2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Petitions

B. Bennett

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Teaching Profession (Teacher

Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

J. McIntyre

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 12)

L. Krog

C. Trevena

Hon. L. Reid

Hon. K.

Krueger

J. Horgan

C. Evans

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. Les

N. Simons

J. Brar

Hon. C.

Richmond

Proceedings in

the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

(continued)

G. Robertson

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Chudnovsky

[ Page 6443 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to present a

petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

B. Bennett: I have a petition from about 1,300 people in my

riding who don't have cell service and who would like to have cell service.

They've all signed a petition.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TEACHING PROFESSION (TEACHER

REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration)

Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce Bill 21, Teaching

Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007. This act meets our

election platform and throne speech commitments to establish a registry,

administered by the B.C. College of Teachers, to publicly report the names of

teachers disciplined for misconduct involving emotional, physical or sexual

abuse.

These amendments to the School Act, the Independent School Act and

the Teaching Profession Act will also establish an employment registry for

school boards and independent school authorities to verify the employment record

of teachers. The amendments will clarify the duty to report any suspension or

dismissal; any conduct or competence in breach of the college's standards; and

any discipline of a member of the College of Teachers, or a teacher certified by

the inspector of independent schools, for misconduct that involved the

emotional, physical or sexual abuse of a student.

The amendments set out the following: (1) what disciplinary

actions should be reported, who should report and the consequences for failure

to report; (2) what information should be included in a discipline registry and

who should have access; and (3) what information should be included in an

employment registry and who should have access.

These legislative changes deliver on government's commitment to

ensure that B.C. students are safe and that school districts and parents can

access information about teachers who have been disciplined for professional

misconduct.

[1005]

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 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act,

2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

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

Petitions

J. McIntyre: Tabling two petitions on child care funding.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage

debate on Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee

A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates of

the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; S.

Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: Very conscious of the rules of this House, I

simply want to commence by saying that I note that this is the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act coming through the Ministry of Attorney General. I think

all members of this House wish the Attorney General very well in the present

circumstances.

With respect to sections 1 through 5, I have no questions.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of questions about

section 6,

the Child Care Subsidy Act, which has already been described in the popular

media as setting up a snitch line. Firstly on

section 6(a), I would like a

clarification where it says replacing "that person" with "that person or another

person." I would just like a clarification on what that means.

Hon. L. Reid: Today the act is very restrictive. It only

allows that information to come from the applicant.

[ Page 6444 ]

This allows for the information to come from individuals other than the

applicant.

C. Trevena: I wondered what other individuals might be

providing information about subsidy and about the income status of an individual

who is applying for subsidy.

[1010]

Hon. L. Reid: With respect to the member's question, it

doesn't relate only to income status. It certainly allows information to flow,

and information has flowed in the past — unable to be utilized but has flowed —

from neighbours and from other child care providers who know that individuals in

question are not, in fact, delivering services perhaps to the number of children

they claim to have in their facility at any one time. So that kind of

information is certainly available. We now will have the opportunity to put it

to use.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to clarify, then, that this isn't

just about child care subsidy — those who are receiving child care subsidy. It's

also those who are providing the child care that this information will be

gathered on, from your previous answer.

Hon. L. Reid: The information is about the recipient of the

subsidy, but it may indeed flow from providers. They may indeed know that a

family is receiving a subsidy for a service at that particular time that they

may not be procuring or be receiving an elevated subsidy for a service that

costs less.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister whether the

third party will be only the child care provider who will be providing this

information.

Hon. L. Reid: The information can come from anyone.

Certainly, I'll reference the member to

section 6(b)(ii): "…the minister has not

solicited the information from the person who provides it." So anyone is welcome

to provide it. We simply are not in the business of soliciting that information.

This garners us the authority to act upon the information we receive.

C. Trevena: The issue of applying for any sort of subsidy

from government is obviously quite sensitive to people. I wondered if there is

any way that the ministry will be vetting those third parties who are providing

information about someone who may or may not be utilizing a service for which

they are claiming subsidy.

I ask this because I fear that it opens up the way for many

malicious claims — somebody who has got a grievance against someone else and

will claim that they are getting a service that they are not getting. I wondered

what sort of guarantees there are going to be that there is some sort of vetting

for individuals who are making these claims, making the allegations.

Hon. L. Reid: What this allows us to do is to go back to

the applicant and ask them to verify the information we have received. That is

our first course of action. Certainly, the member's sentiment is well taken.

There will be due diligence applied to how we go forward.

Certainly, our challenge as government is to ensure that the dollars that are

available for subsidy end up in the hands of those who are, frankly, deserving

of that level of subsidy. So this check is only about that. But the first

approach will always be to the person who receives the subsidy, and we will ask

them to verify that information for us.

[1015]

C. Trevena: I don't think there are that many people in

B.C., if any, who would be trying to exploit the child care subsidy to try and

extract extra money out of the government. So I wondered in what way you are

going to be approaching the people who are having third-party allegations made

against them to find out whether this third party is telling the truth or is

being malicious.

Hon. L. Reid: Audit verification has been in place since

this program began, and a similar process is available today for MEIA clients.

Certainly, that level of verification is important. This is a $126 million

annual program that is delivered in monthly payments. So, indeed, every

opportunity will be taken to ensure that the dollars end up in the right hands.

But the scrutiny is about safeguarding the program, the subsidy and a child's

access to that level of support, and as the first course of action we will

always return to the claimant to ensure that they are able to verify that

information.

Will it be done in ways that make sense, that are logical?

Absolutely. This authority has always been in the hands of MEIA, the Ministry of

Employment and Income Assistance. To have the ability to verify information that

comes to us is the next logical step. We are in receipt of information today.

The ability to utilize that information is what this

section speaks to.

C. Trevena: If there is an anonymous third-party allegation

against someone and an investigation ensues, will the person who is claiming the

subsidy still be getting the child care subsidy while there is an investigation

into whether or not that allegation is legitimate?

Hon. L. Reid: The short answer to your question is yes,

unless there is a finding that they are indeed not eligible or if they do not

respond to the request for verification of information.

C. Trevena: How will the request to the claimants be

handled? Will it be by telephone? By mail? How are you going to do that? And

will the claimants know who the third parties are who are making claims against

them?

Hon. L. Reid: We will always put that request for

verification in writing, and certainly we will exercise discretion in terms of

how much time we have for people to get back to us. But in that this is a

monthly payment opportunity today and they are in contact

[ Page 6445 ]

regularly, if someone were not to be back in touch with us for an excessive

period of time, that would be contrary to the current level of contact they have

with us.

[1020]

The second part of your question related to whether or not the

third-party claimant information would be made available to the applicant. That

certainly is not something that's provided for today under protection of

privacy.

C. Trevena: I find it deeply troubling, actually, that we

are getting anonymous third parties that can make allegations against people.

Although people obviously do have the right to defend themselves, these are

coming from anonymous third parties. I wondered where the protection of privacy

for the subsidy claimant comes in.

Hon. L. Reid: The substance of the allegation will be

disclosed to the applicant so they can indeed verify, or not, the accuracy, the

legitimacy of that information. That is currently common practice across

government. Whether that's MEIA or Workers Compensation Board, that practice is

in place today and has been for untold numbers of years.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister is going to have any

assistants with him, or can I proceed to ask my question?

The Chair: Proceed, Member.

L. Krog: Thank you. The amendment clarifies what kind of

notice must be given under

section 3 of the existing Coal Act. Obviously, this

section is of great importance because this is the

section that provides that a

recorded holder of coal rights can go onto someone's property to begin

exploration development. The amendment will have the effect of referring to "in

the prescribed form and manner and within the prescribed period," which I assume

will be established by regulation.

The act itself, obviously, is not terribly descriptive. In the

present section, subsection (1) is describing how notice must be given. I'm

wondering if the minister can advise: what is the present practice with respect

to giving notice, and does the minister have any intention around what will be

the new practice with respect to giving notice?

Hon. K. Krueger: I thank the member opposite.

I'd like to introduce the staff that are supporting me today. This

is Rick Conte, the director of mineral titles, and Katherine Rowe, the manager

of corporate policy branch for the ministry.

There already is a requirement of notice under the Coal Act, but

the manner of notice has not been prescribed, so generally what has happened is

that a written notice has been provided to the property owner.

We're seeking to establish consistency between the two pieces of

legislation being amended. We have a draft of the form of notice that we believe

would be appropriate. We intend to engage in consultations with those who will

be affected over the coming months, and then the amendments will be brought into

force by regulation.

[1025]

L. Krog: I thank the minister for his response. I take it

what we're really talking about is simply written notice.

The reason I raise this as a concern is because the land title

office obviously requires that every title holder have an address on their

title. Unfortunately, people change their addresses, and one of the last things

they ever think about changing is, in fact, the address on their title,

particularly if they own multiple properties — could be a mining company, could

be a rancher who moves into town, all those kinds of things.

It raises the very real and practical possibility that if the

notice is simply delivered in a written form to the address on title — which is

the way the land title office, for instance, delivers notice to a registered

owner if a certificate of pending litigation has been filed — there is a real

possibility the owner, in fact, will never get notice. Somebody's going to show

up with a backhoe one day and start digging for coal and digging holes, and the

owner, for practical purposes, will be deemed to have notice because they were,

you could argue, negligent in not providing an updated address.

I'm wondering if the minister is giving consideration to the

possibility of actually having personal delivery. We're not talking about a

situation where it's some poor, impecunious person who can't afford to hire a

process server to go out and find the owner — people or corporations. The

recorded holders, generally speaking, will be mining companies who will

presumably have some access to financial resources and would be in a position to

ensure and pay for personal service of the notice that the recorded holder

intends to commence exploration or development.

I'm wondering if the minister has given consideration to that

possibility, because this is a matter of great concern to British Columbians who

have woken up to the fact that many of them do not hold the mineral rights to

their property, notwithstanding that they think of themselves as being the

registered owners of everything above and below the surface. Again, to the

minister: can the minister advise whether the government is considering actual

personal service, particularly in light of the significance of what activity is

going to take place on their private property?

Hon. K. Krueger: Just to clarify to the member: notice is

already required, prior to these amendments, if there's going to be any

disturbance of the land. The changes. Up until now, if it didn't involve any

mechanical work or disturbance of the land, a free miner didn't have to give

notice to explore.

The concerns that the member expresses have not been demonstrated

in the practice of the industry to date.

[ Page 6446 ]

There are only a handful of disputes every year between surface rights

holders — whether they be people who have Crown leases or people who hold

titles…. There are only a handful of disputes between owners and prospectors. In

fact, on average only one dispute a year has gone to the formal disputes

resolution process.

[1030]

There will be an option, as contemplated in the regulation, where

notice can be served, but there will also be an option that it can be provided

by mail or facsimile. Up until now, there have been very few problems with the

process that's been in place. We're actually expanding the rights of property

holders with this legislation.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell the

House what other jurisdictions in Canada have just a notice requirement.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm advised that Ontario is in a similar

position to British Columbia presently — perhaps a little bit behind where we

have been up until now, so further behind when we make these changes. Quebec is

in a situation that's very similar to ours. There are some provinces where no

exploration is allowed on private land.

J. Horgan: Could the minister then confirm that in Alberta

consent is required before property is accessed?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, that is correct. In Alberta consent

of the surface rights holder is required.

J. Horgan: Then I'm interested to know, when the trade,

investment and labour mobility agreement comes into play, will we be going up to

the Alberta standard or will they be coming down to ours?

Hon. K. Krueger: There is nothing in the TILMA agreement

that requires either jurisdiction to adopt the regulation of the other, although

there is general understanding that there will be an attempt to harmonize the

regulations. So the jury is still out on that question, and it's a good

question.

J. Horgan: Well, I thank the minister for that, and I know

he would expect nothing less.

I'd like to stay on this for a minute then. If we are entering

into an interprovincial trade agreement of the magnitude and scope of TILMA, why

is it that we're in this Legislature amending the Coal Act and later in this

bill the Mineral Tenure Act without having some understanding of how that's

going to impact property owners in British Columbia or in fact in Alberta? Has

the minister, in the form of this question, consulted with Alberta on these

changes?

[1035]

Hon. K. Krueger: Obviously, the amendments that we are

discussing are a step closer to Alberta's current provisions. We do have

industries that have differences — the Alberta mining industry as compared to

the British Columbia industry. As I mentioned earlier, there is no requirement

for us to harmonize the regulations, but clearly, we are moving closer with

these changes.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate that from the minister's

perspective this would be a move in the direction of consent. Certainly, in the

interactions that I have with other human beings here on the planet, notice and

consent are drastically different. In the province immediately beside us, where

we've just entered into a significant interprovincial agreement, consent is

required.

There was a significant meeting of landowners in the interior this

past weekend. My colleague from Nelson-Creston attended. The minister will know.

He sent a letter urging those in attendance to support the legislation. They

took the opportunity to vote, and they voted unanimously to oppose the

legislation.

I'm wondering, in the interest of meeting the desires and

aspirations of property owners in British Columbia — which, if I understand the

throne speech, is the thrust of this legislation — why wouldn't we take

advantage of the TILMA and raise our standards in this instance to those of

Alberta?

Hon. K. Krueger: The right of free entry for free miners

has been a longstanding right in Canada, and certainly that's been the case in

British Columbia. The imposition of a requirement of notice has caused some

consternation to the mining exploration industry. They are in a position of

feeling they're having to surrender a lot of what has been their right, which

they have exercised in a largely unfettered way with very few problems over many

years.

To correct something that the member said, I didn't indicate that

we are moving toward consent. Clearly, we are moving to notice. I've said that

we're not required to harmonize with Alberta, and we do not intend to move

toward the requirement of consent.

I'd like to respond to the member's discussion of the meeting that

took place in Vernon. It is a surprise, many times, to the owners of surface

rights to learn that other people can and do acquire the subsurface rights.

That's very surprising to people many times. In some cases people have tried to

litigate against that, unsuccessfully, because the fact is that the minerals,

the wealth below the surface of the land in British Columbia, belongs to the

Crown, belongs to the people of British Columbia.

[1040]

Not many people realize that the oil, gas and mining industries

currently are producing 30 percent of the province's entire revenue flow. These

industries, because they're able to develop these subsurface resources to the

benefit of British Columbians, pay for 30 percent of doctors in B.C., 30 percent

of nurses, 30 percent of teachers, 30 percent of social workers. In fact,

everything that British Columbia is able to do for British Columbians, 30

percent of it is paid for by the people who purchase the subsurface rights and

then develop industries through them.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's rendition of revenue

sources in British Columbia. I think that was

[ Page 6447 ]

instructive for those who were unaware of that, but it doesn't answer my

question with respect to this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

As I understand it, based on the question from my colleague from

Nanaimo, the arduous intrusion into the rights of free miners is a quill pen and

a mailing address. That's the concession that they will now have to succumb to

as a result of this amendment. They're going to have to advise the property

owner that they're coming to dig holes in the front yard.

I'm thinking that when TILMA comes into effect, those free miners

who are now burdened by a quill pen, maybe a fax machine and an address book —

as they go about their business intruding on private property to extract wealth

for themselves and a modest portion for British Columbia — may well look at the

consent requirement in Alberta and see that as an impediment to investment and

may well go to the people of Alberta and say: "You're restricting our abilities

to generate wealth for ourselves, and under the TILMA we're going to take you to

task." Is that a possibility that the minister has contemplated?

Hon. K. Krueger: There is very little prospect that

investors in the mining industry would be driven to explore in Alberta rather

than in British Columbia. The geology is not at all the same and not nearly as

attractive to the industry in Alberta. We are one of the most sought-after

jurisdictions in the world presently because of many things. The geology is a

driving factor. So is the security of operating here and the business climate.

I wish again to correct something that the member said, though,

and I'd like to get this clear on the record. If it's a misunderstanding that

members opposite have, or if it's something worse, I think it's important that

the members not raise alarms about this legislation changing the situation to

where, as the member opposite put it just now, people can show up and start

digging holes in the front yard. That just isn't true.

There's always been a requirement of an agreement between the

exploration operator and the surface rights holder before mechanical means of

exploration commence. There has to be a workplan that is approved by the

inspector of mines. It involves bonding provisions and a reclamation plan.

Nobody will be showing up and digging holes in anybody's property because of the

changes that we're talking about today.

In fact, the surface holder's rights are being expanded, and I

think that's clear to the member. But I'd like it on record, if the member

doesn't mind, that he understands that this change will not permit mechanical

disturbance of the surface holder's land any more than it's permitted right now,

because that just isn't true.

J. Horgan: First of all, I'm surprised to hear that the

Minister for Mining is unaware of significant coal deposits in the province of

Alberta, as there are. I don't dispute the geological abundance that we have in

British Columbia, and both he and I rejoice in that, and we've done it together.

We've embraced the mining industry as individuals, so that's not my issue here.

My issue is that property owners in British Columbia are concerned

enough that the minister and his government are responding by this minimalist

change. But when we look at the province immediately to our east, the one that

in many instances the executive council of this government wants to emulate and

in fact has entered into a significant agreement, a far-reaching agreement that

will harmonize regulations and requirements across the piece…. I'm curious. Did

the minister or his staff consult with Alberta, as I asked a couple of questions

ago, on these changes?

[1045]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

J. Horgan: Is coalbed methane affected by these amendments

with respect to notice?

Hon. K. Krueger: Coalbed gas is defined as a natural gas

under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Coalbed methane, coalbed gas are not

affected by this legislation. They're governed by that act — the Petroleum and

Natural Gas Act.

C. Evans: I would like to say welcome to the minister to

his new portfolio. Everything that I'm going to try to do is to make it as

uncomfortable as I can, but I really like having you in the chair, so don't take

any personal offence to the fact that I don't agree with anything you're doing.

On the weekend there was a meeting of citizens profoundly

interested in this legislation. I would argue that they maybe even created the

impetus for this legislation. I think they're called the Land Owners Rights

Association or the like. The minister wrote to those people to give them

assurances that this legislation was in their interests. Would the minister

please read into the record the letter that he wrote to those folks.

Hon. K. Krueger: I don't have the letter with me, but I'll

have it brought down to me shortly. When the member says that he doesn't agree

with anything we're doing…. Obviously, the member opposite was a cabinet

minister in the government of the 1990s, and the party that he ran with and

continues to be an MLA for had the opportunity to make this change and any

others that they chose to make during the 1990s.

One of my friend across the floor's colleagues said also as a

cabinet minister that government could do anything it wanted. It was a notorious

phrase that was repeated many times in this House. When the member says he

doesn't agree with anything we're doing, obviously he doesn't agree with our

adding a provision that free miners are required to give notice to landowners

before they commence legislation. It doesn't surprise me that he would say that,

because they had ten years to do it, and they didn't.

This is a step — a large step, from the point of view of the

exploration industry — in favour of surface rights holders, which we're taking

in order to balance the concerns

[ Page 6448 ]

of surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders in a way that the NDP

never bothered to do.

The member on one hand says he doesn't agree with anything we're

doing, apparently including this. I wonder why they didn't do this or anything

further in the 1990s. It is certainly a step in the direction of further rights

for surface rights holders. This is as far as we decided to go.

C. Evans: For the benefit of anybody who might not

understand the background, as the minister says, this is incredibly complicated.

It appears what we are doing here today is a good thing.

[1050]

The minister has a small, two-paragraph amendment to the Mineral

Tenure Act in what's called the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. That

means that there are 20-some pages of small changes to many different statutes,

and two paragraphs apply to mineral tenures.

What's going to happen, I think, is that although it doesn't say

exactly how in the act, it does say that notice will be given to people when the

mining industry desires to explore on their land. It doesn't say how that will

happen, but we assume that that will be written into some regulations, and the

regulations will follow, and that's fairly normal. There's nothing untoward

about that. I have faith that the regulations really will follow, and the

regulations will make sense.

What is offensive is the implication that we will fix the trouble

between private land owners and the mining industry by sending people a letter

before we enter their property. There is no reference here to the changes that

happened to the Mineral Tenure Act and all the statutes that relate to the

mining industry, and they enter into private property in 2002 and 2003. There's

no reference here to the Coalbed Gas Act, which actually says there is no

recompense and there is no referral to the courts when the mining industry or

the drilling industry enters your land. We are pretending as if, by writing

people a letter, we're extending their rights. There's no acknowledgment here,

hon. Chair, that we took away the rights of private land owners in the earlier

years of this century.

I, myself, am just learning the extent to which private land

owners were stripped of their rights in 2002 and 2003. Of course, I didn't work

here then, and there was no official opposition then, and there was no research

to have then to try to figure out what was going on. I was advised, so I want to

put on the record a bit of the information that the wonderful citizens of

British Columbia assembled in Vernon last week. That's why I wanted the minister

to read his letter into the record, and we'll maybe get to that later.

As the minister knows, a group of citizens has now met to discover

what the ramifications of the changes in legislation are that stripped them of

their rights already, before we get to this day. It is quite amazing and quite

an education to me.

We started with a woman who owns the Australian Ranch north of

Quesnel, which has been in her family since 1903. She advised that a former

minister from the NDP came with a mining company and said to her, "We're digging

coal on your land," and she said: "Oh no, you can't do that. I've been ranching

here since 1903." The mining company said: "Oh no, the rules say we can now mine

on your property."

Historically, when a mining company came to work on a piece of

private land, the landowner had the right to a tribunal. I think this goes all

the way back to the Magna Carta. The tribunal would be one person appointed by

the landowner, one person appointed by the mining company and then a third

person chosen by agreement. Now the rules have been changed, and there's just a

single person that you go to, an appeal person, who tends to be a lawyer, tends

to live in Vancouver, has no understanding of the ranching industry. The

landowner has no opportunity to appoint anybody.

The woman went on to say that she had now decided to pass the

ranch on to her 27-year-old daughter, who had been to college to learn how to

run a ranch in a businesslike fashion, but she was afraid that she was passing

on a coalmine and not a ranch.

Then, hon. Chair, there was this wonderful gentleman — 30 years he

worked for the provincial government, for the Attorney General — and he lives in

a retirement community in Oyama. There are 50 other retired people, and they're

looking at the lake, and they think they're living in Oyama and everything's

okay. Then they find out that one, two, three gravel pits are built around them.

They go to the municipality and say: "Can you guys stop this?

We're turning into a gravel pit. That's not what we bought." The municipality

says: "We're sorry. We municipalities no longer have any power here." Four, five

and then six, and with the sixth gravel pit they started blasting above the

community. All the rattlesnakes that were living in the rocks moved down to the

front lawn of the people. The gentleman was saying: "We tried to retire here,

and now we have no recompense. We're surrounded by six mines."

Then there was a gentleman who got up to talk about coalbed

methane. He used to be a Crown prosecutor. He was a Crown prosecutor all his

life. He's now retired. He owns a vacation home in Princeton. He told us that

when the coalbed methane company came and said, "We're going to look for methane

underneath your land," he said: "Oh no, you can't do that. We have to have a

tribunal." They said: "No, the provincial government has stripped your rights to

have a tribunal. We get to do pretty much whatever we want." The retired Crown

prosecutor charged the Premier of the province with criminal conspiracy in the

court in Princeton.

[1055]

Of course, the Deputy Attorney General or assistant deputy stopped

the court case from going forward, but here's this older gentleman saying: "The

rules that have existed for 800 years for private land owners — not to stop

business, but to have an input, to have some way to negotiate — have been

stripped." Here we are in the Legislature today, and the minister's saying,

"Hey, we're making it better," but there's no entering into the record all the

changes that have happened already to take away the landowner's rights.

[ Page 6449 ]

There's a young man from Clearwater who woke up one day to find

out that people wanted to drill for uranium above Clearwater. They organized

their whole town and then finally captured the mining company and the ministry

staff in a community hall and convinced them that this was not really a good

idea in Clearwater. But he pointed out that he had to capture them in a hall and

change their minds with public pressure because they had been stripped of their

power in law to argue the case.

The minister wants us to believe that by sending those people a

letter before they start drilling, we're going to solve the problem? I would

submit that what's going on here is we are using a tiny little amendment to hide

what has actually happened, which is a striking stripping of private land

owners' rights to property and negotiation. And none of us, I don't think,

really knew. I don't think the province has been engaged in debating what has

happened here to take away people's rights.

Some people at the meeting called it Victoria's secret, and they

didn't mean underwear. They meant Victoria's secret that we had quietly in the

last few years…. We have this huge boom, and of course commodity prices are

high, and everybody's working, and I like that. But we greased the process by

stripping private land owners of their ranchland and their farmland and their

retirement — their right to well-being where they live.

One gentleman got up. He was 80 years old. He ranches 5,000 feet

above Rock Creek, and he said: "You know, I attempted to negotiate with the

people that wanted to drill on my land." Instead of a tribunal, he goes straight

to some lawyer who is completely uninterested in water, soil, cattle, trees or

how rural people live. All of it comes down to money. "How much are we going to

pay you for each hole?"

Now he's got ten-inch holes that a horse can break its leg in all

over his property, and there's 175 parts per million radioactive material coming

out of those holes. Those holes are not legal. They aren't filled with cement.

And he's pointing out that he has been stripped of his private land owner's

rights by the present government, which — this Victoria's secret of what we did

— we're going to hide by writing him a letter?

There was another gentleman who got up who lives just near Vernon.

He talked about the fact that he has a neighbour with no real interest in

exploration — a neighbour who has applied for a free miner's permit and is using

that permit to harass his neighbours, with no intention whatsoever of ever

drilling for anything. A free miner's permit apparently now allows you to behave

in a hostile way with authority — sort of like you have a licence to oppress

your neighbours.

The gentleman was so upset he could hardly speak. He said that

when he went to the RCMP, the RCMP said: "As long as he's holding that free

miner's licence, we can't stop him from harassing you unless he's actually

staring in your windows."

[1100]

Now, I have two hard-rock mines that have opened or are opening in

my constituency, and I'm very pleased by that. Like everybody on this side….

We're very pleased to be living in a time where the stuff that we have to sell

has a high enough value that we can go get it. But historically, that was a

negotiated process, and Victoria's secret is that we've taken away the ability

of the private land owners to negotiate, and now we're going to write them a

letter?

The problem that the private land owners have is that they live

everywhere. Australian Ranch, north of Quesnel. The farmers who have the gas

industry coming onto their land, paying a farm price lease and then using it

industrially…. In other words, paying you so much an acre as the farm value of

your land in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, turning it into industrial land and

not paying you the industrial price, sucking the gas out and then going away

again. Then you get it back as agricultural land.

Those people live hundreds of miles from the woman who owns the

ranch in Quesnel, who lives hundreds of miles from the guy who has the ten-inch

holes on his land in Rock Creek, who lives hundreds of miles and a mountain

range away from the fellow with the trouble with the free miners licence.

Then down south you have the folks who were engaged in the methane

fight and, in the East Kootenay, the coalbed methane fight. What we have here is

a huge massive amount of expropriation of the happiness and well-being that

ranching and farming and rural families used to have with their private land. It

has all been done over the past few years as Victoria's secret, like the

underwear underneath the pretty clothes. And we're going to cover it up by

writing them a letter?

There's laughter going on, hon. Chair. I'm perhaps not saying this

very well. I'm trying to get into the record that there is a group of citizens

who live spread out around the province and who have a difficult time to

communicate with each other, never mind us. Those people are saying to us:

"Please deal with our problem, which is that you have stripped us of the rights

to be happy on our land or to raise cattle on our land or to farm." And we're

going to fix it by writing them a letter?

Through the Chair to the minister: I think it is fairly

politically unwise of you to have brought in this motion, because it opens the

door. You have lifted Pandora's box on Victoria's secret. You are suggesting

that by writing them a letter, it is okay that we took away their right of

well-being on their private land. The right of private land has been in there

ever since they fought the King to get it in England. You're supposed to be able

to go home and be happy. There's not supposed to be some guy who comes and says

that 75 metres from your bedroom, we get to drill a hole. And all we have to do

is write you a letter?

The minister gets up and says: "Actually, there isn't any trouble.

There's usually only one appeal per year." You're not winning. Why would anybody

go to the appeal to lose? They've been stripped of their rights by the present

government, except now we're going to write them a letter.

I wonder if it's going to say in the letter: "We're writing you a

letter, but don't bother doing anything about it because you'll lose, anyway."

[ Page 6450 ]

Hon. Chair, I have a question for the minister. Does the minister

wish to withdraw this motion, or will he read into the record all the changes

that have been made in mining legislation since 2002 stripping landowners of

their rights — and then introduce this as the fix?

[1105]

Hon. K. Krueger: Again the member opposite waxes

rhetorical. The truth is that no rights have been, as you put it, stripped away

from private land owners by this government. We have no intention of talking

about legislation that was very capably dealt with by Joy MacPhail and her

colleague during the first term of this government. Once again, I want to

correct the inflammatory things the member says: nobody's rights have been

stripped away.

I wish to clarify something that I said earlier about agreement

between surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders before exploration

involving mechanical means takes place. There are situations, and they're quite

rare, where the parties do not agree on how the process will unfold. Either

party in that circumstance can take their concerns to the Mediation and

Arbitration Board. A one-person arbitration board attempts to resolve the

differences, and if that process is not successful, the second step involves a

full arbitration hearing.

I thought I'd comment briefly on the aggregate industry because

the member raised the Oyama situation. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country

approached me about that, had a full briefing by ministry staff and spoke with

his constituents. I believe that most of the constituents are satisfied by the

explanations.

The truth is that it's a tremendously important industry to

British Columbia. Everyone here who owns or lives in a building is probably a

consumer for that and many other products of the aggregate industry. It's the

least expensive building material that we have. Per capita, British Columbians

use between nine and 15 tonnes of aggregate every year, on average; 70 percent

of what we produce in British Columbia is used just for the rehabilitation and

maintenance of existing infrastructure. Every school, hospital, road and home in

British Columbia is dependent upon that industry, and I think the members

opposite are ill-advised to speak negatively of the aggregate industry or of the

mining industry. They're tremendously important.

When I was in Toronto for the Prospectors and Developers

Association conference at the beginning of this month, an investor — people who

spend a lot of money in this province and generate a lot of employment — looked

at my business card and said: "If it was still an NDP government, your title

would have to be Minister Responsible for Not Mining."

When the members opposite say these things….

The Chair: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has a point

of order.

J. Horgan: I'm just curious as to what relevance the

minister's travel itinerary is, and why anyone he may happen to meet on the road

would have any impact on the debate we're having today in this House.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Member. Minister

continues.

[1110]

Hon. K. Krueger: A number of the people from Oyama who

raised those concerns…. I expect the people who the member was quoting, from the

meeting he went to in Vernon, actually live in a trailer park that is built in a

reclaimed gravel pit. The people who live in the Oyama area are heavily

petitioning the Minister of Transportation to spend $60 million on a road to

bypass their community, which would take a lot of aggregate.

Aggregate — as the member probably knows, but we'll put it on the

record — is sand, crushed rock and gravel. Those are essential materials. So,

yes, we have people who live in a reclaimed gravel pit and don't like to see

other gravel pits. But the fact is that British Columbia needs the aggregate.

It's an important industry and one that we should be very happy that we have.

Now I do have the letter that the member asked that I read into

the record. I'll do that now. It was written March 21 to the member opposite.

"As the minister responsible for mining in British

Columbia, I wanted to take a quick moment to alleviate concerns regarding

subsurface rights in British Columbia.

"The concept of free entry onto private land has

existed from the first day British Columbia became a province within Canada and

prior as a colony of the British Empire. In fact, without the gold rush and the

insatiable need for coal resources in the 19th century, it is unlikely British

Columbia would be the same province that it is today. Thirty-seven parliaments

have risen and fallen since we entered Confederation, and not until this

government took action has the issue of private land owner rights in regard to

mining been addressed.

"This spring the government of British Columbia

introduced amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act and Coal Act that will require

people who explore for minerals to provide notice in a prescribed way to private

land owners and people holding Crown land leases or grants before entering the

property to commence any mining activity. Furthermore, these amendments will

seek to strike a balance between promotion of economic growth through access to

land for mineral exploration and the expectations of landholders to use their

land in the manner they are accustomed to.

"I have been made aware that MLA" — the member

opposite — "will be attending a rally in Vernon on this issue March 24. I hope

all members of your community urge" — and again, I don't want to say the

member's name — "you to vote in support for the amendments outlined above."

Despite the fact that he had ten years as a government MLA and

minister to take action on this issue and did not….

Again, I challenge the member opposite. If he thinks that these

provisions don't go far enough, why didn't he and his government, which held

power in British Columbia for ten years, through the '90s, make this and further

changes?

C. Evans: I very much appreciate the minister reading the

letter into the record. Hon. Chair, the reason why I wanted the letter to be

read into the record is because last week in this House, these amendments were

introduced.

[ Page 6451 ]

I read it, and I thought: "Oh, that's pretty good. You're going to write him

a letter. That's something."

Then the minister wrote a letter to me and distributed it to all

of the people — the media who attended the meeting and private land owners — to

talk about this bill. There it was. You walk in the room and every one of the

hundred people got a letter to me from the minister of mines.

It was read out to the meeting, and everybody was holding it in

their hand. So the chair of the meeting — who, by the way, informed me that he's

never voted for my party in his life — went to the microphone and said: "Okay,

the minister of mines has written us all a letter asking us to urge this MLA to

go back and vote for this bill. Now I would like to have a show of hands.

Everybody in the room that wants…" Can I say my own name?

The Chair: No, you can't, Member.

C. Evans: …the member for Nelson-Creston to go back and

vote for this thing, please raise your hand." It was dead silence. Not a single

person…. He said: "All those people who want the member to go back and tell the

minister that this is covering up the rights that you stripped from us by

writing us a letter. This is not enough and not acceptable, and it's not helpful

and ask the member to vote against it, please raise your hand."

Unanimously, all the people — the folks from Oyama, the people

from Rock Creek, the people from north of Quesnel, the people from the Okanagan

— raised their hands and said: "Go back and vote against it."

[1115]

I had gone to the meeting thinking: "Well, this is fairly

innocuous." The citizens who live on the land feel ripped off and want us to say

no. This is just putting clothes over Victoria's secret. They stripped them of

their rights.

I hope I can convince my sisters and brothers to vote against

this, and then we'll tell the story about why.

[1120]

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 26

Brar

S. Simpson

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Macdonald

Conroy

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 26

Brar

S. Simpson

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Macdonald

Conroy

[1125]

section 11.

M. Farnworth: This

section of the Correction Act makes, I

think, some significant changes that affect the Parole Board of B.C. and has

implications in terms of the National Parole Board. I wonder if the minister

could briefly outline what those changes are and how they will work.

Hon. J. Les: The particular

section that the member refers

to here deals with, in some ways, a transition of

[ Page 6452 ]

responsibilities. When the new provisions come into effect, the National

Parole Board will have jurisdiction in dealing with parole issues for all

matters of parole pursuant to federal offences.

There are a very minor number, an extremely minor number, of

provincial offences for which, as I said, in a very minute number of cases,

prison sentences are actually provided for and imposed. In those cases, of

course, the National Parole Board will not have jurisdiction once this

legislation comes into effect, so provisions are included to allow wardens of

institutions to grant leave to those very few inmates.

M. Farnworth: What the minister is saying is that under

this

section 11…. This is spelling out and making changes to allow those

particular types of sentences to be regulated when they're in fact covered by

the parole here in B.C. They're not related to…. The National Parole Board would

not have the jurisdiction over them. Is that what he's saying?

Hon. J. Les: That is correct. Once this legislation is in

effect, those people incarcerated pursuant to an offence against provincial

legislation — that is, not the federal Criminal Code — will need to be dealt

with pursuant to these provisions.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister give an example of the

types of sentences or the types of offences that would be covered by this?

Hon. J. Les: A couple of examples would be offences under

the provincial Fisheries Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Environmental

Management Act.

M. Farnworth: Would it ever include sentences that had jail

time, such as contempt of court? Would they be included?

Hon. J. Les: The answer would be no. Contempt of court is

an offence against the Criminal Code.

M. Farnworth: Even if it's a civic contempt? So it would be

a civil contempt?

Hon. J. Les: Contempt is an offence against the Criminal

Code, and contempt applies to contempt of court, so I don't think that these

provisions apply to that in any way.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister give any indication of the

number of offences that would occur in a typical year that would be covered by

these particular amendments? I mean, the minister said it was not many, but….

[1130]

Hon. J. Les: We've had three cases in the last two years

that would be covered by these provisions.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm again, on the record,

that this particular

section deals with those same types of cases and the same

limited number of cases that

section 11 would apply to and that it's not

expanded in any way.

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister can outline for us

what the benefits are and what the differences will be by making this change,

going from the provincial to the National Parole Board standards.

Hon. J. Les: When we move to the National Parole Board

dealing with all of the applications for parole, we think this will lead to a

more integrated method of dealing with these individuals and a more standardized

approach as well. Obviously, there are some cost savings to the provincial

government as a result of doing this. The National Parole Board has a great deal

of expertise in dealing with these matters. We think, on balance, this is good

public policy.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It actually, in a slight way, decreases eligibility for parole in

that people that the National Parole Board deals with do not become eligible

until they have served six months of their sentence,

whereas under the

provincial parole provisions they could apply after three months.

We often hear, for example, that programs of a rehabilitation

nature — treatment programs — are more successful when people serve a slightly

longer sentence, so this may facilitate that as well. For all of those reasons

and perhaps others, we think this is an appropriate step.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like to ask a question about one of

the changes that occurs that would clearly be a change in the caseload between

National Parole Board standards and provincial standards. Can you tell us what

the current standards are provincially — I guess caseload per worker — and what

they will be, moving to the National Parole Board standard?

[1135]

Hon. J. Les: It's a little difficult, on a going-forward

basis, to anticipate what the caseload might be. I can indicate, however, that

the current caseload that is being carried by provincial parole is about 120

individuals. Those, of course, will be transferred.

Arguably, if you look at the slightly lessened eligibility

criteria, that caseload for that group of people might be slightly reduced, as

they're being dealt with by the National Parole Board.

[ Page 6453 ]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer, and I

understand the issue about going forward and going back. The second part of my

question was: is he aware of what the current caseload is for National Parole

Board members as opposed to provincial?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that I'll be able to give an

adequate answer to that particular question, as I don't know the relevant

statistics for the National Parole Board. I know what the workload was and is

that is carried by the staff in my ministry, so I'm not sure if I can provide

the comparison that the member is looking for.

M. Farnworth: I guess the point I'm making is that the

caseload number is significantly lower. I think that's important, because one of

the challenges that we've had — if I were to have a criticism — at the

provincial level is that the caseload has been too great. It doesn't necessarily

allow for all the work that should be done with individuals on parole to be done

in the way that we would expect or to its optimum.

One of the advantages of this moving is the fact that there is a

greater opportunity to see that issues around parole, things around treatment

are in fact…. There may be a better opportunity to deal with some of those

things, and that's a point that I wanted to get on the record.

British Columbia is moving to this way of dealing with parole. How

many other provinces have also gone this route?

Hon. J. Les: British Columbia was to this point one of only

three provinces that had their own provincial parole system. So when this

legislation passes, it will be only the provinces of Ontario and Quebec that

will have their own provincial parole system. All other provinces will have an

integrated National Parole Board system.

N. Simons: Just a couple of questions for clarification, if

I may. My question is: am I correct in that the minister has stated that

eligibility for parole for people serving in provincial institutions is now six

months prior to eligibility as opposed to three months? And is it this act that

is changing that?

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

[1140]

N. Simons: Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair, but that's

a significant change in the policy for corrections in this province. I'm not

sure how an amendment to a

section dealing with the administrative structure of

the conditional release program is suddenly having an impact on sentencing. When

sentencing occurs, they take into account eligibility for parole. How has the

minister contemplated that reality in the construction of this part of the

legislation?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, as we undertook the work to make this

transition, the fact that the National Parole Board has standards whereby they

do not entertain parole before an inmate has served six months…. That was known

to us, and we've made decisions with that in mind.

Obviously, those changed provisions will clearly form part of the

decisions of the judiciary as we go forward as well. So we're going through a

time of transition. I think there's also something to be said for the fact that

a minimum incarceration of six months before someone is eligible for parole is a

good thing, at least in some ways.

These were deliberate issues that we looked at very deliberately

as we put the bill together. I think we've landed in a place where, from a

public policy perspective, it's very defensible.

N. Simons: Is it fair to say that the provision allowing

for temporary absences prior to that is to compensate for the sudden

ineligibility for parole for anyone serving over six months?

Hon. J. Les: When we discussed the temporary absences in

the earlier section, that dealt specifically with those people who have been

sentenced pursuant to an offence against the provincial act, not against a

criminal code. I want the member not to be confusing those things. Those

temporary absences are at the discretion of the warden of an institution for

inmates who have offended against provincial statute.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

J. Brar: I have some questions related to the Employment

and Assistance Act,

section 15. I would like to start with under (a). The change

from consisting of three members of the tribunal to consisting of up to three

members of the tribunal to me is a significant change when we talk about the

fairness of justice to particularly the most vulnerable clients in the province.

I would like to ask the minister first of all: what is the

rationale for this change, which is a very important change?

Hon. C. Richmond: There are two major concerns being

addressed by this change. First, it can be very difficult to recruit sufficient

members to form a three-member panel in rural communities. This amendment will

allow hearings to be held in communities by community members where it is

difficult to form a three-member panel.

Secondly, in situations where one member of a hearing panel at the

last minute unavoidably cannot make the tribunal, cannot attend a scheduled

hearing or is not able to continue with the hearing — if they're partway through

and have to leave — the hearing will now be able to continue without

inconveniencing the parties through incurring delays due to either adjourning or

the hearing having to form a new panel to re-hear the matter.

[1145]

[ Page 6454 ]

J. Brar: Thank you for that clarification. If the

difficulty is to find people, I understand that piece. On the other side, I

think the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance deals with the most

vulnerable people who don't have a lot of support around them, particularly at

this point in time, when we see that there are not a lot of workers out there to

provide assistance to them to deal with their own cases in front of the panel.

My question is basically…. I think at the end of the day, it is

the responsibility of the minister to make sure that the process is fair and

that justice is provided to the people, the most vulnerable people of the

province.

In that light, on the issue that it's hard to find people, how do

you balance between providing, just to make sure, that the justice is made

available to these people as compared to the number of people it is not

available for? How do you balance that?

Hon. C. Richmond: I understand the member's concerns, and

these are items that have crossed our mind, but this is much more fair to

people. In the past when we have had to wait in some cases for months until we

can convene a three-member panel, they have waited up to nine months to have a

hearing. That, to us, is just not fair, as you say, to these vulnerable people.

The system we have in place now works very well, and it's not very

often that we have to go down to a two- or one-member panel. It's in about 10

percent of the cases. But it allows the case to be heard in a timely manner,

usually in less than six weeks.

Prior to this, while we were trying to round up a three-person

panel, it could take up to nine months. We don't think that's fair to the people

at all.

You must remember that these people who are on these tribunals are

experienced. They're at arm's length from government. They're not appointed by

any branch of government; they're completely independent. We feel that the

person will get a much quicker hearing, a very fair hearing.

However, if they choose and absolutely refuse to be heard by a

one- or two-person panel, the tribunal chair has the option of having another

member sit in by teleconference, or two members by teleconference. You could

have a hearing by one person or two and the third one, if they insist, by

teleconference.

J. Brar: If the concern was that the panel hearing is done

as quickly as possible, which seems to be the intent here by the minister, is it

possible for the minister to tell us how this is going to expedite the panel

hearing? How much will those clients see the change in terms of the number of

days or number of months before they actually get their hearing in front of the

panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's our intent to see that people get

their hearing in front of a panel as quickly as possible. With this, we don't

feel that anyone will be seen in more than six weeks. We want to bring it down

to less than six weeks — two weeks if we possibly can.

Under the old system, sometimes it was up to six months or nine

months before a person's grievance could be heard. Not only that, sometimes they

would wait months. Then at the last minute some panel member had to cancel out

because something happened in their personal life, and the hearing was postponed

again.

We're trying to get away from that to allow these people to have

their day in front of a tribunal as quickly as possible. To me it's like justice

delayed is justice denied, and we want these people to have their case heard as

quickly as possible. If we move to this system, we feel that almost all cases

will be heard in less than six weeks, and there won't be any more that go up to

six, eight and nine months.

[1150]

J. Brar: A couple of clarifications, if the minister can

provide. My understanding from listening to the minister is that this change,

when it comes to the implementation, is mainly related to the challenge we have

in the rural areas at this point in time. In other words, in urban areas like

the lower mainland, Victoria and other big cities, the current system — the

panel of up to three members — will continue. So it is not the intent of the

ministry to bring it down to one member, flat, everywhere.

That's one thing I want clarification on from the minister — that

in order to provide a fair process, the intent will be up to three members

whenever it is possible. The second thing I wanted to ask, which you clarified a

bit, is that it is the right of the client to demand up to three members, and

the ministry will act on it.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes. In answer to your first question,

the intent is to have a three-member panel wherever possible. But where this

mostly is in effect is — you're right — in the rural areas. We have a difficult

time assembling a three-member panel in a remote area. Mostly, as I said, it's

in the rural areas. Mostly, in the more heavily populated areas, it doesn't

happen.

The decision as to the number of panel members rests with the

tribunal chair, and appellants who have concerns can certainly contact the

tribunal offices to discuss their issues. The hearing may be held by

teleconference. Again, if the person absolutely insists that there be three

panel members, it's at the discretion of the tribunal chair to say yes, but one

or two of them will be there by teleconference.

J. Brar: Thank you to the minister for clarification. But I

think we need more clear clarification on this. Is it the right of the client to

demand up to three members, or is it the discretionary power of the chair to

give it or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's really both. The client can demand,

and the tribunal chair can decide whether he or she can have three persons at

this hearing — let's say it's a remote area up in the north of the province — or

whether two of them might have to be there by teleconference. But it is the

client's right, if they so choose, to demand a three-person tribunal. Then it's

up to the discretion of the chair.

[ Page 6455 ]

Of course, this could cause delays. They may say: "We can have

your case heard by a one-person panel next week, but if you demand three, it

might take a little longer for us to put that together, and two of them might be

there by telephone."

L. Krog: Prior to 2001 there were community law offices in

this province, including one in my city, Nanaimo, which provided staff and

individuals who could represent clients of the ministry who wished to appeal

decisions. Of course, with the cuts the government made, those offices were

eliminated. There are very few advocates left in the province who are in a

position to appear on behalf of clients of the ministry.

We know that people on assistance are already vulnerable. Very

few, in my experience, ever choose to go on assistance. They would prefer to

have the ability to work or to have employment. They would never wish to be

forced into that situation. One of the safeguards they have now is that in the

absence of community law offices to assist them in conducting their appeals

successfully, they at least have three shots, so to speak, at getting justice.

[1155]

They have a three-member tribunal,

whereas what is proposed by

this legislation — the minister says it will only arise in rural areas and is up

to the discretion of the chair, etc. — essentially gives authority to the

ministry to have one-person panels. In essence, if I can't convince that one

person, that's it. If I have a three-person panel, I at least have better odds

of successfully appealing.

The kinds of decisions that are being made by these panels relate

to the poorest of the poor. The people who are appealing decisions of the

ministry are living in conditions that I suspect none of the members of this

House has ever suffered — never in that position. Or if they've been in that

position, I'm sure they will have incredible sympathy for the people I'm talking

about.

My concern is that the minister says this will only apply to about

10 percent of cases, but that's a significant number of recipients. My office

deals with these issues day after day. I represent, as many members of this

House have heard me say, the third-poorest constituency in the province.

I would be a great deal more comforted if the minister could

explain why we are doing this, as opposed to obtaining enough people available

on lists who could undertake this work so that tribunals could be convened

quickly and easily. In other words, is the problem what is being paid, so to

speak, or offered to the members of the tribunal? Is that the issue here, as

opposed to other factors?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. Mostly it's a case of just not having

people available at short notice to sit on a tribunal. We do run into that more

and more, and it happens in the more remote areas.

The reason we're doing this is to give people that the member

describes…. And we're very concerned with them too. That's why we're doing this

— to make sure that they can have their day in front of the tribunal and have

their hearing in a timely manner, rather than having to wait months till we can

assemble a three-person panel.

I should remind the member, too, that they still have a three-step

process. We're not altering that. They can ask for reconsideration first, then a

tribunal hearing and, if they don't like the results of that, a judicial

hearing. It is at the discretion of the chair, who will always try to

accommodate the concerns of the appellant. If the appellant insists, as I said

to the other member, that they have a three-person tribunal, they will have it

in as timely a manner as we can provide it, but they may not all be present in

person. The tribunal may have one or two members there by teleconference.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $881,847,000 (continued).

G. Robertson: Good morning to the minister and staff. I

have some questions this morning related to the

[ Page 6456 ]

Canada line, the RAV line, which makes it way through my riding in

Vancouver-Fairview.

I have noted to date in the House that there has actually been

considerably more disruption in the neighbourhoods and to the business districts

in Fairview than was anticipated, I think, by residents and by small businesses

in particular. They are definitely bearing the brunt of a project that they

underestimated in terms of its impact on the ability to do business, to get

around, to get to school, to get to work in the neighbourhood. That is an issue

that my colleague and I want to canvass to some degree here.

I wanted to start with some confirmation in terms of the financial

commitments of the province. Will the minister just confirm the amount of

funding to date that has been delivered to the project?

Hon. K. Falcon: The number would be $136 million to date.

G. Robertson: Will the minister clarify what funding will

be allocated in the three years covered by service plans.

[1010]

Hon. K. Falcon: The number over the next three years will

be $138 million total.

G. Robertson: From the minister's information, I'm getting

$274 million as the total allocation three years out, by which time the project

should be completed, I believe. Is that the extent of the province's payments

going into the construction of the project, or does that include something else?

Hon. K. Falcon: The balance of the payments will be made up

of performance payments to the concessionaire. The performance payments are

predicated on issues of car availability and some quality issues that are

spelled out in the concession agreement, which is also posted on the website.

G. Robertson: How much exactly in performance payments is

to be allocated within these three years?

Hon. K. Falcon: Twenty million dollars.

G. Robertson: Twenty million dollars. So $274 million

total, and $20 million of that is performance, meaning $254 million is the

component that is construction-related?

Hon. K. Falcon: Correct.

G. Robertson: From the authorized dollars through the

history of the project, $235 million was the authorized amount from the province

of B.C. for construction. Can the minister explain the difference between that

$235 million and the $254 million that's now envisioned?

Hon. K. Falcon: The difference is in 2003 dollars as

compared to as-spent dollars. Obviously, there is a difference between as-spent

and the 2003 figure.

G. Robertson: A question then. There are mounting concerns,

certainly in Vancouver, as to the progress of the project and what costs will

eventually be once all is said and done. In past estimates, certainly last year,

the minister has clarified that the province's contribution is capped and that

there will be a $435 million contribution on behalf of the province. That

includes the performance payments.

Maybe the minister will just clarify that those are 2003 dollars.

Given that there is an update, an additional cost of approximately $19 million

from 2003 to date added on to the $235 million commitment, is there an

additional cost envisioned for the total commitment of $435 million once the

project is paid out?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Our provincial commitment is capped at

the $435 million. That has not changed, and that will not change.

G. Robertson: So regardless of the inflation of dollars,

the maximum amount the province will be in for is $435 million. That excludes

any increase relative to inflation from 2003 dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think with the proviso, and I'm sure the

member understands this, that when a budget is set, you set it in the dollar of

the day.

[1015]

That was set in 2003 dollars — the $435 million…. Obviously, over

time, as-spent dollars are going to be higher than $435 million. That's a basic

finance issue, and I'm sure the member understands that. But you have to lock in

a dollar figure, and 2003 dollars was the commitment. So that means, obviously,

in as-spent dollars it's a larger number, but if you do a net-present value, it

comes back to 2003 dollars — $435 million. That has not changed; that will not

change.

G. Robertson: So it's $435 million 2003 dollars. My

questions were basically to clarify what is anticipated in terms of inflation

over the next three years. The ministry is budgeting $19 million to allow for

that — the inflation. Over the extent of the project — the $435 million

commitment — what is the anticipated increase in the dollars of the day?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I'm trying to do is explain it in a

way that will be simple for any folks that may be listening at home. I guess the

important point to make is that we set our commitment in 2003 dollars of $435

million. Built into that is a 2-percent annual inflation factor. Anything over 2

percent is not our responsibility. All of that is built into the payment streams

that we make into the out-years on this project.

Obviously, there's a difference between as-spent dollars and the

2003 dollars — no doubt about that. It's like that on every single project. It's

sometimes a difficult concept for the general public to grasp, but it's, as you

know, a very standard protocol in finance.

G. Robertson: A question specifically around the future

payments and commitments, in terms of the operation

[ Page 6457 ]

of the line, from the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority books and their

notes to financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2006. The grants to

the Canada line rapid transit, in terms of future payments, total $586.6

million. My understanding is that that is through a provincial funding agreement

for continued related expenses on the operation of the rapid transit line. Can

the minister just confirm that that is the case?

[1020]

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be the sum total of the payments

over the life of the agreement.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify that this sum

total of payments is in addition to the $435 million of capital and performance

payments that are committed?

Hon. K. Falcon: What the member is referring to is all of

the future payments on that project — representing, obviously, the $435 million

in as-spent dollars out till 2040. Those payments would total, in as-spent

dollars, $586.6 million. I believe that's the number the member's referring to,

and that would be correct.

G. Robertson: Okay. That clarifies the envisioned expense.

At a 2-percent increase in inflation, the $435 million ends up being a $586.6

million total cost to the province of B.C. Thanks to the minister for that

clarification.

In terms of ongoing liability for the project in the event that it

is not on budget, there have been concerns as to the cost being borne by the

contractor, the difficulty for the tunnel boring machine and construction

challenges through this very stormy and wet winter. Will the minister just

clarify where any additional funding will come from if construction costs are

beyond what was originally anticipated?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member asking that

question because this goes right to the heart of why we enter into

private-public partnerships. Those risks — which are considerable, and the

member is quite right about that — are risks that are borne by the contractor,

not the taxpayer.

Under this arrangement, the contractor, however tough it may be on

them — I have no doubt that it's tough — will be responsible for those risks. If

there are any additional costs, those are costs that they will have to eat, and

that's as it should be under the way these things are structured.

I do have to say that the contractor, I think, is doing an

exceptional job. This is a project that remains on budget and is on schedule.

Given the environment that we find ourselves in today with all of the challenges

in terms of labour, price of steel and concrete, etc., it is something that

gives me as the Minister of Transportation great comfort in knowing that our

contribution and our exposure from the taxpayer point of view is fully

protected.

This contractor and the consortium that is building the Canada

line are fully liable on making sure that it gets built, completed and

operational. There are financial penalties that are involved if they don't

achieve that.

[1025]

I really want the record to show that the work they are doing has

been nothing short of phenomenal, and I really take my hat off to those workers

because I think they are doing an exceptional job in challenging circumstances.

G. Robertson: I'm curious. The minister continues to repeat

that we're on time, on budget. My understanding from the RAVCO Quarterly

Report No. 4 …. A quote from that states that overall work progress continues

to be behind.

Certainly, from those of us who live in the community and see the

work going on and see the

schedule that was put forward, this is a huge concern

for the merchants in Cambie village, where they were told disruptions in front

of their businesses would last no more than a year. Those disruptions are

already taking place, and the actual dig hasn't even begun in the Cambie

village. So the disruption now looks like it'll be several years in terms of

impacting the local businesses in order for the project to get done in time for

the 2010 games.

It appears that the construction

schedule right now is basically

fluid. They're opening it up and driving it as fast as they can everywhere.

Just to return to the costs associated with that, according to the

information that I have, we are 24 percent or 13 months into the planned 54

months of construction, but 53 percent of the money has already been spent,

according to the numbers provided. Is the minister concerned that we're way

ahead on spending, and we are behind in term of the construction schedule?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the important thing for the member

opposite to understand is that the project is fully on

schedule in terms of

completion dates. Ironically, I ran into the senior person responsible for that

at a social event recently. They assured me that not only was it on schedule,

but in fact their optimism was increasing because as they do more and more of

the cut-and-cover, they are actually improving the productivity levels and

determining ways that they can actually increase things.

They are a little behind on the cash flow, meaning that the

dollars they expend are slightly behind

schedule in terms of the

schedule they

put in place. But again, that's a cash flow issue, and they're catching up on

that too. The critical thing from the government's point of view — because

frankly that's an internal thing that they can spend some time on — and for the

small businesses that the member speaks of is the fact that what really people

are very interested in is: is this thing going to get built on schedule?

I'm here telling the member that based on all the information that

has been suggested to us by the people that are actually doing the building,

that yes, indeed, they are on schedule. They are increasingly optimistic that

they will very much be staying on

schedule and perhaps feeling some sense of

optimism that they may be able to even get ahead of schedule.

[ Page 6458 ]

D. Chudnovsky: Well, I think we beg to differ on at least

one, if not more, of the assertions that the minister has made. The minister

asserts — and I think this is basically a direct quote — that what people are

really interested in, referring specifically to the merchants on Cambie Street,

is that the project be done on time.

[1030]

While all of us hope that the project will be done on time, on

budget, that's really not what the Cambie Street merchants are concerned about

at all. What they're concerned about is that the commitments that were made to

them with respect to disruption to their businesses during the period of

construction are kept. It appears that those commitments are not being kept. The

question to the minister is: is he aware of that? To what extent is he aware of

it, and what does he have to say about it?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: I would disagree with that characterization

completely. In fact, the Canada Line has provided $1.3 million in direct support

to support businesses during the construction period. They've got marketing

campaigns; they've got street ambassadors; they've got community festivals.

There is a full-time person who does nothing but work with the small business

sector to try and ameliorate any impacts.

I should tell the member, first of all, that I think we need to be

very clear and upfront. Of course there are going to be disruptions. We

shouldn't try and pretend that we live in some kind of perfect world where you

can take a fully built-out neighbourhood and try and do a major project like

this and not have disruption. Absolutely there is disruption. What I always find

interesting is that people tend to talk about the disruption and not talk about

any of the benefits when this thing is completed. I'll give you an example.

I was talking to a hotel owner who said to me: "No question,

Minister, we are being impacted by this. The whole street is dug up in front of

our hotel. There is a short-term impact, but we just look to when this is open."

We're going to be able to have people come from the airport right to their

hotel, and that is a huge benefit. That is a benefit in terms of the value of

their asset and in terms of the people who can visit their businesses.

So it is along the corridor. That does not mean, in any way, that

I am not concerned that these folks are impacted. They are impacted. I don't

believe for a second that we should try and minimize that. Everything that I

know in terms of the "I Shop The Line" website that has been put together, the

street ambassadors and the dollars that have been expended to try and create

continued shopping along Cambie…. It's achieving its purpose, and that is to try

and support as best as Canada Line and RAVCO are able to the merchants along

that corridor without pretending there is not an impact.

D. Chudnovsky: I take it that the minister agrees, then,

that the

schedule of disruption that was provided to the merchants at the

beginning of the project and committed to by RAVCO…. He agrees with our

contention that that has not been kept and that the disruption is significantly

more and for longer periods than had been committed to. I take it that answer is

in agreement with that assertion.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not exactly sure what the member is

characterizing. It sounds like maybe the discussions between RAVCO and the

businesses…. Initially there was talk of a tunnel, and then it became

cut-and-cover. If that is what the member is referring to, then….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, is that not…?

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Okay. Sorry, no, that's my fault. I

shouldn't ask the member mid-answer whether that was what he was saying.

I'm sure there were a bunch of discussions that went on between

RAVCO and the small business merchants. I don't pretend to understand what all

those discussions were, because it's not my project. We are a funder in this

project, but it is not a project I am delivering, so I wasn't involved in those

discussions.

The question I thought I heard the member asking me was: am I

trying to deny that there is impact on the small business community? I think I

was fairly upfront about it. From my observation and from what I see, yes,

clearly there is impact. I don't think for a second we should try and deny that

there is an impact.

[1035]

From my perch, I would quibble with the level of impact and the

devastation that it apparently wreaks. I believe that when I was driving down

Cambie last time, I saw a couple of new businesses that had opened up in one of

the Cambie neighbourhoods. There is a Capers and a coffee shop I saw that were

newly opened. I've also heard, in fairness, that people have said businesses

have closed. But businesses close and open all the time.

My position is, as one of the funders of this project of which we

are not delivering, is that we should recognize and be sympathetic to the fact

that there are impacts. Also, what I've seen is a significant amount of money

expended to support those businesses, and Canada Line is doing everything they

can to try to ameliorate the impacts on the small business community.

I do think that they are trying hard to do that, and they're

working closely. They have got a business advisory committee that works with the

small business sector, a full-time person who works with them, who tries to do

their very best to minimize the impacts on those folks.

We should never lose sight of the fact that once this is

operational and opens on schedule, as it is going to do, that there will be

enormous benefits for those folks, with at least 100,000 people a day who will

be riding that system and taking benefit of visiting those local businesses.

[ Page 6459 ]

G. Robertson: I will take issue with the minister's

assertions that is this is actually good for business, specifically the

businesses which currently exist along Cambie Street, and Cambie village in

particular. There is no stop anywhere near Cambie village that shoppers will be

able to access the village through.

In the case of the new businesses opening, the commitments that

were made by those businesses to take on those locations were made before they

understood this was a cut-and-cover project. They are certainly bearing the

brunt and suffering the impacts of extreme disruptions to their business.

So the minister knows, because I live a few blocks away from

Cambie village, there are lots of businesses losing their businesses. They are

gone. I would say that, on average, from the merchants that I talk to along

Cambie, their business is down about 50 percent; their revenues are down about

50 percent.

Does the minister consider a 50-percent drop in revenue and a

whole series of bankruptcies along Cambie village to be an acceptable disruption

or impact on the community?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, of course the minister would not

consider that acceptable. I think the member has to be careful. Businesses open

and close every day throughout the province. We undertake highway projects

throughout this province that have an impact on business.

I can promise you that when we do road widenings, we often have to

sometimes shut off access to businesses that were used to having free-flowing

access into their properties. There can be impacts. I don't think we should try

and pretend that there are no impacts. But I think we need to put the impacts

into perspective, and we need to recognize the efforts that Canada Line is

making to try and ameliorate those impacts, which are considerable. Does that

make it a perfect world? No, it probably does not.

I came from a business background, and I recognize that there are

challenges periodically in business as you go through life. Some times are

better than others. I can tell you that if we operated from the assumption that

we will only undertake projects in the province that do not impact anyone, we

will not be undertaking any projects. That includes every major project I can

think of that has been done in the last 25 years, including the SkyTrain, the

Millennium line, the Cambie Street Bridge and all the other projects we have

built throughout the lower mainland.

We have to be careful about the fact that there is ever going to

be a perfect world in which we can make significant multi-billion-dollar

investments and have absolutely zero impacts on people. The issue, I think, is:

has RAVCO and has Canada Line done the reasonable efforts that one would expect

to be necessary to try and ameliorate the impact of the construction?

My sense, as one of the funding partners — not the person driving

and delivering the project — is that they are making every effort they can to

try and deal with that issue. With the committees of business representatives

they've got from the area, the $1.3 million, the full-time person, the street

campaigns, the community festivals, and all the other things they're doing, they

are there to try to assist the small business sector as much as possible.

[1040]

I am always sorry if I hear about any business failing. I'm always

sorry when I see someone that's invested a lot of their earnings to try and make

a go of a business and they don't succeed. I've heard today there's a major

business that will be announcing that they were unable to succeed financially.

That's unfortunate. I feel bad for the individuals that are affected.

I am also encouraged when I see new businesses opening and new

people investing. I'm sure there are lots of people who are probably going to be

looking ahead and saying: "Boy, there are going to be some real opportunities

along this corridor once we have a rapid transit system in place and built."

Those people are probably going to be preparing for some potential upsides.

G. Robertson: The minister refers to the news today of a

business that is going under. Can the minister just expand on that?

I think it would be useful for people to understand what is

acceptable here. What does the minister feel is an acceptable impact in terms of

losses? If we've lost to date, I'd say, between 20 and 30 percent of the

businesses…. We have vacancies along Cambie village that weren't there before.

There are indications that is going to continue to increase, as many of these

businesses could never have budgeted or insulated themselves against these kinds

of drops and impacts and disruptions to their business. That

schedule has

stretched out way beyond what anyone envisioned on cut-and-cover — which itself

was a surprise to these businesses who had expected that there would be a tunnel

bored.

Does the minister think it's okay if we lose half the businesses —

which is way, way beyond any natural course of events or even a typical

disruptive construction event related to highways — in a business district like

Cambie where there are hundreds of businesses, from False Creek up? Is it

acceptable to lose half those businesses? Where does the minister draw the line

before he steps in and says: "The measures being taken by Canada Line, although

they may have been considered appropriate at the outset, now we've passed a

point at which it's acceptable to the province as a funding partner, and we need

to do something different here"?

We need to look at ensuring that we don't lose more businesses.

We've already lost a quarter of the businesses. Is the minister going to step in

and do something if we lose half of the businesses, or are the businesses on

their own and that's it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can tell you that this Minister of

Transportation is never happy when any business fails. Sadly, we have businesses

that fail probably every day in the province of British Columbia. That's what

the marketplace is all about. The marketplace will determine whether businesses

succeed or fail.

I think this member has — I don't want to say — well, an

extraordinarily pessimistic outlook in terms of

[ Page 6460 ]

the businesses that are operating on Cambie. This member talks about half the

businesses failing. Well, that is the first time I've heard that number.

Obviously, it wouldn't be good if half the businesses are going to fail along

that corridor, but I've certainly seen no evidence that half the businesses are

due to fail along the Cambie corridor.

I said before, and I'll say again, that whenever you undertake a

major project, there will be impacts. As a funding partner in a program that I'm

not responsible for delivering, I've never tried to deny that there aren't

impacts. Clearly there would be.

The issue for the Minister of Transportation is: have they taken

every step that the public would consider reasonable to try and ameliorate that

impact? I don't know if the member opposite is coming up…. You know, socialists

come up with new and crazy ideas every day about how they think government

should step in and play a role in areas that they have no jurisdiction or

knowledge in playing. Maybe the member is suggesting that government needs to

operate their businesses during the term of the cut-and-cover.

I have no idea what the member is suggesting. But I can tell you

that that is certainly not a direction this government will go in. All I need to

know as a funding partner is: is RAVCO and Canada Line doing the best they can

to try and ameliorate impacts?

[1045]

My assessment is yes, they are doing the best they can do. Does

that mean that it makes everyone happy along the Cambie? No, it doesn't. Again,

in all the projects we get involved with, we have impacts. We don't try and deny

that. We try to minimize those impacts. We work very hard to try and minimize

those impacts on the folks.

I think the extent to which Canada Line has gone and the dollars

that they have contributed to try and do that are rather extraordinary and

perhaps appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the impact for the small

businesses. But I'm not nearly as pessimistic as that individual.

I hate when people talk in anecdotes, including myself, so I'm

hesitant to use an anecdote. I'm trying to remember the individual that I talked

to. There was a small business on Cambie that had indicated…. Anyhow, I'm not

even going to use it.

The member opposite laughs, and I think that's fine. The critic

can laugh, but there was a case where an individual came to me and said their

business hasn't been better. But for me to say that on the record without saying

who the individual was…. I think it's inappropriate, because it wouldn't….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, the hotel I can actually talk about.

The owner of the hotel is the one in Yaletown. It's that real high-end boutique

hotel.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Opus. Thank you, the Opus Hotel. I had a

discussion with the owner of the Opus Hotel, and they said to me, no question

that it's having an impact during construction, but boy, can they see the

benefits when that Canada line is completed. That's what they recognize — that

there will be enormous benefits. If you can imagine this for the Opus Hotel,

they're going to have a situation now where any clients flying into Vancouver

can hop on the Canada line and be dropped off literally on the doorstep of this

hotel. They are great hotel operators, by the way, and the impact on their hotel

is enormous.

In fact, I was down there at an event they were doing, a street

event — it was a wonderful event — and the impact was everywhere. You could see

all the big fences and gates and the road closed off. There's no doubt that that

has a big impact. I give credit to the entrepreneurs, like the owner of the Opus

Hotel, who recognize that while there is a short-term impact, boy, they really

recognize that there is a very significant longer-term benefit.

I guess that's a way of me saying, look, we shouldn't try to

minimize, we shouldn't try and pretend there's no impact, because that would be

just an affront to the people that are impacted. As I've said so many times

before, I think the issue is: are Canada Line and RAVCO doing everything a

reasonable person would expect them to do to try and ameliorate? My sense is

that they are doing that.

I'm sincerely sorry for any businesses that feel that their losses

or their failure is a direct result of that. I have been involved in the

business community long enough to know that there are usually other factors that

come into play, that can affect the viability of a business. Nevertheless, I do

think that they are trying to do everything they can to ameliorate, and that's

appropriate.

G. Robertson: It's very disappointing that the minister

continues to belittle the challenges that are borne by these businesses, given

the fact that they were operating and many of these businesses succeeding in the

market. It was actually this government's intervention in the marketplace that

has created the conditions by which it's very difficult for businesses to

continue or certainly to succeed to the degree that they were doing before the

project started.

The failures that are taking place — to attribute them to

marketplace failures when on any given day you can't even get down the sidewalk

to access a business, you can't cross the street in certain places…. Nobody can

park on Cambie Street, through the village. To say that there are marketplace

forces at work here is preposterous and very disrespectful of businesses that

have worked very hard over many years to build a substantial customer base that

can no longer access those businesses because of an intervention created by the

government.

[1050]

No doubt there's a reason, there's a rationale to have a rapid

transit line along the Cambie corridor. However, my question to the minister had

been about when the government will step forward and say: "The impact has

[ Page 6461 ]

gone too far. We recognize that this construction is wiping out too many

businesses, that not enough is being done, that a million-dollar budget to

coordinate some special events and some billboards and advertising is

inadequate, given the level of disruption and impact on these businesses, and

we're going to do more to support these businesses."

I didn't hear from the minister at what point that is considered.

It sounds like it's not being considered at all and that everything is on RAVCO

or Canada Line, and their business liaison, to deal with this and that the

province is taking no responsibility for the impact on the businesses,

regardless of how extensive it ends up being. The minister may want to comment

on that, if he has a different opinion about actually supporting some of these

businesses in some way, shape or form beyond what has currently been provided,

given the impact.

I want to just shift our focus to what's happening on the downtown

side from the Opus Hotel to Waterfront. In terms of construction, my

understanding is that there is now tunnel-boring proceeding across the

peninsula, which wasn't envisioned. It was envisioned that the tunnel would be

bored under False Creek and come up at the Roundhouse station in Yaletown, and

that there'd be cut-and-cover construction up through Granville, some of which

is taking place on the northeast end of Granville Street. But it looks as though

tunnel-boring is now proceeding across the peninsula. Can the minister just

clarify, from the province's perspective, what's going on there?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that information at my

fingertips. As the member well knows, this isn't a project we are delivering.

That would probably be a better question for RAVCO and Canada Line. I just don't

have that information, and I think I need to be upfront about that with the

member.

We are a funding partner; we are not the deliverer of this

project. We set out, as part of the agreement with the concessionaire, what

their obligations are in terms of when they need to get this thing built, and we

allow the genius and innovation of the private sector to undertake that in the

best way possible.

Every indication I've ever had has been that they are doing an

exceptional job. They've taken a complex project. They are delivering it on

schedule and on budget, and that is something that I can tell you I hear

positive reviews about on a regular basis. Anything more than that, especially

the details of how the project is being delivered or where the tunnel-boring

machine is on any given day, is not something that I have at my fingertips. I

have enough on my plate without, you know, getting involved in the details of

where they're boring tunnels, etc., for a project that I'm not delivering.

D. Chudnovsky: It's perplexing and troubling that we would

be providing funding to the tune of some $400 million from the province and that

when we ask the minister who is responsible for providing that funding as a

partner in a major infrastructure project — a project the minister talks about

all the time — the minister wouldn't know about some of these details.

We make the assumption — perhaps it's wrong, and perhaps the

minister can advise us if it's wrong — that somebody somewhere in the ministry

should know what it is that we're buying with the $435 million we're spending.

So, could the minister tell us whether his explanation — that he is not

particularly interested in the details of this project — is an indication of the

ministry's involvement? Or is there somewhere in the ministry where they

actually know what's happening with tunnelling on the RAV project?

[1055]

Hon. K. Falcon: These are the parts of the discussions that

I enjoy so much with the members opposite, because it just shows the glaring

lack of knowledge they have on overseeing any kind of project and how these

projects work. I just wish that once, at least, they would actually go on the

website and read what the agreement says and then become aware of how these

kinds of projects get delivered.

There are milestones that the concessionaire has to achieve. They

don't get paid unless they meet these milestones. That's how we do things,

Member, on the government side. It's called performance. It's actually called

payment for performance. Those milestones have to be met. The payments are

contingent upon it.

I actually do not, and I'm proud of the fact, spend my time

figuring out where that tunnel-boring machine is every day of the week, because

I'm not interested in that. What I'm interested in is: is this concessionaire

delivering as they should deliver this major project? Are they achieving the

milestones? When we pay them, we make sure they achieve the milestones. I can

tell you that my staff get briefed on a reasonably regular basis but certainly

not on a day-to-day basis, nor would we want to.

That perhaps goes to the fundamental difference between the

opposition and the government. The opposition love interfering with and getting

involved in decisions for which they don't have the skill set or the basis on

which to do so, and that's how you get involved in creating disasters like the

fast ferries, for example. We're interested in results.

Staff were briefed on this a while back. They don't particularly

recollect the specific detail of what the member originally asked about the

tunnel-boring machine and its direction or what have you, not because that may

not have been covered but because it was just one in a series of issues that

would be covered in their briefing, and they don't happen to recollect that

particular detail at this point. But I can tell you from our point of view that

all we're interested in is: are the milestones being met? Are they sticking to

schedule?

Our payments are dependent upon that, and thus far we've been

very, very pleased — in fact, extremely pleased — with how well the

concessionaire is operating and how well they're doing in terms of schedule.

G. Robertson: Again I will try to describe the surprise and

disappointment that I have, with the minister specifically, in terms of having

no clue what's going on

[ Page 6462 ]

under the largest city in the province, under the most important business and

financial district in the province, right through downtown Vancouver. The

difference for the businesses and all the people who work in downtown Vancouver

between a tunnel-boring machine coming across the peninsula and a big dig making

its way across is a very significant difference.

I am not sure that the public knows what's going on here. It

doesn't seem that it's well understood exactly what is taking place between

Yaletown and the waterfront in terms of construction approaches. It obviously

makes a big difference for the businesses along that stretch of the line what

type of construction is taking place. The difference in terms of disruption and

impact, the difference that that makes on the ground in downtown Vancouver for

thousands and thousands of people and businesses every day is very significant.

I would be astonished if nobody in the ministry at a high level

understands what kind of construction is going to take place between Yaletown

and Waterfront. Whether it is tunnel-boring…. It would be great news for

everyone who works and lives in the downtown peninsula if there was going to be

a tunnel-boring machine deployed across the peninsula. It would mean a whole lot

less disruption taking place. I would think that would be good news for the

minister and certainly for the Canada Line people to get out.

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

I'm curious why there is an absolute blank across from us here

from the minister and his senior staff as to what is taking place, given the

importance of this, given the good news that it could mean for the downtown

peninsula. And that we're being deferred to the project coordinator…. I think

the people of B.C. should be able to know. What's taking place in terms of

construction should be public information.

[1100]

Certainly for the businesses that are involved, they should know

if the impact on their businesses is changed markedly now because of a different

construction technique than envisioned. It is going to make a big difference for

their business planning. Shouldn't they know about that? Shouldn't that be

public information right now? Shouldn't the minister be able to find that out by

this afternoon's estimates so that businesses downtown are able to understand

what's in store for them and what is good news for them in terms of construction

impacts?

Will the minister provide that information this afternoon? Can he

make that happen for us, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know that there is a

project team at RAVCO that is responsible for delivering this project. The

member should also know that I probably spend a lot more time with the business

community than that member does and know most of them on a first-name basis. I

can tell you that the business community is hugely supportive of this project.

I'm not too sure who that member talks to, but I can tell you that

the project is being delivered in a manner that is providing great confidence to

the business community, and certainly providing great confidence to us as a

government. That's happening because it's a private-public partnership.

I want to say that on the record because I can tell you that God

help us if government was trying to deliver this project ourselves. I can't even

imagine what would happen if this project was trying to be delivered by

TransLink. The scale of the risks involved for the taxpayer would be enormous.

Here we have an area where we've got the taxpayers with a fixed

contribution on a project that's being delivered on

schedule with great support

from the business community. It doesn't mean there aren't some members —

particularly, apparently, on the Cambie corridor — that aren't doing handstands

over the fact that they're seeing construction disrupt their businesses.

We should recognize that that's an impact. But the fact of the

matter is, if the member has questions like that he should go and talk to the

people delivering the project — the RAVCO. They've got a project team in place.

They'd be happy to share.

They'd probably be happy to give the member a briefing, if the

member has great interest in where tunnel-boring machines go. I believe they

might even have information on the website that provides updates on a regular

basis to those who are interested. In fact, I'm sure they do. The member can get

daily updates on what is happening with the project. I think if that's helpful

to the member, he should consider doing it.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister doesn't know and doesn't care,

he told us, what technology is being used to create the tunnel for the downtown

portion of the Canada line. He rejects the notion that there are businesses on

the Cambie corridor which are suffering because of the project.

He suggests to us that there are other factors. We can only

speculate on what those other factors are. Perhaps he thinks that these are poor

business people, or they are not paying attention to their businesses, or they

don't care about them. But there are other factors that are to blame for the

failures of businesses in the Cambie corridor and in Cambie village.

He rejects the notion that the disruption which is being caused by

the project is significantly greater than it had been committed to be. We

certainly could provide a briefing for the minister, if he so desired, and show

him the charts, the maps and the commitments that were made by the company which

is doing the project, which he and his ministry are major partners in.

If he wanted to take some time to get that briefing, we could

certainly provide that briefing for him. I'm certain we could find some Cambie

Street business people who would be prepared to participate in that briefing.

But all of those things are rejected, so maybe we can talk about another piece

of the puzzle when it comes to the Canada line, because on the one hand there

are the expenditures…. That is what we are paying.

[ Page 6463 ]

By the way, the minister continues to repeat the canard that the

costs to the taxpayer are capped. They, of course, are not capped. The costs to

the taxpayer through the province are capped. They certainly are not capped if

the 100,000 people that the minister predicted a little while ago don't show up.

He knows very well that the taxpayers of the lower mainland will be on the hook

for that additional cost.

[1105]

The other side of the equation is: what do we buy? What are we

buying? Could the minister please review for us his understanding of the major —

I'm not talking about the minor — changes in the project in terms of reducing

services and amenities and parts of the project since the contract was signed

and since the budget was created.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the last point first. No, the minister

won't do that. The member opposite is asking me to go back into history and try

and determine all the decisions that RAVCO and Canada Line, on behalf of

TransLink, made with respect to the project. This is a project that I'm a

funding partner in, and as much as this member wants to pretend that I am the

one delivering the project and that I should have all this information at my

fingertips, I don't. So I'm not going to waste a lot of time worrying about

that.

I do want to address, however, the attempts of the member opposite

to try and misrepresent comments I've made. I actually don't think that that's

the right thing to do as hon. members in this House. The member is trying to say

that I don't care about the small business sector. I made it very clear that I

have never for a second pretended that there weren't impacts on small business.

Of course there is.

Who in their right mind thinks you can build a $2 billion project

and not have impacts? Only in the fantasyland of the opposition would that be

possible. Especially in an area that is fully built out, of course there are

impacts. The issue is not whether there are impacts, but whether Canada Line and

RAVCO are doing everything possible to try to ameliorate it, and clearly they

are.

I have to say — and I'm sure my members sitting here today would

certainly agree with this — it's a little rich to hear the NDP suddenly becoming

the defenders of small business. These are the people who destroyed small

business in British Columbia, for goodness' sake. There was no better economic

wrecking crew than the NDP government during the 1990s. The small business

community was fleeing. Their small business strategy was to basically take big

business, drive them into small businesses. That was their small business

strategy.

As the Minister of Transportation, I find it a little hard to hear

that when here we now have a province with multiple credit upgradings, triple-A

credit rating, the strongest business sector we've seen in the history of

British Columbia, the lowest unemployment rate since they started recording

unemployment rates and the strongest support from the small business sector to a

government that there probably has ever been in the history of the province. I

know because I spend a lot of time with them. I talk with small business folks

all the time, used to be one and know them well.

The member spends a lot of his time with his public sector union

cronies. They probably don't have a lot of experience in the business sector,

but we actually have some on this side of the House. I can tell you that the

business community is very, very supportive of the direction this government has

gone. They are very supportive of the tax cuts that put more money into the

pockets of small business, which those individuals voted against.

I sat in this House and saw over the years, time after time again,

that when we were providing tax relief to small business, they voted against it.

They voted against the elimination of the corporate capital tax. They voted

against the personal income tax cuts — not just the 10 percent one we did in

this budget, but the 25 percent one we did in our first budget. So it's a little

rich to hear them now suddenly become the defenders of small business and say:

"My goodness, how can this government be so hard on the small business

community?"

Well, that characterization is completely fraudulent and just

ridiculous, just on the face of it. I did want to correct the record on that

because I think it is not only wrong, but it's just silly, frankly. It's just

downright silly.

The fact of the matter is I'm very sympathetic to individuals who

are impacted by this. I've said that before. I've said it repeatedly. I wish

there were no impacts. I can tell you as a funding partner in a project I'm not

delivering, I'm sorry that there's any impact. I wish we could have a world

where there were no impacts.

But I also am someone who knows that the business community is a

very strong…. These are very great entrepreneurs, and I wish all of them would

succeed. All of them won't — we just know that — whether there is a Canada line

or not a Canada line being built.

[1110]

There is no doubt it'll have impacts. But I am satisfied — and

this is the central point that I want to get on the record — that RAVCO, as the

deliverer of this project, and Canada Line have been doing everything that they

reasonably could be expected to do to try and help out the small business sector

that is impacted by this.

I do not lose sight of the fact and this member should be careful

not to lose sight of the fact that there is very, very strong support for this

project, not just in Vancouver and not just in the Vancouver small business

sector, but by the residents, the public and the population of the lower

mainland. I tell you this because these members opposed this project, by the way

— another one that they opposed. They actually oppose everything, but this was a

project that they also opposed.

This was a project I fought for. In fact, I recall hearing the

members opposite talk about how I was a bully. Apparently, you're a bully when

you want to get things done that are going to provide significant benefits to

the province. Let me tell you this: a hundred thousand people a day out of their

cars and into public transit, and over 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emission

that will not be going into the atmosphere annually as a

[ Page 6464 ]

result of this investment. The fact that we will be a major city with a major

rapid transit network going from the airport to the downtown is going to be

hugely significant for the future economic prospects of British Columbia.

I'm proud of the fact that we supported it when they didn't. I'm

proud of the fact that we stood up to the objections of the same people that

always come out against these projects. They're always that same little group:

public sector unions, the usual advocates. I even had environmentalists, for

goodness' sake, that were telling me why we shouldn't do this. I remember David

Cadman on Vancouver city council talking about how the pouring of concrete would

create environmental impacts. I mean, it's just lunacy.

The fact of the matter is that this was a project…. The same

people that oppose this project I find suddenly at anti-Gateway things. I find

it in