Hansard -- Monday, October 3, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 15 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Private Members' Statements		297
	Mountain pine beetle and forest health
	B. Simpson
	D. MacKay
	The power of a strong economy
	H. Bloy
	G. Robertson
	Sale of Terasen Gas
	S. Simpson
	R. Sultan
	Mandatory retirement
	R. Sultan
	S. Hammell

Motions on Notice		305
	Canadian assistance in aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Motion 5)
	L. Mayencourt
	R. Fleming
	A. Horning
	R. Cantelon
	D. Hayer
	V. Roddick
	R. Lee
	Union of B.C. Municipalities (Motion 80)
	R. Hawes
	N. Macdonald
	J. McIntyre

B. Simpson: Our forests play a critical role in the social and environmental well-being of all British Columbians. In fact, our forests contribute to the well-being of every person on this planet. They filter our air and water, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide habitats for countless living things. On top of these deeper values, we also depend on these same forests for our economic well-being. The forest sector continues to be the engine of our economy, and the economic activity generated from it still employs one out of every five British Columbians.

Given the importance of our forests to the social, environmental and economic well-being of all British Columbians, it's vital that members of this Legislature pay special attention to the state of our forests and show due diligence in protecting and enhancing them. Roderick Haig-Brown, a conservationist and winner of a 1950 Governor General's award, captured the essence of this responsibility in the following statement: "It seems clear beyond possibility of argument that any given generation of men can have only a lease, not ownership, of the earth, and one essential term of the lease is that the earth be handed down on to the next generation with unimpaired potentialities."

This is a sobering challenge for us all. Are we truly doing enough to ensure that we hand our forests over to the next generation with unimpaired potentialities? I believe the government's response to the current mountain pine beetle epidemic suggests that the answer to this question is a resounding no.

On June 25, 2001, the Premier made the following statement when he announced the formation of an MLA task force to examine this epidemic: "The mountain pine beetle has already infested $4.2 billion worth of timber in B.C.'s interior and threatens jobs and the livelihood of communities all across the north. It's essential government act quickly to battle this epidemic."

On October 3, 2001, the government task force tabled its report and made the following statement: "We believe that we must adopt a new approach to the way we manage our forest health in British Columbia. If we address the pine beetle infestation quickly and effectively, we can make a positive contribution to restoring the long-term health of our forests and our forest-dependent communities."

These calls for immediate action and for a new approach were made when the total area of red attack pine was at 800,000 hectares. By the end of 2004 the infestation had expanded to seven million hectares. What immediate, concrete and deliberate steps did this government undertake in the intervening four years? The only direct action it took on the mountain pine beetle epidemic was to increase the allowable cut in the beetle-impacted areas.

However, along with the lifting of the allowable cut, this government also took actions which undermined the Crown's ability to manage our forests, let alone to meaningfully respond to the mountain pine beetle epidemic or to find new approaches to the way we manage forest health. The government did this by, among other things, making massive cuts to the Forest Service, changing legislative requirements for reforestation of pest- and fire-damaged forests and dramatically reducing the amount of public investment in forest health.

At a time when we needed the expertise of forest ecologists and entomologists, this government cut those positions. At a time when we needed the help of those versed in how best to restore our forests, this government dramatically cut the number of people doing this work.

These draconian cuts to the Forest Service prompted the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals to write a strongly worded letter of concern to the Premier in which they reminded him: "Forestry is a very long-term discipline involving social, economic and environmental elements and requiring science of the highest order, making it clear that forest resource management is no place for minimalist, short-term thinking."

The association called on the Premier to critically examine whether, in terms of its impact on forest stewardship, the level of resources in the Forest Service is appropriate to the continued good forest stewardship. What was the Premier's response? Silence. No one responded to the association's concerns.

Along with the deep cuts to the Forest Service and its negative impact on the Crown's ability to act as a good steward of the forest, this government also changed the legislative requirements for reforestation. In December 2002, at a time when our forests were being ravaged by the mountain pine beetle and were much more susceptible to fire, this government amended the Forest Practices Code Act and washed its hands of its legal obligation to replant beetle-attacked or fire-ravaged forests.

In conjunction with absolving itself of its obligation to restore our forests to health, this government also dramatically cut investments in reforestation. These investments dropped from a high of $45 million in 2001 to a paltry $3 million in 2004. In fact, by this government's own admission, the amount of forest land that will not be satisfactorily restocked will grow dramatically over the next few years — proof positive of this government's abject failure to act as a good steward of our forest ecosystems.

However, the mountain pine beetle epidemic must be viewed as the proverbial canary in the coalmine. It is

our warning that things are not right in the forests. As a result of our past and current forest management regimes and a growing impact of climate change, virtually every forest disease and pest is on the rise in our forests. In the southern forest region, for example, western balsam bark beetle expanded by 40 percent in 2004. Fir beetle infestations almost quadrupled between 2002 and 2004. Spruce beetle has seen a fourfold increase since 2004.

More troubling yet is the fact that many of our plantations are now under unprecedented attack from pests and disease. The mountain pine beetle is attacking 25-to-30-year-old stands, something it isn't supposed to do. Pine beetle blight in the northeast is killing 25-year-old lodgepole pine stands at an alarming rate. Root collar weevil is on the rise in our interior plantations, killing more and more trees before they reach their first decade.

Our forests are stressed, and as a consequence they are more susceptible than ever to disease and fire and pests. It should therefore trouble us all that as a result of this government's actions over the past four years, we are less capable of acting as good stewards of our forest ecosystems than ever before. This government's actions have made it conceivable that we will not leave our forests with unimpaired potentialities for future generations.

D. MacKay: My goodness, it was tough to sit there and not bite my tongue as I listened to the member for Cariboo North rail our government for what we've done. All I can say is thank goodness that in 2001, a B.C. Liberal government was elected to the province of British Columbia to look after the resources and the people of this province.

I would like to remind the member for Cariboo North that in 1993…. And I wonder which government was in power in 1993 through to 2001, when the beetle infestation started in the central interior part of our province. It started affecting mature lodgepole pine trees in the central interior. Those trees make up about 80 percent of the harvestable timber in parts of our TSAs.

Do you know what happened between 1993 and 2001? Absolutely nothing. The NDP government did absolutely nothing to control the infestation and the spread of that pine beetle. In 2001 the first thing we did was elect a B.C. Liberal government, and the first thing the Premier did was assign an MLA task force to go out and talk to those communities that were going to be affected and are now being affected by the spread of the mountain pine beetle. There are 25,000 families throughout our province that are going to be affected directly or indirectly by the spread of that pest as it devours the trees.

There are three stages, as most people now know. There's the initial attack. Then there's the red attack that happens — the needles start to turn red — and finally the grey, when they start to drop. Those trees are being affected at an alarming rate. As an example of the spread, in 2004 seven million hectares were affected, and that equates to 283 million cubic metres of wood just in one year alone. It's expected that for the next ten years, 90 million cubic metres of wood are going to be attacked and killed by the pine beetle as it continues to roll across the central interior part of our province, touching the lodgepole pine.

It's interesting. The lodgepole pine tree is mature at 80 years of age, and that is the tree that is most affected by the mountain pine beetle. It's interesting because there's going to be a whole generation of people, those 25,000 families, that are going to be affected in the years out. They're going to be affected because they're not going to have the same level of harvest that we have today.

To hear the member for Cariboo North rail our government for what we have done or what we haven't done, I have to say, is a little bit difficult. Let's stop and think what our government has done. We've provided $135 million through the northern development initiative fund for the people of the north to spend on programs they can use to make sure that the economy is going to be strong not just today but in the future. It's not the people in this Legislature that are going to control the spending of that money. It's the people on the ground in those communities. They're the ones who are going to say where the money should be spent to make sure that the economies continue and those families can continue to meet the financial obligations they've incurred.

We've also contributed $100 million for the pine beetle strategy. That's in addition to $100 million from the federal government, which I consider to be a down payment, to help with the regrowth and the reforestation of those trees that have been affected. So this government has done a lot. We've done a lot to address the mountain pine beetle. The one thing we don't control is the weather. The only thing that's going to stop the mountain pine beetle is 25-below weather in the early fall or early spring before the snow comes or minus 40 degrees for prolonged periods of time in the winter. That's the only thing that's going to stop the mountain pine beetle.

To say that our government is not doing anything, as the member for Cariboo North alludes, is very misleading. It's misleading to this House, and it's misleading to the people of this province. Our government has done an awful lot. We will continue to do more as time unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, I think my time is almost up. So with that, I'm going to yield the floor to the member for Cariboo North.

B. Simpson: I did forget one thing that this government did do during those four years when they were not attacking the mountain pine beetle, and that was to continue to tell the population of British Columbia that it was all the NDP's fault that the mountain pine beetle ran its course. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine skewered himself

on his own petard when he finished his statement by saying: "The one thing we can't control is the weather."

I would suggest that the Liberal caucus get a briefing from the Deputy Minister of Forests and the beetle coordinator, who both, in this past month, have shown proof positive that the mountain pine beetle epidemic was going to happen irrespective of anybody's forest practices. With that, I agree with the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

What I was pointing out was not, as the member suggested, that this government did nothing over the last four years. In fact, if he had listened to what I had to say, he would have found me saying that they did plenty, but it was plenty that went in the opposite direction to what we should be doing — plenty to undermine our ability to manage the forest health events that we now have going on in our forests in British Columbia.

They are now in the process of throwing money at this problem. However, a haphazard and incoherent approach — throwing money at ad hoc groups as they form or into trust funds that will take 18 months to 24 months to get developed and on the ground — is not a strategy.

My point remains: this government has undermined our ability to manage forest health in this province. Their actions over the last four years have created that situation. This government must now rethink that strategy and equip itself and the Forest Service with the ability to manage forest health so that we can be good stewards of our forests and can in fact leave our forests to future generations with unlimited potential, which is not happening just now.

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure for me to stand up in the House today, having been elected in 2001 and coming in to clean up after the previous government. Over the past four years British Columbians have seen their economy rebound from the worst to the first in Canada. No longer are we struggling behind Alberta and Ontario. Rather, we are leading the country in growth in jobs and prosperity. While there have been a number of factors to account for this turnaround, much of the credit can be claimed by the policies the B.C. Liberal government implemented after being elected in 2001.

According to Statistics Canada, British Columbia has led all provinces in job-growth rate since the end of 2001, with almost 239,000 new jobs created. So far in 2005 our province leads the nation with the fastest growth rate, up 3.2 percent — or almost 65,000 new jobs — compared to the same period last year. In August the unemployment rate shrank to just 5.8 percent, one of the lowest on record since 1981.

For women the news is especially encouraging. Since 2001 the number of women working in our province has increased by over 113,000. Three-quarters of these jobs are full-time positions.

Last month also ranked a great milestone in British Columbia history. For the first time ever, over one million women were working in the province of British Columbia. That's 1,007,000 million women working, according to Stats Canada.

I thank you for the applause. I'm sure that it's just a great moment for everybody in British Columbia, but back to the statement at hand.

What does the strength of a strong economy really mean? It obviously means more tax cuts. A strong economy equates to increased investment into areas of social need, universal health care, public education, job training, services for recent immigrants. The list goes on and on. A competitive tax rate is a fuel that helps an economy's engine run on all cylinders.

There are those naysayers who argue against business tax cuts. I have a question for those people who are naysayers: who creates the jobs? That's the question. The answer, for the most part, is the private sector, especially small business and entrepreneurs. They are the backbone of our economy. The investments entrepreneurs make to our economy are invaluable. Some entrepreneurs open storefront businesses; some work out of their homes. Some employ strangers; others employ family members. Some entrepreneurs are senior citizens, while others are recent immigrants. They have one thing in common: they all contribute to the economy of British Columbia.

Companies that employ others can be very vulnerable to harmful shifts in taxation rates. Small businesses do not have access to unlimited capital. If their revenues drop, the consequences could be dire. If companies are forced to pay taxes that make them uncompetitive, they have to make reduced expenditures to stay in business. This normally means a reduction in staff. Unlike a former government I could mention, small business did not have the option of running yearly deficits. Nor can they submit misleading budgets to their creditors.

The strength of a job is that it benefits all, not just the individual or the family. This is basic economics. If someone has a job, they are contributing taxes to help pay for our social safety network. It's basic arithmetic. Lower taxes create jobs. People who work pay taxes. Taxes pay for a social safety net. Add this all up, and the provincial revenues increase. We've seen that happen over the last four years.

Let's look at the facts. In 2001 the total revenue was under $23 billion. For this year this figure is expected to climb over $32 billion, give or take a little. That's an increase of $9.5 billion in revenue over the past four years. Where has this increased investment gone? To health care, to public education, to our seniors, to B.C.'s first nations. There is no question that spending in these priority areas has increased thanks to the strength of a strong economy.

In terms of tax cuts there are those in the House who argue that tax cuts only benefit the rich. This is a fallacy. Those who erroneously state this are, quite frankly, misleading the public of British Columbia. Anyone in their right mind would agree that reducing or eliminating taxes for 730,000 British Columbians who earn less than $26,000 is a positive and progressive thing to do. It is frightening that anyone would object entirely to eliminating provincial taxes for those who earn $15,500. It is a fact that removing as many people as possible from tax rolls has the greatest benefit for lower-income tax earners in British Columbia.

Considering where our province was just over four years ago, under the reign of a government clinging to power after running B.C. into the ground for a decade, this turnaround has been remarkable. We remember those days during the '90s. British Columbia was home to crippling red tape, unchecked spending and punitive tax rates. Jobs and businesses were disappearing. People were out of work. While the rest of Canada prospered, our province suffered. Despite the fear and loathing from the detractors, the B.C. Liberal government's fiscal plan is working. There is no doubt that British Columbia is benefiting from the strength of a strong economy.

G. Robertson: I'll start with some basic facts. Our economy is small and highly dependent on factors that will always elude our control: global prices for our commodities, federal transfers and interest rates, the trade with the U.S. and the health of their economy. This means that we must contend with significant volatility and that our economic health depends on how the ups and the downs line up.

We're very fortunate right now to have historically high prices for almost all of our key commodities — wood, coal, oil and gas, copper, nickel — along with large federal transfers and historically low interest rates. So all of our roller-coasters are lined up to our benefit right now, and the economy is doing well.

There's been endless chest-thumping about what a strong economy we have. The reality is that conditions will change. Don't congratulate yourselves. Life is a lot more like a decathlon than some kind of strongman powerlift.

Strong is a gross oversimplification. Much more useful descriptors for our economy to strive for are resilient, healthy and restorative. There must be diligent focus on building an economy that won't bust, that doesn't rely on a few global markets that are as unpredictable as the weather on Haida Gwaii. Let's refocus on our true strengths: potent pockets of natural and human capital. Luckily, B.C. is built like a decathlete, with many valuable talents and none that we can solely rely upon.

What should the priorities be to develop a truly sustainable economy? Let's start with fiscally responsible management of our public assets — from profitable utilities like B.C. Hydro, Terasen Gas, transportation infrastructure like B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail to our extensive forest and mineral resources. This government is giving it all up cheap. This is no way to invest in our future economy.

We should be carefully stewarding our long-term, revenue-producing assets, many of which I just listed, and not, as we say in business, liquidating these assets off the balance sheet. When we sell off our coal and oil and natural gas, we should be doing so very strategically and upgrading to renewable resources. In the energy sector we've all benefited from a generation of investments in hydro power. Let's look to renewable energy sources to power our economy as the fossil fuels go up in smoke and climate change intensifies.

Unfortunately, this government is myopically focused on a narrow agenda and, in addition to mismanaging and selling our assets off, has done little to diversify our economy, even with crisis looming. Totally inadequate planning and support on the mountain pine beetle plague means that many interior communities face a gloomy future. An atrocious approach to training and apprenticeship programs and skyrocketing tuition means that we face a skills shortage of epic proportions and that our young people aren't getting access to opportunities.

You don't stimulate the economy by underfunding education, fighting with teachers and discouraging students from pursuing education and training. A strong economy invests in students. The true power of a strong economy is its ability to raise our quality of life. A truly healthy economy is one that benefits everyone.

The so-called strong economy of recent times has not made life better for the average family in B.C. Our per-capita personal debt is the highest in Canada. Average take-home pay is in decline. Homelessness in my community has doubled with a strong economy. That means our economy isn't working for many people.

An economy is a means, not an end. It's a tool to better our world and our society. Our communities and our environment must never be subservient to an economy, because without healthy people and a world around us that provides for us and our needs, there is no economy.

Let's get our priorities straight. Let's measure our success with a genuine progress index rather than the misleading gross domestic product. Let's build an economy that benefits all British Columbians and values our communities and environment above short-term corporate and political agendas. Let's build an economy that is resilient and robust for generations to come.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the speaker from Vancouver-Fairview. As misguided as some of his comments were, as a business person I'd like to remind him that Terasen is a privately held company. He should know that.

As a business person, I'm sure he has taken advantage of all the tax benefits that this province has allowed for small businesses in British Columbia. I haven't seen his cheque returned at all to the province.

I would also like to remind the member that natural resources were lower than some of the prices today in the '90s, when they were in government. Interest rates have been at an all-time low since 1995. What happened to the former government that they couldn't handle all-time high natural resource prices or low interest rates while they were driving us into the ground? You can continue the mistruths of the past of the NDP government, or you can look for a positive future in British Columbia.

Students in advanced education in British Columbia. We've created 25,000 new seats. We're building new buildings at every public institution in British Columbia. We're creating the space. Tuition fees in British Columbia are in the middle of the pack in all of Canada. We have to continue doing this so students can graduate. If they're taking a four-year degree, they can graduate in four years — not like under the NDP, where it took them five and six years to graduate. That was terrible. The highest cost of an education is the living expenses, not the tuition. The NDP kept them in school an extra two years longer before they could start contributing to the province.

We have the lowest capital debt of any province in Canada. I just want to repeat that for the member. We have the lowest capital debt for any person in British Columbia for all of Canada. If we want to talk about taxation, B.C. had the highest personal income tax rates in Canada in their term of the '90s. They imposed $2 billion worth of new taxes on everything from personal to corporate.

The B.C. Liberal government record is that we introduced significant tax relief, for net relief of $1.5 billion for all British Columbians and businesses. We've led the economic review in all industries in Canada and in job creation, and we've lowered taxes for 730,000 British Columbians. All the time we've done this while we've been reducing taxes for British Columbians.

Our spending record…. From '92 to '99 they increased spending from $17 billion to $22 billion — over a 30-percent increase.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity today to talk about the strong power of British Columbia, and I'm looking forward to the golden decade ahead of us.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today regarding the sale of Terasen Gas, the company that provides British Columbia's public gas utility — the sale that will be made to Kinder Morgan, a Texas-based multinational pipeline company. This is a critical public policy matter for British Columbians and a matter that has raised major concern across our province. The people of B.C. are deeply concerned about the sale of their public utility, one that serves 800,000 households in our province — the sale to a company in Texas, a company with a suspect environmental record and no relationship to our province or to our values.

Members in this House will know that Terasen Gas was at one time part of a Crown corporation. When its predecessor, B.C. Gas, was privatized by then Premier Vander Zalm, even he understood that this was not just any company. This wasn't just the matter of one large corporation being absorbed by another with total disregard for where it was located or what its interests were. It was a company with significant British Columbia interest.

To that end, Mr. Vander Zalm put legislative protections in place, the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. This included requirements that no more than 20 percent of Terasen be owned outside Canada, that no entity own more than 10 percent of the company and that its head office stay in B.C. It also required cabinet to approve of any sale. While he was prepared to privatize B.C. Gas — now Terasen — Mr. Vander Zalm at least understood there was a public interest that needed to be respected and protected, and he attempted to do that through legislation.

But those members on the other side in 2003 introduced the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, which scrapped Mr. Vander Zalm's legislation and pronounced open season on Terasen and on our public utility. The government dismissed the public interest in support of a strident ideological view that the marketplace is supreme and that the government should play no role, no matter what British Columbia's interests may be. There is no question that a responsible government would never allow a public utility to be controlled outside our province.

If this government was acting responsibly, they would halt this sale today. However, we all know that this is not about to occur, so I want to talk a little bit about the process of this sale. I want to focus on the abdication of responsibility by this government of the public interest in terms of ensuring that the B.C. Utilities Commission process for the sale reflects the community interest, including allowing the public to be heard and to have full information on the proposed purchaser.

On September 9 the member for Nelson-Creston and I attended the B.C. Utilities Commission procedural conference to ask them, at a minimum, to travel British Columbia and hear from our citizens in communities across this province and to talk to those who are impacted and who are concerned. The only speakers against public hearings were Kinder Morgan and Terasen. Everybody else said: "Talk to the people of British Columbia." The response of the B.C. Utilities Commission was essentially to capitulate to the timetable of Kinder Morgan by rejecting any outreach on this matter and accepting only written submissions till October 14. I would note that even with that, I spoke today…. There have been about 2,000 written submissions — all 2,000 opposed. None were in favour of this sale.

To add insult to injury, the Utilities Commission did see fit to approve a 13-percent rate increase for Terasen Gas in the middle of this sale, providing a premium for Kinder Morgan. This isn't to say that the increase isn't justified, but the timing is certainly objectionable. The response of the Minister of Energy to concerns raised about this limited process was to say he would not interfere. What he is actually saying is that he will do nothing to ensure that British Columbians have the opportunity to be fully heard on this critical public policy matter. When the BCUC falls down on process, it is the obligation of government to stand up for British Columbians and ensure that their interests are protected, but clearly they cannot count on this government to meet its obligations.

The government has also ignored its responsibilities to ensure that the environmental interests of this province are protected in this sale. Kinder Morgan has a suspect environmental record in the United States, having faced over $5 million in fines and having had five deaths attributed to accidents they were responsible for. This has led the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue an order against Kinder Morgan on August 24. They identified 44 environmental violations, 11 of which they considered major. They demanded that Kinder Morgan carry out a number of specific corrective actions, including an independent review process. This is to be completed within 120 days, or the company faces $100,000-a-day fines.

I wrote the Minister of Environment and the Attorney General, who is responsible for BCUC, asking them to provide special direction to the commission to look at environmental issues as part of this application. However, neither minister chose to respond to or even acknowledge the letter. Not even after the U.S. government actions on August 24 have you shown any concern for these environmental issues. Clearly, there is a question as to whether the environment is of concern to this government on this matter. Based on your conduct to date, the answer has to be no.

The real tragedy here isn't the efforts of Terasen to maximize the return on shares for their members or the actions of Kinder Morgan to find an opportunity to buy a pipeline network that will increase their access to the Alberta tar sands. The real tragedy is the inability of this government to remove its ideological blinkers and put B.C.'s interests first by, at a minimum, ensuring a fair and complete process by the B.C. Utilities Commission and, at best, by saying no to Kinder Morgan, by saying that this sale serves no one other than Terasen's shareholders, by saying that this sale offers no upside for the protection of our utility or the integrity of our environment. This truly is a situation where, if the government wanted to reflect the interests of British Columbians, they would do the right thing and say no to Kinder Morgan while saying yes to British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please remember to address your comments through the Chair.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to respond to the member for Vancouver-Hastings and try and set the record straight.

First of all, let me talk about the B.C. Utilities Commission. This organization was set up to depoliticize the very important public policy issues that the member has raised rather than having them subjected to the rhetoric, distortions, mistruths and misleading statements in this House. This is no way to run the economy. It's much better to have the experts — who are concerned about things like the environment, who are concerned about the price paid for our energy to heat our homes, who are concerned about the safety record of people in the workplace — decide in an objective, cool, calm manner whether any particular applicant for a transaction coming within their domain meets our British Columbia standards.

That was why the British Columbia Utilities Commission was created. They govern the transactions affecting our electrical utilities. They govern the transactions affecting our pipeline industry and a company such as Terasen, and in fact, they pass judgment on the fairness of the activities of our publicly owned insurance company, ICBC.

Let me just read to you their mandate from the website. "Through an open and transparent regulatory review process" — open and transparent — "the commission ensures that rates charged for energy are fair, just and reasonable; energy operations provide safe, adequate and secure service to their customers; and shareholders of public utilities under its jurisdiction are offered a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return," and so on.

Indeed, the minister has added the further clarification in a letter to constituents, such as the member suggests has not been answered. I think he's answered it very clearly: "I can assure you that the environmental and safety regulations and standards apply to all companies, irrespective of share ownership." So to pick out this one company and suggest it's going to do awful things, I think, is irresponsible because this company, regardless of ownership, has to comply with the standards that British Columbia sets.

Those standards are in force through the British Columbia Utilities Commission, an organization with some seven commissioners — distinguished citizens of our province — a professional staff of 20 and an annual budget approaching $5 million. I am confident that the B.C. Utilities Commission will put this transaction and the proposed operation under possibly new ownership — let me underline "possibly," because the decision has not yet been made — through the regulatory wringer to ensure that our interests as British Columbians are protected and that our standards on such issues are met — the environment, work safety and so on — which I know the member feels passionate about, as I do. That's the process in which we are engaged.

The final point I would make — and I see my time is running out — is that the ownership of the parent company of Terasen Gas, which is what's at stake here in terms of a transaction, in fact probably includes the

member himself, because the largest single shareholder of Terasen Inc., the parent, is the Canada Pension Plan. These are institutional owners, and they will decide what is in their best interests, including the British Columbians who indirectly, through Canada Pension Plan and other institutional investors, own this company.

We shall see what the shareholders of this privately owned, investor-owned company decide. I think they should be the judge of what is in their best interests in service to persons like you and me. I think this is a transaction that will stand the scrutiny. It may well be that oral hearings emerge.

As I understand it, BCUC has not precluded that possibility. Certainly, the member himself has indicated there have been a flood of other submissions, and I suspect all MLAs in this House have received many e-mails and mail on this subject. So there should be. It is an important transaction. I concede that point.

I think BCUC will do the job that it was hired to do: depoliticizing what are, in fact, important issues and not ones to be decided in this chamber.

J. Kwan: I rise to raise a point of order. I was listening to the statements from members in this House. On two occasions the government members — the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who finished just now, as well as the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — accused the opposition of misleading the House. Members should know that's unparliamentary language, and I find that offensive. I would ask for both members to withdraw their statements so that we can move on with the rest of the statements and the reply from the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: I thank the member for his comments, but I would say that I think the member's got it wrong, Madam Speaker.

Let's be clear here. BCUC has a very limited view of what community interest is when they look at community interest. They limit, and they will acknowledge by the act and the regulation, if you read it, that community interest for them is rate prices and continuity of service. It is nothing else. That's all they will look at, and they will only expand what they look at if they receive special direction from cabinet. That requires the government to accept some responsibility for what goes on in this province, even just a minutiae of responsibility for what goes on, because you're not doing it. But if you want them to look at environmental questions, then you have to tell them to look at environmental questions. If you want them to look at broader questions of public interest, then you have to tell them to look at broader questions of public interest. That simply is not occurring, and it's not being done.

You talk about the shareholders' best interest. Well, in this House our concern isn't the shareholders' best interest; it's British Columbia's best interest. While I appreciate that the member and members on that side of the House will put corporate shareholder interests first every time, because that is your record, on this side of the House we put British Columbians' interests first.

The member speaks about this being just another company. Well, it isn't just another company. It was a public utility owned by the people of British Columbia until another ideologically narrow government decided to privatize it, and then this narrowly minded ideological government took it even further. The reality is that you may have privatized the company, but the utility still belongs to the people of British Columbia. That company has a special role. It has to be dealt with in a special way, and that should be recognized by the members opposite. But apparently it's not.

If the member really is concerned about what happens in British Columbia, if he's really concerned about those communities where they're wondering what happens to their power, if he's really concerned that decisions be made in British Columbia and not be made in Houston or Dallas, then he'd be telling his colleagues and members in the cabinet that they need to step up and do what works best for British Columbia.

There are 800,000-plus people and families in this province who are looking for this government to protect their interests in this utility, especially at a time when we're all concerned about the future of gas prices, among other things. I ask you to do that. Step up. Put B.C. first, just once.

R. Sultan: If I may change the topic and, through accident, be on the agenda to speak next, I would like to make my private member's statement on the subject of compulsory retirement. I'd like to take advantage of my elder status in this House and propose we rethink compulsory retirement, which is typically at 65, in British Columbia.

I offer four reasons for this argument, not the least of which is my own personal interest in that subject. Let me start with the least important reason — namely, the precedent set in other jurisdictions. Three provinces and three territories, all of Australia, all of New Zealand and all of the United States already do it this way. They do not discriminate on the basis of age, and they have, in effect, banned compulsory retirement.

Secondly and more compellingly, I would ask the House to consider the longevity statistics confronting us. We are living longer. In my father's generation,

when he was born in Sweden a long, long time ago, the median life expectancy was 45 years. By the time I was born in Canada, another long, long time ago, median life expectancy had increased to 62 years. My recent grandchildren, it is said, have a life expectancy of about 82 years.

I asked the very capable caucus research to take out a ruler and project the trend line. They came back with the answer that in my grandchildren's grandchildren's time, life expectancy may be 150 years. Impossible? Maybe not, considering the astonishing advances in our life sciences, driven in part by great research coming out of Vancouver and other biotechnology centres around the world. If our biological end date, when we check out, keeps receding into the future, shouldn't the rest of the time scale milestones as well?

A third reason in support of this proposition is simple economics, what economists like to call intergenerational transfer. Retirees who no longer work for a wage are directly or indirectly supported by the rest of society in terms of the tangible goods and services that they require and consume. When they draw public pensions, it is quite obvious in terms of the tax burden on all society. Indirectly, when they deploy their own retirement savings, the same thing is happening in terms of the draw on the goods and services produced by the economy.

Currently, out of every 1,000 working-age British Columbians, we have those 1,000 supporting 203 seniors. By 2031, not so far into the future — I may still be serving in this House — it is estimated the dependency ratio would almost double to 385 seniors for every 1,000 working people in the province. If we were going to just freeze the dependency ratio where it is today, obviously British Columbians would have to work beyond age 65, if they so choose. I don't think anybody would suggest we're going to require them to work beyond 65, but I'm suggesting that it would be in their own selfish interest to do so.

Failing that, governments will be forced to take an even greater proportion of the paycheques earned by the younger workers of tomorrow. The intergenerational transfer of income would grow. At what point does the younger generation say: "Enough. I wish to retain an undiminished share of the goods and services we produce"? I believe it could happen, in what you might call an intergenerational strike, if you wish.

For example, consider the draw on our health care system. Today seniors 65 and older represent about 13 percent of our population, and according to some estimates, they draw about 40 percent of the health services consumed. By 2025 persons 65 and older will represent about 21 percent of the population, and if you apply the same simple arithmetic, it suggests they would account for about 60 percent of all health services. That's in 2025.

So will society simply transfer 60 percent of all the health services to our elders, or will elders have to earn a more significant portion of that 60 percent for themselves? I suggest the latter is virtually inevitable, which implies deferred retirement.

The fourth reason for eliminating compulsory retirement is our transition to a knowledge-based society. My father painted houses for a living, and at about age 65 his body was worn out. With all that toxic lead in his body, he had had it. Now we have an increasingly knowledge-based society based on the human mind, which does not depreciate so drastically. That's yet another reason.

Dr. Letts, who I introduced in this House a week or so ago, referred to one of her colleagues at a medical conference, a physician who got up at age 65 and said: "I'm not going to retire. I'm just getting the hang of it." I think that's typical of the accumulation of experience that occurs.

To sum up: requiring retirement at age 65, or at any other age, needs rethinking. Is the government considering these issues? You bet it is. The inaugural meeting of the Premier's Council on Aging is taking place today. Its terms of reference will be announced very shortly. The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale is also considering the possibility of private legislation in this area. All of us elders will be watching this very closely.

S. Hammell: I'd like to respond in the context of also looking at part of the cost of retirement, and that's the pensions. I think we can't talk about removing mandatory retirement unless we look at how the pension system plays into that. Just to put it in context, I'd like to give you a quick history.

In 1927 the provincial and federal governments financed the first old age pension. It's interesting, because it was not long after the First World War. I think the wars, the major wars in our history, have driven some social changes.

The pension was available at that time to seniors who had reached the age of 70 and beyond. The pension was $20 a month — a grand amount of $240 a year — but there was a means test involved in getting that pension. That pension was there because we, as a society, decided that we did not want to see our seniors move into their final years in poverty.

Twenty-five years later — again, after a war in 1951 — a universal pension was established for Canadian citizens over 70. At that time there was no means test. We, as a society, decided on the principle of universality around pensions. The age level was 70 years old, but you could get a pension at the age of 65, again, with a means test.

Both of these pensions were cooperations between the federal and provincial governments. Both were shared financially and administered at first by the provincial government and later by the federal government.

In the '60s — some of us remember the '60s — the number of seniors increased and so did the complaints regarding the amount of money being received through the pension program. At that time there was this notion that workers and employers would contrib-

ute to a pension plan, and that pension plan would be returned to the retirees when they retired. Again, universality was the principle. At the heart and core of this was our belief that our seniors were valued and that we did not, as a society, want to see them drop below a certain floor in terms of their income.

If we scroll further forward — and there were a few bumps along the way — we look at 2005, and we're talking now about removing the concept of mandatory retirement. This is an interesting discussion, because in fact there is no universality in terms of mandatory retirement. Judges go on for a long time. Sometimes they seem to go on forever. They don't have to retire until 75. Politicians are only forcefully retired by their constituents. Teachers don't have to retire. Senators go on for far too long.

There is a wide variety of issues around when you have to retire, but I think fundamental to the principle we have to go back to is that our seniors need to retire in dignity. We have decided there should be no ceiling or floor through which they do not fall. Therefore, it seems to me that part of our focus should also be on ensuring that people have an adequate pension to retire on. You can talk about removing mandatory retirement, but when people retire, they need to have a pension on which they can live in dignity. Right now, 40 percent of our community has no other retirement pension than the Canada Pension Plan. Women often, as a result, feel that. Often immigrant workers who have come late….

I think we are open on the notion of mandatory retirement. I think it's good to be looking at that issue, but it must be underpinned by an adequate pension.

R. Sultan: I endorse and support the thoughtful comments of the member opposite. I think we share a common concern about the important social and income issues, in particular, that derive from this demographic reality.

I have just received a news release talking about the Premier's new council to tackle seniors issues. It might be highly appropriate to quote the Premier: "We are already feeling the push of the rising tide of an aging population that will forever alter our economy, our communities and our families, and it's critical that our public policies and institutions respond to that transformation. Our goal is to have the best system of support in North America for seniors."

Referring to the new council on seniors issues, which has just been created: "The council will directly engage seniors in helping us to achieve that goal so we can develop a plan that will ensure B.C. is effectively riding the wave of demographic change rather than struggling in its wake."

I think the issue is there. It's apparent to all of us. We feel it in our own lives as we endeavour to deal with the aged in our communities. I am encouraged, and I think both sides of the House recognize the importance of this issue and the need to address it through various avenues such as the possibility of a bill from the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale and the Premier's council on aging issues.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome you and all other members of the Legislature back after our week in our constituencies. A number of members of this chamber were at the Union of B.C. Municipalities over the past week. I know a number of them were involved in a lot of different activities, and I think that was a very productive use of our time.

This morning I am bringing forward a motion which I would like to read into the record.

Hurricane Katrina is one of the largest hurricanes. It's the first category-five hurricane of this hurricane season. It first made landfall on August 25 off the coast of Miami, Florida, and then again on August 29 when it came across the Florida panhandle, came across to Mississippi, hit there and then went on to Louisiana.

As a result of the winds and the amount of water and what have you that was coming at the state of Louisiana, there was a tremendous pressure on three levees and these levees were breached like a dike that's overflowed. We lost three of those: the 17th Street Canal, the Industrial Canal and the London Avenue canals. The 17th Street Canal connects with Lake Pontchartrain, which suffered a two-city-wide block…. This is a big block of the levee that was just taken out. It resulted in over 80 percent of New Orleans becoming underwater. This is a pretty massive and destructive force that Katrina brought to the coast of Louisiana. It caused a lot of damage throughout Louisiana, Mississippi and in some parts of Alabama.

Katrina is the most expensive natural disaster in the history of man. It is going to cost over $200 billion to repair the damage to Louisiana and Mississippi and so

on. So it is a big, big deal. It left about five million people homeless. That's like the entire population of British Columbia — plus some — having nowhere to sleep, nowhere to have showers, nowhere to do laundry, no schools to send our kids to, no whatever.

I cannot imagine what that must be like for those five million people. I mean, I have an inkling, but I cannot really fathom exactly what it might be like. We all watched the news and saw the events unfolding down in Louisiana. We saw people very, very desperate. We saw them being shuttled from one location to another. At one point we had a large number of people that were moved into the Superdome and the convention centre. At one point we actually saw people being dropped off on overpasses that were above the waterline and were just expected to stay there and wait for rescuing.

The thing about this hurricane is…. Many times when people think of a hurricane or wet weather in British Columbia, we think of it being cold. Well, that's not the case down in Louisiana. They were in 100- and 105-degree temperatures. Dehydration was a huge issue. Sanitary drinking water, places for people to get together and reunite — big problems. All of those things are very, very important and were not happening.

The entire area of 90,000 square miles was declared a federal disaster. There were a lot of activities out there that are not things we like to see in a natural disaster, but they happen. Perhaps they happen just out of desperation. We saw looting happening in New Orleans. We saw people just helping themselves to other people's goods. In many cases, this was people looking for food; in some cases, it was more along the lines of looking for valuables and so on.

We saw some of that happen. It is a fact of life that when people are frightened and displaced and under tremendous stress, which I'm sure everybody was in Louisiana, they do strange things. In this case, that resulted in people stealing from retailers, stealing from their neighbours, so that they could survive. It's a terrible thing that that has happened. It is something that has resulted also in some death and some danger to people that are relief workers, to the police department, to the fire department, to just plain ordinary residents of New Orleans and so on.

A lot of people were moved over to the Superdome and to the convention centre, which is a great thing to do. Initially the big deal was get people out of Louisiana — out of New Orleans, up higher in the state and what have you. That's a great thing, but there are a lot of people that don't have cars, that don't have a place to go once they get there. So a lot of New Orleans residents actually stayed in the city, and they were evacuated to the Superdome and to the convention centre. There were over 30,000 evacuees that were at the Superdome and another 20,000 that were at the convention centre.

You know, if you take a look at a building like, say, B.C. Place or GM Place or the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, it's meant for large numbers of people to come in. Certainly, they'll use the washrooms. Certainly, they'll use the food services and all those sorts of things, but it's very, very different when it becomes the equivalent of a small city, which is what happened with the Superdome and the convention centre. They didn't have adequate resources on site there to deal with the problems they were facing. Many people's lives were impacted adversely, simply as a result of the evacuation efforts.

British Columbians and Canadians saw this unfolding on CNN and decided that we wanted to do something about it. It's at times like this, whether it's around the events of 9/11 or the tsunami in Southeast Asia earlier in this decade…. British Columbians and Canadians stepped up to the plate. In the case of B.C., we sent our heavy urban search and rescue team over to Louisiana to help them locate people in the wake of the hurricane.

We had a 41-member team that left Vancouver. They were met in Lafayette, Louisiana, by the Louisiana State Police, who were at that point coordinating the response and recovery logistics. In that group, we had 45 highly trained members. They were trained in rescue operation in a variety of different situations, including collapsed building sites, fast-flowing water, etc. The team members included 32 search and rescue specialists, two doctors, 12 paramedics, four search dogs, two structural engineers and eight hazardous material technicians.

I want to tell you that when they arrived on the scene, they were amongst the first, and they were greatly welcomed by the people of Louisiana. So much so that Louisiana State Senator Walter Boasso said there are Canadian flags flying everywhere in St. Bernard's Parish near New Orleans after a Vancouver search and rescue team saved 119 people last week before the U.S. military showed up. The community's fire chief also heaped praise on our squad, which we call the heavy urban search and rescue team. It was a pretty good thing.

I was in your hometown of Penticton, Mr. Speaker, around that time. There's a little restaurant cafe off the main street that is sort of built as a replica of a Louisiana bar, if you will, in the French quarter. As I drove through I saw a big sign that said: "We love you, New Orleans." That was a kind of expression of just simple things that people expressed in their feelings for these individuals facing this disaster. It was really touching to see that. This apparently was being replicated down in New Orleans, and I'm glad that it was.

We also sent military divers. They were from Esquimalt and Halifax, and they headed to the New Orleans area. That was to help their U.S. counterparts deal with some of the navigational hazards. Thirty-seven Red Cross volunteers arrived at the lip of the disaster, Baton Rouge, which has long been the ugly sister of New Orleans but now is one of the most populated cities in Louisiana. Canadian ships were dispatched down to the Gulf Coast — including HMCS

Ville de Québec, HMCS Toronto, HMCS Athabascan and the coast guard ship Sir William Alexander — bringing with them a total of 1,000 sailors.

Locally, British Columbians have contributed 40 percent of all donations to the Salvation Army's Hurricane Katrina relief effort. Of all the foreign nations offering post-Katrina assistance, Canada was the first to respond with units that, in one case, got to work sooner than their U.S. counterparts.

We also had some businesses step up to the plate. I really thought it was pretty cool when Air Canada said: "We're going to fly down to New Orleans, pick people up and take them somewhere safe. We're not going to charge them for that. We're just going to pick them up and, as a humane gesture, take them to Texas or take them to another part of the U.S. where they could be housed and looked after while their own homes were looked at here in Louisiana."

We have a college here, Malaspina University College, and many other colleges in British Columbia that recognize there are thousands and thousands of people from New Orleans who were in post-secondary education and were now not going to be able to attend classes because, for the most part, their colleges and universities were also subject to severe damage. We offered to give them domestic-price access to the B.C. education system. Many of them have taken us up on that, and I'm proud of that.

There is a letter I have here from the U.S. Ambassador to Canada which really speaks a lot to what Americans thought of Canadians' relief efforts.

The letter goes on with much the same, just to say that there is a country down there and a people and a state that are very grateful for the offers of support from Canada.

As a nation, why do we do this? Well, it's because British Columbia has had its own share of natural disasters. Natural disasters require a lot of help. It requires military. It requires police, fire, ambulance personnel. I know that over the past several years British Columbians have demonstrated again and again, in those types of events, that they have a volunteer core of people, in addition to the public safety personnel, who are willing to get out there and do the nasty work that is needed in recovery. We have a wonderful emergency social services network that has been created by volunteers across this province — supported by the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Health and many other ministries in our government — with the whole idea of being able to reach out to British Columbians quickly and effectively to ensure that they are looked after.

I'm greatly pleased that the experience we gained through the firestorms of 2004, through the experiences of things such as the Winnipeg flood…. Canadians have taken those lessons and are transporting those good wishes, those great deeds, out to people in other parts of our universe. I'm very, very grateful for each and every British Columbian that did that.

There was something else that really struck me as something very beautiful, and it was a story I watched unfolding on the news for three or four days. It was around the issue of pets. We had gotten the people out of Louisiana, and a lot of them left their dogs, their cats and so on there. Veterinarians from British Columbia got together, got the supplies they needed and went down there to rescue those animals, and I think that's just another expression of how creative British Columbians are when it comes to dealing with disaster. We know there are things we can do and should do, and we do it.

Once again, I'm proud of our country and proud of our province for our efforts, and I do extend my deepest sympathies to the people of New Orleans, the people of the Mississippi delta. I look forward to hearing comments from other members of this Legislature today.

R. Fleming: I thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his sentiments and the expression of solidarity he has provided this morning to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast states of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana.

He's correct. British Columbians were shocked by the images they saw broadcast to the world just a few weeks ago of people seeking evacuation, a scene of chaos and ruin and, really, as he described, of our vulnerability to the devastation of the forces of nature that can cause loss of life and, indeed, the $200 billion estimated in damage to those states.

As the member described, British Columbians responded and continue to respond both heroically and generously. We've sent special rescue teams from B.C. cities and towns. The reference was made to the 41-member urban search and rescue team from Vancouver, and we continue to perform rescue and recovery missions today.

Now, with donations in the millions to organizations like the Red Cross and other agencies that are providing relief and comfort in the wake of the tragedy, British Columbians continue to show their concern. I think this House should be proud of the way its citizens responded both at the grass-roots and the organizational levels to the sight of their fellow human beings in need.

Hurricane Katrina reminded us that as the province's legislators, we have a tremendous privilege to represent such a globally minded and compassionate citizenry in British Columbia. There are no doubt going to be many lessons learned and examinations done of what we can understand from this natural disaster. I think every jurisdiction, British Columbia included, and other states, is going to have to closely examine its level of preparedness for such disasters.

Here in our area it's things like earthquakes, tsunamis and other events, and questions are going to have to be asked continuously by our public organizations, questions like: "Are we doing enough to make our public buildings safe? Are they being seismically upgraded? Are we ensuring that our systems of dikes and our coastlines in the lower mainland and elsewhere in British Columbia are sufficient to withstand nature's power and to save lives?"

These are questions we should all be asking of our government regarding our collective safety and our level of preparedness.

A. Horning: I'm honoured today to rise in support of this motion from the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

For the past month we have witnessed the catastrophe known as Hurricane Katrina. Katrina is the most devastating and costly disaster in U.S. history. Daily we have watched in sadness and horror the total devastation of the Gulf region. More than 1,130 people and counting have died and over one million people displaced. Almost 80 percent of New Orleans was under water. Five million residents were without power, and the total losses amounted to more than $200 billion.

The declared disaster area is almost as large as the United Kingdom, and it will take several months, if not years, for the area to recover. In some cases, there just won't be any recovery. This is a truly mind-boggling catastrophe. However, it is the human spirit that rises to the occasion during these troubled times.

My community, Kelowna, faced a similar challenge with the firestorm of 2003. Although on a smaller scale, the Okanagan Mountain Park fire impacted our area as fully as Hurricane Katrina did with the U.S. The firestorm resulted in the largest evacuation in Canadian history: 50,000 residents were forced out of their homes. That amounts to about half the population of the city of Kelowna.

A total of 334 homes and ten businesses were destroyed. Personnel from 60 fire departments across B.C., a thousand forest fire fighters and 1,400 members of the Canadian Armed Forces joined in the battle to save the city, and they did just that. Not a single life was lost. The total economic impact is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We are still recovering from the firestorm two years after disaster struck. As with Katrina, some people will never fully recover.

It seems that with every disaster, a hero emerges to lead the people towards a better day. Our hero is Kelowna fire chief Gerry Zimmermann. I would like to acknowledge his leadership during the firestorm and thank him and the Kelowna Fire Department for their service to the public.

As I stated, Mr. Speaker, when we struggle through the worst in Mother Nature, we also witness the best in human nature. The outpouring of support from our citizens was truly moving. It's the same spirit we are now seeing in the aftermath of Katrina: strangers helping strangers, individuals risking their own lives to save others, humans coming to the rescue of pets. Through disasters, we see the sharing and caring that people are capable of. People are making sacrifices they never thought possible. Through events such as Katrina and the firestorm, individuals become bonded for life. When "I" turns to "we," all things are possible.

As a result of the lessons learned with the firestorm, it should come as no surprise that rescuers from B.C. were amongst the first to respond to Katrina. Within hours of its aftermath the 41-member search and rescue team left Vancouver for Louisiana. It is a simple fact of civilized life that neighbours help neighbours when help is needed. Our neighbours need our help now. We are proud to do our part, and we offer our sympathy and support to our neighbours to the south.

R. Cantelon: I would like to rise and offer my support of the motion of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. We realized a lot of lessons from the firestorm situation in Kelowna, and I think it sensitized us to the catastrophic events that can occur at the hands of nature. The people of British Columbia were therefore very quick to respond with their expressions of concern to the victims of this horrific disaster in New Orleans and the Bay Area. They responded quickly with a call to action and with dollars in support. Throughout British Columbia we witnessed the spontaneous giving of significant dollars to agencies such as the Red Cross, and I would encourage all those British Columbians who have not yet helped to help through the Red Cross and agencies like that.

It struck the city of New Orleans with devastating power on August 25, did Katrina, and then later, of course, Rita. The previous speakers have chronicled some of the specifics, but I think what sticks with many of us were the images we saw on television of people hacking their way out of rooftops in the sweltering heat, trying desperately to save themselves, and of people sitting on trees and other places and being rescued by helicopters. It was really quite a terrible event.

We are a caring province, and British Columbians can take pride in the quick response of the emergency team that was sent from this province. It is worth re-

peating that they saved over 119 lives in their efforts. One of the most significant things is the instinctive way we responded with action. The team, I understand, got there before some of the FEMA teams arrived.

There are a couple of lessons that I think we can take from this. We always can learn from the effects of natural disasters and how they affect our community. One, of course, is that we can never be prepared enough. We are not immune to natural disasters in B.C. We all recall March of 1964 when the 9.2 earthquake hit the Alaska panhandle and sent an eight-foot tsunami up into Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Of course, we are sensitive to some of the vulnerabilities we have to earthquakes. We can always be prepared and, I think, can take assurance that we are learning, and we are continuing to refine our methods of response to natural disasters. It's a key priority for this government.

But there's more than that. It wasn't just the devastation to homes, the homelessness that was created. It was the devastation and disruption to the way their governments functioned under this natural disaster. It was how they failed, frankly — failed to communicate with one another and respond. The very roots of what we know as our civilization — the foundations of civility and civilization — were threatened by the examples, as indicated by the previous speaker, of civil disorder. We must also not only prepare ourselves in material ways and in the way we respond with emergency teams but must guard ourselves to make sure our institutions are strong and can respond and maintain the order of government in these situations.

I'm confident that this is a caring province and that we will respond, as the previous speakers have indicated. This is a province that rises to the occasion, that inspires hope and that responds with a genuine outpouring of sympathy, affection and assistance for people in need.

I would like to close by saying I warmly and heartily endorse the motion put forward by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

D. Hayer: I strongly agree with the motion put forward by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and I urge all members of this House to join me in supporting it. I spoke on this issue in mid-September, urging all members of this House and all British Columbians to send not only their sympathies to the victims of Hurricane Katrina but financial support as well.

As we have heard often over the past few weeks, the majority of those who were left homeless — left without jobs, work or income — are those who were living in poverty. If we believe in humanity and in helping others in their time of need, we must dig into our pockets and contribute to the many fundraising efforts for those victims — particularly those who were hurt most in New Orleans, in Mobile and in many, many small communities throughout Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. For them, the grief and tragedy of their lives turned upside down will last for many years, if not forever.

Many have lost everything. If you were on poverty's doorstep before this disaster struck, it is virtually impossible to rebuild lives without generous assistance from those of us who can afford to help. We not only need to help them put food on the table but need to help them build a new table, put a new roof over their heads and build their new lives.

The destruction, from what I have seen in the news reports, was almost total in some New Orleans neighbourhoods. Certainly, those people need our sympathy, but they also need our financial help. I know there are many British Columbians who have already donated, and I want to congratulate them on their generosity as well as the work and help they have provided by volunteering and visiting those communities.

It does not take much effort to write a cheque or to start up a fundraising program. I mentioned in my speech in this House a few weeks ago the three young Surrey girls who operated a lemonade stand. In just a few short hours, they managed to raise more than $1,700 for hurricane relief. I commended those girls then, and I commend them again now. I urge all British Columbians to follow their example and dig deep in their pockets to help our southern friends. I know they would do the same for us if we needed help.

I also want to add that this disaster has been a great learning example for us in British Columbia. It has made us aware of the necessity to prepare for disaster. As everybody in British Columbia knows, one day this province will endure a catastrophic earthquake.

It is not a matter of if but of when it will happen, so we must all be prepared. I know this government — through the Solicitor General, on the heels of Hurricane Katrina — has looked carefully at the needs that meet such emergencies in this province, and they're continuously upgrading as they learn from the experience.

I also urge individual British Columbians to prepare their own disaster response: to stockpile enough food and water for at least a week; sleeping bags and other comfort items; and extra medications, if necessary. Ensure that they are in a place that is accessible and that they're not stored in a basement. If your home was to collapse, it could prevent you from accessing them.

Katrina has demonstrated that, try as anyone might, emergency response to catastrophes does take time, due to the magnitude of the disaster. People must be able to rely on their own devices in the short-term — at least for a few days or weeks, depending on the disaster. Preparation is the first step, as I have done in my own family: store some food, medication and sleeping bags in the shed outside. We have done this for our family, and I urge all British Columbians — and everybody else — to make similar preparations.

V. Roddick: I rise today to fully support Motion 5, as we Canadians feel it is our duty to help those in

need, whether it be our own citizens or people around the world. The UN peacekeeping force was born here. Our Armed Forces, though rather thin on the ground due to far too many years of financial strain — make that starvation — are second to none in emergency response.

Public safety is top priority for this government, and we will continue to work with local government to enhance tsunami awareness and preparedness throughout the province. Ongoing education is so necessary. As a child, I spent some time living in Hawaii in the 1950s. We were taught in school how to react to hurricanes and tidal waves, as we called them then. There were siren storm warnings, just like fire drills. We were taught that if there was a sudden vast withdrawal of water out past the reef, run like hell for higher ground. These old wives' tales, or basic common sense, are neglected today with grim, grim results.

Hurricane Katrina should be a huge wake-up call to this province and the Canadian Department of Fisheries. We have a massive natural disaster just waiting to happen in our own backyard. The Fraser River, from Mission to Westham Island — the last island in the river — is at risk because of a lack of coordination on how to deal with such things as the Agassiz debris trap, and more importantly, dredging. We have an excellent diking system but if we allow the river bottom to rise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the tops of the dikes are becoming lower and lower. The entire Fraser Valley is below both the flooded Fraser and tidal wave levels. Think of the personal devastation and economic loss.

Let us help those hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by all means, but let us also learn from their glaring mistakes and help ourselves. I ask that the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Surrey-Fraser docks, etc., all work together with our province to ensure the managed safety and security of our environment, its people and its wildlife for generations to come.

R. Lee: I strongly support the motion moved by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is often said: "In times of need, one finds out who their true friends are." Good friends are there when needed and ask for nothing in return.

Despite a rocky beginning, the relationship between Canada and the United States has blossomed into a great friendship. Sure, there have been some disputes along the way. There still are. Friends never agree on everything. Despite these minor issues, our two countries have always been able to work out their differences. We are major trading partners. We are both members of NATO. We are equal partners in NORAD. We share the world's longest border. We share a language and a similar culture.

We all know Americans to be generous people. Despite that, we have been going through a lot of crises together. During last year's tsunami crisis in Asia, Americans donated tens of millions of dollars towards the relief efforts. They provided doctors, medicine, safe drinking water and food to those left homeless after the waves struck last Boxing Day. The U.S. does not ask for anything in return.

Just over a month ago it was our friend's turn to look for help. We all witnessed the devastation that hit the Gulf Coast playing out on our television screens. We saw the suffering and the heartbreak, and we reacted. Canadians once again proved their reputation for generosity by donating millions to help those neighbours. Within 48 hours, rescue teams from Canada were sent down to help with the relief effort. Vancouver's own urban search and rescue team saved almost 120 people who were stranded on roofs and in trees.

Burnaby firefighters…. For example, Mark Pullen was part of the urban search and rescue team. He travelled to the region for a week, starting on August 31, right after Katrina hit. After he returned, he said: "You are definitely seeing one of the worst disasters to hit the U.S. It is an extreme situation where nothing is normal." He also said: "It's very surreal, and you hope it never happens to your own home, your own province." Working with the U.S. National Guard and local police, the team's actions earned the praise of David Wilkins, the American Ambassador to Canada, and the eternal gratitude of the people of St. John's Parish and Chalmette in Louisiana.

As a province we have had our share of natural disasters, so we know what the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are going through. In 1910, 62 people died when an avalanche swept through Rogers Pass. We have seen the Fraser River flood more than 20,000 hectares in 1948, forcing 16,000 people to flee their homes. A tsunami hit Port Alberni in 1946 as a result of the great Alaskan earthquake. Three large waves slammed the coast, destroying over 300 homes and businesses.

The United States has been there when we needed them. Most recently, when Ontario and Quebec were suffering from the aftermath of the ice storm in 1998, our American friends were among the first to offer to rebuild the power lines, providing relief to hundreds of thousands left without power during the bitterly cold weather.

Often when there's a major disaster, people point fingers and try to place the blame on something or someone. This is not the time to do that. Our priorities should be to help those affected by Katrina's devastation. The people of the United States are valued and true friends. I would like to add my voice to support them in their hour of need. In times of crisis, our friendship grows and is strengthened.

I urge everyone to contribute to the humanitarian efforts currently underway. The Red Cross, the Salvation Army and many other charities are helping in the humanitarian relief efforts. Help them help those who are in need.