Hansard -- Monday, December 1, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 19, No. 5 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		8303
	Jomar Lanot P. Wong

Introductions by Members		8303

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8304
	Volunteers in Burquitlam
	H. Bloy
	Mountain pine beetle symposium
	W. Cobb
	United Way
	I. Chong

Oral Questions		8305
	Funding for HIV/AIDS strategy
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Closing of long-term care beds in Golden
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Damage to Prince Rupert gas pipeline
	B. Belsey
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Changes to laboratory services
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Cancellation of 2004 B.C. Disability Games
	R. Stewart
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Regulation of agriculture industry
	S. Brice
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Second Reading of Bills		8308
	British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued)
	B. Belsey
	J. Les
	B. Kerr
	Hon. R. Coleman
	R. Visser
	J. Wilson
	R. Harris
	H. Bloy
	Hon. G. Plant
	V. Roddick
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	B. Penner
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. J. Reid

Committee of the Whole House		8333
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant
	S. Orr

Reporting of Bills		8344
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

Third Reading of Bills		8344
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

P. Wong: Hon. Speaker, I would like you and the members of the Legislature to join me as we extend our condolences to the Lanot family. Their son Jomar Lanot, a grade 11 student at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary, was attacked and killed this past weekend. It's my hope that we'll be able to extend a comforting hand of support to them and for them to know their grief is shared not only by their family and friends but also by our whole community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the members of the Legislature to join me as we extend our condolences to the Lanot family. Our hearts go out to them.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to introduce several visitors that we have in the gallery today from the College Institute Educators Association of B.C. We're pleased to welcome today Cindy Oliver, the president; Roseanne Moran, the staff representative; and Dileep Athaide, the secretary-treasurer. I'm certainly looking forward to a productive discussion with them this afternoon. Would the House please help me make them welcome today.

S. Orr: I have introduced many people in this House, but today I have two of the most special people that I've ever had to introduce, simply because my husband and I created them and I delivered them. This is just a random sampling of my gorgeous, beautiful, healthy, good-looking, intelligent children.

The first one, who I have just totally embarrassed — but I'm allowed to do that because I am, of course, their mother — is my eldest son, Robin. Robin used to be a fish farmer — and I'm not even going to go down that path as to how I feel — but he is now moving forward, and he's going to become a free enterpriser. He is from Tofino. My other son is called Liam, and he is changing his career. He just launched his first album and went on tour in hip-hop music. To all of you who are probably not so informed in this, he is a rapper. I would like the House to make my sons incredibly welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have Mr. Johnny Fong and Mrs. Susanna Fong. Mr. Fong is a member of the Multicultural Advisory Council as well as a recipient of the 2002 outstanding achievement award from the Ethno Business Council of British Columbia. He's the president of a well-run Burnaby company, International Sources Ltd. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: The opposition joins in welcoming Mr. Johnny Fong and Mrs. Fong to the Legislature. In addition to the long list of accomplishments that the member from Burnaby had identified for Mr. Fong, he's also most recently been made an honorary member of the Chinese Cultural Centre, which happens to be in my riding and which also happens to be celebrating their anniversary with a fundraiser coming up, I believe, on Monday. I would invite everyone in this House to welcome Mr. Fong, and I hope to see you at the Chinese Cultural Centre fundraiser.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the precincts today is a group of auditors from the office of the auditor general of Canada, the office of the auditor general of British Columbia and the office of the auditor general of New Brunswick, who are collaborating on a joint examination of the management of the sustainability of wild salmon and salmon aquaculture. I ask the House to please make all of these auditors welcome.

P. Nettleton: A gentleman by the name of Ian Mott, of the United group of companies, has asked me to introduce him. He indicates that he has worked cooperatively to establish lands for the PNE in North Surrey. Please welcome Mr. Mott.

B. Penner: It's a great privilege for me to introduce to the House Erwin and Leona Janzen of Yarrow, British Columbia. They like to tell people that when I was a child growing up, I probably spent as much time at their house as at my parents' house because I was best friends with their late son, Dan Janzen. Together we embarked on many adventures and assorted mischief and had a great time right through elementary school, high school, college and university. Today Leona and Erwin continue to be a source of considerable guidance for myself, so if you have any complaints, take them to them. Please make them welcome.

R. Visser: Today in the House we have Ken Kapps, Aaron Badesso and Jack Lavis — all here from both TimberWest and Weyerhaeuser. I'm going to try to keep a straight face doing this, but what's important about these folks is that they have managed to bring to life for me and some of my colleagues the arcane and byzantine world of stumpage through their colourful regression analysis and market-sensitive…. Oh, I'll tell you, they have made my life new and complete, and I just hope the House can make them welcome today.

P. Wong: I am pleased to introduce a high school mate of mine, Celia Chan, a computer systems analyst who came from Calgary to visit the Legislature. Also,

in respect of Johnny Fong in the gallery, Mr. Fong co-chaired with me at the Chinese Community Forest Fire Relief Campaign, fundraising for the North Thompson fire relief fund as well as the Vanderbilt community outreach network, totalling over $300,000 this year. Would the House please make them most welcome.

H. Bloy: Today I would like to congratulate the 20 winners of the Local Hero Awards in Burnaby. I can only mention a few in particular. At just 12 years old, Greg von Euw has made a name for himself as a great protector of our salmon-bearing urban streams. I've known Greg's family for a number of years, and despite his young age, the folks at the DFO will tell you he's a wise little veteran when it comes to his stream. Fish are finally returning to Silver Creek to spawn, and we have Greg to thank for that.

Another nominee is Carol La Croix, who has been a Scouts Canada volunteer for many, many years. She's worked her way up through the ranks as a Beaver leader, and now she's an Area Service Scouter who has created a number of programs and successful handbooks. I've worked with Carol under her direction. She also played a key role in the formation of Camp Woodchip for Beavers in North Burnaby.

We also have Jay McGarva, who is a great volunteer in Burnaby with the Burnaby Board of Trade, the Burnaby Symphony Orchestra and the Burnaby Metro Rotary Club. She also runs her own successful business.

We have Keith Beedie, who has provided funding to Burnaby Hospital, the Interurban 1223 restoration project and the Burnaby Christmas Bureau, to name just a few.

Finally there's Jeanne Fike, who heads up the Burnaby Family Life Institute. Jeanne is one of the best-known personalities in the Burnaby community because of the outstanding work she does with new immigrants and with women and children in abusive situations.

It is clear that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Burquitlam. I'd like to pass along my congratulations and sincere thanks to all 20 winners.

W. Cobb: Earlier this month I attended the mountain pine beetle symposium in Quesnel. There were local environmentalists, industry experts, community leaders, forest managers and first nations coming together to find solutions to this epidemic. This year alone, the pine beetle has consumed four times more of B.C.'s forests than the summer fires. The fires have been subdued, but our forests are still under attack. The Premier is committed to taking whatever action is necessary to stop the beetles.

The symposium also brought about a chance to highlight the positive opportunities that exist to salvage the wood and sell it to new markets, while also expanding the value-added sector. The Premier spoke of his recent mission to China and their interest in wood products. However, as we discussed ways to stop the beetle and find positive ways to utilize the huge amount of beetle-kill, we found our efforts being sabotaged by large-scale environmental groups using inaccurate information to commit economic treason on British Columbia.

I know the David Suzuki Foundation was invited to the symposium but declined. However, they didn't decline the invitation to join in the boycott of B.C. woods, including beetle-kill and fire-damaged timber.

A number of environmental groups have decided to make it their mission to destroy as many forest jobs as they can in B.C. I want to quote Ric Careless, at the B.C. Environmental Network, who did accept the invitation. He wished to separate himself from those radical enviro-terrorists. He said: "I would just like to say to the Premier that I applaud your efforts in Asia to develop new markets. We are all in this together. We don't need any more nonsense. This is yesterday's world."

With support like this from local groups, I know we can move ahead and build a strategy to fight the beetle epidemic.

I look forward to the Premier's report in January. I ask the international environmental groups to catch up with the times. Don't do any more harm to their fellow environmentalists or the hard-working families in the forest industry.

I. Chong: Today I wish to highlight one of our most significant and long-serving local non-profit charity organizations, the United Way of Greater Victoria. The United Way promotes volunteerism and currently supports 39 community human care agencies in their efforts to provide a better life for all. Donations received are invested locally, and one in three Victorians will utilize a service offered by United Way–funded organizations this year.

The United Way of Greater Victoria has a proud 60-year history of helping people and some years ago focused its funding on five social priorities: poverty, isolation and loneliness, family stress and breakdown, violence in society, and substance abuse.

On September 17 of this year campaign chair Dr. Elizabeth Ashton, the president of Camosun College, kicked off the annual fundraising campaign by announcing this year's community goal to raise $4.3 million. Last year's goal of $4 million was surpassed when $4.1 million was eventually raised. To date just over $3.6 million has been raised, and I believe this year's goal is achievable, even though the campaign is now winding down. It is through a variety of charity events, corporate donations and individual contributions that the United Way is able to succeed in reaching its goal.

Just one example of a charity event is the annual Chinese community fundraising dinner generally held in October of each year. This event was initiated about six years ago under the stewardship of a Queen's Jubilee recipient community leader, Ms. May Lou-Poy. Her goal was to bring together community members, businesses and organizations from the Chinese community where they can learn more about the programs and services of the United Way and its partner agencies. I am pleased to report that it is always a sold-out event. However, the success is better measured by the number of new donors who attend every year.

Services of the United Way can range from providing funds for a community organization to a volunteer driving and delivering a meal to a housebound senior, to a volunteer calling on a grief-stricken family due to the sudden loss of a family member. When you consider the wide range of services the United Way provides for our community, it is no wonder so many lives are made better by the United Way and that their slogan remains "Change the world one way at a time."

J. MacPhail: Today is World AIDS Day. B.C. has the highest proportion of Canadian deaths due to AIDS. HIV is one of four leading causes of death in B.C. amongst people ages 24 to 44.

Recently the B.C. Ministry of Health Services put forward an HIV strategy. AIDS prevention organizations say that the strategy contains laudable goals, but they are concerned that the provincial government hasn't funded its objectives. Can the Minister of Health Services explain why at the same time that AIDS is on the increase in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals are not funding their own AIDS strategy?

Hon. C. Hansen: The new AIDS strategy was developed by the Ministry of Health Planning, and my colleague the Minister of Health Planning has had responsibility for that. Obviously, we work very closely with them. As Health Services is responsible for the delivery of health programs in the community, we've certainly been working with those community organizations. I know my colleague has met with them on many occasions as that strategy was developed. We have recently added funding for new medications that are particularly important in the treatment of AIDS, and we're certainly looking to make sure that those programs are available to communities throughout British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's actually the regional health boards for which this minister is responsible now, health authorities that deliver the AIDS strategy. The cost of each new HIV infection is $225,000 in direct costs and $750,000 in indirect costs. AIDS is on the increase in British Columbia, and infections are predicted to increase. AIDS prevention organizations are warning that without any resources, new resources, the province won't be able to achieve its goal and the epidemic will get worse. These organizations are meeting with the government tomorrow.

Again to the Minister of Health Services: what steps are he and his government prepared to take to ensure that the grave concerns of AIDS prevention organizations and patients in B.C. are addressed with adequate dollars to fight the increasing spread of this disease here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is quite right. It is the health authorities that have responsibility for the delivering of the programs which fall under the Ministry of Health Services. One of the things that we did to better integrate those programs with the other delivery of health services at the community level was to shift the funding for those programs and organizations to the health authorities so that they could actually be better integrated at the community level. At the same time, all of the funding programs that have been in place for AIDS programs have been maintained, and health authorities are now responsible for delivering those programs at the community level.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's not exactly as the Minister of Health Services said. When the provincial government actually transferred contracts for AIDS service organizations to the regional health authorities, funds were not transferred to support their work. That means that the prevention and educational programs have suffered. Even in the government's own strategy document released just a couple of months ago, they incorrectly said that the incidence of HIV infections amongst drug users is on the decline, when in fact it went up last year.

Today AIDS organizations are sounding the alarm. As recently as this morning, Maxine Davis, executive director of the Dr. Peter Centre, said things are getting worse here in British Columbia. They say that the provincial government is not meeting its commitment to stop the spread of disease. When the minister and his government meet with these AIDS organizations tomorrow, will he commit to providing the dollars that health authorities need, and have made clear to the minister they need, to fight AIDS?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. In fact, the funding for the contracts for those programs was transferred to the health authorities as part of their allocations, in each of the health authorities. We have given to the health authorities the flexibility, for the first time, so that they can actually meet the priority needs of their communities that they are trying to serve. I know the health authorities are working closely

with those organizations to make sure that those needs get met as best possible within the financial frameworks that we have.

J. Kwan: Residents of Golden are very concerned about the closure of long-term care facilities in their community. The interior health authority has shut down eight residential care beds at the local hospital. Now the government is adding insult to injury by closing four more beds at the Durand Manor, a residential care facility in Golden. That's resulting in long waiting lists and patients being transferred out of the community. Residents are saying that they are having no luck in getting the attention of their local MLA. So let me ask the Minister of Health Services this question: why is his government breaking their promise and closing beds for seniors in Golden?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I think the opposition members have some faulty research behind them. In fact, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has been a very vocal and active advocate for the residents of Golden on this matter. She has certainly been to see me many times on this issue. I am pleased to inform the member, because she may not be aware, that there is $530,000 allocated for the renovation of Durand Manor so it can better meet the needs of seniors in Golden. That's as a direct result of the advocacy and the work by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: In fact, the residents of Golden just contacted us today with their concern. You know what, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: You know what? The residents of Golden are saying they're having no luck in getting their local MLA to respond to their needs. The renovation dollars…

J. Kwan: …that the minister mentions do not help the residents, because the fact is that the residential care beds are being closed right now, and the government is going to proceed with their renovations tomorrow. The Minister of Health has actually received some 800 letters protesting this move and demanding that Durand Manor remain fully open until a replacement facility is available in Golden. Spending $530,000 on renovations to Durand Manor would still result in fewer residential beds, which will cause a problem for the seniors. How can the minister justify that move while he's moving the seniors out?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would just like to point out to the member that if you're going to renovate a room in a long-term care facility to modernize it and make it better available to meet the needs of the residents, it's usually best to actually move the resident out of that room prior to commencing renovations.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last Friday there was a landslide that took out a natural gas line in the Prince Rupert area. About 4,000 businesses and homes were without heat and continue to be without heat. There are schools and businesses closing, and there are a number of homes that have to rely on space heaters to warm their homes as well as possible. They're eager to know when this gas line will be restored. In the meantime, every effort needs to be continued to ensure that the residents of Prince Rupert and Port Edward and surrounding areas are comfortable during this difficult time. Can the Solicitor General explain what is being done to resolve the situation and what efforts are being made to assist the residents affected?

Hon. R. Coleman: The landslide actually took place on Friday. It was about a thousand feet across — about 350 metres. It took out a natural gas pipeline. This is an event that takes place in this particular area of British Columbia about once every two to three years. There's a lot of unstable ground there, and it does cause some difficulties. The gas line was taken out.

Over the weekend we were unable to actually get in there to repair the line because the unstable ground was still there, and the weather was too severe for people to get in there. They are working on it now. They expect to try and get in there and finish this, to get the gas line operating, in the next three to five days.

I can tell the member that over the weekend 32 people spent nights in the evacuation centre within his community, because those were activated under the provincial emergency program. Emergency social services, which normally runs 72 hours, has been extended to the end of the event so that anybody who needs the assistance of emergency social services under the emergency program will have it. Nobody will be left wanting.

At the same time, I want to say to this member and to this House that of all the events we've handled — and we've handled many emergency situations in the last year or so — the communities of Prince Rupert and Port Edward have been remarkable in the way they have adapted and handled this in a really strong, community-based manner with everybody helping out — neighbour helping neighbour. They should be commended.

P. Nettleton: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Why has the minister rejected the offer of the British Columbia Medical Association and laboratory doctors to work collaboratively on the structure of lab reform and instead chosen a route of confrontation that has led to both a legal challenge in the courts and yet another arbitration with the doctors? What will the minister do? Furthermore, if the court ruling — expected any day now — rules against the government, will he resort to an order-in-council or legislation? How will the minister respond?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member knows, none of us in cabinet can comment on cases that are currently before the courts. But I can reassure the member that we have developed an approach to lab reform, which is long overdue in this province, that will involve all of the labs, and that will involve both the public and private sector pathologists. Through the provincial lab coordinating office, we are embarking on a process of lab reform that we expect will provide better service to patients around the province and also provide a more cost-effective process.

Currently, with our lab service that we have today, we are by far the most expensive on a per-capita basis, and we are also significantly more expensive compared to even the second-highest province. Through this process, which is very much a collaborative process, we expect that we'll get better service and better value for the taxpayers of this province.

R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. My community of Coquitlam was looking forward to being able to host the B.C. Disability Games this summer. However, the Coquitlam school district decided to charge $36,000 for the disabled athletes to camp in a school — more than 20 times the actual cost to the district. That works out to about $80 a night per athlete, more than the local hotel. A great many of my constituents are outraged that the school district would try to make a profit off a group of disabled athletes. As a result of the decision, the 2004 B.C. Disability Games have now been cancelled. Can the minister tell us how this could have happened to such a worthwhile event?

Hon. G. Abbott: I was recently advised by B.C. Disability Sports about their very difficult decision to cancel the 2004 Disability Games. Certainly, it is not a decision that we welcome, but it is a decision that we understand, given the circumstances that confronted the games.

We did check into this situation. Neither I nor any of the games society staff are aware of any precedent anywhere, where school facilities have charged for the Disability Games. It is, in short, an unprecedented situation. Certainly in Kelowna in 2003 and certainly in Nanaimo in 2005, there are no charges for school facilities for the Disability Games. So it's sad and unfortunate that the games are lost for 2004, but we know that they will be very successful in Nanaimo in 2005.

S. Brice: I have a question today for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. I get such a rousing round of applause from my colleagues in the House here because they know that I am constantly advocating for the issues that are important to the farmers of the Saanich Peninsula.

The question I have for the minister is…. The farmers in my area contend that they are unable to bring heavy equipment onto their property to clear a stream or to dig a ditch without engaging in a pretty extensive process of permits. Adding to this is the fact that some of those are municipal, some regional, some provincial and some federal. I would ask the minister if the Saanich farmers can hear from him as to what he is contemplating in order to alleviate some of this undue workload.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly the issue of proper drainage is a big issue for agriculture not only in Saanich South but in many farm communities in British Columbia. Not only farmers are frustrated, but also local governments and our ministry. We've had a lot of frustration on this issue.

Really, the main culprit is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have worked very diligently, through many channels, to work with DFO on these issues. We have a committee called the Partnership Committee on Agriculture and the Environment. We've done a lot of work with DFO through that committee. Our ministry has done a lot of advocacy on this issue on behalf of farmers. We have developed good relationships with the minister and senior management on these issues. Still, that organization has failed to deliver and failed to break out of the bureaucratic, fraught-with-uncertainty and untimely process that it has.

What we are doing now is putting the issue in the hands of a deputy ministers committee, along with a

whole range of other issues with DFO. I will be working with the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations to get this issue to a very high level within our government and in our relations with the federal government.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I call for further debate on second reading of Bill 89.

B. Belsey: It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 89, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003.

One of the early founders of Prince Rupert, Charles Hayes, had a vision that Prince Rupert would become a major port. Now we have a Premier of a province and a Minister of Transportation that are going to see that vision come true. This is probably one of the most significant things that has happened in my riding certainly in recent times.

I was there when Fairview Terminals was built back in the mid-seventies, and it was incredible — the amount of construction work, employment, for those living in the community. Many from outside of the community participated in building that structure. A little later on, it was expanded. They put on another length of wharf.

A few months back I had a committee come up there, the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and I took them around to a number of the industries in my riding in the Prince Rupert area. One of the visits we made was to Fairview Terminals. That terminal was built to handle what they called break-bulk freight and commodities. That has been slowly dying off, getting less and less annually.

What has been increasing is containerization, until it's reached such a point in my riding that the buildings that used to house the crews, pulp and some of the products that were shipped through that terminal are now empty or house forklifts and tow motors, equipment trucks. None of them have moved, probably, in a year and a half to two years.

Now we have an opportunity to convert that facility to a container port. That has everybody in my riding, everybody in the north, excited about the opportunity it is going to bring to northerners, not just in Prince Rupert. It's going to be exciting for people all across the north. Whether you're a specialty grain shipper in the Peace who needs to take genetically modified grain that can't be shipped with all the other grains due to the concern for cross-contamination…. They'll be able to put that grain into containers and take it into Prince Rupert and get it to the Asian markets at least a day and a half quicker than they're doing now.

If you're a log home builder in Smithers, you'll be able to take that log home, put it into a container and ship it to Asian markets, something that has been beyond our ability — to ship products from the north. It was too expensive to load it into containers to get it all the way down to Vancouver and ship it out. We'll soon be able to do it through the port of Prince Rupert.

I want to share with you some of the local heroes that have worked so hard to see that port move ahead, the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Don Krusel, the CEO, and many of his staff — Shane, Joe, Dave, Michelle — have all worked tirelessly to move this project forward. The mayor and council, both in the present and the past, have worked tirelessly to promote this project and to get it moved ahead. There are many others across my riding and in the north — private citizens, businessmen, companies, organizations — that see the benefit of building a container port in northern British Columbia.

This is a partnership, a partnership that means jobs and opportunities. The members opposite sit here in the House, and they are constantly reflecting on another broken promise. They like to use that: "Another broken promise."

What they don't understand, what they don't want to understand and what they go to great lengths to make sure the public doesn't hear is that it's a partnership. It's a partnership for British Columbians, joining with a company that has a proven track record, an excellent track record in their ability to move freight on rails across this continent. It's a partnership where what we've done is taken BCR and changed it into CNR. We took the B out, and we put a C in. The B is where the billion dollars comes from, the billion dollars that have gone into northern British Columbia and along the rail line.

A billion dollars will be spent in British Columbia in northern communities along that rail line in the form of taxes, in the form of buildings and structures. In my riding, $17.2 million is going to go into the conversion of a terminal that's not being used today, for putting in rail lines, purchasing cranes, straddle carriers. There's another $15 million that's been committed by CN to work on tracks so that they can handle containers, to work on the tracks between Prince Rupert and Prince George so that those tracks will be able to handle container freight.

The other important aspect is that they're committed to spend some of that $15 million on the changing of the current tunnel structures. The problem there is very simple. To move double-stacked containers, a certain amount of clearance is required to get a train at full speed through those tunnels with that type of

freight, and right now that can't be done safely because of the movement of the trains.

They have agreed to go in there and clean out those tunnels just enough so that they meet the safety tolerances. Then they can move double-stacked containers, which that might be coming from any part of the eastern seaboard of the U.S., any part of northern Alberta or maybe British Columbia. Those containers will be able to come right out to the port and head to the Asian markets. Also, containers coming from Asian markets, landing in Rupert, can be loaded on rails and shipped right through to the east and mid-central U.S. and points further south. Prince Rupert is uniquely positioned. It has train and rail service that CN has been operating for years, so to have CN now operate B.C. Rail is an excellent fit for our community.

Something else needs to be mentioned. There were a number of meetings that I attended as we worked our way through this process, and every time I was asked what my concerns are about B.C. Rail. I mean, I don't live near where B.C. Rail was servicing British Columbia, but I was always given the opportunity to say what was important about rail service, about who was going to take over that rail service on that north-south run, the B.C. Rail run. Every one of my concerns was addressed in this agreement. I applaud the minister for looking into that and taking those considerations. She and her staff have done an excellent job.

We have a new leader for the opposition, and, you know, there's not a lot of difference between what she has come out with and what the member opposite, the past leader, has said in the past and certainly in this House. She plans to travel around British Columbia, and I have no doubt in my mind she'll find her herself one day holding a meeting in Prince Rupert. I just hope those who have nothing better to do than attend that meeting will ask them some very important questions. I hope the longshoremen in Prince Rupert that have struggled, as we've seen this transition from bulk shipping to containerized shipping….

I hope those longshoremen go to that meeting and just suggest to her: "What's wrong with this B.C. Rail–CN partnership?" Tell those longshoremen that this is a bad deal, that this shouldn't happen. They're going to be one of the bigger winners — a potential for 300 to 500 new jobs. They'll be the ones that'll be put to work. Again, their families will be able to live a lot better, certainly, than the difficulties they face today.

Talk to the rail workers. Talk to the rail workers who are looking at the potential jobs in moving that freight around on those lines, who will do the maintenance work on those lines, who will do the maintenance work on some of that rolling stock. Talk to them, and tell them that this is a terrible deal, that this is bad for Prince Rupert, that this is bad for B.C. Rail.

You know, with the suggested up to 500 jobs in the Pacific Northwest, just think of what that means. I hope some of the teachers go to this meeting. If you bring 500 new jobs to an area, that's up to 500 families. That's families that own houses. Those houses will employ carpenters and plumbers and electricians. There will be more school teachers needed for those families, for the children that will be in our schools. There will be more nurses and doctors required for that kind of development, for that many new jobs. All of those are good points. I hope somebody challenges that new leader, when she visits Prince Rupert, as to why this is such a bad, bad deal.

This partnership and this deal that the minister and her staff have worked out mean billions of dollars over the life of the contract. I mentioned earlier the $17.2 million for containerization in Rupert, $15 million from CN's commitment to work on the track. There's approximately $8.3 million in municipal taxes that will go to communities along the old B.C. Rail right-of-way. On average, that's 4.5 times greater than the current funds that they get from the province for grants in lieu of taxes. That's a tremendous boost for these communities. There's $135 million going to go into the north for the northern development initiative, and out of that, four regions will be developed. Each of those regions will receive $15 million. This is great news.

This partnership, this agreement, is going to be a tremendous boost for northerners. Another exciting initiative that's come through with this deal is the new tourism and passenger travel service. Imagine — with the improvements in passenger service that will come with this initiative — being able to get on a passenger train in Prince Rupert and heading to Whistler. It's unheard of. Imagine being able to do that. I could get on a train there, head down to Vancouver, take a plane across and be in Victoria. It might be better than some of those air flights I've had down here. This is a tremendous opportunity for the province.

I'd like to look at some of the comments that the member opposite, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made when she spoke against this agreement. She said: "It's clear this deal is not what it was cracked up to be." Well, she's right. It's better than that. This deal is better than any of us could have imagined. This deal is putting money into the north. It's putting jobs first. It's putting northerners first in so many areas. This deal is better than any of us ever would have thought.

She also mentioned: "The lost dividends from B.C. Rail will go into the pockets of private companies." Well, think of it. That's another way of saying that profits are bad. That's what they built…

…their whole decade on. Imagine an industry making a profit. Could there be anything worse? Imagine a company having a strong balance sheet. Could there be anything worse? Imagine a company with the money to expand and create additional jobs. Imagine a company with a strong balance sheet and paying taxes. Imagine all that. It's a great thought.

As I mentioned earlier, the dividends that will be lost from B.C. Rail…. Well, think of the 4.5 times greater taxes they'll receive compared to what they used to get from the government in payment in lieu of taxes.

Another comment: "It's yet another broken promise. This government, this Premier, this Liberal government, has no credibility." Well, again I say that this is not a broken promise. The promise that was made was that we wouldn't sell or privatize B.C. Rail. We didn't sell it. We didn't privatize it. We still own the right-of-way. We still own those tracks. We have a partner now that's running the rolling stock and running the service. That's a good deal for British Columbians.

There have been a number of letters and comments made by people around the province. I'd just like to mention a few of them — one from John Winter, president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to read his statement:

There are many from financial institutions and the investment community — one from Morgan Stanley: "Given past labour and congestion issues at other west coast ports, it is quite conceivable that Prince Rupert could evolve into a significant growth engine for CN in the future. As a sign of that potential, CNI announced that it is now shipping iron ore from the Upper Michigan iron range to Prince Rupert for vessel delivery to China." This is about creating jobs and opportunities, and this is the spinoff you get when you put together a good deal.

Let me explain this just a little more, because it's worth mentioning. We have a coal terminal in Prince Rupert, Ridley terminal, that has been struggling for two, three or four years now with the elimination of a couple of coalmines that are no longer economical. They have struggled to try and find other products and to find other sources of product and other markets to ship to. They have worked extremely hard. Greg Slocombe, the CEO, and his staff have worked very hard to find another product that they could ship through the coal terminal that would be able to come in and be handled by their railcars, their stack of reclaimers and their conveyer systems to get the coal into piles and then out of piles and onto ships. Well, they found something. They found iron pellets from Michigan iron range, a company in Michigan that needed access to the Asian markets.

When the minister brought this deal together, what she gave them the opportunity to have those iron pellets loaded on railcars. They can be loaded on ships. Those ships can go to the north end of Lake Michigan, up into the Thunder Bay area, off of those ships and onto the rail lines, be moved directly through to Prince Rupert and be taken into the Ridley Terminals facilities for shipping to Asian markets. This is a great opportunity. That's a fine example of how you can make a deal, a partnership, with another group and how the community can benefit from it and how the north can benefit from it.

In closing, I just want to say that the minister, her staff, the Premier, B.C. Rail and CN should be commended for what they've done for my riding, for the community, for the people, for the families and for all of northern British Columbia. I take my hat off to them. I thank them all very much, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

J. Les: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. In this House, we get many opportunities to speak, but I have to say that on this particular bill I really wanted to speak. Just so that you're very clear, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I am absolutely, fully, completely and unalterably in favour of this legislation. It is probably one of the more important pieces of legislation that we've dealt with so far in our term of government.

I, as well, want to congratulate the minister and her staff for all the hard work they did to bring this deal home. For sure it took an awful lot of work, and it was an awful lot of work that was done in the face of a lot of orchestrated opposition by self-interested groups. So it wasn't a slam dunk at anytime along the way. The minister persevered. She exhibited tenacity and, I think, came away with a deal that was far better than many, if not all, of our skeptics were even prepared to think about. It really is one of these signature events in the history of the province.

I think that as a government, we have demonstrated clearly that we're prepared to reorganize the assets of the province in a way that they can do some real good for the province, for the people of the province and for our collective future. There is no question that the British Columbia railroad was a real asset. There's also no question that that asset was seriously underperforming in its current configuration. By the same token, there's also no question that as we move forward with this new lease with CN, the assets of B.C. Rail are going to contribute to the economy of the province in a way that they have not been able to for quite some time.

Some of our skeptics have asked: would W.A.C. Bennett have approved of this deal? I have no qualms

at all in suggesting to this House that he certainly would have. I was a great admirer of W.A.C. Bennett. He truly was one of the great builders of this province, and he would have recognized, as we stand here in the year 2003, that in the modern era this is how you build the province. Much as he undertook initiatives in his day that added significantly to the economic potential of this province, he would have recognized instinctively that this arrangement with CN Rail is a huge step forward and will bring great economic growth to the central and northern interior of British Columbia.

One of the more immediate benefits that we see with this lease to CN is that, of course, there's a billion dollars that CN invests in this lease. Given that billion dollars, one of the first things we will be doing is dissolving $500 million worth of debt. Some people have kind of waved that off and said: "Well, that's not really that important, because B.C. Rail was responsible for that debt." Somehow they try to leave the impression that British Columbia taxpayers were not on the hook for this money eventually.

Well, I have to tell you that taxpayers in British Columbia certainly are on the hook for that money, just as they were on the hook for the $860 million that was written off some years ago. That $860 million, I regret to inform this House, we're still paying interest on, and we'll be paying the interest on that money for a long time to come. My grandchildren will still be paying the interest on the $860 million that was written off on B.C. Rail.

I would really like to see a day when members of the opposition understand simple economic facts like that, but they set their hair on fire, and they've got all kinds of weird and wonderful explanations on how that's not so. Again, I underline: the $860 million worth of B.C. Rail debt that was written off will be paid for by our grandchildren for a long, long time to come. When they try to suggest that the $500 million of debt that was written off with this deal somehow wouldn't have ended up on the plate of taxpayers, they are sadly mistaken.

We have altogether too much of a long litany of government misadventures in British Columbia, where we have the fast ferries, for example — $465 million essentially all written off. You know, we've gotten beyond that nightmare in some ways, but again there's $465 million that's been written off, which our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay the interest on for years and years and years to come. That's in addition to Skeena Cellulose, another several hundred million dollars worth of debt written off. These government misadventures have got to stop. With B.C. Rail we have accomplished that, in addition to providing many more opportunities for the future.

There is no question that anytime major changes are implemented, it's tough for a lot of people. I understand that; I get that. Everybody wants to make progress, but nobody seems to want to make change very often. Certainly, change can be disorienting and can be disruptive. I'm sure there will be some restructuring in people's lives that will need to happen as a result of this B.C. Rail deal as well, but some of our opponents have tried to invent every Chicken Little scenario that they could possibly imagine and get people to believe.

Given that we're talking about railways, I remember — I think it was about 15 or 20 years ago — when railways across Canada decided that cabooses were an archaic feature of the past and really weren't necessary anymore on our modern-day trains. So they brought forward an initiative to get rid of cabooses on the ends of trains. If you had listened to the public debate at the time, you would have thought that trains were going to be derailing everywhere and that there was going to be a train wreck at every train crossing. Well, the cabooses were duly removed, and I am not sure there's any indication that there's been any commensurate loss of public safety or safety of operating trains on railway systems anywhere. But we were assured back then and reassured many times over that this was going to detrimentally affect the safety of railroading in Canada.

We've been given many doomsday scenarios around the B.C. Rail deal as well. I suspect what actually will happen is that we will be looking back five, ten, 15 or 20 years from now, and we will all very much in unison be in agreement that this was one of the major turning points in British Columbia's economic history — that it was and it is, in fact, a very, very good deal for the residents and for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

When we look at the financial performance of B.C. Rail as it is today and we compare that to CN, we see some very interesting factors as well. Before I get into those comparisons, I want to point out that CN Rail also has a very interesting history. It was at one point a federal Crown corporation, and it had the apron strings cut some years ago. It is now fully in the private sector, and it is one of the three top railways in all of North America. It is the envy of railroading in North America. It's been a huge success story, and it started right here in Canada. I'm not sure about other members in this House, but I'm very proud of that — that a Canadian railroad has had such an impact on the economy of North America.

If we look at some of the comparisons between B.C. Rail and CN Rail, we find that CN Rail processes about 260 carloads of freight per employee per year. That compares to 127 carloads per employee per year for B.C. Rail, so you can readily see that CN processes about twice as many carloads of freight per year per employee.

In terms of railcars per locomotive, CN has over 4,000 railcars per locomotive where B.C. Rail has only 1,400. CN Rail has 207 annual carloads of freight per kilometre of track where B.C. Rail has only 76. So on some of those very direct economic comparators, we can readily see where the efficiency of the BCR railway operation is going to be immensely improved as this arrangement goes forward. There's one thing that makes an economy hum more than anything else, and that is efficiency of operation. Those efficiencies will

translate into lower prices and greater availability of cars to the shippers of this province.

One of the things that I am most excited about is what this will do for communities like Prince George and Prince Rupert. My colleague from North Coast was speaking earlier this afternoon about all of the tremendous benefits this deal will provide to Prince Rupert in terms of making it a major deep-sea port on the Pacific Rim. Positioned as it is, at a location where shipping from Prince Rupert as opposed to Vancouver gets you a day and a half closer to Asian ports, and then when you factor in railroading from the American Midwest to Prince Rupert instead of to other west coast ports — how that gets you another day or two closer — there is absolutely no question whatsoever in my mind that the port of Prince Rupert has an enormous future ahead of it. I feel particularly good for the member for North Coast, given the extremely hard work that he puts in on behalf of his constituents in the North Coast riding. It's satisfying to me to see this major new initiative moving forward, which is going to provide some payoff for all the hard work that he's put in, in his riding.

The city of Prince George, as well, is going to be a major transportation hub not only in terms of the railroad but in terms of the airport. A significant amount of the money out of this deal is going directly into the airport in Prince George for a major upgrading program there. That's going to employ a great deal of additional people, and perhaps we'll see the kind of growth at the Prince George Airport that we've seen recently in Kelowna, where that airport is one of the fastest-growing airports in all of Canada. I have no doubt that that kind of future is available to the Prince George Airport as well. There are enormous amounts of economic growth that can happen in the heartland of our province, and I really believe that with this deal, we have unlocked the barriers to that growth.

The other communities, all the way from North Vancouver on up, are also going to feel an immediate benefit in terms of their tax revenues. This is very significant. It's an increase of about $7 million in local tax revenues that these communities are going to enjoy. I know, having been involved in municipal politics for a while myself, that's going to be very welcome to the mayors and the councillors of those various communities. I would hope, in addition to maybe finding new things for that money to do, that they would pass some of that along in terms of a property tax decrease for their residents in their various communities. I think that's another way of passing along a benefit of this B.C. Rail arrangement to the folks in the communities along the line.

So as I've examined this deal, I've come to the conclusion that it is a very sound proposition. It enables the heartlands of British Columbia to fully take advantage of all of the opportunities of the future. We all know that an integrated transportation system — whether it's by rail, by air or by road — is extremely important for an economy to advance and to move forward. With this deal, you're going to see that in the several years ahead, there's going to be a tremendous ramping up of transportation infrastructure. There's going to be a new confidence in the heartlands of this province. There are going to be new opportunities for many, many employees and their families. It's one of those times in the history of this province where we have done something we can all feel tremendously good about.

I've noted in the last several days that those who were predicting gloom and doom before this deal was made public have had to reposition a little bit in terms of their rhetoric. They're now probably in the "yeah, but" phase, but they have had to say that the deal looks pretty good. That comes from some people who were most vociferously opposed in the weeks and months leading up to the announcement. Hopefully, as time moves forward, they will look at the results as they flow, they will get beyond the "yeah, but" stage, and they, too, can become enthusiastic participants in what's going to be part of the economic renaissance of the heartland of British Columbia.

With that said, I join other members of this House who have spoken enthusiastically in favour. I would encourage the members of the opposition, as they get used to all the good things that are included in this deal, to maybe change their minds, as well, and come out in favour so that we can move forward in a united way in British Columbia and provide opportunities for all of the residents that we represent.

B. Kerr: I rise to support the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. I think it's a tremendous deal. I have to say that I wasn't planning on speaking because, being on Vancouver Island, I didn't think it would affect us that greatly, except to the extent that it affects British Columbia as a whole. I thought I would let my colleagues who are more affected by this specific act speak on it — the people that are on the rail line, the municipalities on the rail line. But some of the comments that have been made by the opposition members and the members opposed to the act have just compelled me to stand and speak and address some of those more specific issues they've commented on. I think there are some times when you hear things, and you just say: "Boy, that's why I entered politics." With some of these arguments against this particular act, I've certainly heard that.

When I was going to speak, I sat down to crunch some numbers. Then I realized that my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound actually did a very adequate job of doing an analysis on the financial statements of B.C. Rail to look at where B.C. Rail really is.

I'm sure some of the feelings about B.C. Rail are sentimental. Like my colleague from Chilliwack-Sumas mentioned, it's like the caboose. I get stopped at a train crossing sometimes, and I count the trains going by, which I'm sure all of us have done. Even when we're on holidays with our kids, we've all counted the trains going by. We wait for the caboose and it's not there. It's sort of a funny feeling. It's like something's missing,

My colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound mentioned the increase in debt, the reduction in sales, the poor return on capital. All that leads to a decrease in investment and no ability to open up the north with a decrease in investment and no ability to increase capital that you need to compete in the marketplace. It is a competitive marketplace, and it is losing a lot of its market share to alternative delivery services. He looked at the financial statements, and he said: "Well, this company is weak. It can maintain the status quo, but it can't expand and deliver what we need in an expanding economy." I think that's absolutely critical, and I think that's what we're going to get with this deal.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd like to comment on some of the detractors of this deal. I'll quote them, because I pulled out Hansard, and I've taken some quotes from what they've said. The first comment I'd like to discuss is from the member for Prince George–Omineca.

You know, the easiest thing in the world is to say no. I quite often think of bankers. When you go in to get a bank loan, the easiest thing in the world for that banker to do would be to say no, because he can quantify his risk and he knows he'll never have to have that risk. But he can't quantify the lost opportunity cost. That's what we're talking about here if we don't go ahead with this deal. Should this deal have been done ten years ago? Maybe it should. If it had been done ten years ago, how much better off would we be? We don't know, because we can't quantify that lost opportunity cost. But we can certainly quantify the $800 million that we had to write off by having B.C. Rail as a Crown corporation, and we can certainly quantify the $500 million more in debt that we are.

The easiest thing is to say no, because you can never be wrong. I'd just like to give you a quote from the member for Prince George–Omineca. He stood up, and this is a quote: "What I'm about to say may alarm some because I'm cautiously accepting of what has been achieved by this unified effort coming from all corners of the province. But I will be voting against this B.C. Rail bill on principle."

Excuse me? He thinks it's a good deal. He recognized a unified effort from all parts of the province, but on principle he's going to be voting against it. I'm trying to figure this out. Are his principles no to new jobs? Are his principles no to economic development? Are his principles no to fulfilment of the future potential of the north? Are his principles no hope for the future? They're certainly not my principles.

I don't know. Maybe he's just trying to cop out and take the easy way out by voting no. Then he doesn't have to worry about, when he goes back, retracting what he's been saying by making all the comments and the suppositions he's been making in the past. Certainly I don't know where his principles lie, because my principles are for growth. They are for economic development. They are for opening up the future potential of the north, and they are for creating new hope and prosperity in the north and all the along the line of B.C. Rail.

Now, I have the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I'd like to quote one of the things that she said. She was speaking of B.C. Rail, and she was going on about how we say the time to deliver to Chicago would be less. We can deliver the product faster now to Chicago. We're saying that's a real plus, and, Mr. Speaker, it is a plus.

Her comment was: "CN already has the capacity." She said in the press conference: "They have a new train that's already doing it, and the president of CN is proud of his company's achievement in cutting the time from nine days to 90 hours." So he's saying essentially that CN has the capacity to do that, but B.C. Rail doesn't have the capacity to do that.

CN has the capacity to do that. Here's where the synergies come in. If CN takes over B.C. Rail and becomes a partner with B.C. Rail, then B.C. Rail can do that, and that's what we need for the north. What she's suggesting, I would assume — I'm not sure, but I guess — is that we should continue to fund a company that's not competitive, because CN can out-compete us with the new locomotive they have, and we don't have the capital or the capacity to get those type of locomotives or cars that can do that.

My colleague from across the way mentioned Skeena Cellulose. I was going to bring that up. We've pumped in $800 million in this transaction, supporting B.C. Rail. We've written off $836 million. We've got $500 million of debt that we can now pay off. We've written off $400 million, which I'll mention soon.

I would imagine what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant would have us do is continue to pump money into this non-competitive entity similar to what happened in Skeena Cellulose where they pumped in — I think it was — $300 million to $400 million. To what end, what result? Eventually it went under because if a company can't compete now, it won't be able to compete in the future if it only has sufficient funds to keep it going.

You need money. You need additional money to keep things going to expand, to replace existing equipment, to modernize. That's what a company needs. That's the capacity that the B.C. Rail corporation didn't have, and that's the capacity that it will have now under this deal. Again, I support this deal because, regardless of who got it — who bid for it, who got it — it will give the capacity to open up the north.

Now I'd like to comment on the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Some of the comments she made, I just lit up because sometimes we need reinforcement in our political life. I lit up, and I said that's why I got into politics. She has just said the exact reason why I got into politics. I'll get on to that in a couple of minutes.

She said: "I note the government said it's not profitable. Isn't that awful B.C. Rail had to write down the debt accumulated by the Bennett government in the eighties?" She said: "Nobody got upset when they invested $600 million." She said: "My government" — meaning the former government — "was forced to write off $600 million in debt." You know, the point is not about who invested in it and who didn't invest in it. The point is about risk. Why should the provincial government, the people of British Columbia, take on the risk when we can have another entity take on that risk and provide greater service? There's an expression: "Why buy the cow when you get the milk free?" Why do we have to own the entity when we can have everything we need to develop the province without having to take on the risk?

The member for Vancouver-Hastings wants us to continue to take on the risk. Then she complained about how it wasn't really a billion dollars we're getting. Really, it's only $750 million we're getting, because $250 million of that billion is just buying tax credits. Well, that means we'll get $250 million more. I don't care if they're buying tax credits. They're tax credits we wouldn't get with B.C. Rail as a Crown corp. We're still getting that $250 million. It's still a billion dollars cash the government is going to get to be able to open up the north, pay off the debt and still have money to do even more development.

The real comment she made, the one I just have to mention here because it was the one that really woke me up…. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a habit. She likes to hold up pieces of paper. She got up in question period and held up a piece of paper like this, and she said that business analysts were predicting that as a result of buying B.C. Rail, CN will get — wait for it — a minimum 18 percent return on their investment. They're going to make a profit. Isn't that exactly what we want them to do — make a profit? Why else would anybody invest in something if they didn't plan on making a profit?

Well, she's talking as if "profit" is a pejorative. It's not a pejorative in my lexicon. Profit is a great word. When I see profits, I see expansion of an economy, I see reinvestment in new capital equipment, and I see new jobs. Profit is a good word. You know, profits to a corporation are like breathing to a person. If we don't breathe, we die. If a corporation doesn't have profits, it dies. You have to have profits to carry on. Without profits, you won't exist. In my lexicon, profit is a good word.

Now, she actually quantified the profits. She said: "It's going to be a minimum of 18 percent return on their investment." I don't want to go through the mathematical calculation of what that is, but let's just look at it, because there's something that nobody has mentioned to date. I've got a secret. Maybe we should just share it in this House and not share it with the members of the opposition, because I think maybe this is the problem they had in the past decade when they were running in the nineties. They didn't understand about profits. Here it is. Here's the secret: companies that make profits pay income tax.

B. Kerr: They do. It's amazing the way it works. That's how they contribute to the social programs we have in British Columbia — through income taxation.

Now, I would like to go on with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Vancouver-Hastings. They went on and talked about the $137 million in dividend income we're not going to get back, which they got from B.C. Rail. Over 20 years we got $137 million in dividend income that we're going to forgo.

They also said there was no difference between tax-supported debt and taxpayer-supported debt. Let me tell you, if we did in fact get $137 million from the Crown corporation, if they weren't using money to pay off this entity-supported debt, they would have got that much more. There isn't a difference. Debt is debt. When you pay money to service debt, that much less is used to pay for social programs.

Here's the kicker: $137 million over 20 years. If CN lives up to the expectations the member for Vancouver-Hastings has and gets an 18 percent return on its investment, without going through the calculations, that works out to about $17 million a year — the provincial portion of the debt that we'll collect as a government. If we multiply that over 20 years, it comes to about $351 million.

Let's work this out: $137 million, plus all the risk, plus writing down $836 million of debt, plus accumulating $500 million more debt and get $137 million; or no investment, $500 million in the province's coffers that can be used to open up the north, no risk, no writing down of future assets and $350 million of revenue coming over to the province in 20 years. Gee, where am I going to place my money?

I don't know how these people can say anything. What really got to me when I heard that was that the former government was all about making sure nobody has a profit and nobody pays income tax. We're not about that. We're about expanding the province — creating jobs, creating capital investment, inviting businesses back into British Columbia. The more businesses we invite back into British Columbia, the more work CN will probably get and the more profit they will get and the more taxes they will pay. When they pay more taxes, we can put more money into social programs. It's a connect-the-dots; you don't have to be a rocket scientist.

Those are some of the things I wanted to bring up that I think are vitally important. Here we have an increase in tax revenue to the province; we have opening up the north; we have huge potential revenue; we've got no more debt. We've got more money coming to all

the municipalities along the line, which will allow them to develop their communities better. They'll get more property from the redundant assets that are going to be given to some of the municipalities from which they can create an even greater tax base for themselves. In absolutely every respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win situation. It's a win for the province because we're going to get more money without the risk, and it's a win for CN because they're going to make a profit.

With that, I'm going to sit down and turn the floor over to somebody else. I say that I support this deal 100 percent. I think it's absolutely terrific for the province of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: I rise to speak about the B.C. Rail Investment Partnership and this piece of legislation, because it's good news for British Columbia. It takes the leadership of a Premier who has a vision for the province and the hard work and leadership of a minister to get it to where it is today. We should be thankful that both of those people have been working on behalf of British Columbians to achieve this for all of us.

Before we get into what this partnership is about, maybe I'll try and crystallize for the members of the opposition and the member for Prince George–Omineca what it means. You see, as we came through this process, you continually heard members of the opposition say that B.C. Rail was profitable, but they always wanted to ignore the fact that somebody sometime had to write off $850 million in debt against this company, and it owed another $500 million. In my math, that's $1.3 billion in debt — money that's got to come out of the pockets of B.C. taxpayers. The $850 million just went right out of health care, education and social programs, because it had to be written off.

Of course, the opposition says…. Actually, this is what they think. They think the way to make a business profitable is that you start it, and you burden it with successive amounts of ridiculous debt until such point that the debt is so groaning that the company can't survive. Then rather than actually recognizing you've got a bad business model here, you write off the debt and let them start back at the beginning again so they can then go along and accumulate some more debt until the pressure groans on the company again and write it off again.

That's how Crown corporations look at it. That's how — before we became government, without professional boards that would actually go out and analyze a company — governments looked at Crown corporations. At least, socialist governments did. They went out and spent $500 million on the fast ferries. They actually bought a pig in a poke; it doesn't work. Who pays the bill? The taxpayers of the province. It overburdens, again, another Crown corporation with the ability to actually function, to think forward and to make an investment in itself, because it's under debt. Debt that is badly, badly put together because — you know what? — governments can't run rail services. Governments shouldn't be in the business of running a rail line.

We own this property, Mr. Speaker. We own the right-of-way. We own the land. We own the railbed, and we own the tracks. We still own the railbed, the right-of-way and the tracks. We still own the B.C. Rail company. We actually own B.C. Rail. But what we did is woke up one morning and said: "Maybe if we could find a private partner that knows something about running a railway that could be internationally integrated into a North American system, that might actually pay off for the people of British Columbia."

Now, somebody must have figured that was a pretty good idea, because CN is paying the province $1 billion for the right to run a railway on our rail system — the one that we own as a province. It's a billion dollars to acquire the outstanding shares of the company, B.C. Rail Ltd., along with a right to operate on B.C. Rail's railbed over a 60-year lease. The railbed, like I said, is going to remain in public hands. Now, what does that do for us? Think about it. Holy mackerel, you've got to think about this. This is great.

We've already had to write-off the $850 million. That's gone for B.C. taxpayers. But the $500 million that was accumulating — which would have put a burden on the company down the road that would have had to be written-off — is now going to get paid off because of this new investment coming into British Columbia. That means for every single year after this deal is made, British Columbians are going to save a minimum of about $30 million in interest. Think of how much that interest is, if you wanted to compound it. Just think of the straight multiple: $30 million times 60 years is $1.8 billion.

But everybody knows that interest compounds. Everybody knows that the compounding loss of opportunity that you'll have if you actually don't pay off that debt to begin with is such a multiple that you can't even imagine how that alone is so good for British Columbians — for the opportunity for taxpayers' money to do other things like help with policing, help with schools, help with education and health care, help with post-secondary education, to actually put the fiscal house of government in order so that we can do the things we need to do.

We need to do this with companies like this, because it is not our business. We'll hold our asset. We'll own our asset, and we'll make it work for the benefit of the taxpayers that own it. That's what this partnership is all about. This is nothing new. People have been doing partnerships in housing with non-profit societies and municipalities for ages, successfully putting together projects where the asset is used to leverage for the long-term success and benefit to a community. That's what we're doing here — something that's absolutely spectacular for the people of this province.

Imagine that at the same time you could do it, you could get rid of a staggering amount of public debt that faced you for the future, for your generation and the generations beyond. At the same time, recognize that the burden of that debt along with just the basic main-

tenance costs of the railroad were such that it would never, ever be able to become an innovator. It never, ever would have been able to be visionary, because it never would have had the capital or investment money to go forward and do the great things it needs to do.

So what do we get as a result of this, in addition to a billion dollars and paying off the debt? CN is actually going to go out and purchase 600 more centre-beam cars. Now, what the value of that is that we knew, when we had our people go — we put in a professional board and good management who had a look at B.C. Rail — that our shippers were saying to us: "You know what? We don't mind using this railroad, but we never know whether we can get a car on time. We never know when we want to ship our product whether the cars are going to be there with the capacity to move our product to the marketplace."

We knew that we would have to make an investment in additional railcars. Oh, that would be more debt in addition to the $500 million we already had. Now we have a partner that is going to go out, in addition to the billion dollars it's giving us for the right to run the railway, and make the investment in the cars. That's going to increase the capacity for our forest shippers in particular, because this is where the majority of forest products in British Columbia come from — along this corridor and in this area. The 1,500 boxcars will help ensure that customers have access to railcars where and when they need them, and faster transit times will also improve the availability of the cars by 800 cars.

You see, one of the things we talked about when we were talking about this thing is the Chicago express. We talked about synergies between two railways coming together. We talked about better planning as far as you ship things. Everybody knows, if you've ever been in any business that moved any goods and services, that if your truck is on the road for two days — or your railcar — when you could be using it for only one day, you'll actually get two days if you had it out there for only one day. But if you do that with a railway, it's the same compounding effect.

Imagine this. You have 500 railcars that have to take three days to go somewhere and take three days to come back. If you could send them in a day and a half and get them back in another day and a half, you could get them out in another day and a half and coming back in another day and a half. That's like giving yourself double the number of cars, and that's what this deal does. Just by improving the shipping times, improving the efficiencies, it's like adding another 800 cars to the rail system on top of the 600 new cars that we brought into the system, and that's pretty impressive.

What's more important is that we've always known we need to open up gateways. We've always known that in order for goods and services to move, for industrialized provinces like ourselves and particularly those with resource communities, you have to get your goods and services to the marketplace. You've got to retain the ability to do that, and alternatives, and get them through ports and what have you into an international marketplace. You have to keep your rates competitive so that you will continue to attract the customer and so they won't go find an alternative way of delivering those products to the marketplace, because you need to be competitive.

What's going to happen is that the shippers that are actually on interline shipping in this deal are going to get about 7 percent for interline rate shipment cost reduction, combining savings also from the rate reductions to about $7 million annually. They're no longer going to be subject to additional switching at the Vancouver interchange, helping further reduce transit times from Prince George.

Now, that doesn't sound like much, but it is. It's like what I said a minute ago. If the car is moving and it's getting there quicker and your goods and services are getting there quicker and you're getting paid, your accounts payable are coming in quicker. That means you can reduce your interest costs of the operation of your company or your carrying costs. You can actually pay your staff and look for an expansion and modernization of your mill, because you're actually getting the business done.

The downstream benefit of improved shipping actually affects the actual operation of a business, the actual operation of its efficiencies long-term and the investment it might want to make in expanding the mill in Quesnel, Williams Lake, Prince George or in and around Prince Rupert. That's simply because people will recognize that by getting the savings and getting these products to the marketplace, they can actually expand and access more of the marketplace, because they know they can deliver those goods and services better.

One of the things I like about this is the improved access to marketplaces, and there are a number of them, amazingly enough. It's like a buffet of great things to do with shipping and getting products to the marketplace, and I want to tell you about them. You're not going to hear it from the members of the opposition. You might get an epiphany on the way to the finalization of this deal from the member for Prince George–Omineca, but he doesn't want to vote for it because he doesn't want to believe that anything good could be done in the province — particularly right in his riding, where this has a huge impact. However, I stray.

The improved access to markets is this way. You're going to cut down about 30 percent of the shipping time from Prince George to the lower mainland. That gets all of those products into that system quicker. It moves them back quicker, as far as getting the cars back and the efficiencies in the system, like I mentioned before. Then you're going to have this Chicago express. Can you imagine? Prince George, in the centre of British Columbia, will have a Chicago express into the major commodities trading market of the United States and its connections — two days shorter as a result of the Chicago express.

When our forest companies go down and our mining companies go down…. Anybody else with a commodity that comes out of British Columbia can go down and say: "You know, we can get our products to you quicker than you can possibly imagine from any other area. You think we're a long way away. Well, let me tell you something. We've got this express that runs out of Prince George. We actually move this stuff through. We'll get it down to you. We'll ship you the goods and services on time so they can get into your marketplace."

CN has got this figured out. They've made a deal with Great Lakes shipping recently, and they have some other ore they need to move back out, so they want to bring it up through and out to the port of Prince Rupert into the Orient. Oh, another market to be opened up. But this one's remarkable because we're going to put a $15 million investment into the port of Prince Rupert, and CN's going to make an investment there. On top of that, they're actually going to go along that rail line and fix it, so that the tunnel is a little bit higher and so they can do double-stacking of containers and turn Prince Rupert into an international shipping port. They're going to be moving goods and services across to Rupert.

What's so important about that? It's a day and a half closer to the Orient, to the Pacific marketplace, than Vancouver or Seattle or the other ports on the west coast — a day and a half. Now we're going to move it quicker to start with, and then we're going to get it into a ship and a day and a half quicker to the Asian marketplace. You don't think that this guy wants to see his product get there quicker and get paid quicker? You don't think the guy at the other end of that wants to get that product sooner so he can get it into that huge market that he wants to sell it into and get his return on investment? This is great news for Prince Rupert. This is great news for the whole northern corridor, as far as being able to ship goods and services across the north into the gateway that we're going to build.

There's more. We have an airport in Prince George. Prince George is a hub of an area of British Columbia where you have Quesnel and Williams Lake. You have the northeast and the northwest. You have all kinds of opportunities that are going to come out of the Olympics and everything we do with resorts and everything else. What do we need to do? We need to be able to get people into these communities. So we're going to do an expansion at the Prince George regional airport, and we're putting $4 million into that to boot, as a result of this deal. That's just going to make the access and the movement of people and investment easier into Prince George and the entire north region and the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

What's even more important is that this initiative, as it was done by the Premier and the Minister of Transportation, was done with keeping the entire province of British Columbia in mind and particularly recognizing that the huge opportunities to open up the north and create jobs and opportunities up there had to be dealt with.

Let's just talk for a second about Prince George as a gateway up there. We're going to have a new office for northern development initiative, which I'm going to talk about in a second. The province is going to provide, like I said, the $4 million to the airport. A B.C. north division office will be established, ensuring better service, improved forest shippers, located so the 75 percent of B.C. forest shippers that are located within 200 miles of Prince George will particularly be affected by having that office there.

CN is also going to invest in jobs in Prince George, with a wheel shop, and make an investment in there of $1 million in a state-of-the-art wheel shop that will actually have people working in Prince George and learning another trade and bringing opportunities to that city. I'm sure as CN sees the ability of northerners just in that one wheel shop and the other things that we do, CN is going to say: "You know what? We got some other operations across North America and across these lines that should be in these communities, because we've got skilled workforces and we've got a dedicated group of people who are hard-working and committed to building the province and building and performing for us. Maybe we should invest even more and put more in there."

There are also benefits for every community along the line. We had a thing called grant in lieu of taxes that we did with regard to communities across British Columbia, where Crown corporations came through. Canadian National is actually going to start paying taxes, the level of property taxes which exponentially in communities…. I know the member from Williams Lake, the member from Prince George and the members from all along this line have already identified this in their speaking, or will do — the fact that the financial benefit of that coming into the tax base of the local community can start to enhance services at the local level for other issues and other things that they want to do in local communities with regard to this. That's important, because I think those tax dollars have to come to communities. Those tax dollars need to come to local governments so that they can do what they need to do.

There are other benefits. One that I like particularly is, just as an example — and I know it's going to happen in communities along the line — that the excess lands that aren't used for the railbed, the right-of-way and the tracks are going to be made available to the communities for redevelopment. This is just an unbelievable opportunity. Whether you take the community of Squamish, which will get about 71 acres down on the waterfront area or close to it…. Some of it is waterfront in Squamish, where they could actually do an entire redevelopment of that community, which is in between Vancouver and Whistler and at the hub of a couple of other significant resort developments that are on their way to British Columbia. So you can see that if they get that opportunity to reinvigorate an entire community with good community planning as they

build a base for their revitalization in Squamish, it will have an impact on the affordability of housing and activities all the way up and down the Sea to Sky corridor. This is good.

In Prince George they're actually going to get some land for a park, and they'll have other redevelopment opportunities in that community, as well, off the lands from B.C. Rail. If you look at the north, we're actually opening up a line that had been previously closed, so we can move the grain and other issues in and out of that area with regard to shipping and that sort of thing.

Then there is this whole concept of actually investing some of the money that comes from this particular deal in northern communities directly to northern communities — in addition to paying down the debt for all British Columbians, saving the interest for all British Columbians, saving the operating costs for all British Columbians. One of the biggest and most important things for all British Columbians is that the breadbasket of opportunity that's up there, that area of development and tax base that actually supports health care and education, needs to be supported by all British Columbians through this deal.

That's why there is going to be a number of things that take place up there. There will be $60 million divided among four regions: Prince George, the Peace, the northwest, and the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Lillooet. That's money that's going directly into those communities so those people can decide where to invest it, whether it be for the benefit of tourism, other forms of development or other types of infrastructure for the benefit of their communities. They are the people that have been there for us for a long time, feeding British Columbia with taxes and support from the rural regions.

Then there's the $50 million for a general trust to support cross-regional investments tied into this other $60 million, and a $25 million endowment with the interest used to support the operations of a northern development initiative centred in Prince George. Great stuff, because it gives people in those regions the seed capital to actually go out and come up with initiatives and ideas to build the future of their communities, build their resource-based communities and build other opportunities in there, this beautiful area of the province that they call home. It is good because there's also another $15 million for a first nations benefit trust, a trust that will go to the first nations along the line with regard to this, so that they can also seek out and go after the opportunities.

You know, some people are going to ask you about the process. Now, I'll tell you. As a member of cabinet, I can tell you that the minister and this government processed this right down the line. I know that the people who were involved, the MLAs from all across the regions, were part of a process to discuss this, to work on it, to get what was best for the people of the province where B.C. Rail served. I can tell you that we do not do process that isn't fair. We do fair process, and when the fairness commissioner reports out on this deal, I am confident that everybody will find out that this was handled properly, correctly and fairly for the benefit of all British Columbians. That's how it should be; that's how governments needs to perform when it does a deal like this.

The frustration that's put out there by our opponents in opposition is: "Darn. They did it. They actually got an unbelievable deal for British Columbians, and they kept the asset." That deal pays down debt, reinvigorates areas of the province, creates all kinds of job opportunities and opportunities for people in all areas of British Columbia, and they did it fairly. And while they did it, which was very frustrating for the opposition to this deal, they refused to breach the professional protocol of how a business deal is done with people when you have confidentiality agreements about trade information that shouldn't be shared between bidding and competing partners.

That was the process, and as we went through that process, we were really looking for four things. Community benefits. I think I've described those — up and down the track, whether it be taxation or jobs or investment opportunities or improvement of a rail line or shipping quicker and actually saving all businesses money, getting more investment and seeing this huge explosion over the next number of years in northern and central communities in British Columbia as a result of the B.C. Rail deal. I think that's probably a community benefit.

Growth opportunities. I'll tell you, you are never going to get the expansion and the growth and the shipping across the north and expansion of the port of Prince Rupert if you can't get the double containerization. If you can't get to there and move the volume of goods that everybody else can move down another rail line to compete with you, you weren't going to get there. But you are going to get there because of the investments being made in both the port and the line just on that growth opportunity alone.

Then you have the Chicago express, and then you have the reduction of costs to shippers, and then you have the certainty for the ability to move goods and services. Then you see the investment into the communities and the economic funds that have been put together — the additional taxation for local government to make decisions that may be beneficial for future development in their communities because they know the stability of their tax base. You see growth opportunities everywhere along this system, including the real estate opportunities.

You needed sustainability. You can't just go out and get any partner — can you? You actually have to find somebody who's prepared to make a significant investment, not just to purchase the relationship with us and the partnership but also to make the investment in the system, into the rail line, into the improvement of the rail line, into the moving of goods and services quicker. You needed the sustainability of a partner that could — and had a track record — be able to support the long-term economic sustainability of the province of British Columbia and the diversification of its communities where B.C. Rail was previously serving.

Then you needed somebody that could be competitive. If you had a rail service in British Columbia that was more expensive to ship than any other rail service in North America, then your people who need to ship the goods and services wouldn't be able to compete in a North American or global marketplace. You had to find a way that could happen, and we did. We have the competitiveness. The competitiveness gives us not only the competitive edge with the relationship of B.C. Rail but also that whole issue in and around improving access and reducing time, which gives us an overall, global competitive edge as British Columbians.

I don't think you can underestimate the value of this deal to British Columbia, and it's with the leadership of our Premier and our minister, as I said, that we're able to even say that today. People have to have a vision. They have to be able to see out there. Now, if you're a socialist, the vision is increasing debt, increasing debt, increasing debt. Write it off; we'll start all over. Increase the debt, increase the debt, increase the debt. Write it off, and start all over.

But for us in this government it is to take something that in actual fact should be run by somebody better who knows what they're doing. Take it and put it into an integrated relationship. Get the benefit of the value to the province of British Columbia. Pay off some debt. Put some economic funds into the kitty to help the whole province. Then, as a result of the relationship, see a long-term, sustainable economic opportunity grow in ports, airports and rail lines across the province. I prefer ours to the socialist answer.

I prefer ours because I believe that we actually care about making government work for the people of British Columbia and the Crown corporations that we have, being accountable in a way that in the long term they are sustainable. This B.C. Rail deal is something we are going to look back at, and we as members of government are never, ever going to be ashamed of it.

In summary, this is what it is: continued and public ownership. We got it; we own it. It's our land, our railbed, our tracks. No more public debt — $500 million gone — and the balance is going into investment across the province, because it's a billion-dollar deal. Some 600 new cars on top of improving 800 cars that we're already improving by the efficiencies that will be in the rail system through this partnership. Lower rates and costs to our shippers so that they can get their goods and services to the international markets at a competitive rate. Improved access to markets — to the lower mainland, internationally and into the Chicago express and through our ports — quicker, better access to save us money and to improve our opportunities to seek investment. Long-term protection of the rail network — we own it. Part of this deal is protection for the taxpayers of British Columbia for the railbed and for the right-of-way.

There is $135 million in initiatives to northern communities, including a $25 million operating endowment, $60 million divided between the four regions I spoke about and $50 million for a general trust to support cross-regional investments. Making Prince George a gateway to the north with a head office for a northern development initiative. There is $4 million to the Prince George airport and all those other activities that will come through the relationship as we move forward. Expanded municipal tax bases across the line and down the road for everybody so that they can see in their communities the benefits of having taxation for the local government to look at long-term opportunities. Major expansion of the port of Prince Rupert so we can get to the Orient a day and a half more quickly, and we can take double-stacking containers into that port and build its future as a deep-sea port, as it should be. Benefits for communities along the way with regard to the land we're making available for redevelopment for the future of these communities. A $15 million B.C. first nations benefits trust.

Last but not least — and I didn't mention it in my remarks — are tourism opportunities and passenger services that no longer exist on these lines. We had investors waiting for this deal to be done so they can now enter into long-term relationships for tourism trains and passenger trains up and down this line. People will be going to Whistler. People will be going to Prince George and Prince Rupert and over to Jasper in tourism and passenger trains, because we will have people investing that actually understand tourism and passenger trains in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand in this House and support this deal, support this bill and support my Premier and the Minister of Transportation, and to thank them for the leadership they've shown in building a great future for transportation infrastructure in British Columbia.

R. Visser: I just wanted to stand in support of this bill for a couple of minutes. As this policy was developing and the rollout came last week and the legislation was tabled, there were a lot of folks questioning my enthusiasm for it. They were just saying: "Rod, why are you so enthusiastic about this? What does it mean for the North Island?" I thought it was time I stood up here and talked a little bit about thinking big, because I think that's what this deal is about — thinking big. Here's why it works for British Columbia, and here's why it works for the North Island.

If you get on the ferry at six in the morning in Port Hardy, you'll be in Prince Rupert sometime later that night, give or take a couple of hours. Our two communities are completely connected to each other through a whole series of ways, but one of the vital links is the ferry. Part of this announcement had an RFP attached to it for passenger service from Prince Rupert through to Jasper. I keep thinking about that, and I keep thinking about the opportunities that are going to open up because of this kind of bold initiative.

That ferry is very important to Port Hardy. It fills up hotels. It fills up tourism operations. People get on a bus. They do bus tours. People get in their motor homes. They get on their motorbikes. They hitchhike. They drive their cars. They come to Port Hardy, and

they stay for a day, for a couple of days or for three days. Sometimes they go whale-watching. Sometimes they take in some first nations cultural events. They do some sightseeing. They may do a bit of hiking around Cape Scott. They may take a little drive out to Holberg. There's a myriad of things you can do up there.

We've been trying to draw people into our region for a long time. One of the ways we've done it is to pass them through to Prince Rupert or, conversely, the other way. I'm thinking about this, and, you know, Prince Rupert has struggled for a long time. Port Hardy has struggled for a long time from an economic perspective. They're both fishing towns. They both have strong connections to the forest industry, and they both have felt the bumps and grinds of the economy — the global economy — over the past few years. So the North Island has adopted this notion that what's good for Prince Rupert is good for the North Island. What's good for Prince Rupert is good for Port Hardy.

The simple fact that somebody, the provincial government, is going to invest $17.5 million in the container port facility in Prince Rupert, and CN is going to do another $15 million of upgrades to the port and the track, and then they're going to put out an RFP for passenger service to try and make better use of that track to bring in another partner that can deliver that type of service…. All of those things add up to some pretty important bonuses for us. It's going to make Prince Rupert stronger. There's going to be more people in Prince Rupert. There's going to be more goods going to Prince Rupert, more folks wanting to travel there, more folks wanting to come down to the Island. It's more traffic on the ferries.

One of the things that the Premier said and the Minister of Transportation has said, and one of the things that we're working on with trying to bring in private sector partners, is: "Increase the ferry service to Prince Rupert from Port Hardy." That doesn't come without its challenges. In a roundabout but very direct way, the B.C. Rail announcement is good for daily service to Prince Rupert.

Now, is government going to solve this problem? No, it's not. It never will. We don't have enough money. We couldn't print enough money. We can't invent enough money. We can't wish, conjure or otherwise direct enough money to solve this problem. But the private sector can. If you give them the fundamentals and give them the opportunity, they can make it work.

Think of this. In 2010 and in the years leading up to 2010 and the Olympics in Vancouver, we're going to have the eyes of the world on us. We're going to want to attract people here. We in the North Island know that we've got a lot to offer. We've got skiing. We've got the great summer outdoor activities. We've got great winter activities. We know we can get our fair share of those folks from around the world to come to our part of the region. We know that if we've got the facilities and there's opportunity out there, the private sector is going to come and take advantage of that. We know that if we can get them to our area and we can get the private sector there and we can get service increased because these people are here, we're going to get more people onto that train that might go to Jasper.

Think about this. You land in Vancouver. You come over to Victoria. Maybe there's a private sector partner that figures out how to make the E&N work one of these days, and you can get to Courtenay, and you've got to get from Courtenay to Port Hardy. We'll find you a way to get there. You get off there and get onto a ferry from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. You spend a day travelling through the Inside Passage, through some of the most spectacular scenery in the world. You get off at Prince Rupert, and you spend a couple of days there. You visit the old cannery. You visit historic Prince Rupert, and then you get on the train and travel from there across north central British Columbia to a place like Jasper or somewhere else. Then you carry on from Jasper to Calgary or some other place like that, and you get back on your plane and fly home. What a great trip. What a trip of a lifetime.

That can happen now. That has the potential now. It didn't have that potential before. It does now because the government thought, and the government knows, that if we get out of the way and if we create this opportunity, our options are endless. The options for the private sector are endless. It's up to them to find this money. It's up to them to create the service. It's up to them to market it. It's up to them to reach out to the world. We've got all of the tools now to help plug this in one step at a time. That's why the billion-dollar deal for B.C. Rail is good for the North Island. It's pretty simple. You make the economy better in Prince Rupert, you provide better services, and things are going to get that much better incrementally in Port Hardy. They get a little better in Port Hardy, and guess what. They get a little better in Campbell River. They get a little better in Campbell River, and they're going to be a little better in Courtenay. They get a little better in Courtenay, and they'll get a little better maybe down Parksville way. They get a little better in Parksville, and by the time you get to Victoria — you know what? — we've got the package together.

R. Visser: I'm just going to talk about the Island, because it's important that people on the Island understand we're a pretty big province and that we're pretty interconnected and the opportunities aren't isolated. They're not parochial. There are lots of little opportunities where we are, but if you start pushing them together and piecing them together, inviting the private sector in, those opportunities become endless. That's what B.C. Rail does for my constituency and those folks in Port Hardy. I thank the Premier and I thank the minister and all those folks in the government caucus

that made this work. Our lives are going to get a little better because of this.

J. Wilson: This is probably the best thing I have seen happen in all the time I've been around here. The B.C. Rail deal was the right thing to do. Once it was put out, there was some opposition to it. We had a lot of people question this before it came out, and when it came out, those with an open mind said: "Hey, this is a very good thing." Those that criticized what we're doing are probably the same group of people that believe in spending — deficit spending taxpayers' money. They probably believe that money grows on trees, that there's never any end to it. Realistically, they do realize it doesn't grow on trees. It's just that there's no consideration for our children and our grandchildren and the debt they will have to carry if we continue to deficit spend. We as a government recognize the importance of getting this economy going again. This is something I see as probably one of the biggest and best things that's happened to British Columbia in a long, long time.

Now, you've heard all of the good things about what this deal does for British Columbia. I want to maybe put a little different spin on it, from a riding perspective. Cariboo North sits pretty well right in the middle of British Columbia, and B.C. Rail is our supplier for freight and has been for passenger service. I live right beside the tracks, and for a number of years now I've watched the company go backwards. Ten years ago, eight years ago, the rail line was doing fairly well. We had passenger service, we had intermodal service, and we had trains that were carrying freight.

That has sort of slowly but steadily vanished. We still have trains carrying freight, but that is all we have. I watch those trains. They go south. They're loaded with lumber, sulphur, coal or whatever comes down. When they come back, they're empty. All of that freight is moved one way. It's a one-way system. They're coming back empty, and that's a costly thing.

For a number of years we had a passenger service, and we had Budd cars that ran up and down the line. In the summertime they would be reasonably well filled up, in tourist season, but they ran through the winter. Many, many times I've watched them rattle by, and there might be two or three heads you can see in the windows. The rest of the cars were empty. No company, no business can operate that way and stay in the black. It was a costly thing to operate.

The intermodal service. The freights coming back from the south would be carrying trucks to be picked up wherever they were dropped off, at rail destinations. The freight to take those trucks north, no doubt, was cheaper than it would be to put two trucks on the highway. As things sort of went downhill, the freight trains became shorter. We used to always have one or two pots in the middle of that train pushing as well as pulling. You'd have three or four locomotives up front, and halfway back there would be one or two. Those freight trains were very, very long. They have shortened up. Over the last two years they have shortened up continually to now where we only need to have usually three locomotives on the front.

We recognized there was a big problem in this company, so we went out and talked to the communities. We talked to the municipal leaders, and we talked to the people that rely on the rail service, the shippers. They said: "You need to correct this. You need to do something with it." What you see today, Mr. Speaker, is the result of those consultations. We can look forward to getting the interior and the north back on a good, sound economic footing. The fact that we sold it for a billion dollars, paid off the debt and are reinvesting that money into northern infrastructure is going to be what makes the north become the economic engine of British Columbia again.

As these freights got smaller, it was because the company could not supply the cars to the shippers. What happened? The shippers had to go and rely on the trucking industry. Now, the trucking industry is a great industry in this province; it's a huge industry. We can be thankful they're there. They create a lot of employment. The problem is that we're running on a highway system in the interior that was built 40 or 50 years ago. The maintenance today on that highway is probably better than it has been, that I can remember, in the last 12 years. We're putting more money out for better road maintenance, and that's a good thing. In the meantime this railway, once it's operating and delivering the goods and services, will take up some of the truck traffic that we're seeing increasing at an alarming rate on our northern roads.

That truck traffic all relates to safety. The northern interior in British Columbia has got a fatality rate that is 2.6 times the provincial average, and those are hard numbers to live with. This is the first step in creating our highways that will be safer for the motoring public. We can take that excess freight and work it back into the rail system so that the shippers can get better delivery times and cheaper rates.

There is another aspect to this deal that hasn't been…. It's been touched on, but…. In my riding and Quesnel, where I live, we have a neighbouring community to our east. It's Wells, and just outside Wells is Barkerville. Barkerville is the jewel of British Columbia heritage. It is the home of the gold rush in the Cariboo, and it has been having its problems in the last few years. Numbers are not increasing the way they should be. Costs keep going up, and we have to do something to address that.

I see this. We have put proposals out for rail service. I really believe that when those proposals come in, they are going to incorporate all of the advantages we have in the interior and the north into a package, and one of those could be Barkerville. In the Chilcotin we have wonderful recreational holiday opportunities for people that are travelling through when they plan a holiday. They can do the same thing if they wish to go and visit historic Barkerville. It's a wonderful place to go and a wonderful place to see.

By putting a transportation system such as this in place, we will allow for the continued improvement

and growth in all of our tourist industry. There are opportunities out there, whether it be back-country opportunities that people want to take a side trip on or whether they want to go and visit Barkerville. All of these things will become interconnected, I believe, with a good, solid passenger service which can then go, as we say, to Rupert. It can go up through the interior or go east to the Prairies.

In the end everyone will benefit — whether it's the tourist operators, the people that come to British Columbia to see this wonderful province or the people that live and work here — through better freight rates and better services. By developing a container facility in Prince Rupert, we are completing an infrastructure that has been lacking for very many years in this province. I see only good things happening, coming out of this. With that, I would like to relinquish the floor to my colleagues here and let them have a word.

R. Harris: I was just thinking, sitting here listening to some of the members speaking today, of a comment that the member for North Island made when he opened his remarks. He said: "Thinking big. This whole act is about thinking big." The member that just spoke talked about this as the best thing to happen since he's been in the House, been in government. That is actually what this bill is about. It's about thinking big. A lot of people before me, the members before me, have talked about the details of this agreement. I think what I want to talk about and spend a bit of time on is the benefits of it, because it is about thinking big.

I think the minister and her staff did an absolutely incredible job of crafting and negotiating a deal that is one of the most thoughtful and strategic plans for economic development in the north that any government in this province has ever put forward. That is important, and we need to get that. During the last couple of months, when all of us have been reading ad nauseam all of the criticisms from the different media and different groups working to their own agendas, this minister and her staff stayed focused.

They stayed focused on what people like the mayors council said, stayed focused on what members of this House said, stayed focused on what the shippers council was saying, and they continued to negotiate and craft a deal that's going to pay dividends for every part of this province for a long, long time to come. As a matter of fact, I think it creates the framework that northern communities have been looking for, for decades. As the member for North Island referred to, it actually benefits the entire province, and that's important.

I also want to congratulate and thank the Premier of this province for keeping two very important promises. One we've heard a lot about is the promise not to sell B.C. Rail. There's no doubt the integrity of the asset base remains under the control of the province, with the retention of the tracks, the right-of-way and the railbed. But he kept a more fundamental promise, and that was a promise I know he made to myself, to the other northern MLAs, to the communities, to the mayors and to the people of this province — that he would listen. He would actually listen to what it is those of us in northern communities have been looking for, for a long time, and that's just for an opportunity.

This agreement really builds on that. For years right across the north, you know, we've talked about what we need to revitalize our communities. With this announcement, what it puts in place is the infrastructure and the tools every community in the north and the interior needs to actually start to craft their own future. I want to spend a little time talking about that.

I've lived in one northern community or another for most of my life. I can remember when I first moved to Terrace back in 1990. I was in the fuel business then — a rather honourable profession, not unlike the Minister of Energy and Mines — and a lot of our business was moving product up Highway 37. The amount of business we did up there was incredible. We used to go to an airstrip at Bob Quinn Lake. Bob Quinn Lake is in the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine's riding. It was one of the busiest airports in British Columbia, moving product, fuel and all sorts of different supplies into different mining camps. Snip mine was going at the time, and a variety of other exploration operations were going. It was a going concern. Companies like J.T. Thomas out of Smithers…. We used to haul fuel to them, fill up drums, and they'd take it out to sites where they were doing mining and exploration work.

The business I had, to be honest, was actually one of the small players in the game. The activity up that highway was incredible. We used to deliver fuel into Stewart to go into bladders to be flown into Red Mountain. Stewart is in the member for North Coast's riding, another really active place. I have a friend of mine, Bob McKay, in Stewart. I can tell you that there weren't enough hours in the day or days in the week for him to continue to provide and support the mining industry that operated up Highway 37, an incredibly going concern. Businesses in Terrace like Finning, Coast Tractor, L.E.J. and Inland Kenworth, constantly up Highway 37, servicing the industries, servicing the mining community, servicing the logging that was going on. It was an incredibly active part of the world.

Then came the NDP government. What started to happen? In came the regulations, the taxation, decisions like Windy Craggy. Yeah. Land use decisions and processes that went on and on. In the end, decisions to please the urban conscience of the south were made at the expense of northern rural communities, places that we called home. Then they took that same kind of thinking and applied it to the forest industry. First, we had the Forest Practices Code. That added over a billion dollars of cost to the industry while providing little or no benefit. The ever-famous jobs and timber accord — or maybe job loss and timber accord — just built on one failure after another.

You know, when you work and operate in the forest industry in an area like the northwest, where the timber profile we have…. You start adding that kind of cost. Road construction contractors start to see costs

increasing in the range of 300 percent, because these guys thought it was a pretty good idea. It just kills the industries. It took the cost of doing business in logging from the lowest-cost fibre producer in 1990, and on the coast by 1999 we were the highest cost in the world. We wonder today why the industry struggles.

When I hear the two members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and for Vancouver-Hastings rail away about how they're defending northern communities, it gets a little bit under my skin. Maybe they're representing the far-reaching regions of the northern portion of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or northern Vancouver-Hastings. Quite frankly, they haven't got a clue about the needs of rural communities, and they never have. More important, I don't think they really ever cared.

Maybe if they actually did represent northern communities — no, any rural community — there wouldn't just be two of them here in the House today. Their version of representing rural interests is to tell us what's good for us, and if we don't like it, it's too bad.

Well, under this government and this Premier, things have changed. When we first got elected, the Premier appointed a northern caucus, which I chair. Right off the bat we went out and started to talk with and engage the organizations in the north. The North Central Municipal Association — that's every municipality from 100 Mile House north. It covers 70 percent of the province, and regional districts too.

We went and talked to the northwest travel treaty organization. That's about 50 first nations bands that cover from the Charlottes to Prince George. We became a member and sat on the board of directors of the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation — that's an organization made up of 50 percent municipal and business leaders out of Alberta, in reasonably similar composition in British Columbia — to talk about and try to identify projects in the north that actually are going to start to make the changes that we're looking for, the changes that are going to let us start to actually reach our full potential.

It became very much from the get-go a realization that we had to do a couple of things. The first thing was that we had to revitalize the resource industries, because at the end of the day those are still going to be the industries that our communities depend on. But more importantly, we had to change the economic platform of rural communities. We had to bring in the infrastructure that actually allowed communities to diversify, to expand their job base, to create those playing fields that would allow communities to go out and reach out and attract entirely new investment.

What did we do? Well, two and a half years later, the Minister of Energy and Mines developed a comprehensive energy plan. He instituted a number of changes — changes to the royalty and regulatory environment, to taxes — which have all resulted in the largest gas sale ever in the history of this province, most of which is being spent in rural communities. The new royalty regime he's instituting for undeveloped basins ensures that all future gas and oil development is not going to be just in the northeast but actually is going to spread that benefit across the whole province. That's actually important.

He's changed the way B.C. Hydro operates. First, he's put in legislation that B.C. Hydro can never be sold or privatized. That's important. It's important to the people of this province; it's important to the government. Second, he's opened up opportunities to independent power producers, meeting the growing demand for domestic power for our future. This has resulted in over $800 million of new investment into this province on 17 different projects, of which 15 are in rural communities.

I notice that the two members from the northern reaches of Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings voted against all of these initiatives, against this investment and against those jobs. I find that interesting for members who claim to have the interests of the north at heart.

This government has also moved to restore confidence in the mining industry. We've improved access to the land, made a number of tax changes, and improved the regulatory and permitting process without reducing standards — all of which has seen some pretty good positive results. Investment and exploration in this province, which stood at over $200 million in 1990, had shrunk to less than $6 million by 1999. It's now back up to about $50 million a year. It might even be a little more. Those are pretty good results.

We've seen in the last year the number of claims staked in the northwest go from 2,500 last year to over 10,500. That's pretty good. I also notice, though, that those members seem to vote against all of those initiatives. I find that kind of curious also.

We brought in changes to the forest legislation to finally try and help that industry become more competitive. First of all, we moved away from the prescriptive forest practices act and brought in a new forest and range act. It actually allows people in the industry to use their experience and knowledge to accomplish — in fact, achieve — higher standards than we had in the past with less cost. That's actually what we're supposed to be doing — measuring by objectives, not telling people how to do it. You unleash people's ingenuity; you unleash their opportunity. It's amazing what they'll accomplish.

We're also reallocating fibre to more smaller, community-based operators — community forest licences, woodlots, small business programs, salvage operators and first nations. These are all community-based operators that hire locally and purchase locally. They live in our towns and communities. That's actually how you restore confidence in the resource industries. In most cases, they're lower-cost operators. You'll notice those two voted against that too. They voted against that opportunity; they voted against those jobs. It never ceases to amaze me.

Rural communities see all of this stuff as important. We brought in working forest, land-based legislation. It does a couple of things. First of all, it ensures that pub-

lic land stays public. That's pretty important. We hear that every day. It also ensured that no single group would monopolize the landscape. It actually opens the land to everyone. That's important to rural communities. We need that security of access. That's where we derive our livelihoods from.

We've actually taken some pretty important steps. We're restoring confidence, opportunity and investment in the resource industries, and that's what rural communities have been asking for, much to the chagrin of those two members. Rural communities have been asking governments for help in a more strategic way. They need government to help change that economic platform, which I talked about earlier. We need to move away from the boom-and-bust cycles that for decades have been the history of our communities.

Reaching our full potential means allowing rural communities to be in a position to go out and engage in new opportunities, to be able to attract investment in industries that not only complement the resource industries we have in our towns today but in fact allow us to attract entirely new businesses to those communities. That is at the heart of the discussion of diversification and diversifying economies.

Believe me, in the north we talk about this all the time. In fact, in most rural communities the benefits of the CN partnership reach far beyond just a partnership in rail. In fact, for the first time it puts in place the tools we need. In my mind, it actually builds on and completes the transportation strategy that this minister introduced last year — the $610 million northern rural roads strategy.

In September, when I was in the member from South Peace's riding to attend the oil and gas conference…. I drove from Terrace to Dawson Creek and actually drove to the north side of the river to Fort St. John. You can't drive for 20 minutes in the north this year without coming across new pavement, bridge work and corners being straightened. I'll tell you, in that member's riding there's nothing but new pavement. The northeast is actually blacktop, the whole place.

It's an incredible initiative, but this CN partnership builds on that in a number of ways. It puts in place the infrastructure that now allows every community across the north equal access to the fastest-growing economies in the world in Asia — in fact, one would argue, possibly even an advantage. Every community in the north now has two gateways that give them that competitive advantage.

We always used to talk about our large tracts of inexpensive land, available low-cost housing, well-trained workforce and uncluttered infrastructure. Those tools now have a whole new meaning for rural communities. A container port in Prince Rupert gives us a competitive advantage in shipping time to Asia from ports in Vancouver, Seattle, Los Angeles — in fact, every port on the west coast. That was identified by every group in the north as the number one infrastructure project we needed to start to change the dynamics of how we look.

One of the obstacles in the past to attracting business along the Highway 16 corridor on rail actually has been the cost. The reduction of shipping times across the CN network by 30 percent within this province and 35 percent into the Midwest, as well as a 7 percent reduction in costs on all the interline traffic, ensures that our products will move to markets sooner, saving money for both suppliers and customers.

The expansion of the PG airport. You put that together with the introduction of passenger rail service from Prince Rupert right through to Prince George, Jasper and into Vancouver, as the member for North Island talked about, and the whole movement of people is huge. Couple that with the 32 cruise ships that are going to end up in the member for North Coast's riding next summer and with the construction and operation of that cruise ship dock this year, and you can start to visualize in a very big way what this means for communities across the north. We're going to have an international airport in Prince George. We're going to bring tourists right into the northern region. My riding is in Terrace. But it's that connection that we're going to make. This announcement strategically deals with all of those issues — the movement of people, products and services in a way that just makes a lot of sense.

For me, one of the most exciting parts of this deal is what it actually now means for rail service in the north. For years now B.C. Rail has not had the capacity to expand. This new partnership with CN ensures that we now have a partner in rail service that has the capacity to expand. I can tell you that I talk to people in Alaska quite often, and they're pretty excited about this opportunity. They're excited about the opportunity to sit down with a rail partner in British Columbia that has the means and the wherewithal to look at expanding rail service.

Imagine bringing rail across out of Fort St. James, up to Dease Lake and through Iskut, Tatogga. For those folks this is pretty important. It opens up a whole region of this province today that's significantly underserved in terms of infrastructure. For the people that live there, not only is it important for their resource industries and for tourism, but it actually gives them another way of travelling. That's kind of important to them. It should be important to us.

Through a partnership, one of the benefits — and a lot of the members have talked about it today — is the $135 million that's going to be put into northern development initiatives. And $15 million will go into each region — $50 million across the north for projects that meet a more global aspect. That funding formula alone creates a dynamic that gets northern communities talking and planning how they're actually going to use that. It's seed money that allows communities to learn how we're going to tap into this new opportunity.

What is the new opportunity? It's an integrated system. Every town and every community — first nations, non–first nations — has a unique opportunity to tap into an Asian market, to come into the lower

mainland, to go into other regions of the province and to actually talk to industries and businesses about locating in the north. We now have a tremendous advantage, and it's really time for communities, economic development officers, mayors and regions to sit down and look ahead and say that in 2006 the dynamics of the north are going to change significantly. They are going to change in a way that we never could have imagined even 12 months ago. It is the visionary stuff — to sit down and look at their community and say: "What is it we want to become?"

We now actually have all the tools in the tool shed. We have a highway system that this minister started upgrading a year ago, which is just first-class. It helps every industry that operates on it become more competitive. It reduces travel time and reduces wear on equipment. We're going to have a rail system that's going to offer competitive rates, reduced shipping times, access for communities that allows communities to look at themselves entirely differently. We're going to have two gateways — to the Midwest and continental U.S. and into Asia, the fastest-growing markets in the world. Any industry and business that operates in this province or anywhere and that has a chance to get closer to their market so they can save money, reduce their costs and become more profitable — there's that word again — is only good news. It's also an incredible drawing card for each community.

We're going to have a new infrastructure system that talks about moving people. From an international airport in Prince George, to cruise ship docks in Prince Rupert, to daily ferry sailings from Vancouver Island into Prince Rupert, and the Alaska ferry — there are so many connections happening here that the opportunities are absolutely endless for those folks that want to talk about moving people and creating tourist opportunities, combining the whole aspect of rail, air, highway. It's endless. Believe me, those folks will figure that one out real quick.

Then you throw in the 2010 Olympics on top of this — and the fact that we'll be profiling this province to the world. This is a classic example, in my mind, of the stars starting to align and, for the people of the north in rural communities, a real opportunity. It is going to be very important, as we move ahead, that people and communities actually start to look at what their opportunities are and start to decide what it is they want to be. It's not going to be the provincial government's job to tell you what your town should be. That's actually going to be yours.

We're now going to have a strong rail operator that's capable of expanding the service, partnering with Alaska, moving rail service potentially into the Northwest Territories. These are growing regions; expanding and increasing the service within the province to open up more of our resources. Up Highway 37, you get up by Eskay, and it's been termed the golden triangle. There are significant copper and gold deposits. There are opportunities around tourism there. There are some unique adventures. We've got pipelines coming into Alaska and down the Mackenzie. There's going to be a need to ship those materials, and rail is the logical choice. This is an incredibly visionary, solid and thoughtful plan.

It bothers me to no end to listen to those two members of the opposition rail away on a regular basis about how they're representing northern communities, because they're doing anything but that. In fact, they just continue to vote against anything that provides us with those accesses to the tools we need to finally take charge, as communities, of our destiny. That's important.

If the Leader of the Opposition and her associate from Mount Pleasant truly believe they speak for northerners, they should have the courage to stand up in this House and vote yes for the literally thousands of jobs this is going to create in northern B.C. They should vote yes for the thousands — millions — of dollars of investment this partnership and the benefits from it are going to bring to this province, vote yes for the opportunity for rural communities to finally have a say in crafting their future and how their towns are going to look. I think that's pretty important. I'm actually hoping they do want to speak up for northern communities. I hope they have the courage to not listen to their new leader, who thinks this is a bad idea, and actually vote yes. I'll tell you, when it comes time to vote, that's what I'm going to vote. I hope they're right there with us.

H. Bloy: It's an honour to stand up here today and support this bill with all of my colleagues on the government side of the House here to listen. So many people have spoken today that are from the north, that are following the rail lines around British Columbia. These are the people we should be listening to, the people who represent the people in these communities that are truly going to benefit by this minister doing this deal with CN. This is long-term planning. There's no short gain here. This is for the benefit of all British Columbians.

There are a couple of points I'd like to reiterate, which my fellow members have spoken about. Then I want to be able to tell the House about my summer holidays this past summer and how I believe it will really improve over the summers to come with B.C. Rail.

B.C. Rail will continue to be in public ownership. There will be no more public debt to the province. It will be eliminated by this deal. There will be 600 new railcars. That's one of the biggest concerns I heard from my members in the north — that there were not always cars available when they needed them to move their product.

There will be lower rates and costs. What can we say about lower rates and costs? This is the competition. This is by bringing in a professional person to run the rail line. CN is going to lower the costs for our suppliers in this province. We're going to have improved access to markets. That's been well explained.

We have long-term protection of our rail networks. Just to reiterate, we are not privatizing B.C. Rail. We own the railbed, the rails and the right-of-way. Prince

George becomes the gateway to the north. The head office will be situated in the north, in Prince George where the people work, where the B.C. Rail main lines and railway are running.

There will be a major expansion of the Prince Rupert port. There'll be new benefits for Squamish. There'll be $15 million from B.C. Rail for the first nations benefits trust. There'll be new tourism and passenger service in this province. B.C. Rail and CN are issuing a request for proposals to develop new passenger tourist train service. This will create hundreds of jobs in the hospitality sector.

I know that many people want to speak today, but this past summer, for my summer holidays, I went on a trip. I was on the Rocky Mountaineer train from Vancouver to Calgary. My wife and I met another couple there. We rented a vehicle, and we drove from Calgary to Banff to Jasper and across British Columbia to Prince Rupert. We did this over about 14 days, enjoying the beauty of British Columbia. From Prince Rupert, we took the Inside Passage ferry from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy on the only day it rained this summer. It rained torrential rains when we were on the Inside Passage ferry, but we truly enjoyed the trip. Then from Port Hardy, we drove down to Victoria. But the best part of the trip was the train portion going through the Canadian Rockies and in British Columbia.

When we talk about tourism, to have the ability to get on a train and go from Vancouver to Whistler, from Whistler to Prince George, from Prince George to Prince Rupert, from Prince Rupert to Jasper and possibly from Prince George into Alaska, as I've heard from other members…. I find this such a remarkable ability for British Columbia to enjoy itself from within but not only that, to invite the world to come to British Columbia and to hook up to this rail system and enjoy all the benefits that British Columbia has to offer.

It was quite a summer holiday. I just wanted to tell the House about it, and I look forward to doing it more so by train within British Columbia over the next couple of years. I'm pleased and proud to stand here today and support the Premier and the minister on the initiatives to make this happen, to make something happen that's right for British Columbia.

Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak in support of this bill and this marvellous initiative of government. I've had the chance over the past few days to listen to a number of great speeches in this House by my colleagues. I suppose I could say I adopt all of what they say. But maybe what I mean to say is that I thought I might start my remarks about this initiative from a slightly unusual place.

Mr. Speaker, you and I have exchanged jokes from time to time about rural and urban British Columbians and what it means to be connected to the forest industry and the heartlands of British Columbia. I was thinking about that when I reflected on the fact that if my father were alive, today would be his seventy-sixth birthday.

He was born on December 1, 1927. He lived pretty well all his life in Vancouver, as did his father before him, but for a couple of brief interludes — one when he was born in Toronto and then another about 25 years later when he lived in Burlington, Ontario, when I came along. My father, just about on his twenty-first birthday, lost his own father very suddenly and took over his dad's business. This was in the summer, or thereabouts, of 1949. At that point, my grandfather had been in business for about 20 years, operating out of the Metropolitan Building on Hastings Street in Vancouver what had become a profitable and successful, although small, wholesale lumber company.

My father took that business on in 1949 and soon took on a partner — my great uncle, Jack Hetherington. Between them as partners and with the help of others over time, they operated and built that business over the next four decades until at one point in the 1970s, the company that was Ralph S. Plant Ltd., which became Plant Forest Products Corp., was the largest independent wholesale lumber company in North America.

What does that have to do with a rail bill and with B.C. Rail? I think it might not be much of a stretch for me to say that food appeared on my plate when I was growing up in Vancouver in the 1950s and 1960s because lumber was travelling in railcars all around North America as a result of the work that my dad and his partner and others in the company did. That was what my dad did. When he got up in the morning, he went downtown to an office and travelled the province. All day long he would get on the phone to sawmills and plywood mills and lumber mills around the province and offer to buy boxcars of 2-by-4s and other products and then look around the world but mainly just around North America to the lumberyards in Chicago, contractors and building constructors in eastern Canada and in the southeast of the United States. He'd look for someone to buy that lumber.

We used to go down to his office on the weekends, and we'd see these big charts on the wall. They'd show where the boxcars were starting from, and they'd show where they were going to end up. There were boxcars filled with 2-by-4s, filled with the forest products of this province. Really, it was his ability to use the rail lines of this province that created his livelihood. It was a big part of the livelihood of his father before him, and it helped build this business that was, for a long, long time, a very successful business.

I've been thinking about that. I've been thinking about all the towns my dad used to drive to when I was a kid. Occasionally I got to go on these trips with him. We'd go up and down the roads, but we'd go up and down the roads to visit mills and customers and suppliers, and they were all mills and customers and suppliers that had their mills on rail lines. They had their mills on the PGE line or the BCR. They had their mills on CPR or CNR lines. For most of the decades after the Second World War and even up until now, it was the railway and the ability the railway offered to

the forest industry to take that product and deliver it anywhere in North America that was such a hugely important part of how this province was built and became, for such a long time, the economic powerhouse that it was.

It's more than just my father, although it's really my dad I'm thinking about today. In fact, in my wife's family, my wife's father was born and raised in Squamish. Although a product of a small town in British Columbia, he went on to earn his PhD and worked for DuPont as a research chemist. I think he was a member of the research team that invented the product known as Dacron. My wife's father grew up in this town where, in fact, his father was building one of those last stretches of rail line that took so long to build between North Vancouver and Prince George. I don't think the line from North Vancouver to Prince George was actually finally completed until 1956, over 40 years after it had been commenced. My wife's grandfather worked helping to build that rail line.

Like many British Columbians who may live in an urban setting, where I come from, my background is pretty closely connected to the industries that made this province great. For many, many years, lumber products were the mainstay of the revenue of the PGE, then B.C. Rail. What is so exciting about this initiative — and I know that if my dad were around, he would see the excitement — is the fact that it opens up opportunities to ensure that as we go into the twenty-first century, this rail line will continue to be an economic driver. In fact, it will grow and develop into an even more powerful engine for economic growth throughout this province.

I think that if my dad were around and looking at this transaction, he could talk from a pretty informed base of experience about how important it was to each of his suppliers up the lines of the different railroads that they had a dependable rail service, that they had an operator of that rail service that was prepared to make a commitment to invest in the track, was prepared to make an investment to improve service and to keep service at affordable levels. He would see in this transaction of this government, I think, a very exciting opportunity to build a new future for rail transportation in British Columbia that would maintain intact that important need to depend on secure access to rail transportation, to build on it and allow it to grow in all the ways my colleagues have talked about as we move forward into the twenty-first century.

I think that part of what's exciting to me about this, and it was part of what was exciting about growing up in British Columbia, was this sense that we were still building a great province and that the work of building this province had not stopped. Because of this initiative, we are going to be even better placed in the years to come to continue to build this province. This transaction offers all kinds of great opportunities for some communities that were pretty important to my dad.

I remember the first time he visited Prince Rupert, coming home and showing us pictures of how he got there, and I think it was on a barge with boxcars on it that he took up the coast. I think he'd be pretty darned excited to see the commitment this government is prepared to make, because of this transaction, to the full development of the potential that has always existed to build a strong port in Prince Rupert, a port that can now serve twenty-first century port needs.

For a long time my dad and some of his partners operated a small truss joist plant in Prince George, and I know my dad would be excited to see how this transaction contains within it a strong commitment by CN and by government to the town of Prince George and the economic opportunities that lie in front of it. I remember that once my mom and dad went on a long road trip that took them up to Prince George and almost as far west as Prince Rupert. I was not much more than a boy, but that was the first time I remember hearing the mantra about the roads in the north, which is so regularly a part of what I hear from my colleagues who represent northern constituencies in this House.

I am certain that the opportunity created by the northern development initiative, which is part of this transaction, would be regarded and will be regarded by all British Columbians as a great signal of this government's commitment to build a strong north, to give the north the tools it needs to grow into the twenty-first century.

This bill and the transaction that gives rise to this bill represent just an amazing leap forward of vision into a future where we recognize that our work as builders of a province is not done, that there are great things we can do and will do if only we have the tools. I think this bill and the transaction that it supports have those tools. It's a tremendously exciting opportunity and an opportunity that's going to benefit not just the communities that are directly served by this rail line but all British Columbians.

I'm also delighted that as a result of this billion-dollar investment in British Columbia, the government is going to be able to set aside $15 million for the benefit of those 25 first nations whose communities are neighbours to the B.C. Rail corridor. This initiative represents and is exemplary of government's continuing commitment to ensure that first nations are active, full participants in the economic life and development of this province.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a model of trust that will give first nations the ability to control how these dollars are used in a way that will provide the maximum benefit for either business enterprises of one kind or another — to enhance cultural development perhaps, specifically by protecting and promoting languages, and also education advancement in areas like aboriginal youth apprenticeship and other areas. I think this $15 million trust fund can make a real difference in the lives of aboriginal people, and I certainly support that part of the transaction.

It really is a day, anyway, for me of some personal reflection to think how the forest industry, the rail in-

dustry and rail transportation, which were pretty critical to my family's early years in this province, were critically important to the way we grew up and where and how, and the prosperity that we enjoyed and were fortunate enough to enjoy as a family when we grew up…. All those things are as excitingly a part of our future as they are, importantly, a part of our past.

The leadership that the Premier and the minister have shown in moving forward with this very important transaction is and ought to be commended. I think it is a legacy of this government. It may be one of the single most important legacies of this government, and I wish the minister the best of luck as she continues to do the work in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that the promise in this legislation and the possibility of this transaction become as real as I know they can be, and as soon as that can possibly happen.

I am delighted to join with my colleagues in congratulating the Premier and the minister on this initiative. If my dad were around, I'm sure he'd be joining his voice and clapping his hands in the chorus of enthusiasm that British Columbians are building for this tremendously exciting initiative.

V. Roddick: Bill 89 is putting confidence back into British Columbia — the wonderful historical confidence my colleague from Richmond-Steveston so delightfully described. What really matters is that we have a government, led by a Premier with courage and vision, that is caring, competent and true to its word, a government that will properly manage our hard-earned tax dollars.

We promised to ensure that our rural communities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, have the health and education services they need, have jobs to sustain themselves and their families. To do this, we need to fix our broken economy to tell the rest of the country, the rest of the world, that we are open for business and ready for investment.

We promised to focus resources on improving northern and rural transportation. To do this, we need to fix our broken economy to tell the rest of the country, the rest of the world, we're open for business and ready for investment. As a result, we are opening up oil and gas exploration, encouraging mineral exploration, streamlining our forestry, and promoting clean and renewable alternative energy sources. All of these resources need an infrastructure second to none.

Our Minister of Transportation is working on an overall provincial transportation plan. Delta South is a perfect example of goods, services, people and agriculture having to coexist. We, too, depend on our province owning British Columbia Rail basic assets, with coal and containers running out of Roberts Bank. To do this, we need to fix our broken economy to tell the rest of the country, the rest of the world, we're open for business and ready for investment.

I sat on core review. B.C. Rail was in deep, deep trouble. It had been bled dry by the socialists. Not only has this province under these socialists written down $800 million, which my colleague from Chilliwack-Sumas so clearly stated we'll be paying interest on for generations, but there was no possibility for enough profits to become available for the necessary upgrading of the entire system, which was left to deteriorate year after year after year.

British Columbia has been hit by softwood lumber, mad cow disease, pine beetle, SARS, wildfires. As a result, to keep the promises to our province that I've mentioned, the minister had to work extremely hard and creatively, and she did. This working relationship, this partnership, with Canadian National — which people of my age know it as — is going to ensure that British Columbia takes that quantum leap towards our goal of being the number one province in Canada once again.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am very, very pleased to rise in the House today to let this House know that on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Westside, I will be voting yes for this bill. This is a bill that is going to move British Columbia forward faster and a great way for northern British Columbia. I want to congratulate the Minister of Transportation for all of the efforts in making this happen.

You know, it doesn't matter what the members for Vancouver-Hastings or Vancouver–Mount Pleasant say. The fact is that the ownership of the rail and the railbed remains in the hands of British Columbians. I don't know why those members have such a problem with that. They want to scare British Columbians. They don't want to tell them the whole story. It was those folks that sit over there who ran up debt of $860 million that had to be written off. It was those members who stripped that corporation through dividends so that there was no money left in that company and so that they had to build up the debt. They were irresponsible in the way they approached this company and ran up this debt.

So what does this bill do for us? What does this partnership do for us? We get rid of $500 million of debt. We eliminate $30 million worth of interest, which gives us further opportunities to enhance our health care and education in British Columbia. It also passes on to the operating partner $40 million in annual infrastructure that they're going to have to invest in the province. And you know what? They're going to do that, because they want a world-class railway right here in British Columbia so they can get our products from British Columbia to markets throughout North America as quickly as they can. That's how they're going to make a profit. Unlike those members over there, profit is no longer a dirty word in British Columbia. It's a good word in British Columbia, because that's how we're going to attract investment. That's how we're going to create strong communities.

You know, they've said this is going to be bad for the shippers. This is going to be bad for our exporters.

Six hundred new centre-beam cars are going to be put on line to meet the increased demands of the customers. We are going to have lower rates. We're going to have an open gateway rate and service through to the lower mainland. There's going to be, on average, a 7 percent reduction to interline customers, reduced costs for shippers and faster transit time. What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker?

It's also now part of a very integrated North American system with a new Chicago express which will get products from northern British Columbia to market faster than we've ever been able to do before, satisfying the needs of our customers, growing our business, creating more jobs and building strong economies. I don't understand why these members over here are against jobs and strong communities in northern British Columbia. They should stand up in this House and tell people why they're against those jobs and strong communities.

This is also opening up a line that had been closed down in Dawson Creek. Also, we're continuing and going to make sure there is service at D'Arcy-Lillooet. There's also a commitment. I remember meeting with the mayor of Tumbler Ridge and his concern that the track was going to be ripped out. This guarantees that it's not. Five years it's going to stay there. I know, in talking to the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, how excited he is about this opportunity.

We're also taking $135 million of this money and putting it into the communities of northern British Columbia so that they can decide what they want to take place and have that take place in their communities. This is good news for northern British Columbia. In Prince George, the gateway to the north, we're now going to have a head office for the northern development initiative. We're going to have a $4 million addition to the Prince George Airport. You know, we should take a second and applaud the folks that are working at the Prince George Airport for their vision of how they can make this a very, very viable airport, creating several news jobs — hundreds of jobs — up in the Prince George area.

It's also going to be the new north division office for CN. We're going to have a new $1 million, state-of-the-art wheel shop bringing jobs back to British Columbia from other parts of Canada, bringing jobs back to British Columbia from the United States. How can that be bad news? How can that be? Of course, we're going to have expanded municipal tax revenue going into the municipalities to the tune of about $8.3 million, up from $1.8 million.

Then there's an item I talked about a little this morning when I was talking with the member for North Coast. It's the exciting opportunities for Prince Rupert and the expansion of the port in Prince Rupert. The province is committing $17.2 million to support the container development in that community. As I understand it, CN has committed a further $15 million for infrastructure at the port. So when we work together — with local government, the federal government, the partner from this partnership deal and the province of British Columbia — we can develop a world-class port in Prince Rupert to service the entire north of the province, creating up to 500 new direct jobs.

There are even benefits for areas like Squamish. Seventy-one acres of B.C. Rail land are going to be put back in the city of Squamish so that they can have a major revitalization as they build and prepare for 2010.

As we look to our first nations, our government, under the leadership of the Premier, has committed $15 million to the first nations benefits trust. This is a visionary move by our Premier, one that is going to further enhance our relationship, give capacity to communities, create jobs in communities and give people economic opportunities up and down the line.

Finally, there's been so much talk about tourism trains and rail trains throughout British Columbia. You know, I read today in the paper that there are two companies very excited, very aggressively pursuing the request the Minister of Transportation has put out. When you create an opportunity for the private sector, they will find a way to fill the needs of the market. They will find a way to satisfy the needs of their customers.

Bill 89, British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is a good bill. It's a good-news bill. It's good news for northern British Columbia; it's good news for British Columbia; it's good news for the communities of northern British Columbia; it's good news for the residents of northern British Columbia; it's good news for the first nations of British Columbia.

I will proudly vote for this bill, and I want to thank the Premier and the minister responsible for the excellent job they did in bringing this $1 billion investment to British Columbia.

B. Penner: I, too, rise to indicate my support for Bill 89, this bill dealing with B.C. Rail and the new partnership agreement for the province. I want to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, why I do so. I know there has been some discussion out there amongst the media and a few others, particularly the opposition, about whether what we're doing here is inconsistent with our new-era commitment.

I want to just point to a couple of definitions I've pulled out of the Oxford Dictionary. We have been explaining this to the public as being a lease arrangement and a partnership. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a lease is a contract by which the owner of property allows another to use it for a specified time, usually in return for payment. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation you've heard members discuss this afternoon. We all know that this partnership agreement that's been reached with CN Rail involves a specified period of time and a very significant contribution of money to the province — $1 billion. That's a sizeable sum, and as already indicated, half of that money will go to paying down the debt of the province, saving taxpayers about $30 million annually in interest payments on that debt.

The other definition I wanted to share with members of the public and this House is the definition of

"partner." It's "a person who shares or takes part with another or others, especially in a business." Then under the definition of "partnership," it states further: "Joint business, pair or group of partners." That, too, clearly indicates the arrangement here between B.C. Rail and CN Rail. Specifically, it is a partnership.

The province through B.C. Rail, which remains as a company, continues to own the right-of-way, the railbed and the tracks. As I've pointed out to somebody recently, that's a sizeable amount of real estate. When you include the entire distance of that right-of-way and those tracks in British Columbia, that is a sizeable asset the province retains. Clearly, according to Oxford, that is a partnership arrangement, and it's benefiting the province through this lease agreement by providing a sizeable sum of money that will enable the province to do things we all want to do, which is improve the infrastructure and provide services for people here in the province.

It's obvious that "profit" should not be a dirty word, although the last government tried their very best to make it almost impossible for companies in British Columbia to earn a profit. The result of that initiative on the part of that government was to drive business out of this province. Of course, when businesses left, so did people. For a number of years British Columbia was suffering a net migration loss to other provinces, particularly Alberta. We're working hard to turn that around, and this partnership agreement with CN Rail will be one step in the direction of reversing that flow.

I'd also like to just briefly note that Dan Miller, a former NDP cabinet minister, has made some positive comments with respect to the whole idea of trying to restructure B.C. Rail and make it a more viable entity. Over the last couple of years B.C. Rail has shed 600 full-time positions. That's a sizeable job loss. That's the status quo. Yet I hear the two members that got re-elected for the NDP saying in this chamber that we should maintain the status quo, which would call for more job losses — no bright future at the end of that rail tunnel, if I could borrow that metaphor. Rather, what we're doing is a bold step, taking a bold initiative to try and revitalize the future so that the future isn't the status quo of more job losses.

I understand that under the current plan, B.C. Rail would probably have to shed about 300 more people over and above the 600 that have already been laid off in recent years. Under this partnership agreement with CN Rail, there are about 180 positions that will be lost through involuntary departures. That is clearly a positive development.

I digress just briefly to mention, again, Dan Miller, who had been a senior NDP cabinet minister and a member from Prince Rupert. He represented the Prince Rupert area. I remember debating him when I was our party's critic for international trade and talking about the challenges of getting more trade, more volume of goods through the Prince Rupert port. He told me one of the major difficulties was the linkage at Prince George between, then, CN Rail and B.C. Rail and how it was simply inefficient.

With this new partnership agreement, there will be economies of scale. There will be efficiency, and Prince Rupert will benefit. So I'm not all that surprised to hear today that Mr. Miller sees some benefits from this arrangement, because of the debates we had in this chamber several years ago around the difficulties of fully optimizing the potential of the port at Prince Rupert due to the inadequate links and some of the difficulties moving goods between two different companies at Prince George. With this agreement, we're removing that impediment. I look forward to further debate on this bill and look forward to the vote.

B. Lekstrom: Certainly, following the member for Chilliwack-Kent is always interesting. I think your comments were very much to the point, and the issue we're debating and discussing today is not about the issue of selling or privatization, as you pointed out. I mean, there are many definitions that can be interpreted. There's the factual one that you pointed out. Today what we're talking about is: is this deal good for British Columbia? Is it better than where we were headed under the previous rail system? The answer for me is quite simply yes.

It took a long time. You go through this process; you work hard at it. I know the minister has put in many, many hours, days, weeks and months, along with the Premier and my colleagues, going through this issue to see if we can come up with a process and a rail system that are going to work for British Columbians, not just northern British Columbia. Although many of the discussions we've heard here today focus on the benefits for the north, they're benefits for all of British Columbia.

The process. I heard people in the media. I heard different people talk about it — that it was behind closed doors: "What's going on?" There's a reality, and I think we have to take politics out of the picture for a moment and look at what the reality is. You don't negotiate a billion-dollar deal out in the public and through the media. We don't negotiate collective agreements in the public and through the media. We do it, and once an agreement is reached, it's taken out to the public. It's taken out to the membership in the case of a collective agreement being negotiated, and then it's put forward that way.

So when we look at the process we've gone through, I'm very confident that the process was a sound one. The process that was engaged — the RFPs that went out, the responses that came back, the due diligence that was put into the process to make the evaluations and come up with the final choice of CN — is a good process, and it's worked very well.

We've heard many of my colleagues talk about the financial benefit of this package, and I heard the number of a billion dollars mentioned a lot today. In fact, when I look at this deal, it's much greater than $1 billion. I look at it as many billions of dollars over the term of this contract. The billion dollars is an upfront payment to the province, which is all of us. It helps retire the debt. It helps invest in northern British Co-

lumbia in initiatives that will help spearhead the economic well-being of those communities along the line as well as communities not on that line.

It's about the investment over the long term. It's about taxation being paid to communities; it's about investment in infrastructure and railcars. All of that combined, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that it amounts to billions of dollars over the term of this.

The one thing I hear — and it's interesting to read sometimes in some of the newspapers — is that the government had to do this in order to get enough money to balance the budget. Nothing — and I mean nothing — could be further from the truth. Not one cent of this billion-dollar deal that has been entered into will go to balancing the budget of British Columbia. We will achieve that through sound fiscal management, which we've been doing for the last two and a half years. We'll do it through, certainly, some tough decisions. Balancing the budget from a deficit position, no matter how great that deficit, requires very difficult decisions. Those decisions have been made and continue to be made by our government. I want to reiterate one more time to make sure it's very clear to the people listening this evening, to the constituents I represent and to all British Columbians, that not one dollar of this money that has been negotiated under the CN–B.C. Rail partnership agreement and of the billion dollars that comes to our government — not one dollar — will be used to balance the budget. That's vitally important.

The issue of jobs. We talk about it. Many people don't realize that B.C. Rail has been downsizing for a number of years. It couldn't sustain what it was doing in the past. I believe there are 600 jobs to this point that have been downsized with another, I believe, 300…. I'm using pretty close numbers here. The reality is: will there be some extra job losses as a result of this? Yes, but very few. The reality is that the job losses will be offset, I believe, by opportunities — new opportunities right across the north and right across our province. Whether those new opportunities are enhanced rail service that expands the capacity to grow the rail business and increase employment that way or whether it's opportunities in container facilities, possibly in the northeast part of our province, so that we can go to the Prince Rupert port and access that Asian market a day and a half closer than any other port on the west coast, there are opportunities.

Taxation just for the Peace River regional district. That's an area I represent. I want to tell you that the taxation or the grants-in-lieu we used to receive were in the range of $67,000 — right in that area. Under full taxation that the new operating partner will be paying, we're going to see that increase to $1.2 million. That's a significant amount of money. It's a significant increase, and that increase allows the area to grow the services that are so dearly needed by the people who live in the area.

We also hear about competition. What will this do for competition when we no longer have B.C. Rail, particularly in the area I represent? I represent an area where B.C. Rail is on one side of town and CN is on the other. We have an exchange right at one of our streets, which hands the track over to CN. B.C. Rail right now operates that piece of track under an agreement.

There was concern raised on the issue of whether this lack of competition will lead to higher prices for our grain industry. I'm confident that it won't. The reason I say that is because the trucking industry, which is a valuable part of our economic well-being in British Columbia, is a direct competitor with the rail. It isn't rail to rail; it's rail to the trucking industry. They do a very good job of competing and, in many cases, exceed the ability for rail to compete with our trucks. I'm very comfortable with the competition factor on that, as a representative that comes from an area where grain is of vital importance. Our ag industry is huge. Our forest industry is large.

Although the mining industry has suffered some blows in the past in the Tumbler Ridge area, there's some very good effort being put into some new mines up there. Having said that, I want to move to Tumbler Ridge. The community and Mayor Clay Iles, a friend of mine and a gentleman I've worked with, and his council were very concerned about the plans, when B.C. Rail was looking at what they could do with that piece of track going into Tumbler Ridge. The first thing they thought of was that they could lift some of that track. They could utilize it, not because they wanted to be mean to Tumbler Ridge or inconsiderate but because the lack of capital they had was a factor. Any piece of track they could find and good steel…. They could lift that steel, take it to another area and lay that steel back down, which is a cost savings.

That led to a great deal of concern in Tumbler Ridge. The concern wasn't so much the piece that was lifted already but the remaining track that feeds the main line into Tumbler Ridge. There was no guarantee from B.C. Rail that that track would remain. If there was no tonnage on that track, the thought was that the steel would be lifted and placed somewhere else.

If that were to happen, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you the economic well-being of Tumbler Ridge would be in real jeopardy. When you look at development that takes place, new coalmines, new opportunities in forestry, if there's no rail line there, or there was and it had been lifted, what message does that send to industry? Does it send a measure that Tumbler Ridge is open for business and they want people there? I don't think it sends that message. With no security, I know Tumbler Ridge was very concerned about what was going on.

Under this deal, there's a minimum five-year guarantee. Actually, it probably relates closer to seven years, because under abandonment, you have to take two years through the CTA process before anything can be abandoned. Now, abandonment traditionally would mean that if a line is abandoned, they would walk in and lift that steel and move that steel somewhere else. Again, that's not the case, because we as

British Columbians own that railbed. We own the track, and we own the right-of-way.

If, for instance, a rail line, CN Rail, decided to discontinue service on any piece of track, they don't have the ability to go and lift that track. They don't have the ability to take that steel and move it somewhere else. That steel remains, which is a very important point for all British Columbians to understand. That rail is our rail, and when I say our rail, it's each and every British Columbian's piece under the Crown, and it will remain owned that way.

I know Tumbler Ridge is very satisfied with what has transpired here under this negotiated agreement. They have the security of a minimum of five to seven years that the track will be there, more than enough time to attract the new entrepreneurs, the new mines, the new opportunities in forestry that they will need to drive their economy and get back on a sound footing. They work very hard. I have a great deal of pride, coming from the Peace. I know the people of Tumbler Ridge have a great deal of pride in their community, and they're going to do everything they can to make sure they continue.

The Hythe-to-Dawson Creek line, which was discontinued many years ago by CN, is an important east-west link for Dawson Creek and the entire Peace area. Under this agreement, we're going to see the Hythe-to-Dawson Creek line reinitiated. There's some work that has to be done on some trestles on some parts of the track, but that will be done to open up opportunities for not only east-west flow but west-east as well. Again, looking to the port of Prince Rupert with the new investment taking place there, I see all kinds of opportunities for an inland container facility. I know my colleagues earlier touched on the ag industry and the specialty crops. The opportunities really are endless, and I think they're positive.

What we're looking at is that we've always had a large concern, and I say we as British Columbians, with the ability to supply enough railcars. That has been a challenge. If you don't have capital as a rail company to invest in new railcars — to make sure you have enough railcars so that when they're off your system operating on an interchange system somewhere else, you can backfill those — you're in trouble. We face that challenge, particularly with our forest industry in the Peace River area. This is going to enhance our ability to supply the cars that are needed.

The other opportunities I see that go hand in hand are in passenger rail service. The opportunities there, as many of my colleagues said before, are endless. I think we're going to see opportunities, whether it be from Prince Rupert, Whistler, Vancouver or Prince George. You can go on with the list, but if you look at things in a positive light — and I know that's sometimes hard for some people — I think traditionally you'll get positive results. But if you approach a partnership like this with a negative attitude, your chances of having positive results are probably slim. I choose it to approach it with a positive attitude.

I believe we've made the right deal in British Columbia not for government but for British Columbians, and that is what this is all about. It isn't about a B.C. Liberal government arguing with the opposition. It isn't about the B.C. Liberal government talking about this being our way and we think it's right. This is about a government that has listened to the people. It has listened and come up with a partnership to operate a rail service in our province that will benefit all of us through expanded opportunities.

I won't go on too long, and I won't go into the details of the millions of dollars that will be reinvested in the north to reinvigorate the economy, to grow the economy in many cases — the opportunities at the port of Prince Rupert, which I believe are endless and long overdue. It's exciting. It's exciting for people in the Peace River area to think about the port of Prince Rupert expanding and becoming a container port that we'll benefit from.

Sometimes it's hard to draw those two together and find out how a port in Prince Rupert can benefit someone in the Peace area. Quite simply, the opportunities through containerization are endless not just in the agriculture industry, in the value-added sector…. All kinds of opportunities will exist.

I want to just close by saying a couple of things. I want to go back to what I talked about earlier — the issue of the money, which seems to be a focus for some. The issue of the money is about a billion dollars coming to the government, which is all of us when I talk about government. We're going to pay down $500 million of debt on B.C. Rail, which will relieve their debt. That's after — we've heard these numbers — we've written down over $850 million of debt before. It's hard for me to understand how somebody can talk about B.C. Rail paying dividends to the public of British Columbia on one hand, but on the other, they forget to mention the $860 million worth of debt that's been written down. If you bring that back into the equation, the reality is that B.C. Rail was in financial trouble. That's the bottom line.

In closing, I went through a lot of discussion on this topic. Going through it, I had the opportunity to go home this past weekend, and I met with all of my elected officials in the Peace River area. I met with the Peace River regional district. I met with many people in my constituency, and we talked about this. I can tell you what the underlying sentiment was to me. They said: "Blair, this looks like a good deal for British Columbia. We think it's going to benefit the people of British Columbia. It's going to benefit our shippers. We think it will enhance the service that we now have in the rail service."

Having said that, I stand here this afternoon to tell you I will support this bill wholeheartedly because I think it's going to build a better British Columbia. We have a great, great province now, and it's our jobs as elected officials, and each and every one of our jobs as British Columbians, to make our province a better place not so much for ourselves but for our children, and we're going to do that.

In closing, I want to reiterate one thing, and that goes back to the financial picture. I want to reiterate to

the people of British Columbia that not one dollar of this $1 billion deal that we've entered into will go towards balancing this budget. That is vitally important, because far too often we hear different sides of stories that sometimes aren't factual. So if I can do anything for the constituents I represent or the people of British Columbia, that's to go out and tell them the truth and speak the facts on the issue.

I encourage British Columbians to question your MLAs, question your representatives as to the benefits of this deal and what it means to British Columbia, because we can all speak to the facts. We can all speak to the benefits, and for that reason I'm supporting this bill. I think it's good for Peace River South, I think it's good for British Columbia, and I want to thank the minister for her hard work on this. I know it hasn't been easy. I want to thank the Premier and my colleagues in this House for the work they've done.

Hon. J. Reid: This bill, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is all about transportation. It's all about revitalizing a railway. That revitalization is fundamental to the growth of commerce in this province. Transportation is all about commerce, and it's commerce that supports our communities.

We were in an unfortunate position of seeing the B.C. Railway shrink and the asset base shrink and the customer base shrink, and that was just wrong for the industries. It was wrong because we weren't able to offer opportunities. We now have this legislation that will enable us to enter into a partnership, a partnership with CN. We will still maintain, as a province, the right-of-way, the railbed and the tracks in perpetuity. We will be able to realize with CN an investor that believes in the growth of this railway, and that growth opens up so many of the opportunities that have been discussed here today and discussed in debate. Growth means more opportunities for the shippers.

CN does not look at this as we have been, simply from a British Columbia point of view. It is a North America point of view. It's an opportunity to look at how more activity can be brought into British Columbia and our goods can be put onto that grid, that system, with greater synergies and much less effort.

This is about transportation when we look at the container facility in Prince Rupert and the opportunities there. This is about the connections with the ferries, as was mentioned by the member for North Island. This is about airport expansion, being able to take international flights. This is looking at so many different aspects about being able to grow the province.

I would like to be able to thank the MLAs who have worked so hard to represent their constituents and the concerns, to make sure that this was an opportunity that was going to bring the benefits we promised right from the beginning. I'd like to thank the Premier for his vision on this and for his vision not just for the north and for believing in the opportunities for the north and for all of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Reid: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 89, British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 90; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 1 deals with the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act. The Attorney General explained the changes to these acts as responding to a judgment by Chief Justice Finch of the B.C. Court of Appeal that the current language implies there is no authority to assess tax-exempt entities because assessment is defined as valuation for taxation purposes.

The concern expressed by the Attorney General was that the potential financial implications of the court decision could be as much as $125 million to the province and to municipalities. That's why the government is bringing in these changes — that is, to prevent the financial loss and to preserve the records of all properties on the assessment roll. Could the Attorney General please advise when Chief Justice Finch made that decision?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told that the decision, which has caught government's attention, was delivered by the Court of Appeal on May 29, 2003.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise what properties are currently tax exempt?

Hon. G. Plant: I am advised there are approximately 125,000 properties that are exempt in one way or another.

Hon. G. Plant: It includes most Crown corporations. Apparently there are some, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Assessment, where a property is partially taxable.

J. Kwan: Would the ones that are exempt include the majority of the Crown corporations that are paying grants-in-lieu?

J. Kwan: Were these amendments necessary because of the government's yet-to-materialize new-era commitment to ensure that all Crown corporations actually pay their taxes? That was a commitment the Premier made.

J. Kwan: Section 14 deals with the Election Act. We have copies of the letters written by the chief electoral officer to the Attorney General, and we know that the chief electoral officer had asked for these changes. From the correspondence it would appear these changes were first proposed in June of 2002. The chief electoral officer indicated in his September 2003 letter that legislation to cancel the requirement for a calendared enumeration in the third year following a general election was expected in the 2003 fall session, so these amendments are clearly long awaited.

Part of the eradicating of the calendared enumeration is explained as relating to the new fixed election calendar, but it should be pointed out, Mr. Chair, that it is also because Elections B.C. needs to find ways to cut costs, as we understand. The chief electoral officer, of course, has seen his budget cut quite deeply by this government.

When the previous chief electoral officer stepped down, he had warned his successor that he would be faced with some major challenges from technical change and budget cutting by the government. Elections B.C. has suspended outreach programs aimed at getting people on the voters list because of the cuts to its budget. We also know the voters list is badly in need of revising. Some 800,000 British Columbians weren't even eligible for the Citizens' Assembly because they were not on the voters list. It is important and it has been clearly expressed by the current chief electoral officer that these amendments should establish a long-term strategy to ensure a complete, current and accurate voters list.

My first question to the Attorney General is: could the Attorney please explain how these amendments will establish a long-term strategy to ensure a complete, current and accurate voters list?

Hon. G. Plant: While these amendments are necessary, in part…. In fact, the timing makes them necessary because we don't want to put Elections B.C. to the expense of conducting a general enumeration next year, a full year in front of the next general election. As the member knows, when her party was in power, there was a general enumeration scheduled for 1994 which her government cancelled. There was then a $4 million mail-in general enumeration in 1999 that resulted in only some 28,000 names being added to the list.

The experience over the last decade is that the way general enumerations have been done traditionally has not been very cost-effective, and so we need to do some work about the project of figuring out how to make sure there is an up-to-date voters list when it's needed, which will be May of 2005. We don't have a complete game plan in place for that. We rely, of course, to a considerable extent on the advice and assistance of Elections B.C. I know there is work that has been done and will continue to be done to explore the possibility of an arrangement between Elections B.C. in British Columbia and Elections Canada that will allow us to use their list, which I think means that we would increase the coverage — if that's the right term — at this moment to a pretty reasonable number, but there may need to be more done.

The first step, we think, is to make sure that we can get access to and appropriate use of Elections Canada's lists. This particular amendment that's in front of the House now is really intended to make sure we don't go to the expense of conducting a traditional general enumeration starting next spring, which we think would not be a very effective use of considerable public resources.

J. Kwan: The chief electoral officer requested that the province move to using the federal voters list. Is this achieved by these amendments?

J. Kwan: Are there any other changes that the chief electoral officer requested that are included in these amendments? Or is it just to deal with the basic step of removing the general enumeration?

J. Kwan: Does the government intend to move forward on the other requests from the chief electoral officer in terms of changes? I'm referencing the letters that the chief electoral officer wrote on September 5, 2003.

Hon. G. Plant: We have those other proposals under consideration, and it is possible that some of them may find their way into legislation in the year 2004 — possible. I don't want to go much beyond that at this point, but we're certainly looking at the recommendations.

Some of the recommendations we have before us include recommendations that were made in the aftermath of the 2001 general election, and there are some other issues there. We have all of that before us, and we're looking at it. But it was important to do this thing now in order to make sure that we didn't start spending money unnecessarily on a general enumeration next spring.

J. Kwan: Just a suggestion. It might be useful — anticipating that there's going to be a federal election next spring some time — if there's some way to incorporate the federal voters list and then, of course, adding to and enhancing that for 2005, because that list would be updated. We could make use of that, hopefully, without expending too much cost.

J. Kwan: Section 19, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. The purpose of this act is to get people to pay their child support, and that is, of course, clearly in the public's interest. But it would not be, in my view, in the public's interest if requiring payments was done in such a way that arguably could impede the debtor's ability to make a living and thus their long-term ability to provide that support.

My first question relating to this whole sort of area, which is sections 19 and 20, is: why is the government amending the definition of maintenance under section 1 of the act to include annual default fees?

Hon. G. Plant: Default fees are not collected until after all the unpaid maintenance is collected. The purpose of changing the definition of maintenance to add default fees to it is to ensure that when you reach a point when there's a chance of collecting default fees, they can be collected in the same way that maintenance can be collected.

J. Kwan: So default fees, as I understand from the Attorney General, are only collected after all of the maintenance support has been collected, and therefore it doesn't impact the maintenance portion for the spouse or for the child. That's one point I wanted to be absolutely clear on.

Second, could the Attorney General advise whether or not default fees have been collected in the past?

Hon. G. Plant: The member is correct in the first part of her question. Secondly, default fees is not a new term. Default fees have existed in the past and will continue to exist as a result of these amendments that, among other things, do simply what I said a minute ago, which is ensure that they are included in the definition of maintenance for purposes of making it possible to collect them in the same way that maintenance is collected.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise how much the default fee is? What's the formula to calculate what a default fee is, or is there a fixed amount?

Hon. G. Plant: We didn't bring any detailed information about the amount of default fees with us into the chamber now, but I would be happy to make sure the member gets that information either by a briefing or a note that explains it, if she's interested.

J. Kwan: A note would suffice. Again, I'm curious in terms of what the amount might be.

In other words, the default fee is being applied so that the government could use the same legislative tools that it now has access to, to collect maintenance fees from the people who owe default fees. That's the way I understand what the minister had advised. Now, does this apply to people on income assistance?

Hon. G. Plant: Yeah. If, for example, the recipient is someone who has signed an assignment of the maintenance that would be due and owing as a condition of obtaining social assistance, then we're pretty sure that as collector, we would be interested in pursuing default fees from the payer in the same way as if the parties were both outside the employment assistance

scheme altogether. I'm not sure if that's the example the member had in mind, but when there's an assignment, I think government would be just as interested in the default fees in those circumstances as in others.

J. Kwan: Because their income is so marginal, historically, if there's a debt owing, one could not garnish people's cheques — those who are on income assistance. Am I understanding correctly that a default fee would now apply to people on income assistance, in which the government could make a person pay by utilizing the legislative tools that are now available to government — the same format as the government uses to collect maintenance?

The reason why I ask this question is that I would actually have some trouble with that. It's one thing to try and make people pay for maintenance to support their spouse and child. I have no problem with trying to go after that. Moving beyond that, for people with very marginal income, having them pay a default fee…. I would have some trouble with that. Maybe the minister can clarify.

Hon. G. Plant: We were trying to track down in the legislation whether my last answer was right. As a result, I don't know that I caught all the member's question.

We're not talking here about collecting maintenance from people who are on social assistance. The family maintenance enforcement program doesn't go to people who are on social assistance and say: "You need to divert your cheque to your children from your relationship with somebody or from your marriage." We're talking about what happens when somebody who is on the receiving end of a support order applies for social assistance. In those circumstances, my view is that we should have, generally speaking, the same remedies against the payer as the recipient would.

If the payer is not meeting his or her obligations in a timely way, then our first obligation is to try to make sure that he or she does so. If the failure to make or meet obligations in a timely way triggers the payment of default fees, then at least the starting point, in my view, would be that we should be entitled, as the assignor, to collect those default fees. I should say that that's not affected by…. I mean, what we're looking at here are different provisions of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, not the provisions that are in front of us here.

J. Kwan: As I understand the minister, the default fee does not impact the maintenance component, the support component for the child or for the spouse. That's clearly established. The default fee — whatever amount it is, which we don't know — would apply to people on income assistance who are on a very low fixed income. That amount would have to be paid back to the government, because that individual has defaulted in paying maintenance in the past.

My difficulty here is this: in other debt situations where an individual owes a debt to someone, the system as such prevents those with very marginal incomes from having their income garnished, in recognition that their income is so marginal that it shouldn't be garnished. Those on income assistance would be considered in that category.

Here we have, then, a situation, as I understand it — and correct me if I'm wrong — that government is now bringing forward a tool that would actually go after those individuals with very marginal incomes, fixed incomes, to pay a default fee for having defaulted in paying maintenance somewhere in the past. The difficulty, if I'm understanding this correctly, I'm having with this is that it's being applied to people with a very marginal income — fixed income — and that especially under this government, the social safety net is being eroded even further. Yet the penalty could apply to those individuals if this section of the bill is passed. That's my understanding. If I'm wrong in that understanding, I would ask the Attorney General to correct me. If I'm right in that understanding, then I would like to simply put on record that I don't support this approach.

It's not that I don't support going after people who should pay maintenance. I support that. It's not that I want to encourage people to default in paying their maintenance. It's just that those who are really at the end of their rope…. It's like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock, and there just isn't much to squeeze anymore. People can barely survive as it is, let alone to levy another penalty. I hope that's not the case, but I'll ask the Attorney to clarify.

Hon. G. Plant: I think it's important that we distinguish the situation of the recipient from the situation of the payer. Default fees are only levied against the payer. Now, if the payer is on income assistance, nobody's collecting any family maintenance from that person. Since nobody's collecting any family maintenance from that person, I don't think anybody is going to be in a position to collect default fees. There's nothing in the bill before us that changes the existence of default fees, which have been around for a while, and it doesn't change anything in relation to the issue that I think has the member concerned. I get that the member has concerns about this government's policies in relation to income assistance, but I don't know how the default fees issue plays into that.

Default fees are what happens when the payer does not comply with his or her obligations under a court order in a situation where the payer is in a position to comply. If the payer is not in a situation where they're actually making maintenance payments, it doesn't seem to me likely that we're ever going to get to a point where we actually get any recovery of default fees from that person. At any rate, we certainly won't get that until all the outstanding arrears of maintenance have been collected.

J. Kwan: Well, no. People who are on income assistance do pay maintenance. I know of people who do pay maintenance. They might have defaulted on that

from time to time, but some of them do pay, even with the meagre income they have out of income assistance. To suggest that the individual who's not paying maintenance…. There are some who are not, but there are some who are. Let's be clear.

The minister, the Attorney General, has just confirmed, I think, that people on income assistance would be levied a default fee against them and it would only apply if the maintenance has been paid up in full and no longer applies. I understand that point. Nonetheless the point remains, though, that even if their maintenance is paid off, their income is still very marginal. The question becomes: why would the government want to levy a penalty against them with their very marginalized income? That's the point I disagree with, in terms of an approach.

J. Kwan: Section 20. The existing act had two categories of debt that were given priority, and then all other debts were viewed as equal. These changes add a third level of priority payee, and that is the Minister of Human Resources. Could the minister please advise why the government is giving priority to debts that are due to the minister through the assignment of maintenance payments over debts due to other parties?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, what the amendments do is make sure the government of British Columbia has a higher priority than, for example, governments of other provinces.

J. Kwan: Is it just other provinces, or would it apply to families or friends or other people to whom the payee owes debts? Is it just for the government over other provinces?

Hon. G. Plant: Yeah, it's only in respect of payments that are due and owing under family maintenance enforcement legislation. This is not an attempt to establish a scheme of priority of debts as between maintenance orders or maintenance order arrears and other forms of debt.

J. Kwan: Section 21 amends or broadens, if you will, the court's power to require that the director of family maintenance permit people to renew their driver's licence, even when they are in arrears on their maintenance. There's a concern that people may not be able to access the courts to take advantage of this wider scope to keep their licences. Could the minister please advise: how easy is it for debtors to apply to the court to take advantage of the amendment to section 29.2(2)?

Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that the amendment in section 21 of the bill is simply intended to correct a cross-reference. It's not intended to have substantive effect.

J. Kwan: Section 22, which is section 20 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, refers to repayment priorities set out in default hearings. This section appears to be a general order of payments. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Plant: We're now at section 22, which refers to section 32 of the act, but the member's point is right. We're talking about a priority of payments and the crediting of payments and the reduction of arrears, but we're only talking about maintenance amounts under family maintenance enforcement legislation. We're not talking about arrears in respect of other kinds of indebtedness.

J. Kwan: Section 32 also states that unless the court otherwise orders, etc., this is to be the order of payments. Could the Attorney General indicate in what situations a court might order otherwise? In what situation would that occur?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I haven't brought with me any information that would indicate whether or not this power, which to a considerable extent is already there, has been exercised and on what basis it's exercised. Presumably, at least as a starting point, there would be an application before a court in which there was some argument that the priority scheme established by this section would operate unfairly in a particular case, and there would be an application made to the judge to change the order in which payments were to be credited. But I don't have any specific examples of those sorts of orders being made, because the idea that the court would have that residual discretion already exists in the act and is not being changed here.

J. Kwan: Could the Attorney General lay out for the House in what order a debtor in default of his or her child support payments would make those payments?

Hon. G. Plant: I mean, the first step is the debtor. The payer makes a payment, and the way this section operates is that this section explains how the payment will be given credit. The first thing that it will be given credit towards is to the periodic payment most recently due under the maintenance order. I suppose a way you could put it is that if there's any money left over after that, then the balance would be paid or credited to any arrears that are due and owing other than the arrears that are described specifically in two other subsections. In effect, once you've been credited for the month or the week or whatever the period is that the most recent

payment was due, then you'd get credit towards any arrears due and owing after that.

If there's any money left over after that, then the amount is credited to any arrears that are due and owing to the minister, if this is an order that's been assigned to a minister. If there's any money left over after that has been satisfied, then there are two other provisions that create the possibility of the amounts being credited to any other amount otherwise due and owing in respect of the maintenance order or any amount owing to some government other than British Columbia. Lastly, if having discharged all of those obligations, there's any money left in the payment, then it will be paid towards the annual default fee if there is one.

J. Kwan: Section 28 — up to 36, actually — deals with the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. These changes to the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act fundamentally alter the process surrounding the involuntary admission of adults into a health care facility. The Attorney General talks about it as merely reducing unnecessary government bureaucracy, but what this legislation does is eliminate completely the access individuals have to health care and health care facility review boards and an objective appeal process.

The process was originally brought in as part of the guardianship legislation that was recommended to government in order to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals. Eliminating the review boards and the appeal process is just another example of the many damaging — some would say anti-democratic — cuts this government has made, such as eliminating the Human Rights Commission.

The Health Care and Care Facility Review Board provided a check on decisions made by a decision-maker who is prescribed by the statute — that is, appointed as opposed to being chosen by the patient. The AG acknowledges in his second reading speech that these are vulnerable individuals in question here and made the almost offhanded comment that "other informal review processes exist within health authorities" to protect their rights. So he concluded that his government believes this board is no longer necessary.

My first question to the Attorney General is: with whom did he consult in drafting these amendments, or are these changes based merely on a belief held perhaps by the Attorney General himself or perhaps by the Minister for Deregulation?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the consultations with respect to the proposal that is now before the House included consultations with the Community Legal Assistance Society, the B.C. Association for Community Living, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the British Columbia Medical Association and the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia. There were also extensive consultations with health authorities.

As I said in second reading debate, the government is dissolving this board, in part because, although it has existed since the year 2000, it has only held eight hearings in that time. In fact, there are some other informal review processes that exist within the health authorities to protect the rights of people that we acknowledge are vulnerable.

I have to say that this is work that probably began when government undertook its comprehensive review of all of the agencies, boards and commissions of government. That's work that the administrative justice project of my ministry has had quite a bit to do with. It is, I think, relevant to ask of agencies and boards that exist or have existed for a while whether or not they are in fact doing a job that supports an argument that it's worth the public expense and effort to continue them. In this particular case, after careful scrutiny of the work of this board, its very limited mandate and the very limited extent to which it was called upon to carry out any business over the course of the last three years, the decision to eliminate this board is the right step. We do it knowing that we have the tools in other ways to ensure that vulnerable patients will be protected in respect of their health care consent and care facility admission decisions.

J. Kwan: How will patients' rights be protected if there is no appeal process for a decision made by an appointed substitute decision-maker?

Hon. G. Plant: There are a variety of less formally structured processes, including ethics committees and patients advisers in various places that are there to sometimes, I suppose, act as a go-between and other times to act as an advocate. In the event that those processes do not work…. I must say that as somebody who is committed to the notion of alternate dispute resolution as being a better tool for resolving issues like this in any event…. If those tools do not work, then there is the option of an application for the appointment of a committee, and there will be judicial supervision at that point.

J. Kwan: In other words, if the informal process doesn't work, then one could go to court. That is the alternative. Having said that, while acknowledging that the Attorney General prefers an alternative dispute resolution process, the reality is that with the repealing of this review board appeal process…. The only other option left then, if the other informal processes don't work, is that the individual is left to go to court, which is more of an American-style system of litigation and costly, as well, for the individual. Will there be legal aid available for these individuals if they have to resort to that option?

Hon. G. Plant: I am told that the typical example of these disputes when they arise, which is not often, is an

intra-family disagreement, a family squabble. Frankly, I would think those are exactly the kinds of disputes that should be resolved through mediation or conciliation processes, not by rigidly judicial processes. I think it's unlikely that there would be legal aid available for these kinds of issues, but of course to some extent the decision whether or not to make legal aid available in a particular case is a matter for the Legal Services Society. Having said that, though, I think it's unlikely they would establish any kind of program. I don't know that there's one now, so I think it's unlikely there would be one established as a result of these amendments.

J. Kwan: Before the cuts to legal aid, there used to be support for administrative cases. This, then, would fall under that category. Of course, there would be a board to go through instead of a court system, because now the board approach is being repealed under this act. The court system is more expensive and more complicated, and there's no legal aid, basically. That's what we've arrived at, and that's problematic, to say the least.

I just want to note that for one minute, and further, I want to ask these questions. The Representation Agreement Act is also amended under Bill 90 to remove references to the review process set out in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. The Attorney General has already altered the representation agreements by creating a more complicated and expensive process by bringing back power of attorney and requiring people to hire lawyers.

I know that in this bill, it references the Representation Agreement Act under section 59, but that's really inconsequential, so I'm not going to ask the questions under that section. I'm going to ask them here. What impact does the legislation have on the representation agreement process?

Hon. G. Plant: The answer to the question is none, and I have to at least remind the member — and she's certainly welcome to defend the process and no doubt she is — that she's defending a process which, however much she may be attached to it, was used only eight times in three years. Frankly, I think that is at least the beginning of a pretty powerful argument to question whether or not the process is serving any viable purpose, when essentially it's never being used.

Secondly, although it's perhaps beside the point, so are the member's comments in this respect. I would venture to suggest, but actually would do so rather strongly, that the enduring power of attorney which was preserved as a result of a decision of this government is a very simple document, a much simpler document than the representation agreement — certainly the general, comprehensive representation agreement.

That fact is borne out by the fact that lawyers and notaries and people all around the community were simply finding that complex representation agreements were simply that — they were complex. They were not straightforward, and there was a great demand to use enduring powers of attorney, which really have nothing to do with whether or not the Health Care and Care Facility Review Board should continue to exist.

But to come back to the member's question of what impact this will have on representation agreements, I think the answer is none.

J. Kwan: It's one thing to say that the process was not used very often. The Attorney General said eight times in three years, so therefore we want to question it. It's one thing to say we should question it and see how we can make a process more effective. It's another thing to repeal it all together. The only option that's left now for these individuals would be to go through the court system, which is more expensive. There is no legal aid, so there's a problem here.

I'm not attached to a system or approach particularly. I'm attached to the idea and the notion that people need to have access — access that is affordable and accessible to them when they do have an issue and want to bring the matter forward, so they have somewhere to go. I support alternative resolutions, which the previous government brought forward and began some work around. I don't have a problem with informal approaches to resolving disputes. I'm all for it if those disputes can be resolved.

The problem here is: where those disputes are not resolved, then what options are available for these individuals? As I understand it, with the repealing of the board system here, the court is the only other alternative. That's the problem here. There's no legal aid to assist, because the administrative justice component of legal aid has now been axed because of budget cuts. There's very little recourse left for people here. That's the problem I have with the repealing of the board.

Let me ask the minister this question: under this new system created by the government, how will British Columbians affected by decisions made by an appointed substitute decision-maker get their information? Will the FOI Act apply?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that there are provisions in the existing act that ensure that where, for example, the substitute decision-maker is a doctor — oh, the family member — then the physician is required to inform the patient and perhaps a close relative of the patient. Nothing in these amendments changes the existing framework in that respect.

J. Kwan: The question is: does the FOI Act apply? If individuals want to get access to information about them, about their particular case, would they be able to get that information?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, if the information in question is in the hands of a public body, then absolutely.

J. Kwan: Section 37 deals with the Land Title Act and the Land Title Amendment Act, 1999.

The government has been widely criticized for its decision to close the Victoria land title office on April 1, 2004. Realtors, lawyers, notaries, land title agents and Vancouver Island first nations have all protested this decision — a broad group of British Columbians. They tried to make the government understand that Victoria businesses will suffer, that property deals will cost more and that treaty negotiations will be threatened if the government persists with its plans to close the Victoria land title office, but the government pressed ahead anyway. Clearly, the effort worried, I think, some of the Liberal backbench MLAs. At least some of the backbench MLAs in Victoria were worried, concerned that they may lose their seat in the next election, and raised some of these issues. The government didn't listen to them anyway.

Let me ask the minister this question: do these amendments in themselves necessitate the closure of the Victoria land title office?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, governments sometimes have to make decisions that don't look, on their face, to be as easy as you might like. I think we have a very serious obligation to ensure that we use public resources only when they are absolutely necessary. In an era when technology is changing, I think it's important that we consider whether and how we can best serve the people of British Columbia in, for example, an area like providing the services of a land title office.

I myself spent a great deal of time listening to the concerns the member talks about. I received some correspondence, I thought about the issues, but I also fundamentally disagree with the concern and agree with the decision that government has made. That's not because I ignored the concerns. Rather, it's because I took them into account and gave them thought and decided at the end of the day that I do believe the Torrens system will be preserved and can be enhanced, notwithstanding the end of counter service in Victoria.

I think we have to recognize the fact that British Columbians who live outside the three communities served by land title offices have a long history of making land title transactions without the ability to walk down to the corner store land title office, since there aren't very many of those in British Columbia. In fact, when I was in opposition, the member was in government when she closed one or two of those herself. I'm pretty sure the land title office in Prince Rupert was closed in the late 1990s.

At any rate, these things happen. When they are necessary, I think it's important we listen closely to the concerns people raise and find out whether or not those concerns can be adequately addressed under the new service delivery model being proposed. I believe, based on the research I've been able to do, that in fact people will be able to have access to the land title office for the work they need to do.

The historic documents that are a part of the legacy, if you will, and the inventory of stuff the Victoria land titles office has are not being destroyed. They're all going to be kept, and they're all going to be within reach in the event people need them, for example, for research in aboriginal rights or title cases. It may be that some researchers who are accustomed to walking a few blocks down the street might have to do a bit more work.

As I say, I take those things into account. I don't disregard them completely, but at the end of the day I don't think, frankly, that's the kind of factor that ought to be dispositive of a decision that's fundamentally about making sure we can provide the services a land title office must provide in a way that is as cost-effective as possible. Nothing in the amendments before the House now is directed by or related to government's decision to close the Victoria land title office.

J. Kwan: It's interesting. The Attorney General says government's got to do what it's got to do. The government, though, found a way to save the Kamloops land title office. They found a way to justify why that office should stay open. I'm sure that, perhaps, it may have nothing to do with the Coquihalla situation that the government was faced with at the time or some other political electoral justification.

Perhaps — and I'm just sort of guessing here, Mr. Chair — the Victoria MLAs might just have been written off by this government. Therefore they deem it appropriate for them to just cut that one loose — the Victoria land title office. Even though it was making money, even though it serves the business community here, even though some of the MLAs here said it should be kept, the government decided not to do that anyway. It's interesting to see the direction of where this government is going with how they choose and pick which service they would eliminate and the impacts on the community.

If the government is making electronic filing mandatory, what additional services will be available in the New West and the Kamloops offices that aren't available in Victoria or elsewhere in the province?

J. Kwan: The Attorney General says electronic filing is not mandatory. Are there additional services available in the New West and the Kamloops offices that are not available in Victoria or elsewhere?

Hon. G. Plant: There is over-the-counter service available at land title offices that is not, of course, available anywhere else in the province.

S. Orr: My question to the minister is…. My position on the opposition of the closure of the land title

offices is known. What I'm trying to do with this debate and this act is take the political rhetoric out of it and just find out exactly what the act is. So my question is: could anything in this section or any subsequent sections be interpreted to suggest the closure of the Victoria land titles office, or is this merely putting into place the act that was put in place in 1999? I'm just looking for more of the technical answer.

Hon. G. Plant: The 1999 act created the platform for electronic filing. As the member knows, the program itself didn't get up and running and has not yet been made up and running. All we're doing here is putting forward a few really quite minor amendments that are intended to make it possible to get the electronic filing project up and running, I think as of January 1 or early in the new year.

S. Orr: That, I think, takes care of my concerns in that it is strictly to do with the electronic filing, and this act is not focused on the closing of the Victoria land titles office.

J. Kwan: Section 46 deals with the Medicare Protection Act. The legislation dissolves the board that hears disputes concerning enrolment in the Medical Services Plan. How will patients' rights be protected if there is no appeal process?

Hon. G. Plant: The amendments we're now talking about, which are amendments to the Medicare Protection Act, will, as I said in second reading debate, dissolve the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board. This board hears disputes related to applications by people who want to be enrolled in the Medical Services Plan in circumstances where their applications have been denied or cancelled. The board has held only seven hearings since 1997. Accordingly, we made the decision that the board no longer served a compelling public purpose — hence, the amendments that are before the House.

For people who believe that they want one more chance to persuade somebody that their application for enrolment should not have been denied, they will have available to them the recourse of judicial review.

J. Kwan: Well, here's the logic behind the Attorney General's approach to things. The appeal board — in this instance it happens to be the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board — according to the Attorney General is not used that often, so therefore we should do away with it. Of course, the alternative is to be left with a more onerous approach, a more costly approach and an approach that I'm sure is more difficult for the people who want to appeal those decisions. The same rationale had been used earlier when we debated the Health Care and Care Facility Act.

To me, Mr. Chair, the logic that the Attorney General has adopted doesn't make sense. You'd think the government would actually opt for an approach that will make sure access for appeals is available and less onerous for people, even though it's not used very much.

I'll use one example: the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I know they have disciplinary hearings to deal with physicians who might have violated…. Well, disciplinary hearings. I know those hearings rarely actually come together because oftentimes they're able to resolve the dispute outside of the hearings. Even with that, you don't go and just cancel the idea of having disciplinary hearings should the need arise. But here's what we have once again, for the government to exactly opt for that option. It's not used a lot, so let's get rid of it, and the only other approach in terms of appeal decisions would be for it to go through a more onerous approach. That's difficult for me to accept, and I don't agree with that.

Bill 90 also removes a reference in this act to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Under the other review systems that the Attorney General has stated can take the place of the appeal board, could the Attorney General explain then how British Columbians who are affected will get information on their cases? Does this mean that the FOI Act no longer applies?

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, once you establish that an agency is not being used, virtually not being used at all, Mr. Chair, I think you've started to make a pretty good argument about whether or not there's any compelling public purpose in continuing the agency. But I respect the fact that the member opposite has a different view.

In the particular case of the provision that the member refers to, there is an amendment to schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the amendment is to strike out the reference to the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board. That is being done because the board itself will cease to exist. Since it ceases to exist, it will no longer be a public body.

J. Kwan: I just want to be clear. The Attorney General, I think, likes to imply that because a board or an agency is not being used or is no longer relevant, it should therefore be done away with. I would agree with that, with the exception, though, that this board has been used — on rare occasions; yes, that is true.

If the issue is that the board is not as effective or accessible as it could be perhaps, then you want to find another way to make sure that access is still there and that it's easier to access and more effective in some way, but not to just do away with it. That's the trouble I have with the Attorney General's rationale. He says it's not used that much, so to heck with those — I think he said — seven cases that came before. To heck with them; there's no appeal process for you. In its place we

have a more onerous approach. It will cost more money, and you'll likely need legal representation, of which there is none available. That doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't enhance the rights of patients in this instance as it relates to the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board.

Of course now the Freedom of Information Act will no longer apply. So if you want to access the information, the people would not be able to get the information. That, too, is troubling, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure why the member is concerned about the FOI Act. I get that the member wishes we were not doing away with this body, this agency, and I've certainly heard her on that. But it's unclear to me how the removal of the agency, which will no longer exist, from the Freedom of Information Act has any impact on access to information. The agency will no longer exist. Therefore, there are no records that the agency will have that will be of interest to anybody.

I think it's possible that if the member is interested in the issue of accountability and transparency, what she's really talking about is information that may be in the hands of the Medical Services Commission, which is the body that makes the decision in the first instance about whether or not to deny enrolment.

The Medical Services Commission, I am informed, is a public body within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Therefore, people who believe that the Medical Services Commission has information or records concerning their application for enrolment that were relevant to the decision the commission made would be able to obtain copies of those records from the Medical Services Commission. In that respect, the records that I think would be the important records will be as available today after these amendments as they are today before them.

I don't want to claim I've reviewed the seven cases that came before this board over the last six or seven years, but my guess is that many of them would have been applications for enrolment by people who were non-residents of British Columbia — that is, people who've spent nine or ten months a year in some other place and then want to come and take advantage of British Columbia's extraordinarily generous health care system. I'm not certain that there is a compelling public reason why those people, as a general rule, would be people we ought to worry about legal aid coverage for. Again, I'm saying that hypothetically. I think the member's concerns about legal aid need to be taken in the context of the fact that I suspect she doesn't know who the seven people were who used this board and whether or not they were people who were indigent or people who had all kinds of ability to afford legal representation.

The real issue about accountability and transparency in terms of information that relates to these decisions is an issue that relates to the information that the Medical Services Commission would have and that they would use to make these decisions on. That information and access to that information will in no way be affected by the amendments before the House.

J. Kwan: It's interesting to note, because that was my question to the Attorney General. That is, how will British Columbians affected get the information? The minister, the Attorney General, rose and said: "You know, the FOI would not apply." That was his first answer. He subsequently corrected his answer by saying that people would be able to get the information through the Medical Services Commission. It is important to note what my first question was and how the minister responded.

The second issue I want to raise is this. The minister himself doesn't even know the seven cases of the people who have been impacted by this. He says, "Oh well, you know, it's in the public interest to do away with this board. Therefore, we should do it," but he doesn't even know the people who have been impacted and under what circumstances they have been. It's true that I don't know what those circumstances are, but I'm not the person who is bringing forward a piece of legislation that is doing away with the board itself. I'm not. I'm here to ask the questions. If you are doing away with the board, what are the impacts for the people, and how will patients' rights be protected? Those were my questions to the minister.

J. Kwan: Section 53 deals with the Mortgage Brokers Act and the Real Estate Act. The Attorney General had advised that the purpose of this section is to bring new fee structures that will bring fees in line with other jurisdictions. Are fees for mortgage brokers and real estate agents going up as a result of these changes?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the intention here is to expand the fee-making regulatory power to allow for the prescribing of different fees based on the category of registration and the number of business addresses of a mortgage broker. The new sections will expand the fee-making regulatory power to allow for the prescribing of fees for amendments to the register, reinstatement of a submortgage broker and late filing of an application. I do not know whether there is an intention to impose new fees or raise existing fees. I'm certain that the Finance ministry could provide at least some guidance on that.

J. Kwan: There is the use of the term "submortgage broker" in the language of these amendments. Is this a new term to the act?

J. Kwan: The minister read off the explanatory notes under section 53 about the expansion of the provision in this amendment to enable regulations prescribing the fees payable in each of the categories, etc. With these changes and those to the realtors act, would it result in higher fees for the homebuyer?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm now informed that the additional amounts of fees we're talking about here are on the order of $500 every two years per mortgage broker, so this will be a very modest increase in the cost of doing business for a mortgage broker. The fees we're talking about here are not fees that would be directly charged to the clients of mortgage brokers.

J. Kwan: Let me just ask this question: who did the minister consult with, with respect to these changes?

Hon. G. Plant: I consulted with the Minister of Finance, but I'm advised that the provincial Mortgage Brokers Association was consulted in respect of these amendments.

J. Kwan: Is there any connection with the increased fees for realtors and mortgage brokers and the government's decision to move to the electronic filing procedures for land title offices?

J. Kwan: Bill 90 exempts B.C. Ferry Services from all taxation under a number of acts for the duration of 2003 and ensures that no assessment of property owned by the company will be done in 2003. The government is exempting B.C. Ferry Services from paying taxes, when one of their election promises was to make sure that Crown corporations — which B.C. Ferries was until this government got its hands on it — pay taxes. Why is the government exempting the privatized company, B.C. Ferry Services, from paying taxes?

Hon. G. Plant: I believe I'm correct in saying that the reason for this amendment is that it was intended that B.C. Ferry Services should not be taxable until the 2004 calendar year. The new company will be exempt from property taxation for the 2003 calendar year, and in the 2003 calendar year local governments with terminal properties — that is, Ferry Services properties — would receive a grant in lieu of taxes. I think what's happening here, in effect, is part of the transition from the old regime to a new regime. As a part of that transition, the decision has been made that the new corporation will not become taxable until the full calendar year 2004.

Hon. G. Plant: I was about to say that's a good question and that I don't have the answer for it, but you never know. If I search my mental Rolodex for a moment, I may find I get more information.

I knew, Mr. Chair, that if I thought about it long enough, the answer would come to me. I am advised that the grant is on the order of $1.9 million, and the taxes will be on the order of $3.5 million.

J. Kwan: It's $3.5 million in tax being exempted from a private company. Is this not a government subsidy to private businesses?

Hon. G. Plant: The answer, I'm told, is that all of the analysis around the financial aspects of the transaction was done on the basis of an assumption that in 2003 the regime would be grants-in-lieu and that in 2004, the first full year of the new operation, the new regime would be taxed. As I said earlier, it is a part of the transition from one regime into another and, given those circumstances, does not constitute a subsidy.

J. Kwan: That's a nice way of skating around it. With all due respect to the Attorney General, I would disagree. It is the government's decision, when they signed the contract with B.C. Ferry Services, when they privatized B.C. Ferry Services and decided with that contract that they would exempt them from their taxes — $3.5 million worth. That would be a subsidy to the business, just like the B.C. Rail discussion we have been engaging in and the tax credits that B.C. Rail…. Sorry. I shouldn't say B.C. Rail, because it's CN that bought B.C. Rail and the tax credit issue there. The government actually gives full protection to CN under that contract.

The deal here impacts British Columbians negatively, and the government is providing a tax subsidy to a private business in this instance. They're being exempted by legislation so that they don't have to pay $3.5 million in taxes. It just so happens that the opposition notes that this section of the bill exempting B.C. Ferry Services of $3.5 million in taxes happens to follow very closely with the news of the president of the privatized B.C. Ferry Services.

He is planning to move his headquarters either to Swartz Bay or to Tsawwassen. On the cost, apparently it says about $4 million, close to the tax exemption. Coincidence — and I presume there's no connection there. Maybe the minister can advise whether or not there's a connection there.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not quite sure where the member got the $3.5 million figure she was using. I think we are talking about a difference between $3.5 million and $1.9 million, so the difference is $1.6 million.

I will restrain myself from passing judgment on the suggestion that the member made with respect to the decision of the company that they may or may not make to move their head office. I'm advised that there is no relationship between the decision that the private

company may or may not make about moving its office and the decision that we as government are making as part of the transition into the new regime to have the grants-in-lieu system operate for the 2003 calendar year. Then the taxes will be payable starting January 1 of 2004.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, I asked the question of the minister: how much of the taxes is being exempted? He first rose and said he didn't know. Then, of course, one of his staff advised him that it would be in the range of $3.5 million. That's what the minister put on record — $3.5 million — to the question that I asked: how much tax is being exempted? That's how I got the $3.5 million figure.

Here we have it. The government is exempting B.C. Ferry Services, a privatized company, from having to pay taxes to British Columbians, and the minister says it's not a subsidy to the businesses. Well, I disagree with that. It is a subsidy, and the government is giving a one-time gift to this private company.

I'll just leave it at that — contrary to the Liberal government and the Liberal mantra that they would not subsidize businesses. This flies in the face of that.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment to section 65 in the hands of the Clerk:

Hon. G. Plant: This does the following: in the proposed section 65, it deletes 37 to 45 and substitutes, therefor, 27 to 50, 57 and 59.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 90, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 90, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 35

Hogg	Halsey-Brandt	Cheema
J. Reid	Bruce	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Thorpe
Murray	Plant	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Trumper
Johnston	Christensen	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Bhullar	Bloy	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Brice		Manhas

	NAYS — 1

	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 39

Coell	Hogg	Halsey-Brandt
Cheema	J. Reid	Bruce
Roddick	Wilson	Lee
Thorpe	Murray	Plant
Bond	Coleman	Penner
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Johnston	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sahota	Kerr	Manhas

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan