Hansard — Monday, March 26, 2007 p.m.

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


Introductions by Members		6377

Tributes		6377
	Kelowna women's curling team
	A. Horning

Introductions by Members		6378

Tributes		6378
	Jenna Spring
	B. Bennett
	B.C. athletes at World Police and Fire Games
	H. Bloy

Introductions by Members		6378

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6378
	Payday Lending Act, 2007 (Bill M209)
	R. Fleming

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6379
	100th anniversary of Indo-Canadian disenfranchisement
	H. Bains
	D. Hayer
	B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Conference
	J. Kwan
	Music programs in schools
	I. Black
	200th anniversary of abolition of slavery
	B. Simpson
	Ecosystem restoration program
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		6381
	Safety upgrades on northern ferries
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Fuel removal from Queen of the North
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Audit procedures in Transportation Ministry
	G. Gentner
	Hon. K. Falcon
	M. Farnworth
	Funding for community volunteer program
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Richmond
	Closing of Deni House
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Logging practices on private lands
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Forests Ministry consultation with first nations on release of private lands
	C. Trevena
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		6386
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. C. Taylor

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6386
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)

Second Reading of Bills		6386
	Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11) (continued)
	C. Wyse
	J. McIntyre
	N. Macdonald
	B. Bennett
	L. Krog
	N. Simons
	C. Evans
	C. Trevena
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. I. Chong
	Security Services Act (Bill 15)
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth
	L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6417
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	G. Gentner
	H. Bains

Hon. G. Campbell: The government side of the House is joined today by constituency assistants from all over the province. I know members of the opposition as well as the government will agree that our constituency assistants are really the backbone of a lot of the services we provide to citizens across British Columbia. I hope the House will make them all welcome and say thanks for their contribution.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to make an introduction today of someone who actually is not in the precinct with us. It is my granddaughter, who was born on Saturday at 4 a.m., and she is watching her first question period today. I'd like you all to congratulate my daughter Devyn Flesher and her husband Kurt Flesher and welcome Indiana Flesher to her first day at the Leg.

Hon. S. Bond: Today all of us had the pleasure of welcoming a number of excellent schools here to the Legislature as part of Education Week. We are celebrating excellence in education, and today I know that all members of the House would want to recognize those schools that are here with us.

From Coast Tsimshian Academy today, there are winners in the aboriginal education category; from Salmon Arm West Elementary, winners in the early learning category; Bowen Island Community School and Nechako Valley Secondary School, who won in the environment category; Ecole Austin Road and Oceanside Middle School, winners in the healthy schools category; Tatla Lake Elementary-Junior Secondary School, our literacy award recipient; and A.L. Fortune Secondary, who was recognized for their trades and skills development programs.

Mr. Speaker, these are outstanding schools, and we're so thrilled to honour them today. I would ask the House to make these guests very welcome.

G. Coons: Visiting today from the Nass Valley we have a group of young people from Youth Organizing Youth, a project of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. In the precinct we have their project leader Paul Mercer Sr., along with Kyle Azak, Dorothy Mackay, Nick Azak and Jeffery Stanley. They are looking at post-secondary options and seeing the provincial government in action. Please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my pleasure today to welcome some very special guests to the House. They happen to be neighbours of the Speaker. Would the House please welcome Wilfred and Eveline Klein. They are joined by their three sons Ian, Phillip and Jordan. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: We're joined today in the chamber by Ray Rogers, a friend from West Vancouver. Ray is a retired Vancouver firefighter. He provided much service to our community as a firefighter, and he continues to provide service to the community and the province as a kind of citizen watchdog. I know the Minister of Transportation will be well aware of Ray. I think he's his best customer. Would you please welcome Ray Rogers.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today is the start of Social Work Week in British Columbia, and it's an honour for me to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of individuals who are making a tremendous contribution to children and families and the well-being of vulnerable children and families in communities throughout the province.

I had the privilege of joining a number of social workers from around the province for lunch today. Here representing the more than 2,300 MCFD social workers are Alan Doll from Smithers, Bill Yeung from Surrey, Pamela Parmar from Pemberton and Leah Hilt from here in Victoria.

Representing the Nisga'a child and family services is Georgia Campbell, and representing the Desniqi Services Society is Jennifer Houde. Each of these social workers makes a tremendous contribution to the communities that they live in, the vulnerable children and families in those communities and the province. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them to the precinct today.

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure to introduce to the House today three guests in the gallery from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. ACORN Canada is a community-based organization. They're focused on improving consumer protections for low- and moderate-income families in the pursuit of social justice. Here with us today from that organization is Cindy Ransom, who is an ACORN member of the Guildford chapter in Surrey. She's chair of the B.C. board, and she sits on the Canada board as well.

Persia Sayyari is here as well. She's a lead organizer for the organization, and Erica Yablonkski is a community organizer for B.C. ACORN. Will the House please make them welcome.

A. Horning: Kelowna's own Kelly Scott and her rink were on a mission to represent Canadians at the World Women's Curling Championship in Aomori, Japan. Now they're coming home as holders of the world women's title. Scott and her rink beat Denmark 8 to 4 in a nail-biter of a game.

I would like to ask for a round of applause in congratulating Kelly Scott and her team of third Jeanna Schraeder, second Sasha Carter, lead Renee Simons, alternate Michelle Allen and coach Gerry Richards for

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I'm happy to welcome today a large group of United Steelworkers union that are here to lobby MLAs with respect to log export and forest policy.

In the House today are Dennis Deveau, legislative director from Ottawa; Scott Lunny, a staff member; Kim Pollock, a researcher; Dale Johnson, a member of Local 13567 and a sawmill worker from New Westminster; Doug Morgan, a member from Local 180 and a local rep from Duncan; Rita LaJeunesse, a member from Local 185 and a logger from Port Alberni; Ken Bayers, from Local 12171 and a logger from Squamish; Don Iwasko, Local 1424 and a truck driver from Prince George; Jeff Bromley, Local 1405 and a sawmill worker from the Kootenays.

Please make these guests welcome in our chamber today. I hope we open our hearts and minds to what they have to say to us over the week.

R. Hawes: I have two introductions today. The first one is Mr. Ross Butcher. He is a good friend and supporter and also is the husband of one of my constituency assistants.

Also in the gallery today is probably my biggest supporter, my best friend and my "she who must be obeyed" for the last 37 years, my wife Alma. Could the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today a good friend of mine, Cheryl Hewitt, who is with us here from Vancouver. Cheryl has a long and distinguished background working in the health care sector around health care policy as well as in the co-op sector. In many ways and most importantly, Cheryl played a large role in getting me here, as my campaign manager in the last election. Please welcome Cheryl.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to make welcome a friend of mine who is also a former mayor of Nanaimo, Graeme Roberts. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Bennett: One small correction and one tribute. The small correction is to the introductions made by the member for Cariboo North. Jeff Bromley is actually from Cranbrook; he's not from Prince George. It'd be okay if he was from Prince George. That would be fine, but he's not. He's from Cranbrook. Jeff, welcome to the House.

I also wanted to pay tribute to a young woman from Cranbrook, Jenna Spring, who is graduating from Yale University this spring. She made the list of academic all ivy recognition in winter sports. To be eligible, she had to have a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better, and I know it was considerably better. She is in the top ten in goals, assists and points at Yale University for women's ice hockey. Join with me, please, and recognize Jenna's accomplishments.

H. Bloy: I'd like to congratulate the B.C. team, all 161 members who competed at the 2007 World Police and Fire Games in Adelaide, Australia. The games are about competition, and they're very competitive, but they're also about friendship among law, fire and customs services around the world.

One of the winners, from Burnaby, of eight gold medals was Cathy Van Staalduinen. Our over-35 soccer team won the gold under the honorary manager Jim Byrnes, legendary blues singer and actor.

I would like to congratulate all the competitors at the games, and I look forward to British Columbia hosting the 2009 World Police and Fire Games.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to ask the House to please welcome Danny Gerak, operator of the Pitt River Fishing Lodge. He provides wonderful service in the Pitt River. I know the Premier has enjoyed fishing there under the careful guidance of Mr. Gerak, as have I and my father as recently as last summer. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Joining us is Dr. Shawn Cafferky from the University of Victoria, who is teaching a class, UVic history 344, the political history of Canada. He is joined by his students, too many to name. I hope the House would make him and his students very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: It's one of those days where I think everybody was introduced. If you weren't, welcome.

R. Fleming: I move that the bill intituled Payday Lending Act, 2007, be read for a first time today.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to introduce the Payday Lending Act before the House today. The Payday Lending Act addresses the urgent need for reform of

the payday lending industry in this province. It will establish the groundwork for an industry that provides services to people in a manner that is both legal and fair.

The current unregulated, unlicensed state of affairs for the payday loan industry does not ensure this. It does not protect the interests of B.C. consumers in a fast-growing industry whose presence is visible on the main streets of our towns and cities.

The Payday Lending Act will protect vulnerable borrowers while allowing the industry to be fairly and transparently compensated for the risks of this financial product. Payday lenders typically loan money at a rate greatly in excess of the annual rates allowed by the Criminal Code of Canada. Throughout the industry, violation of the law is a common matter of daily business practice.

Unlike five other provinces, B.C. has no licensing requirements for payday lenders. Our lack of regulation hurts vulnerable people and also deprives the industry of stability and certainty. That is why not just consumer groups favour this legislation, but two-thirds of the payday lending industry also want regulation.

Recently, Manitoba gave assent to payday lending legislation. At the federal level an act to allow provinces to twin their consumer affairs responsibility with the power to regulate interest rates is at the final Senate state. By adopting this act, B.C. will transform an unacceptable and criminal interest state of affairs into an orderly and fair industry that protects consumers. This bill protects vulnerable consumers from harmful and predatory practices like the rollover of loans, and debt traps for individuals with insurmountable debt levels.

This is an important step to protect the consumer interests of all British Columbians. I ask all members to review and support this bill. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Payday Lending Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

H. Bains: On March 26, 1907, legislation was passed in this very chamber to disenfranchise people from India and put them in the same class as the Chinese and Japanese, who were disenfranchised earlier. This law denied them the right to vote for the next 40 years. It was as harshly as any elected body could treat the people whom they were elected to represent.

Today, exactly 100 years later, we say: "How embarrassing." The question comes to mind: what were they thinking?

What followed was a period of 40 years of long and painful struggle to bring back sanity and justice in this province and this country and Darshan Singh, and the CCF who worked with the Khalsa Diwan Society to convince the politicians of the day to right the wrongs that they have committed.

As a result of their efforts, in 1947 people from India, China and Japan who chose Canada as their new home were granted the right to be equal and, therefore, granted the right to vote.

As we sit here and reflect back and as embarrassed as we feel by certain decisions made by those who sat in these chairs before us, we must pause and pay tribute to those great souls such as Indar Singh Gill, Hussain Rahim, Dr. D.P. Pandia and others from different backgrounds for working unselfishly to build a society based on equality where no one is left behind, where no one is jailed for exercising their basic fundamental democratic right — an inclusive society where we celebrate and learn from our diverse cultures, where we find unity in diversity.

There's a lesson for all us legislators to learn from this very sad and unfortunate event in our history. That is that before we pass any legislation, we must ask ourselves these questions. Will a decision pass the test of time in the future? Will our decisions embarrass our future generations?

D. Hayer: Last Wednesday was the first day of spring — a time for new beginnings, a time for new awakening. Last Wednesday, March 21, was also a time of awakening across the globe for people from all nations to recognize International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Discrimination in any form is simply not acceptable. Yet through ignorance it continues today and will continue unless we all work relentlessly to educate and enforce the universality of equality and respect.

Remarkably, 100 years ago the B.C. government of the day took away the right of Indo-Canadians to vote. It took 40 years of the hard work of our pioneers from many different backgrounds to end this shameful practice of the British Columbia government of the day.

One week from today we will mark the 60th anniversary of this return to democracy. It was not until April 2, 1947, that Canadians of East Indian, Chinese and Japanese descent and even our own first nations people were given what we take for granted: the right to vote. On that day our province decided that discrimination has no place in our society.

British Columbia now has one of the most racially, culturally and ethnically diverse populations in the world. For us to continue to grow and prosper, we must not only embrace all those persons of different races who are living here now, but we must encourage people from throughout the world to come here by providing a discrimination-free society.

We are a province of immigrants, and everybody must learn that differences in colour, race or religion are not just to be tolerated but should be celebrated and

welcomed. Each and every one of us has an obligation to repeat that message loud and clear and to work tirelessly and lead by example.

J. Kwan: I rise in the House today to recognize the opening of the 11th annual B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Conference entitled "Honouring the Circle: Our Ways, Our Traditions." The conference will take place between March 26 and 28 here in Victoria. It is co-hosted by the Coast Salish first nations.

We all know that HIV is not simply a health issue. It's also a social justice issue. All around the world the people who have the least ability to control the risks of HIV/AIDS are those who are on the periphery of society. The people most at risk for HIV are also dealing with poverty, racism, abuse and many other forms of oppression.

We know that aboriginal people, youth, prison inmates and women are most at risk in Canada today for developing the disease. Low income levels, social status, gender and culture are also contributing factors in the proliferation of this disease.

There are many alarming trends that we must address as lawmakers. How many of us are aware of the fact that 26.5 percent of new HIV infections in Canada are among aboriginal youth under the age of 30? We know that some persons or groups face additional health risks due to a social environment largely determined by dominant cultural values. These values can contribute to the marginalization or stigmatization of minority cultural values and lead to a lack of culturally appropriate health care, especially amongst first nations.

This annual conference is vitally important in breaking down barriers and in creating a space to discuss these issues in a serious and straightforward manner. The Leader of the Opposition and I will be there tonight to welcome the participants of this conference, and I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming the 11th annual B.C. Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Conference to Victoria.

I. Black: I rise on this the first day of Education Week in B.C. to highlight the importance of music programs in our schools. I come from a musical family — well, at least on my dad's side. He's a piano player like I am — more Oscar Peterson than Elton John, I suppose — and there are a few others of us in this House who have on occasion subjected our colleagues to our talents. For my part, I use that term rather loosely.

While my boys are learning on the family piano, not all kids are exposed to music in the home, making school music programs even more important. A well-rounded and balanced school education includes exposure to quality programs and music — whether traditional band, choir, percussion or vocal jazz — and this exposure often creates a lifelong interest in and passion for music.

Through this exposure and instruction, students learn more than just how to play an instrument or hit a high note. Music programs allow students to explore their creativity, and for the tall, skinny kids like me with little athletic skill, they often lead to a new-found confidence.

One of my music teachers, Zane Zalis, had an enormous impact on my life, and now as a good friend, he still does. I'm envious of his command of this area of human expression and proud of his passion to instil it in so many different forms to thousands of students through the years — and counting. He also proves every day that music teaches extraordinary self-discipline and a unique form of teamwork and is a highly effective vehicle for students to push themselves to attain and exceed standards of excellence.

These programs came under threat recently when a rather zealous individual pressed our courts to call into question the validity by which we've seen both music programs and students themselves flourish for decades. I for one look forward to the legislative changes that will give reassurance to music teachers and reaffirm if not reinstate the choice and flexibility for our students in pursuing the joy of music.

B. Simpson: This past Sunday marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the United Kingdom. Without a doubt, William Wilberforce was the driving force behind the English Parliament's concession to abolish the slave trade. His heroic efforts have now been documented in the movie Amazing Grace, which I highly recommend to members of this House.

For Wilberforce, two great objectives were central to both his political and his personal life: the abolition of slavery and the reformation of society. He remains a testament to activism in its purest and most honourable sense. His political energy was directed at the betterment of society as a whole, not for the advantage of the privileged few.

However, the abolition of slavery in the U.K. was also accomplished by one of the very first modern protest campaigns. The campaign was engineered by a group of activists led by Wilberforce, which at the time included women and ex-slaves — two groups that had no political voice. The campaign used most of the now familiar public protest devices — public education, book tours, petitions, letter-writing campaigns and political debate in the House of Commons. It was the most comprehensive and tactical public pressure campaign undertaken to that point in history, and it still took years to persuade the politicians of the day to do the right thing. Some things are slow to change.

With this year's 200th anniversary of abolition, there is a renewed call for the abolition of slavery worldwide. It is estimated that 20 million people still live in some form of slavery. Modern slavery includes

bonded and forced labour, forced marriages and human trafficking. There are an estimated 126 million children who are forced to work in inhumane conditions. Many are forced to become child soldiers.

The modern anti-slavery movement is now challenging every elected official to become a modern Wilberforce and join the fight to abolish slavery worldwide. I trust that each member of this House will assist in this campaign by educating themselves about modern slavery and by joining the fight to abolish it once and for all.

B. Bennett: I live in the Rocky Mountain Trench, which was historically a fire-controlled ecosystem. Every five to 15 years hot, fast-moving ground-level fires would sweep across the open range and remove the millions of lodgepole pine and Douglas fir seedlings that were trying to establish, leaving species of plants, birds, insects and animals that often are unique to natural grasslands.

When European settlers first arrived in the area and joined the Ktunaxa people, the Rocky Mountain Trench was open rolling grasslands interspersed by gigantic, thousand-year-old western larch, fir and yellow pine. Today, after 100 years of fire suppression, the trench is overgrown with unhealthy stands of spindly fir and pine. Ironically, it is a terrible fire hazard. There are more endangered species of flora and fauna in the rapidly disappearing grasslands of B.C. than in any other ecosystem type in the province.

Recently the government created a provincial ecosystem restoration program, a provincial director for grasslands recovery and an annual budget of $2 million a year. This is a first for British Columbia. Every year the trench loses 3,500 hectares of grasslands to forest ingrowth.

The new ecosystem director for the province, Greg Anderson — who just happens to be from Cranbrook — has established an aggressive grasslands restoration target of 8,500 hectares a year, which will finally allow us to catch up. But natural grasslands cannot be restored simply by taking the trees away.

The areas must all be slashed, the debris removed and the remaining materials burned to replicate the actions of Mother Nature. We're finally headed in the right direction with this initiative not only for the Rocky Mountain Trench but for other important grasslands in B.C.

My thanks to the Premier, who has been out to the East Kootenay many times and is familiar with this file. My thanks also to the Minister of Forests, who, as is his practice, recognized there was a problem and went about fixing it.

I also want to thank those in the region who have taught me about this problem over the last six years and who never let me forget about it: Maurice Hansen, Faye Street, the East Kootenay Wildlife Association and of course the B.C. Grasslands Council.

G. Coons: It's been over a year since the sinking of the Queen of the North and two months since the release of the Morfitt safety audit, and today's internal report from B.C. Ferries does not address the serious issues identified in the Morfitt report. British Columbians still have many questions that need answers.

The Morfitt report had 41 recommendations that indicate major problems with the safety management system, risk management, handover procedures, bridge management training and fire drills as well as many other critical concerns.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What is the minister doing to ensure that all the Morfitt recommendations will be acted upon to protect passengers and crew members?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I think it's important to point out to the member that B.C. Ferries actually committed to implementing every single one of the Morfitt report recommendations, as they should do and as we would expect them to do.

I think one of the important things here — and it's appropriate this member asked the question — is, as I said from the very beginning, that we not jump to conclusions or try to form conclusions on what you think may have happened before you had all the facts.

I recall that after the very tragic sinking of the Queen of the North, that particular member consistently tried to suggest there were huge safety problems at B.C. Ferries. Actually, the Morfitt report points out very clearly that that is not the case.

The internal divisional inquiry that was just released today again points out that this appears to be a case of human error. It's unfortunate that there's human error, but, again, there were no mechanical or equipment breakdowns or flaws whatsoever. I think it's important for that member going forward…. I would hope that this could be an instructional lesson to actually wait until you have the information before you form conclusions that are premature.

G. Coons: Yes, I do. I find it quite appropriate that the minister wants to talk about lessons. Perhaps he should have read the Morfitt report and looked at the 41 recommendations to see that the operational safety and the objectives of the B.C. Ferries Corporation are in conflict with one another, but maybe that's something he can delve into with his homework.

My supplemental is dealing with the internal report released today. Something that jumped out is a serious concern with lifeboats. The Queen of the North was equipped with open lifeboats exposing passengers to the north coast weather. It's over a year later, and the other vessel still plying the northern waters has open lifeboats.

The Queen of Prince Rupert is not expected to be retired for another two years. There's no plan whatsoever to replace the lifeboats. At the same time, the minister responsible is pumping over $140 million into B.C. Ferries next year.

So my question is to the minister. When will the minister use the leverage he has to make safety a priority and ensure that northern ferries get the upgrades they need to keep people safe?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I've got to say I'm a little surprised to hear the member ask these questions.

The Morfitt report…. Read the executive summary at least, Member, because what it says very clearly…. This is the Auditor General speaking, not the Minister of Transportation. He says there is a high commitment — not a modest commitment, not a somewhat, you know, not quite sure whether it's a strong commitment. It is a high commitment on all of the members — the board of directors, the management of B.C. Ferries and the staff — to safety. It is a high commitment through….

And you know, the member shouldn't confuse the fact that when you have a tragic incident like the sinking of a ferry — something that has never happened in the history of B.C. Ferries — there should be recommendations. You should always look for ways to improve safety. That's exactly what the divisional inquiry has done. It has made recommendations.

That is a positive thing, and going forward they will continue to ensure that B.C. Ferries has the best safety record in the world — which it does.

S. Simpson: After more than a year, there are still as much as 200,000 litres of fuel sitting on the bottom of Wright Sound as a result of the sinking of the Queen of the North. The residents of Hartley Bay as well as the rest of British Columbians are concerned about the status of these tanks and whether they constitute an environmental and marine catastrophe waiting to happen.

While the Coast Guard may have responsibility for this matter, it does not excuse the province from protecting British Columbia's environmental interests. My question to the Minister of Environment: after a year of no resolution to this issue, what is he doing to get action for the removal of this fuel from the ocean floor now?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member should know, within hours of the unfortunate sinking last year, Ministry of Environment staff were on site despite the remote location. Within hours of that and their arrival, booms were deployed to help contain the spread of the diesel fuel. A lot of work went on for a number of weeks to contain and remediate the site.

In the meantime, we have been working with the Canadian Coast Guard. The member will be aware that under the constitution of Canada, navigable waters are a federal responsibility. However, our staff is working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard, because I'm sure we in this House would all agree that we would not like to have the unintended consequence of a complete discharge of the remaining fuel on the vessel if the fuel removal is approached in an unsafe manner.

S. Simpson: It's not hours anymore; it's over a year. This government has demonstrated a remarkable amount of inaction and lack of leadership when it comes to dealing with Ottawa. We saw that in the federal budget that just passed where British Columbia got screwed, quite frankly, on federal spending.

S. Simpson: I will. We lost out because of a lack of leadership from this government. Our concern now is: are we facing the same inaction and lack of leadership when it comes to this environmental question here? B.C. Ferries is accountable for this accident, and the government can't shed its responsibility for the result.

While we may have had to wait for a year to get the internal report, there's no reason why we should have had to wait for a year to get action on the fuel sitting at the bottom of Wright Sound.

My question to the minister is: does this minister really believe his government has no responsibility to the people of Hartley Bay or the rest of British Columbians to stand up for our province, to take action and to get this mess properly cleaned up now?

Hon. B. Penner: I would caution that member and every other member of the opposition against being an armchair engineer if they don't have the credentials to back it up. I don't think the member does have an engineering degree, so I'll take my advice from people that do.

Under the constitution of Canada, navigable waters are a federal responsibility. The Canadian Coast Guard asserts responsibility over sunken vessels. However, we have been working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard and B.C. Ferries to try to put together a plan that would not result in the unintended release of the remaining fuel. That would be an environmental disaster that none of us wants to see in this House.

G. Gentner: On the government purchase card entries for 2005-2006, the Ministry of Transportation spent $300 at Honey Gifts Inc. On its website Honey Gifts specializes in adult sex toys, lubricants and lingerie. My question to the Minister of Transportation is:

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to point out that I have an operating budget of a billion dollars a year. I'm not aware of that specific item. As you know, I am doing estimates this afternoon. I'd be happy to have the answer for that member during estimates.

G. Gentner: The minister fails to realize how serious the matter is. To go line by line in your ministry with the use of a credit card, the credit card that basically represents the people of British Columbia, is something this minister should be on top of. Strictly….

G. Gentner: The minister should therefore know whether or not it is true that his ministry has been involved with dating services, another expenditure. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. K. Falcon: These members have every opportunity during estimates to ask me about any part of my billion-dollar-a-year operating budget. That member knows that very well. For him to try and pull out little bits and pieces in question period and try and suggest something untoward is going on is irresponsible.

That member also knows that we have internal audit functions in the province of British Columbia that go through my ministry and every other ministry budget in great detail and report out publicly, and the reports have all been positive.

M. Farnworth: There are internal audits in place, but what we're questioning are the policies of the cards used by government ministries in terms of how they're used and how the charges are made on them. It's perfectly appropriate to ask when there seem to be some issues being raised, and I don't think that should be treated lightly.

The member raised a question about dating services so the minister can look at it and have an answer for estimates this afternoon. I will give him the specific name. It's JDate dating services, and it's an expenditure of $191. He may not like the question, but it's our right to ask the question. If he can have an answer for estimates, that would be much appreciated.

While he's at it, he may also want to look into expenditures in Nelson. Skiing — $3,263.43 at the Village Ski Hut in Nelson. But what I really want to know is: how often are the audit procedures reviewed, and when was the last time the minister personally asked to see whether or not they had been updated and how audit procedures were happening and being managed?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, this is a classic example of where they will try and take a little bit of information and try and smear the professional public service. Again, as I have said before: wouldn't it be nice just for once to actually get some facts — maybe to come and even ask the minister?

The minister could tell you, for example, that we did have a case of credit card fraud last year. I suspect this probably has to do with the credit card fraud, where someone stole a credit card and used that number for e-commerce and made these types of purchases.

Rather than trying to insinuate that there's a pattern within the ministry of going out and making irresponsible purchases, trying to smear the public service, why don't you actually come to the minister and ask the minister for that information? I'd be glad to give the answers.

M. Farnworth: Well, when you review the expenditures and find out, for example, that $85,000 is being spent on pizza and that $20,000 is being spent on doughnuts, you do start to ask questions about what the government's priorities are. So it's only fair for the opposition to ask questions.

Once again, my question to the minister is: when was the last time he had a briefing on the audit procedures in his ministry and whether or not they were working the way that they should be working?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I say to the member…. You know, they like to bring this up in question period. I believe this is an incident, which was actually identified through internal audit, where there was a case of credit card fraud. As a result of the credit card fraud, individuals who are not public servants may have made purchases that were inappropriate.

I hate to break it to the members opposite that this kind of stuff actually happens, unfortunately, every day in the world that we live in. What I really object to is that those members would try and take a case like that and stand up in question period in this House and malign public servants without actually knowing the facts.

One simple visit to my office, one phone call, one e-mail. I would have been happy to get that information back to that member or any of those members immediately, and I'm just really disappointed that they wouldn't do that.

J. Kwan: I hope the Premier and the Minister of Finance are satisfied with that answer. Let me just say this. The government is on record as saying: "We're making it a priority to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to participate more in their communities…. We want persons with disabilities to enjoy opportunities in the workforce, confident in the knowledge that our programs and services will continue to support them." This is what the government said.

My constituent Miss Dale Labatt tried to secure a place for the community volunteer program and was told there's a one-to-two-year wait-list. The regional office in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant advised that there's not enough money in the budget to support the need of this program.

To the minister: will he commit to fully fund the community volunteer program so that Miss Labatt and others like her could get access to this program within one to two months of application?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, we go to every length possible to make sure that people with disabilities can enter a volunteer program in their community. It isn't always possible to place them, as sometimes the organizations that we place them with are full and have no vacancies. I can assure the member and everyone in British Columbia that we do our very best to place disabled people in a volunteer program.

J. Kwan: Well, the government's very best is showing a one-to-two-year wait-list in the region of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It's almost a year in the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast's area in terms of the wait-list. Quite frankly, the very best from this government is not good enough. The government sees fit to spend thousands of dollars on questionable spending in areas that my colleagues have just raised earlier today.

To the Premier: how is it possible that the community volunteer program is not being funded sufficiently so that disabled people can access the work programs that they desire?

Hon. C. Richmond: To get people with disabilities into the volunteer program is quite often a stepping stone into getting them into part-time or full-time employment. Last year we increased their monthly allowance by $70, and we increased their employment exemption by $500 — something that was far in excess of anything done by the previous government.

Our record is excellent at getting disabled people into the workforce, and our 10 by 10 Challenge has been picked up provincewide by municipalities and is going to be an unqualified success.

C. Wyse: As seniors in Williams Lake are being forced to move from Deni House, the issue of safety has been raised. Families and seniors along with the local fire chief have raised the concern about staffing levels being inadequate to safely move the individuals in case of a fire. Four staff members would be expected to move 113 seniors should a fire occur during the night.

My question: how does the minister justify seniors being forced to move against their will with this concern not being satisfactorily addressed?

Hon. G. Abbott: The place where people will be moving, the Williams Lake retirement village, is far superior to the building that they are departing. There is wheelchair accessibility, there are private rooms, and there are wonderful recreational and social amenities. It is a far better facility than the one they're leaving.

In fact, if I may quote briefly from a letter of March 18, 2003, to the Williams Lake Tribune from the member who is now the member for Cariboo South. This letter not only seems to contemplate a P3 to replace Deni House, but it contemplates conversion of that Deni House facility into a mental health facility. What's changed since 2003, Mr. Speaker?

C. Wyse: One of the changes that has occurred is a change in the MLA for Cariboo South since that…. But it is time to return to the actual important issue that is here at hand.

Interior Health has used inaccurate information to justify the closure of Deni House in Williams Lake. Deni House is less than 20 years old with an ability to be expanded. Interior Health has failed to demonstrate that any modification that Deni House may require to meet new standards is more expensive than its total contract with a privately owned facility.

The need for more spaces for seniors has been shown. It is estimated that with the average of about ten seniors receiving care in Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 28 acute care beds will continue with the closure at Deni House. Most of the seniors and their families are challenging the closure of Deni House.

My question: on behalf of the seniors and their families, will the Minister of Health finally intervene on behalf of these seniors and keep Deni House open?

Hon. G. Abbott: I absolutely support Interior Health in the changes they are making. It is a great improvement, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the frail elderly of Williams Lake. Williams Lake retirement village is a wonderful facility and is superior to the facility Deni House.

Again, since 2003 P3s are no longer acceptable to the member. Apparently it was back in 2003. Apparently the conversion of Deni House to a mental health facility was okay in 2003, when he was a councillor, but is no longer acceptable when he is an MLA.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Williams Lake retirement village is not the only facility in the province that has more than one floor. The reason why we have sprinkler systems, the reasons why we have construction to fire code are to contemplate that possibility of actually having a facility on more than one floor in this province.

B. Simpson: Over a year ago the Minister of Forests committed in this House that he would visit Port Alberni, meet with the people in Port Alberni and see first hand their concerns about the logging practices on private lands that are damaging their watersheds.

The minister has not fulfilled that promise, and this week the people of Port Alberni are now camped out on the Ministry of Forests property, hoping that the minister will show up and meet with them.

So my question to the Minister of Forests is this. Will the minister commit today to go up to Port Alberni this week, go to his own ministry offices and meet with the people of Port Alberni who want to speak to him about logging practices in that valley?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been to Port Alberni, number one. Number two, the Save Our Valley coalition, which is the group that's at our office today, asked for a report and a study to be done in the Port Alberni region. That study has been ongoing. I met with them at the Legislature not too long ago.

In addition to that, they asked for a log export review to be done. That's done. There's now a log export plan coming forward, along with a coast forest recovery plan. Actually, everything these people have asked for in Port Alberni, we've delivered.

Again, if the minister would actually go to Port Alberni, meet with the people in Port Alberni, rather than flying in, spending ten minutes with his staff and flying out…. Nobody in the community even knew he was there. If he would go to the community and meet with them, rather than them having to come here and force a meeting with him….

B. Simpson: The minister would actually find that the issue of concern in Port Alberni is the same issue of concern in the Cowichan Valley and in the Comox Valley. That is the logging practice on private lands — private lands that this government released to their Liberal donors; private lands that this government promised would be managed sustainably; private lands now that people throughout Vancouver Island are saying are not being managed sustainably, and watersheds are being damaged throughout the Island.

So my question to the Forests Minister is this. This government promised, when those private lands were released without public consultation, that they would ensure they were managed sustainably. The people of this Island do not believe that to be the case. Will the Minister of Forests commit the Forest Practices Board to do an audit of forest practices on the private lands that have been released, to see who's right?

Hon. R. Coleman: I really thought the drivel at the front of the question was actually useless to any part of the discussion, because it shows how uninformed the member is. However, the member is also completely uninformed of the fact that I don't direct the Forest Practices Board to audit anything. They're an independent auditing body, and that's why it's successful. They go ahead and do the job independent of me as a minister. I will never interfere in the Forest Practices Board being able to do their job.

C. Trevena: When the former Minister of Forests released the private lands from tree farm licences 39 and 44 in 2004, the Supreme Court concluded he failed to consult and accommodate the first nations. The minister was in fact reprimanded by the court for effectively dishonouring the Crown.

That minister, as we know, is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I'd like to ask him why he didn't stop the current Minister of Forests and Range from repeating his mistakes when the private lands were released from TFL 6 this January.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've waited patiently for an opportunity to engage with a member of the opposition on what the government is doing in the era of a new relationship. The member has correctly pointed out that we were the government that signed Forest and Range opportunity agreements with those first nations, which got them involved in the forestry economy for the first time. This is the government — in recognizing, as we say in The New Relationship, that we are truly all here to stay — that has effected that reconciliation in agreements with the Kwadacha and the Williston reservoir right here on the very grounds that this Legislature sits — a reconciliation agreement. I could go on about the….

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd like to talk about the three final agreements that are awaiting pending ratification. But curiosity prevents me from doing that, because now, three months after those agreements have been initialled, we still can't get an answer from the Leader of the Opposition.

Does the opposition stand with us for reconciliation, for the new relationship, for these final agreements, or do they have some other? What's the answer from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker? Where do they stand? Where are they on these final agreements?

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage debate on Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1). In Committee A, Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, debate is continued on the Ministry of Transportation estimates.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Hammell in the chair.

B. Ralston: Looking first at clause 2(a), Schedule C, I wonder if the minister could briefly explain the mechanism here. There are four ministries mentioned: Advanced Education, Education, Health and Transportation. I take it that they're for ongoing capital projects, but I just want to confirm that.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, for the Minister of Community Services.

Mr. Speaker: We'll take a short five-minute recess until the minister gets here.

C. Wyse: It indeed is my privilege to pick up debate from where we were approximately ten days ago on Bill 11.

For those who may have forgotten where we were at within the debate, I had spent a fair bit of time acknowledging the very good attributes contained within this particular bill and commended the minister for the work she has undertaken upon this particular item. However, I did also draw to the attention of the House concerns that we on this side of the House have with some sections in particular in the act — sections 14 and 15.

I'm going to concentrate the majority of my comments this afternoon, in the time that I have left, on section 15. I will leave more detailed discussion on section 14 to third reading.

What we find in section 15 is an ability for the cabinet to circumvent the wishes of local government. It allows for the establishment of a resort designation based upon some very limited restrictions. "An area may be designated as resort region only if (a) the area includes a municipality, and (b) the area does not include a portion of a municipality." That is a very dramatic and drastic change in method of implementing such an item. It is with that that I wish to begin my discussion today.

What we find here is that the government in actual fact is breaking its word — its promise, if you like —

when we look at a specific example, Jumbo Glacier Resort, a proposed development in the Kootenays of British Columbia. I would like for the record to draw attention of members here in the House to the history around this particular proposal.

When we go back — well, it's more than 15 years — to 1991, that was when the Jumbo Glacier proposal was first put on the table here in front of us in British Columbia. In 1996 the regional district voted in favour of asking the province to create a mountain resort municipality for Jumbo if it received environmental approval along the way. In the 2004 throne speech there was an indication of an intent to open up B.C. to further resort development. As we moved into October of 2004, the environmental assessment was announced, and the minister's support for the resort…. But the press release claims: "The province says the ultimate Jumbo decision is up to the region." As we move along to 2005, the same regional district of East Kootenay voted to retain control over the decision of Jumbo.

Now we end up with this particular legislation here in front of us. This proposed piece of legislation carries on in direct contradiction of the Community Charter, signed in 2004 with local governments, in which there was an agreement in writing signed by both the local government and Victoria to recognize the individual powers and authority of the two levels of government and, likewise, to ensure that these arrangements would be honoured and carried on.

Since that agreement has been signed there has been a constant and consistent reduction of the independence that had been assigned to local government. Once more, we have contained here in section 15 an amendment that was stuck away in a miscellaneous bill — maybe 50 words on several typewritten pages — that disguised, if you like, Madam Speaker, the intent of this particular amendment to the bylaw. This is something of concern when we consider it within the context of the government breaking promises on dealing with such items.

Likewise, the second major reason for concern around this item is the dismissal of the authority of local governments over such important issues. Once more, it carries on with the practice that we found in section 56 under Bill 30, where local governments had the ability to respond to local issues around independent power-producing projects, where local issues were now removed from having a fair, open and transparent hearing.

Once more we find in section 15 in Bill 11 the same concerns — grave concerns to this side of the House.

Now the third aspect that comes into the debate for concern here is the environmental concerns, in particular around this one example of Jumbo Glacier Resort. I will leave it to my colleagues who come from that part of the province to elaborate in greater detail the concerns that they have around the potential use of this part of Bill 11, section 15.

However, I don't wish this debate to simply remain focused upon a particular example. There is no limitation contained in the legislation for how often and when this particular piece of legislation may be moved. It may be enacted upon, of course, when any government in the future, any cabinet in the future meets those very bare minimum conditions. That cabinet then unilaterally may move upon that particular item.

One of the tragedies that this side of the House finds itself in…. In a piece of legislation that contains so many well-thought-out items, so many items contained within it that are beneficial and known and seem to be beneficial across so many different parts of the province, to have this one item contained in it that has such wide-ranging, unhealthy consequences concerns us when we eventually come around to have to vote upon this particular aspect.

I wish to return at this time to some comments that have been made around the Jumbo Glacier project. This particular project has been strongly opposed by the local community for the past 15 years. Polling has consistently demonstrated the community's strong opposition to this project on environmental, social and economic grounds. The Jumbo Valley is located in a remote wild area adjacent to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy and 55 kilometres from Invermere, the nearest municipality.

Access to the Jumbo Valley is 35 kilometres beyond Panorama ski hill via dirt and gravel mountain road with over 18 avalanche slide paths and multiple single-lane creek crossings. The first nations have registered strong opposition to the project. The Purcell Mountains ecosystem, of which the Jumbo Valley is essential, supports a viable population of grizzly bears, a species that would be in direct conflict with any human development.

According to government biologists, it is not possible to mitigate environmental impacts without the unpopular prospect of closing off all surrounding drainages to public access. I refer to the government biologists as being the experts here. So there, if you like, begins to give you somewhat of a flavour of the concerns that exist around section 15 of Bill 11. It also gives you some concerns around a particular example and how it may be used in order to circumvent the wishes and desires of the local residents of a part of British Columbia.

Local MLAs from this part of the province, upon discovering, much to their surprise, ten days ago, section 15…. Those individuals have been in touch with the MLAs from that area in huge numbers. They have brought forward their concerns about how section 15 may be used and the possibility that it opens up for the use of the cabinet in circumventing the wishes of the local community.

I don't wish and do not intend to enter into reading all the correspondence that has come through. However, I do wish to bring to this House knowledge that there have been literally tens — scores, if you like — of correspondence that have been sent in voicing the concerns about this part of the act. However, I am going to read into the record a couple of these particular statements so that the House gets a flavour of why the concern exists here in British Columbia about section 15 of Bill 11.

And they extend their thanks to the House for listening to that particular concern.

Another very short statement about section 15 of Bill 11, again from the same general part of the province:

Those two bits of correspondence, for me, contain the flavour around this part of the act of where the concerns exist. These are concerns that are deeply felt by residents here within our province. The concern rests, then, with a change here proposed in a miscellaneous bill, an item that requires much further discussion and debate before any decision in actual fact is made.

I wish to emphasize that it was in November of 2004 that B.C.'s Minister of Sustainable Resource Management of that time passed the buck by deferring the decision-making responsibility to a small regional government ill-equipped to review the matter, the regional district of East Kootenay. The article goes on to describe and emphasize how the minister ensured that the local decision would be left with the local government, with the local people, and that point was made on numerous occasions.

It becomes of paramount importance that this particular item is lived up to, that the members opposite…. Most were here during that same period of time. It is important that local government retains this issue, this responsibility.

We consistently encounter the situation of any government, with their cabinet ministers' responsibility, of being too busy to visit all regions of the province and see all the actual issues first hand and how they are affecting the local residents, as well as the population of the greater region and, in actual fact, the entire province. We encounter that time in and time out.

When it is appropriate, we hear from government, whoever government may be, that we listen to our experts and we follow their advice. Well, the government's own experts, the biologists, recommend leaving this area pristine — leave it pristine.

We have, then, with this type of legislation, a situation that opens up cabinet to go off in secret and consider such an issue and make their decision in the privacy of how cabinets make their decisions and then make the announcement. There's not much chance for input and little to no chance for the local issue to actually have been seen and viewed. That is where the government was so accurate in 2004 when they promised that the local residents would retain the right to deal with issues of this nature — so right.

Now, there are numerous other people that I know wish to speak on this particular bill. I'm rapidly approaching the period of time in which I will turn over that opportunity to other members of the House that wish to speak on this bill.

Madam Speaker, as I begin to close, I do want to acknowledge how pleased we are on this side of the House for the vast majority of the proposed amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of all of us here in the Legislature. They show reason. They show they have listened. They show that they have shown the adaptability to make changes on issues affecting very small parts of British Columbia but that are important to them and on other issues of a much larger nature, affecting greater and larger numbers of persons.

But as this legislation stands with section 15 contained within the bill and possibly with some answers to questions we get around other sections — for example, section 14 — it is going to present great difficulties for us on this side of the House, without having some changes made to this bill, to be able to give our unilateral support to this piece of legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I thank you for having provided me with the opportunity to bring forward these very important concerns, on behalf of all British Columbia, about restricting the number and type of decisions that can be made in secret by cabinet behind closed doors without the full input of the residents of British Columbia.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted to rise today to speak in support of Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, because I happen to actually see this through positive eyes and not through the negative lens that the NDP and the former speaker from Cariboo South seem to dwell on. This bill will provide a variety of tools that will help — actually help — local governments around the province build vibrant and sustainable communities.

In my case, I'd actually like to focus on resorts — specifically, the benefits that this bill provides to Whistler in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Vibrant, sustainable resort-oriented communities like the resort municipality of Whistler, known as RMOW, provide tourism and economic development opportu-

nities — in this case, for the entire Sea to Sky corridor. In turn, these activities support our government's aggressive goal of doubling tourism in this province by 2015.

As the Minister of Community Services points out, this bill helps resort-oriented communities meet their unique challenges and better provide amenities for visitors and residents alike. That's what I call a win-win.

Allow me to expand on the resort municipality revenue-sharing program that's contained in this bill, which I am particularly in support of. What is this program? What are the parameters? What does this mean?

We know that resort communities must provide high-quality services and amenities, infrastructure and local and international marketing programs to attract and then host large numbers of visitors. This is usually from a relatively small tax base. In the case of Whistler, there are 10,000 residents trying to support an infrastructure for 50,000 people at any point in time.

With the resort municipality revenue-sharing program, qualified communities such as Whistler will get a portion of hotel tax funds from the province that were generated in the resort region. That can help pay for approved resort-oriented municipal projects such as capital amenities or events such as festivals and the like.

At this point in time, the revenue-sharing program is anticipated to be worth approximately $10 million annually to these communities around the province. That is a significant amount of money that the province is forgoing in hotel room tax that will be in favour of local governments.

Currently, there are 13 resort-oriented communities that could apply for this resort revenue-sharing — all of them quite diverse. They are Fernie, Golden, Harrison Hot Springs, Invermere, Kimberley, Osoyoos, Radium Hot Springs, Revelstoke, Rossland, Tofino, Ucluelet, Valemount and Whistler.

The criteria are based on the demonstrated support of the resort sector related to the number of commercial accommodation units or bed units in the resort area relative to other B.C. communities. There also has to be agreement to collect an additional 2 percent local hotel room tax, and an agreement with the province outlining how the funds will be used and how the success will be measured. That's accountability.

The revenue-sharing program will be effective July 1, 2006, so it's effectively retroactive to last summer. The annual amount could range from something like $600,000 for a community like Tofino to almost $7 million for Whistler, a mature resort with a comparatively large number of bed units. It's also important to note that this total may vary if there are increases to the hotel room tax collected by participating communities. These agreements are for five-year terms in which each resort will receive between 1 and 4 hotel room tax percentage points in addition to the 2 points they already collect to be qualified.

I'm glad to report this program has built-in accountability mechanisms. The agreements with resorts allow for annual reviews. For example, funding can increase if the number of beds increase in the resort as it grows, so the better the performance, the better the return. All resorts must report annually using the same accountability provisions as required under the Community Charter. And as the program is results-based, resorts will have to develop performance indicators, measure performance and report on the outcomes achieved as a result of this program. The program is also going to be monitored by the Ministry of Community Services and administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

I'm particularly pleased that this government has reached a positive, progressive arrangement with local governments flowing from the B.C. resort initiative that supports our resorts and provides them with financial tools and resources to assist in building necessary, top-class infrastructure. The resort municipality of Whistler has been a leader in B.C. and in North America. They are the great example of what can happen when we empower municipalities to create first-class international resorts capable of hosting major events like the 2010 Olympics and capable of taking a lead in environmental sustainability.

I really want to point out that if the opposition votes against this bill, which from the comments of the speaker before me seems like where they may be headed…. I don't want to prejudge, but if they really vote against this bill, I want to remind the public, all the people in this House and listening at home, that the NDP will be voting against every one of those resort communities receiving an opportunity to engage in revenue-sharing to benefit their own local residents.

That would mean that the NDP is not supporting the aspirations of the elected officials and residents in all of those communities. I'm going to repeat them again. It means the NDP would be voting against the aspirations of resort communities like Fernie, Golden, Invermere, Harrison Hot Springs, Kimberley, Osoyoos, Radium Hot Springs, Revelstoke, Rossland, Tofino, Ucluelet, Valemount and Whistler.

Those are 13 resort communities around this province that would be able to take advantage of this program. I know first hand from Whistler's experience that this has been a number of months, if not years, in the making through the resort initiative. This was a very complicated formula because it had to address new resort communities that were just coming on board and more mature communities like Whistler that had a large number of bed units and commercial accommodations.

It took hard work and much negotiation to come up with this formula and with a plan that would work for newer and older resorts. The NDP, if they vote against this, will be voting against all that work, all the efforts that went into this. I just want to make sure that the public understands and knows that.

Now I'd also like to talk briefly on another aspect of this bill, the "Phased development agreement" amendments in the Local Government Act. As you may remember, this is a multi-phased…. I think there are six or seven different parts of this bill. Right now we all

know that B.C. is booming. People are moving here once again, as the census just showed us, and communities around the province are engaging in developing long-term projects of significance. So I'm pleased with this part of the legislation that provides consistency, certainty and accountability with regards to developing and building for the long term.

When a company commits to building a project over many years, they of course rely on the zoning that is put in place by local government. With this amendment, local governments can provide certainty to abide by zoning through all phases of a large development, ensuring that future councils or boards uphold the original agreement with the developer. In exchange, local governments can also likely negotiate greater or longer-term benefits for their communities.

Before the opposition starts to jump up and down further on this, I want to note that there are protections for taxpayers, unlike what the member for Cariboo South suggests. This legislation includes important mechanisms to ensure transparency about the arrangements between a developer and local government in a phased development agreement. For example, the local government must publicize the key details of a phased development agreement and must hold a public hearing before they may enter into such an agreement.

In addition, if they want to amend an agreement in any significant way, they need to follow the same process of providing notice and holding a hearing. All the details of any agreement, including amendments or any related documents, must be available for public inspection at city hall. So keep in mind that these phased development agreements are voluntary — the operative word being "voluntary" — and they are between two parties, each of which will bring something to the table.

I also understand that the Ministry of Community Services will be developing advisory material for local governments to ensure phased development agreements are used appropriately. I believe this is an important amendment to allow large-scale projects to move forward with more certainty, and I don't think anyone will disagree that certainty is an important factor in attracting investment to this province.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on another part of this bill, the "energy utility system" amendments, as they will apply to the Vancouver Charter. This legislation authorizes the city of Vancouver to establish, operate and regulate a municipal energy utility system and imposes levies and fees for such service. This capability exists in other B.C. communities, and this amendment will respond to Vancouver's request to do just the same.

This planned energy utility system will provide space heating and hot water to new residential and commercial buildings. The city will be using renewable energy resources, either biomass energy or municipal sewage heat recovery, consistent with our government's aggressive green targets as outlined in our throne speech.

The city's planned energy utility is intended to serve a limited geographical area — just the Southeast False Creek area — and will serve new subscribers in the area. It's the area where the athletes village for the 2010 Olympics will be constructed and will showcase to the world yet another example of B.C.'s commitment to leading the way in sustainable practices.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill that I believe will be instrumental in providing local communities with expanded tools and opportunities to reach their full potential. I only hope that the NDP will have the political courage to join us in supporting local government.

There are elements, as the speaker that preceded me said, that are accurate around the Hotel Room Tax Act. That's something that's been done properly, in the sense that there was communication between the local government…. It was a local government initiative that was worked through the ministry and will benefit local government. The communities that I represent will benefit a great deal from those changes. In the list of the 13, Kimberley, Invermere, Radium, Golden, Revelstoke are all taking advantage of that.

I'm not going to speak very much about that because within it you have another action that I think has strong implications for two key principles. Buried amongst the amendments to existing legislation are sections 14 and 15. Sections 14 and 15 are not particularly clear in what they say, but in the comments that have come out from the minister and from the member for East Kootenay since this legislation was put forward, they raise a number of concerns.

They amend the Local Government Act, essentially, as I understand it — and we will use the committee stage to clarify exactly what this section means — to give cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions. What a resort region is, is not really given any explanation in the bill itself, other than to say in section 14 that a resort region is what is created by section 15.

I have two very strong objections to both section 14 and section 15. In giving cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions, it will impact a resort that has been contentious in my area for over 15 years. It will create the ability for cabinet to do two things, and two things that it should not do.

Firstly, it will break a very clear promise to the people of the Kootenays. Secondly, it is going to remove locals from the decision-making process. Neither of those is in any way going to be acceptable for people in the Columbia Valley, nor in the Kootenays.

While I will be focusing on Jumbo Glacier Resort and how this impacts that particular resort, there are implications for the whole province. The implications are these. We should insist on a high standard from our government.

This is going to be another case from a long list where the government was very specific. The Premier, his ministers were very specific in giving a commitment to citizens, and they are going to break that

commitment. They are going to break it, and in a way it looks like they at no time intended to keep that commitment, because as soon as the election was finished, the effort was made to undercut this commitment.

We need to insist that local decision-making has to be strengthened, and this does not do this. Instead, it removes the local community from a decision that impacts it. So the Local Government Act is going to be amended, and it will give cabinet the ability to unilaterally create resort regions.

I'll just read back from the press release, and we'll go one at a time. In terms of breaking a promise, let's just be clear on the promise that was made. It was made by the current Minister of Health, and it was made on October 14 of 2004. This was just prior to the election. The government knew that it was going to be an unpopular decision, so they clarified for the people of the Columbia Valley exactly what was going to take place.

There was a press conference here in the Legislature, and a press release that said this, amongst other things: "The government recognizes that there are strongly held views surrounding this project. The final decision will be in the hands of those closest to the project. Those who will benefit most directly and who most directly understand the costs will have the final say here. The project would not be able to proceed without the approval of the East Kootenay regional district." A very clear commitment from government and a commitment that, with this section, the government moves away from.

The Jumbo Valley and Jumbo Pass sit 55 kilometres to the west of Invermere. It is a spectacular wilderness area. It is not pristine. It has seen logging and mining, and there have been commercial interests active there to this day. I came from Winnipeg in 1982 to work at Panorama, which is on the way to the Jumbo Valley. I was first up there with my wife and friends to camp back in the early 1980s, and the last time I was in that area was this summer, camping.

Since moving to Golden, I've spent most of my camping time in the area around Golden, but what I do know is that to the people of Invermere and the people of the Columbia Valley that area is important. It is an area that they go up to, to hunt. It's an area that they camp and hike in. It is an area that they snowmobile in. For them, they feel it is important that it stay in the state that it is.

There is no question that this is a longstanding issue. The reason the government in 2004 clarified that the regional district was going to make the decision is because they knew it was contentious. It has been for 15 years. From the moment it was proposed to put a town up in the wilderness that is Jumbo Valley and to build ski lifts around it and to create a resort, it has been contentious. Many people — in fact, by every indication a majority of people — do not support that resort. They don't support it, even though others from the outside have thought that it might be a good idea.

You're going to hear the minister say that Premier Harcourt was in favour of the idea, and Premier Clark. They were far removed. They did at times indicate support, but they did not push it through because they knew that there was strong, strong local opposition to any sort of a project that would change that area.

When the Premier had his chance, he indicated to the public that he would not impose a decision that ran contrary to the wishes of the people in the area, that he would allow their locally elected representatives and the regional district to make that decision. I've read into the record exactly what the news release was. I can remember the member from the Shuswap, the present Minister of Health, making a speech here at the Legislature indicating exactly what was going to take place. But what you have now is a change and a change that fundamentally breaks that promise.

I've known about the controversy at Jumbo for a long time. When I was mayor of Golden in the 1990s, the proponent of Jumbo Glacier Resort, Mr. Oberto Oberti, came to Golden to do another project. He came there to do Kicking Horse Resort, which was a $200 million project that I worked for as a mayor. I worked with local residents; Area Director Crandall; and the MLA at the time, who was Jimmy Doyle. We worked for it because our community wanted it. We held a referendum.

At the time Mr. Oberti was concerned about that, but I told him that on the Kicking Horse project there is support and that it is a referendum that he would find is successful. But we felt obliged to make sure that the community had an opportunity to have a say and that they would decide whether it was a project that would go ahead or not. And 96 percent of the people at that time for that resort voted in favour of it.

What I can tell you is that even though you had a variety of people from a variety of political backgrounds…. Area Director Crandall, who was very involved and who was one who insisted that we have a referendum, was a former Social Credit MLA. Jimmy Doyle, of course, was an NDP MLA. What all of those people, including me, would agree on, if we agreed on one thing, is the right of rural residents to have a say in land use decisions that are going to impact them.

I can tell you that if we had lost that referendum, as mayor I would not have supported the project. You would not have had the area director supporting the project. You would not have had the MLA at the time supporting it. We fundamentally believe in the right of local people to make decisions about their area. When you read the literature that is put out by the Ministry of Community Services, they say that they believe in that too. But what is consistently happening with this government is that the things that are said are different from the actions.

When I was running to be the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, in the lead-up period I was asked, especially when I came into the Columbia Valley,

about my position on Jumbo. What I said at the time was that I did not believe there was community support.

I still do not believe, from any indication that I have been given, that there is community support. I came to that conclusion from the number of people that took the time to speak to me. I came to that conclusion from the fact that the mayor and council of Invermere, the closest community, did not support the project. The locally elected area director at that time did not support the project. My view was that if it was to go ahead, it needed to have the support of the people in the area.

It was subsequent to that that the minister who is currently the Minister of Health came forward and said that this is the way it was going to be handled. It was a difficult political problem for Wendy McMahon, who was the MLA at the time. She was from Invermere. She knew it was unpopular, and she said that she would not take a position on it.

That's something I don't agree with. I think she should have taken a position, but she said she would not take a position. She knew that while perhaps she wanted it to go ahead, to do so would be politically damaging in the lead-up to the election. So she said clearly that she would not make up her mind on it, and what you had instead was the government saying that the regional district would get the final say. To back away from that now is deeply, deeply problematic.

You have a situation where rules are made about how a decision's going to be made. Those rules are now, with this act, going to be changed. It is something that is going to cause problems in a number of areas. First off, this is an issue that longtime residents have been putting money towards, putting activity into.

They have done everything that they democratically can to express an opinion, and there have been limited opportunities. I can tell you that there has been one opportunity where they were given a chance — during the environmental assessment process, I think — to indicate their support one way or another. In that short period of time you had 15 percent of the population of Invermere participating.

They were invited at some point in the process to give their opinion, and about 15 percent of the people participated. What 90 percent of those people said is that they didn't want this resort to go ahead, so they indicated it in that way when that opportunity was given to them. Since then they've written letters, thinking that that makes a difference.

In fact, the Minister of Community Services will have received, as I did, copies of over 150 e-mails that have gone through to the minister and that have been cc'd to me. They have gone to the Premier as well. Some of them are form e-mails, but about half are individuals just hearing on CBC what's being talked about here or reading in the local newspaper and taking the time to indicate that they did not agree with the government breaking their word on this decision-making and removing them from the decision-making process. About five or six said this was the right way to go.

Every way that I have to indicate where the public sits on this in the Columbia Valley indicates to me that they do not support the project. Even those that do support the project…. I have an e-mail here from someone who says: "Well, I haven't really made up my mind on it, but I sure know this: when the government tells me something, then I expect them to do it."

They're not naive. They know that politicians don't always have the greatest reputation for that, but the standard they set is that if you tell me something, I want it to be followed through on. Yet here what we see is the intention to break a clear promise.

Resorts can go ahead. They went ahead in Golden. They went ahead quickly in Golden. It started in 1996 because the public wanted it. We were able to convince the government to do what they needed to do to make sure the project went ahead quickly.

Look at the example of Revelstoke Mountain Resort. It is a front-country resort. It is a resort that the local government wants and is working for. It is widely supported by the public, and it moves forward quickly.

I think that what people need to understand in this chamber is that they do not understand the situation fully, and you will not have a cabinet that fully understands all of the things that need to be considered.

If you cannot convince the regional district of East Kootenay to approve this project, then it must in some way be flawed. If it is not flawed, then the facts will speak for themselves and the project will move ahead. In every way, that is the proper way to approach it.

For the minister to come in and put before us legislation that will change it achieves two things. First, it makes a population already cynical about politics more cynical. And there is much about this to be cynical about.

As soon as the election was finished, the mayor of Radium was down here meeting with government and looking at how to move this project ahead. It's his right to do so, but it's the obligation of government to say: "No. We have agreed on a way that we are going to move forward." It was the government's word; it was the government's plan.

It's fine for people to come in and lobby to do it differently, but the government has the obligation to say: "No. This is our plan." But they did not do that. Instead, coming back from that, you had the mayor of Radium, who is the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay, calling a meeting that was difficult for everyone to attend. That was contentious. That's the first point that the public sees, and they wonder: well, what's going on here?

Since that time there have been a number of things that make it certainly appear to the public that there are conversations — and in fact there have been conversations — behind closed doors that do not involve the public about how to move this project forward. I would say to you that the culmination of that is this legislation.

The people in the valley know that there have been discussions — that the mayor of Radium and the mayor of Invermere have had discussions about how this is going to be moved forward. The idea — and it's

quite openly discussed in the local newspapers — that you would set up a situation where the village of Radium would annex part of an area 60 kilometres away and create this new resort region is, quite frankly…. It boggles the mind how that would work.

I certainly look forward to the committee stage, where we can actually ask some specific questions about what a resort region is. How is this going to work? And how are you ever going to apply this to the rest of the province?

Every indication that I have here is that this is a poor way to proceed. It is poor to break promises to people, and the e-mails that the minister received will reinforce that. You have people talking about cynicism and, "All politicians are liars," and "I knew he wouldn't keep his word" — all of that. She has it, and she sees it. There are over 150 of them, and they have that same theme. That is never a healthy thing.

Secondly, you cannot have a rural MLA who is going to support the idea of taking local government out of the decision-making process on land use decisions such as this. The argument that it is done with mines or something else is not an argument that I would accept. You have communities that are going to be impacted by settlement up in an area that is remote. There are considerations. There are impacts for the communities that border it.

How is the road through Invermere going to be handled? Who's going to pay for that? How is the road up to the resort going to be handled? Who is going to pay for that? If money is spent there on roads, where is it not being spent? Now, all of those may have answers, but the due diligence, the questioning and, ultimately, the decision-making on that zoning needs to sit with the regional district.

I'll just read you a few of the e-mails the Premier and the minister have received. This is from a resident in Invermere.

All politicians are included in that cynicism, and I think that leads to that bigger issue. What is the standard? Where is the line for politicians and for government? If the line that we set is so low that anything goes, then you are taking this province on a dangerous path.

This is a clear commitment that was made in the most public, most unequivocal way about what would happen, and from the moment it was made, as soon as the election was finished, the government worked to do something different. This resort and resorts like it seem more important to the government than what the people of the East Kootenays think, more important to this government than risking the cynicism of the people involved in this political process, more important to this government than keeping its own word.

It is a huge backwards step. It is one that people in the Kootenays will not accept. It is something that I can tell you will not be the end of it if this legislation passes.

You have before you Bill 11 — with many, many aspects and many examples of how to do things properly — which you denigrate by inserting sections 14 and 15.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. Give your comments through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: By "you," I meant the government as a whole. When the government chooses to do these things, you need to understand the consequences that will follow.

I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to delving into how much thought is being put into this. The scenarios that I have heard put forward are scenarios that I cannot imagine working. The bad taste that this will leave in my area is profound. The fact that you will then take that scenario and apply it to the rest of the rural areas of British Columbia is, I think, going to be profoundly troubling.

I do say that there will be a number of things put forward as arguments that try to legitimize what's going on here today, but in each and every one of them there is an answer. For each and every argument that is made, there is an answer.

For people who say that these projects had to move along, this one has gone slowly because from the beginning it was contentious. Many of the timing issues are issues that the proponent had control over. To this day the regional district has not made a decision because it has not been put in front of the regional district. So these are things that they control.

I give you example after example in other parts of the province, under both governments, where if there is public support and it's the right project, it moves quickly.

The standard of breaking promises is not acceptable to people in my area. I don't think they're acceptable to anyone in British Columbia. The standard that we would not be included in decision-making as residents of rural British Columbia is so deeply offensive that I cannot understand how a rural MLA would possibly allow this to take place. That we are somehow second-class citizens in this and that people far removed with no understanding of the issue would make a decision — it is beyond comprehension that that would be acceptable.

I intend to use the committee stage to question carefully exactly what is planned. I intend to make it clear that I find this approach to an issue incredibly disrespectful to the people of the Columbia Valley and to many families and individuals and many young people who have worked on this for a long, long time, believing that there was some democratic process that actually worked and who will instead walk away from this

thinking that all politicians are liars and that somebody can stand up and say something and then do something completely different.

That's something that I think all of us should be concerned about, because if writing letters doesn't work, if going and voting doesn't work, if sending e-mails to the Premier and the minister doesn't work, then what are people left with? What does work? How do people participate in the political process? I think that's a bigger question, because many, many will leave this thinking: well, there really is no way.

My intention is to reinforce the positives about how this minister has handled the hotel taxation issue. There you had local government coming up with an idea, pushing it and having it properly thought through, and it is one that local government supports. In stark contrast, you have sections 14 and 15 stuffed in here to make it as politically difficult as possible, firstly, to spot and as politically difficult as possible to oppose, but I will oppose it. I will oppose this sort of standard for the honesty in government. I do not accept that this is acceptable to Columbia River–Revelstoke. I don't accept that it is acceptable to the people of British Columbia or Canada.

Secondly, I will not accept that we are removed from important decision-making. We have to watch the pattern that we allow a government to set — where it moves into a state of mind, where there's an arrogance. There is a sense that whatever is the easiest thing to do, if they can get away with it, they will move in that direction.

It is a slippery slope for the government to do that, and it's our responsibility as opposition to hold them accountable and make sure that they are constantly pushed to move to a higher standard. There are a number of issues that I've been dealing with that have raised questions about that higher standard, because as the minister is aware, there's another issue that I have in front of her related to bylaws that need to be passed. They instead are sitting on her desk, and the issue there is around expediency. They wish to move around a process and to do something that is expedient rather than the proper thing to do.

In this case I see the same thing. There was a result, there's a willingness to be expedient, there's a willingness to break their word because they think they can get away with it politically, and there's a willingness to remove the say of locals. And that can never be acceptable.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I do look forward to the committee stage, and I would be very happy if the minister stood up and just said that I had it wrong and that the regional district is going to have final say. I invited her to do that on the CBC, and I would be pleased if she would stand up and do that and say: "Hey look, you misunderstood all of this, and the regional district is going to have the final say." That's the appropriate thing to have happen here, but I don't think it will.

Instead I think a trade-off has been made. The feelings are that what the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the Columbia Valley in particular, think just doesn't fit into the big picture for this government. I find that deeply offensive, and we'll do everything in our powers to make sure that that changes.

B. Bennett: I fundamentally disagree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on his opposition to this bill. I do support this bill. My fundamental disagreement with the member who just spoke is probably quite typical of the debate around the Jumbo Glacier Resort, and that's not likely going to change. We all have a right to our opinion, and it's my turn to express my opinion.

I do support this legislation for three main reasons, one of which is that I believe that the legislation, including the sections that seem to offend the opposition, is in the best interests of the people of the East Kootenay. I believe that; otherwise I wouldn't support it.

I support the legislation, in addition, because what this legislation does is it provides to existing resort communities the capacity to go out to market their towns and to market their regions. That's very important, and I think the opposition has indicated they support that part of the bill.

I also support this legislation because of the section or sections that seem to offend the opposition. They create, or it creates, a new authority to create a resort municipality, just as older legislation in this province allowed the provincial government of the day to create what they called, at the time, instant towns. I have two of them in my riding, — Sparwood and Elkford. They were created by instant town legislation, and that's what this section does in this proposed bill.

I have to say that in my opinion, the opponents of Bill 11 are off base, even so far as the sections that they have identified they oppose. I've not heard them mention section 16 at all. They seem to be opposing sections 14 and 15. Those two sections allow a resort region to be created. In the case of my riding, that will allow the city of Fernie to go outside the city of Fernie and include the adjacent ski resort in the resort region so that they can qualify for the hotel tax funding. Otherwise they won't qualify for it. I'm not sure why all of the opponents to this bill seem to be focusing on sections 14 and 15. It is, in fact, section 16 — just for the benefit of members in committee stage — that you should be focusing on.

The opponents of Bill 11 are not only wrong about the section that they're opposing, but they're wrong in terms of their misleading comments about Jumbo Glacier Resort, that whole project. They're essentially saying that with this new bill that the Jumbo resort will just go ahead, and it will be a slam dunk. Not necessarily so.

There are four options for the proponent in this case, some of which are in the legislation, some of which already exist. Firstly, the proponent can work within an adjacent community to extend the boundaries of that municipality to take in Jumbo. I know of at least two communities, both of which exist in the

Columbia River–Revelstoke constituency, that are interested in extending their boundaries to take in this resort.

Secondly, a proponent can apply for a new mountain resort improvement district under section 18 of this new legislation. Thirdly, a proponent can simply contract to get their services directly from the regional district. Fourthly, the proponent could ask the province to use section 16 of this new act to create a resort municipality.

The main opposition to the Jumbo project over the past 16 years has focused on the alleged pristine status of the Jumbo Valley. I heard the member for Cariboo South use the word pristine. When you drive up into the Jumbo Valley — and yes, Madam Speaker, you can actually drive right there, right up into the valley — you drive on a paved road to one of B.C.'s largest, fastest-growing resorts, Panorama.

To me it makes more sense to put another ski resort on the same road in the same area than it does to go into another valley that might, in fact, be pristine. That seems to be good management, good land use planning. In any case, you drive up Toby Creek Road, and the first thing you see when you get up by the resort is clearcuts on both sides of the road. You see roads zigzagging the mountain faces adjacent to the Toby Creek Road.

As you drive in the Jumbo Valley, the first thing you see is a large slag pile, which is from the Mineral King mine. Yes, there is a mine in the Jumbo Valley, an old mine closed up with a slag pile that you can still see from the road.

As you continue up the decades-old road into the Jumbo Valley, the next thing you see is a large sawdust pile. Your best low-elevation view of the Jumbo Valley is actually standing on top of that sawdust pile. Yes, a sawmill operated in the Jumbo Valley for many years.

You will notice that the opponents of Jumbo, after flogging that horse for 15 years — I've heard a lot of talk about democracy and democratic process and all that kind of stuff — talked about how pristine the Jumbo Valley is. They've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars on that horse, but you know what they say about flogging a dead horse. You don't hear them talking about how pristine the Jumbo Valley is anymore. The new mantra of these opponents of Jumbo Glacier Resort is: we must let local government decide.

Let's examine that claim. Local government, as well as the environmentalists, participated in our land use planning process called CORE. That lasted for two years. The participants in that land use planning process, including local government and including the environmental associations, signed off on the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, which specifically designates the Jumbo Valley for responsible resort development.

The CORE process was all about listening to local people, and local government had a seat at that table for two years. The former ombudsman and the leader of the CORE process, Stephen Owen — a completely disinterested and unbiased observer in this — actually sent a letter in 1994 to two B.C. NDP ministers, urging the province to get on with the assessment of this project. This is interesting. In 1996 the RDEK — that's the regional district of East Kootenay — board voted yes on a resolution to support the project. The resolution stated that once an environmental certificate was obtained by the proponent, the project should proceed.

Eleven years later, in February of 2005, the proponent had finally gained an environmental assessment certificate with 200 conditions imposed on it. Seeing that only 1.4 percent of the region's residents actually took the time to express their opposition to this project…. I hear percentages and numbers and that people of the Kootenays are against this, but only 1.4 percent of the people in the region took the time to express their opposition to this project. I don't believe that the people of the Kootenays oppose this project.

Here we have a situation where the proponent of a tourism project of international significance — because of the elevation, because of the fact there are glaciers, because of the fact they'll have summer skiing — is supported by a land use designation, spends 16 years working diligently in government processes, embraces years of public consultation, receives the formal support of two NDP Premiers — we have the letters — receives the support of local governments from time to time and agrees to more than 200 conditions on the environmental certificate.

I heard my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke say there's much to be cynical about. I can't believe that this proponent is still interested. They have to be cynical about all governments and about how long it takes to actually get a project going in this province.

After successfully refuting the claim that this valley is pristine, after countless studies have shown that the project will have minimal impact on grizzly bears, after all this the opposition says: "Well, let's encourage local government to duplicate an assessment process that took over a decade. Let's encourage local government to do it all over again." The NDP is no friend of local government. The NDP would gladly subject the RDEK to an enormously expensive and divisive assessment process that has already been completed just to make political points. This is mumbo-jumbo.

The people of the East Kootenay can't eat bumper stickers. The people of the East Kootenay want jobs. They don't want bumper stickers. They want jobs. Taking this province on a dangerous path — that's what the member from Columbia River–Revelstoke said.

With respect, let's get on with passing this very positive legislation. Let's get on with supporting our rural resort municipalities, and let's get on with the business of making good decisions for the benefit of all British Columbians. That's what leadership is all about.

L. Krog: I suppose some may question why I would stand to speak to Bill 11. This is after all, in most respects simply what I would call the ordinary business of government — changing legislation in appropriate ways, the end results of the typical consultation processes that often go on. But what brings me to my

feet today are those sections that have been much discussed in this House this afternoon, which essentially give the power to cabinet, once again, to make decisions that impact significantly on local people, to override locally elected politicians who represent their constituents, their voters, their electors.

This is, after all, a section to amend the Local Government Act. I suppose it begs the question: if we have local government, why do you want to pass legislation that gives you the power to override it so consistently, particularly around a proposal for what the government likes to see as a job generator and symbol of new economic development, etc.? If that is the most important factor for the people of the area, then one would have thought this project would enjoy overwhelming support. Contrary to what some suggest, it appears that this project does not enjoy overwhelming support.

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi went on at some length today in her remarks suggesting that, oh, if the opposition votes against this bill, they're voting against all kinds of things. It reminds me of the silliness of some of the press releases that were issued by the members of the government benches after the vote on the budget speech. They accused the opposition of voting against tax cuts for people, accused the opposition of all sorts of heinous crimes.

Of course, they never bothered to explain the truth of it, which is simply this. In the history of this province, I defy a member of this House to stand up and tell me that any opposition has ever voted in favour of the government's budget on the budget debate.

L. Krog: Ever. That's the reality, but those are some of the games that get played in politics, and those are, frankly, some of the games that disappoint people and drive people out of the electoral process.

There are two great philosophies clashing here in this section. This is part of a larger debate, and I must admit I've had some concerns thinking about, for instance, the agricultural land reserve and its importance to British Columbians with respect to my comments that I intended to make around these particular sections and this bill.

When Dave Barrett brought in the Agricultural Land Commission with Dave Stupich as the Minister of Agriculture, they understood that the best way to preserve agricultural land was to ensure that those decisions would be made by a provincial body not subject to the kinds of pressures that local politicians are subject to.

I never sat in local government, as did many of the members on both sides of the House, but certainly my experience dealing with local politicians and talking to members on both sides of the House is that they're always referred to as those politicians who are closest to the people, closest to their voters and are therefore obviously subject to the greatest political pressure to succumb to whatever a particular pressure group is driving forward, which is often development projects. It is unusual, very unusual, that this particular development project faces not only opposition in the public but opposition from local politicians.

It is one thing to support an agricultural land reserve and insist that it be decided by an independent provincial body because it protects a core value for all British Columbians. I've satisfied myself and my own inner turmoil, perhaps, around this issue. One can consistently support a provincial body that makes decisions around the agricultural land and the preservation of it in this province and at the same time step back and say in this kind of instance: surely, the right thing to do is to respect local governments who have made it very clear that they don't support this proceeding, to pay attention to those local politicians who have made their views known and have, I gather, been fairly consistent in their opposition to this proposal.

The fact is that we have a number of ski resorts close by this proposed new resort, and if they were all working at capacity, if their employees were all getting top wages because management couldn't possibly find any workers to work there, if their lifts were jammed and their parking lots and their rooms were full every night, one could say that perhaps we need this kind of capacity, if you will, for the creation of tourism. We need that kind of capacity, this opportunity to fulfil an obvious public need and want. But I haven't heard any evidence in this House that that's in fact the case here.

Indeed, notwithstanding the government's newly found interest in climate change as outlined in the throne speech, I think we have to look seriously as a society at where we're going to develop so-called ski resorts. We have to think very carefully about the longevity of that as an economic opportunity when it is fairly clear, for instance, that some European resorts now are in danger of closing down. We know that that kind of climate change is taking place around the planet and will impact on British Columbia, just as it impacts on Colorado and other jurisdictions in North America that are heavily dependent on winters to provide snow to sustain ski resorts.

This is, I am afraid, a typical act of this government. It is, on the one hand, the government that says: "Big government is a bad thing, and we want to deregulate and pass off responsibilities and create corporations independent of government that won't take direction from government. Big government is a bad thing." Yet at the same time, they want to be able to say: "Oh well, notwithstanding that we support local government, when it comes to an independent power project or when a ski resort is proposed, somehow the independence, authority and legitimacy of local government are something that we can happily override."

It is a corporatist mentality. It is the CEO of the company making decisions and to heck with what the workers think or lower management or middle management or anybody who might have a contrary opinion. We get to make the decision at the top of the power scheme, and you just have to live with it.

That is essentially what sections 14 and 15 of Bill 11 are doing. It is taking away the rights of local government in order to allow the cabinet to make decisions

about what gets designated and again, as is so typical of this government, without ever having to come back to this Legislature and face public criticism or comment. The decision that may be made if this bill passes in its entirety…. The vast majority of it, I think I can say safely, has the support of the opposition. When this bill passes, it's not as if the cabinet is going to come back to the opposition and say: "Well, on the Jumbo resort, by the way, we're going to put a specific bill in front of the Legislature." No. It's: "This decision we've made at cabinet meeting" — maybe one of those famous open cabinet meetings if they think it's politically useful.

L. Krog: One of my colleagues says: "Good luck." Yes, these open cabinet meetings seem to have fallen by the wayside lately.

But the decision will be made by cabinet. It will be imposed on local people who, regardless of their opposition to this, are going to have to live with the consequences, let alone all of those businesses, all of those other ski resorts, who may face economic ruin as the great sucking sound of this new development draws away their economic lifeblood. It's so typical of this government — not concerned about small local entrepreneurs but more concerned about big investments and luring people with lots of money.

This, I would suggest, is again just a further example of a government that doesn't want to operate within the confines of a legislature. This is a government that wants to reserve to itself and its cabinet the opportunity to continue to make, and make even more, decisions that affect local people without having to face genuine criticism in this place. It shows, in my respectful opinion, a disrespect for the whole process of government and legislation.

So I can say safely that the bill will receive general support. It will no doubt pass at second reading, but when it comes to committee stage, this government's going to have to explain to the members opposite why sections 14 and 15 represent good policy. In my respectful opinion, they represent anything but good policy.

Notwithstanding the remarks of the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, no, the government will not face opposition around this bill. The government will, however, and does face opposition around sections 14 and 15. That is the opposition's job. It is to protect the rights of local communities and local citizens to make decisions about their own livelihood.

Quite frankly, we cannot continue to think in an incredibly shrinking world that big decisions made by outsiders, essentially, are good for local economies or good for local people. It is time to figure out and understand that we must act locally.

We must do the right thing locally, and putting another big resort in the middle of a province that already has more ski resorts than it can handle does not make economic sense. It probably doesn't make environmental sense, and frankly, the people of the Kootenays, who moved there, I don't think wanted to move there to a resort municipality. If they wanted to do that, they would have moved to Whistler. They've all had that opportunity.

They are talking about an attitude about the environment and lifestyle that is important. It deserves the respect of the people who work in this place, who enjoyed the privilege of getting elected here. Sections 14 and 15 don't respect those wishes — anything but. Hon. Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider its position on 14 and 15 of this bill.

N. Simons: Well, we're back in the House debating legislation that takes away the authority from other levels of government — obviously, levels of government that are regional or municipal. What we have here is an example of how to sneak it into a large piece of legislation.

Two references to minor sections that allow cabinet to determine when there's a resort area. That doesn't sound too scary. It sounds innocuous, in fact. It sounds like the vanilla-flavoured ice cream in a way. Nobody really notices it. You don't often order it, but when you get to it and it's all you've got, people seem to lick it.

The issue here is that we have a piece of legislation that is fundamentally flawed. It's either fundamentally flawed or everybody who reads it thinks it's fundamentally flawed except the 46 people who sit on the other side of the House. When they're standing up, they might actually look into this legislation more closely and realize that the same arguments they're making to pass this piece of legislation they used to pass the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, Bill 75, in 2003.

We all know that Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which was spoken about in such high terms as a necessity for this province, to take away all the hindrances that seemed to be blanketing investors and those who want to invest in the province and make this the best place on earth…. What happened? Not once has that act ever been used. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council realized how pathetically inappropriate that piece of legislation was.

It was introduced by the now Minister of Transportation, who may have learned since then. The Minister of Transportation at the time, the Minister Responsible for Deregulation, the minister responsible for handing out awards to such ministries as the Ministry of Children and Family Development for cutting red tape and safeguards for children is the minister responsible for the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Because that was such a failure — an absolute failure in terms of public opinion — they have decided to alter course.

Madam Speaker, and to those watching at home, instead of making one big piece of legislation to say we have final say on everything that the regional or municipal government wants to do, instead of saying we're going to use this Significant Projects to stop you, we're going to sneak it into every piece of legislation in this province, and while we're sleeping. They're going to use the little section 15 that nobody ever noticed before and say: "Oh, we got that through."

We know that this is the intent of the government. A cursory review of the Hansard, which I might add is the members from government's sole way of finding research in order to make up funny little stories about the '90s. This is their way of doing things. I've found a significant numbers of quotes from Members of the Legislative Assembly who are still in this House, who happen to rail on about the importance of bypassing duly elected regional officials in the approval of processes that they like.

Let's figure it out. They like certain projects more than other projects, and when their favourite projects don't go through, they pass legislation to make it easier. That's just inappropriate in a democracy where we have fulsome debate about every piece of legislation that comes through here.

What have we happened upon on this funny day — this sunny day and a funny day, too? We have come across this piece of legislation that was probably introduced in the late hours at the end of five weeks of sitting in this exciting chamber.

Finally, we have a piece of legislation — oh, by the way, one of 25 pieces of legislation introduced in the fall, in this session when there wasn't anything to do in the fall. So let's just assume that they started thinking about this after the fall session, which was cancelled. That would explain some of the superficial and apparently badly thought out sections 14 and 15 in this act. Either that, if I may, or this was wilful.

N. Simons: Oh, my heart is barely strong enough to put up with some of the things I hear in this House. I now am told that this piece of legislation might have actually just been enacted for the friends of the party in government? No.

Well, it seems to me that the cynicism that my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned, the cynicism that exists among the population of British Columbia, is now being shared by at least one member of the official opposition who believes the government has lost its way, that the government is implementing policy that they feel is just desperate, in order to maintain the grasps of the donors, I suppose, to the party. We have no other explanation for this apparent attempt to pull the rug out from underneath the regional districts and municipalities of this province. What other explanation is there for that?

I will point out that in 2003 when the debate over legislation that had the same effect as this legislation…. When the members opposite were speaking boldly in favour of Bill 75, saying how it was going to improve investment, that we couldn't live without it, that we need to override regional government…. Well, they never had the guts to override regional government. They didn't have the guts to do it, because they knew the entire province was against them on that. They knew it.

They passed the Significant Projects Streamlining Act in 2003. It hasn't been used once. Ah, better not use that big one. Slice it up into little pieces, and insert it into every piece of legislation in this province. If it's something to do with mines, forestry or even child welfare — in this particular case, the rights of communities to determine their future — throw it in there, and make it like the trap door of legislation, the spit valve like the brass instruments, the place where, yeah, we make this rule and have this little exception. We pull it out of our pocket. I'm sorry. I have this piece of legislation that overrides everything else, you know.

I don't think the members who have taken the time to read this legislation, who have taken the time to talk to their regional governments in their home communities, will actually be able to say with a straight face, or at least with a pure heart, that their local governments think this is good legislation — unless we're reading it wrong.

But nobody's been able to explain. Nobody's been able to explain who asked for this. Who asked that the cabinet be allowed to designate regions as resort regions, and why? In the absence of a logical, reasoned explanation — despite the fact that it's our job anyway — for sections 14 and 15, it makes us a little bit suspicious. I'm not naturally a suspicious person, but I'll investigate if I need to.

What I've investigated seems to indicate to me that, yes, they're wilfully enacting legislation that will take away responsibility, rights, authority and jurisdiction of regional government, and I am not going to stand here and tell my regional districts in Powell River or the Sunshine Coast, the municipalities in my area or the regional Sechelt Indian Government district that I've supported legislation that took away their rights to have a say into what is happening in their territory — perhaps their traditional territory but in the jurisdiction of their regional government.

One member from the government side stood up and denounced, in his polite but emphatic way, that the Significant Projects Streamlining Act took away regional government authority. Perhaps it was that, and perhaps it was just the inappropriateness of that legislation which resulted in it never being used, but the concomitant result is that here we have new legislation being introduced to take up the slack where the unusable section of Bill 75 would otherwise be used.

I have spoken to regional districts in my area, and I represent them. We don't always agree on things, but I'll make sure that their views are known. Their views on this particular piece of legislation are: "Well, why was it enacted? What purpose was it…?" Well, not why they weren't consulted. That's probably another question that they should be asking. I would recommend regional governments ask the minister: why weren't we consulted? Why were we not given the full gamut of possible repercussions of this act on our jurisdiction?

We have developers going into communities and planning entire resort communities. My question at committee stage will be: do the regional governments have any say anymore over what happens? Maybe it's in their watershed. Maybe it's in their viewscape. Maybe it's in an area where people have to take the

same form of transportation to get there as everybody else. What responsibility do you leave with the people of the province when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designs legislation to give it more and more and more power? That is a scary thought.

If you think about the genesis of this kind of legislation and the potential path that it will take, the destination is a government that has managed to make all authority rest in its lap. Nothing against the lap of this government; I will remind people of this province that the best interests of this province will be determined ultimately by people that we represent. The people that we represent are telling us that good legislation should derive from debate, from consideration of all issues.

In this particular circumstance I can find very little to debate or to argue with in this legislation, except two huge sections that essentially gut regional districts' authorities. These are the regional districts that could be purveyors of water. They have the jurisdiction over land use in some circumstances, over the future of their geographical areas in many ways. When they see that there's a piece of legislation that's being scurried through the House, it does not engender feelings of trust, and it makes them question the intent and the purpose of this government.

I can speak on behalf of the regional governments that I represent that this section 14, creating a definition of resort area — I would add, a superficial definition of a resort region — and then section 15, which essentially says notwithstanding everything else, you can do what you want….

I urge the members opposite to speak to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, being their colleagues in cabinet, and to recommend that prior to the passing of this legislation, the offensive sections be removed. I don't think that the British Columbia population should ask for less.

We elect our regional governments to represent us on a regional level in the areas to which they have been duly given jurisdiction, and all of a sudden the government has decided on its own to remove that. The people of British Columbia haven't asked for that. The people of British Columbia want some local control over things that happen in their area. In this particular circumstance we see just a slap in the face to regional government, I think I can say — if not a slap in the face, a complete ignoring of regional government, which is equally neglectful or inappropriate.

Members opposite have spoken in favour of preserving jurisdiction for regional governments. The member for Peace River South stated very clearly that he thought legislation that removed regional governments' authority was regressive. He may not have used the word "regressive." I'll ask him to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll actually ask him to correct me if I'm wrong and to say, perhaps, where he stands on this piece of legislation, because that's what we're all here elected for.

We're here to speak on behalf of the people who put us here and the others who are in our communities who may not have voted for us. In the totality, there will be disagreement, but nobody can argue that the basic fact here is that the cabinet is trying to streamline and steamroll due process by concentrating authority at the cabinet table.

The cynicism that that evokes in people can't be measured. All we can do is look to things people say when they write to us, and they write to us in droves. They write to us about the government. They write to us so that they don't have to write to their government.

Sometimes we get letters from people in other jurisdictions, outside, in different constituencies, because their MLA hasn't responded to their concern. If a few dozen letters to MLAs in the opposition constituencies are any indication, the statement that nobody from the government side has received concerns about this I would find incredulous.

Madam Speaker, I think that the ministers opposite even know that this legislation looks badly on them. It shows that the regular people in the constituencies that are rural don't really have a voice at cabinet table. It's not just a slap in the face. It's insulting, and every member opposite who reads it and who knows that regional districts are upset with this legislation and who votes for it anyway is insulting the people that have put them here.

I would advise members of this government and members of the party that's represented by this government to have a good, close look at this legislation and consider whether or not it would be appropriate on their part…. I would go further than appropriate. It behooves them to have a look at this particular section — these two sections — and consider their removal.

Then harmony will once again come back to this chamber, and we'll see this act perhaps for what it's meant to be and actually not just what it is. With that, I cede the floor to my hon. colleague from Nelson-Creston.

C. Evans: I think that it might be somewhat difficult for people watching this event in the gallery or at home to fathom what's going on here. So I would like to take a minute and try and explain what I think is actually happening. Events in this building are sometimes kind of arcane and somewhat stilted for people at home to understand, so I'd like to back up.

Today is Monday, March 26, 2007, and it's 19 minutes after four in the afternoon. We are debating what is called in this House a miscellaneous bill. It's Bill 11, called the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. For the benefit of people at home, what a miscellaneous bill does is it tends to amend previous statutes to upgrade them or make them better.

You make a law, just like making a house. You make your house, and a couple years later you're living in the house. You find out that the plumbing doesn't work just the way you want it, or the electrical system, or you want to change the lights, so you upgrade your

home. The same thing happens with legislation. We make laws. Then when we put them into effect, we find out there are flaws in the laws, so we fix them with a miscellaneous bill.

Historically, miscellaneous bills are often voted for by everybody in the House — both the government side and the opposition — because they're just fixing up legislation. Everybody agrees that it's good to make your legislation better, just like your home.

In this case, Bill 11 is 25 pages of, essentially, corrections to the community services statutes — quite a few statutes — on issues like hotel tax and the like. I and others who have spoken tend to support those miscellaneous statutes. What is traditionally not done and what is seen as poor form is to actually create public policy in a miscellaneous bill.

Public policy needs the exposure of the province, the people at home. They need to be able to see what's going on. Are those guys changing how we live? Are they changing the control of the land base? Are they changing my taxes? Are they changing who has power? They want to see public policy. In a miscellaneous bill you don't usually put points of public policy because it receives almost no oversight. People tend to vote for it.

What's going on here on this Monday in the Legislature — Monday, March 26 — is that we're debating an arcane and somewhat hidden, very large issue of public policy that was buried in the middle of a miscellaneous bill last Thursday afternoon. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is reading, as a good MLA would, the legislation. I would submit, hon. Speaker, that you know and everybody here knows that bills come before us with such speed and rapidity that most of the members of the Legislature don't actually read them word for word.

I think it's true that historically, year after year, on both sides of the House, the workload is such that you tend to think: "Well, if it's not public policy, let the research department tell me if there's something wrong with it." The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, unnaturally, doing his job, discovers that in the middle of a miscellaneous bill — not at the beginning, not with the title, but in the middle — are sections 14, 15 and 16 that do something which is unclear. He thinks that the something has something to do with Jumbo resort.

Hon. Speaker, you've been here quite awhile. I've been here quite awhile, which bears no comment about our age, but we've been lucky to work here for a long time. For the entire time that we've worked here, ever since 1991, there has been an issue of public policy about whether or not to build a resort on top of a glacier in the hon. member for Columbia River–Revelstoke's constituency.

Historically, that subject, like others, has tended to be seen differently by the people who work here and the people who are at home. The people who work here work in a gorgeous marble building, a heritage building on an island, and the people who come to see us in this gorgeous building tend to be those who can afford to get here. They tend to be kind of the lobbyists, the developers, the institutional organizations and individuals who have something that they want from government.

The broad public don't tend to come here. Sometimes they bring their kids to show them government, but they don't tend to come here. Since 1991 the people who want to put a resort, essentially a town, on a glacier in Jumbo Creek have been coming here. They have tended to convince Premiers.

What's a Premier's job? A Premier's job is to lead, to create development and jobs and to try and create growth. It doesn't matter if they're New Democrats, Liberals or Social Creditors. It doesn't matter who they are. That's the Premier's job.

The Premier meets with the people who want to put a town, a Jumbo, and goes: "Wow, 500 jobs, and build a whole town. That's a pretty good idea." My friend Mike Harcourt is travelling around and meets a guy. The guy says, "Hey, Mike, you need some jobs? I'll build a town for you," and Mike goes: "Pretty cool." He says: "Come on over and meet everybody. Let's talk about it."

Well, talking about it means that it becomes not just the Premier's issue. It becomes available to the people at home. What happened for those of us who live in the Kootenays?

When the people at home heard about it, they said: "What a wacko idea. We don't want a town in Jumbo Creek. We've already got ski resorts all around, and we like those ski resorts. Our kids and our neighbours work at those ski resorts, and we don't want to compete with them and put them out of business. Besides, there is a bunch of grizzly bears up there. You're going to put a whole town where there's a grizzly population. What's going to happen? We don't think that's a good idea. Besides, it's right next to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. That's the largest unroaded part of the province where we live."

It's right on the east side of the Purcell. People on the west side are going: "Wait a second. You're going to put this huge resort, this big vacuum cleaner that sucks so that everybody from Calgary drives over on Saturday to visit their condo, on top of the glacier above the conservancy?" Then the developer said: "Yeah. Not only that, we'd like to put a road down the west side of the mountains, down into Nelson and Kaslo, and that's good for business. Everybody will drive down there, and they'll eat in your restaurant in Nelson."

The business community said: "Great." And the people of Nelson said: "Whoa. We don't want a road coming down through or next to the Purcell Conservancy." Then the developer said: "Besides that, it will be good for making jobs, because you guys like to build dams. We'll run a power line up to Jumbo — this new town — from the west side." The people said: "Whoa. We don't want a power line going up Glacier Creek from the west side to the Jumbo."

You had this strange thing going on when Mike Harcourt was the Premier where some of the people here wanted to build a town, and the people at home

said no. So it got slowed down and debated and put on hold, and Mike Harcourt went off to go get a different job. Glen Clark came to be the Premier, and then the developers came over, flew over in the helijet, went and sat in the big office and said: "Mr. Premier, we can make a whole bunch of jobs. Let's put a town in a glacier."

Glen Clark said: "That's a pretty good idea. I'm Glen Clark, and I'm for jobs." The people at home said: "Wait a minute. We don't want a ski resort on top of a glacier in Jumbo Creek." So once again we had somebody sitting in the big chair trying to drive a project opposed by thousands and thousands of people at home, and the project, instead of driving forward, started to be slow-walked. It went to environmental assessment.

Then when the developer saw that the government of the day — that I was part of — wasn't going to advance his project and put a town on a glacier and build a road and all that kind of stuff, he said: "Whoa. Let's slow-walk the project. Let's keep it in the environmental assessment process until we see if we can get a third Premier."

Actually, there was Ujjal Dosanjh in between. He was here for such a short time, I don't even think he had an opinion on the project.

A fourth Premier. "We'll wait. We'll slow it down until we see if we can get a fourth Premier to comment on the Jumbo idea, to see if he can get it past those folks at home, those people in the gallery, those people who don't work here but don't want the project."

The project was slowed down by the developer to the place where the environmental community was banging on my door saying: "Hurry it up." Imagine that — environmentalists saying to hurry up a development proposal on top of a glacier where grizzly bears live. Why did the environmental community want to hurry it up? Because they thought it would never survive.

The developer wanted to slow it down in order to get a fourth Premier over there who might find a way to build it. So then we got the present Premier, who had the wisdom. Good on you, Premier. Good on the Premier, who stood up and said: "We're going to let the local people decide." What a good decision.

This is me — opposition member, New Democrat — saying: "Good on the Premier, good on the cabinet, good on the people on the other side for deciding that local control was the way to resolve this problem." Didn't matter what kind of government you had. If they sat in this building and were susceptible to the pressure of money, of corporations, of developers and lobbyists, they were for it. If they were at home, they were universally against it.

Then the Premier said, just prior to the election of 2005: "I've got a solution. We'll let the local people decide." What a good idea. What a darn…. We've been arguing for local control in the rural areas for probably a hundred years in British Columbia, and a Premier said: "We're going to let the local people decide." What happened?

They actually managed to elect a member based on the Premier's promise. There's a nice guy who works here now. He was elected from Cranbrook, because the Premier said that we're going to have local control, and the people believed in that. That's where we were up until last Thursday afternoon, when this miscellaneous bill, these 25 pages, came in here.

Buried in the middle of the miscellaneous bill, it said: "Well, maybe we won't have local control." But it doesn't say that as clearly as that. It does not actually say, "This is the Jumbo Pass amendment," because it's not that honest. And it doesn't actually say, "We're taking away local control," because it's not that direct.

In two pages out of 25, a lousy 200 words, without using any language that anybody on the outside could possibly discern, it essentially says: "We, the government, have the right to strip this decision." We said the regional district of East Kootenay could make this decision, and everybody at home loved that decision.

If they hated the project or if they were for the project, it didn't matter. Nobody could oppose local control. That's the right way to decide to flood a valley or log a watershed or build a town on a glacier. Let the local people have an opinion.

Prior to 2005 the regional district of East Kootenay was going to be allowed to make that decision. Unfortunately, the Premier and the developer and the lovely people that govern today discovered that the regional district of East Kootenay would not vote for the project that they wanted to build. Now they had a real problem. They had a promise for local control on an issue which tens of thousands of people have written in on.

When they were holding environmental hearings, they didn't want to come to Nelson. They just wanted to stay in the East Kootenay, which is kind of reasonable. The project was in the East Kootenay. The project was in Columbia River–Revelstoke, and hundreds and hundreds of people were coming out in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Then they held a meeting in Nelson, and what happened? To my surprise…. I'm a little bit shielded from reality because I work here in a bit of a fairyland. Reality in Nelson — the largest public meeting in history on a single subject. People came out to say universally: "We don't want Jumbo."

When it went to the regional district of East Kootenay, everybody held their breath, and then the regional district of East Kootenay blinked and said: "We're not going to vote for this." So the project has been in abeyance, as it should be, because local control is the way to go.

Then last Thursday in a miscellaneous bill with 25 pages amending such important issues as the Vancouver Charter, energy systems, the hotel tax…. There are three sections — 14, 15 and 16 — and 200 words that essentially allow the government of the day to remove the Jumbo decision from the people of the Kootenay, from the regional district of East Kootenay and give it to any municipality of their choice.

They could give it to Fort St. John. They could give it to Dawson Creek. They could give it to Abbotsford. Winlaw, where I live, is not a municipality. They

couldn't give it to us, but they could give it to Nelson. All they have to do is cruise the province, find some town somewhere that is for Jumbo and say: "Here. This is an extension of your municipality."

It doesn't even say that you've got to give Jumbo to the closest municipality. It would never say that because the closest municipality is likely to vote it down. It says that the Premier can pick any municipality he wants and attach Jumbo — just like England used to do to Asia, just like England used to do to the Caribbean. It'll attach it as a colony to the town of the Premier's choice, and if he can't find a town, he gets to attach it to himself.

The first time we had four Premiers that were all for this. New Democrats, Liberals — they were all for this. But they couldn't do it because the local people were opposed. Now we've got a Premier sitting right over there and deciding it's okay if he decides — in three hidden amendments to a 25-page miscellaneous bill.

There are people over there who don't believe me. I'm going to stand here silently. I don't have a watch. I'll stand here silently, if I can, for 30 seconds. Let one member of the provincial council or the Premier shout out that they do not intend and promise not to use this legislation to make Jumbo resort a done deal.

Hon. Speaker, did you notice the silence? Folks at home, did you notice the silence? You can't see it, but nobody in this room spoke up. Thirty seconds went by, and nobody spoke because they're honest people, and they don't want to lie. Because they're hon. members, and they don't want to lie. So nobody spoke up to say…. Nobody….

C. Evans: I didn't call them liars. I said they're not liars, so they didn't. They're honest people over there who didn't speak up for 30 seconds, when they could have shut me up and have me sit down and make all of the people of the province happy. They didn't speak up. Why is that? Because that's exactly what they intend to do. That is exactly what they intend to do, hon. Speaker. On a day when nobody's watching, some fall when they don't even have a session, they intend to simply slip it through.

All of you folks at home: you can pound sand. You will have absolutely no way of affecting the outcome of this decision once this bill passes. Here's the sad part. At present the voting ratio in this room is about 40 to 30 — 40-some-odd to 30-some-odd. This bill, in some form, is going to pass. I am here doing my job, attempting to raise the public awareness of what is going on here, but I cannot win the vote. I and all of the people of my team will not win the vote.

You cannot look to the opposition to stop this Premier from doing this thing to Jumbo resort. You can look to us to raise the issue, but the only way to stop it is for a huge upheaval of you folks at home. The people who are not in this room are now empowered to inform the government that you understand what they're doing, the secret is over, and you're not going to let them do it.

It doesn't matter if you're for or against the Jumbo resort. It doesn't matter if you've never heard of the Jumbo resort. Folks at home — whether you live in Vancouver, Dawson Creek or Whistler; it doesn't matter where you live — if you want to manage the land base that you think you own, your patrimony, the land base that you think you're passing on to your grandchildren, and not have the Premier decide for you or turn chunks of the mountains of British Columbia into colonies for the well-being of developers, then you're going to have to speak up, because I can't stop it for you.

You're going to have to bury this building in e-mails over the next week, and convince the Premier and all those folks not that I'm right — because, of course, he has his own opinion of how correct I might be — but that you care about local control and that you think, because you live out on the land, that you or your elected representatives in your regional government ought to have a say and that it's not okay if the big chair takes it away.

It's only a matter of days since the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, doing his job, discovered the hidden clause in Bill 11. Already, people out there have been burying the Premier's office in e-mails.

Because I think that this thing is about to happen, and it's the folks at home who are the only people that can…. We'll talk. We will slow this down as long as the rules allow, but the present administration has stripped us of the historical opportunity of filibuster. There is now a time limit to everything we do here, and we can't stop it long enough to stop this piece of legislation.

I'm going to read some words of the people at home into the record for the hon. members so that the people at home will know that at least they were heard before hon. members opposite did this thing. I am not sure how to pronounce all of your names. I might get it wrong, but I'll do the best I can.

Not even from our province. Remember that this gentleman in Calgary only had three days' notice to send an e-mail to the Premier. Imagine what could happen if your folks at home decided to tell all your friends to help the Premier understand what he is doing here.

Well, Rachel, I just asked and for 30 seconds stood here and said nothing, and not a single member opposite raised their voice. I think you can know, Rachel, that that's exactly what this bill is about.

I have dozens more letters. For folks at home, I apologize. I'm limited to a certain number of minutes. I cannot read all of your letters, but we thank you, and I think it's going to have to escalate over Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday of this week, until this law is proclaimed. This building needs to be buried in paper. I'm sorry for all the trees that will consume, but we need to bury this building in paper and e-mails, and the Premier has got to understand that the people of British Columbia, regardless of what they think about Jumbo Pass, believe in local control.

I'm going to close, hon. Speaker, with a little bit of my understanding of what's going on here. Why is this happening? This cannot be happening because the government thinks that people will like it. I think this is happening as part of a long process that essentially expropriates from the people of British Columbia their land, private and public, and their heritage and turns them over to the corporate sector.

It's true if we're looking at B.C. Rail. It's true if you're looking at highways that are being built under P3s, and bridges, and they're going to charge tolls and some private corporation's going to take the money. It's true if they expropriate your land to build railroads or ports. It's true in the expropriation that's going on to dig coal or coal methane. It's true on ranches. It's true all the way from Fort St. John, with the oil industry, to Rock Creek, where people want to dig uranium.

The government of the day has essentially removed the protections that historically were in place for British Columbians to keep their public wealth, to make decisions over public land and to have some rights over their private property. In every case, private and public, they turned it over to the corporate sector.

I think somebody over there must owe some really big dues to be doing this in public, on a Monday, in the light of day, on television. I think there must be some heavy, heavy hand driving behind the scenes that we cannot see, that would make the Premier want to take this action in spite of the denigration that it will bring to his government.

I would encourage everybody in British Columbia…. Understand that we will try to slow it down, and we will try to stop it. We will vote against it, but we cannot make it disappear. You have to do it.

C. Trevena: I am very troubled by sections 14 and 15 in the miscellaneous act. Many of my colleagues have been talking about what the core issues are. I have a couple. One is a matter of semantics. One is that "resort region" means a resort region designated under section 6.8, but there is no definition of what a resort region is going to be.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the specific resort that this is going to be assisting to come into effect, the resort of Jumbo in the Kootenays. I represent an area which is increasing tourism. It's increasingly looking at new ways to evolve, and I start wondering: will these communities have resort regions imposed? We don't know what resort regions are. We don't know what we are opening the door to.

It is very troubling when something is put in a piece of legislation, which we are supposed to be debating and then voting on, which isn't defined. We have the reference to resort region throughout this section of the bill without any definition of what we are talking about. Is a resort region going to be a canoe resort, or is it only going to be a ski resort? If it's going to be a ski resort, is it going to be anywhere?

That being said, I think the other issue, beyond semantics, is the one of principle. It's the one of taking away local control. We're talking here specifically about one resort. The Jumbo resort is what is being implied here. But it does have an effect throughout. It has an effect when the government comes in and says that it can designate what should be happening, when cabinet can be designating it, when we are taking this out of the hands of the local communities and the people who are elected to represent the local communities.

We have a multi-tiered and very sophisticated system of democracy, where we are all represented by our local councillors or our local regional district representatives. In turn, we represent many other people, and we are again represented by our Members of Parliament. Each layer of government has a reason for being. Each layer of government has a responsibility.

This section of this bill takes away a huge amount of the responsibility of one level of that multilevelled government. The levels are there for a reason. They are there for safeguards of public interest. So what is being lost in this is the public interest, the public protection.

Like my colleagues, I have seen many, many e-mails and many letters that have been generated in the few days since this became an issue, since it became clear what was happening in this miscellaneous bill. One of them actually sums it up. It's an e-mail to the Premier from Barbara Gagatek from Invermere, and I apologize if I've mispronounced the name. But Ms. Gagatek says: "Public land belongs to all the citizens of British Columbia, and as such its use should be a matter of public discourse." When it comes to land issues, public discourse is a matter for regional districts and for local authorities.

This is what is going to be lost in this section. If it's being lost in this section, if it's being lost for Jumbo, for Invermere, where is it going to be lost again? We've already seen this government take away the rights of regional districts and municipalities when it comes to independent power projects. We have seen them taking away the rights in other areas. This is yet another erosion of the rights of regional districts, of local governance. This is why I strongly oppose this section of the bill.

There are the semantics of what it is we're talking about, and it's very important to know what we are talking about before we vote on it, and that will come out in committee stage. But there is the very simple fact

that we are losing our representation. The representation is going to be taken and put in the hands of cabinet.

Cabinet, obviously, has been elected by many people, but cabinet does not know the local issues. Cabinet is not involved in the local issues. The people who know their local issues are those who are there, whether it's this resort or any other area. The people who know what is happening are the local people who elect others to represent them who make determinations on land use.

I am very worried that we are yet again seeing erosion of local authority. We're seeing erosion of democratic principles. We are seeing a groundswell of voices. We've seen this in other issues already in this session of the Legislature, where thousands of people get in touch with the government. They get in touch with ministers, with the Premier, and they say: "We do not like what you're doing." They get in touch with us as opposition members and say: "Please represent us. We do not like what you're doing."

I hope that on this section, the government does look at it and does take heed of what people are saying, does take heed of the history that we have of regional districts, local control and local decision-making because by taking away this level — by making this legislation — it is yet another erosion of the democratic rights of thousands of British Columbians, both here, in the Kootenays and with the potential for right across the province.

C. Puchmayr: As the member from Creston spoke, many e-mails have been coming in. They're starting to pile up, so I think people are watching and listening. I hope the other side seriously considers this piece of legislation — the amendment and this legislation.

I did nine years on local government, and the one thing I noticed about local government was that it was the government of the people. You were closest to the people. You walked down the street, and people would approach you all the time. They would talk about local issues continuously. Everyone had many local issues to discuss and to talk to you about.

In provincial governance, certainly some of the issues become more legal and more complex. They may not have the same application locally as they do provincially, and so it becomes sort of a bit of a disconnect between the legislation and how quickly it's passed. Some of the legislation doesn't affect you as quickly. By the time you realize that the legislation is having an impact on you, often it can be too late — as we saw in Bill 30 and section 56.

Section 56 of Bill 30, the run-of-the-river power projects, wasn't something that people were concerned about — actually generating clean power. It was how it was being imposed on municipalities and on regional districts without any consultation whatsoever. It is legislation that is extremely flawed and could have major impacts on tourism itself and on the environment itself. So the fact that it was imposed in such a way, so quickly, in a miscellaneous bill, hidden…. I think it was the 11th hour of the last session. It is very problematic to have a bill introduced in that way without having the adequate discussion and dialogue.

This bill here, again, is just another bill where there are…. I think the member said it was 25 pages. My version is 30 pages. Maybe it's a different font. Nevertheless, in those 35 pages there is a lot of the bill that this side will accept. There is a lot of the bill that this side can agree with. But hidden in that is a little golden nugget for friends and insiders of members from the other side.

To have a bill that's 30 pages or more and to have…. I'm just going to read you the part that really triggers the concern here. There is a section in here that is 45 words. Those 45 words have the greatest impact of this entire legislation and strip local autonomy completely from that decision-making process. It strips the government of the people, the grass-roots governance that is the first line of government, away with a mere 45 words.

You can even break that down to about 14 words, where it says: "…the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate an area as a resort region." That's all that's required to circumvent municipalities, completely circumvent public process and an ability to have dialogue.

You know, a certain municipality may want that type of development. You may say: why is someone from New Westminster getting up and speaking of concern of a resort going into their municipality or their city? We may want a resort in our city. We may want to turn some of the waterfront into a resort area. But we're very pleased that we have an ability to have a public process where the developer puts together a proposal, comes to council, engages in a process of an open house, talks to all the different resident associations, does presentations there and shows the value of what this may bring to the community.

At the end of the day, after that intense process, there's a public process where the members of the public have the ability to come to their council and say: "We want this," or "We don't want this." Then the council has an ability to vote yea or nay.

This strips that away completely. None of that will happen again in this context with this section of this bill. That is very shocking. The fact that we're seeing a trend to this is extremely shocking.

In my community we have an issue with transportation. We have over 400,000 cars a day that travel through New Westminster. We are the hub of the GVRD. We're the absolute dead centre of the GVRD. We have traffic going through there on a daily basis, and only slightly over 20,000 of those vehicle trips are generated from New Westminster. So over the years there has been a real effort to try to mitigate the impacts of traffic going through the city.

A bill could very easily be introduced in the same manner, with a few words hidden in it — maybe a bill dealing with TransLink — where the words would say:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, designate a freeway through any region or municipality with no consultation."

This is where we're heading. We're seeing alarming signals that are being sent here by this type of legislation that takes away the people's right. It takes away our right to debate it. It takes away the community's rights to oppose it or even to support it or even to amend it, which often happens when bills or resorts such as this come to communities. Often the community may be opposed to it.

The consultants may speak to the community. They may put pieces in place that may be a mitigation. They may finance some affordable housing in the community. There are all sorts of things that a community could gain by having an input and partnering, by virtue of having an input in any type of a development. That's gone. That is absolutely gone.

The city cannot engage in any type of amenity other than…. The only amenity will be that which the developer wishes to do, and that amenity will be for the profit of that development and nothing else. We're losing that. We're losing that ability to build complete communities. We're losing the ability to plan growth. We're losing our ability to have input on growth, and to me, to have decisions made in this manner is quite shocking.

It takes away from the very essence of this place. This is a place for democracy. This is where people come and make laws. This is where we engage. We have question period. There's a little bit of heckling and maybe a bit of laughter, but you know, it's a serious place that we go to every day to make laws. This takes that away.

Where are the laws made? The laws are made in the Premier's office. The law on a resort is made in the Premier's office. The law on ramming a freeway through my community is made in the Premier's office. And for what purpose? Where are the balance and the judgment that make it a good decision versus a bad decision? Where's the input? Where's the consultation? Where does my community have a say in this type of process?

We're losing the value of the Legislature. The Legislature is a place where we go — whether we're happy about it or not — to ensure that there is a public process, a democratic process, a sovereign process, which isn't influenced by what goes on behind the closed doors of a Premier's office.

We need to continue to maintain that if we believe in the democratic process. I'm sure there are members from the other side that would be quite concerned, also, if they weren't in control of this type of legislation and if they had no say in this type of legislation. They would be equally concerned.

First nations should be concerned as well. There could be issues where first nations could be looking at developing exactly the type of resort, in an area close to another resort, that may be coming in and competing with that, virtually running the two…. They become non-competitive, and everybody loses on them.

You're losing the ability to plan. You're losing the ability to create positive developments for your community. You're losing democracy. This is a very eerie trend that we're heading down. It is one that we're seeing over and over again in this province. We're seeing an elimination of the public process. We're seeing the elimination of House sittings. We're seeing a situation where too many decisions are being made without public scrutiny.

Once you head in that direction, the damage can be irreparable. Once you head in that direction and create a process where there are some tie-ins from a multilateral trade agreement, you are now prevented from changing that direction without significant costs of litigation. So you're actually imposing on the future of this province, on our children and on our grandchildren, impacts that could be devastating to them.

Someday members on the other side…. Their grandchildren will be talking to them, and they'll say: "Daddy, Mommy, why is this happening in our province? Why do we not have control of our resources anymore? Why do we not have control of public zoning, of community zoning? Who did this to us? Why can't we get out of this and change what has been imposed on us?"

That's exactly what will happen. But unfortunately, as the previous member said, we don't have the numbers. There are 33 of us. We're outnumbered. What it's going to take is for people from the other side to look at this closely and to say in a non-partisan way — to address it just for the principle of democracy, for the principle of sovereignty, for the principle of why this Legislature exists: do I believe decisions such as this should be taken away from municipalities? That's the question you need to ask.

Then they need to go back to their municipality, if they really believe that, and go to the city councils and say: "I don't believe that you should have the right to make these decisions. I think only the Premier has the right to make those decisions, and I don't care what my community says." That's what I suggest that the members across do. Take it back to your community. There's time. Go to your councils and ask them. Say: "This is the legislation. This is the impact it will have. Do you think that I should vote for it or against it?"

I would like the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to do that — go into his city council and ask them if that's what they want him to do back here in this House, where we're supposed to make the laws. Does he truly believe that those laws should be taken away?

Does he truly believe that the public process should be taken away because someone has walked into the Premier's office and said: "Mr. Premier, I have a great idea. We've tried this in the past, but the public has come forward and said no, no, no. Help us out here, Mr. Premier. Give us a mechanism where we don't have to talk to the public anymore, don't have to see the public anymore. Give us some tools where we can just bring this through. Don't worry, Mr. Premier. You'll be well looked after or well respected."

We can't go in that direction. I don't think that's why we're here. We're not here to take away the rights of our community. Many of the members on the other side will never walk into my community. They may never go to New Westminster.

Hopefully the Health Minister will come to New Westminster. He has been invited to meet with some of the doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital. But I know that many of the members will not come. It's a large province, and people work very hard on both sides.

Often you don't have the time to go into other communities. But it concerns me, because they are not accountable in the same way. The minister for Kamloops–North Thompson will be in his community, and if such a development comes into his community and the community has a problem with it and they have no control over it, he's going to have to answer to his community. That's what democracy is about.

As I said, the e-mails are coming in fast and furious here. This one is sent to the Minister of Community Services. It says:

A little bit of history on Bill 75, which was the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act had a provision where there had to be consultation. That was a very key component. Having to have consultation is very important, because what happened then was that to bring in such an initiative to streamline or to ram a procedure through council, they had to consult.

It's the consulting that raises the elevation of this public issue. It's the consulting that will get people coming out and saying: "We don't want it." It's very difficult sometimes to go forward and consult with the public when the public is saying: "No, you better have some very good reasons, and you better be able to mitigate the issue to the degree that you're able to succeed."

For instance, in a case such as this or a resort or a casino on the most pristine oceanfront in British Columbia, the community would say: "No, we don't want it — absolutely flat no." Then the developer would have to sit down with the city council and say: "What do we need to do to get this?" "Well, our community centre is dilapidated. We could use a new community centre. We could use a new pool."

What they do is sit down together and say: "Okay, here is what we will do. If we bring this proposal in, we will add some amenities to the city." That's the give-and-take that has basically built this province.

I know that we used it in our city. If someone wanted an extra few storeys on a highrise development, we got an affordable housing group to come in and propose some seniors housing. It was very controversial because of the height of the building — nowhere near as high as the buildings that are built in Vancouver. Nevertheless, people came and spoke in favour. Some came and spoke opposed. At the end of the day, the public had a say, the community received an amenity, and the proposal passed.

That's what it's about. It's give-and-take, and this bill absolutely strips that away — absolutely gone, no say whatsoever.

Wow, these are coming in quick, aren't they? It's amazing, and they're already highlighted too. This one here says: "I am very upset at the government's recent proposed changes, specifically with respect to section 15 of Bill 11. I feel that the changes of this bill will make it so that the provincial government can force specific resorts into a municipality without consultation of the local people. The local people are the ones who are the most able to decide what is right for their community." Doesn't that make a lot of sense?

You know, that's where governments started. In the mid-1800s, when British Columbia was colonized, it was local governments. It was local governments that got together with a set of rules that were given to them, and democracy was born. I think the first mayor in my community was probably the first mayor in British Columbia in the mid-1800s. There was a democracy there, and people voted for their councillors to represent them. If they did something that they didn't like, they were gone. They were turfed.

Here everything is done in secret, behind the iron curtain of the Premier's office. That's shameful. That's shocking. How can we have a democracy? How can we talk about a democracy when that's how decisions are made?

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson likes to get into this debate, because I think he's worried about…. I think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is concerned….

I hope they listen to such a degree that they take this to heart, because this is very serious stuff. We can

make light of it in some manner, but this is very serious stuff. This has such a major impact on the democracy that we so respect, and we're losing it piece by piece by piece. That has to be a concern to the members across, and I'm sure that's why they're blessing me with their comments and their inspiration.

Here's one from Joe Kaulback. "I have heard about this bill. I am very angry if Bill 11 passes as it now stands. The residents of East Kootenay deserve the right to decide the future of their region, including the proposed resort at Jumbo."

I was quite concerned when a member from our side stood here for 30 seconds and asked if that was actually in the cards and if they would agree that that wasn't part of this bill. It was eerie to hear the silence in this chamber for once, when none of them would deceive the public by saying that that wasn't the intent of the bill.

Here is another one, from Jennifer Chatton. I can't tell where this one is from, but it says:

And I ask the province that it never be used — period — that it be stricken, that you maintain the rights of communities to make their own decisions on development, on growth, on resorts. You would never need this bill — period. You can't say that there is a need for a bill that takes away the democratic rights of the people in a region. There is nothing that justifies that. There is absolutely nothing that justifies that.

We have countries in the world right now that are fighting for democracy. People are dying for democracy. People are dying for the right to have a community, have an input on policy. People are dying for a right to be able to have a say on the development and the growth of their community.

We're going the other way. That absolutely shocks me. It shocks me that our friends on the other side are willing to go that direction as well. I only wish that they would consult with their councils.

Again, this constituent talks about that consultation. The constituent talks about having an alternative proposal or an amended proposal, and that's what it's about. It's about being able to have that different proposal. It's about being able to work with a proposal as it comes forward. And that's going to be gone — absolutely gone, absolutely unacceptable.

Here is another one. This is from a host of people, all from Invermere, B.C. It's the Radd family — Anne, Nolan, Fran, Dionne, Richard, Twyla — and it says:

Deputy Speaker: Member, you can't name members, even if you're reading. You must say their position.

"The Premier must be held to his word." That's what this whole family is saying. They are saying it over and over again. All of these e-mails are saying that the Premier must be held to his word.

The Premier cannot make those decisions behind closed doors. That's what people are saying. That's what we are saying. That is what this is all about. It's about the sovereign rights. It's about the democratic rights. It's about the community rights. It's about the grass roots of governance. And it's being stripped away by the members from the other side, stripped away with no consultation whatsoever — none.

One day the heavy equipment will roll in. People will say: "I didn't see a development sign posted here. What are all these excavators doing here? Why are they surveying here? I didn't see a sign that…."

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate all the comments made by members opposite. I do want to preface my remarks by saying that I do acknowledge that members opposite, those in the opposition, have a role to play, which they know is to bring forward concerns they believe are there. But at the end of the day, I do believe that they have injected some very serious issues into the bill which actually lead to preconceived conclusions, and that's not the case here.

I know that some of the members opposite have been in their ridings and have made assertions and

assumptions that certain objectives will be a result of Bill 11. Again, I would say that that's not correct, because there will still be a process where local governments and the community are involved to see how regions can be developed.

At the end of the day, too, I have to really make it very clear. I heard speaker after speaker offer comments about Bill 11 and the manner in which it was introduced. I want to make it very clear for the record, because there have been remarks made — and they have been repeated by other members after the critic made his remarks — that somehow the bill came in at the last moment on a Thursday afternoon prior to a break. That is absolutely not true. It came in on a Tuesday morning. The member was offered a briefing on the legislation. The member was given that briefing a full 48 hours prior to second reading.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, that is practice in this Legislature. A bill is brought in, introduced. It could be brought forward for second reading the very next day and then for committee stage the day after that. I can tell you that when I was in opposition, a bill was often brought in at two o'clock, and the next morning, literally, we would be at second reading — on a Thursday morning.

I believe that we provided some time. As I say, I had staff offer a briefing to the member, and I appreciate that he took advantage of that, although I guess he didn't read the bill as closely as he should have. In any event, I know that they have now had an opportunity to canvass this area amongst themselves. They will have an opportunity to explore all parts of this bill at committee stage, and I expect that they will do so.

I want to also say that Bill 11 was not a result — in particular, the sections that the members opposite speak of — of not having a plan in place. The Premier's Resort Task Force was established in 2003, as I mentioned in my second reading remarks. The Resort Task Force, as I say, included members of the community and engaged people. In particular, it engaged local representatives, as well, as to what they wanted to see happening in terms of resort development.

We are living in a different world. The opportunities for year-round resorts are here as they never were in the past. What it means is that communities do want to have an opportunity not only to see resorts being developed year-round but to be able to share in the resort development tools that are being offered — the hotel room tax that is being shared, development tools that will allow for things like employee housing, in particular in areas like Whistler. They are certainly looking for that to take place. I do ask that the members consider what Bill 11 is offering to communities around the province.

I also heard members speak about standing up for local governments. You know, Mr. Speaker, it really speaks of hypocrisy when I hear comments like that. It wasn't our government that stripped local governments of an opportunity to see their regions move ahead. It was that NDP government that removed the local government grants, that breached the Local Government Grants Act in the '90s. It was our government that returned substantial and significant dollars to local government. So when they speak of protecting local governments, I think at times that we have to look seriously into their words and acknowledge that they're disingenuous.

I do appreciate, as I say, comments that have been made. I look forward to committee stage of this bill, and I would at this time move second reading.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 11 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 15, Security Services Act.

Hon. J. Les: I recently introduced the Security Services Act in the Legislature in order to help enhance public safety and provide more consistency across the security industry in British Columbia.

The Security Services Act will replace the existing Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, which has not changed significantly since 1981, when there were 200 licensed security businesses and 2,800 licensed security employees in the province. Today there are 1,100 licensed security businesses and 12,000 licensed employees in the province. They include security guards, private investigators, alarm services, locksmiths, security consultants and armoured car businesses.

Additionally, I would like to point out that this new legislation is consistent with the elements that other provinces — such as Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia — included when they chose to modernize the regulation of their security industries.

The Security Services Act will help to enhance public safety and provide more consistency across the industry by extending the application of the legislation to those segments of the industry that were not included when the current act was drafted, such as the Corps of Commissionaires; armoured car employees; bodyguards; in-house security at universities, hospitals, retail stores, banks; and door staff and bouncers at licensed liquor establishments.

The new legislation will help to ensure that consistent and appropriate standards are applied across the industry. For example, issues such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, legislative changes, recent case law and jurisprudence will be included in training

programs. Similarly, background checks and security clearances will be mandatory for all licensed security workers.

We have also introduced a formal public complaints process within this new legislation so that the public has a forum to address their concerns — something that was not included in the current legislation. It will serve to enhance the conduct and accountability throughout the industry by ensuring that complaints against security workers or security businesses are investigated and resolved.

The Security Services Act will also include provisions for the direct licensing of security workers, also known as portable licensing. The current act only permits licensing through companies, which has been compared to a lord-and-serf relationship. Direct licensing will make security workers responsible for their own licensing and employment and will provide employers with a more readily available labour pool.

The final point is that while the current act regulates 1,100 security businesses and 12,000 employees, the new Security Services Act will regulate a further 5,500 security workers who will be screened, trained and licensed for work within the industry in the province of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I haven't even started speaking, and I'm getting applause. I thank my colleagues for that.

I thank the Solicitor General for his remarks on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 15, which is intituled Security Services Act. It is an important piece of legislation because, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, the last time this was dealt with, in 1981, there were 200 firms in British Columbia carrying out private investigation and private security work, along with the bouncers that work in nightclubs and bars throughout this province. In the subsequent 26 years that's grown to 1,100 firms engaged in this type of activity.

That's a significant rate of growth, and it represents a number of things. It represents increasing concern in both personal security and private security and in terms of homes and homeowners to protect their own property. It represents the increased costs of security for private businesses, and in fact in many parts of the province people have had to engage security because of issues in particular neighbourhoods around petty crime, petty thievery, drug crime and around ensuring that streets and communities and shopping areas are safe for pedestrians and shoppers and that the public feels safe in those particular areas.

This is an area of business growth that has increased dramatically over the last few decades. It's important that the legislation is brought up to date, and it's important that legislation is in place that's able to deal not only with the growth in the industry but also with changes in the way the industry operates, changes in the way the industry is run, not only on a personnel basis but also on a technology basis.

The sad fact is that in many ways communities have become, in the eyes of the public and many business owners — be they small, medium or large businesses — more difficult and more dangerous places to work and conduct business. That's one of the reasons why you've seen the dramatic growth in personal security and private security, and it's why this particular piece of legislation is important.

The other issue in this bill that I think is extremely important — and I'll touch on those other things in a moment in my comments…. The other issue that's important in this particular piece of legislation is the issue of bouncers and people who work in nightclubs and the bar industry in this province. You know, we market this province overseas, to our own people and across this country. As you know, we've done it for years as Super, Natural B.C. The ads often have, besides nice scenery of fish and mountains, people happily dancing away in nightclubs.

M. Farnworth: As the member for Peace River North says, it's the best place on earth.

Well, that's what we certainly want people to have — the experience we want them to have when they decide to go out for dinner and maybe for a drink afterwards. But there have been disturbing cases of people who have not had that experience. In fact, their experience has left them with the worst-place-on-earth experience. I know that my colleague the member for Nanaimo will be talking about that particular issue after I have concluded my remarks.

I draw your attention, hon. Speaker, to articles we've seen in the Vancouver Sun recently about the Granville Street entertainment zone and how it has been described by police as a powder keg. There is all kinds of trouble, and the potential for trouble is just a tinderbox away at any given time down there.

One of the key issues down there, for example, is the people who are working in the nightclubs and bars as bouncers and door staff and how they interact with clientele, with patrons — not just going in and checking for ID but also dealing with those difficult situations when somebody is intoxicated, somebody is aggressive and does have to be dealt with. How do we do that?

There was a time when the attitude was that when somebody got their head smacked on the pavement, well, they probably deserved it. Fortunately, that's not the way we look at things today. We recognize that there are laws in place. There is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in place. There are — what we, as a public, believe should be — standards in place to ensure that. Just as we expect our police to be well-trained and professional, so too should people working in nightclubs as bouncers and doorperson staff have some level of training, some understanding of the law in terms of how it relates to what you can and cannot do, some

That could and should include, for example, first aid — some basic sense of some basic first-aid skills. It should include how to talk to people and whether or not you have criminal-record checks. A background check should be done. Too often it's too easy to get someone just because they're 6 foot 10 and weigh 400 pounds. There need to be rules and standards in place, and that's one of the things that we're looking for in this legislation.

While we are supportive of this particular bill, we do have questions we want to deal with in committee stage that will explore some of these issues, because they are important issues that we know will give the public confidence that the regulations that are being brought in…. Not only is it important that they're brought in, but it's important that they work. It's important that they will do the job, and licensing and training are crucial.

Now, it seems obvious that when it comes to bouncers and nightclub personnel, that would be a good thing to do. I hope that, upon exploration in committee stage, that's what we will find. But as I said, we do have questions about this particular piece of legislation.

I know, for example, that in one of the areas where individuals, and we've been approached or have been…. The opposition has had individuals coming forward, asking questions, because this legislation is long overdue. The Solicitor General has been lobbied long and hard to bring this forward. It's been a much-anticipated piece of legislation.

For example, loss prevention officers in stores. They have a very difficult job. They are working to ensure that stores are not the result of…. Their employees aren't targeted by shoplifters. They don't suffer the economic ravages that can impact on a small business, a medium-sized business or a large business.

Many people think: "Oh, it's just petty crime." It's not. If you're that small business owner, and you are plagued by shoplifters, that affects your bottom line. It affects your ability to hire people. That's a significant cost for many retailers. Many retailers have gone to the lengths of hiring in-store loss prevention officers whose job it is to ensure that shoplifting is kept to an absolute minimum.

It's a difficult job, because there's case law in place. There are laws in place about what you can and cannot do, and they're there for a reason. One of the things that makes the job difficult is the increasing violence that's obviously often employed and the inability to do something as simple as use handcuffs on an individual who has been apprehended. So we want to make sure that they have that ability to do that. We want to make sure they have the ability by being properly trained and licensed to use handcuffs.

I'm not sure that they do that in this bill. I think that's an area of weakness. It's one that I'd like to explore in committee stage. I want the Solicitor General to look at that issue. I do think it is a very important issue and will go a long way to helping to make loss prevention officers more effective in their job.

I think it has some important economic considerations that the Solicitor General needs to take into account. I think he'll find widespread support not only from the industry itself, but from business, particularly from small business and medium-sized business. So I'm going to be exploring that issue in the committee stage with the Solicitor General.

There are a number of other issues that also need to be dealt with. One of the things that the industry has been pushing for and why they've been pushing for this legislation, as the Solicitor General has acknowledged has been the tremendous growth in this particular area of business endeavour — that is, private security firms and public security firms.

You have good, established operators and good, established security firms and an industry that is often tarred by those who don't want to play by the rules or who, in the absence of rules, don't want to abide by best practices or the standards that associations themselves may have set up. That reflects on those who are professional, who are good and doing a good job, delivering a quality service and a quality product. It's those bad apples that we want to ensure that this legislation is able to weed out.

I will be having a number of questions about one of the sections in particular, and that relates to section 10, dealing with out-of-province investigators.

Questions that come to mind and issues that come to mind are: if you have regulated firms here in British Columbia with a level of standards, and the act allows for unlicensed people to still operate in British Columbia, are you then creating the conditions where you can have firms that are operating either just over the border in Alberta or just over the border in Washington State, that are either unregulated and unlicensed or operating on a different set of standards, and that do not necessarily have, for example, the same level of training that the minister is looking at here or do not necessarily meet the same standards that we are employing here?

How do we go about ensuring that that doesn't take place, particularly if you're dealing with investigations that are conducted by a client outside of the province or in another jurisdiction?

I think that that's an area we need to focus on more in the legislation and at committee stage. I think that that is also something we need to explore. Because I don't want to see us creating a regulation regime that is going to put…. We want a good one in place, but let's recognize that we don't want to be putting our own British Columbia firms at a disadvantage because we're allowing people who don't have the same level of training or the same skills to work in this province through a potential loophole.

That's something that I want to address in committee stage. I hope the minister will be able to deal with that and answer the questions and ensure that we're putting in place the right tools and regulations on what

The minister also has mentioned a complaints process. Again, I think that's an important part of this piece of legislation. We do need to ensure that the public not only has every confidence in terms of licensing and training and how that training is conducted and how that licensing takes place, but also that if there is a problem and there is an issue with either a security guard or security personnel or bouncer or whatever, that there's a process in place.

This process must be timely, it must be open, and it must be transparent. It must be able to resolve complaints in a fashion that people look at and go: "Okay, yeah. This process is all of those things. The person doing the investigation or heading up the complaints process is, in fact, independent and has the tools and the resources necessary to do the job."

One of the questions I know that we'll want to explore for answers is: how will this be funded? Will it be funded solely, for example, by government or through contributions by the industries themselves? That's an issue that I think we need to explore, and it's something that I believe is an important question that needs to be answered.

Other issues also concern criminal-record checks. What is the time going to be for criminal-record checks? I know that we have legislation before this House dealing with criminal-record checks for individuals who work with children — teachers and day care workers, for example — where we're now saying that every five years you need a criminal-record check. It's not an area where there is always a great deal of problems. Problems do occur in that area, so we're saying once every five years. We do know from past history….

In the private security business — because you are dealing with potentially criminal matters, especially in the case of bouncers at nightclubs — how long and how often does one have to go for a criminal-record background check? If it's once, then that may be too few. If you're hired and you have a background check, that's fine. But should it be done on a regular basis, such as we're asking of other individuals? We said that for teachers it's every five years. That's something that I think we need to be looking at.

One of the things I want to also focus on is the level of consultation that has gone into this particular piece of legislation. In terms of private investigators, I know there has been a lot of lobbying taking place. But I also want to know what amount of investigation has gone on, for example, with the nightclub-bar community within the province. How did the minister obtain and go about getting their inputs? Who did the consultations? How much consultation was done?

How about with some of the individuals — for example, locksmiths and some of the trades — who are also involved in private security? I think locksmiths, for example, are the obvious ones. What type of consultation took place around this particular piece of legislation with them? Are there any areas that were suggested that should have been left out? Again, those are also issues that I want to be exploring when we're in committee stage.

One of the final areas I want to just touch on is around the issue of teeth in enforcement, because, as I said earlier, if this doesn't have the enforcement ability to do the job, then I think it will not serve the public in the way that they expect this particular piece of legislation to work.

I'm going to wrap up my comments in a moment and let my colleague, the member for Nanaimo, take his place in the debate. I just want to say that this is an important piece of legislation. It's one that we will be supporting.

It's one that is long overdue. It's one of those things that many people may not realize its importance. But certainly if they engage a private security firm, if they engage in the security business, if they're concerned about their own small business or medium-sized business and issues around shoplifting and theft and being able to — as they often have to these days — employ their own local security, then this legislation will have an impact to it.

If in committee stage we get the answers that we're looking for in the different sections, and they prove to us that the legislation will do the job that the minister says it will, then I think that this will be a good piece of legislation.

However, if we are not able to get the answers that we need, or if we see that there are areas that have not been covered or have not done the job that they're intended to, then we will have a piece of legislation that I think is a step — one that will continue to have to be worked on, developed and perhaps amended. That's something that I hope is not the case.

With that, I will finish my introductory remarks on the second reading of Bill 15, Security Services Act, take my place and wait to hear the comments of other members in this House or my colleague, the member for Nanaimo.

L. Krog: I detect a distinct lack of enthusiasm from the government benches in support of this bill. It's quite surprising, but I'm sure the minister who expects to pilot this legislation through the House will not be offended by that lack of enthusiasm. I learned long ago not to look a gift horse in the mouth too often.

However, having said that, I think it is important to recognize and applaud the minister for bringing this legislation forth, as he knows from my correspondence with him. I'm hesitant to speak at great length about the incident that brought this whole subject of security and bouncers to my attention because it is before the courts, but there was a very tragic incident in Nanaimo involving the death of a fine young man from Gabriola Island — which is part of my constituency — named Michael Brophy. He died during the course of an incident at a local establishment.

There are criminal charges outstanding, and there is a community on Gabriola Island that very much feels

the loss of this young man. Nothing that we can do in this place will ever give the kind of comfort to his mother that she so richly deserves. I therefore respectfully suggest that the minister does deserve compliments for bringing this forward. Having said that, and respectful of the court process that is in place, I nevertheless have a number of things to say about this bill.

The minister indicated in his opening remarks that his intention was to introduce this to enhance public safety. There's no question that it does represent a step forward. I would be less than candid if I didn't say that I have always been troubled, frankly, by the sense of insecurity in the public, if you will. Certainly, during my lifetime in this province, which I suspect is about the average age of the membership of this assembly, we have gone from an era where people who worked in what we think of as private security were a very limited number of individuals.

Certainly, in the old days they would have spent their time taking photographs and recording the goings-on to provide evidence so that people could obtain divorces on the basis of adultery. They might investigate some thefts in private corporations. But it wasn't seen as a very respectable sort of occupation. It certainly didn't receive much public interest, and it certainly didn't have a high public profile.

Over time, however, the growth in the private security industry has been extraordinary. We now have companies employing store detectives — people who wander around with little baskets of food. It's rather amusing.

Both of the establishments that I have shopped at for years for my groceries, the Mid Island Co-Op previously and now a Save-On-Foods in Nanaimo…. Not that I'm advertising for Mr. Pattison, who already has enough money. Because I am a somewhat public figure in my community, they always come up and chat to me about all kinds of things. I know what they're doing there, and I often wonder if they're really performing much of a — how shall I say? — public service for their employers, because they do tend to become known.

It's a sad commentary on our society that businesses feel it necessary to employ people on a constant basis who wander their stores to ensure that shoplifting isn't taking place. We certainly know, however, that there has been a traditional occupation involving people who perform that kind of function, and that is in the bars of this province.

Most of us here are old enough to remember the days when there was a women's entrance to the beer parlours of British Columbia. When fights would break out, I remember with some interest — and I won't disclose the poor fellow's name — a former mayor of Parksville who was notorious in his early logging days for going into the Rod and Gun, starting a fight, stepping back and watching them tear the place apart for an evening's amusement. But such was small-town life.

Bouncers are how we commonly refer to people who are employed in establishments that serve liquor. Bouncers are the people who are supposed to ensure safety, to ensure the place doesn't get torn apart, to ensure that people who have had too much to drink are escorted from there before any damage is done or any violence takes place. That's a good thing. That's a positive thing. We certainly can't expect our police forces, stretched as they are, to attend at every establishment in our community serving alcohol and try and ensure that the public order is always followed.

It hasn't been seen necessarily as an important occupation, if you will, or one that deserved much respect, perhaps. But I was astonished, as I'm sure many of my constituents were — and that's certainly the indication I got back from them — to discover that, in fact, those who work as bouncers in this province weren't regulated, that there was not some kind of scheme or program to ensure that the individuals hired into these positions — and there are many — would have some kind of basic training.

Fair to say that I was shocked. It's not good for members in this House to confess ignorance on issues on which they should probably be aware, but I was, and a number of my constituents were as well.

I once again want to emphasize to the minister how pleased I am that this bill, on the face of it, appears to regulate for the first time in British Columbia those who act as bouncers. I come from a community that was a mining town for many, many years. As one Catholic priest I knew and was friendly with once said rather unkindly of Nanaimo, the trouble with it was it was a coal town with a coal-town mentality. I think I knew in his own snotty way exactly what he was talking about. It was a rough community with a number of bars — probably more beer parlours per capita than most of the communities in this province.

What went on there wasn't always pleasant, and the people who were hired to maintain order in those establishments weren't always pleasant individuals either. But one sort of assumed that they were trained, had some useful experience, were regulated. They were in a position to exercise the kind of judgment and discretion that is necessary to prevent violence taking place, to ensure that patrons didn't get into trouble, to ensure that property wasn't damaged or individuals injured.

As I say, I was shocked to discover that that wasn't the case. The individuals who obtained that employment could be literally anyone — I mean this the way I say it — off the street, for that matter. It could be an individual who simply, because of their physical size, their presence, would appear to be a worthy candidate to maintain order in a beer parlour or a pub or a licensed establishment and who could, in fact, have been fresh out of prison, could have a history of violence.

Employers, unless they were smart employers, thoughtful employers, could be taking into these positions individuals who the average person, if they were consulted, would say: "That's not the kind of fella I want at the front door ensuring that public safety and order is maintained."

Historically, because we know that a number of establishments serving alcohol have not always been that well run, we've had a liquor distribution branch, a liquor administration branch and government liquor inspectors doing their best. We have known that not every place operates to the same high standards as, for instance, a place called the Windward Pub in my community which operates to very high standards — a very well run operation, respected in the community.

The Crow and Gate Pub as well is another respected establishment. Various establishments. There was no question about the quality of staff hired nor the competence of the individuals working there. But in some of the rougher places where the young people tend to go with no more intent than to get drunk, to get into trouble, to create a ruckus, to dance, to exchange drugs, to do whatever…. Those places have had bouncers who, in my respectful opinion, have not always served the public well nor served their employers very well.

I think the incident in Nanaimo that brought this matter to my attention suggests a number of things about what we should be ensuring in the hiring of people who will fall under Bill 15, the Security Services Act. Surely, in those places we want people who have a number of skills, particularly in those establishments I've mentioned that are catering to young people, that are associated with the high degree of consumption of alcohol.

The lead critic spoke about this just prior to my rising in this chamber. Surely, we should expect that these individuals would have some personal skills, an ability to communicate in a reasonable manner. We would expect that they would have some skills and understanding around Charter issues, around the law that applies in situations with respect to private property, trespass, assault, harassment, criminal harassment — all of those things.

Frankly, it's not unreasonable to expect that those individuals would potentially also have some kind of medical experience or training, at least the minimal first aid. Because surely in the course of the kinds of altercations that often take place, particularly in the inner city of Vancouver — not so much, mercifully, in my community…. In those kinds of altercations, violence has become all too common. That violence leads to injury.

If you have individuals who are not trained in some basic way around first aid, medical procedures and understanding, then there is clearly the possibility that someone who has been seriously injured, if there isn't blood flowing, may be ignored. We know from incidents involving our own police forces in this province that there have been individuals with serious medical issues that have not been treated in the way that they should have because no one understood what was happening, whether it was the result of a chronic condition, some injury, the level of inebriation, drug consumption or whatever.

This has led to some tragic situations. I don't think there's anyone in this province who ever wants to see some individual die as a result of a lack of understanding of some basic first aid or the kinds of indicia that may indicate that someone is in serious difficulty medically, as a result of what happens during an altercation in a pub or a licensed establishment or what happens as a result of a fight that takes place there or whatever.

Clearly, the incident in Nanaimo points up that it is important, I suggest to the minister that the individuals who are going to be employed as bouncers have some kind of medical training. If they don't, then someone in the establishment should have some kind of medical training and be available at all times to assess people who are being removed for whatever reason and who appear to have suffered some kind of injury, minor as it may be, so as to ensure that no untimely deaths occur and to ensure also that an injury that requires serious medical attention is not in fact overlooked under any circumstances.

I happen to believe that the people who work as bouncers work in a difficult position. I don't see it as some kind of minimum-wage job. It is a position that requires a great deal of understanding and ability, not just mere physical prowess or the ability to restrain someone who's inebriated or strong or high on alcohol or drugs. It requires something broader than that. One expects them to have the skills, training and knowledge necessary to that position.

That leads me to one of my very serious concerns about this legislation. Bill 15, in and of itself, in section 3 simply says:

That's where I have some difficulty with this, because if one looks at section 52, it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council…. For those of the listening audience tonight who don't understand what that means, that's cabinet. Section 52(2)(i) gives power to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations as follows: "establishing the qualifications that must be held by an applicant for each type of licence, including, without limitation, (i) the training standards that must be met by an applicant, and (ii) if the applicant for a

security business licence is a business entity, the personal standing and qualifications that must be held by the business entity's members, officers and employees."

There is nothing in the legislation that sets out clearly what standards we're talking about, what level of training is required. With great respect to the minister, it's a point I made earlier today.

We have a job to do in this place. If we continually pass legislation that simply says, "Here's a very basic framework. We'll toss it to cabinet, and cabinet gets to decide what it means," we are abdicating our responsibilities as legislators; we are abdicating our responsibility as politicians. I can certainly say that those of us on this side of the House are abdicating the fundamental responsibility that put us here — that is, to be opposition — because there is no opportunity to oppose when it's in the cabinet chamber. There is no opportunity for us on this side of the House to stand up and say to the ministers putting their legislation through here that this just doesn't make any sense or that this could be improved.

The fact is that these regulations will be passed by cabinet. As much as I have great faith in the ability of the minister working with his senior staff, I'd be a great deal more comforted if this legislation set out exactly what kind of training was involved, what kind of qualifications were necessary. Because as I've read out for the benefit of the members listening, all you've got to be is a Canuck and 19 years of age. That's all you have to be, and you have to satisfy the registrar.

I've just read out section 3. He's got to fill out the application. He's got to be a 19-year-old Canuck.

That's a pretty broad discretion, but it doesn't say anything positive. It says essentially that the registrar gets to look at this, and he can refuse you, but it doesn't set any minimum standards.

I would assume that would mean a member of the Hell's Angels, which soon-to-be-retired Justice Ross Lander in Nanaimo described as a notorious criminal organization. One would presume that if you were identified with that, then the registrar would decide that you wouldn't make a good candidate to be a bouncer.

So no double-dipping; no overtime for peace officers. It seems perfectly reasonable.

Essentially, if you don't have a criminal record and you're a 19-year-old Canuck, then it's cabinet that's going to decide who gets to be a bouncer, who gets to work in the security industry, who gets to undertake what I see as fairly important positions. After all, there are tens of thousands of individuals and businesses in this province who are hiring people to protect their homes; protect the security of their family and loved ones, if they happen to be wealthy and are worried about kidnapping; protect their establishments from damage; and protect their property. All we're going to do by this legislation is enable cabinet to make those very important decisions around what kind of training is necessary, what kind of qualifications there are.

I mean, quite frankly, if one looks at the legislation, there are precious few occupations in this province that wouldn't require you to be a 19-year-old Canuck without a criminal record.

L. Krog: The member for Peace River North, the Minister of Energy, says: "Is there something wrong with being a 19-year-old Canuck?" Well, I might remind the minister that there's nothing wrong with being a 19-year-old Canuck, but in my experience, 19-year-old Canucks aren't necessarily the brightest, and when they get to be about 30, they're a lot smarter.

L. Krog: …by the passage of time. If the members opposite are suggesting that merely to be 19 years old qualifies you to act as a bouncer in the kind of establishment that led me to stand up and make those remarks, I'm going to suggest it's not sufficient.

L. Krog: …in these positions are people who have appropriate training and qualification to ensure, notwithstanding the crying of the members opposite, that what happened in Nanaimo, which led this government to some extent to bring forward this legislation, never happens again.

If the members opposite think I'm being unreasonable by suggesting that those minimal standards are

below what I think is reasonable, so be it. I think it requires more. I'm looking for legislation that talks about appropriate training. This is just a broad licence to cabinet once again to set the standards without bringing it before this House and without, frankly, giving the members of the opposition — and, indeed, for that matter, the members of the government back bench — the opportunity to provide their input and make intelligent comment about what those regulations will be.

Now, if the members opposite think it's unreasonable that we on this side of the House think that they should be doing their job and ensuring that what passes through this place receives full public scrutiny, so be it, but those of us on this side of the House happen to believe that what we do here is important.

L. Krog: The member asked me how I feel about 19-year-olds. If the member opposite is suggesting that you're as mature…

Mr. Speaker: Member, Member. If people want to make comments, please be in your own seat.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, let's not get diverted from the task at hand by the comments of the members opposite. The task at hand is this legislation.

If this government seriously believes that it wants to regulate what is a growing occupation in the province…. The minister's remarks, I believe, indicated that there were something like 1,100 businesses in the province with 12,000 employees, and this legislation will have the effect of increasing its coverage to a further 5,500 employees. If that in fact is the case, and if it is important — and I believe it's important, on this side of the House — then surely we should be looking at an expansion of the qualifications as set out in the statute that say it's mandatory.

All we're seeing now in this legislation before the House is that you've got to be a 19-year-old Canadian without a criminal record. So if you're a 19-year-old Canuck without a criminal record, you can do the job, subject to the training that is going to be specified by cabinet.

I would suggest to the minister that before we get to committee stage of this bill, he seriously consider…. I'm sure his ministry, in its due diligence, has already looked at the kinds of regulations that cabinet would pass. I would strongly suggest that the government consider, before the opposition does, amendment of the bill so that we in this House can have the full opportunity to outline those kinds of qualifications that we here think are important for this kind of work.

It's not an unreasonable suggestion. Surely it's better to have, excluding the hon. Speaker, 78 heads looking at this than it is to have just the heads around the cabinet table. It's not an unreasonable suggestion. The minister has that opportunity. I strongly suggest to the minister that he consider that proposal. Notwithstanding what fun the members opposite have had with my remarks about 19-year-olds — if I've hurt the 19-year-olds of British Columbia, I do apologize — this arises out of a serious issue in my community and a serious incident. I expect the government to treat it seriously.

I would ask the government to consider my suggestion that they bring forward an amendment so that we can talk about and assess this and do it properly, to ensure that an industry that is worthy of regulation — that hasn't seen a substantial revision of this act, I gather, for 26 since 1981 — gets the kind of regulation that will enhance its reputation in the community and the province and ensure that the best people are hired into these very sensitive positions. I leave that suggestion with the hon. minister.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Solicitor General closes debate.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite this afternoon. Tempted as I am to come to the defence of all the 19-year-olds of this province, I think I will conclude my remarks at this point as well. I look forward to the debate in committee stage, and I move second reading.

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

Bill 15, Security Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

D. Chudnovsky: Good afternoon to the minister and to members of his staff. It's great to see you all. Here we are back again.

I just want to assure you that I don't expect to take more than three or four weeks at the most, so we should be okay.

I wonder if I could begin with a little administrative work. I wrote to the minister last week about the TransLink review and the submissions made to the TransLink review, requesting that those submissions be provided to my office. I wonder whether we can cut through some of that and do it in this process instead. To the minister: could he provide for us the submissions to the TransLink review in this process, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that those reports are being put together in a compendium that will be released as committed.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that answer, except for the last little bit which I didn't hear or understand. The compendium of the reports is being put together, and it will be released — something, something, something. It's the something, something, something that I didn't get clearly.

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize. That's my fault for sitting down. They will be released in the coming weeks, yes.

D. Chudnovsky: Coming weeks? All weeks are coming, hon. Chair. Any idea which…? Give us an idea, if the minister could, please, in which weeks that are coming we might see the submissions to the TransLink review.

Hon. K. Falcon: The commitment I'll give the member is that they will get out just as soon as we can get them out. My staff are advising me that it's just an issue of getting them. They're also going to be putting them on the website so that they're publicly available. The moment they've completed that work, you've got my word that they'll go out. There is going to be absolutely no effort on my part, if that's what the question is implying, of slowing it down or in some way impeding it. It will get out there just as soon as the staff is ready to get that out there.

D. Chudnovsky: Certainly I would never suggest that this minister would impede anything from happening. If anybody were to conclude that, that would be their own conclusion.

What I want to know is, to get a sense of…. Of course, we are in the midst of a debate as a result of the submission of the review, which the minister has stated he supports except for one element. So it makes sense from the point of view of this opposition member that as background material and data in the proper functioning of that debate, which is part of the process that needs to happen in anticipation, I assume, of legislation that the minister is going to bring forward at some point…. He says maybe the spring, maybe the fall. It makes sense for all of us who are involved in that discussion to see this material.

I understand that the…. What I'm talking about are the written submissions. I would just say to the minister — we've heard his commitment, and we take that very seriously — that these are written pieces of work. It seems to me that the technology exists for us to be able to do that in a very, very energetic…. You know, consistent with the minister's personality of energy and passion and commitment, we would like to see those very soon. We'll get back to the TransLink review at some point.

Could the minister explain why the cost of the transfer of risk on the Sea to Sky privatized highway was calculated twice in the public sector comparator?

Hon. K. Falcon: Rather than try and guess what the member means, perhaps the member could clarify the question and help us out in terms of what exactly the member is getting at. We're a little unclear on this side.

D. Chudnovsky: Maybe we could do it this way. Maybe we could ask the minister: what is the cost of the transfer of risk in the Sea to Sky privatized highway project? I would assume that the cost of a transfer of risk should be the same in the public sector comparator as it is in the actual cost of the project. So what is the figure that the people of the province are paying for the transfer of risk in the Sea to Sky privatized highway project?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's bringing back fond memories of my last estimates, when we spent a considerable amount of time on the issue of….

The Chair: Excuse me. Could you please direct all remarks through the Chair, and one speaker at a time. Thank you.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you, Chair. Through to the member: I appreciate your interjection there.

We spent a lot of time on this last time, and I'm quite happy to go over this territory again. Hopefully, we'll get to the most engaging and fascinating discussion about discount rates, because I particularly enjoyed that.

We went through, as the member will recall — I certainly recall going through — a very detailed description of what exactly was the risk that was transferred for every single aspect of Sea to Sky. The member is well aware that there's a value-for-money report, and the value-for-money report discusses the risk adjustment that was made — I believe it's on page 17 — of $42.9 million.

I think that answers the member's question, but if not, I'm happy to have further clarification for the member.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister is getting there. He's getting to where we want to go, and we appreciate that very much.

The minister is absolutely right that in the report, the figure…. I think it's $42.7 million, but $42.7 million or $42.9 million…. He said earlier today that it's a billion-dollar budget, so we can live with the distinction between $42.7 million and $42.9 million.

Here's the problem. I encourage the minister because he's right: we're going to get to the discount rate very quickly. The minister last time spent a long time explaining to us that…. He will recall, I think, that the question had to do with the discount rate and the setting of the discount rate.

The discount rate is set at a rate which is substantially higher than the cost of public borrowing. The minister will recall that I have asked on a number of occasions about that anomaly. The minister will recall as well, I hope, that what he said at the time was: "Well, we've set it higher because of risk. It's the cost of risk that requires us to set the discount rate in the public sector comparator at 1.5-, 2-, 2.5- or 3-percent higher than the real cost of public sector borrowing."

That's why earlier on, hon. Chair — you weren't here to hear it, but I assure you it was riveting — I asked the question: how come the cost of borrowing is calculated twice? It's calculated once as a line item of $42.7 million as the minister has just said, but the minister also told us at great length that the reason the discount rate is so much higher in the public sector comparator is because you have to take account of risk.

We'd like to know what portion of that additional cost that's attributed to the discount rate in the public sector comparator is attributable to the cost of the transfer of risk.

Hon. K. Falcon: The $42.9 million — and it is $42.9 million, not $42.7 million, so I was lucky, I guess; my memory served me correctly — is the risk inherent that you can specify. That is the specified risk that can be identified.

The discount rate also incorporates unspecified risks. There are risks associated with the project. For example, to use an analogy, obviously on the Sea to Sky Highway there would be the risk of construction cost overruns, etc. On a major project like that, those are the kinds of risks that they'll be concerned about.

On, say, a boat project, you'd be concerned about risks that are difficult to specify. For example, are the engines running properly? Are they throwing out a wake that's unexpected? That would be an unspecified risk that is still clearly a risk.

Hon. K. Falcon: The aluminum cracking in a vessel would be another example of an unspecified risk that you would need to be aware of.

The issue — and we've spent some time on this issue of discount rate before — is that in the value-for-money report, one of the things that I certainly think about and rely upon is the fact that when the Auditor General reviews those reports, as the Auditor General did on the Sea to Sky, the conclusion which the Auditor General would come forward with is that the assumptions are reasonable. The assumptions that are being made in the report are reasonable.

I went over this at some length the last time we spoke to the member, and we got into a very lengthy and fascinating discussion about discount rates. But at the end of the day, I suggested to the member opposite that if he disagrees with the Auditor General…. If he believes that the assumptions are unreasonable and that they're not reasonable, then I suggest in the most respectful way I could that he take that up with the Auditor General.

I am certainly comforted by the fact that the Auditor General reviewed the value-for-money report and came to the conclusion that the assumptions, which include the discount rate that was utilized, were reasonable in this project. Nothing has changed to convince me that anything other than that would not be acceptable to British Columbians.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm going to pursue the question because, of course, it's a central question when government is choosing, and chooses on the basis of the argument it is cost-effective, to privatize significant infrastructure projects — in this case, roads and highways. We have the privatized Sea to Sky Highway project.

It's a significant question and one that bears discussion and bears unpacking, because this issue of the discount rate is attributed to what might have been a traditional procurement process — tells us what the assumptions were about the cost of doing it in a traditional way. That is, for many years in building highways and other infrastructure projects, we hired a company. We don't have a ministry of construction. We hired a company or companies to build our infra-

structure. We came to an agreement about a cost. The public borrowed the money and paid the company.

The government has a new strategy of privatizing these projects and has a process by which it compares what might have been the cost of doing it in the traditional way against the cost of the contract done in the privatized project. So this question of what the discount rate turns out to be is the central question.

If the discount rate is one figure, it turns out that the assessment shows that the traditionally procured project is cheaper. If the discount rate that's chosen is another discount rate, the cost that's attributed to the public, to the traditional process, is more expensive. It seems as if — or it's argued or it's asserted that — the privatized methodology is cheaper. So it's a central question.

My question to the minister is…. With the privatized Sea to Sky Highway we've established that there is a $47.9 million cost of the transfer of risk. Thanks to the minister for making clear what the figure is.

Then there is an additional unspecified risk, and we need to figure out how much money that is. We need to figure out what that costs the people of the province. It's only reasonable to figure out what the people of the province are paying for this additional unspecified risk.

Is the cost the difference between the cost of public borrowing and the discount rate attributed to a traditional procurement process in the public sector comparator? Is that cost of additional unspecified risk that he said a few minutes ago is there…? So it's there. We know it's there. We're paying for it. We're trying to figure out how much we're paying for it.

Is the cost of that risk the difference between the cost of public borrowing and the discount risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member asked, I think, in his soliloquy there…. He made a comment: why do we have this new process? You know, British Columbians must ask this question. I think British Columbians should ask this question. One of the reasons why we have it, as the member should well know, is because of what happened with fast ferries. What happened with fast ferries is we had a process where…. It's important to remember this because this member….

I've now had several sessions with this member in estimates, going over this issue of discount rates and how government can borrow cheaper. As I've tried to carefully and perhaps even painstakingly point out to the member, the cost of borrowing doesn't in any way equate to the total cost that government could end up paying.

Government can borrow cheaply only because government has a taxation ability to constantly go back to the taxpayers and pull more money out of them. That's why we can borrow cheaply. But if the cost of borrowing was the reason why you would have government go forward and procure and build these projects on its own, then the fast ferries should have been the most successful project around.

I can assure everyone watching in TV land out there that government — the NDP government — borrowed those dollars very cheaply. No question about it. But what was the result we got? The result we got was a project that was wildly out of control financially, that came in at well over double the cost that had been proposed. We ended up with three ferries that didn't even work.

I know, in fairness to the member opposite and to members opposite, that it probably gets tiresome to hear about fast ferries. But the reason I raised that example is that we have a very, very recent example, ironically enough in ferries once again, that shows the contrast.

The contrast — again, as an independent ferry authority without interference by the government — was to go out and procure projects in the best interests of the travelling public, not politicians. Those members opposed the decision made to build those ferries in Germany — strongly opposed it. In fact, I got letters. I got phone calls. They went out and protested with shipyard union workers.

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the members points out that even some of my own members who had shipyard workers were also concerned about that decision. That's true. I absolutely accept that. Having said that, just because they were concerned did not mean they were right. I can tell you as the Minister of Transportation, even though I took all the heat — a lot of the heat — for that, it was still the right decision. Why is that the right decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: I hear a member opposite snarking off with some comments there. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast may want to do a little bit of homework here, because what I'm about to tell the member is going to be distressing. I'm sure that the Chair is going to make the comment that he shouldn't interrupt me while I have the floor.

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member should know that I have the floor, and if the member wishes to ask a question, he'll have that opportunity. I have no doubt he's just having difficulty controlling himself at this particular moment because he knows what's coming.

What is coming is a decision that was made by B.C. Ferries and by this government to not interfere with that decision, which now means we have three ferries being built. Those three ferries are going to be delivered — now get this — ahead of schedule, on budget. Payments don't even start to be made by B.C. Ferries until they arrive and have gone through sea trials.

Imagine, if you will, if we only had an NDP government that could have figured out basic procurement common sense back when they were in government — but they didn't. Instead they put a board in place with a chair, Jack Munro, who had his famous comment when asked about the fast ferries: "What the hell do I know about building boats?" I think it's fair to say: what the heck did that government know about not just building boats but about anything to do with finance? And they ask why we would think about a different procurement process.

Now I come around to what the member was asking. Why do we? The reason we do is because the Sea to Sky project, for example, is the single largest individual tendering project that the province has ever entered into in our history. It's a big project. It's also a very complex project. There are engineering challenges. There are huge geotechnical challenges. There are geographical challenges. It's a highway that has some of the highest accident rates in British Columbia.

We as a government wanted to make sure that we procured it in the manner in which would deliver the best overall value to taxpayers. The best overall value for this Minister of Transportation and this government is a project that will be delivered on schedule and on budget. What do we have happening today on that project, the single largest individual tendered project ever in the history of the province? What we have is a project that is well ahead of schedule and a project that is on budget.

We have another private-public partnership called the Kicking Horse Canyon. Again, we find some familiar characteristics here: a project that's almost a year ahead of schedule and a project that's on budget — again, a very complex engineering challenge project, but a project that is being delivered extraordinarily well, in fact, by the private sector.

I can go through a list. It's funny because we hear the criticisms — ideologically driven, no doubt — about why the NDP do not like private-public partnerships, but they are awfully quiet about the projects that have been and are being built very successfully under the private-public partnership model. The Gordon and Leslie Diamond facility is another one that comes to mind — on schedule, on budget. The Abbotsford hospital is another major project on schedule, on budget. Again, they are private-public partnerships.

That is a long answer to a short question, but it's an important answer because what I am saying to the member opposite is that his fixation with the cost of borrowing is wrong. It's wrong because that is only one element in major projects like this.

The other elements that are equally important are…. We want the innovation that the private sector delivers in terms of meeting schedule and meeting budget, which they are, frankly, much better at doing than we are in government. We have some very good people in government, but these people wake up every single day trying to figure out how they are going to deliver projects on schedule and on budget because the deals are structured in a manner that provides that incentive and the disincentives to make sure that if they don't, there are penalties in place. That kind of accountability is foreign to the members opposite, but I'll tell you that it is absolutely critical to this government.

I appreciate the member opposite for allowing me to expand on this because I think it's important. The final thing is that he implies — wrongly, I would say — that this is an ideologically driven effort by this government. Actually, I would remind the member that the second-largest individually procured project in the history of British Columbia was the Pitt River Bridge. The Pitt River Bridge, a $198 million seven-lane bridge, part of the Gateway program, was just procured to Peter Kiewit Sons, the contractor that is doing an exceptional job on the Sea to Sky Highway, I might add. That was a project that was not done as a P3. Why? My staff analyzed the P3 as one of the options, for sure.

As I've said to this member opposite many, many times, we will look at every project individually and determine what the best procurement method is. In some cases, it may be a private-public partnership. In other cases, as it was in the Pitt River Bridge, it may be design-build. But I can assure this member that this minister only wants to ensure that any major project involving provincial government dollars is, at least, at minimum going to consider a procurement option that's delivered literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of projects that are characterized by two common things: being on schedule and on budget.

That is a responsibility to the taxpayer that, frankly, I wish the members opposite would put more in their thoughts when they make these kinds of complaints.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister described his response as a long answer to a short question. I beg to differ. I think it was a long non-answer to a short question.

The question, he might recall…. Perhaps he forgot in the time that he was saying a lot of other things, some of which we will get back to, for sure.

What he didn't say was whether the difference between the cost of public borrowing and the discount rate that was attributed in the Sea to Sky privatized highway project is the additional cost of risk. There is $42.9 million, which we've established, and then there is the difference between the cost of public borrowing and the discount rate, amounting to many tens of millions of dollars — hundreds of millions, perhaps.

The short question, to which he referred, is whether the difference between the cost of public borrowing and the cost attributed that was used for the discount rate in the public sector comparator is the additional cost of the transfer of risk. That's the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: For the member opposite, I think it's important for the member to know that it's not an additional cost, as the member seems to be implying. The member implies that there is somehow an additional cost. It is actually the value of risk that the private sector, that the marketplace, puts on the project.

The discount rate reflects that risk. Frankly, that is the marketplace doing a far better assessment on what that risk is.

The fast ferries, again, is that example. I can assure you that at the time you probably cheered that the cost of borrowing to build those was really cheap. But you sure ignored all the other risks that were in place — engines that wouldn't work, aluminum that was cracking, lack of expertise to actually build these things — all of the other huge range of risks that were so clearly evidenced there that this member likes to discount.

Again, I would say to the member that the Value for Money Report actually goes through this in some detail — the Value for Money Report which identified $131 million in additional user benefits on the Sea to Sky Highway project and which was reviewed by the Auditor General.

I come full circle back to this because I've said this to the member in the past. The Auditor General reviewed the assumptions, the very assumptions that that member still questions and misunderstands when he talks about additional cost when there aren't additional costs.

There is risk reflected in that rate. It's the private sector evaluation of what the risk is, and this member doesn't appear to understand that. But the Auditor General said that the assumptions were reasonable. Now, I've said this before. If the member believes that the Auditor General is wrong when he does a review, looks at those assumptions, determines that they are reasonable….

They're not perfect. Absolutely, they're not perfect because you can't perfectly forecast into the future. The issue really comes down to: are the assumptions reasonable? What the Auditor General said is: "Yes, these assumptions are reasonable. I've reviewed them. I consider them to be reasonable."

That is not a view, apparently, that's shared by the NDP, which I have to say — at least on the record — has not established itself, at least financially, as an expert in that particular regard. I mean, I would understand if the member could stand up and start reeling off all the very great, successful projects they undertook that didn't have the earmarks of the projects they were actually known for. That would be understandable, but that's not the case.

D. Chudnovsky: I understand his answer to be: "Yes, the cost of the additional risk is the difference additional risk." I hesitate to get into a semantic argument with the minister. We want to get to substance here. He can call it whatever he wants.

The difference between the cost of public borrowing and the discount rate is the cost of risk in addition to the $42.9 million. I understand him to be answering yes. Am I correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, the member is wrong. I thought I was really clear, that I said it's not an additional cost. What the member opposite is having trouble…. Actually, I'm trying to really understand to a large part, sometimes, what the member is talking about because the member apparently doesn't think that there are any risks being borne by the private sector in projects like this, both specified and unspecified.

Apparently, this is just something that gets done, and there is no risk. The government should have done it themselves. My goodness. Why shouldn't government do everything itself? Let's build ferries. Forget asking the private sector to deliver the single largest individually tendered project in the history of the province. Why would we do that? Let's just have government do it all ourselves.

But you know what, Member? There are risks to government when government does that. At least, understand that. All those risks — the construction, the labour risks, cost-of-concrete risks — that we went through…. We apportioned to the member which risks were shared, which risks government took, which risks the private sector partner was taking — all of that was canvassed very, very extensively.

Here's what I can say with great confidence to that member. I say this with such a tremendous amount of confidence because I know what our record has been in private-public partnerships. The Sea to Sky Highway — again, I'm saying it here on the record for the whole world to see — is going to be delivered on schedule and on budget, and it is a major, major project in the province.

I am comforted by the fact that the taxpayers for once, at least since 2001 — multiple times now with all our private-public partnerships that have been built or are underway — are not going to be held to ransom. They are not going to be bearing the risk, and I think that's a positive thing.

D. Chudnovsky: Of course, there are two possibilities. Either the minister doesn't understand what I'm saying or the other possibility is that he's purposely misinterpreting it. I certainly am not going to ascribe motives to him.

Nowhere, never, not once in all the time that we've been talking to one another have I ever said on behalf of the opposition, nor would I, that there is no risk transferred to the private sector, to the owner of the privatized highway. Never said it; not going to say it. There certainly is.

The question is: how much? What's it worth? And what are we paying for it? I've been asking today for quite a period of time. I'm trying to understand on behalf of the people — that's my job — what it is that we're paying for the risks that we haven't, which we'll talk about…. We're going to get to the risk that's been taken on by the owner of the privatized highway. But the first job is to figure out how much we're paying for it.

The minister has told us we're paying $42.9 million for it on one line item, and there is some more. We're trying to figure out what the "some more" is. We're asking how much it is. The minister seems unable or unwilling to answer that question.

I've asked it several times very clearly. Is it, I've said, the difference between the government cost of borrowing and the amount attributed to the discount rate in the public sector comparator? The minister runs all over the place, tells us a lot of stories, gives us history lessons and tells us all kinds of things, but he won't answer that question.

We'll get to it some other ways as we move along. Perhaps the minister will be more willing to actually answer that question as we go along.

Could the minister tell us right now what the cost of borrowing to the government is? What is the government paying to borrow money right now?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's a question that is probably better given to the Minister of Finance, who obviously spends a lot more time on this. My understanding is our long-term borrowing rates are somewhere around the 5-percent range, give or take a little bit depending on what the markets are doing on a day-to-day basis.

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting to me to note that money that comes, I assume, from the minister's own budget is used to pay for the cost of borrowing some of that money. One would expect that we could get a clearer answer, but we'll move on.

I understand that the Sea to Sky privatized highway is actually two projects, or at least it's one project that's divided into two pieces. There was a piece of the highway that was built in a traditional design-build operation, which for those watching in the comfort of their own living rooms is a traditional setup where government hires a company or companies to build a highway and pays the company or companies to build the highway — in this case a highway; it could be any other infrastructure — and borrows the money to pay, and pays off the interest over time.

The new privatized methodology for building infrastructure is what we call design-build-finance-maintain. In that setup the government hires somebody — could be a company or consortium of companies; in this case it's a consortium — to design, build, finance and maintain the highway, signs a contract for 25, 30 or 40 years and pays the company over those 25, 30 or 40 years. In this case it's $1.983 billion of the people's money to pay for this private highway.

My question to the minister is: could he explain for us which piece of the highway was or is being built in the traditional methodology, and which piece is being built in the new privatize-your-highway methodology?

Hon. K. Falcon: I must say that I just love listening to this member. The ideological opposition they have to private-public partnerships just warms my heart. He talks about privatized highways, and the contempt just drips from him. I love it because they're just so wrong about this issue.

I hate to say it, but I love it because what's going to happen always happens. They oppose. They say it's wrong, and they're ideologically opposed. The only problem we always run into is that when we're opening up these things, our biggest challenge is all these NDP members suddenly showing up wanting to stand on stage and share the glory, with the cutting of the ribbon and the fact that's it's delivered on schedule, on budget.

That's the biggest problem I face. But I'm putting the member on notice: this will not be a problem I will have because I'll make sure they're not going to be on the stage. They won't be on the stage because I'm going to remind the public that every step of the way they opposed.

Every step of the way on Gateway they opposed. Even when the members show up for the announcement of the Pitt River Bridge, as the Opposition House Leader did, I am going to remind the public that they opposed it every step of the way.

I'm going to do it on Sea to Sky Highway too. When it is built, as I said, on schedule, on budget — an award-winning project, by the way, internationally recognized in terms of how well it's being delivered…. Everybody that understands anything about these things actually recognizes the value of this project, except of course, the — in their own minds, at least — apparent experts in finance and delivering major projects. That is the NDP, whose record is glaringly absent in terms of any evidence that they actually understand or have a clue about undertaking these projects with any degree of success.

In fact, they have been written up in business journals for how not to undertake a major project with the fast ferries. It is actually a case study at a major university on how not to undertake a major project. Do not appoint your union hack friends to a board that haven't got a clue what they are doing. That would be the number one bit of advice.

Do not undertake a model where all the risk is with taxpayers in an area that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding about. That would be another piece of advice.

Do not, for sure, think that just because you could borrow money cheaply as a government that that is somehow going to be the elixir that provides great results in the end product, because clearly the evidence shows that's not the case.

On the Sea to Sky Highway, the member is quite right. There were three, actually — not two — different forms of delivery on the Sea to Sky. One of them was what we call the alliance project. That was the test section — a $10 million section, if my memory serves me correctly — where very early on one of the challenges we had, and the private sector would have had, was that there were huge engineering challenges on that highway. The biggest was: how do you build a highway and keep anywhere between 13,000 and 16,000 vehicles a day moving along that highway when you have got on one side a cliff dropping down to a rail line and then the ocean, and on the other side you have got a massive cliff wall?

That is a big challenge: how you undertake a major highway improvement there without interrupting traf-

fic, doing it safely and all those kinds of issues. We went forward with the test section. The reason we did that was because we actually didn't have the answer, and the private sector wasn't sure what the answer was, but they had some ideas.

We went into what we call an alliance model, where we said with them: "We will share the risk here because none of us is really certain what it is. Let's go in and see if we can figure out how to do this in a way that can provide answers so that the bidders on the balance of the project will be able to say that they have identified one of the great risks that we see in building this highway."

They have demonstrated how it could be done in a cost-effective way that continues to move traffic, etc. That's why we went ahead with that $10 million test section, and actually, it yielded tremendous results and important benefits that were important as we went along.

We also did about an $80 million section in design-build, and we did that because we wanted to make sure…. We knew that we had a tight schedule. We wanted to make sure that we would get going on pieces of this project that were relatively straightforward, that didn't involve some of the really — I'm not saying they weren't without challenge — big engineering challenges along the Sea to Sky corridor.

We moved forward with that to make sure that our schedule wouldn't have been impacted by the fact that we were going through a process to identify a private-public partnership operator to build, procure, operate, finance and maintain the highway over the period of the contract term.

The final piece, of course, was the P3. I think that this demonstrates exactly what I've been saying. We will move forward on projects. We will examine the projects. Where necessary to get additional information, we will get it. I should tell this member, as someone who has travelled up and down that corridor a lot and talked to the local community leaders and community residents, the biggest fear they had — this was very interesting to me, actually — when we announced that we were moving forward with the Sea to Sky Highway project was their experiences of previous work that had been done in that corridor in the '60s and '70s.

What would happen then is that the highway would just get shut down for hours and hours at a time to huge, great personal interruption and cost to those communities and residents along that corridor. That was one of the greatest fears. If this member would actually turn his car around in East Van…. Instead of heading up to the interior, go up the Sea to Sky and talk to those communities. Talk to the residents. Ask them what they think about the improvements that are underway.

I would actually encourage the member to do that because there is not a project in the province where I and members of government — the Premier and others — do not have people coming up to us on a regular basis thanking us for the work and for the workers that are operating on that project. They are doing an unbelievable job in not only undertaking very, very complex construction work but doing it while they are keeping traffic moving with very minimal interference in terms of people's times — maybe a 15- or 30-minute kind of waiting period but not much more.

That has been widely applauded. Mayors and councillors right up and down that corridor have nothing but the highest praise for government — and the contractor, it should be pointed out. The private-public partnership operator, who virtually everyone but the most ideological zealot — as represented in the members opposite, if I may — would recognize, is doing an exceptional job. They are.

D. Chudnovsky: Through you, Chair, to the ideological zealot. I mean the minister. Pardon me. Could we learn a little bit more about this test section, this alliance section that the minister says is $10 million? Whose $10 million? I assume that this is a…. I don't think the minister said it, but I think this was a design-build operation. Who has funded it? What was the task at hand? How did this work?

Hon. K. Falcon: The alliance model was not done on a design-build basis. I think it's important to correct the record for the member there. The reason it wasn't done on a design-build basis is because the risks were completely unknown, particularly the risks in terms of the rock stability. You won't know the issues until you actually get into it and start drilling down to figure out what exactly you're dealing with.

The alliance model we came forward with allowed for some real innovations to be made. I want to actually say on the record that the contractor we worked with here, Emil Anderson, was outstanding. They did an amazing job. The agreement we had was that as we got into this, we could make changes on the fly.

As we discovered what we were dealing with…. Initially there was talk about doing some kind of a split-level kind of highway thing. That's how everyone kind of went into it. As we got into it, Emil Anderson actually came forward with an innovation that just turned out to be exceptional. I won't get into all of the details, but essentially we're building out from the highway and then filling it in — kind of doing a tilt-up wall and then filling in that area and creating a new lane essentially out of air. That was a very important innovation that was really important in terms of going forward.

The second part about that that's really important is that one of the criteria was that any information we gained, innovations that were learned…. One of the requirements is that that information could be fully shared with future bidders on the rest of the corridor to ensure that all of that information was available. That would bring important certainty to those bidders so that it would minimize, to at least some extent, some of the risks they might factor into their bid. We want to try and eliminate as much of that as we can, and the information that was shared there was very important.

In that project, as a result of the recommendations brought forward by Emil Anderson…. If memory serves me correctly, I believe we actually realized about a $1.5 million savings on what we had budgeted for that test section in terms of what we thought it would build. Some of the innovations that were brought forward there were just exceptional.

My hat's off to the private sector and our own staff at MOT for doing a great job in moving forward on that test section and then providing information that then went to the design-build section so that they could really, at either end of where that test section was done, move forward with that project in a way that was, again, on schedule and on budget.

D. Chudnovsky: Many questions arise, but the first one is…. I'm not sure I yet understand the structure of that deal. The minister says it wasn't design-build. Fair enough. So what was it? What was the structure of the test section? How was it contracted, and how is it being…? Is it part of…? Is it another 30-year contract? How is the contract on that section structured, and what is it that makes the minister say that it's not design-build?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, getting back to the test section, what happens is that we go to the contractor or marketplace with a base design, which is based on what our knowledge and experience is in terms of this kind of highway project, on what we think might be required in terms of the work that is done.

That then gets bid on by the contractors, and the successful bidder — in this case Emil Anderson…. As part of their bid, obviously, they provide a unit price and equipment pricing for that particular bid. We then go into an arrangement where we share any savings that are realized with them. Again, we're getting into an area where neither of us is certain what we're going to be seeing. That's why we do a test section.

What we discovered that we were particularly pleased with, especially with the work that Emil Anderson did, is that they came forward and worked cooperatively with the ministry, of course, on some really important innovations that helped us better understand, as we went along, the project and the risks involved and achieved some savings beyond what we had anticipated for that test section.

D. Chudnovsky: Do I understand the minister to say that this was a…? The end of my question is going back to the minister's statement a few minutes ago. He chose not to describe this as a traditional design-build project. I'm just trying to understand why he didn't.

So I understand the difference to be that there was a sharing of the benefits that he described with the procurer. Or what is it that makes him choose to describe this as not being a design-build project?

Hon. K. Falcon: In a traditional design-build, the contractor would provide the design to government. Then there would be a lump sum price or a fixed price on building the contract.

The challenge here of course, as I said to the member — that's why we undertook this test section — is that without the knowledge of what exactly we were going to be looking at…. No one knew. Even the best contractors couldn't ascertain for sure what we'd be dealing with until we got into it. We knew that had we gone forward with the traditional design-build, the risk that would have been built into it would have been significant.

What we did is the Ministry of Transportation provided a base design, based on what we saw as the safest option to go forward, and the deal would be done on a unit price basis, which is unusual — not the way we would normally go — but with the proviso that any savings that were realized as we went through this would be shared equally. There was a mutual incentive to try and create some savings there while we figured out what the engineering and the geotechnical challenges would be, etc.

That's what happened, and it went very successfully. There were some important lessons learned from there, which we were able to…. Part of the agreement we had with the contractor was that all that information would be fully shared and disclosed for future bidders so that they would be able to factor that into their decisions and ensure that we as a government, on behalf of the taxpayers, got the most competitive bids possible.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister has, I think correctly…. I don't say that very often, so maybe we should stop and think about that for a minute.

The minister correctly identified a characteristic of this setup with this test section, which is that any information that was derived from the test as part of the contract would be shared with those who subsequently bid on the big privatized highway project. That would tend to reduce the cost of the transfer of risk to those who take on the big project, wouldn't it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, in fact it does. It reduces it. It certainly doesn't eliminate it, but it reduces it. That's what we were trying to do: make sure that where we can, we can take some of that risk and try and quantify

it to ensure that we get the best, most competitive bids possible. That's exactly what happened.

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting, hon. Chair — don't you find? — that the minister is able in a contract like this one to identify the cost of that risk very, very precisely, and yet a little while ago we were trying to identify the cost of the transfer of risk to the whole project. He was having a lot of trouble doing that. But in this case he's able to identify it very, very clearly.

Let's talk about the second piece of the project, which was, as I understand it, done on a design-build basis. I think I heard the minister say that that was an $80 million piece. Now, I understand that there is — and I'll look for it, and perhaps somebody somewhere who is doing research could help me find…. I understood that the cost of that section was substantially higher than $80 million.

Perhaps it's a problem reading figures or maybe the minister was mistaken or I am mistaken, but my understanding was that the cost of that section was more in the order of $240 million rather than $80 million. Perhaps the minister could consult with his folks and help us with that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I do want to correct the member, where the member is wrong, to make sure that we get the right information on the record. The $240 million costs that the member refers to are all of the costs that are not part of the private-public partnership arrangement. That includes property acquisition. It includes first nation accommodation. It includes the oversight that is provided by the Ministry of Transportation, etc.

In terms of the $80 million, it is represented by $40 million for the contracted work that was done on that section, and the balance is property acquisition and, of course, ministry supervision and oversight of the project.

I think it's important to point out to the member that, again, we had more very good news on that section even, where we were 18 months ahead of schedule and under budget on that particular project too.

D. Chudnovsky: The $240 million is the cost of everything that isn't…. Let me think of a way of trying to make this clear both to myself and the minister, and that's sometimes a challenge — something that is clear both to me and to him. The $240 million is the piece of the $1.983 billion that isn't a so-called P3. Is that the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is incorrect. The member is actually mixing up, if I could, apples and oranges here. What the member is doing is confusing capital costs with the ongoing maintenance, rehab, operational costs and financing costs of the entire project over 25 years. I've heard the member consistently do this. The member has publicly, incredibly enough, made the statement that the project's over budget, because the total costs over 25 years are more than the capital costs to build it.

I have tried to simplify this as much as I can for the members opposite. I've used the analogy of a house mortgage. When the member buys his house and someone says to him, "Member, what did you pay for your house," I'm pretty sure the member talks about the price he paid for the house. I am quite sure that the member doesn't say, "No, it's not the $200,000 I paid for my house" — if I may just use a number from thin air here. "It's not the $200,000 I paid. Actually, the cost of my house is that cost plus my painting, heating, lighting, mortgage financing costs and everything over the next 25 years. That's the real cost of what I paid for my house." I'm pretty sure the member opposite wouldn't do that, but for whatever reason, he likes to do that with regard to these projects.

I'm fascinated by that attempt to, I think, just…. Either he's confused about basic finance issues, or he's trying to scare the public in some way by fully disclosing, as we do in value-for-money reports, all of the costs going out over the entire term of the contract — including the capital, the operating, the maintenance, the financing and the rehab. That member takes that number, confuses it with the number for capital, tries to suggest there are overruns and mixes them up completely. I think that's unfortunate.

I'm happy to send a staff member over to walk the member through exactly how these work and why. Again, he doesn't need to take my word for it. The value-for-money reports are reviewed by the Auditor General. The Auditor General walks through all this information very clearly. The Auditor General points out that the assumptions are reasonable. The information is all reasonable.

Again, the $240 million are all of those costs associated with this project that are not a part of the public-private partnership arrangement.

D. Chudnovsky: Is the minister saying to me that the $240 million is in excess of the total cost over time of $1.983 billion, or is he saying to me that it's inside the cost over time of the $1.983 billion?

Hon. K. Falcon: I will try and explain this again: $600 million. Within that $600 million there is $240 million. That $240 million is the portion that is not a part of the public-private partnership arrangement. The balance is part of the P3 arrangement.

D. Chudnovsky: I understand from that answer that the $240 million to which we are referring is part of the $1.983 billion that the people are paying over time, trying — as the Chair will note, I'm sure — to use a flat unideological language. I'm just wanting to confirm with the minister, who seems to be predisposed at the moment, so I'll wait.

D. Chudnovsky: Good. I confirm with the minister — because I think we've got it — that the $240 million

to which he refers is part of the $600 million, which is a capital cost of the project. That $600 million is part of the $1.983 billion, which is the cost over time of the privatized project. We are now to understand that the $240 million is a piece of that. It's inside that calculation.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that clear and unequivocal answer. Would that they all would be like that.

Now, let's think about that piece of the contract for a minute — that piece of the entire cost to the people of British Columbia of the privatized Sea to Sky Highway, this $240 million. The minister told us earlier some of that is the capital cost of building the section that isn't being done in a so-called P3 structure.

Let's talk first about why. The minister alluded a number of minutes ago — it seems like hours — to the reasons for the ministry having chosen to do part of the project as a traditional design-build. As I understand it, the capital cost of that section is about $40 million, and I want to explore with the minister a little bit why the ministry chose to do that section as a traditional design-build project.

Hon. K. Falcon: What I said to the member earlier is exactly the case. The issue is one of schedule and timing. When we looked at the schedule of the Sea to Sky project, in order to ensure that this project gets delivered in time, as we were committing to do by 2009, it was very important that when we examined the critical path necessary to get there, that this section was a section that we needed to get done and get out the door as quickly as we could, while we were going through the process of course that we were involved with through the P3.

So that's the issue. It's all about timing and schedule and sticking to our commitment to get this thing open by 2009, as we committed.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister of course points us to a characteristic of P3s, which is that it takes much, much longer to come to conclusion on a contract for a privatized piece of infrastructure than a traditional design-build. I can understand why the minister and the ministry would be in a spot, attempting to finish the highway according to the schedule that it had set for itself and still have to negotiate a very, very complex privatized contract.

Why was it that the ministry chose the particular piece of highway that it did, as the ministry has suggested, for the purposes of making sure that this was all done on time?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the last point first. The reason that section was chosen is because it had similar characteristics as the test section that we undertook so that the lessons that were borne out in the test section, which we've discussed at some length, could then be applied to the balance of that section. Very similar characteristics — easily understood, now, in terms of the new information that was gathered by the alliance. It doesn't make it in any way less challenging, for sure, but that's the primary reason.

The other thing I would say to the member is that it's fair for the member to actually say that the P3 process, the procurement process, is typically longer, because that is true. I think I need to acknowledge that. I will say two things to that, though.

One is that it's longer on procurement but faster on delivery, and that's very important to us. Being delivered on schedule and on budget are really, really important to the government on a major piece like that — as I say, the single largest individual procured project in the history of the province. We're certainly seeing that in the work that is underway to date — significantly ahead of schedule and on budget.

The other thing I would say about the procurement is that as we are doing more private-public partnerships in British Columbia, there are standardizations taking place to a lot of the…. You continue to learn not just from what has happened in other countries that have very successfully followed through with the P3 model. England — under a Labour government, I might add — quite welcomes the private-public partnership as a tremendous tool in some cases, not in every case, for delivering important complex projects efficiently, on schedule and on budget. It's the same with Australia.

As we are going along, we're finding that those forms become more standardized, and the procurement process is actually shortening virtually with each cycle that we go through on P3s.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm informed that the portion of the highway that is being done in a traditional design-build has above it some of the most unstable and to some extent the most unstable land above the highway of any section of the Sea to Sky Highway. Is that the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's characterization would be correct to the extent that the member talks about the geological challenges. There is no question that there are geological challenges along that section. They are, in fact, very similar to the geological challenges in the Horseshoe Bay section. In fact, as one of my staff reminded me, that entire corridor is a major geological challenge. There is just no doubt about it.

This is a mountainous terrain section that you can't imagine. There are probably not too many places in the world that would have these kinds of challenges. But I don't want the member to believe for a second that it's just that section. It's virtually the entire section that has those kinds of challenges.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to inform the minister that I was just looking at some topographical maps and maps of the geological structure. I want to inform the minister that these maps show that the particular sec-

tion that is being done design-build, as opposed to the privatized highway, is the most unstable land. I'm asking the minister whether he agrees with that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to compliment the member on his emerging engineering expertise that he is apparently developing looking at topographical maps. First of all, I will remind the member, though, that I am never afraid to profess where I have a lack of knowledge, and engineering is one of those areas. I rely on virtually a battery of engineers within our ministry that, cumulatively, probably have hundreds of years of experience in understanding of these kinds of issues.

One of the things I recall them telling me is that a topographical map alone is of interest, frankly, but not much. It's actually what's underneath the ground that is the issue. There is no better example of that than the Sea to Sky corridor.

Member, I think it's important. One of the things I try to do is listen to people that have a lot more knowledge about these things than I do. I am pleased to be able to tell the member that I have done so repeatedly with my staff over the years. They have never let me down. They are professionals of the highest order. They understand these things in a manner that frankly is very, very impressive.

More important, perhaps, than my own interpretation of their expertise is that the results they deliver have consistently been exceptional. The Sea to Sky Highway is a prime example of that — award-winning, tremendous work being delivered by a tremendous contractor and crew, exceptional oversight by MOT and, again, ahead of schedule and on budget.

D. Chudnovsky: Do I understand the minister to have rejected my suggestion that the land above the design-build portion of the highway is the most unstable land in the Sea to Sky corridor? Do I understand him to be denying that?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. You know, the member is trying to put words into my mouth, and I don't think that's particularly helpful. I was quite open in acknowledging to the member that yes, it is a challenging section geographically — there's no question about it — but it's just one of the challenging sections along that corridor.

I have experts who will tell me, as they just have here quickly, that we've got issues of Gambier rocks — acid rock drainage issues. You've got different stratification of the rocks at different parts of that corridor, acid rock drainage issues. There is a whole plethora of issues associated with that.

I'm not in any way attempting to belittle the member opposite's attempt to look at topographical maps and try and ascertain that based on what he's heard from someone — I don't know who this individual is; maybe he can put the individual on record — who has apparently told him that this is the most challenging area. It is a challenging area, absolutely. No question, it's a big, challenging area, but there are challenging areas right up and down that corridor.

Fortunately, as the Minister of Transportation, I have people around me that can advise me on how to deal with those challenges, how to mitigate those challenges. Even more fortunately, there are experts in the private sector that do nothing but think about those kinds of challenges each and every day — perhaps even every night — and think about how they too can move forward with major projects like this and mitigate, to the best of their ability, those kinds of challenges.

D. Chudnovsky: What the minister is saying, as I understand it, is that one of the very, very important reasons we privatize these highways is that, in the so-called P3 methodology, we can transfer the risks to the private sector procurer. But in this case, in what the minister calls one of the most difficult areas on the highway, we chose not to transfer that risk. Is that the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said early on in this discussion, Chair, one of the big issues there was that we also had a critical path to make sure we met schedule on this project. As you work though a critical path, you identify the areas where you've actually developed some certainty.

This was the area where we had certainty in terms of the environmental agencies having signed off on those areas. Not that there weren't environmental issues, but the environmental issues were dealt with. The member will know that there was still uncertainty on other sections of the highway over environmental issues — West Vancouver–Eagleridge Bluffs being one of the areas that would come to mind, where they hadn't landed at least an agreement yet with the council of West Vancouver as to what the appropriate environmental mitigation response should be.

There was certainty around the issues of utilities, transmission lines — those kinds of issues. The property acquisition issues had been dealt with. Really, it's just a very straightforward case of saying that the majority of the work that needs to be done for this particular section has been done. We can move forward.

It doesn't mean there aren't geological issues, which the member points out. Clearly there are. But as I say, there are batteries of engineering experts who provide lots of good information on that as the government goes forward.

Again, just to reiterate: as a result of many of those certainties being in place and being able to be delivered with the information from the test section to the contractor, the section was delivered very successfully — and I'm sure the member would applaud — 18 months ahead of schedule.

D. Chudnovsky: Let's review. It's always good to do a little review midway through the class. The minister has told us that it was faster to do it as a design-build and that the risk could be taken on by the public

in this case. So there's some instruction there for us as we're comparing these methodologies of building these infrastructure projects and as we're being told that one is better than the other.

The minister now tells us that it was faster to do it this way than the traditional way, and he doesn't seem to have told us that he was worried about the public's having responsibility for the risk on this one. It seemed okay to him. It's worthwhile for us to think about these judgments that he's making and reporting to us as we look at the big-picture project.

Let's talk about the contract, this $40 million capital contract that the minister has told us about, for this section of the highway. We have the test section, which was a sort of P3, a new kind of invention that the minister described very well before. Then we have the big section, which is the privatized highway. Then we have this little section that's being done faster, and the public can take on the risk on this section for $40 million. Who got that contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have to, unfortunately on the record, point out that the member is wrong again. This is a pattern that is getting awfully repetitive. I think it's unfortunate because a little bit of homework would do the member some good in terms of not having to get on the record for generations to come to see the member consistently misunderstanding the most fundamental, basic elements of even a design-build.

A design-build…. The public is not at risk. I don't know what this member's fascination is about trying to ensure that the public is always at risk. But that is really what is the underlying premise driving…. Just trying to ensure that somehow we've got to make sure the taxpayer is at risk.

For goodness' sake, Member, did you not learn anything from what went on with the fast ferries? I can't for the life of me understand their intense fascination with making sure that the taxpayer has got to be on the hook. They are not satisfied until the taxpayer takes all of the risk.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite says I should take it on the road. Well, actually, it was taken on the road, and the public really looked at what you produced. They responded accordingly, as they quite rightly did.

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that we just disagree fundamentally with the fact that those members want all the risks to be on the taxpayer. Sorry, but maybe in their world that's how it would operate. It sure isn't going to be in our world. That's why, where the projects make sense, we will do a public-private partnership. But I have to remind the member opposite that we do hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of design-build contracts every year in this ministry — hundreds of millions.

There is risk transfer in the design-build. It's not with the taxpayer. I hate to disappoint the member, but we design them so that it's not on the taxpayer.

As I've said before, we will move forward with whatever procurement process our staff, through proper evaluation, determines is the right way to move forward. In some cases it will be a private-public partnership. Where they believe that the benefits and the value that we receive in terms of innovation, in terms of risk transfer — in terms of all those other things — is going to be present and it makes sense, we'll go forward with that as a procurement option.

But where they determine that's not the case, and they think they can get the same kind of benefit or equivalent benefits or they can get the risk transfer they need and there is appropriate risk mitigations, etc., they can go forward and design-build as they did on Pitt River Bridge.

Why the member has difficulty understanding that fundamental concept I can only gather by the way the member always makes comments. You know, privatized highway: "Oh, how dare we involve the private sector?" Look at the ferries. Privatized ferries….

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, my goodness. Here we go again. The public isn't at risk. How could they have let B.C. Ferries go forward with a procurement option that didn't put all the risk on the public? How could we have done that? That's what they're saying.

It's incredible to me. All they have to do, every time they fly over on helijet, is just look at those three ferries sitting there wrapped in shrink-wrap rotting away. Even the private sector can't figure out what to do with those turkeys, and they haven't learned a thing from that.

I didn't hear any applause from the members opposite about the fact that B.C. Ferries, when they moved forward with the project that sounds suspiciously like private-public partnerships…. A project gets built. There's risk transfer. It only gets paid for when it gets delivered. It's got to go through sea trials.

The risk, and it was extraordinary risk, of all the steel cost increases, labour risks, concrete — all with the private sector, with the German shipyard that built them. Oh, but that has got to be wrong. I heard it for months, if not years, from those members.

You would think that at some point, when they hear and read in the papers that these vessels are going to be greener, that they're going to be delivered ahead of schedule, that they're on budget, that there is going to be tremendous benefit to the taxpayer…. You would think that maybe, just maybe, they would do a bit of self-analysis and say: "I wonder if maybe we were just a little wrong, if maybe our ideological opposition here

doesn't produce the same outcomes as the direction in which government moves forward."

I've long since given up hope that the members opposite will ever move beyond their rigid, extremist left-wing ideological opposition to projects that have a long record of success. It's all on the record. You have the Value for Money Report. What do they do? They mock the Value for Money Report. That's always their starting position: "Well, we just disagree with everything. We don't believe the Auditor General is right." The Auditor General says the assumptions are reasonable. They disagree with that.

Then what happens? They get built on schedule, on budget. That's just got to be difficult for them Once again, project after project being delivered on schedule, on budget, usually ahead of schedule, usually on or under budget. And do you think that all of that evidence would just register in some way? No, not at all. Mr. Chair, that is really unfortunate. It is really, really unfortunate.

But I will continue to point out the mistakes that the member opposite continues to make. I am glad to point them out on the record, so they are there for everyone to see. We go through this every session.

The member spends an inordinate amount of time on this issue. The only thing they never look at in their fixation with the cost of borrowing…. They never look at results. During ten years if there is one thing they demonstrated, it is that results weren't important to them. They failed every single financial plan they put in place year after year after year. Finally they just stopped coming out with a financial plan. It was too embarrassing.

After deficit after deficit, after doubling the debt, after being the laughingstock after five separate credit downgrades, you would think that something would have gone through, something would have been learned. Then they look at new government — a new government that comes in and has successive credit upgrades. We now have a triple-A credit rating.

We've got all of these projects delivered as private-public partnerships, which they opposed, being delivered ahead of schedule, on or under budget. And they still complain. They just don't understand results, Mr. Chair.

I'm afraid there's nothing I'll ever be able to do to convince those ideological opponents on the opposite side that everything they did in their ten years apparently was fantastic. It's just that nobody else outside of that small clique of NDP socialists realized it.

The Chair: Could I just remind the members, please: you will all have an opportunity to ask your question. If you do want to ask a question, please stand up and ask and be recognized.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, it's curious that the minister is a little touchy about calling privatization privatization. I would have thought that this minister among all the ministers, wouldn't you think, wouldn't have any trouble calling a privatized highway a privatized highway. He's the kind of superman of privatization. If it bothers him, I guess that's too bad. He'll just have to get comfortable. You know, you should get comfortable with your own ideas.

We will continue to talk about the privatized Sea to Sky Highway. Maybe it's a little itchy for the minister when we do that. He's going to have to come to terms with that somehow. It's not for us to come to terms with it. He's the privatizer.

Secondly, what was very helpful in the minister's presentation was his assertion, which is absolutely correct, that you can transfer the cost of risk in a design-build contract. You sure can. So there again we had the excuse for privatizing infrastructure for a long time — that it was going to save money. Well, they've stopped saying that. They stopped saying that because it doesn't save money.

Then they spend a lot of time telling us that the reason you've got to privatize the road or privatize the highway or privatize the hospital is because that way you can transfer the cost of risk to the private partner. Now the minister tells us that you can do that in a traditional…

The Chair: Members, may I please remind you that questions and answers should be through the Chair.

D. Chudnovsky: So the second excuse for privatizing infrastructure was that that's the way to transfer risk. But the minister himself told us a few minutes ago:"No, no, no. You can transfer risk in a traditional design-build project."

We're waiting for the third excuse, and it will come. No doubt it will come soon, and we'll get to that. But the one thing that the minister forgot to say in the course of his last oration was the answer to the simple question. I'll remind the minister that the simple question — and it was very simple — was: who got the contract? The minister got himself a little wound up, as he often does. But he forgot to answer the question.

The question was: who got the contract for the $40 million for the design-build part of the highway?

D. Chudnovsky: And could the minister tell us whether there were other tenders presented for that contract?

Let's go back to this $40 million for a little bit and ask the minister how the capital cost of that section of the highway was financed.

D. Chudnovsky: And could the minister tell us what the cost of servicing that debt is? What is the cost over time of that contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that information on me. But here we go again — this member's fixation with the cost of borrowing. I'm happy to canvass all of this territory again.

It's your time, Member. Let's keep talking about it if you want. But no, I don't have that information on me.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, could the minister then tell us: whatever the cost of the financing of that $40 million was, is that part of the $1.983 billion that is the cost over time of the entire project?

D. Chudnovsky: If I could ask the minister if at some point we could get the answer to that question — the cost of the borrowing.

So this contract with Kiewit, as I understand it, was or is for that section of the highway. Is Kiewit part of the consortium on the rest of the highway?

D. Chudnovsky: I assume that these two contracts are separate and apart. Or maybe I shouldn't assume.

I'm asking the question. Are the two contracts separate and apart, or is the contract for the piece which is design-build a part of the bigger privatized contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are two separate contracts. The design-build 2 section — that's what we call it internally — or the section that the member is referring to was largely just wrapping up as the same contractor, as part of a bidding consortium, took over the balance of the P3 contract — which, by the way, did and would include the responsibility for that section of highway too.

So they're responsible for latent defects. If a retaining wall collapses or what have you, then Kiewit is responsible for that. That will be part of their obligation going forward. My understanding is that they had largely wrapped up that particular section before they started work on the new section.

Chair, if I could, I might want to ask for five minutes to just take a break to deal with something.

D. Chudnovsky: On sort of administrative items, the one thing I didn't hear back on from the minister — I'm sure it was just an oversight — is the information I asked him for on the cost of borrowing for the $40 million on that contract. I just want a nod, an "aye, captain" — something that lets me know we'll get that at some point soon.

I'll connect that to a second question, which is related, actually. Could the minister point us to the place in the Transportation Financing Authority documents and in the Sea to Sky documents where we can see the line items regarding that contract, the $40 million contract? Could you tell us where to look?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're trying to understand the nature of the question the member is asking. It's not an individual line item that you would find in TIP, or transportation investment plan. Obviously, as a contract it's something that would come out in public accounts, as all of our contracts would do. So maybe the member can clarify, or hopefully my answer clarified that for the member.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that. His patience and help would be appreciated here. I don't recall…. I don't have it in front of me, and I don't deal with the Transportation Financing Authority on a day-by-day basis, so I had forgotten how money is accounted for there.

Here's what I'm trying to get at. The minister said earlier that the financing of the $40 million was done through the Transportation Financing Authority. We want to explore that, and we seek his advice as to where that's accounted for and how it's accounted for. By "how" I mean: what does it look like?

The second part of my question has to do with when the money comes from the authority or from the general provincial borrowing over to Sea to Sky. Where do I see that? Where can I find that?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned earlier, that information would be found in the transportation investment plan. It breaks out those totals for the Sea to Sky in the transportation financial plan. It's also reported in the BCTFA financial statements, which I believe are available on the website. Obviously, those statements are filed each and every year.

Within the BCTFA statements there is a line item for the Sea to Sky, too, that will also break out, similar to the way it's done in the transportation investment plan, what those costs are. I think it's worth pointing out that the Auditor General is the auditor of record for the BCTFA accounts. That is, I think, also important. The BCTFA, as the member opposite knows, is also consolidated as part of the governmentwide financial

D. Chudnovsky: The second part of my question had to do with the money moving over. It comes from the Transportation Financing Authority. It's used to pay for the contract, the design-build contract for that section of the highway. Is there a place where we can find that broken out?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll sort of walk the member through the way this works. What happens is that the Ministry of Transportation will pay the contractor, and the Ministry of Transportation is reimbursed by the BCTFA. Again, I think it's worth noting that the BCTFA financial statements are audited by the Auditor General. All issues related to payments made by the ministry are all available in the Public Accounts.

D. Chudnovsky: Okay. Thanks to the minister for that. Do I understand…? That's very interesting. It had never occurred to me that there isn't any place…. Is there no place where we can go — where a citizen, a resident, could go — and say: "Okay, here's this contract. People are paying for it for 25 years to build, finance and maintain a road"?

Is there no place we can go where we can see all of that, the total cost of that, broken out somehow, so that we can look at all of it — including the $40 million to which we've just been referring?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, there is. That's in the Value for Money Report, which, as the member well knows, lays out over 25 years the total costs involved in the project — the capital costs, the rehab operational maintenance costs. Every cost associated with that project over the term of the contract is all laid out there for the benefit of the public or interested members of the opposition.

D. Chudnovsky: It's an interesting point, and maybe we need not spend too much more time on it. But I don't think, as I recall — and I could be wrong — that that report itemizes the source of the funds. Maybe I'm wrong, and I would appreciate it if I could be pointed to the answer.

I'm going to stop for a little while in a minute and take a rest. It's six against one here, so I've got to have a rest once in a while. Or maybe we should count the minister for two. It's seven against one, actually.

D. Chudnovsky: Yeah, but I don't huddle with them every time I ask you a simple question or every time you give me a simple answer.

The two questions I wanted to finish with are these. First, I want a commitment on the cost of the borrowing — when we're going to get that information on the $40 million. We keep missing that in the answers the minister gives. Perhaps I shouldn't ask them two at a time, but that's the way it goes.

Final question. Maybe I could ask if he could answer that first this time. The second question is: how does the maintenance work on the design over time on the design-build part of the project? Is the responsibility for maintenance ongoing with the consortium, and if so, how does that contract work exactly? Where is that laid out? So two issues to deal with.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the member is not intentionally trying to reference the fact that there are other people. The member knows full well how the House works.

First of all, to the member's first point: yes, we will have that information. The issue is really just one of time. The people we want to talk to about that are going to be ministry staff that are probably not going to be easy to get hold of. But the moment we get out of here, we will do that and have that information for the member tomorrow.

The issue of that section of highway the member refers to. That section will be taken over by the concessionaire. It's in the concession agreement, which is posted on the website. It lays out in great detail what the responsibilities are in terms of the maintaining and the maintenance levels required for that highway, including that section of the highway that the concessionaire takes over.

G. Gentner: To the minister and his staff: thank you for providing the time here today to answer questions, particularly those that were raised during question period, which the minister said he would oblige us with some information on.

Hon. Chair, can the minister…? Relative to some of the purchases made on the purchase card, entries 2005 and 2006, a number of incidental-like items have been listed here that sort of raise the eyebrows, so to speak, of many here in the House, particularly something called Honey Gifts Inc, Laskamaria Entertainment, JDate services, Spicy Sports, Jack and Lily specialty footwear for designer baby shoes, jenklairkids.com luxurious baby gifts and, of course, Tying the Knot.

Can the minister confirm that these purchases were made by a staff member of the ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: Before I answer that question, what I'd like to do first is say to the member opposite, the member for Delta North, that I think, in fairness, the member and the question he asked actually…. I've got the transcript in front of me. The member actually identified the government purchase entries as being

the Minister of Transportation spending these dollars. I would hope the member will have the integrity to apologize for that, because he knows full well that's not the case. This does not have to do with the Minister of Transportation and my spending patterns.

I would also say, as I said in the House to the member opposite, that every single case that member has mentioned is a result of fraud. It's a result of credit card fraud, and I want to stand here and say today that I think it was in very poor taste to try to malign the professional civil servants of this ministry by….

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast believes that I should…. He says: "Give me a break." Well, actually, give us a break.

For you to go and say that and malign members of the public service and try to imply they're going out and purchasing sexual toys and those kinds of things, when it's corporate credit card fraud, is actually wrong.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a fascinating discussion that I would love to have with this member, and perhaps we'll have it off-line. The member appears to be very brave in this particular room, and I'd sure like to have this discussion with him outside off line. That member sits there and mocks the fact that I'm trying to defend the integrity of public servants from scurrilous accusations that are being made by individuals like the member opposite without any regard for the facts — including the fact that it wasn't the Minister of Transportation's credit card, as the member said on the transcript in the House during question period.

All I am suggesting is that it would have been very easy for the members to contact my office, ask that question and get that information before they go and make these kinds of drive-by attacks on public servants on information that is false. Actually, corporate fraud happens every day. It could happen to you, too, Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. If the member has credit, it could actually happen to that member.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member says I make a good point, and he's right. I probably do. I can only imagine that if his credit is anything like the way they operated government, it's probably disastrous. Extending credit to them would be a huge risk, I'm sure.

N. Simons: Point of order. I don't think that the minister should necessarily, despite his enthusiasm for calling down the opposition at every opportunity, impugn the personal reputation of members opposite. I think that despite the fact that he calls this rich, he has different standards as to what's rich and what isn't. I believe the minister knows full well and would do the same in the opposite circumstance — ask questions of the provincial government with respect to the payments in government that they made.

The Chair: The point of order is not valid, but I encourage all the members to turn back to Vote 42, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate you pointing out that fact.

But the fact of the matter is…. What I found rich is the fact that this member attempts — wrongly, it turns out — to make a point of order when what I'm asking is actually for the member opposite to apologize or at least have the decency to acknowledge that when the member said in the House: "Mr. Speaker, on the government purchase card entries '05-06 the Minister of Transportation spent $300 at Honey Gifts Inc…." And then he goes on.

I would at least hope that the member would have the integrity to withdraw that statement and apologize. I also have been good enough to say, in spite of the fact that the member will have this opportunity to correct the record, that I am also attempting to let the member know that these purchases were made as a result of corporate credit card fraud.

My point is simply this. I am trying to defend ministry staff who are unable to make the defence. That is my job to actually defend them and point out that it is not fair to malign them with those kinds of allegations without knowing the facts, which could have been easily garnered by simply asking us. We would have provided that information.

G. Gentner: I certainly will take some of the comments made by the hon. minister under advisement. I really believe it's our job as opposition to raise these questions. It's part of the ledger. It's all written down here in the ledger. It's public information that's on line, and it's our job on this side to go down, line by line, to see what the ministry is all about. If we want to know what a ministry is all about, I suggest to all members and to all members of the public: take a look and see exactly where their money is being spent. That is why we are here today.

I do take exception to the view that the minister says fraud can happen every day. Well, I've had a credit card all my life. It's never once happened to me. I'm very careful how I spend my money. I'm very careful where I make those purchases — on line or not on line. Obviously, there may not be proper oversight, and those are some of the questions I would like to ask the minister.

The minister has suggested that all of the named items were done by fraudulent means, and I want to

again repeat them for the record. The minister has stated that purchases at Honey Gifts Inc. were fraudulent. Laskamaria Entertainment was fraudulent. JDate dating service was fraudulent. Jack and Lily was fraudulent. Jen Klair Kids was fraudulent. Tying the Knot was fraudulent. Spicy Sports was fraudulent. Ski Smithers was fraudulent. Snowpack Outdoor Experiences was fraudulent. Village Ski Hut Ltd. was fraudulent, and the Whistler bike shop was fraudulent.

I just want to make sure, for the record, that the minister has acknowledged that. Also, I'll add the three other items that I believe were fraudulent as well, but I'll ask the minister to respond.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member just added new ones to the list. These were not part of the list that the member just rattled off the first go-round.

The issue that I am taking some strong exception to, and I still didn't hear…. He says he will take it under advisement. We are supposed to be honourable members, at least in this chamber. Honourable members do not state in the House, on television, with a gallery full of people, that the Minister of Transportation was the one that spent $300 at Honey Gifts Inc. That is my point.

At least have the decency, as an honourable member, to apologize and withdraw that remark. I think the member owes that at least — for his own sense of decency and to the whole principle of this legislative chamber — that at the end of the day we are honourable members, and we don't impugn each other personally. If you know the information is being corrected, and the minister is actually telling you that you're wrong in asserting that the minister used his credit card, an apology would be appropriate — at least a withdrawal of the statement.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast apparently doesn't have any idea of when he has the floor and when he doesn't. It would be nice if he would use a little bit of discipline, which he apparently doesn't have, to just close his mouth until he's actually recognized by the Chair and is speaking through the Chair.

The Chair: Member, the minister has the floor. Also, Members, if you have a question to ask, please stand up and be recognized and then ask the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: I wasn't finished with my answer. The member listed off a number, including Ski Smithers, Snowpack Outdoor Experiences, Spicy Sports, Village Ski Hut. I can't remember if he mentioned Whistler Bike Co., but I don't believe he did.

Hon. K. Falcon: He did, apparently. The member needs to know that those were purchases by the ministry's avalanche team that were utilized in the furtherance of their efforts to ensure that the avalanche risk in this province is mitigated to protect the public. I would hope that the member is not trying….

I'm going from a list that the New Democrats released publicly on what they call a backgrounder. I want to say that the first list of items that that member mentioned — Honey Gifts, Laskamaria Entertainment, JDate…. These were as a result of corporate credit card fraud.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's on the record. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is now apparently aware, and I would hope that would quickly result in a withdrawal of the accusation and an apology to the civil service members they are attempting to malign.

The balance of them, as I say, were utilized by our avalanche team in the Ministry of Transportation, and I am led to understand that all of those were legitimate purchases to further the efforts to protect the public in terms of avalanche safety.

G. Gentner: It's relieving to know that regarding the skiing aspects, the minister has qualified that. Again, we certainly have the right to ask the questions as to what your Ministry is up to. I mean, that's what we do. But the minister has not quite come forward and given his accounting relative to the baby accessories that were bought: Jack and Lily and jenklairkids.com, at $570.54; and of course the wedding store, Tying the Knot.

Hon. K. Falcon: The two baby ones that the member referenced were a result of corporate credit card fraud, as I indicated to the member. For explanation, that means that someone is illegally using a credit card number of the ministry and making purchases that are criminal in nature and are illegal.

Tying the Knot is a new one. It doesn't even appear on the list that the member sent out, so I can't confirm that one. Of course, we'll be happy to look into it.

You know, the issue I keep coming back to is that it would be nice if the member would at least acknowledge the fact that he incorrectly accused the Minister of Transportation of utilizing the spending on his government credit card. That's all I'm asking.

If that's too difficult for that member as an hon. member of this chamber, then just say so. Just say you're incapable of owning up to a mistake. I do it all the time. I don't pretend that I'm perfect. If I make a mistake, I'll acknowledge that I made a mistake. But the member said in the House that the Minister of Transportation spent $300 at Honey Gifts Incorporated, and then he goes on to say that at its website Honey Gifts specializes in adult sex toys, lubricants and lingerie.

Member, you've left an impression out there that is awfully misleading not just to the people sitting in the chambers, but to the public out there watching. I have corrected that. I have stood here and pointed out to the member that you were wrong in saying that. I would ask that you withdraw that statement and apologize for it. And in spite of the fact that you have yet to do the decent thing and actually do that, I've still been good enough to also point out to you that the other incidents you talked about were either legitimate purchases or were a result of corporate credit card fraud. Please do the right thing, Member.

G. Gentner: Relative to Golfland, that was also $300. Was that a fraudulent charge or a ministerial purchase?

I have another question, if the member doesn't want to answer it. I'd like to know, relative to a purchase at Below the Belt of $301.74; and something on line, a woman's designer on line at shoppop.com, at $85.07. Was that a fraudulent purchase or not?

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, as much as I recognize that it's the member opposite's time and that they can utilize it in whatever irresponsible, ridiculous fashion they wish, this member still has not withdrawn his statement and still has not apologized for something that was a flagrant misrepresentation in front of the public and in front of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. I've tried to appeal to the fact that we are, at the end of the day, all supposed to be hon. members.

I can tell that you that if the member opposite, the critic for this ministry…. If I said something about the member that was false and not true and he brought it to my attention, especially if I said it in this House, in this chamber, I can tell you that I will stand up, and I will withdraw, and I will apologize. It's the right thing to do.

This member for Delta North apparently cannot find it in himself to do that, and I frankly find that amazing. What I'm going to say to you, Mr. Chair, is if this member wants to go through this list, he can send me a list. I will send him a written reply and respond to that, but I'm not answering any more questions of this member about that list in this House.

G. Gentner: Well, we'll get off the list. The minister suggests that there was fraud being conducted here, so therefore, will the minister produce the documentation supporting his assertions?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I will do as part of our written response is…. We will provide him the statements showing the credits that the credit card companies provided to the Ministry of Transportation as a result of those items which were identified as corporate credit card fraud.

G. Gentner: For the record, if you check the Blues, it clearly states that I referred to it as the ministry, so I am not about to apologize. Please check the Blues, hon. Minister.

The question I have, of course, is: when will this documentation be forwarded, Minister?

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, obviously, through the banter, the minister hasn't responded. I'm not about to ask for an apology from the minister, who made the assertions, the wrongful assertions, of what was coming out of my mouth. Clearly in Hansard I came forward with the question to the ministry itself, which the minister is responsible for.

Again, my question is: when will we receive the documentation to support these assertions?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said to the member, when they provide a written letter to me identifying those issues, then we will provide a written response.

G. Gentner: I'm sorry about the tediousness here, but for brevity, in what time period, once the letter is received, can we get a response?

G. Gentner: Pardon me, hon. Chair. The minister's response was: when he feels like it. Is that correct?

G. Gentner: The minister has suggested that he will provide documentary support for the assertions of fraud once he receives a letter. What is the time frame after he receives a letter when this side will receive the information?

G. Gentner: I would suggest, by the lack of a response from the minister, that he's not prepared to produce the documentation that supports the assertion that this was fraud, which makes me wonder how far we are going here with the transparency and openness as to the nature of the use of the credit card.

I'll leave that one, knowing that the minister is unwilling to come forward and state how the taxpayers' money is being used. I will ask a further question, therefore: who perpetrated the fraud?

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, the minister is very reluctant to go here, to ascertain and produce an argument

relative to what is happening within his ministry, and I find this very, very perplexing. Nevertheless, it having been suggested by the member opposite, the hon. minister, that we were putting words in our mouths relative to the use of ministry versus minister….

My next question there is: okay, who perpetrated the fraud? The minister is unwilling to say, so let's back up. To the minister: who on staff discovered this fraud?

Hon. K. Falcon: I should tell the member that I still find it almost beneath contempt that he would make these allegations and still not have any of the decency to at least acknowledge that he may have been incorrect when he made the accusation against the minister and ministry staff that they were actually making these purchase decisions, when we have clarified the record and made it very clear that it was a result of corporate credit card fraud.

The only reason I'm going answer this is so that I can walk the member through, in terms of what security features are in place and how these were actually caught by ministry staff. They were identified by ministry staff as a result of the internal process we have, which means that….

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast apparently has difficulty recognizing when he has the floor. You actually don't have the floor right now. It might be nice to wait until you have the floor — Chair, through to the member.

The Chair: Members, if you want to ask questions, can you please stand up to be recognized.

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. If you want to talk, you can talk outside. Otherwise, you have to sit quietly.

The ministry internal review process is that an employee has to review their monthly statements. They personally have to review those statements and verify that the charges are correct and were used for government business. Then the supervisor reviews and forwards the expense account to the expense authority within the Ministry of Transportation. The expense authority then reviews and, if appropriate, approves the expenditure.

The central ministry finance staff also review all ministry credit card transactions on a monthly basis. I think it's fair to point out to that member that there would be literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of transactions per month. Then the comptroller's office and the Auditor General also perform audits on those — including, obviously, other ministry spending.

All of these transactions were identified and found by internal Ministry of Transportation staff. It was our staff that reported to the credit card companies and the RCMP that this fraud had taken place.

Again, on the record, to the member opposite for Delta North, who doesn't mind standing up in the House and making allegations without knowing facts — facts that we would have been very happy to give him…. I say to the member for Delta North that if you want information on this, you could write to us, ask which specific items…. Because it's changing. You had something that you put out in a backgrounder, and now the member adds new items.

What I've suggested to the members, Chair, and I think it's appropriate, is that they write to us. We will provide a detailed response to them demonstrating very clearly what was corporate credit card, what were in fact legitimate uses, because many of them were utilized, as I mentioned, by the avalanche team in appropriate activities of the avalanche team within the Ministry of Transportation.

I said I would get back to the member on that. No, I'm not going to be pinned down on the time frame. We'll get back to him once we get a letter, and that is all I need to say about the subject.

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister, who's clarified some things. I know procedure is such where scrupulous examination is month by month. The minister would, therefore, have to confirm that with this due diligence of month to month, these purchases were all made within a time frame of one month.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is more than one case of individual fraud; it's multiple cases of fraud. And no, they weren't. They were made over a period of time.

Again, I'll say to the member — and I'm trying extraordinarily hard to be patient with this particular member — that if the member is to write me, I will provide him a detailed response on all of those issues.

G. Gentner: I appreciate the candidness. We've now discovered that it's a multitude of fraudulent situations here. Does the minister know how many purchases were made by the same fraudster? And how many other fraudsters has the ministry undermined today?

D. Chudnovsky: I would like to appeal to the minister. These are no doubt very uncomfortable questions and very difficult questions — questions that make all of us on both sides think about the task that we have in front of us and make us all uncomfortable from time to time. I would appeal to the minister that the question that was just asked is a completely legitimate question. Notwithstanding his frustration and notwithstanding the difficulties that we're all facing with these issues, it strikes me that the question was completely and totally legitimate.

The minister had previously indicated to the House, to the committee, in a completely and totally

legitimate answer to a prior question that came about time frame…. As I heard him, he said: "No, I can't tell you that it was only in one month, because there were a number of cases of fraud."

The subsequent question from the member, my colleague, was: how many cases of fraud? Notwithstanding the minister's frustration, it strikes me that that is a completely and totally legitimate question. I would appeal to the minister, on the basis of the integrity of this process, that he respond to the question. We seek this information, all of us on both sides, in the name of the people of the province.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important for the opposition critic to know that my frustration is not with the questions. It never has been. My frustration is that what they are doing by asking those questions is maligning civil servants without at least giving the opportunity to come and ask us and get the actual information, which I have said that we would be happy to provide.

Then I actually, on the record here today, pointed out to them that those were examples of corporate credit card fraud — that the examples the members opposite listed were as a result of credit card fraud — and that my concern and my frustration has to do with the fact that they continue to have an implication…. They ignore the fact that I continuously say it has to do with credit card fraud, and they imply that this is something that apparently just goes on, on a regular basis within the Ministry of Transportation. I think that is wrong.

My frustrations with the member opposite and the members opposite are always continuous. I'm frustrated on a frequent basis by questions based on faulty and wrong information. That's just the world I live in. I'll just deal with that frustration.

In this case, I am not answering any further questions, because I have said on repeated occasions that the allegations they are making impugn, I believe, the professional civil servants within the ministry, and when the record is corrected….

Hon. K. Falcon: When the record is corrected. I think it's appropriate that the member opposite at least acknowledge that the record has been corrected.

Hon. K. Falcon: There goes the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast again, who has a complete inability to control his own mouth. That's just unfortunate. He just cannot control his own mouth.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is my frustration. Do not ever confuse my frustration with the questions being asked.

What I have said is that that member, especially the member for Delta North, who characterized…. If the member characterized it, by the way, as the Ministry of Transportation and if it turns out that the Blues suggest that, I will take that back — if it's not the Minister of Transportation.

Frankly, I've always said that I could care less what the members say about me. I actually care a lot about what they say about staff. My only point is that when that record is corrected, I think the decent thing for the member opposite….

I would hope that the opposition critic, at least, would show the leadership on behalf of his side of the House and acknowledge that the minister has stood up repeatedly and pointed out that the list that they provided us was either a result of credit card fraud that was identified by Ministry of Transportation staff or for legitimate purposes that were utilized by the avalanche team in the Ministry of Transportation.

At the very minimum, I think that would be helpful on a go-forward basis. What I have said I would do for the members opposite is that they can provide a written letter to me itemizing those items they have concerns about, and we will provide a detailed response that they can do with what they will.

D. Chudnovsky: The series of events about which we are speaking now began three or four questions ago. The member for Delta North asked: "Can the minister tell the committee how long the fraud…?" — which the minister was talking about…. The minister has brought up the issue of fraud, not this side. "Can the minister tell the committee if it persisted for more than a month?"

The minister, and I've said this, correctly and frankly said to the committee: "No, can't do that, and here's why" — I'm paraphrasing, but it was for all to hear — "because there was more than one corporate fraud." This side didn't say that. The minister said that.

As a result of that answer from the minister, the member for Delta North said: "How many? What are the other ones?" I'm not going to make a comment on the justice of the minister's general claim, the assertion of the minister, that he or his ministry have been somehow poorly treated here. Somebody else is going to have to make that decision.

What's happened here is that the minister brought up the issue of additional frauds, and the member asked him about that. It seems to me that is a perfectly legitimate question on behalf of the member. Once again I want to appeal to the minister to respond to the question which arises from his very own answer.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate that this member can ask the questions in a manner that is at least acknowledging the fact that there's a recognition that corporate credit card fraud occurred here.

I have actually answered the question. What I have said to the member for Delta North, who was asking the questions without acknowledging the fact that there was credit card fraud that took place here….

Because the member is now adding names that go beyond what they put out in the New Democrat backgrounder — where they itemized lists and we told them that those lists were either corporate credit card fraud or that they were legitimate purchases utilized by the Ministry of Transportation avalanche team — what I've said is that the member can write to me, let me know the details and the information that the member wants. Obviously, if there's going to be more than the list that they've put out there….

We would be happy to get that information back to them. That's what I committed to do, and there's no more that I need to continually add. That's exactly what we'll do.

G. Gentner: The whole purpose of estimates is to deal with the budget and the spending of the ministry. I'll allow just a quick answer that, hopefully, the minister has — since he's well aware of his ministry and of what's been going on relative to all the fraud that's been happening relative to, of course, the credit cards. Can the minister give us a total value of the fraudulent purchases, and what was the cost to the taxpayer?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I pointed out already in a previous answer, in the corporate credit card fraud that occurred, every single one of those charges was credited back to the taxpayer through the Ministry of Transportation by the credit card companies, once they were alerted by our ministry staff of the very limited credit card fraud that took place.

I've said that on a number of occasions. What I've suggested to the member is that if the member is going to add on to the list that that member released today, obviously we haven't got that information sitting here at our fingertips. The member can write me — I believe he's capable of that — and ask whatever questions he wants to ask, and we will get back to the member.

On the record, I again will say to the member that this was very limited…. I mean, who is happy that there's corporate credit card fraud that takes place occasionally in North America? Not anyone.

I can tell you what I'm happy about. I'm happy about the fact that ministry staff were the ones who identified it, that the ministry staff were the ones that reported it to the card companies and the RCMP, and that the credit card companies reimbursed the ministry for any of those fraudulent credit card purchases.

All I'm saying is that the member has added new ones. I will say to the member for Delta North and the opposition critic from Vancouver-Kensington that if they have additional cases — and apparently they do — and they want more information about this issue, they can send that to me in the form of a letter, and I'll send them a response, and they can do what they want with the response.

G. Gentner: I know the sensitivity the minister is undergoing right now relative to the questions that are being undertaken.

G. Gentner: A joke? Well, maybe there's a purchase for a joke here too. I think we'll look a little deeper there too.

The minister mentioned that upon discovering some of these fraudulent purchases, it was identified that the credit card company was notified and they were reimbursed, if I have that correct. Well, if that is so, Honey Gifts Inc. was never reimbursed. Laskamaria Entertainment — the one that deals with home sex parties — was reimbursed. But relative to the selling of sex toys and other items from Honey Gifts Inc., it wasn't, according to this ledger, replaced. The money was not replaced. Can the minister reaffirm whether it was or not?

Hon. K. Falcon: The nature of the questions are, frankly, despicable. This member talking about sex toys as if government is out making these….

You know, Member, is there no sense of decency at all, at least at the end of the day, to recognize a corporate credit card fraud for what it is — someone stealing and illegally using credit card numbers and purchasing things on line? Trying to insinuate that somehow this is a practice of government…? That's the part that disgusts me, Member. I've long since given up hope that that member would ever have any kind of shred of decency to at least acknowledge that fact.

Again I say to the member, as I've said before: the member can write me. And when the member writes me with the particular questions having to do with specific incidences or whatever it is that the member wants to ask, we will get back to him in written form, and that's it.

G. Gentner: I understand, again, the situation the hon. minister may believe he's in, but let's go back. He refused to answer the question: who perpetrated the fraud? So until he's willing to answer that question and be honest and open and tell us where we are with this, we have to dig deeper and find out what's happened here.

Well, I guess not. I guess he doesn't have that information. I would have thought he would have — that something like using a credit card fraudulently would be information readily available. The minister was given lots of warning at question period that we want to make inquiry relative to this, and obviously he's not equipped with that information. So I want to go into the process itself.

What action was taken to recover the funds? And what legal action has the ministry undertaken relative to this type of fraud?

D. Chudnovsky: One more question on this topic. It's this: the minister has requested of the member for Delta North that he communicate to the ministry and that he seek the answers to these questions via written communication with the ministry, and I'm sure that he will. And the minister has suggested that the letter take the form of questions with respect to specific charges that show up on the account.

I'm wondering whether in the course of that questioning, one of the questions to which minister will respond can be: what other examples of corporate credit card fraud have been discovered by the ministry? That is, it's a bit hit-or-miss in trying to understand the whole story. This is a story, it seems to me, that the people of the province will be interested in.

It appears, the minister asserts, that there has been credit card fraud. That's a serious and significant thing to happen to the province — perhaps not unexpected, but certainly serious. To try to unpack that by simply saying, "What about this one? What about this one? What about this one?" seems to me somewhat inefficient.

Will the minister commit to providing whatever information his ministry has with respect to any and all credit card fraud to the opposition when it writes to him?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I've said we will do for the member is that the member can write to us and provide a list of concerns they have with regards to individual examples. In return, what I'll commit to the member is that we will provide a detailed response on those answers and we'll provide him with an overview of any corporate credit fraud that we've identified.

The final point I'll make on this — and this is my final point on the issue that I will make — is that it's a result of the internal controls that are in place, not just within the ministry in the internal audit process we have that is overseen by the office of comptroller general. It's a result of those processes that ministry staff actually identified this corporate credit card fraud. I think that is very important to point out for the record.

When the member writes me with the specific examples of the ones he has concerns about, we'll address those and also provide, as I said, an overview on any other corporate credit fraud that was identified. By the way, they're talking about items that were two years old, and the member should know that. Nevertheless, we'll provide that in a written response to the member.

H. Bains: I have a few questions about the Callaghan Valley road to the Nordic centre. Can the minister tell us when the decision was actually made to build that road.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll have to double-check the exact date for the member. It goes back quite some time, at least five years ago. I would have to double-check that for the member.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us what the justification was of building that road, and who arrived at that decision.

Hon. K. Falcon: Two things. The first was, certainly, to support the development of the Olympic venues. The second was to also support the economic development prospects for local area first nations, who recognized that post-Olympics, once the Olympics are over, they would want to have opportunities for creating economic development. That road will clearly go a long way towards doing so.

H. Bains: So there would be some written documentation to back up these two purposes, why this road finally was decided to be built.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said to the member earlier, we're going back at least five years on this, so I'm not sure to what extent there would be anything written. If there is, we can certainly try and identify what that is.

Again, the key thing here is that it was clearly to provide an opportunity for venue development. But also equally important, certainly to this Premier, was to make sure that the ongoing legacy for local area first nations would be that the roads would open up very important economic development opportunities for them. That was my recollection of something five years ago, but that was my recollection of the primary driver for the decision that was made.

H. Bains: The economic development opportunities for the first nations, just on that…. There must be some discussions on that issue way before five years, way before this final decision was made. There must be some documentation; there must be some justification; there must be some record of arriving at a decision, finally, to build this road. Can I ask the minister: can he provide that information?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're going back a number of years, so I'm trying to check with staff and see if we can collate everyone's memories around this. One of the things we recall is that the Ministry of Environment was doing sort of a general master plan on the Callaghan Valley. This was an area that was recognized for its back-country potential, especially the recreational opportunities. Those back-country recreational opportunities were identified in the land use plans as real potential opportunities, but it was also an area of significance to the local first nations.

That was the context in which the decision by government was made — a decision which, by the way, I think was absolutely the right decision because it provided the dual benefits, of course: to not only enhance

and allow the proceeding of the venue construction projects but also to create that ongoing legacy of allowing the local first nations to achieve economic opportunity out of the benefits that the road will provide.

H. Bains: Thank you for the answer, Minister. I appreciate that it's been a long time — four years, five years, maybe six years, in that time frame — and I don't expect anybody to have that information offhand here. But if I may ask the minister to provide to us any documentation that you or the ministry may have that would support the justification of economic development, as the minister said, for the back-country activities; for the aboriginal natives, opportunities in that area; and then, obviously, the Olympic opportunities there as well.

If there is any justification, any documentation, that would provide us with the information to show us the real reasons why this road was built, if the minister could tell us and provide us with that information. And then perhaps some time frame — how long it will take for us to get that information.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, we will endeavour to do that for the member. The one thing that I will say to the member is that I want to be careful about giving a time frame on that because we've got to gather that information. It is five or six years old. But we'll pull together that information as best we can and get that over to the member just as soon as we can reasonably get our staff to do it.

I want the member to know that this is clearly an issue I'm very happy to cooperate on. I just always like to say to my staff that I want to make sure that they're not dropping pressing, urgent issues and running back into five-year-old records and stuff. But we will pull that together for the member and get it to you just as soon as we reasonably can.

H. Bains: As you know, there was a secondary road that was also being built along with the primary road. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us: what was the purpose for the secondary road, and who requested it?

Hon. K. Falcon: What happened is that for security reasons there is a requirement to have a secondary access road. What happened was that road…. It's a fairly low-grade, low-cost road. It's basically dirt that gets improved a little bit. But that is apparently important, for security reasons, to have in place.

Essentially, that road was built along a pre-existing road that was already in place and essentially just improved so that for security purposes there could be that second alternative. It's probably a policing issue, to be honest with you.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask this question differently. You said that perhaps it's a security reason. I gather that's the answer. If you could confirm whether there was actually a security reason, whether it was requested by some security personnel and whether this security is for the Olympics…. If that is the case, then who requested that this road be built for security purposes? If that's the reason, then what was the…? I'll just leave it at that at this time.

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding, in consultation with staff, is that the Integrated Security Unit of the Olympics made that request. I believe the Integrated Security Unit is made up of the RCMP. This secondary road that we're talking about, as I say, utilizes an existing road that was already in place. So the advantage for us, of course, was that it was relatively low-cost to improve that road to essentially a slightly improved dirt-road standard.

The important thing to also add that I didn't mention in my first answer, which I should have included, is that it will not be a permanent road. Part of the agreement is that once the Olympics is finished, that secondary route will be decommissioned and will no longer be used as a road.

H. Bains: If there was a road that already existed, and for the reasons that the minister has laid out for building this new primary road, why couldn't we use the existing road that was there and upgrade it and still deliver those opportunities that the minister has outlined for the purpose of building this new road?

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize, Member, for taking some time on this. This is a road I am not intimately acquainted with, but I am rapidly becoming so.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. To the member opposite: the issue has to do with the fact that the reason why…. The central tenet of the member's question was: "Why wouldn't you use the existing road as the road?" I think that's essentially what the member said, and the short answer is because the road had grades that would be too steep to be able to construct for highway purposes to allow buses, for example, to get up those roads.

What happened with this is that you've got alignments that interact between the existing road and the new road, so pieces would be taken from the existing road and utilized for portions of the new road, etc. I realize it's a little complex to try and explain orally, but if the member likes, perhaps we could provide a more detailed briefing. I'm kind of a visual person, so when someone lays it out in front of me, it's a lot clearer. That would show where the existing road wouldn't do — to

the member's question, to the member's point, just build on the existing road — and why you couldn't.

I'm not sure that added a lot of sunshine to this, actually, and I apologize, Member, if I haven't been really articulate on this. Maybe it's just the time of the day. But I'd be happy to make sure the member gets a briefing, and perhaps I'll even sit in to get more details. I'm sad to say that with 43,000 kilometres of highway in the province, I don't have the time, even though the critic from Vancouver-Kensington suggests I get out more.

Actually, I try to get out as much as I can. The member knows that unfortunately I am often doing my people's business in the House here, and I wish I could get out more sometimes. This is one on which I'd be happy to get some more information to the member. That's essentially the basis of the answer: can't use the existing road. The grade is too steep, so they used pieces of the existing road, patched in some of the new road, and got an amalgamation that created both of them.

H. Bains: Minister, perhaps you could tell us. Like you said, it was five years ago when the decision was made, and the road is actually being built now. What was the original budget? If there was an original budget put together, was the secondary road part of the original budget, or is there a revised budget? The second question would be: what was the actual cost of building the road, as we sit now?

Hon. K. Falcon: The budget for the total roads there was $20 million. The secondary road which the member refers to actually didn't add that much cost because we're already in there building the main road, so they've got all the equipment and everything in there. The secondary road, as I mentioned earlier, allows us to use good chunks of the existing road that was already there. So the improvements were relatively modest.

I'm led to understand that of the $20 million, it would reflect about $1 million of that that would be required to do the improvement to make the secondary road necessary.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us. This $20 million budget: when was the budget put together? Was that budget originally estimated as $20 million five years ago, or whenever the decision was made, or was that budget ever revised since?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that it was $14 million in 2002 and was revised to $20 million in 2006.

H. Bains: I guess I'm coming to my final couple of questions. Minister, you said — I'm rephrasing it — the primary purpose of this road was to support the Olympic venues and economic activities or opportunities for the aboriginals. Correct me, if that's not the correct answer, so this is on record that those are the two primary reasons.

H. Bains: We can from there assume that at least part of that $20 million…. I don't know how you divide that unless you have a formula to divide what proportion of that $20 million you can attribute to support the Olympic venues and what you attribute to the economic development or opportunities for the aboriginal economic opportunities.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer to that question is that the position of the government, as the member correctly points out, is that we saw a dual benefit — the first being obviously that it will allow the construction and make sure that the Olympic venues can operate during the two-week period of the Olympics. You should be very clear about that.

We also viewed this of course as a longer-term investment for the area. These are roads that are going to be there for decades to come and that will provide economic opportunity for the local area first nations well into the future.

But I also think it's fair to point out that the Auditor General has characterized that expense as being an Olympic expense, as the Auditor General has in fact with the entire Sea to Sky project. So the Auditor General has a differing opinion in terms of that particular road than the government did, but we, as always, will defer to the Auditor General in the final attribution of what he considers an Olympic cost and not an Olympic cost.

H. Bains: I guess, as the minister responsible for transportation and responsible for spending that kind of money on a road, obviously the minister will know the purpose of building that road. If the primary purpose was for the first nations and to develop their economic opportunities in that area, that decision must have been made a long time ago. Then came along the Olympics and at some time the decision was made either to speed up the construction of that road to meet the timeline for the Olympic venues….

If you don't have that information here, if perhaps you could provide me with that information — the timeline when those decisions were made and when it was realized that we also need to feed to the Olympic venues.

When was that decision made, so that we actually know the real purpose right from the beginning to build that road, and if there was a reason to build that road if we weren't going to hold the Olympics?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the forbearance of the members in allowing me the opportunity to answer this. One of the things I think is important to point out is that, as I mentioned, staff have advised that this was something that was contemplated to open up backcountry opportunities and land use planning that was

done in the area. Clearly the Olympics accelerates the opportunity to make that happen, and I don't think we should be anything but totally upfront about that. That's what the Olympics does. It does create these opportunities, and certainly government capitalized on that.

But our view of this has always been that we consider this a long-term…. Yes, it benefits the two-week Olympics, but clearly this is something that we believe opens up opportunities for decades beyond for the local first nations. I have to say that the Auditor General — as the member opposite and the critic will rightly point out — has characterized the entire Sea to Sky project as an Olympic project.

I couldn't disagree more with the premise. I accept his conclusion, but I don't understand the premise. Even as late as the 1980s, lots of planning work had been done about getting that road built, including during the 90s, I believe, while that government was in power. I see a former Minister of Transportation here who may actually recall that. The issue was that governments did the planning work but didn't have the money to get it done.

So we are getting it done, and it's something I'm very proud of. I think it will provide an enormous safety benefit to British Columbians. Certainly the 300 accidents a year that take place, including horrific fatalities unfortunately every year on that corridor, will be dramatically reduced. I think everyone can agree that that is a big public benefit.

Having said all that, with the cooperation of the members opposite and my appreciation to them, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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