Hansard — Monday, May 14, 2007 a.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		7889

Private Members' Statements		7889
	Rural transportation infrastructure
	B. Lekstrom
	D. Chudnovsky
	Workers' rights
	C. Puchmayr
	L. Mayencourt
	Grandparents raising grandchildren
	K. Whittred
	K. Conroy
	Learning from other jurisdictions
	D. Cubberley
	J. Nuraney

Motions on Notice		7898
	Electrification of Highway 37 (Motion 52)
	D. MacKay
	J. Horgan
	B. Bennett
	L. Krog
	R. Lee
	R. Austin
	B. Lekstrom
	G. Coons
	R. Cantelon

K. Whittred: In the gallery today are several grandparents. They are part of a task force group that unofficially represents a cross-section of grandparents raising grandchildren in British Columbia. They are led by the executive director of Parent Support Services of B.C., Marion Gracey. Please join me in making them welcome to this chamber.

B. Lekstrom: It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to this assembly about rural transportation infrastructure, something that I think is one of the most important parts of our province, our economic well-being and, truly, our quality of life.

We have quite a history when it comes to transportation infrastructure and particularly with rural transportation infrastructure in this province. I think it comes as no surprise to anybody who lives here, but we are truly an export province. We produce and live off the many resources we have that benefit our quality of life. We are only 4.4 million people in this wonderful province and, as a result, the amount we produce, we need our export markets.

In order to flourish as an economy, we need a transportation infrastructure that is second to none. We face significant challenges in this province, and we are diverse. From the north to the south and from the east to the west, our needs vary in this wonderful province. When we look at how our roads were built — and I'll speak to many areas of the rural parts of our province — we're facing some challenges.

Our rural roads were never built — 40, 50, 60, 80 years ago — to withstand the types of traffic that we see on them today. The heavy industrial traffic that we see today is not what we had envisioned when we began to build these roads many decades ago.

Traditionally, a good portion of these roads was built based on the agricultural sector and on our access to those fields. But even agriculture in today's world that we live in…. The equipment they use and the machinery they have to pull to get to their fields is significantly heavier, and it plays havoc with some of our roads.

What has changed? Well, many things, as I've said — the way we do business, the way our quality of life has changed and the distances we travel. What's happened is that we are playing catch-up in our province, not catch-up from five years ago or ten years ago but truly decades. We are playing catch-up because as our infrastructure is in need of repair, in many cases, no longer is it enough to just lay gravel.

I'll speak about the issue of gravel. Many of my roads in Peace River South…. We have 2,900 kilometres of road, most of which are gravel. We certainly enjoy the pavement we have on our highways, and we're beginning to lay some blacktop down and seal-coating in the rural areas, but by far the vast majority of our roads are gravel.

Before, when a base was all right — and I talk about the base of a road that we build — you could go in and upgrade it by topping it with some gravel and making sure that the travelling surface was up to grade. Today what we face right across this province is the challenge of being able to upgrade that road.

No longer is it satisfactory just to lay a three-inch or four-inch lift of gravel because in many, many areas of our province the bases of our road infrastructure are gone. If you want to do it right, it costs more money and it takes more time. We have to no longer just top-dress our roads with gravel. We have to dig the bases out, rebuild them from the bottom up and then carry forward with a top dressing of gravel and, if you're very fortunate, in some areas some asphalt.

What do we have to do? We have to do a number of things. I think that first and foremost, we have to recognize the differences in this province. I represent the truly rural riding of Peace River South, and I'm very proud to do so.

Making sure that the constituents that I represent understand the different infrastructure needs in our province…. Whether it be the Gateway project or projects such as public transit, port expansion, rail or the ferry systems, we all coexist. We can have the most wonderful rural transportation network in this province, but if our ports are jammed up, if our products can't get to market or to port and our trucks can't travel, the goods and services that we provide aren't going to get to the markets they need to.

A key issue for us as legislators is that we come down here with our own views as to how we can make our constituencies a better place and how we can make our province a better place, but you have to have an open mind. You have to have the ability to understand each and every one of the unique needs in this province. As a rural MLA, I've spent a great deal of time trying to understand what is needed in the Greater Vancouver area, because those needs are significantly different than the needs of the constituents I represent.

Our users have changed over the years. The industry we have, whether it be mining, agriculture, forestry or oil and gas…. With the economy going the way it is,

everybody is using these rural roads. As we use these roads, it's important to recognize the impact they have on them.

One of the most important aspects that I take to the table is my first priority. This is no slight against industry, but it's to make sure that the families that live in our rural areas of this province can get to and from their homes, that their children can get to and from school via the school bus and that they can get their children into the community to participate in the sports events that they've chosen.

I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that it's hugely important to recognize the contribution that industry has made. I'll speak to the northeast sector of the province, in which the oil and gas sector, the mining industry, the forestry sector and agriculture have come together to highlight some initiatives on what has to be done.

Tourists are a huge part of our economy in British Columbia. I represent Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway, a wonderful community called Dawson Creek. We have roughly 300,000 tourists travel through our community and up that great Alaska Highway each and every year. Many of them, as all of us have tried to work towards tourist initiatives, have begun to stay an extra day in our communities. That transcends not just the north but right across this province.

As they do, and we ask them to get out into the rural, beautiful part of British Columbia, we want them to be able to travel safely on roads that will not knock their vehicles too terribly hard. When we go out into the back part, we expect a road probably not the same as Highway 1 down south but that they are able to travel and not have to take their vehicle back to a shop to get the wheels realigned following that.

Ditching is another part that I think people…. I talk about this, and I'm sure some people may scratch their heads, but ditching is probably one of the most fundamental areas that we need to focus on. We can build the best roads this province has ever seen, but if we can't drain the water from the bases of those roads, we are going to be in big trouble.

I look forward to the response from my colleague on the other side, and I look forward to closing remarks on what I think is one of the most important issues we can deal with in this province.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to my friend from Peace River South for his opening comments. As is often the case, I think the member makes some very, very important points and ones that we need to take heed of as we look to the future of the province.

I note that the member stated near the end of his comments something that I certainly agree with wholeheartedly, which is that our first responsibility — whether we are rural MLAs or urban MLAs, as I am — is to the families of the folks who live in our constituencies. And notwithstanding the attention we need to pay to industry and industrial development and regional economic development, when it all comes down to it, we're talking about the folks who live in our constituencies, the families and the communities we represent.

The member reminds us, too, of a very, very important truism about our province, which is the diversity of the province and the fact that while we are sometimes…. And I would suggest respectfully that sometimes those on the other side of the House are seduced by billion-dollar transportation infrastructure projects in the lower mainland. We need to remember that there are needs, and important needs, with respect to infrastructure across the province. It's a vision for that development that the member reminds us of and that I think we want to take note of.

What vision with respect to rural transportation infrastructure development? It seems to me, and I would expect that my friend would at least to some great extent agree with this, that there are two pieces to what should be our understanding. The first should be, as the member suggested: what are the needs in terms of capital expenditure, in terms of expansion, in terms of the rebuilding of some of the roads from the base up? The second is the maintaining of that infrastructure so that it continues to provide the opportunity for both individuals — the families we talked about — and various industries to use it.

Let's talk about the first one. I think that with respect to a vision for development and expansion, there is a lack of that vision on the other side of the House, and that's unfortunate. We need, for instance, in terms of development, to do more than just put up signs that say: "Highway 97 is about to be expanded." The member will know very well that the expansion of Highway 97 is, to a great extent, an expansion in billboards and not an expansion in blacktop, and that's something we need to be very concerned about.

We need to be concerned about a vision for regional economic expansion which includes development at Prince Rupert which is equal to the developments at Deltaport. We need to look to inland port facilities in various areas of the province. That's a part of the vision that needs to be looked to.

I want to speak briefly to maintenance. There is a challenge and a problem with road maintenance in this province, especially in the rural areas, that is well known. Notwithstanding the excuses we've heard from time to time from the minister, the members opposite are well aware that this winter there has been a crisis in road maintenance across the province, especially in rural areas. That's something we need to take note of.

I know that my friend from Peace River South, despite the advice he gets from time to time from members of the cabinet, is just as aware as I am that the issues of maintenance of roads, potholes, water on the roads, snow removal, ice safety, ditching, all of those issues, are alive and problematic in the rural areas of the province. I think we need to take note of that and to rededicate ourselves. I encourage those opposite to rededicate themselves to finding solutions to those issues.

Madam Speaker, thank you for your time, and I look forward to the response from my friend opposite.

B. Lekstrom: I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for his response to my comments regarding rural transportation infrastructure.

I think we all recognize the challenges, and sometimes we think that money will solve that challenge. There are points in time, especially with the economy the way it is, that all the money in the world can't be utilized because of how busy, sometimes, people are in the road construction business.

Again, I'm going to transcend politics. I look at the solutions that our province has been working on over the last decade, for instance. The Island Highway expansion, I think, was probably a huge benefit to the residents that live on Vancouver Island.

The new port expansion that's taking place is going to benefit each and every British Columbian. The Gateway project is one of those things that as a rural MLA you try to study and understand. I do believe that it is going to be a benefit for the movement of goods and services and people.

The twinning that the member had touched on earlier from Prince George south…. I will note, although that doesn't go north through the Pine Pass, that we've had significant upgrades in the Pine Pass, which takes you to the east side of the Rocky Mountains.

The expansion of the SkyTrain and public transit — which is significantly different in rural British Columbia than it is in urban British Columbia. This real, true investment in the northeast part of our province has been very welcome news.

I do want to close with this. It is important for each and every member of this Legislative Assembly and truly all British Columbians to understand the unique differences when it comes to transportation infrastructure and how we depend on one another, whether you be rural or urban. Our needs are different, but our end goal is the same, and that is a strong economy and a quality of life for each and every one of us and our families to enjoy in this province.

Without question we have to continue to invest in our road infrastructure, which I see is happening. Will it ever be enough? I'm not sure. I think there's always that debate in whatever we do, but we will continue to invest. We will continue as MLAs to do our jobs, to bring the needs of our constituents forward and what we think will improve not only for our constituents but for the economy of our great province.

Transportation is the backbone to a strong economy. It always has been, in my mind, and it always will be — whether it be rail or ferries or roads. I mean, there is a vast array of what we can all do in this Legislative Assembly.

Our Minister of Transportation is a gentleman that I deal with on a regular basis. I deal with roads in my constituency. Probably if it isn't the top, it's certainly in the top three issues that I deal with on a day-to-day basis because it is highly important for our families and industry to be able to move their goods and services and move themselves down these roads. As well, if that can't happen, they can't contribute to the economic well-being of themselves and their families, let alone the province.

I close with this, Madam Speaker. All British Columbians, I encourage you to recognize and learn from one another, and together we will continue to build a transportation infrastructure in this province that is second to none.

C. Puchmayr: I'm going to speak today about asbestos and how it relates to and affects people in British Columbia. I will go a bit beyond that, as well, and give a little bit of a history of exposure to asbestos.

It actually goes back to early Egyptian days, where workers working with asbestos, weaving the materials, had a very high incidence of fatalities. So it's been identified as going back an extremely long time.

In British Columbia and in Canada, particularly about 1917, certain insurance companies stopped underwriting people who were exposed to asbestos because they could see then — back in 1917, 90 years ago — that there was a very serious issue with people that were exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos was a miracle ore that was pulled from the ground and was found to be fire-protective or fire-preventive. It's used in brake shoe linings; it's used in boilers. It was used as this new formula for preventing fires. It was used in shingles in old houses; it was used in lots of different applications.

What has happened over the years is that many workers have become exposed to high degrees of it. I recently was up in Trail, and I met with some workers that worked in the smelter in Trail. There were about 36 of them that had active cases. I think there are 35 now; one just passed away. Some of them are spending the last years of their lives in extreme pain and agony.

What asbestos does is cut the linings of the lungs into small scars in the lungs. The scar tissue heals, which causes a contracting of the lungs. That gives you less lung capacity and damages the air sacs in the lungs, so it's a very painful death.

When you get cancer from asbestos — mesothelioma — it's extremely painful, and it's a terminal disease. There's no cure for it. Often people that are exposed to it and are dying from it will actually die from heart failure because the heart is working so hard trying to pump oxygen into the bloodstream so that you can function. It is an extremely painful disease.

Currently, there are about 100,000 Canadians that are exposed to it. People are still exposed to it today. We had an incident in a school in New Westminster where workers were instructed to take some flooring material out. The flooring material did contain asbestos.

Asbestos, when it's contained, when the particles aren't airborne, is fairly safe. It's once those structures are moved or demolished that the particulates become airborne and the fibres get drawn into the lungs and

start to cause the damage. The longer the exposure, and the more exposure there is, the more damage is done, and the higher the chances person has of getting cancer from asbestos exposure.

It's even been found in cases of family members in some of the asbestos mining operations, where family members were actually exposed to asbestos by doing the laundry or just by living in the area. What's shocking is that in parts of Quebec, where asbestos was being mined, they even found asbestosis in wild animals that were in the vicinity of the mine site.

It's an extremely toxic, dangerous material that needs to be eradicated. It needs to be taken out of the stream. Modern technology has certainly replaced asbestos with other formulas that are equally as good at being fire retardant and at fire prevention, and that's the direction that we need to go.

I myself was exposed to asbestos when I worked in the brewing industry. A lot of asbestos was capped. The old cookers — the grain cookers and rice cookers — had asbestos insulation. It was well capped. When maintenance needed to be done on them, workers were sent in merely with little paper masks — a small paper mask with an elastic around the back of your head. That was the protection that was provided to prevent exposure to asbestos.

Many workers in industry then and today are still being exposed to it. Some by accident will come by asbestos, not understanding that it's asbestos, and will be exposed to it. A lot of workplaces have been tested and found to have high degrees of asbestos because of insulation that has broken loose and broken open, and the particulates will float through the air.

A good friend of mine is debilitated right now. He came to Canada from India in the '60s, worked in a place where he was mixing the mud, pouring asbestos powder into a giant blender, blending the mud and applying it to pipe insulation. This was without any protective device whatsoever. Now to see a man in his 50s with a young family and grandchildren, and to see what he has to go through just to walk somewhere, just to get by, and the pain that he suffers….

It's a terrible exposure. It's one that doesn't need to happen. It's one that needs to be addressed by governments. It's one that needs to be addressed by underwriters, including Workers Compensation and WorkSafe.

It's one that can be eradicated. It takes an effort. It's going to cost some money. But at the end of the day, the cost to humanity and society on just the quality of life you're going to give to people who should be gardening and playing with their grandchildren…. Instead, they're debilitated. They can't breathe; they're coughing. They're bringing up fluids, including blood from their lungs.

It's a very sad exposure to the families, to the people themselves and to the grandchildren that no longer have the quality of life with their grandparents because of it.

I will turn the floor over to whoever will be responding to this. I anticipate some interesting remarks.

L. Mayencourt: I want to thank the member very much for bringing this very important issue to the attention of this Legislature. It's something that government has to look at constantly — and we do, through the Workers Compensation Board and a number of studies that we do — to make sure that the workplace is safe for all employees.

As the speaker was talking about the toxic nature of asbestos and the need to remove this dangerous substance from the workplace, I was reflecting on some of the other things that government needs to do. Obviously, there is the environment in which someone is working which has to be dealt with. In addition to that, there are other examples where government can become involved in ensuring that there is a safe workplace for all employees.

An example of that would be Grant's law. Grant De Patie was a young man — I think he was from Maple Ridge — who was trying to apprehend a person stealing gas from his gas station and who was killed as a result of that. That's a very sad example of what can happen in the workplace, and government has responded by creating a piece of legislation that deals with that.

I think there are a number of issues that come forward. Certainly, there are the farmworkers issues that have been so eloquently spoken about by both sides of the House — about the need to ensure that worker rights are recognized and that we abide by those.

I also wanted to speak for a moment about an important issue that I've been pursuing, which is also about workers' rights. I want to give credit for this topic to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. The issue I want to talk about is an issue that is very much in the forefront: workplace bullying. Bullying is usually seen as acts of violence or verbal or psychological efforts to isolate a person in the workplace or to harm them in some way.

Currently, there is little in the way of occupational health and safety legislation that is available to protect workers from incidents of bullying in the workplace. There are some exceptions, of course. For example, Quebec has brought forward legislation to deal with this issue.

I think it is also time for our government to take a look at this as a very important issue that we should move forward on. I think that it really is a way for me as a MLA to move forward with…. You know, I've been involved in the Safe Schools Act, which is about dealing with bullying in our school system, and I think that now the time has come to start dealing with bullying in the workplace.

Some examples of what bullying is about are: spreading malicious rumours, gossip or innuendo that's not true; excluding or isolating someone; intimidating a person; removing areas of responsibilities without cause; changing the work guidelines constantly; withholding information necessary to succeed; yelling; using profanity; and belittling a person's opinions.

It's sometimes hard to know if bullying is happening within the workplace, but many studies acknowledge there is a fine line between strong management

and bullying. Comments that are objective and are intended to provide constructive feedback are not bullying, but rather intended to assist the employee with the work.

Bullying can affect an individual for a long period of time, as we know from the school setting, but there are also things that happen in the workplace. An employee can suffer from shock and anger; feelings of frustration and helplessness; a feeling of vulnerability; loss of confidence; physical symptoms like loss of appetite, inability to sleep, stomach pains, headaches; panic or anxiety disorders; family stress; inability to concentrate; and low morale and productivity.

Other ways bullying can affect the workplace are that it will increase absenteeism, increase turnover of staff, increase stress, increase cost for employers in terms of their employee assistance programs, increase risk of accidents and incidents that might injure other workers; decreased productivity and motivation; decreased morale; and most importantly, a reduced sense of pride in the workplace for those employees, which quite naturally bleeds into the marketplace.

Where a company that is serving a business, or what have you, has employees that have been bullied, the morale is low and the productivity is bad. That transfers into the actual delivery of those items to a customer.

If you feel like you're being bullied in your workplace, the important thing to do is firmly ask the person that's bullying you to sit down with you and stop the bullying. I encourage all members to encourage workers that they know to work to end bullying in our workplace.

C. Puchmayr: I'm pleased that the member from across made some comments with respect to bullying in the workplace. Not only bullying in the workplace, but the way workers are treated when they are disabled almost meets the test for being bullied as well.

Recently an employee or a worker that was retired…. Now when workers are retired, they don't receive a pension. With asbestos, that pension need isn't identified often until the person has reached 65 or older, because it sometimes takes 30 years to manifest itself into the debilitating disease that it is.

Recently there was a judgment in the Supreme Court, William Cowburn v. the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, where the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board came to a decision with respect to a disease of disability from asbestos, where the actual disability manifested itself to a greater degree. The board of directors of Workers Compensation tried to state that this was a new injury, even though the person had been retired and sustained the industrial disease many years prior.

To me, that is akin to bullying. When a worker in his or her dying days is battling a system that is so unfair to working people…. I don't know what other kind of bullying there is. It's shocking in this day and age that somebody can't be underwritten by a private insurer and is supposed to fall under the historic compromise of the Workers Compensation Act, which is where workers do not sue their employers for exposure.

In this case, the judge allowed the lawsuit. They allowed it to go forward only in the case that they proved that the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board erred in law. They cannot make rules that go beyond this Legislature. This Legislature has given them enough authority now to take away from workers' rights, to take away from rehabilitation, to limit the scope of rehabilitation, to cut pensions, to cut payments — no more bridging of wage loss.

I'm pleased that the member for Vancouver-Burrard phrased it in such a context as bullying in the workplace, because this is clearly bullying in the workplace when you're using every ounce of energy to try to just live another day, to hear the birds one more day, to smell the flowers one more day. You're battling this bureaucracy that has set up these rules — then to find that the bureaucracy is even going beyond those rules and making their own rules.

Madam Speaker, thank you for your time. Thank you to the member across for his comments.

K. Whittred: Many of us in this House experience the joy of grandchildren. Last weekend I watched my grandchildren play baseball and soccer and spent some time with my beautiful new baby granddaughter. However, at the end of the day they went to their home with their parents, and I went to my home and put my feet up. But this is not the case for many grandparents. I would like to share with you a story that is becoming ever more common.

In February of 2005 Elizabeth sent her husband into the downtown streets in search of her five-year-old granddaughter. She had just received word that Sharon was in the care of her drug-addicted mother in violation of court orders. Hours later the child was found at a Salvation Army shelter, and a new chapter in the girl's life and that of her grandparents began.

Sharon became one of thousands of children who permanently fall under the care of grandparents who had thought that their child-rearing days were behind them. "I thought that this was in my past," said Elizabeth, 70, a mother of three. "I never expected to have to do this again."

Elizabeth's story is far from unique. According to the 2001 Canada-wide census, there were 56,790 grandchildren being raised by their grandparents. In B.C. that number was about 8,800. There are more than 6,000 grandparents raising the children of their children. Close to 80 percent of these are single grandmothers. The census trends show that the number of children being raised by grandparents is growing at about 20 percent per year.

When reports from the 2006 census are prepared later this year, we may very well have over 16,000 children in British Columbia being raised by grandparents. While this trend of grandparents raising children is

evident across all ethnic groups, research shows that the aboriginal population is most represented. I believe that the number is probably much higher. Many instances of grandparents raising children are not official. They are simply informal arrangements.

To have children being raised within the family is a very positive situation. Research supports the notion that social, emotional, educational and health outcomes for children raised by relatives are much better than for those raised in care. Having a child raised within the family by a grandparent is all good news for the child. It means the culture of the family is passed from generation to generation. The continuity of the family is intact. The child has the opportunity of seeing and knowing the biological parents, where appropriate.

However, across our communities there is not a great awareness about the challenges facing grandparents raising grandchildren. Many grandparents are raising grandchildren pretty much in isolation. There are not very many social or counselling supports. There are few educational opportunities, and little respite is available. Grandparents raising grandchildren have no grandparents to drop off the kids at for a few hours or a weekend for a bit of a break. There are no grandma-and-me activities at the recreation centre.

Grandparents are outside the social network of young families and all the activities that surround them. Many grandparents live in senior-oriented communities. Their social network does not generally include younger families, and they are not always able to tap into the valuable resources gained by being in the loop with younger peers.

For every grandparent raising a grandchild, there is a story of heartbreak and loss involving the parent of the child. Research shows that children usually end up in the care of grandparents when their parents succumb to substance abuse. Each and every one of us in this House can think of people within our own circle of friends or family who are in that situation.

Many of the children in the care of their grandparents have behavioral challenges. Most come from difficult home situations and face attachment disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other psychological and physical challenges. Children may be grieving over the separation from their parent. Grandparents must deal with all of these issues as well as the anxiety around their own child, and too often they are very much alone.

Many legal issues face grandparents raising their grandchildren. The laws they face are complicated, even more so when dealing with interjurisdictional boundaries. Lawyers' fees are expensive and often out of reach.

In a situation where a grandchild has to be taken to emergency, they may be denied medical service until proof of legal guardianship, authorization by a parent or a birth certificate is presented. This may be very difficult to do when the parents may be missing on the street or simply unavailable to provide the needed signatures and documentation. Similar factors are barriers when attempting to access benefits, such as the child tax credit.

I have made this statement today to help create awareness about the magnitude of this issue. I wish to illustrate the vital and invaluable role played by grandparents in the larger context of our child welfare system. Grandparents need to be on the radar screen. Taking the responsibility for raising a child is to be commended. They are doing something very special.

K. Conroy: I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for raising this important issue. I too am a grandmother. In fact, I'm Granny Kat to five grandchildren. At the age of 42, I was rather shocked when I learned I was going to be a granny, but now I'm very happy and proud to be a grandmother and very pleased to spend time with my grandchildren.

I, too, spent the weekend with them. They came and spent the weekend at our home, three of them. Five of them ended up at the house, and it was a fun time for the grandchildren. They came with me in the parade in Silver City Days, and two of the oldest grandchildren got to throw out candy in the parade. They love coming and partaking in Granny's life.

A few weeks ago my daughter, who lives here in Victoria, had a bit of a child care crisis. Three of her children ended up here in the Legislature with us. I want to thank all the members who helped me out that day with the few hours of child care we had to give for that child care crisis. Staff and members alike were very supportive.

It's a difficult thing to raise children nowadays. I commend grandparents who do this. It's really not easy, especially in today's world. I've talked to grandparents in my own constituency who are raising their children's children.

One mother spoke to me and said that her daughter had two children. She was a single mom, and she was on social assistance. She said to her mom: "I need to go back to school." She wanted to become a nurse. She was young and needed the support to do it. This grandma said: "I'll do anything I can to help you."

She had to provide child care for this young mom, because there was no child care available for her. There was a wait-list at the child care facility at the college. The grandmother said, "I'm going to do what I can," and so she did.

What ended up happening was that the grandma, who owns her own business, had to set up a space in the back of her store for the grandchildren to be at during the day so that mom could go to school and become a nurse. Here was grandma, juggling to serve customers while taking care of her grandchildren. This obviously is not an optimum situation for the children, the grandma or the mother.

It caused a very stressful situation in the family, and the mother said to me: "Can you help us out in any way?" And the grandmother asked for help. They were struggling to make ends meet, just to ensure that this mom and these children would be able to have a decent life.

The grandma said to me: "These children should be in a child care facility. They should be in a facility

where they can play with children their own age, where they have licensed caregivers who could take care of them appropriately. I'm doing the best I can, but I don't think it's the best for my daughter or her children."

It was a tough thing for her. She said to me: "I want to be the granny that gets to give them treats and take them to the park and play with them and have fun. But I'm a disciplinarian grandmother. It's tough."

I talked to another woman recently at a child care resource and referral program. This grandma has taken on the care of her grandchildren so that her daughter can juggle being able to get only a day a week of child care and also working. This grandma said that she never expected to be a permanent caregiver for her grandchildren. Often she has them at nights because this mom works night shifts and can't get other care.

What this grandma said to me is that one of the things that worked for her was the services she got at the child care resource and referral program. She actually did go there with a number of other grandmas who came, and they were incredibly thankful for the service. They came and used the toy lending library. They came to the drop-in service, where they could talk to other grandmas and moms who had their children there — talk about what was happening.

They also used the resources available. One grandma said to me that she went and took her first aid. She said: "I never thought about that when I was raising my own children. You just dealt with things. But I took a first aid course, and it was amazing. I've used it a number of times." She got the support to do that.

She was extremely concerned because the cuts to the local child care resource and referral program were going to mean that some of these services would be lost in the community. She said she was really concerned. She didn't know what she was going to do. She said that there are other grandmas. There were four of them meeting there with me.

They said they weren't quite sure how they could keep the support they had going just with themselves. They said that it was invaluable and that it was great for the children. The grandchildren were able to play with other children. They were in a play group. They had licensed caregivers working with them even for a couple of hours a week, and it was really important.

I want to commend the grandparents for the work they do but also acknowledge that the lack of early childhood services in the province is difficult for the grandparents also.

K. Whittred: I thank the member opposite for her remarks and particularly for sharing with us real anecdotal stories from her community. But the question remains: what can we do to make the lives of grandparents raising grandchildren a bit easier? I would like to make the following recommendations to government.

First, that we create a strategy around grandparents raising grandchildren, where policy could be in a framework that would be articulated all in one place. Currently there are at least eight ministries that address the kinds of issues that I have raised. Amongst those of course would be Children and Family Development, Employment, seniors, Health and Education…. The list goes on and on.

Second, I would recommend that government evaluate the variety of supports that are available. It is quite heartening, actually, that in British Columbia we have a number of programs in place that do provide help. Grandparents as kith-and-kin providers are eligible to receive up to a maximum of $450 per month. They can also apply for the child tax benefit, which is about $267 per month, for a grand total of $717 per month. Of course, if the child is under six, the grandparent is eligible to apply for the universal child care benefit of $100 per month.

But within this recommendation, I would like to really recommend that the social and legal aspects of these issues be addressed, because my own research and my own observations in community indicate that these are at least as important.

The third recommendation I would make is that across our communities and across our ministries, we all endeavour to put the issue I have raised here — grandparents raising grandchildren — on the radar screen. Let's see if we can increase awareness.

I mentioned earlier about the fact that there are all sorts of parenting network programs for new moms with babies. I know that. I have a new grandchild. My daughter goes to several programs every week. This creates a network of support and information and help.

There is no equivalent for grandmothers doing this. Perhaps it's simply a matter of raising this in our community centres and in our health regions to make them aware that we do have a number of people who are not new moms. They are in fact doing it a second time around.

D. Cubberley: Thanks to the House for an opportunity this morning to talk a little bit about learning from other jurisdictions, which — following along on some other themes that I've presented in here — has to do with learning from other jurisdictions in the area of transportation planning — in particular, planning for transportation systems and implementing those systems, systems that can reduce our dependence upon the automobile and increase our use of physically active transportation.

I'm going to talk a little bit about personal experience this morning, because I've been fortunate enough to have worked in, visited and learned about three different jurisdictions that I think offer important lessons to the province as we embark on a path of trying to reduce our contribution towards climate change.

I think this is very important because we will not significantly change the impact that we're having on climate in British Columbia unless we change the way we get around our urban regions. That means we are going to have to substantially shift people from the

exclusive use of the single-occupant vehicle to get around and involve many more people in using their legs, bicycles or public transit. Public transit is obviously going to carry the largest share of those things.

I want to talk a little bit this morning about Portland, Oregon, which is a public transit success city. It's a city that I got to visit for the first time back in the early '90s as a municipal councillor when I was fretting over the lack of a regional plan to get transit out of the same congestion that cars were stuck in and to begin to give it an advantage. I was quite taken with the idea of light rail transit as a first step in beginning to give transit its own rights-of-way, and I wanted to see what success looked like.

So I organized to go down to Portland, Oregon, with a large number of other local councillors and mayors to spend a couple of days looking at what they had done. At that point in time, Portland had completed the Eastside Max, the Metro Area Express Line, which was a 15-mile LRT line, which was immediately so successful that they began building the second leg of it. They completed the first leg in '86. They were just about to go into construction of the second leg, finishing the planning, when I was there in '92.

Portland is fascinating to me in that they made the courageous decision to forgo investing in a very expensive and controversial freeway that they were going to use to try to jump ahead of the congestion curve and give themselves room to move in the region. They made the choice to invest substantially in a new form of public transit that would give them an altogether new people-moving capability. That was to invest in light rail.

They have been investing in it since. They have numerous lines now — lines serving the airport, lines to all areas of the tri-metropolitan urban region. They have been using LRT to attract ridership away from automobiles, to forgo investing in freeways and to achieve a far more compact urban form.

I pick up on the comment made by the member for Peace River South this morning. As he opened, he said: "If you want to do it right, you have to spend more money." In fact, if we want to do it right in transit, if we want to address climate change and get more people onto it, we have to spend more money than we currently spend.

In fact, we spend virtually no money on light rail transit outside of the lower mainland. Really, there we are only just beginning to spend money, having jumped to a heavy rail system without going through the initial phase, which is typically to develop ridership using light rail transit.

Portland is tremendously successful, and as a result of the investments, MAX alone carries 26 percent of afternoon rush hour commuters travelling from downtown back out to their communities. Westside MAX is the equivalent of adding 1.2 lanes of highway capacity in each direction, and of course the ridership on it can be grown on an ongoing basis. So as ridership builds — and it has built every year that they have operated the light rail transit — they can attract more customers.

A quarter of all commuters on all the major corridors in Portland are riding on light rail transit. What's truly interesting is that 70 percent of the riders per day are riders of choice. That is, they have chosen to use the vehicle over their automobile when they had the alternative to do that. They are not people who are using transit of necessity. They're using it by choice.

One of the lessons from Portland is that if you want to build ridership, you need a system…. There are two lessons. One is that you need a system that gets transit out of the congestion that cars are stuck in, and the second is that you need to develop it as a retail business. You have to apply some of the knowledge we have of retail marketing to a transit operation, which is the opposite of how we tend to run our bus systems. We don't conceive them as a retail business; we conceive them as a kind of social service.

In fact, LRT in the Portland instance bumps you up into a league where you can actually market it to people. It's a mode of transportation they will choose, and it supports a lifestyle that happens to works with, among other things, a reduced environmental impact and living in more complete communities.

If I had more time, I would go into transit-oriented development and what Portland has done to it, but my point really is that there are sterling examples of success out there.

Another example of success, from Oregon again, that I came upon as a municipal councillor looking for a way to begin improving the conditions for cycling and in particular for cycling as a mode of transportation in this region and to get more people commuting to and from work and school by bike…. I looked for a jurisdiction that had had some success in this and in short order came upon Eugene, Oregon, which is a city that I have had a long relationship with since discovering it.

Eugene is a remarkable city in having attracted, by supplying separated rights-of-way….

J. Nuraney: I think the member for Saanich South has raised a very important topic this morning about transportation and learning from other jurisdictions. Portland is a very good example, and so are various other cities around the world which have faced these challenges over the years.

During my younger days I was in London, England. I would say without any hesitation that London, England, has got one of the best transportation systems in the world. Their buses, their tubes and their trains are so well coordinated that I don't remember ever driving a car during those days when I was in London, England. The public transportation took me wherever I wanted to go without the use of an automobile.

Transportation indeed is a very important issue. This has come about because of the mushrooming growth that metropolises and townships and cities have experienced in the last decade or two. This growth has been so phenomenal that it has outpaced the abilities of governments — local, provincial and federal — to meet the demand that they were faced with.

What is happening now in terms of our being able to try and meet those challenges? I think our government has invested quite a few dollars in the last years and has budgeted to spend an enormous amount of dollars in terms of infrastructure. The Gateway project is going to be, I believe, a leader in terms of how to meet those demands of transportation that are put on us at this stage.

There are several other initiatives, if I may suggest, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the transportation situation. This is again a model from Europe, for example, where there is a mixture of residential, industrial and business communities rather than a sector in a city that is confined to industries, where people will have to travel back and forth from their residential areas to their place of work.

What has happened in Europe over the years is that they've created satellites of communities where there is industrial, business and residential all existing in the same area. Maybe that is a model we should look at for municipal growth in the future — to allow people to be, to stay, to work and to play in the same area.

These are what I call the innovative concepts of building new communities. Our funding for LocalMotion that we announced recently has this element in it. It is not only to create pathways and greenways and to make communities more active and also encourage them to not be so reliant on their automobiles, consequently trying to reduce the gas emissions. It is also to encourage local municipalities to create this innovative way of building townships where people stay, work and play in the same area. I think this is a very innovative way of looking at this. They are not just building roads that could be an answer.

Various people have to come to the table to address this problem of transportation. Certainly we have to learn from other jurisdictions. There is no question in my mind that any good idea that comes either from within our own group or from outside — it can well be from outside our own borders — we have to look at and learn from.

Transportation and commuting from one place to another are challenges that this government will be facing in times to come. The programs they've now got in place will greatly help those who are at this time facing those huge delays in getting from one place to another.

I have no doubt that this very important subject that the member for Saanich South has raised must be on the front burners of any government.

D. Cubberley: I thank the member for his comments, even though I will have to differ with his analysis of what's being done at the present time. It very much is a combination of two things. One is a lack of commitment to a regional growth strategy, which we see playing out currently with the revamp of TransLink and the disrespect for local governments around that region.

In my own region here, the capital region, there's a complete marginalization of the growth strategy that we have by senior government, and there's really no coordination of any investments around it.

Money is very important at the end of the day, because it takes a large amount of money to build transit systems, as the member opposite suggested earlier. Of every 100 pennies collected in tax in Canada, 92 cents is collected by senior governments — 92 cents. That leaves eight cents for all the services that are supplied out of local government, and it is simply an inadequate funding device to allow local governments to supply rapid transit or to retrofit roads for cycling and walking. The transportation financing equation has to change and change substantially.

The ten cents a litre plus GST that the federal government takes on every litre of gas and the seven or eight, depending upon what region it is, that the provincial government nets from every litre of gas — that money needs to be redirected into investments in transportation infrastructure prioritizing transit, walking and cycling.

What's intriguing is how far advanced the United States is in this regard compared with us — and has been for 30 years. Why did the Eastside MAX get built? Why could that community make that courageous decision to jump ahead of climate change and do that back in the 80s?

It's because 83 percent of the money was supplied by the federal government in the United States, and the remainder — 17 percent — was split between state and local. Even under George Bush, the federal government is still supplying 60 percent of the I-205 Portland Mall MAX light rail that's being built as we speak, and state and local are splitting the remainder.

That is a viable transportation financing equation. What we have in place today is no equation. There's been no increase over the last six years for the bus systems that we have in place. Until very, very recently they were forced to do with what they had, and as a result of that, they have flatlined in terms of the number of people riding it.

The commitment that the member speaks of is an important commitment, but the provincial government is very far behind communities in supplying them with the resources to allow them to get on with the job of addressing climate change. Given that 40 percent of our emissions come from the transportation sector in British Columbia — 40 percent — we will never meet targets which will involve us reducing those by 45 percent by 2020. We will never meet those targets without major investments by the province.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 52 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, this makes me think of a TV show on The History Channel where it says that it's about time. The motion that's before the House today to be debated — I think it's about time that motion was on the floor for debate by members from both sides of this House.

It's interesting, when you stop to think about electricity, how we all take it for granted — clean electricity. British Columbia today is blessed with 90 percent of our electrical power coming from clean renewable resources in our province, the majority of that coming from hydroelectric power. And it's only responsible for 3 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions.

The province is blessed with a great deal of electrical energy. We do have challenges today to be self-sufficient, but we are working to that goal, and there's no doubt we're going to reach that self-sufficiency.

The idea of getting hydroelectric power, the grid, up Highway 37 north says volumes for the people that live up there. You might ask yourself: why is this so important today? I'd like to remind people of this province that the remainder of the province, with the exception of the northwest part and more particularly 37 north, is tied into the electrical hydro grid that was built years ago.

One part of the province was left out, and that was Highway 37 north. Of course, there really wasn't a great deal of reason to build a hydro line up there, but that's changed. I just want to remind everybody that there are in fact people and communities located along the Highway 37 north corridor. They for the most part run on diesel generation.

It may surprise some people to know that the electrical grid actually reaches its apex at Meziadin Junction and then drops down into the port of Stewart. From Highway 37 north from Stewart or from Meziadin Junction up to the tie-in with the Alaska Highway, there's no electrical grid up there at all. Those communities up there deserve the electrical power, the cheap rates that we enjoy throughout the province.

I think it's important that we look at the throne speech that was read in this chamber in February of this year where we talked about the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know you can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you have to rely on diesel generation. The plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission outlines the steps that all of us — citizens, communities, industry…. We all have to work together to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, you might ask why it is necessary to build the hydro line up Highway 37. Let me tell you a little bit about Highway 37. There's roughly 500 kilometres of road travelling north throughout the northwest part of the province where there is no energy provided from hydroelectric power. There are communities up there that are struggling economically. There's no forestry taking place. There's a vast forest of trees up there waiting to be harvested and processed, but nobody is doing it because of the cost associated to produce energy to process those trees.

There's another thing taking place up Highway 37 that is really important, and it will benefit the entire province. That is the mining industry. The mining industry has come back into our province in a big way. They are extremely busy in the northwest part of the province, having spent $128 million last year on 196 projects just in the northwest part alone. There are approximately 12 mineral deposits presently in exploration stages or development stages as we speak.

It's interesting, because all of those mining projects will require electricity to operate. They will, if we don't do something to move that hydro line up there, operate on diesel generation. Those mines are developed and planned to operate on the more expensive diesel generation.

If we're going to meet our commitments to the province through Kyoto and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's important that we build that hydro line up Highway 37 — to meet the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, create a great deal of employment opportunities for people in the northwest.

I can tell you that in Smithers, it's absolutely exciting. I couldn't believe it on Saturday of this week, driving downtown and seeing the activity taking place in my community where I've lived for 26 years. I've never experienced that before. There is so much happening there. There is so much building going on. It's all attributed to one thing, and that is the mining industry along the Highway 37 corridor. That is extremely exciting for me.

I'm awfully pleased to stand up in the House today and introduce private member's Motion 52, which will see our province move to put the electrical grid along Highway 37 north — to benefit the province as a whole and the people who live up there, and for the economic opportunities that await the province along the Highway 37 corridor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Motion 52, and I will now yield the floor to others to hear comments from them.

J. Horgan: I, too, am pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Motion 52 on the order paper in the name of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

It is a challenging time in the northwest. I know two of my colleagues, the member for Skeena and the member for North Coast, will be speaking on this motion later in the morning. The challenge we have when we look at the electrification question is twofold. Firstly, what about the traditional territories of the first nations in that area? What do the Tahltan people say, what's their view, what's their vision for economic development in their community, and how does electrification of the highway fit into that plan?

Certainly, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine is correct that there are a multitude of economic development opportunities in the northwest. Many of them hinge on access to energy, and we need to address that in the long term.

In the short term, $326 million is the ballpark figure that I've heard for a power transmission line up the 500 kilometres that the member referenced, and a $326 million capital project is not an insignificant undertaking. Of course, the B.C. Transmission Corporation would have to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission to seek approval from the regulator to make an expenditure of that magnitude.

I'd have to say, on the face of it — although I certainly wouldn't want to presume to guess what the Utilities Commission will do when it has an issue before it — based on the population in the region, the service area that would be accessing residential power at residential rates, that a $326 million expenditure seems a little bit over the top. But we do live now in a climate change environment, in an era where we want to look at as many opportunities as we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As the member rightly says, industrial activity in the corridor currently is dependent on diesel generation. Certainly, Eskay Creek, the largest mine in production in the region and near its end, has been dependent on diesel generation for the life of the mine. As we look at other prospects and opportunities like Galore Creek and Red Chris and others in the area, access to the transmission corridor would be a benefit to that industrial activity.

I would suggest, hon. Speaker — and to this House for consideration — that if the mining sector is going to be the largest beneficiary of the project, then perhaps the mining sector might want to pay for it. I don't believe that's out of the realm of the possible.

The member for East Kootenay, who will be speaking shortly, may have some thoughts on the matter. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

A $326 million expenditure to service the most remote portion of British Columbia is something, I would suggest, that the Utilities Commission will not look upon favourably, certainly not unless we can demonstrate — the proponents in the mining sector or perhaps even some of the wood sector can demonstrate — that that's an expenditure that's worthwhile.

When we contemplate what other options are available to the people in the area, we can look at bioenergy — I know it was a significant component of the energy plan — at wind power, at run-of-the-river power.

They're all interruptible, unfortunately, with the exception of the bioenergy proposals. Interruptible power is not sufficient to run a mine — we all know that — so we need some certainty in supply, and that's where the transmission line comes into play.

If we look at moneys available to subsidize or further subsidize this endeavour for the mining sector, we need look no further than a contribution that was proposed by the federal government some months ago — a $199 million package for greenhouse gas reductions. It's a part of their repackaged Clean Air Act, I believe.

The $199 million would come to the people of British Columbia. It would come to this Legislature, and it would come to the appropriate ministries for disbursal. It's been suggested that some of that money may well go toward Highway 37.

I think we need to look at the extent of the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the industrial activity and the residential usage that are there now and then weigh that against the cost of the capital expenditure. That's an appropriate way to do business; it's an appropriate way for us to deal with the people's business. But to wish for something to happen just because it might work out later on is certainly not the way we should proceed.

Metal prices are at their highest, hon. Speaker. You know that. You and I have had some discussions about commodity prices and the importance of high prices to success in the mining sector. A $326 million expenditure and a tanking copper market would be disastrous for the people of the northwest, and it would be disastrous for the people of British Columbia.

I would submit that although I appreciate the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine bringing this resolution to the House…. I know that my other northern colleagues will speak about the importance of economic development in the northwest corner, and I support that.

I support the mining sector. I've said that in this place; I've said that outside of this place. But the question is not for us to decide. The expenditure is a capital expenditure by the B.C. Transmission Corporation regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Until such time as there's a proposal before it, I believe this motion is premature.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more, if I might, about some of the alternative energy proposals that people are talking about in the northwest. Along the Charlottes, wind farms are becoming a cause célèbre, I know. Perhaps my colleague from North Coast will be talking about that. I'm looking forward to discussions with the proponents in and

around the Charlottes and in the Haida Gwaii region — to talk to them this summer about their proposals and how they would move that power.

Without electrification on Highway 37, where is that wind energy going to go? Certainly, we've heard ad nauseam from the Governor of California that he and others are prepared to pay a premium price for green power. If B.C. Hydro or private interests on behalf of B.C. Hydro can harness that power, I think that'll be to the benefit of all of us — certainly to the benefit of those on the north coast.

To look at the power corridor in isolation, to not factor in the cost of capital in other parts of the province…. I canvassed this at length in estimates with the Minister of Energy— the capital plan for the B.C. Transmission Corporation. Highway 37 was not part of that capital plan.

What we'll need to do — and I'm delighted to work with colleagues from the north and certainly the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — is come up with innovative ways where we can approach the mining sector, particularly those projects that are on the verge of starting up, to see if we can find ways to reduce what would be a blatant subsidy to that sector and perhaps to see a significant capital contribution from the mining sector to get the project underway.

I think that would be in the interest of the sector, provided that copper prices stay high. It would certainly be in the interest of the Tahltan people, who have said that they're delighted to work with Galore Creek — to move from Eskay Creek to the new project at Galore Creek — all in the interests of economic development for their community and for their people.

I know my colleague from Skeena will be talking about the importance of this to the residents of Terrace. With that, I'd like to thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for bringing this forward and again offer to him my assistance to work with him and with proponents in the northwest to see if we can get this forward without a significant subsidy from the people of British Columbia.

B. Bennett: I'll be very clear. I'm in support of this motion. I won't equivocate in any way. I think, in fact, it is long past due. I disagreed with the member who spoke before me when he said that the motion is premature. I think the people of the northwest have been waiting far too long to get the same low-cost electricity that the rest of us in the province take for granted.

I thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for his motion. I think it's very timely, and I support it.

In fact, I'd like to thank the member for something else. When I first came down here in 2001, I knew precious little about the northwest corner of this province. In addition to my former roommate the member for North Coast — I think I can use his name because he's no longer here; Mr. Belsey — the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine also spent a lot of time educating me and my other colleagues about the northwest and all the potential that's there and some of the struggles that the northwest has gone through over the past 20 years with their economy.

I also want to thank the member for Peace River North, because the member for Peace River North has been a longtime supporter of taking electricity up the Highway 37 corridor. It takes that kind of high-level cabinet support and interest, I think, to ever make something this big finally happen.

When I became Minister for Mining in 2005, I learned very quickly, through my initial briefings, all of the potential mines that were at that time exploration projects in the northwest. In fact, I decided I should go have a look for myself, and I drove up there last summer and spent three weeks driving around the northwest.

I spent a lot of time on Highway 37. I stayed at places like Bear Paw lodge and went into Telegraph Creek and of course went to Dease Lake. I tried fishing and didn't catch any fish, but that's probably a reflection on the fisherman, not on the quality of the fishing.

The opportunity that exists in northwestern British Columbia today really is amazing and is beyond what most people in the province would have any idea of. The size of the territory — it's the size of a country. It's bigger than many countries in the world.

In terms of mining, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine quoted a number in the order of $130 million or $140 million or $125 million, thereabouts — in the range of — that was spent last year on mineral exploration.

As minister, I became familiar with a lot of those projects, and they have a lot of potential. They'll develop at their own pace.

There's also coalbed gas, and I don't think we should be afraid to say that there is coalbed gas there. It's in the Klappan. It's a very sensitive area. It's an area that's very important to the Tahltan. There is coalbed gas there, and Shell has the rights to that coalbed gas. In fact, they may be able to, if they get their permits, find ways to extract that gas in a way where they make a minimal impact on the ground. But that remains to be proven.

Certainly, with our new policy around coalbed gas, which does not allow the discharge of any water onto the surface — water that's produced from coalbed gas wells — that guarantees a much better approach to the exploration and extraction of coalbed gas.

There's also opportunity up the Highway 37 corridor for IPPs, independent power projects. There's one large project, the Forrest Kerr project, already underway, but there's tremendous opportunity for other IPPs up that corridor if we have a power line and if we have a grid that goes up there that they can tap into. That's green power. So it's important that we give that part of the province an opportunity to generate that green power.

Tourism — the same thing. There's tremendous opportunity for tourism up the Highway 37 corridor. The people that live in the area don't want just mining jobs. They don't want just jobs in the industrial sector. There are people that want to start small tourism busi-

nesses. They can do that and depend on the traffic going up and down Highway 37, but it's a lot easier for them to do that if they've got electricity.

Finally, in terms of the support for putting power up the Highway 37 corridor, the communities of the northwest…. I don't pretend to know the communities nearly as well as the members from both sides of the House that come from there, but I have spent a lot of time in Prince Rupert and Terrace and Smithers and the smaller communities like Stewart. I don't know how many members of the House have been into Stewart. I've been into Stewart three times in the six years that I've been an MLA.

All of those communities want this power line to go up Highway 37. The mayors, the councillors, the chambers of commerce — they all want it. I think that should be something that directs us. I thank the member again for bringing forward the motion.

I'm not the kind of guy who uses the word "pristine" all that easily. You won't hear me using it very often in the House, because I think it's an overworked word. From what I've seen of the northwest, especially when you get north of Meziadin Junction, there is territory that is pristine.

When I talk about all this opportunity and all this potential, we have to find a way to extract those resources in such a way that the character or the integrity of the regional environment is not sacrificed.

In the short time left, I also want to say that I got to know a number of Tahltan people when I was minister. I've talked to some of them since — people like Chief Clarence Quock of the Tahltan band in Telegraph Creek. I think Clarence lives in Dease Lake. Former Chief Jerry Asp, Bill Adsit, Curtis Rattray, Chief Marie Quock, who is the Chief of the Iskut people — I've met with all these folks.

Sometimes we have this sense that first nations people ought to be homogenous in their views of things, but really they're the same as we are. There are differences of opinion within the Tahltan Nation as to what degree of development they want. Many Tahltan people want more than the Galore Creek mine. They want other mines. They want IPPs.

We have to be careful when we say what it is that the Tahltan people want. They will tell us, but it will probably be with more than one voice.

In terms of the cost of the power line up Highway 37, our government won't support spending the money it takes to build a power line up there unless there is at least one major industrial customer to help defray the cost of that power line. That power line will go only as far as it makes sense to take it to service the people in that Highway 37 corridor and to service that industrial customer.

As other industrial customers come along and as they see fit to pay their fair share, then the power line can be taken up further. I'd like to just say that the critic's comments about the ratepayers footing the bill for this are very much off the mark. We're not going to do this as a government unless there are major industrial customers that are going to help pay for it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I thank the member for bringing forward the motion.

L. Krog: I had the opportunity when I was on the Finance Committee of this House to actually listen to submissions from folks living in that part of British Columbia, who seemed extremely supportive of the proposition of electrification of rural Highway 37. It was also a significant push by the mining industry, who is clearly going to be the major beneficiary of this.

We know that there is something like 650 households in the area presently powered by diesel. To build a line to reduce the greenhouse gases produced by those diesel consumers simply is not viable and not logical.

The fact is that this is about a proposal to allow for the industrial development of the northwest. That's the way we have to talk about it, and that's the way we have to look at it.

One of the concerns I have is that that model of development throughout this province's history — the government stepping up, the W.A.C. Bennett schemes of power and electrification and pushing roads into places that were largely uninhabited and pushing electricity into areas of the province that were largely uninhabited — was one model.

I think we have to pay attention, in this particular case, to other models of industrial development around the mining industry. One is what most of the members have already talked about this morning, and that is run-of-the-river projects, smaller hydro projects. The concept of tying everyone into a large grid now and building transmission lines over great distances at great expense — with the significant disruption to wildlife and the landscape and all of those things — may not, in fact, be the model.

What I am suggesting is a note of caution here. Before we start to commit ourselves to the prospect of electrifying Highway 37, let us look at all the reasonable alternatives that will allow those people in that part of British Columbia, who do make a significant contribution to the economy and have an opportunity to make an even more significant contribution to the province…. Let us consider some alternatives that are perhaps more environmentally sensitive.

My friend the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca also raised the issue of aboriginal land title claims and rights, which are clearly some things that need to be dealt with before any projects could succeed.

We also have to consider whether this is an expense that the taxpayer should be bearing. Or should the largely industrial users be bearing it? There is no question that the amount of electricity that will be required in that part of the world is not going to be consumed by George and Sally in their house. It is going to be consumed by major mining companies. In the modern world, particularly given the strongly free-enterprise bent of the government, do we want that cost to be borne, indirectly or directly, by the taxpayers, or do we

want it to be borne by the user? In this case, the users would be the mining companies.

I know there's always a great sense of urgency about these things: "We have to get on with this project. We have to get on." Dave Barrett said rather wisely a number of years ago that minerals don't rot in the ground, and I think that rather cheeky truism holds true today as well. The minerals that are there won't rot in the ground.

The development of those minerals for use by British Columbians, for use by mining companies, is something that we need to look at very carefully in terms of aboriginal land claims, environmental impact and what kind of society we want to create.

I think the concept of all of us living in communities that are not, in a sense, self-sufficient and that require us to transport either goods or services over great distances is becoming a thing of the past. It's not going to happen overnight, next year or even in the next decade, but how we occupy the planet is changing. How we live is changing.

I think that this proposal, which is significant, presents an opportunity for all of us to carefully consider what exactly it is we as a province want to do in that part of our province, which is a significant portion and, also, what the people there want. Have they considered, have they been given an opportunity for, other alternatives?

I think this is a great topic to debate this morning. Clearly, it's not going to get settled, and whether or not we pass this motion won't make that much difference in some respects. But it is an opportunity for us to open up our minds once again in this House and consider what the future of northern British Columbia looks like.

R. Lee: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to support the electrification of Highway 37. As I listen, it seems that the member for Nanaimo and also the member for East Kootenay also agree that some industrial customers should come forward to support this project and to help finance this project.

I would like to say that electricity is very important in our society. As people living in a city, we know that for appliances, computers, machinery, communication equipment, food processing, accommodations and transportation, we all rely on electricity. In cities like Vancouver and L.A. — the big cities, especially — when we have some potential shortage of electricity or the potential of a blackout, we are very concerned about the supply of electricity. Living in our society, we cannot get rid of electricity at this moment or for a long time.

The importance of distribution of electricity is a concern here. In the northwest of this province we know that almost one-third of our province is lacking a distribution grid. So the hydroelectric grid in that area is important, as we heard.

Also, power generation. Without a grid we cannot distribute the power, but power generation itself is important too. The vision for our province to have green energy generation in the future is very, very important.

What I would like to say is that with the pine beetle infestation in the area and also with the old growth — how to harvest the old growth in the northwest sector — and the mining sector…. Those are economic development areas we want to emphasize.

We know that in the city of Vancouver we enjoy lower costs in electricity. The cost in Vancouver is 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour — compared to San Diego, 12.5 cents U. S., and San Jose, 10.7 cents. So we enjoy a low cost of electricity in our city.

This motion will put some emphasis on the resource sector. We want to create more employment in those sectors. We know that the province also invests heavily in the aboriginal community. The unemployment rate in the province right now is very low, the lowest on record. We want to have sustainable growth in this economy. All cylinders are firing.

We know that electrification of Highway 37 will help the aboriginal community, our industries and our economy. And it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this province. That is a win-win situation for our free economic development.

R. Austin: It's my privilege to rise today to speak to Motion 52, brought forward by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. As the representative of the community of Terrace, I also am excited at the prospect that we will finally have electricity coming up Highway 37.

As the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine mentioned, he went home and was very excited to see the amount of activity happening in Smithers around the expansion of the mining resource sector. Of course, those of us who live in Terrace hope to be able to grab a portion of that business, not necessarily taking away from Smithers but sharing in some of the increased opportunities that are going to happen as the resource sector increases in northwest B.C.

As has been alluded to here, our economy in Terrace is struggling. With the downturn in forestry for the last number of years, we are certainly looking towards the mining sector to bring forward some jobs.

I think this motion, however, speaks to increasing electricity grid for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. In fairness, I think that's slightly disingenuous. Let's be honest here. The communities of Dease Lake, Iskut and Telegraph Creek have perhaps 1,500 people in total living there. The amount of electricity they consume, even though it's on diesel, probably makes a fairly insignificant addition to the greenhouse gas.

However, the mining industry, if it wants to prosper, requires enormous amounts of electricity. So let's be clear. The reason why we need to do this — if indeed the government decides to go ahead with it — is of course to assist the mining sector.

I believe that the new mine, the Galore Creek mine — which got approved recently and, hopefully, is going to start to be built this summer — alone requires 60

My understanding is that there is a possibility of a micro-hydro project to assist in electricity to the mine. But of course that is not firm power. If the river is low in water, then that mine requires the offset of firm electricity. Certainly, electrifying Highway 37 will help to do that.

Going back to Galore Creek, I think it's an interesting project because this is one that's been supported by the first nations — by the Tahltan, who live in that territory — and also by the environmental non-government organizations who have come forward in support of Galore Creek.

There are, of course, many deposits, as other members here have alluded to, in northwest B.C. Many of them were discovered in the '50s and '60s, and certainly now it's an economically feasible time for them to go forward.

I believe it's important we use the model that was successful in putting forward Galore Creek and ensure whatever electricity line that is built along Highway 37 takes into consideration the desires of the people who live there. The member for East Kootenay mentioned that, in his travels up there, he recognizes that that area is a pristine part of British Columbia.

I think the people who live there want to ensure that whatever development takes place doesn't take away from the place where they live or alter their lives in any substantial way other than, of course, giving them employment, which they need. Places such as Terrace will benefit greatly from this, as the camps that are created for the mining industry, for the projects, will be fly-in and fly-out, similar to what's going on in Chamiss. Certainly, there are a lot of people in my town and my area who are looking to maybe join the mining industry.

The locals should be allowed to decide and to be involved in the discussions in terms of the projects that go forward. Then that should serve to help the government make a decision as to what size of line needs to be built up Highway 37.

I would finally just like to make a quick comment with regards to where the electricity will come from. I hope, and obviously the government will be attempting to ensure, that whatever electricity goes up Highway 37 does in fact come from hydro or from green energy and not from any kind of coal. I also want to ensure that, as I represent the community of Kitimat, which has gone through a very long debate with regards to their problem with Alcan….

They were at one time promised a 500,000-tonne smelter, which in fact this government supported when in opposition. They are now having to accept a 400,000-tonne smelter and the ability of Alcan to sell power. It's certainly not in the interests of the government or my community for power to be taken away from Alcan, simply to be sold and put up Highway 37.

I hope that when power comes to Highway 37, it is new power, because it's not in the interests of any community in British Columbia to take power away from one community to serve another. With that, I will end my comments.

B. Lekstrom: It is a pleasure to rise in support of Motion 52 put forward by my colleague for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

We've heard a number of presenters here this morning speaking to this, about the impact that this extension could have. And we've heard a lot of talk about the industrial development and the opportunities, but every bit as important is the impact it will have on the residents and the families that live in this region.

We in British Columbia are blessed and, in many cases, sometimes take for granted what we have and sometimes don't turn our thoughts to some of the areas that are a little less served than other areas of this province. Highway 37, when it comes to the provision of an electrical grid going up there, is one such case.

I think industry will benefit from the extension of this power line up Highway 37, and that benefit will actually resonate with our families and our children for years to come. We've heard here that we think industry should come to the table, as well, on this development, and I agree with that. I think they should, and I believe they will come to the table.

They recognize that this isn't about having just British Columbians pay for this extension so that they can benefit. I think industry is a responsible part of our economic well-being, and I believe that they will do the right thing and come to the table. I believe they probably already are discussing within their own circles what they can do to bring their portion to the table.

This is about rural development. It is about developing the remote areas of our province in a balanced and sustainable way that allows us all to benefit, not just the people that will work and live in the northwest and up Highway 37.

As we extract resources in a sustainable manner — one that we can live with and treats our environment in a respectful manner — we all benefit as British Columbians. It's about quality of life — and I touched on that earlier — for the families and the children that live there and for the workers that hopefully one day, with this extension up Highway 37, will work there and earn their living to provide for their families. It's about the environment and what we can do to improve it. I think people sometimes overlook that.

Right now the diesel generation that is used in this area is their only means of power. We need power. Mr. Speaker, we've all become…. I don't know if I would say "soft" in the lives that we have today, because there are still many challenges, but electricity is something most of us take for granted. Very few go without electricity in this great province of ours, and those that actually don't have access to it find a means to produce it. Certainly, up there on Highway 37 diesel generation is a key issue.

The other thing that hasn't been touched on is that although the cost — and I know that cost is still being worked on — is significant to move this up, I think the return to the province will be significant. In saying that, it's a return to each and every one of us. With the developments that take place up there and the job creation, the tax revenue back to the province will allow all of us to move forward.

One of my colleagues had touched on it. I had the opportunity to chair the Finance Committee, and this was an issue brought before us on numerous occasions in full support, asking us to try and move this forward.

I know there's a number of speakers, so I'm sort of getting the nod that I should wrap up here fairly soon.

I think we want to be cautious, though. A couple of speakers have talked about "We don't want this being built" and only that area seeing a benefit. As I said earlier, I think the entire province will see a benefit from the electrification of Highway 37.

The other issue is…. I've heard people say: build it and they will come. I think all of us are probably not old enough but mature enough to understand that that's a great saying but that industry will come to the table. That's my belief, and I'm hoping that they will.

Again in closing, this is about not just industrial development; it's about our families and our children. We all want our children to be able to grow up in the communities in which they're raised and have an opportunity to stay close to home and work and keep that family together.

I think this is a great opportunity to show what we can do as British Columbians to help the people along Highway 37 and benefit all of us in British Columbia.

G. Coons: It's an honour to talk to Motion 52. I thank the hon. member for bringing this forward. It's a motion that I fully support and we on this side fully support — electrifying Highway 37. I'm proud to display the button in my office: "Electrify Highway 37, and empower Highway 37." In the brief time I have, I'd like to look at the benefits of the mining that will come — the regional benefits, the environmental benefits and, obviously, the first nation components that we have to look at as we look at opening up the north.

We looked at the benefits when I was at the Minerals North conference in Terrace, which I spoke to in this House — the benefits that we're going to see, the dozens of projects and the excitement in people, especially in Stewart, the one component of my riding that is depending on the electrification of this highway. We can dwell on that for a long time. There are definite benefits that are going to come to the region, and there are going to be the beneficiaries — the mining companies and this huge capital expenditure. There needs to be that component to take into effect that the money needs to come from the people that are going to benefit the most.

When we look at the environmental benefits, the one thing that I have concern with in this motion is the limitation to it — that we're going to electrify Highway 37 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. If that was the only component to us doing that, why would we spend the multimillion dollars — over $300 million — when it could be done for less than $30 million to compensate for the diesel usage in the area?

If the purpose of the motion is only to get people off diesel, there are better alternatives. As was mentioned, there is bioenergy, there are micro-hydro projects — under public control, obviously. There's wind power.

When we look at wind power, we can look at what's happening in Haida Gwaii, the Nai Kun development and the partnership that's happening with the Haida Nation. I do have to mention that in the environmental assessment process the Haida Nation have equal footing as far as their comprehensive evaluation of what's happening in their territory.

That draws me into the first nations component. We look at the Tahltan. They've got a major concern with too many projects at one time. They want to develop one resource project at a time in the right location. Sequential regional mining operations — they would like to look at this with their input and the respect given to them.

If we look on the website for powering Highway 37, Mike Farnsworth, who is a chair of the first nations and community relations committee for the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines, says that they embrace the infrastructure and must consider the needs and aspirations of first nations. There must be effective consultation and accommodation with first nations with respect to cultural and heritage issues and respect for traditional territories.

I believe that sustainable practices coupled with social responsibility are key to the future of the mining industry. But a key to the future of the mining industry means total cooperation from everybody involved. On those aspects I do want to commend, again, our colleague for bringing this forward.

Again, I would like to see the motion include the environmental aspects, the first nations aspects and the importance of mining in the region. That's what I find missing from this motion.

R. Cantelon: I'd like to make a few remarks before moving the debate forward.

The members opposite seem mostly in support of this and presuming that electrification would be a great benefit to the social communities up there.

I have to say that I recently had the benefit, on another standing committee, Aquaculture, to visit these areas. I was certainly struck by the beauty of the country and the resilience of the people and their energy and optimism. Part of that optimism is buoyed by the expectation of electrification of the highway. I think that would be a wonderful benefit to the community, not only for personal but for the industry that is verging on breaking forward.

The members opposite talk about concerns about aboriginal entitlement, about environmental concerns. Of course, those are all well taken into consideration in

any plan that will advance mining. In fact, it's an important and necessary requirement.

I would like to comment on a couple of things that the members opposite said. One member opposite…. I think we come from the same city. Minerals do not rot in the ground, I think the comment was. This is certainly true. Minerals do not rot in the ground, but I would submit that economic opportunity does.

We can simply leave them there and take them out when we please, whether or not the market, I suppose, wants them. Well, I think this is a very warped view — in fact, a very…. Well, I won't say an unintelligent view, Mr. Speaker.

The market cycle is high for commodities. It may not always remain high. Now is the time to advance the electrification so we can take advantage of the market that's there. There's no purpose in bringing our minerals forth, as we might attempt to do, if there's no market for them.

This is not a premature motion. This is one that we need now and must advance now. I strongly support this motion.

The people of the north coast want it, and their time is due. I would have to say, certainly, that the energy and the optimism are there, but they now need the tools. Electrification is certainly one of those tools that they urgently need to take advantage of the marketing and mining opportunities that exist for us in the world today. I would conclude these remarks to support, and noting the hour, I would move that we adjourn debate.

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.