Hansard — Monday, October 15, 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


Tributes		8495
	Terry Morley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Nancy Wooldridge
	Hon. L. Reid
	Eleanor Rix
	L. Mayencourt

Tabling Documents		8495
	Chief Electoral Officer, annual report, 2006-2007
	Elections B.C., service plan, 2007-2008, 2009-2010
	Auditor General of British Columbia, report No. 2, 2007-2008, The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan: A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need
	Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2006-2007
	Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2005-2006, 2006-2007
	Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2006
	British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission, preliminary report
	Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2006-2007

Private Members' Statements		8495
	Bridging communities
	H. Bloy
	M. Karagianis
	Local government
	C. Wyse
	B. Lekstrom
	Community leadership
	R. Hawes
	C. Wyse
	A sector in crisis
	B. Simpson
	J. Rustad

Motions on Notice		8504
	Twinning of Port Mann Bridge (Motion 54)
	M. Polak
	M. Karagianis
	D. Hayer
	B. Ralston
	R. Hawes
	S. Simpson
	J. McIntyre

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report to the House that last week saw the passing of a distinguished British Columbian, Dr. Terry Morley. Terry was a longtime professor of political science at the University of Victoria. He was an author and an occasional commentator on issues of public affairs.

I had the pleasure of knowing Terry very well during my couple of years as a student of political science at the University of Victoria, when in graduate studies there. He was an exceptional professor and was always provocative and delightful. I am happy that I later had him as a good friend and an occasional but always delightful dining companion as well.

I wonder if I might ask on behalf of the House that a note of condolence be sent to Terry's wife Jane Morley — who, as all members know, served this House so capably as child and youth officer previously — and, of course, to her family.

Hon. L. Reid: I too would like to take a moment and just indicate to the House that Nancy Wooldridge, president and founder of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, passed away Sunday morning, September 30, 2007.

After winning her 1984 court case to continue seeing her grandchild, Nancy saw a need to help others and took up the gauntlet by starting Canadian Grandparents Rights Association. She certainly understood the necessity for children to have relationships with their grandparents.

L. Mayencourt: I also want to rise and bring to the House's attention the passing of Mrs. Eleanor Rix. The Rix family has been a very important family here in British Columbia. It's hard to imagine any foundation or any cause in which they have not been at the forefront.

I would ask that the House please consider sending a note of condolence to her husband Dr. Don Rix.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2006-2007 annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer; Elections B.C. 2007-2008, 2009-2010 service plan; Auditor General of British Columbia, 2007-2008, report 2, The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan: A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need; Auditor General 2006-2007 annual report; Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner annual report, 2005-2006, 2006-2007; Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner annual report, 2006; British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission preliminary report; Office of the Merit Commissioner annual report, 2006-2007.

H. Bloy: It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to this assembly about the Gateway project, something that I think is one of the most important projects in our province, positively impacting our economic well-being, our environment and, truly, our quality of life.

We have quite a history when it comes to transportation infrastructure in this province. We have only 4.4 million people in this wonderful province, with the majority of people living in the lower mainland. As a result, we face many bottlenecks and gridlocked roads and highways.

In order to flourish as an economy, we need transportation infrastructure that is second to none. We face significant challenges in this province, particularly with rapid growth in the lower mainland. When we look at how our roads were originally built, we are facing some major challenges.

Many things have changed over the years, as I've said — the way we do business, the distance we travel and the environment. What happened is that we are playing catch-up in our province — not catch-up from five years ago or ten years ago, but from decades.

We are playing catch-up because our infrastructure is in need of an upgrade on the lower mainland to improve our quality of life. Our government is doing a number of things to address this issue. I think that first and foremost we have to recognize the needs in the lower mainland communities.

I represent the riding of Burquitlam, and I am proud to do so. Making sure that the constituents that I represent understand the different infrastructure needs in our province, such as the Gateway project, is a job I consider dear to my heart. We can have the most wonderful urban transportation network in this province, but if we aren't all on board at the same time, it makes it very difficult to move forward as fast as we can, improving the quality of life for the commuters in each of our communities.

I want to tell you that it's hugely important to support the Gateway project. The Gateway project includes three major transportation hubs, the Pitt River Bridge, the North Fraser perimeter road, the South Fraser perimeter road and the Port Mann/Highway 1.

This Gateway project comes to life last Friday with the tragic accident that happened on the bridge. My condolences go out to the families of the lost ones. The accident could have been prevented. The doubling of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 is about moving people, but it's also about safety. This is something that'll come with the Gateway project.

We have experienced massive volume growth from 27,000 to 88,000 commuters between the years 1985 and 2007 on our roads. Gateway will remove trucks from Highway 17, restoring municipal roads and community connectors while reducing travel time significantly.

Many people living in the communities of Coquitlam and Burnaby, which I represent, commute to work every day using the Port Mann Bridge. Highway 1 turns their commute into a real nightmare. Twinning of the Port Mann Bridge is an excellent solution to congestion that is fast approaching 14 hours a day.

Once the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 project is complete, I am proud to say that the reintroduction of transit services across the bridge will be implemented for the first time since 1990, drastically improving movement with the elimination of cars and motivating more people to use public transit.

We will also be able to facilitate HOV lanes for cycling use and to improve our environment. It is important to support the Gateway project. It is the solution to our traffic problems facing the lower mainland. Our region's highways and roads serve over 2.2 million people, yet most of our highways were built in the early '60s when the population of greater Vancouver was less than 800,000.

The Pitt River Bridge project, as part of the North Fraser perimeter road, will significantly improve safety and reliability along the corridor. The Pitt River Bridge has seen traffic numbers triple since 1985. I can tell you that last Friday afternoon I sat waiting to get across that bridge, and it took me three hours to get home from Abbotsford.

Burnaby and Coquitlam gain so much from the Gateway program, and I am pleased to stand here today and show my support. I look forward to the response of my colleague on the other side. I look forward to closing remarks on what I think is one of the most important issues to deal with people in this province.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand and respond to the remarks made just previously. In fact, I would say there were a couple of the opening remarks made by the member that I heartily agree with.

For one, he said there is a dramatic need for infrastructure upgrades. No question whatsoever. I would agree with that. There is definitely a need for infrastructure upgrades throughout the lower mainland.

The other comment that I agreed with was…. The member said that one of the impetuses needed to be to improve the life of commuters. I would also agree that that is a key to looking at the congestion problems on the lower mainland. Certainly, I would say that we are in full agreement on this.

On these two points, let me elaborate some additional pieces here that were, unfortunately, missing from the previous member's comments around ways to improve the life of commuters and the kind of infrastructure upgrades that are indeed needed in the lower mainland.

One of the pieces that I did not hear elaborated on there…. Although I heard lots about highway improvements, I didn't hear anything about the need for immediate solutions to congestion and the kind of public transportation infrastructure expansion that is needed right now in the lower mainland.

In fact, we know right now that communities all across the lower mainland are calling for immediate solutions to congestion. We are certainly looking at ways to move more commuters — to move more people and fewer cars.

Let's also try and keep in context here the Premier's declaration that we will be reducing greenhouse gases in this province in a very dramatic way. In fact, if we intend to do that, then we do have to find immediate ways to move more people and fewer cars. The answers lie very much in the expansion of public transportation and transit.

It would seem to me that when we look at the need for infrastructure upgrades, the first place we need to look is finding ways of getting more options for commuters to get out of their cars and travel back and forth in the lower mainland in an efficient, effective and affordable way, and that is public transit. That is the infrastructure that is needed now in the lower mainland.

In fact, commuters wouldn't have to wait six or seven years for any kind of solution. Commuters could begin to have those solutions at hand immediately. We could begin immediately to reduce the number of people who are commuting every single day and clogging up the transportation infrastructure existing right now in the lower mainland and therefore, of course, hampering the movement of goods back and forth across the lower mainland.

These are steps that could be taken immediately. They could be very effective, and they would not have to make us wait until 2013, 2015 or beyond for any kind of solutions. At the same time, they would begin to square the circle on how we will follow a very prescriptive regime of reducing greenhouse gases, which means getting people out of their cars, reducing the impact of automobiles on the highway. How do we do that and, at the same time, try and move those people and those goods and services back and forth?

Again, the answer is in transit, in SkyTrain expansion and in finding ways to get people out of their cars and allow them to leave their automobiles at home and give them all an opportunity to help reduce greenhouse gases.

It would seem to me that the dichotomy here is that the only solution I heard the member offer is introducing buses onto the bridge when it's completed, which is — what? — seven years from now. Twenty buses in seven years — that does not constitute infrastructure expansion. It does not constitute a greenhouse gas program. It does not constitute any kind of public transit plan in any way.

I would say that if the government is very serious, then they've got to put meaningful investment right now into the kind of infrastructure expansion that's really needed, and that is transit on the lower mainland.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for supporting the Gateway project as we've introduced it. She is joining a list of a few that I guess I can name — Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley — who support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, who support the widening of Highway 1 and who support moving ahead in British Columbia.

If it weren't for the vision of our Premier and our Minister of Transportation, where would we be today? Over $200 million invested in new hybrid buses in Whistler. The Canada line that's coming down Vancouver now to move people from the airport in Richmond. It's something that should have been done before the Millennium line was built, because the transportation needs from Richmond were four times more than what were going to Burnaby. But it's built now, and we're moving ahead with the Evergreen line.

When we look at our rapid transit system and what we're doing, we all have to work cooperatively. We have to work together. In my area, in the city of Burnaby, I encourage the city and the mayor to come to the table to work with the Ministry of Transportation so that they can get what's required for their citizens in Burnaby.

They are not coming to the table. They are losing opportunities of cost-sharing projects with direct municipal benefits as outlined in Burnaby's official community plan, such as construction of the Wayburne overpass and the Sperling bicycle-pedestrian overpass, but they're not at the table. How are they going to get it? How are they going to get land zoned around intersections of Highway 1 put into developments and parkland? Lost opportunities abound with the city of Burnaby by not coming to the table.

One of the things about this House is that we all have the opportunity to stand up here and speak and say what we believe. But we must work together for the betterment of all British Columbians.

I'll close by saying that one by one, the opposition is coming over to support the full Gateway project. I'm proud to be part of this Legislature that's moving British Columbia forward.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to take advantage of this opportunity to address the House. Local governments' existence is granted by the province under authority established by the BNA Act. Local government officials are elected directly and empowered as a body to raise taxes and deliver services such as water, sewer, land use planning and development.

History has shown that it is possible for a provincial government and a local government to have competing and conflicting opinions on certain issues. This situation is to be expected when one considers the defined purposes of the two levels of government: provincial interests versus local needs.

Previous to 2003, B.C. recognized these possible competing interests and provided an open process for the province to ensure that provincial interests would not be set aside for the needs deemed to be purely local interests. The public could see — through a reasoned, open, transparent and accountable process — why provincial interests prevailed.

In 2003, amidst great fanfare and celebration, the government under Bill 14 signed the Community Charter with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This Community Charter was a document in which respect between the two levels of government was acknowledged, along with an agreement to discuss items of mutual concern before any action was taken by either government.

The Community Charter was implemented in 2004. But 2003 was also to contain this surprise for local governments. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act, Bill 75, allows Victoria to nullify any local government decision if it deems a project important enough.

It gives cabinet and individual ministers extraordinary powers to overrule provincial or local governments' laws, regulations or bylaws if they are perceived as being constraints to development projects that the government designates as provincially significant. This process is less open and transparent in overriding local needs.

In 2006 the government returned to reducing the powers of local government on issues that it has traditionally legislated — land usage and the resulting zoning bylaws. The independent power producers' Bill 30 was passed. Section 56 of Bill 30 states that the authorization for an independent power producer, as provided under the Utilities Commission Act, is not to be superseded or impaired by anything in or done under the Community Charter or the Local Government Act.

Section 56 further reduces regulation of independent power producers to include an exemption from local government zoning bylaws. Section 56 eliminates local government control by clarifying that anything under the Community Charter or Local Government Act is not to supersede authorizations, including the exemptions as provided by ministerial order M220205. Many municipalities considered section 56 as breaking a 2004 memorandum of understanding between the UBCM and the province.

In 2007 the government passed resort municipalities in Bill 11. Under section 15 the government has given themselves the authority to create resort municipalities without the consent of local residents or governments. This is viewed by many as a way to override the East Kootenay regional district and local public opinion against a development project.

Also in 2007, TransLink restructuring in Bill 36 was introduced but left on the order paper. The changes made by the bill removed democratic control from the hands of local politicians and put it into the hands of unelected experts with procedural democratic oversight in the form of a mayors' council.

The real power in the new TransLink will rest with the board of directors. The board will be selected by government and business interests. Under the bill, the council of mayors does not need to approve the 30-year and ten-year strategic plans designed by the board of directors. The council of mayors only approves deviations from the strategic plan that are called supplements. This means that the initial trajectory of the new TransLink or the status quo can be written without anyone voting on it.

Since Bill 36 was left on the order paper last session, government has pushed ahead as if it were law. The bill laid out a tight timetable in the first year and a half during which planning must be complete. So far, a screening panel of five members has been chosen. It will select candidates for the nine-member board of directors, a so-called experts board who will do all the planning.

Also, the government, in secret, signed the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement with the Alberta government. Discussions were held in secret and involved the joint cabinet signing the agreement without any debate in the legislatures. TILMA came into effect on April 1, 2007. TILMA effectively passed the decision and responsibility of local government to a three-person non-elected panel.

At the September 2007 annual general meeting the UBCM resolved that the provincial government respect local government decisions regarding TILMA and enter into meaningful discussions with the UBCM and local governments with the intent to make changes to the agreement to more specifically address local government concerns, to exempt local government from the agreement or to withdraw from the agreement altogether.

Then, in an overwhelming vote, the UBCM endorsed policy paper 4. This paper contains ten changes to TILMA in order that local government will continue to be covered by TILMA.

The province continues to argue that this is simply a misunderstanding and that discussions will eliminate these concerns. Neither the UBCM nor legal counsel for the UBCM considered the effect of TILMA on local governments' ability to govern to be either minor or a misunderstanding.

Clearly, the Liberal government has caused concern amongst local government in both the manner it is being treated and in the lack of meaningful dialogue around matters of governance. Hopefully, the government will respect the point of view so forcefully presented this fall at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual general meeting.

B. Lekstrom: It is certainly a pleasure to rise to respond to my colleague from Cariboo South on the issue of local government. I think it's something that each of us in this room…. If we haven't had direct involvement with it, we work with our local governments around this province, and that is part of our job.

We work directly with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which to me is an amazing organization that is the umbrella group that brings together all of our local governments from across the province and regional districts to talk about what their needs are. That is really a body that comes to our government or the previous governments of the past in British Columbia to bring forward their ideas and to try and move our province forward.

As we all sit in this legislative chamber, we do our best, but I think each and every one that sits in this as an elected official will tell you that once you're elected, it doesn't mean you have all the answers. You go out, and you have a responsibility to go to your constituents and learn from them.

Working with local government…. I began my history with local government in 1993 when I was elected to the council of the city of Dawson Creek and then moved on to have the honour of serving as mayor in 1996. I can tell you that the Community Charter, a document that I'm very well versed in and had the opportunity to work on for some time, is a pretty incredible document. Does it mean every word in there is perfect and doesn't need to be looked at from time to time? No. I think that we have to do that.

But when we look at local governments and the positives that have taken place, whether it be the programs that the Premier and our government have initiated under Towns for Tomorrow for communities of 5,000 and under — I think a very positive move for our communities….

Many times in the larger infrastructure programs that we partner with, with Canada-B.C. infrastructure, you needed to have a one-third, one-third, one-third cost-sharing. For municipalities of 5,000 or under, sometimes that was very difficult. So we began a program for communities of 5,000 and under, put a fund in of $21 million, and I think it's working very well. We've seen a number of announcements over the summer where communities have taken advantage of that.

We also have the issue that working with communities…. Although it's much broader than just the Community Charter and the legislation they work under. It's about programs, whether it be the Spirit Squares program, whether it be our LocalMotion program. Certainly, one that's a highlight, I think, when we look at the safety of our citizens, is the ability of the 100-percent return of traffic fine revenue to our municipalities. That has seen roughly $160 million since 2004 go back to municipalities to help invest in a safer, more secure environment for the citizens that live there.

Working with local government has been in my past. When I look at the history of it, it's something that governments are very proud of. We work together, and

I think the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — and I can't say this enough — does an amazing job for the municipalities they represent.

I have the honour of serving as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, which allows me the opportunity to work with many of our smaller communities around the province — again, I think, a vision that was long overdue, and I'm proud to hold that position.

The member for Cariboo South had mentioned TILMA. It was brought in, and here we are. I want people to place their minds back a few years to the AIT, which is something that began the process, virtually.

I'll tell you, the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement is one that is welcome news to the people of Peace River South. We have for many years tried to work with governments in the past to say this imaginary boundary between B.C. and Alberta is far more of an impediment to the ability not just to do business on each side but for our credentialed people, whether it be early childhood educators, for example.

We have to meld those. If we can teach in British Columbia, can we teach in Alberta? If you can be an early childhood educator in Alberta, can you bring your expertise to British Columbia? I think we can build those bridges, and that's what TILMA is about. I think it's going to work very well.

I'll close with this. Going back to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which is the lead body for local government, I think they look to our government with some excitement, actually, and I mean that in a good way. All you have to do is look back to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention held in Vancouver, which many of us were just at over the last month.

To hear the Premier speak…. I know that all of my colleagues from the other side of the House were riveted to their seats, wanting to hear what he said. The response was overwhelming. The standing ovations that were supplied by local government, elected officials, show the relationship that's there.

C. Wyse: I acknowledge and respect the comments made by my colleague across the floor from Peace River South. I guess my 23 years in local government as both a councillor and a director for the regional district have given me somewhat of a different interpretation of the motions that were passed at this fall's AGM.

Local government representatives from all over the province, from the Peace through to the Okanagan over to the Island, overwhelmingly have stated their concerns about the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement.

Also, Madam Speaker, at this same meeting in the fall, a pattern of reorganizing local government structures has appeared in B.C. over the last several months, which has caused concern at the UBCM.

Basically, a small group of individuals suggested change be made to the existing government structure. A member of cabinet in the region supports the idea. With limited discussion with the affected governments and the people involved, Municipal Affairs moved on the suggestion. Examples include Abbotsford and its amalgamation with area H, the division of the Comox-Strathcona regional district into two regional districts, and more recently, the proposed amalgamation of the three regional districts in the Okanagan.

Given that two years ago the Premier promised that the Community Charter would be extended to include regional districts — once more to a standing ovation at the UBCM, I would add — the UBCM this fall resolved that the provincial government respect local government regarding the Community Charter and enter into meaningful discussions with the UBCM and local government with the intent to carry on with instituting the Community Charter for regional districts, with any restructuring of regional districts put on hold until after this charter is fully implemented unless due and proper consultation has been undertaken.

This motion is quite clear. Local government is not opposed to change. Local government, along with its residents, simply wishes to be included in changes to its governance model.

In closing, this year's UBCM clearly stated its concern about the treatment local government has received over the last few years by the provincial government. Hopefully, the government will respect the motions regarding both TILMA and the Community Charter, two motions strongly endorsed by its members from all over the province.

R. Hawes: It's a pleasure to get up today, and it's a pleasure to be back to see all my colleagues after our summer of hard work in our constituencies.

Madam Speaker, three weeks ago the UBCM was held in Vancouver, and mayors and councillors from all over British Columbia came together to talk about the issues that are of interest to both local government and the provincial government. Among them, and one of the chief concerns, was the issue of homelessness. That's something all of us are extremely concerned about.

It seems to me that one of the things that comes out of all of those discussions and what we so frequently read in the newspapers is that the provincial government should just invest in social housing. That's going to solve this problem.

R. Hawes: The members opposite want to applaud that overly simplistic approach.

The issue of homelessness is extremely, extremely complex, and I want to talk about that this morning for a couple of minutes. I want to talk about why we need both local leadership and the construction of partnerships between different levels of government. In some cases, that's not happening.

I want to just first talk about a study that was done a little over a year ago in the Tri-Cities area where a

group of contractors was retained to document all of the homeless people in the Tri-Cities area to try to find them, to try to speak to them, to find their story, what was causing their homelessness, etc.

It's quite a detailed report that was put out. One of the striking things — perhaps not so striking or surprising — was that about 90 percent of the homeless people in the Tri-Cities area are deep into addiction problems and, in many cases, have the dual problem of severe mental illness. I don't think that's an overly surprising finding, and it's probably true for homeless people in other areas of our province.

When we begin talking about building social housing, one must wonder: are the advocates of that saying, "Let's take these deeply addicted, mentally ill folks and put them into social housing complexes together," and that's somehow going to solve the problem?

Frankly, I think all of us would understand that isn't going to solve the problem. These are people who need treatment, various types of treatment. More treatment than housing is really what they need. They need shelter while they're getting treatment or hopefully can access treatment, and in many cases they don't want that. So it's a very, very complex problem.

I'll just talk about my riding. In Maple Ridge some time ago they recognized the homeless problem and began to try to do something about it. Among other things, the Salvation Army opened the Caring Place, which is a shelter for homeless people. The city, the RCMP and some social workers began to go in the bush and find people who were living in the bush and drive them towards the Caring Place, a shelter. It was called a honey pot.

They said: "If we could get the people who are homeless, who are deep into addiction, to come to a place where they can get food and some shelter, maybe we have an opportunity to talk to them about treatment, etc." So the first thing they had to do was have a honey pot, a place that would draw them.

The problem with doing that was there was heavy opposition from the business community, who saw that the construction of that type of shelter anywhere near any of their businesses would detract from their business. They didn't want it. They fought against it. Some call that NIMBYism.

I want you to think for a minute about what happens in municipalities everywhere when you say that we want to build a social housing project. I served for many years, as my colleagues before me were saying, in local government. I presided over many public hearings. I'm really aware of what happens at public hearings.

I know that if a social housing project that's going to take homeless people and house them is brought forward in any rezoning hearing in any municipality, the city hall is likely to be crowded with people who are opposed. Maybe in some parts of Vancouver, East Vancouver, it might be okay, and maybe you wouldn't see that opposition.

I know that in many of the smaller communities throughout British Columbia, the townsfolk will turn out in big numbers — and these are the folks who are near where this housing development would be proposed — saying: "We want social housing, just not next to us. Our neighbourhood will be destroyed by this."

I've heard it, and I've seen it. It happens over and over and over. That's one of the huge impediments to building social housing. It's so simple to say that all we need is social housing. It is so difficult to get it to happen on the ground when you have locally elected officials who, frankly, react to the wishes of their electorate. Their electorate are saying: "We want social housing, just not near us."

I don't care where you try to put social housing. You're going to run into that problem. I know that in downtown areas of most small communities in British Columbia, if you want to put in a shelter, the business community is going to come out and scream loud and hard saying: "Do not put the shelter near us. We want you to take those homeless people, get them off the streets near our businesses and move them."

They call it tipping. They want to put in processes that will make it so uncomfortable for those folks that they will move to a different area. When they arrive in that area, that area starts to scream too. So they're getting tipped from area to area, but nothing really happens because the cities have not permitted social housing to be constructed.

R. Hawes: I know that where I live in Mission, there has been a problem on the main street with people who are clearly in drug addiction. There have been some proposals to put shelters together, to build the honey pot like the Caring Place in Maple Ridge, and that has been difficult.

Madam Speaker, I have more to say about this, but I'm really looking forward to what my colleague opposite has to say.

C. Wyse: Indeed, it is my pleasure to respond to my honoured colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission. My understanding of this same situation doesn't even run parallel to much of the description that I've heard here earlier.

There is no question that study after study show that homelessness and affordable housing often run hand in hand with mental health and addiction issues. However, what was not mentioned is that likewise — hand in hand, time in and time out — it has been shown steadily and regularly that in order to begin to address those complex issues, it requires that affordable housing be provided.

Notice that I referred to affordable housing. I did not refer to shelter exclusively. Shelter is a temporary item that is referred and used on a very short-term basis, often in a day-to-day aspect. Treatment and support has to be longer than that.

Previous governments to 2002, here in the province, were quite successfully able to provide affordable housing across British Columbia. The announcements here in this House recently have overlooked that this issue is broader than just the large urban centres.

A recent study shows that Port Hardy, Lillooet and 100 Mile have a large percentage of homeless people living in those communities — 40 to 50 individuals in communities like 100 Mile that have less than 2,000 people. Those individuals are living in tents, they are living in campers, and they are waiting for winter to come.

On behalf of all British Columbians, the action that has been taken by this House on these issues is totally and completely inadequate, unplanned and disjointed.

C. Wyse: …to the issue of community leadership as applied to local government, local government has the right to raise revenue to fund services required by its citizens. This revenue is raised primarily via property taxation. With this relatively narrow means to raise money, local government is challenged to provide services requested and required.

Over the past five years the provincial government has turned over costs to local government in spite of its limited ability to raise taxes. The previous discussion here is also suggesting that provincial responsibilities likewise be turned over to provincial governments to come up with a means based on property taxation in order to provide for those provincial responsibilities of mental health and addictions. Shame, I say, shame.

Now, one example of this transfer is the police tax. This is a new tax on property that was intended to cover 50 percent of the cost of providing policing services to small municipalities and rural areas. It was created by Bill 12, 2007, as an amendment to the Police Act. Municipalities will have to collect this on behalf of the provincial government.

C. Wyse: One example is Bill 36, TransLink restructuring against the source of revenue. Property tax can be raised by a certain amount.

In closing, the government has left much work to be done achieving the goals of the Community Charter: mutual respect between the provincial and local governments; local governments' ability to fund projects, to provide community leadership — as this topic is about. Reduced local governments' ability to provide community leadership….

Madam Speaker, it is with that that I end my discussion on this very important topic. I appreciate the opportunity to bring forward my feelings and my thoughts on this item.

R. Hawes: There's nothing like ducking the topic. I was simply saying that one of the impediments to building social housing is the fact that every time something like that would go in front of a municipal council, who are actually the ones who make decisions about land use and zoning, there is a public hearing that's filled with people who say: "Not near me. Don't build it near me."

Many municipal councils react to that by not allowing it to happen. There are applications to build shelters, etc., throughout British Columbia, and social housing projects…

R. Hawes: …that have been waiting for months and months and months because city councils don't want to deal with the issue, because their citizens are there saying: "Do not build that near me."

I want to just talk about reality, not this overly simplistic bumf that we keep hearing about: "Just build it." It's difficult to build it. I've got to be honest with you. If there was going to be a proposal in my community to build a social housing complex for homeless people, drug-addicted, mentally ill people and they wanted to put it next door to my home, I would probably protest. That's the reality.

That's what we do, and that's what the members opposite would also do in their own communities. Nobody seems to want to get down to the real nub of the problem and talk about it. We all want to end homelessness, but do you know something? It takes a partnership. Nobody ever said the municipalities have to pay for this, but they certainly have to provide the land use that goes with solving the problem, and many don't do it. So it's a local leadership problem.

I know many communities have the leadership and have applied the leadership and are doing something in partnership with the government. Others, Madam Speaker, are not, so it's time to get real about the discussion. The discussion isn't just about the provincial government ponying up some money. The discussion is about every person in this province accepting a little piece of their responsibility, accepting that we must have these sorts of institutions in our communities.

They can't be just somewhere else, in someone else's neighbourhood. Sometimes they have to be in our neighbourhood. Sometimes we have to realize that the people who are homeless and drug-addicted and mentally ill are actually people that belong to us. They're part of our community.

I hear the piousness about downloading and "Just build, build, build." But I don't hear anybody saying: "How are we going to go about this? How are we going to build the partnerships with local government that

are required?" That's not what I'm hearing here. I'm hearing a bunch of overly simplistic bumf that gets us absolutely nowhere. We need to deal with the NIMBYism.

B. Simpson: B.C. has long prided itself on being a forest-based economy. The industry has been the single most important contributor to the provincial economy since Europeans first settled on our shores. Today, the industry is still the main economic driver of many communities, especially in the interior. It provides direct and indirect employment for over 150,000 British Columbians. It contributes over $3 billion in direct payments to government each year, and it represents over one-quarter of B.C.'s total merchandise exports.

However, today that industry is also in serious trouble as it confronts the most significant set of challenges it has ever faced in the history of this province. Climate change is a major threat to forest health and, as a consequence, to our long-term fibre supply.

As I've stated many times in this House, the mountain pine beetle epidemic is only the leading indicator of what will be a major transition in our forest ecosystems as climate change accelerates. Other pests and diseases are also on the rise in our forests, negatively impacting virtually every species and age class of trees. Yet we have not fast-tracked a major initiative to document and understand the full implications of climate change on our forest ecosystems.

We are effectively operating blind, and as illustrated by a recent report from the Real Estate Investment Network, this is creating a high degree of uncertainty for future investment in the forest sector and in forest-dependent communities.

Our forest practices have also changed dramatically since 2001, and not for the better. Whether it is the extent and rapidity of the beetle salvage operations or private land logging practices or the enormous amounts of waste being left in larger and larger clearcuts, concerns about our logging practices are growing, threatening our position in the marketplace once again and inviting another war in the woods.

Questions about the sustainability of our harvesting practices are compounded by a growing lack of confidence in the government's so-called results-based code. British Columbians are increasingly expressing their concern that we're letting the fox guard the henhouse. All of this has the potential to undermine the social licence of the few remaining forest companies in B.C. and to increase the potential for a market backlash that could negatively impact future investment in this sector.

Failed government forest policy is a major contributor to the stresses impacting the sector. The so-called revitalization strategy of 2003 has done little to help industry and forest-dependent communities prepare for the massive transformation the sector must go through to remain competitive.

Since January 2003, 30 mills have closed in the province, 23 of them permanently, Madam Speaker. This has resulted in over 3,500 layoffs in the manufacturing sector alone. Many forest-dependent communities have had to weather this impact with little or no assistance from the provincial government.

The revitalization strategy also caused a collapse of the value-added sector, threatens the future of independent and family-owned operations and has effectively wiped out the small-scale salvage operators. In effect, provincial government policy has undermined the very sectors we need to help us reinvent this industry.

The provincial government has also failed to provide any meaningful assistance to forest-dependent communities to weather the negative impacts of their revitalization strategy now, let alone to help them prepare for the forthcoming major transformation.

Failed provincial government policy is also one reason that the coastal forest industry is in the midst of a protracted strike at a time when the sector can least afford it. Provincial government interference in the last collective agreement and the failure of the current minister to release his much-ballyhooed coast recovery plan are both major contributing factors to the commencement and duration of this strike.

Added to all of these stresses, the market forces coming together to force the transformation of our forest sector are extensive, dramatic, deep and potentially extremely damaging to both the B.C. economy as a whole and to forest-dependent communities, unless we take deliberate steps to mitigate these negative impacts. Many analysts have stated that the industry is facing the perfect storm.

The market conditions for B.C.'s lumber products are likely the toughest they have ever been. Internally, the industry is confronted with the high and rising Canadian dollar; a softwood lumber deal with the U.S. that adds 15 percent to costs of operations and adds uncertainty for investors because of a potential additional 7½ percent increase in the border tax, if we get a negative ruling in the arbitration that's going on just now about the surplus test; and a collapsed U.S. housing market that most analysts now say will remain severely depressed through until at least 2009.

Higher energy costs are impacting the sector. More importantly, a rail monopoly throughout this province is adding additional costs and additional uncertainty because of problems with railcar availability and lack of delivery guarantees.

Concerns about the stability of the labour market for the forest sector are also contributing to the overall sense of crisis. The closure of forestry programs, the loss of tradespeople and the inability to attract new workers are all evidence of the increasing uncertainty about the future of this vital component of our economy.

Externally, the B.C. industry is being increasingly challenged by more sophisticated lower-cost producers from Europe, Asia and South America. It's time to admit the full breadth and depth of the challenges facing our forest sector, from the land base to the marketplace. It's time to admit that the forest revitalization strategy of 2003 has not positioned the forest sector and forest-

It is also time for the government to put partisan politics aside on this important matter and for both sides of this House to cooperate in conducting a realistic appraisal of the current state of this vital industry and an examination of the full range of public policy changes that will assist this sector to undergo the transformation it must go through.

Despite the plethora of challenges facing the sector, there is real potential for a renewed and more vital sector in this province, but only if we act collectively and with the sense of urgency that these challenges demand.

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to be back in the House and to engage the member for Cariboo North in terms of the forest industry. We seem to get an opportunity to talk about forestry together on a fairly regular basis these days, which is always a healthy thing.

The member points out that there are some challenges in the sector, and I'm certainly not going to stand up here and say there aren't challenges. When you have the Canadian dollar at 30-plus-year highs, when you have lumber prices and balance at near-record lows, when you've got the crisis in the housing industry in the States, clearly the sector is facing some challenges.

The question really is not whether or not a sector is facing challenges. The question is: where is the sector going? What is the future of the sector, and how are we going to get to that path? I just want to point out, you know, in all of the rhetoric that seems to be coming on this, there's only one thing that was put out so far by the member for Cariboo North, and that was a call for government assistance.

I'd like to point out what government assistance did in the 1990s in a particular project where Skeena Cellulose had run into financial difficulties. The government put $400 million to interfere directly into forest operations in the north coast centre — and what benefit? What came of that money?

That money was squandered. Once it was spent, it was gone, and the industry shut down there. Clearly, the member wants to go back to the same type of policies that the NDP had brought forward in the '90s, which resulted in that exact same problem that happened out there.

But I want to talk more positively because I think there are many opportunities in the forest sector. In particular, the chief forester is currently working on a future forest strategy looking at opportunities in the forest sector.

The member for Cariboo North mentioned the problems in the coastal industry. Just this morning I heard it reported on the news that there may be a tentative deal. That long strike may now have been resolved, and that industry may be able to start moving forward.

We have a strategy around the north coast. We've got strategies around trying to implement power — trying to utilize wood products for power generation. We have the beetle strategy. You look at research coming from universities, such as the University of Northern British Columbia, that's looking at new products that could potentially be produced from the forest industry.

All of those are looking at how the forest industry is going to evolve, is going to change and is going to meet the challenges that we currently have. Are things going to be rosy with the current economic environment? No. We are going through a challenge, and like we have seen in the past…. Some say it's the worst challenge the industry has faced in a generation.

I know this: 50 years ago people used to plow pine trees under. They used to not use pine trees because they considered them a waste product. Industry adapts; industry changes. Industry looks forward, and industry will take advantage of any opportunity that's there to meet a niche in the marketplace. It has done it in the past, and it will do it in the future.

We will be there, through the efforts that we're doing in our government, through the strategies we're putting in place, through the opportunities that could happen with tenure reform or other things. We will be there to help support those changes and transition in the forest industry because, quite frankly, the forest industry currently has 7 percent of our total workforce directly impacted. It is a backbone in this province, and it will always be. We have confidence in the forest industry, and I know they have confidence in where it can go.

It does have challenges. There is no question there. But I can tell you this: under our government, we have not seen the 13,000 job losses that policy from the NDP did in the 1990s. Even the NDP themselves admitted that they added at least a billion dollars in cost to the forest sector in the 1990s. We went from the lowest-cost producer to the highest-cost producer. We have changed things around.

The industry went through some boom times throughout this past decade. We have seen a challenge, but I can almost guarantee you, once we get through this challenge, that coming out, the forest sector will be healthier. It will be stronger, and we'll see a variety of products and innovation. It's directly because of the policies that we're putting in place that is going to enable the forest industry to be able to move through, move forward and have a bright future, taking advantage of all the opportunities that we are going to see.

B. Simpson: Well, the government's position on this has been clearly articulated by the member from Prince George. "Let's live in the past and pretend that all of the woes that we're experiencing just now are because

of past policy. Let's dream of a brighter future that will happen by happenstance, that will just happen by magic, that will just happen because we'll avoid actually embracing the nature and the breadth and the extent of the challenges that this industry faces, that will avoid assisting forest-dependent communities through their transition, that will avoid changing public policy on the land base so that we are managing our forests for a sustainable future, so that we are deriving benefit to the province, to the people of British Columbia and to the communities that depend on that forest."

We have seen today exactly what is wrong with the Liberal government forest policy — anchored in the past, a failed forest revitalization strategy that they're still trying to prop up and pretend that everything's going to work out. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about government assistance. I was talking about public policy. They're public forests. This government has forgotten that.

Avrim Lazar, CEO of Forest Products Association of Canada stated in a recent editorial:

The member speaks of the chief forester's future forest ecosystems. It's underfunded. Can't get purchase with the government. He speaks of the bioenergy strategy tabled with the minister in November of '06. Now the minister is saying that we won't see it until '08 at the earliest. Where's the sense of urgency there?

The member talks about the fact that we lost jobs in the 1990s. We're losing jobs now, and we stand to lose thousands more jobs — 3,000 to 5,000 jobs in my community alone within the next five to eight years.

What is this government doing about it? "Oh, don't worry. Be happy. In two weeks' time, you'll see what we're going to do." It's been an awful long two weeks for forest-dependent communities and for the province of British Columbia to see what the current minister is going to do to help us get through this transformation.

The Finance Committee heard from Tembec forest industries in Cranbrook just recently, and they said: "We need change in public policy now."

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 54 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

M. Polak: I rise today with an invitation to colleagues of mine around this chamber to come and visit the beautiful area south of the Fraser. I do that because in the debate around Gateway and the debate particularly around the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, it occurs to me that many people who live outside of the south of Fraser region really don't understand how that community has changed — dramatically.

I was thinking back to when I was a kid growing up in Cloverdale and I used to ride the bus to a school in New Westminster for a few years. On one weekend I thought I would invite my new best friend for a sleepover. My new best friend lived in Burnaby. We were going to take the bus out to Cloverdale, and she was going to stay overnight and be very impressed with my wonderful house and my toys and all the rest of that.

I'll never forget coming along that bus route on the Fraser Highway. As we crested the hill where you can see out into the Cloverdale valley, she said: "Do you have an outhouse?"

That was what it looked like. It looked like complete farms, a rural area. There really wasn't anything happening in terms of development, urbanization — nothing like that.

Things have changed dramatically. In the area of Langley, in Willoughby, where I live, I live in a townhouse that allows me to walk to anything I need. I can walk to the hairdresser, the grocery store, the bank, the dentist's office, the doctor's office — anything I want to do. Mind you, there's one thing I can't walk to. I can't walk to a bus stop that's going to take me up 200th and out the Port Mann Bridge.

Why? The congestion is so thick and has been for 20 years that we don't have bus service that goes that way. So the one thing I can't walk to in my community is a bus that's going to get me downtown.

A lot of other things have changed. Attitudes in the valley have changed. What we're building has changed. The hot debate in Langley right now is where we should locate a highrise or if we should. Imagine that. I get concerned when I hear people who live in areas outside the south of the Fraser region make comments that show their lack of understanding.

I was at a meeting about TransLink and about their proposals for transit and about the growing need for Gateway and the increasing pressure to get that project underway, and a very well-known mayor from our area stood up and commented that we need to keep the choke point at the Port Mann Bridge. Why? Because we need to keep people from moving out to the valley. The position of this mayor was that the reason people live

in the valley is because it's just too expensive to live in Vancouver or other places downtown.

Well, I'll tell you, on behalf of my Langley constituents, I stood up and told that mayor that I grew up in Cloverdale. I grew up south of the Fraser. You can make land and condos in Vancouver as cheap as you like, and I guarantee you that I'll never move there. Why? It's my home, and it's now home to about a million people.

This whole area has changed. For those who don't believe it, think about the changing traffic patterns. I alone have two friends who live in the Yaletown area, and they commute daily to Langley and to Surrey to work. We talk in the car, when we're on opposing routes going over the bridge, comparing who's got the biggest lineup. Everything has changed south of the Fraser except for our ability to get across that river.

My constituents are worried about a lot of things. Like most of us, they're concerned about the environment. They're concerned about whether or not their kids are going to be successful. They're concerned about whether or not we're going to get Gateway done.

For all the times that other MLAs might hear people say, "Gee, I'm not sure. I'm worried about whether or not we should do this," in my area of the world, if I speak at the chamber, they ask me: "When is it going to get done?" If I speak at the Rotary, they ask me: "When is the Port Mann Bridge going to get done?" If I stop at the local coffee shop, people say: "Hey, Mary, have you talked to Falcon lately? When's that bridge getting done?"

Anytime they hear that there's another study, another review, they get concerned. Why? It's not just because of the commuter time, although that's bad enough. I mean, if you have to spend two hours of your life in a car going into Vancouver, trust me, it's horrible. But there are other reasons. Their livelihoods depend on it.

When I hear the opposition just trying to easily slide into a "Oh, we support the bridge, but we want transit first" — a transit-first position — I get concerned for those constituents who might have a dumptruck — constituents that maybe the opposition might want to pay attention to.

Don McGill, a well-known Teamster, made a startling revelation in his comments. He said: "I've never seen a bus that can accommodate a dumptruck." Well, in the comments that I've heard from the opposition, I hear a lot about getting people out of their cars. I don't hear a lot about how to fit a dumptruck on a bus or a container or maybe a taxicab.

If you are like myself and my constituents, and you travel over that bridge regularly during rush hour times, you'll notice that a significant amount of that traffic is the result of freight trucks, taxicabs, dumptrucks, couriers. That kind of traffic will be moved off on to perimeter roads as a part of the whole Gateway project.

There's another mistake that the opposition makes. They see the Port Mann Bridge and its twinning as a stand-alone type of project, as a thing in and of itself. It's not. It's part of an overall plan that's going to radically improve what's happening for commuters and for businesses south of the Fraser. For all of us who depend on goods movement across that corridor, it's going to mean so much to change daily lives.

For those who are concerned about the impact on local communities, imagine the impact if you lived in Fraser Heights right now and you wanted to travel the relatively short distance between your community in Fraser Heights and the other half of your community over towards Guildford. You know what you'd have to do? The only choice you have is to get on an overpass across the No. 1 Highway that is so congested that you're waiting almost an hour just to get across from one side of your community to the other.

I have to say, though, that that did help me, in some measure, to understand the opposition's position that transit first is what we need to do and get people out of their cars in the manner in which they wish to. I was trying to figure out before how they were planning to do that. It now has occurred to me, though, that what they'll do is leave it this way. That way, people will just get so fed up that they will get out of their cars, leave them on the road and walk, because it's faster.

I understand, too, why many members of the opposition are now distancing themselves from the comments of their leader. I was trying to put myself in that position. If I had to return to Langley and give support to comments such as: "No to Gordon Campbell's plan," or "Wrong bridge," or "It's the wrong bridge…."

If you're going to say things like that and you're going to return to Langley or Cloverdale or Abbotsford, I guarantee you that they will run you out of town on a rail. So I can understand why those members are trying to distance themselves from those comments.

Interesting, too, that the transit-first option comes to light when we have such horrible congestion on that bridge. You couldn't possibly get a bridge across. That's not just our position. It's TransLink saying it. We actually have the chair of TransLink quite clearly outlining that you can't possibly put transit across that bridge unless you unclog it. If you were to put transit on there now, it would simply sit there.

We used to have it. When I was a kid, there used to be a service called the Flyer. It didn't last very long, though, because as soon as traffic started building up on the bridge, you couldn't get it across anymore. I guess you could, but it would probably take you a whole day to do it.

The reality is that in my community and in communities south of the Fraser, we're working hard to densify. We're working hard to move forward with communities that are self-sustaining, where people can work in their own community, where they live. But we're not going to be able to achieve all those things without improving our ability to move freight, to move commuters — to have what we really will see as a livable region.

The Port Mann Bridge is something that…. For my constituents, the feeling is that it should have been done ten years ago. We needed it yesterday, not today. Do we need transit? Of course we need transit. That's why we need a bridge. You cannot put transit across that corridor without a bridge.

I was interested, too, to hear that the transit-first option is one that still somehow supports a bridge. I'm not really sure how that works, but if you were to put transit in first, I'm not sure exactly what you would put. I thought that maybe you would put buses on there, but of course, that would be difficult. They need somewhere to drive.

In struggling through that thought, it occurred to me that perhaps there's new technology afoot. Maybe somebody has technology that will provide us with flying buses. I suppose that would work. Maybe that's what the plan of the opposition is. To put in a transit-first plan — in other words, transit before a bridge — is exactly like putting the cart before the horse, and it's not going to move us anywhere.

In closing, I suppose what I would like to urge members to do is stand up today and support those constituents who are struggling, even today, with traffic across that corridor. Even with work on Gateway, these people are going to be struggling for a few years more as we try to catch up to where we should be in terms of road infrastructure.

It's important that if you are a member from Surrey, a member from south of the Fraser…. Let's hear it. Let's hear a denunciation of comments that would say that you're going to put transit in first before a bridge.

I wouldn't want to be an MLA going to Fraser Heights and telling those people that I'm putting in transit first before a bridge. You know why? Because if you live there, you know it won't work. If you're from the Island, if you're from up north, I can understand. It makes perfect sense that perhaps you wouldn't see that. But if you've driven those routes every day, you know it won't work.

So let's hear it. Let's hear from Surrey MLAs that they're not going to accept a plan that sounds kind of popular — transit first; it's all green — but isn't practical, isn't going to work. Let's hear from the Surrey MLAs that they're not going to force people to get out of their cars on the side of the highway and walk — that that's not their plan for greening transportation. Let's hear them say that they're going to say something to their leader, to their party, who voted in their provincial council to oppose Gateway. Let's hear that they're going to actually do the work of an MLA and lobby for their constituents.

I'll tell you, the Minister of Transportation has seen enough of my face over the years. He needs to see some of the opposition MLAs in there too, saying: "Let's get that bridge built. Let's get it built now so that we can have transit and cycling and a moving economy and one that works for all of our citizens, including those south of the Fraser."

When it's built, come out to the south of the Fraser, now that it will be a much swifter trip, and enjoy our great wineries and the great scenery and some of the best towns you're ever going to see in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to actually stand and speak to this motion today, because it's very apparent from the presenter's remarks previously that the government really only has a plan about moving cars. In fact, in the scenarios that we listened to from the previous speaker, it's an either-or scenario only, and in the real world it's not like that.

I'd like to put some context around this discussion, because there are a whole number of factors here that speak more broadly to a transportation strategy than the either-or scenario that the previous speaker talked about.

In fact, we are living in a time where climate change has become a significant definer on how we move forward, how we plan from this day forward on any of our infrastructure expansion. Any transportation in the future has got to be viewed through the new lens of climate change. We have communities in the lower mainland who have spent close to a decade working on a livable region strategy. Those plans also need to be taken into context as we discuss a transportation strategy for the lower mainland.

We recognize that there is growing congestion. I don't think it's any secret that that's happening across North America in cities. More and more we are seeing congestion and traffic issues, traffic management, as being one of the biggest barriers we face in how we grapple with climate change and at the same time find ways to deal with moving people and goods around our communities.

I think, in reality, what we need is a range of solutions. Repeatedly I hear from the government and from previous speakers that it is only about one single option. The government has one single vision and focus only. In reality, in today's world we need a range of options. Car ownership and operation is expensive, is going to continue being expensive. Right now the BCAA says that to own and operate a car in the lower mainland costs $8,000 per year per car. Add to that the growing concern about fossil fuels, about the cost of gasoline, about the cost of operating services and commuter traffic back and forth in the community. Also add to that growing concerns about road pricing, tolls and things like that in the future, and you see that you actually have got to approach this with a whole number of options, not just one single focus.

The World Bank recently produced a transportation strategy document. It actually works in concert with what many American cities have also begun to move towards, which is moving away from more freeways and moving in a very concerted and focused way to more investment in public transportation, in finding ways to move more people and fewer cars, both from the cost of operations, from the efficiency and effectiveness of moving and dealing with congestion problems, to at the same time trying to meet climate change goals that every government across the world is trying to put in place right now.

When you look at the range of those changes that other communities are making, you wonder why we can't make that same leap here in British Columbia. If we look back in the history of TransLink's plans, there

are a number of issues and a number of initiatives that would have already been in place if the government had proceeded with TransLink's original plans, like the Evergreen line. That would have been built right now and actually moving commuters.

It's not, because government took it upon themselves to make some changes and to move in and actually manage their own agenda for TransLink. Again, all of this is moving away from a whole number and range of solutions and moving back into the single focus on the car and the automobile.

In reality, what we need…. In fact, the previous member hit it right on the button when she said: "I can't get a bus in my community." Therein lies a real key piece of the puzzle, of the range of options that need to be put forward.

In fact, the member was mistaken when she talked about transit or a bridge, because we talk about transit now as an immediate solution to getting people out of their cars. Transit now — 500 new buses and new bus routes south of the Fraser. Communities have been asking for that. That's what we are asking for.

Start putting those pieces in place now. In fact, you will offer effective, efficient and affordable options to commuting. A bus pass is certainly a lot less than $8,000 a year to operate a car.

SkyTrain. There have been concerted calls and plans for at least 25 new cars for SkyTrain and a confirmation on the completion of the Evergreen line. These are pieces of the puzzle that could be put in place right now. These are pieces of an option, a full range of solutions that could be initiated today, if the government had the willpower to do this. If it wasn't all about one single option and if they truly meant to get people out of their cars, move more people, fewer automobiles, meet greenhouse gas emission targets and offer some real options for people, then they would begin to put some of these steps in place.

Certainly the issues around the north and south perimeter roads…. We recognize that goods do need to move more effectively. If you find ways to reduce the congestion on highways with effective use of public transportation, you will begin to reduce the kind of congestion that is slowing down the movement of goods and services here.

If this government's green epiphany is real, if it goes absolutely to the root of their policies in the future, we will see that applied in every stage as they move forward to a transportation strategy for the lower mainland that includes more than just a single option.

What are we getting from this government? The transportation management solutions to congestion that we are getting are at least seven years of chaos while they begin to build their highways and their bridge. Twenty buses in seven years will be the great panacea to all of the commuters. Wow, 20 buses seven years from now — that is neither a green plan nor a transportation plan.

If every commuter in the lower mainland has to wait seven years for a solution, that is not good enough. So we are saying: start putting the other pieces of the solution in place right now. Make it a full array of transportation options for commuters on the lower mainland. Then you have a plan that is green, that is sensible and that is effective.

At the end of the day, in order to build any kind of system that works and another crossing and a bridge across the Fraser, you need to have a number of other effective pieces in place in order to make it work. Anything less is simply silly.

There are no options at this point that the government is putting forward for reducing congestion today and tomorrow and next year and in 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012. No, the only options we have will produce no tangible results or relief from congestion till 2013 and beyond.

Will they build it in 2013? Well, who knows? What are the cost overruns going to be? Who knows? But you could begin today to put together a full range of transportation options for commuters throughout the lower mainland and south of the Fraser that would be real and effective….

M. Karagianis: We believe that you need to have an effective transit system that works in tandem with any of your expansion of the south and north perimeter roads and a bridge. We believe that you need to reduce single-occupancy vehicles and increase the high-occupancy vehicle and goods movement.

That has to be fundamental to all of this. That's fundamental to the concept of a green plan in any case. If we are really going to deal with greenhouse gases, if we are really going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the targets that the Premier has set, we have got to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles going back and forth in this community.

Frankly, the way this bridge is now going to be built, with a private tolling company building the bridge and taking all the tolls for the foreseeable future, it is in the best interest of that private company to get as many vehicles as possible on that bridge every single day — completely counterintuitive to what we are trying to do.

If you're going to try to reduce congestion, take some real steps to do that. You need to find a way to ensure that in the future that bridge is high-occupancy vehicle, transit-only and goods transportation–only.

The reality is that all of our planning from today forward has got to find ways to move more people and fewer cars and to allow efficient movement of goods. That means you have to have a transit plan in effect now. We have got seven years in which to broaden a transit plan in the lower mainland — between SkyTrain, transit buses and other forms of expansion, like the Evergreen line — that would give real options to

commuters right now, would be greener, would be cleaner and, in fact, would be a real transportation plan.

The fact is that the members opposite seem to think that if you build buses, it's not about a bridge. If you build a bridge, it's not about buses. Well, you know what? A transportation plan is about all of the options, and until we see clearly that the government is going to put real investment and real expansion behind all of those pieces and other commuter options, then frankly, it's just not good enough.

You know what? Commuters sitting in traffic for the next seven years will say that to themselves every single day from now until the time the government gets on with transit expansion.

D. Hayer: You know, none of what our member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said in there can be done south of the Fraser River. The reason it cannot be done is because, when they were in power, they did not spend any money on infrastructure or on transportation. If they had spent money on infrastructure south of the river, we would be able to put more buses there. They should have been fixing SkyTrain. They should have been trying to twin the Port Mann Bridge, widen Highway 1, but they never did anything.

When you talk about the comments of the MLA for Langley, she's hit the nail right on the head. We really need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. Her motion is excellent. It talks about what needs to be done. When we talk about these people, they talk about improving the transportation infrastructure, but they never did anything when they were in power.

I think what we have to do is emphasize that the motion presented by my colleague from Langley must be supported, must be passed. I have said many times in the past…. Since the 2001 election I have spoken more than a dozen times to try to make improvements in transportation — widening Highway 1, twinning the Port Mann Bridge and other improvements that are needed.

I also have said many times in this House since the 2005 election that we need to widen Highway 1 and that we need to improve the transportation needs. It's all in the record, and I have spoken in the media in Surrey.

Only after listening to the speeches here and also to the outcry from our members in Surrey, the constituents from Surrey, the Surrey MLAs started to finally say they're going to support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Every day there are so many cars on Highway 1. They're stuck. They're putting a lot of pollution in the air. That pollution could be cut down if those cars could move much faster, rather than idling and putting all this pollution in the air.

Many of those workers, when they're going to work or coming back home, are spending and wasting hours stuck in traffic. That time could be spent with family. Many times those people are burning a lot of gasoline. It isn't hard to waste money on gasoline. That money could be saved.

Many truck drivers go there and spend hours and hours stuck on Highway 1 and the Port Mann Bridge. That is because nobody up to now had made any improvements on this. The Port Mann Bridge should have been twinned and the highway should have been widened a long time ago.

When you take a look at our Port Mann Bridge, it is the only bridge and main highway that connects us to the rest of British Columbia. It is the only highway that connects us to the rest of Canada and the rest of North America. It is a major transportation system. We need to make sure that we go and make the improvements.

That bridge is not just about improvements for cars. That bridge will make sure we will have buses in there. There have been no buses on there for the last 20 years. Back in the late '80s the bus was eliminated because they could not keep with the schedule. The bridge will be twinned. You will have the buses going.

It will be designed to have a light rail system on it. It will be designed to have bicycle paths on it. It will be designed to have the largest investment in bicycle paths in our history. This is something that is being done by our government, with the vision of our Premier.

When you take a look at it, we will decide that we're going to build the Evergreen line. We're making the new SkyTrain to Abbotsford and Langley. We are not only saying that you have to have cars; we are saying that we must look at all types of transportation systems. We have to have more buses. We have to have more SkyTrains. We have to expand the SkyTrain. We need to have a light rail system. We need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. We need to widen Highway 1.

Sadly enough, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't support that. She seems to be against that. If you go into the Hansard record, if you go to the records from the newspapers and the TV reports, she has said that it's the wrong bridge, it's the wrong time, and it's not needed. She has said that more than once.

It is only after a lot of outcry from constituents of Surrey…. Our MLA for Surrey-Newton and some of the other ones have started coming out to the Indian media, The Now newspaper and the Vancouver Sun, saying: "Actually, our constituents want the bridge. We need to widen Highway 1." I hope he will stand up after this and go and say that he's going to support our program, which is twinning the Port Mann Bridge and widening the highway.

I hope he and the other MLAs from Surrey will be telling their leader: "Please come over and help Surrey. Don't just think about people in Burnaby — maybe the mayor from Burnaby, who is against it. Don't think about a few people in Vancouver who are against it. Think about the constituents of Surrey."

Ever since the Leader of the Opposition spoke against the Port Mann Bridge twinning and the widening of Highway 1, every time I go to Surrey, they are wondering: what is this leader talking about? Aren't the NDP MLAs from Surrey telling her we need that? Our people are stuck in traffic.

When you go to the Port Mann Bridge from my office, if there's no traffic there, it takes five minutes to get to the Port Mann Bridge. Because the traffic is there most of the day, it sometimes takes 45 minutes or an hour and a half. Can you imagine how much pollution you're putting out there, how much stress that is for my constituents? Can you imagine how much stress you're putting on all those taxi drivers, all those truck drivers, all those other people who are using the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1?

Can you imagine all those moms and dads who take their kids to sports and other parks, playing soccer or hockey and other sports? Why are we making their lives miserable? Why don't we try to fix it? Why don't we try to make their lives better?

I think it is our responsibility as MLAs that, when we are elected, we must stand up for our constituents. Just because your leader is against it doesn't mean you have to be against it. Your job is to make sure you change her thoughts by telling her in the House, on the record that we need to have her supporting the Port Mann Bridge, the best Gateway program our Premier has launched and our Minister of Transportation has designed, which is great for all British Columbians.

I hope our NDP MLAs from Surrey are going to stand up and say they're going to convert their leader's mind to saying: "Please support it."

B. Ralston: It's interesting to hear from the government side this morning. There are two plans that are being promoted on that side. One is the side that's being promoted out of the Premier's office, which we got a glimpse of today in the newspaper, deigning to release a little bit of the climate change agenda.

Apparently, in the transportation section they're advocating a greater use of transportation and the building of compact communities, which will make it easier to work closer to home. [Applause.]

That's the one plan. In addition, Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation presented to the Finance Committee on Thursday in Surrey and said that the TransLink funding formula, which is about to be enshrined in legislation and which perhaps we'll debate later this session, doesn't adequately fund the transportation requirements of the climate change plan.

That's one side of the debate that's coming out of the Premier's office, and apparently, none of that has been factored into the transportation plan that's being extolled here by some members of the government. Apparently, they haven't caught up with the latest change out of the Premier's office, but that's not difficult to understand, given that that happens fairly frequently.

Let's talk about some real examples of what goes on and why we don't necessarily need to wait seven years until the bridge is open. I support the motion. It's part of a solution, but let's talk about some real problems that need to be addressed and why we don't need to wait seven years to address them.

I have two constituents, both of whom work in the Pan Pacific Vancouver Hotel, live in my riding in north Surrey and commute by SkyTrain. If they have a shift that starts at 6 a.m…. A typical shift is 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., or 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on a Saturday or a Sunday. SkyTrain doesn't start until 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning or 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning, so they can't use the SkyTrain to get to work. They're the quintessential commuters — Surrey to Vancouver and back again.

Do we have to wait seven years to solve that problem? I don't think so. In the local newspaper Cynthia Hale, a person who lives in the Minister of Transportation's riding, talks about her difficulties as a commuter using the 395 bus along 60th Avenue. It was one trip to get to the King George SkyTrain station. They now have changed the route so that you have to do two, and it delays her commute each morning. Those are the kinds of frustrations — lack of funding — that make people frustrated and choose to use their cars.

We don't have to wait seven years to solve that problem. Jordan Bateman, who is a councillor for Langley township, appeared before the Finance Committee on Thursday. He said: "We need more transit options to woo drivers out of their cars. I encourage you to invest in items like the Evergreen line, an expanded SkyTrain in Surrey and…a light rail line along 200th Street in Langley…connecting to SkyTrain at Scott Road."

I asked him about expanding the bus system because he's a little skeptical about that, somewhat like some of the members opposite. He did agree that it's possible to get an improved bus system. The mayor of Surrey has called for 500 more buses south of the Fraser. It's possible to get that bus network out and running faster than the seven years it will take while we await the opening of the bridge.

Expanded SkyTrain, expanded SkyTrain hours, more buses, a more comprehensive bus route. Mr. Bateman pointed out that north-south bus transportation from Langley is not in TransLink's present plan, is not expected to open until 2031. Do we have to wait that long for that kind of transportation network? Yes, there will be some bridges across the Port Mann in seven years. Do we have to wait for other transportation solutions to move people to the SkyTrain or an expanded SkyTrain? Do we have to wait seven years?

Even the Minister of Transportation recognizes…. Doubtless there's pressure in his own riding for commuter solutions. He allowed on The Bill Good Show on September 8 this year that his personal goal as a minister — doubtless he hasn't yet discussed it with his colleagues or the cabinet or TransLink — was to get SkyTrain through his riding out to Langley in ten years. He recognizes that there's a demand for better public transportation solutions south of the river, which so far have not been delivered.

In some ways I agree with some part of what the members on the government side say, but there are two very different versions of the transportation plan being advanced over there. One is the pre–climate change one that doesn't seem to be quite in touch with the Premier's office, and one is the post–climate change one that as of yet is not properly funded, according to the climate change advisers who David Suzuki says are working very closely with the Premier.

I think the people on the government side need to re-examine just what they're talking about and get on with solving the transportation problems for all of the people south of the river.

R. Hawes: I'm sitting here listening to what the opposition has to say, and it's very confusing. Let me just read a couple of quotes. On the 27th of September — let me just read this so I don't get any of the words wrong — the Leader of the Opposition said that she was against the Premier's Gateway program, and she's been clear about that. "It's the wrong plan. It's the wrong direction. It's the wrong bridge." A few days later the member for Surrey-Newton comes out and says she never said she was against the bridge. "We're not against the bridge. We're against what isn't in the plan."

I don't know what being against what isn't in the plan…. I don't understand that statement. It's very confusing. What is not confusing is that in the ten years that they served as government, from '91 to 2001, we just heard a litany of the transportation improvements that should be done now, with buses, etc. In the ten years, through the '90s, that they were in power, none of this stuff happened. It's like all of these people and all of these transportation problems just arose — that they weren't going on in the '90s.

R. Hawes: You know, Madam Speaker, it's very pleasant when they start to heckle, because it means they're listening. Maybe if they listen closely, they'll get an education.

The bottom line here is this. In 2001 we see there's a problem, and we begin working on it. We begin putting together a transportation plan. It's together, it's comprehensive, and it's unlike any plan in the history of this province. It is amazing.

My constituents — all of them that suffer in those endless lineups — know that there's relief in sight. To top it all off, when they're driving and they're sitting in the horrible congestion, they can see the pilings in the river for the new bridge across the river that's already going in, the Golden Ears bridge. They can see the construction work that's proceeding post-haste, on time, on budget, going over the Pitt River. Unbelievable.

Would it have happened under the previous government? Not a chance. So my constituents are not confused. They want the Gateway. They're going to get the Gateway. It will be on time, it will be on budget, and the opposition can carry on in their confusion.

S. Simpson: The previous speaker talks about what did and didn't happen in the past. Well, he might know that if this government hadn't torn up the plans in 2001, today people would be using that northeast rapid transit line. It'd be in operation if you hadn't torn the plan up.

The previous speaker talked about this being a plan unlike any other. I would agree. It is a plan unlike any other in terms of how myopic it is. What I'm saying when I say that is that what the people in this region we're talking about, the Metro Vancouver region, need is a sustainable transportation plan. They need a plan that begins to deal with questions of congestion; that deals with questions around emissions; and that looks at land use, looks at transit, looks at goods movement. What they've been offered by this government is none of that — absolutely none of that.

What have we seen here? We've seen a government that essentially said to Metro Vancouver: "Tear up your livable region strategic plan. We don't care about it." It is a plan that was worked on by local governments in order to find solutions. This government said: "We don't care. Tear it up."

What we have here is a government that has rejected those kinds of proposals for real solutions. You will know — they might remember — that back when the Premier was a mayor and was the head of the GVRD, I believe, he was the one who said at that time: "You can't build your way out of congestion." That was his comment.

He's the one who said that you can't build your way out of congestion. So the government's response to that is 20 buses. That's the government's response: 20 buses. What do we have? We have the mayor of Surrey saying quite rightly: "We need 500 buses in Surrey to build the infrastructure around public transit that will begin to reduce car use significantly."

This government's response to the call for 500 buses is 20 buses. We have people around this region saying: "Where is the transit strategy that we require in order to be able to move people? Where is the transit strategy to meet the Premier's commitment at the UBCM?" At the UBCM the Premier said — and I think this was a good comment: "We want to double the amount of people using transit from about 12 percent to 25 percent."

Are we going to do that with 20 buses? No, we're not. We're going to do that by building a transit system that works. Yet this government is prepared to put more than $6 billion into pavement and peanuts — literally peanuts — into transit.

If this government is serious about wanting to build a comprehensive plan that allows people to move and allows goods to move, then it becomes imperative that you put in all the initiatives. Unfortunately, this government is putting nothing into transit. They've scrambled to put a couple of pieces in place here in response to pressure.

What else do we have from this government? We have a Premier who tells us about climate change, a Premier who's suggesting that we need to deal with climate change. Then he has a transportation policy for the highest-populated areas in the province that does absolutely nothing to reduce the use and growth of single-occupancy vehicles.

ICBC said in the last budget that they project an 11-percent increase in the use of single-occupancy vehicles that they will insure over the next three years. This government has offered absolutely nothing to begin to mitigate that.

We're always going to have the majority of people in their cars. We all know that, but we need to find ways to reduce that car usage. We need to find ways to give people other opportunities that work.

We've said: make the commitment, and build the northeast line. Make the commitment today. Say today: "The money is on the table — the money that we gutted, the money that we took away so it could never be built." Take that money, put it on the table now, and build that line.

Tell the mayor of Surrey and the people of Surrey: "You're going to get your 500 buses over the next two or three years. We're going to phase those buses in over the next three years, and you'll build a bus network that will actually give people an opportunity to get out of their car if they want to get out of their car."

Tell the people south of the Fraser that in fact, you're going to start planning real rapid transit that actually has some substance. There's just none of that here. This is a government that is vacuous and vacant when it comes to transportation policies. It has no sense of transportation policy.

We have here a Transportation Minister who clearly…. I suspect what really drives his agenda is that the development industry has bought and paid for his campaign, and he's got to help those people buy and pay for the next one as he encourages sprawl. We have a Transportation Minister….

S. Simpson: We have a Transportation Minister who has policies in place that encourage sprawl, that say: "Build out. Build on farmland. Build out as wide as you can. It doesn't matter." Until we change that approach — until we do at least what the Premier's rhetoric says around contained, compact communities — we don't get out of this problem.

You have policies that are going in exactly the wrong direction. It's time to build a sustainable transportation policy that includes transit, includes goods movement and deals with congestion. You don't offer any of that with this plan. That's the problem with your plan.

J. McIntyre: I just want to make the record clear today, here and now, that this government supports and has a fully integrated transportation plan the likes of which has never been seen in this province's history — $3 billion.

To sit here and listen to members of the opposition, one after one, talking about lack of a plan and that we're only talking about cars first…. Have they read the rapid bus system plan that was announced a few weeks ago? We are investing significant dollars into an integrated plan that includes rapid transit, widening the highway and twinning the bridge, and none of this will happen without expanding the capability over the Fraser River. None of it will happen.

I now just want to take a couple of minutes because it does appear that the opposition has been in confusion. We've had members of the opposition saying that the constituents support it. They know it's part of the solution. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition coming out, right after UBCM, talking about the wrong bridge, wrong plan, wrong direction, etc.

Then she back-pedals on Voice of B.C., trying to say: "Well, it's sort of the right bridge, but we need to have transit first." Well, what don't they get about: if the bridge isn't expanded, you don't get the transit? We haven't had a bus over that bridge in 20 years that worked.

Let me just suggest that there isn't confusion amongst the NDP, amongst the opposition. The confusion is misleading. It's a smokescreen.

Basically, if you look back, their provincial council passed a motion against the Gateway project and specifically against twinning of the bridge. Once the party deigns that they're against that project, now the Leader of the Opposition and all the members fall in line. You now see their true colours, because this party has been united in their opposition to the Gateway. They've shown their colours today.

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.