like to do is direct the member

back to the

section we're trying to discuss here —

section 2. I'm hoping we

can engender some conversation and move things along under

section 2 of the

bill.

MacPhail: Well, I can imagine why the minister wants to do that. It's

because he broke a confidentiality…. Here he is, a minister of the Crown,

breaking a confidentiality agreement, making allegations that he now won't back

up because he misspoke himself. He's broken a confidentiality agreement, and

he's doing it all in the name of partisan, cheap politics. That's what he's

doing, Mr. Chair.

For those

members who are concerned about what

section we're on, it's the minister himself

that put this on the record — no one else. He made specific references to a

piece of land, and he's doing it all in the format of cheap politics — which

is all this government does — just the same way that he uses cheap politics

around Burns Bog.

Oh, I can

see the minister. The minister is extremely nervous. He wants to move on. When

will this land deal be announced publicly? Now that we all know what it's about,

when will it be announced publicly?

The

Chair: Members, I have allowed leeway on the questioning at this time, but I

think we should get back to

section 2 and stay on

section 2.

MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for your guidance. Could the

minister please answer my question?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm not privy to those details of when the deal closes.

Hawes: I've been sitting here, listening to this back and forth, and I think

it is time to get back to the act that we're talking about. Around the

consultation piece that I've been hearing so much about, I wonder if I could

just start by going back to the trust condition that says Hastings Park is going

to be left to Vancouver and the successors for the use, recreation and enjoyment

of the public.

[1630]

To the

minister: when they say public, is that restricted to just the citizens of

Vancouver, or is it entrusted for the use of all the public, including Surrey

— or maybe even Mission, where I live?

Hon. K.

Falcon: That would be all the public. There is no restriction contemplated

there.

Hawes: Now, to the consultation…. I listened patiently through all the

stuff that was going back and forth here. I listened to the member opposite talk

so much about consultation and what she did in consultation. By the way, I spent

a good part of the 1990s in local government. I had the good fortune of

representing the folks in Mission as mayor through that period —

unfortunately, through the decade the NDP were in power.

I'm very

familiar with their consultation. I'm very familiar with phone calls,

consultation phone calls that would be: "Oh, by the way, we announced 15

minutes ago that your courthouse will close next Monday." Or perhaps when I

sat on the community health council, after two years of diligent work by many

citizens — a phone call. A lot of consultation…. That very member decided we

were all fired, unceremoniously dumped because she had decided to go to a

different system. There wasn't any consultation — no consultation.

MacPhail: After four months of public consultation and public meetings.

Hawes: Four months of consultation, she says, but I was there, and I was the

one who received the call that said: "You're done." Same thing

happened on the hospital board.

With

respect to consultation, when consultation takes place, I wonder…. I've heard

the member opposite talk so much about consultation in East Vancouver. I'm

wondering: is consultation going to take place broadly? Will the citizens of

Kerrisdale, for example…?

Interjection.

Hawes: Of course, I know the member opposite said earlier that she doesn't

speak out when others are speaking. I wonder what that voice is that I keep

hearing here, which is so disturbing while I'm trying to ask a question.

Perhaps, just in order of civility…. Perhaps rudeness is something people

should think about here, and let somebody ask a question.

Will the

citizens of Kerrisdale and other areas of Vancouver be consulted through the

Vancouver consultation that's contemplated in this bill?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, they will. That's one of the beauties of the visioning

exercise. It intends to broadly engage the residents of Vancouver in the

visioning exercise. That will include the residents from Kerrisdale and the

folks from the west side of Vancouver too.

Hawes: If a lot of the folks in Vancouver decide that they're really not

particularly interested in further greening of this park, would the Vancouver

council possibly listen to the majority of the population of Vancouver and do

that which they say should be done to the park? Do you think that's possible?

[ Page 7737 ]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again, the beauty of this legislation is that it will give the city

of Vancouver the right to make that determination. You know, I just keep coming

back to the fact that there are these suggestions that somehow consultation is

not being undertaken. There will be a massive consultation effort undertaken. I

appreciate the member reminding the House of that fact, because there will be

every opportunity for groups and stakeholders and people with visions of parks

and people with visions of amusement rides and people with visions of the great

activity that takes place in minor hockey and young girls' figure skating. There

will be every opportunity for all those folks across Vancouver to be heard.

Hawes: On behalf of my own constituents now, who — I'll be blunt about it

— aren't particularly going to have any concern one way or the other, mostly,

about greenspace in the park…. We have greenspace in our community; we have

built parks, etc.

[1635]

constituents, I know, are very interested in that park with respect to horse

racing, with respect to the PNE activities that take place there, Playland, the

Coliseum, the sports venues that are already built there. That's their interest:

in making sure they are preserved and continue on. Can the minister confirm for

my constituents that this act allows those activities and ensures that their

interest in this park will be preserved?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I can absolutely confirm that the whole purpose of this — the

whole purpose of providing the explanatory parameters around the original intent

of the trust for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the members of the public

— will allow those activities to continue on until such time as the city,

through its visioning process, may determine that they want to have a different

direction. That will be completely and entirely up to the city of Vancouver and

the direction they undertake through their visioning exercise. It is really

something that will be the product of an exercise that the city of Vancouver

will be carrying out, and it's a direction we very much support.

I will say

this, because some members — particularly members opposite — have

continually suggested that I or members of government don't have any interest in

or knowledge of this site because we may not live in the immediate

neighbourhood…. I grew up on the North Shore, yet somehow I don't have any tie

to this site. Well, I will tell those members that I actually used to work at

the PNE. As a young man going through school, the money I earned at the PNE was

very, very helpful to me.

I imagine

that I probably typify so many of the other 2,600 young people who work at that

Pacific National Exhibition and earn and learn important skills in the workplace

and bring those important skills into their future life and support them as they

go through school. I appreciate you asking that question and broadening the

whole issue of who ought to be consulted and who has an interest.

Hawes: Having worked for a long time at the local government level, I do

have to tell you that I have a huge amount of confidence and faith in the

consultation process that takes place at the local level. I also have to tell

you, being a member of this government, that I'm very comfortable with the way

we do consult.

I was a

victim at the local level, as my city was a victim at the local level, of the

processes employed by the former government. I can understand the member

opposite being concerned about consultation, because she doesn't understand what

true consultation means. That's really clear when a government would pass

an act

to say: "We've taken away a big slice of your grants, but just to preserve

the balance and make sure there's always certainty, we're going to pass

an act

to make sure the municipal grants are protected." The following year the

consultation piece was not even a phone call, just an announcement that the

grants were slashed in violation of the act that they themselves had written.

That's consultation.

understand why that member would be concerned about the consultation process,

because she knows how she consulted and she can trust absolutely no one. I, on

the other hand, and many of my colleagues do come from local government. We know

the consultation process that's used at local government.

You know,

the Vancouver council doesn't represent me. I didn't vote for them, but because

of the way they were elected and because of the type of government they

represent, I have absolute confidence that the Vancouver city council will

consult broadly and will follow the wishes of the people of Vancouver. I believe

they will protect the interests of my constituents.

If the

people of Vancouver say they want further greenspace, then that's what will

happen there. If the people of Vancouver say no, that's not what they want —

if that happened — then I'm quite sure they're also going to reflect the

wishes of the people who elected them. That's what local democracy is all about.

It's a concept that I know escapes that member opposite.

My question

is going to be to the minister. Have I got this right once and for all? I heard

the member opposite saying to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as an aside to

him: "You've asked that question. Why do you keep asking it?"

[1640]

I've heard

her ask about the consultation piece, and you answered 20 times today. The horse

is long dead and been whipped so many times. The consultation process will be

broad. Have I got this correct? The city of Vancouver will go out and ask the

population what they want with this park. Have I got that correct?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, you have got that exactly correct.

Mayencourt: I've been listening to the debate with great interest. I live in

the city of Vancouver obviously, and the PNE-Hastings Park has a fairly

substantial place in my memories. I can remember lots of times receiving my pass

with my report card in June, going

[ Page 7738 ]

to the PNE in August and having a terrific time. I've also seen the way that

the PNE evolved, how Playland became more visible as an entity.

I also

watched with great interest some of the public consultation process that went

forward — other members have referenced it, including the member for

Vancouver-Hastings — during the early nineties to try and redevelop the

Hastings Park site by defining it as Hastings Park. I took great pleasure in

seeing some of those developments happen, and I spoke about those the other day

— the issue of the greening of Hastings Park. I talked about the sanctuary,

which is just a gorgeous and beautiful part of our city and something that's

very, very important to the people who live in that neighbourhood. I've spoken

with many of the activists that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has spoken

about, the heroes, the people who said this was something that was really

important for us. I think there was a great deal of consultation with that core

group. I think there was a lot of time spent with that community trying to

develop a park that they could use all the time.

I'm very

impressed with the work that they've done. You know, we've got a variety of

gardens there. We have the Italian gardens, the sanctuary, the Momiji Gardens

and Empire fields now. We've come to a point where we have really, I think, done

an awful lot with that park. I don't know to what extent the provincial

government funded those enhancements to Hastings Park. I don't think it really

matters. I think that people don't care who wrote the cheque. I think that what

they care about is the fact that Hastings Park is now more and more usable for

people in that community.

There's

been a lot of talk about the consultation process, and some of the members here

have alluded to the fact that perhaps not all members of Vancouver or even of

the lower mainland had a place at the consultation table. I know that for me, a

resident of the city of Vancouver, it was really not something that a person

from the West End was encouraged to do. As a matter of fact, we were pretty much

excluded from the process, so when I hear about the need for people from all of

Vancouver to be consulted on this, I think that's a very strong and important

thing.

I was very

interested to read Mayor Campbell's comments about this from the city of

Vancouver when he said that it's an important and historic part of the fabric of

our city and that he really welcomed the opportunity to have this visioning

process take place within the city of Vancouver and to go about making sure that

all consideration was given to them.

I also

share the view of the member from Mission that this particular park does not

belong to one neighbourhood. It does not belong to Hastings-Sunrise. It belongs

to the West End; it belongs to all of those neighbourhoods. I am convinced from

hearing this debate that the city of Vancouver has very wisely decided that they

want to have an open consultation process to take place, and I salute that.

[1645]

As I'm

listening to this, I'm thinking to myself: you know, last week we passed a piece

of legislation that was really important. I didn't hear anything from the

members opposite. I see that we're talking here about taking a park that is in

the city of Vancouver, turning it over to the residents of Vancouver and

allowing them to manage it, to be the directors and to decide what they're going

to do with it. I think that's a wonderful thing, and I think that's what the

people of Vancouver are saying that we need to do.

When I look

at the bill, it's a very short bill, and it doesn't really have anything that's

that inflammatory, as far as I can see. First off, we're adjusting the trust.

We're going into the trust — which was the Hastings Park Trust that was

established in 1889, I believe — and we are conferring all of the powers, all

of the rights that were from that particular trust agreement on the city of

Vancouver. Am I missing anything there? I wonder if the minister could speak to

that.

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is exactly right. All this does, really, is accede to the

request of the city to have this kind of information in part of the agreement to

recognize and realize the parameters of activities that have evolved over the

years at the Hastings Park land. It will also allow the city to then move

forward and engage in their visioning exercise. They are, I believe, very close

to rolling out the details of that visioning exercise.

Mayencourt: In reading this, there are some conditions that are put forward

under the trust. Later on in the bill, there are some that are attached to the

Pacific National Exhibition. They look to me to be pretty similar in terms of

the wording and what have you, so when I look at these ones that take place

under

section 2, it gives the city of Vancouver authorization under the trust to

hold "…fairs, exhibitions, expositions, displays, shows, plays, concerts,

sports, sporting events and public presentations of any kind." For the life

of me, when I read that, I go: well, isn't that what they do already?

We have the

ability "to hold race meetings involving mechanical devic