Hansard — Monday, April 14, 2008 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


Private Members' Statements		11265
	It takes two
	H. Bloy
	C. Puchmayr
	Safety and economic security of livestock owners
	C. Wyse
	J. Rustad
	Supporting victims of crime
	L. Mayencourt
	B. Ralston
	Coalbed methane development in the Sacred Headwaters
	R. Austin
	D. MacKay

Motions on Notice		11273
	Transit plan (Motion 45)
	R. Sultan
	M. Karagianis
	M. Polak
	M. Sather
	J. Yap
	H. Lali
	D. Hayer
	B. Simpson
	J. McIntyre
	S. Simpson

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to rise today to highlight the importance of Asia-Pacific initiatives to British Columbia. As Canada's Pacific province, B.C. has an unprecedented opportunity to gain from the unparalleled growth that is currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. Geographically, British Columbia is uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of this growth, while economically, culturally and socially, our province's development can only benefit by increasing our ties with our Asia-Pacific neighbours.

For decades governments of this province have focused on continental economic markets cross-border. However, this government recognizes the importance of strengthening ties in the Asia-Pacific region and is taking great strides in supporting economic partnerships that have previously been overlooked.

British Columbia's balanced budget, unveiled in February, recognizes the importance of investing in this relationship and expanding ties in this region. Balanced Budget 2008 invests $40 million towards the Asia-Pacific initiative, building upon previous large investments in approximately 100 existing projects. Already, under this government's Asia-Pacific initiative, the results have begun to show. Between 2001 and 2006 British Columbia exports to Asia have increased by over 70 percent.

With expected increases in the trade of goods and services from the Pacific, investments in the infrastructure to support increased businesses are also necessary. The $5.8 billion investment in infrastructure over the next fiscal year will ensure a prosperous economic and social future for British Columbia. This includes $27 million towards airports and ports over the next three years.

As British Columbia continues to move forward, the priorities of the Asia-Pacific initiative must remain at the forefront of the province's agenda. I am glad to support a budget that understands the importance of this initiative to the future and prosperity of British Columbia.

I have personally travelled to Korea on four different occasions over the last five years. I've had the opportunity to make a number of business introductions between businesses in Korea and businesses in British Columbia. Many relationships have developed out of that.

I've also had the opportunity and the pleasure to work with Paju, Korea, just outside of Seoul, in doing a twinning relationship with the city of Coquitlam. The two of them are working on this now.

Twinning has been a very important function for the growth of British Columbia so that we can exchange cultural and economic ties. I've worked with the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Community Services in providing support to Canadian cities to go after these initiatives with the large investment of dollars from this ministry.

Burnaby has been a leader in twinning. They twinned with Kushiro, Japan, under their former mayor Bill Lewarne many, many years ago, and it continues as an active relationship today, with many more relationships being developed with many cities in British Columbia and the Asia-Pacific.

In areas such as business diversification, higher education and immigration the Asia-Pacific initiative provides leadership to help position British Columbia as the pre-eminent economic and cultural crossroads between Asia and North America. The Asia-Pacific initiative has committed to strengthen and maximize B.C.'s trade and investment relationships with Asia.

Budget 2008 supports this priority through changes made to the International Financial Activity Act that will provide incentives for businesses to international firms to locate in British Columbia. Budget 2008 also eliminates the capital tax on financial institutions, helping to make B.C. among the most competitive options in North America for foreign investors. I know that this has been developed and put forward for many years by Bob Fairweather, from the international banking association, and I am pleased that it has now been passed.

The Asia-Pacific initiative sets a priority to become the Asia-Pacific education, tourism and cultural destination of choice. The Ministry of Advanced Education has actively supported this goal through the promotion of B.C. as a destination for students from Asia-Pacific countries. The ministry has also encouraged our province's post-secondary institutions to enter into numerous agreements and MOUs with their Asian counterparts, reaching out to create new connections across the Pacific.

I'd also like to talk about the priorities of the Asia-Pacific initiative surrounding immigration. While British Columbia recognizes that we will face an increasing labour shortage in the future, we are also well positioned to draw highly desired immigrant workers. In 2007 in British Columbia the unemployment rate was at the lowest that it has been for over three decades, and the number of new jobs is on the rise. Since December of 2001 the economy has generated 423,900 new jobs, one of the fastest-growing rates anywhere in Canada.

The Asia-Pacific initiative identifies labour recruitment as a priority for this province. Budget 2008 supports this priority by providing an increase of $7 million for the provincial nominee program to significantly increase the number of workers and entrepreneurs with valuable skills needed in British Columbia. The budget also provides an increase of $5 million over the next year to

extend the important Skills Connect for Immigrants program and the international qualifications program, which will help connect highly desired immigrants with B.C. employers.

Another outstanding part of the Asia-Pacific initiative is B.C.'s Asia twinning program. Currently over 100 twinning arrangements exist between British Columbia cities, local governments and international communities. My own riding of Coquitlam has benefited from provincial funding from the Ministry of Community Services to support twinning efforts in China and Korea.

C. Puchmayr: Well, an interesting topic. Until the very last second, I didn't realize what it would be about. "It Takes Two," I think, was the title that I was challenged to respond to — a very good topic about trade and the Asia-Pacific market.

I want to say that in New Westminster, in my community, we have sister city relationships with the Philippines, with Quezon city; with Moriguchi, Japan, going back to 1964; and a new relationship in Yunnan Province in China as well.

Whereas we talk about the increase in trade from British Columbia to the Pacific Rim, there has also been a reverse in manufactured products that are no longer being produced in Canada and that are coming in one-way from the Asia-Pacific.

When we look at that and look at reasons why companies are going to other parts of the world to produce, we can't forget that in order to accept or to believe in that doctrine, we have to ensure what we have learned here as Canadians, what we have learned in the rights of workers, the rights to health and safety, to the rights to the environment and protection of the environment. We can't merely send our manufacturing products over to the Asia-Pacific simply for the advantage of bypassing important regulations that I think were designed to ensure that people worked safely in their industries, that they came home at night, that they made sure the environment was protected and that there were very strong controls in how we produce some of those commodities.

We've seen the issue with children's toys being made in China, using paint, with disregard to the health and safety of the children that are going to be the end users of that product — finding that there is lead paint in those toys.

Again, we're looking at something that had very strong regulations in Canada. There was insurance that people would go out and regulate those places. They would inspect the products that were being used in the manufacture of those toys. For somebody to merely say, "Well, this is too onerous for me to have this product made in Canada, because people are coming in and monitoring what I'm putting into the ingredients or what kind of paint I'm using; so if I go to another country, where the chances of being inspected are less than here, the end result is more efficiency and higher profit…." That's not the reason that we should be going overseas for trade.

With respect to workers coming to British Columbia from other countries, I believe in immigration. I'm personally an immigrant. I came from another country. My mother and father brought me here to British Columbia, and they were part of developing this country. They were the people that worked the menial jobs until they were able to work their way up into higher-paying jobs. They were the ones that were able to purchase a house, and the children were able to contribute to society.

Now we're starting to see where it becomes easier for a temporary worker to come into the country as opposed to a family that wants to relocate, wants to come to this great country and participate in Canada. We have to be careful that we're not just changing our immigration policies so that we're bringing in temporary workers, or workers that are sponsored by the employer, but that we're also bringing the families into the country that want to become part of the fabric of Canada.

We can't start to look at immigration as merely a cheap way of profiting for getting cheap labour into the country. We have to look at it as bringing people into the country that want to be part of British Columbia, want to grow with British Columbia and want to contribute to British Columbia.

With respect to education, my school board, the New Westminster school board, has a partnership in China, and they're selling an education program to China. I believe it's starting to pay some huge dividends. We also have many students that come into New Westminster. They're billeted at homes, and they attend high school in New Westminster and Douglas College in New Westminster.

Certainly there is a good exchange of education. There is a good exchange of ideas. So now we just have to ensure that when we bring in trade, when we decide to export, to import, we do so with consideration for the environment and for having people come into this country with the same respect as everyone else has come into the country in the past.

H. Bloy: Despite what the member from the opposition responded, I'll thank him for his remarks.

Despite what he might think, this side of the House doesn't agree with him. We believe that there are incredible opportunities in dealing with Asia-Pacific in the coming years. He didn't say it in exactly these words, but he talked about the change in manufacturing in British Columbia.

Yes, I'm sure that there are some companies that are not manufacturing today and shipping, but how can this be when increases in exports to Asia have increased by over 70 percent over the last six years? There is no decline in Canada. There is growth in Canada, and British Columbia is leading that.

You know, he talks about changing of immigration rules, which is a federal government agenda. In fact, we need these temporary workers here. We don't have the people. Everybody is working at better jobs, and we need people in some of these industries. I've met a

number of them in the Interior — in Kelowna, in the farming areas — where they're coming up. They're able to work here, and they're able to help support their families back home. Many of the ones I met were from Mexico.

The world has changed over the last number of years. Borders really don't exist anymore. In my other life, it was harder to do business with Alberta than it was to do with Washington State. Now borders are just opening up all the time. We can't look at borders. We have to look at how we can look after British Columbians — for jobs, for supporting them — in all our needs and foods that we need to live on every day.

China, with the fastest-growing economy in the world, holds numerous possibilities for us here in British Columbia. We have Korea and Japan investment in advanced technology, research and development opportunities for our province as a partner in global innovation. India, the world's most populous democracy, is positioning itself as a world leader in knowledge and economy and is well positioned to expand its connections within British Columbia.

Our government has launched the B.C. alumni ambassadors network, by the Premier in Hong Kong last fall to the development of the Asia-Pacific business leaders network in 2008. The many other community groups, like the Canada Korea Business Association, the Canada Japan chamber of commerce…. We have all of these countries working together with individuals from British Columbia and from the Asia-Pacific countries.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I am proud of the direction our province is taking towards promoting strong ties with the Asia-Pacific region. I would like to end my statement by urging everyone in the House to embrace British Columbia's identity as Canada's Pacific gateway.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to bring to the House's attention an item that is affecting the ranching community all along the former B.C. Rail right-of-way. Everyone here in this House knows the conditions that are facing the ranching industry generally. They know the effect that mad cow disease has had upon this industry, the effect that meat industry regulations have had upon this industry, as well as the fact of low prices.

However, there has been a change in practice that has also had a profound effect upon the ranching community that exists along the former B.C. Rail right-of-way. When B.C. Rail looked after the transportation system from Whistler through to the Peace country, fencing, for example, was accepted to be the responsibility of the railway. They looked after the capital, they looked after the maintenance, and they looked after the installation costs. Also, when we looked at the matter of private rail crossings, once more B.C. Rail looked after the expenses of those railway crossings.

The rail right-of-way was recognized as being a corridor for noxious weeds for the transportation of those items that would then spread into the grasslands that fed the cattle.

B.C. Rail accepted that their trains, through that right-of-way, provided a means for transportation of those weeds into the Interior of British Columbia and had an aggressive program that worked on the reduction of those particular weeds coming into the Interior.

Finally, they worked cooperatively with the ranching industry themselves. Accidents do occur. Trains and livestock do collide. When those unfortunate accidents did occur, the rail notified the rancher within a reasonable period of time. Upon proof of ownership of the particular cattle, the rancher was reimbursed for the loss of the animal.

When B.C. Rail was sold to CN Rail, that practice changed drastically. When we look at the issue of fencing, CN Rail does provide the capital material. However, they only provide the capital material if the rancher owns the property. B.C. Rail provided the material, they maintained it, and they dealt with the construction costs whether it was owned land, leased land or Crown land.

When CN took over, they actually sent a notice around to people with private rail crossings advising them that there would now be an annual fee of about $500 in order to be able to use the private rail crossings. In addition, they were told that they would be responsible for the maintenance of those rail crossings, and they would be legally responsible for any accidents that took place as a result of inadequate maintenance. Estimates for that annual cost were in the neighbourhood of $10,000 — again, quite a drastic change in the existing practice.

As far as the noxious weed corridor goes, there's nowhere near the same effective working relationship for the spread of those weeds that threaten the actual feed for the cattle.

Finally, when it comes to the reporting of accidents, that practice has changed drastically. I wish to read from a letter that I sent to the Minister of Transportation in November of 2007. I advised the minister that between the spring of 2006 and the fall of 2007, five ranchers between Williams Lake and Lac la Hache contacted me to report incidents of cattle being hit by CN trains and not being properly informed by CN Rail.

Affected ranchers are often learning of incidents from other ranchers while making inspections. Unfortunately, it is often after the fact and too late for ranchers to do anything to protect their cattle, and they are finding them lying on the right-of-way dead or mortally wounded and suffering. Because CN is not properly notifying ranchers, some incidents, in actual fact, may not be discovered at all.

One of the cases reported to me from July 17 through to August 6 gives this House an idea of the situation that develops. The rancher discovered a kill of one of his cattle. Upon advising the railway, there was argument back and forth on who was responsible for the removal of the cattle. Eventually the carcass was removed by August 6. This carcass lay adjacent to the San Jose River, and when the carcass was finally

When we deal with issues of trespass…. Cattle can wander off of fenced ranching property onto Crown and leased properties that are not fenced. They then end up on the railway. Those ranchers have been advised that they are trespassing if they go after their cattle on the rail right-of-way.

Once more, we have further examples of the lack of cooperation between a rail line and the ranching community that existed there for years. CN is not working with the ranchers. They are not working cooperatively with them as the practice has been in the past.

The rancher is now, in actual fact, being expected to contribute to the profitability of the corporation. These costs have been downloaded onto the ranchers that run anywhere from Whistler up to Fort St. John in the Peace country.

It is a concern. It is an additional expense that has been passed on to the ranching community. It is an expense that had never existed until the railway was sold to the CN Railway. It is an item that remains outstanding. It is an issue that has been brought to the attention of the various appropriate ministers.

With that, it is indeed my pleasure to inform the House of that very significant issue for the ranching community all along the B.C. Rail.

J. Rustad: I want to start by thanking the member for Cariboo South for bringing up this issue. In one of the jobs that I have, which is chair of our B.C. Liberal northern caucus, I get an opportunity to travel throughout the Cariboo and talk with NCMA, regional districts and the Cattlemen's Association.

The Cattlemen's Association — as well as the regional district, through NCMA, North Central Municipal Association — has brought this issue to our northern caucus. We have had some discussions. We've been working towards trying to find some solutions.

To that end, one of the issues that the member for Cariboo South brought up, which was around the annual fee associated with private crossings, was certainly an issue that we brought up, we've discussed with the minister and the minister discussed with CN. CN has waived that annual fee, and they are still in the process of reviewing that.

We understand, in terms of the ranching industry, that the costs for ranchers are a challenge. The pricing for their products, for the meat products, is low right now, which creates some very hard times for the ranchers. Certainly, anything that is an additional cost is a concern and is something that's a concern for me. That was certainly one that we brought forward.

The member talks about animals that happen to wander onto the tracks and are killed. CN has worked with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. In 2006 it updated its protocol in consultation with, as well as supported by, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They are required to notify ranchers whenever possible when there is a kill. I imagine it might be difficult to get every one that happens. Hopefully, this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but they are required to do that. They are also required to enter into the process, where claims are verified, to actually have a compensation for the ranchers. So that process is in place.

There's another issue that the member brought up, which I find curious, and this is around the fencing issue and BCR. Federally regulated rail lines in Canada have not been responsible for constructing and maintaining fences along the rights-of-way since 1996. CN and CP, as part of operations in B.C., fell under those new regulations in 1996.

When that member's party was in power during the 1990s, there was no mention of that. There were no bills. There was nothing that had come forward at that time, during the '90s.

I understand the concern around that and the change that's happened with CN taking over on a lease arrangement for the BCR. However, it falls under federal regulations. It would be great to hear from the member for Cariboo South on what he's done in terms of approaching the MPs about lobbying for anything that may happen under federal regulations, to be able to help the ranchers with that situation.

Having said that, CN at this stage has committed to…. Ranchers have the opportunity on their lands to be able to apply for materials so that they can proceed with fencing. That's a process that is out there and available, which CN has put in place.

The other issue that I quickly want to touch on — and I see that my time is winding down — is the noxious weeds and the weed issue that comes along the rail line. There's also a noxious weed issue that comes along our highways with transportation. Anytime you get that happening, the weeds can very easily use that corridor to be able to expand.

That's an issue that I know the Minister of Agriculture has been very engaged in with the ranchers. I've sat in on some of those discussions, and I know he's working towards dealing with those issues in conjunction with the ranchers to try to resolve that. But I'm curious as to what the member is suggesting in terms of whether noxious weeds should become the responsibility of transportation networks around the province as opposed to in conjunction — between the province and ranchers. I look forward to hearing the member for Cariboo South's response to some of these issues.

I thank the member for Cariboo South for bringing this up, because ranching is a very important component. Certainly in my riding it is, and throughout the Interior ranching is very, very important. It's one of the things that opened up this province. It's one of those things that I believe will be critical for our future.

Particularly, the quality of beef that they produce is phenomenal. Myself, I actually purchase beef from local producers, and I have to tell you that the beef that's produced in our province, I believe, is second to none.

Once again, I thank the member for bringing this up and for addressing this issue.

C. Wyse: As usual, I very much appreciate hearing from my colleague. I also am appreciative — and I'm sure that the constituents in British Columbia will also be happy to hear — that there's finally been an announcement that there is support on the government side about this particular issue.

The interesting aspect about dealing with this item is that regardless of what happened with federal laws in 1996, because B.C. Rail was covered underneath the provincial legislation and was responsible here to the cabinet, the practice was maintained after those regulations were changed. That was the point that was being made. When you had a government that carried on with the philosophy that B.C. Rail had been intended to open up the Interior and to support the various industries that were involved along the rail right-of-way, that practice did continue.

Because of the lack of due diligence when the railway was sold, it then ended up not being carried on. That is the issue. That is what is facing the ranching community with this additional pressure along the way.

I will be looking forward for support from this House, unanimously, to be finding means to rectify an oversight. Let's accept that possibly it was an innocent oversight — and that's what it is — and that we're looking for a solution to address it.

The government didn't ensure that those interests were maintained along the right-of-way. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association as well as many other organizations of the cattle industry have been raising this concern consistently, and to this date they are advising me that these four issues have not been satisfactorily addressed. That is why I'm here in front of this House making sure that we're aware of it.

Communities from Whistler through to Fort St. John have passed resolutions looking for resolution to these four items. Cattle associations likewise are looking for the support of this government to return to the practice that did exist before the rail was given away. They do not support the aspect that this business should be required to be supporting the huge profit line of a corporation.

With that, I look forward to this House's support later when we look at private members' bills around this item.

L. Mayencourt: This morning I wanted to speak a little bit about supporting victims of crime in British Columbia.

On Saturday I spent the day with Ji-Won Park. Many members of this House will remember Ji-Won as the young lady who came to Vancouver as a student from Korea and spent some time in the city of Vancouver, living in the West End. Back about six years ago she was brutally attacked in a park — actually, in Stanley Park in my neighbourhood.

Ji-Won was out jogging. In the course of her jog, she was approached by someone who then used her Walkman earphones to strangle her and left her for dead on the side of the trail.

Since that day, Ji-Won has been a part of my life — a very important part of my life — and someone who I really treasure. It is in that incident with Ji-Won and my friendship with her over the last six years that I feel like I have a perspective to offer on what we do for victims of crime in British Columbia.

Ji-Won happened to be attacked just a few days after this Legislature had talked about victims of crime and created the Crime Victim Assistance Act. That was a really important piece of legislation because what it said was that there are victims of crime who cannot afford the financial burdens that are imposed upon them because of their financial situation not being firm or what have you.

Ji-Won was in a very unique position because Ji-Won didn't even have medical insurance, which meant that for the most part there was a lot of discussion in the community about who was going to pay her medical bills. That was a big source of concern in my community, and it was a big source of concern, I think, to a lot of British Columbians, because this young lady was here as a student. She didn't have the insurance, and she was going to be using a lot of the health care system in British Columbia.

I first met her in Vancouver General Hospital. At that point, she was still pretty much under the effects of a coma and was not quite able to recognize or talk to people. I met her uncle at that point, who is a very nice fellow. He had organized a vigil, so we went out and did a vigil for Ji-Won in Stanley Park.

The other problem that we had with Ji-Won was that in addition to not having money or insurance to deal with this, she really didn't have any family here. So whenever the family needed to be here to support Ji-Won, they had to get on a plane from Seoul, Korea, and come to Vancouver. As a family they arrived here with very little skills in English. I can remember spending a lot of time trying to figure out what they wanted to have happen with Ji-Won and what was going to happen with their lives as a result of that.

What we saw in the case of Ji-Won Park was an unparalleled public show of support for her, because she was quite an innocent young lady. Ji-Won Park ended up being a quadriplegic. She has not been able to speak, and she has not really been able to communicate very well, even with her family, over the past six years.

It's important to note that when Ji-Won was attacked, she spoke five languages fluently. She was a young Korean woman who had learned a lot of different languages and had the intention of going around and travelling the world and seeing was what was out there. She wanted to be in the tourism business. She was a really great young lady.

She was very good at school, and she was very interested in helping in her community as well. As a matter of fact, in the few months that she was in Vancouver before her attack, she was a volunteer at a seniors care facility that's in my neighbourhood, Haro Park. It was really interesting, because here's a young lady that has no connection to Vancouver who was going out and doing volunteer work. It was a way for

her to pay back the opportunity to be in Vancouver, but it was also an opportunity for her to hone her skills and to understand Canadian culture better.

The Crime Victim Assistance Act was something that we brought in, as I said, in 2002. It is a piece of legislation that really makes a difference in people's lives because it says that when you have this injury, when you are impacted by crime, the government is going to be behind you. The government is going to help you out.

For the first little while, we dealt with issues of medical care, we dealt with issues of bringing the family to Vancouver, and we dealt with issues around helping to ensure that Ji-Won got the best kinds of supports delivered to her as were possible.

Next week I'll be joining Ji-Won Park in the Sun Run. It's part of the ongoing commitment that I have to the family to be able to go out and do those sorts of things with her, to help her have the experience of being in Vancouver.

The point of this is that there are people that are victims of crime in British Columbia. We need to respond with care and compassion. Often that means we're also going to have to deliver on some promises in terms of their health care delivery over the next several years, which is going to happen to Ji-Won because she will be in that wheelchair for the rest of her life.

I look forward to hearing from the members of the opposition about victims of crimes and their ability to be able to be supported through the province of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for sharing that story of Ji-Won Park. Indeed, there are victims of crime. It's appropriate that we discuss that issue here in the Legislature today.

This is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. To that end, along with my colleagues from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Vancouver-Kingsway and Member of Parliament Ed Fast, yesterday I attended a rally sponsored by Families Against Crime and Trauma, co-sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, greater Vancouver chapter, and End Youth Violence.

Too often, I think, the view of those involved in the justice system is an instinct to protect their positions — perhaps not unnaturally, given that they know the system and know how the system works — to defend decisions that are made or errors that are made or grievous errors that are made resulting in very serious death or injury to members of our community.

Indeed, the Attorney General has said — notwithstanding, I think, that his career has really been entirely working within that system — that public support and public esteem for the justice system is, in his estimation, at an all-time low. Part of the reason is the way in which people view victims of crime as being treated.

Certainly, at this rally, which I attended with my colleagues, some of those points of view were expressed. Dave Toner, who is the president of the organization FACT, expressed his view that serious, violent repeat offenders deserve to be treated in a different way by the court system and that a consideration of longer sentences ought to be considered and probably is required.

Gary Mauser, who is a retired professor from Simon Fraser, a criminologist, explained that submissions he'd made to the Canadian Senate in his view demonstrate that while those offenders are in prison — at least for that time — the community is protected from further acts of violence by them.

James Miller, who is the president of End Youth Violence, is of the view that 80 percent of bullying is unreported because victims are afraid the offender won't be held accountable. He called for a further integration of intervention programs at schools, social agencies and police departments. He said that too often people don't know where to find those resources and how to access them in a way that will protect them as victims of bullying and as potential victims of violence. So there is much that can be done.

We also heard a very eloquent speech from Katie Gaba, who is the Mothers Against Drunk Driving greater Vancouver chapter president. Her story of the death of a relative and the way in which that case found its way through the court system is perhaps an all too frequent recitation of what happens in our court system.

There is a need to take victims of crime more seriously. These community advocacy organizations are engaged in raising public awareness about it. I want to urge those listening to take what they say seriously, and together here we can make the changes that will more fully help victims of crime in society.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Whalley. It's appropriate that he be the one to respond here this morning, and I'm pleased that he did. I was with the member some months back when we had a rally in Surrey. I think that you attended as well, Madam Speaker. It was at the impetus of that member and his staff that this rally took place to honour Chris Mohan and Ed Schellenberg, who were innocent victims in a gang war in the city of Surrey.

I think one of the things that happens when you look at a case like Ji-Won Park's is that you know that government is stepping in. You know that government is going to try and do the very best it can to help that individual deal with the impact of that crime.

But what happens to those victims of crime that die? As members will know well, we have experienced a lot of very tragic circumstances today. Chris Mohan and Ed Schellenberg come to mind right away, but we also have incidents that are happening here in British Columbia today and right now. We know the tragedy in Merritt. I don't want to belabour that or speak too much about that at this point, because I know that it's a very difficult time for people right now in that community.

But what do we do to ensure that the victims of those crimes can have some fulfilment, if you will, or some healing that might happen? I think we're hearing loud and clear from British Columbians everywhere that they want us to be extremely careful. They want us

to be extremely compassionate and understanding when it comes to the potential for crime to happen and that the courts really understand what the community is asking for when we come before the courts and ask the courts to protect the community.

I look forward to continued debate. I look forward to continuing to advocate for victims of crime. I have a special place in my heart for those individuals that have become victims of crime and are no longer with us. We need to do something to ensure that their lives were not for naught and that we honour their memory by making sure there are no more victims of that particular crime.

R. Austin: I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters.

The Sacred Headwaters is a very special place. It's the source of the three most important rivers in the Skeena region. These rivers are amongst the most wild and ecologically productive waterways in the province. All three are rich sources of wild salmon, and each of them plays a part in attracting economic benefits to the communities I represent, through tourism and our world-renowned sport fishery.

Although I am biased, I think there is plenty of evidence to support my belief that northwest British Columbia is the crown jewel of this province, a treasure that should be treated with the utmost care. That is why I have been a tireless advocate of the precautionary principle, especially when it concerns the rivers, which are truly the lifeline of the region that I represent.

The Skeena, the Nass and the Stikine are all born in the Sacred Headwaters, deep in the heart of Tahltan traditional territory. All three are also threatened by plans to develop coalbed methane in one of the most crucial and intact ecosystems left in the world.

My constituents are pragmatic. Some of them would even consider it an insult to be called an environmentalist, and few among them are too shy to embrace a sensible development when it is presented to them. However, people in the Skeena region have weathered more than their share of economic downturns. They have become adept at measuring the benefits of projects versus the losses that they cause.

They know that sometimes a job in one project will eliminate a job somewhere else. That is one of the reasons why my constituents fought long and hard against fish farms in the north. Wild salmon bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our region every year. Those who travel to communities like Terrace and Kitimat to land a legendary sockeye return home to Japan, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, to countries scattered far and wide, and tell their fish stories to their friends.

The direct and indirect benefits that wild salmon bring to our region cannot be measured, but they should not be underestimated. The people of my region judge that the jobs offered by fish farms could not possibly hope to replace those jobs that would be lost through the collapse of our wild salmon stocks and the subsequent damage that would be inflicted upon our reputation as an international fishing destination.

It is for many of the same reasons that people in the northwest, not only in my constituency but also people from the North Coast and from Bulkley Valley–Stikine, are vehemently opposed to coalbed methane development in the Sacred Headwaters. There are, of course, other reasons, but the failure of this project to provide more benefits than risks to northwest British Columbians is this proposal's most egregious shortfall.

As I recognize that the other members of this House may not be as well-informed on this issue as I am, I would like to share some of the most pressing concerns I have heard expressed about the exploitation of coalbed methane reserves in the Sacred Headwaters area.

There are essentially two main objections to coalbed methane development. The first is that it is hazardous to the environment, and the second is that the corresponding economic opportunities it provides are not great enough to offset the losses caused by the degradation of local water supplies, falling property values and the destruction of lucrative living resources such as wild salmon.

Coalbed methane has a huge environmental footprint. Sources from Royal Dutch Shell, the company that hopes to move forward with this development, confirm that they want to build over a thousand wells. Many believe the actual total will be much higher. Each well drilled disrupts three to four acres of land and requires both road and pipeline access. Each linear mile of road disrupts about four acres of adjacent habitat.

The Sacred Headwaters is host to the world's largest herd of Osborn caribou and a healthy bear population. Both of these species are sensitive to habitat fragmentation.

However, the most insidious and threatening aspect of this development is the large-scale water contamination which is likely to result from coalbed methane extraction if it is allowed to take place. This water contamination is threefold and present in virtually every jurisdiction, at varying levels, where this form of resource extraction has been allowed to proceed.

The first source of water contamination comes from the fossil water that is pumped out of coal seams in order to release the methane gas into the well. This water, which is often saline and contaminated with heavy metals and other poisonous minerals, cannot be put back once it is taken out. It is usually stored in tailing ponds above ground, where they pose a danger to wildlife and may leak out and contaminate the local watershed. The alternative of pumping it into wells drilled in bedrock is no better, as our limited knowledge of hydrology in our province makes it likely that this water could find its way into underground streams and later into our rivers.

The second source of water contamination comes from the toxic cocktail of sand and chemicals that's injected into the ground at high pressure in order to fracture the coal seam and make the gas flow more easily. The composition of these compounds is considered a

trade secret, but the mixture contains many substances that could contaminate vast quantities of water, even if the chemicals are only present in small amounts.

The third major source of concern about our water quality comes in the form of methane migration. Not all the methane disrupted by mining activities is captured by the wells. Some of it finds its way into aquifers and rivers. There are several communities near coalbed methane developments where the residents can light their tap water on fire.

All three of these water quality concerns are extremely grave. All of them pose serious questions about the continuing viability of wild salmon stocks in the Skeena, the Nass and the Stikine if coalbed methane development is allowed to deface the Sacred Headwaters area.

Coalbed methane development most emphatically does not provide economic benefits in the long term to my constituents. Allowing this project into the Sacred Headwaters would create a short-term boost in employment which, while it would benefit local workers, would be short-lived. Once the wells are drilled, the roads are built and the methane is pumping out, the majority of the work on the site would be done by a small number of highly specialized Shell employees, who largely would not be based in the northwest or from the region.

So in return for a long-term sustainable industry that has the advantage of preserving the quality of our environment and our drinking water, we would get a poison-filled project that would destroy our environment, pollute our drinking water and employ very few people in the long term. It isn't difficult to see why my constituents are furious that they were not consulted about this project before Shell began drilling test wells and why they are adamant that this project not proceed any further.

D. MacKay: I'd like to respond to the member for Skeena for his comments on the coalbed gas and the Sacred Headwaters, as it's been commonly referred to.

The entire province today is sacred. The province of British Columbia sustains over 4.5 million people, and every valley is sacred. There's fresh water coming from the mountains, from the glaciers that are melting.

After listening to the member for Skeena, I have to wonder if, in fact, he's actually been up and had a look at the area known as the Klappan where Shell Oil is looking at drilling some holes to see if it's economically viable to extract coalbed gas from those large coal seams that are in the ground.

Today the potential for coalbed gas is expected to exceed 80 times the natural gas that we're drilling in the northeast part of our province. It's a huge resource for the province of British Columbia.

You know, living on this land base, we derive our livelihood from cutting down trees, from coalmining, from fishing, from agriculture and from extracting minerals and natural gas. We heat our homes with wood, propane, electricity and natural gas. Soon, I would expect, we'll be looking at coalbed gas as the next source of heat for our homes.

Science has moved us forward in leaps and bounds. When you stop and think that 1,500 years ago people actually thought the Earth was flat, some people actually thought…. When Columbus came out here, his people on the boat were getting ready to mutiny because they were afraid they were going to sail off the edge of the world. At one time people actually thought that the solar system revolved around planet Earth. Well, science has shown us otherwise over the years.

We talk about the degradation. I've heard about the degradation for coalbed gas exploration, but in fact there has been no degradation from coalbed gas in British Columbia because we don't have any commercialization of the product today in our province. We're still looking and experimenting to see if in fact it's economically viable to remove that gas from the coal seams.

The coal seams. We talk about the escape of the methane gas. Well, for the most part with coal seams that are close to the surface of the land, we've already seen that what methane gas was contained within those seams has been released into the atmosphere, because they're not under as great a pressure as the seams where the coalbed gas is expected to be found today.

We expect that we're going to find coalbed gas in seams that are one kilometre below the surface of the earth. Can you imagine the pressure under which that gas and the water contained in those coal seams is kept there? It's tremendous. To say that we're going to see degradation and that we're going to see contamination of the water — that is bunk.

Today in the province of British Columbia if you're going to drill and see if in fact you can extract the gas from the coal seams, any water that is produced from those coal seams has to be reinjected well below any known aquifer. So we've added an extra burden on top for the coalbed gas people that want to look, first of all, to see if the gas can be removed and if there's enough there to make it economical.

We seem to be in this mindset that, because somebody has an idea, we've got to shut it down and that we should shut it down before everybody gets a chance to see whether or not we can do it.

I would suggest that coalbed gas is our next source of heat for the province of British Columbia. This building down here, many homes in Vancouver and commercial buildings throughout our province are heated with gas. Coalbed gas is going to be the next source of heat.

We heard the member talk about people turning on their taps and that you could light the gas coming out of their taps. That's happening in Telkwa today because there's a big coalfield there. There are lots of homes built on top of that, and some of the water that is coming up out of the seam into the homes in which these people live has got methane gas in it. You can actually light it today.

To suggest that we're going to contaminate the water, that we're going to contaminate the air quality around the northwest part of our province, is bunk. If there's not enough gas in the ground for Shell to make it economically

viable, the project won't proceed. If they can't find a reservoir to reinject the water that may come up with the gas, if they can't find a well or reservoir that will accept that water, the project will not proceed…

D. MacKay: …because that's a requirement of the environmental assessment process.

R. Austin: Well, it comes as no surprise to me that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine seems to be a staunch proponent of coalbed methane extraction in the Sacred Headwaters.

I'd like to, first of all, comment about his term that all of British Columbia is sacred. Indeed, all of British Columbia is a fantastic place to live. However, Sacred Headwaters refers to the term given to that territory by the Tahltan people, who have lived there off the land successfully for thousands of years prior to Europeans ever arriving on this continent.

So I think we should honour the term that's given to this particular area. It's sacred for a very special reason. It speaks to a connection of people who have lived closely with that land and recognizes that they are the stewards of that land in perpetuity.

There has been a great deal of development take place in northwest B.C. One can only look at mining as an example and recognize that when there are economic activities or industrial projects that take place, it's necessary, for the work to be done, to speak to the local people and get their support.

In terms of the recent NovaGold–Teck Cominco mine, Galore Creek, which unfortunately has been temporarily been shut down, the owners of that mining project did the right thing. They went up and spoke to the Tahltan and showed them the benefits and the downsides of creating a mine of that size. They did a lot of work over two years, and eventually the people up there decided: "Yes, this is something that is worthwhile. This is an industrial project that we would like to give support to."

They did the same kind of good work with the environmental community in this province, people who want to try and help create a balance between resource extraction and still keep something there for our children and grandchildren to take advantage of.

But in terms of coalbed methane, this has not been done. People do not want it up there. They've spoken very, very clearly, just as they did in the Flathead region of British Columbia. Last year I had the privilege of meeting with members down in the East Kootenays, who had said that they vehemently did not want coalbed methane in the Flathead.

My understanding is that the government has listened to them and, in fact, right now is not going to go ahead with any coalbed methane development in the Flathead. All I'm asking for is that we have the same done up in northwest B.C. as was done in the Flathead.

Finally, I just want to refer to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine saying that this hasn't really caused any degradation in British Columbia. Everywhere that there has been coalbed methane extraction in the world thus far, there has been huge degradation to the environment and huge consequences. The technology does not exist to this day that makes this a safe type of resource extraction.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 45 in the hands of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 45 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Occasionally the opposition makes perfectly good sense. For example, on September 17 their leader declared: "Commuters are sick and tired of sitting in traffic jams, and they need immediate action. That means a serious investment in transit." She further explained that this means "more buses, SkyTrain cars and transit routes to serve the province's fastest-growing regions."

The government couldn't have said it better themselves. The provincial transit plan was subsequently announced — a $14 billion investment. That $14 billion is not some economist's kind of airy, casual projection. It comprises $2.9 billion of investment already in the ground on the Canada line as we speak, as well as an additional $11.9 billion in new funding for the much-delayed Evergreen line and upgraded Expo line, and a new rapid transit link to UBC. It's not merely focused on Vancouver but embraces new transit initiatives right across the province.

It will increase the speed, the frequency and the hours of service. It will increase mobility options for seniors and others who rely on such services as handyDART, and not incidentally, it would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a cumulative 4.7 million tonnes over the next dozen years.

It will encourage increased population and employment densities near transportation hubs, reduce urban sprawl and change the urban landscape into a more sustainable form. It will discourage vehicle congestion and gridlock, which make life frustrating for commuters, workers and businesses alike.

Where will the new money come from? The largest share, slightly over 42 percent, will come from the provincial taxpayer. Another 28 percent, we hope and expect, will come from the federal government, with whom

our B.C. government has cultivated a very strong relationship. TransLink, the operator, will be expected to chip in 25 percent, leaving about 5 percent for other odds and ends, which will definitely not include a tax on parking stalls.

What will we get for our money? Some lofty accomplishments. In Metro Vancouver, an increase in Transit's share of the people-moving market from 12 percent to 22 percent. Faster travel times — save one whole hour going by public transit from Coquitlam to UBC. Increased public safety — no longer will SkyTrain platforms be accessible hangouts for drug dealers and purse snatchers. Bipartisan support — we are pleased that individuals on the bench opposite, particularly those from Surrey, applaud the plan.

What does it do for the North Shore in my riding? Well, several things. Construction is already underway on the addition of a dedicated bus lane on Marine Drive, which will speed commuting buses onto the Lions Gate Bridge. We will also get our fair share of the more than 1,500 new clean energy buses — no more smelly diesel fumes; two more SeaBuses across Burrard Inlet; and Ministry of Transportation endorsement of a plan to streamline the transit-inhibiting spaghetti maze of interchanges at the north end of the Iron Workers Bridge, consistent with the SeyLynn development.

The North Shore is not being left out, but we will have to face up to certain rapid transit facts of life. These include:

(1) Density. Mass transit works best in dense urban environments, adjectives which do not easily spring to mind when we consider our sprawling, low-density, strung-out North Shore communities.

(2) Growth. According to the census, the population of the North Shore grew by all of 1 percent between 2001 and 2006. Contrast that with Surrey's 13.6 percent growth or Port Moody's 15½ percent growth in the same time span. Not surprisingly, transit planning tends to focus on areas of growth.

(3) Economics. North Shore transit fare revenues have been rising about 1.3 percent per year, but North Shore transit costs have been going up about 3.1 percent per year. When cost and revenues diverge so sharply, the business case can become wobbly.

(4) Local land use. Transit planners are not encouraged when North Shore residents reject the location of a much-needed bus garage and the location of a bus turnaround at Capilano College, which would make Cap College more competitive in transportation costs for their students.

Much remains to be done. It will probably be a few months yet before I abandon my Saab, walk to Park Royal and hop on the bus or get on my bicycle, but that day is surely coming.

To summarize, the Leader of the Opposition must be complimented on her clarion call for transit action. But was the government's speedy response acknowledged with a thank-you? Sad to say, no. Nimbly, their transit platform has been shifted. Last January, after the plan the NDP had championed was actually announced, she denounced it, saying that what we actually needed was more transit, more buses and lower fares.

If the battleground is now to be transit fares, I must remind esteemed colleagues on benches opposite of the fate of another fiery socialist, Effie Jones. I recently recalled her from an unused corner of my brain, where it got stuck 61 years ago.

Effie Jones ran for mayor of Vancouver with solid socialist endorsement. Her plan was the essence of clarity — to restore the five-cent streetcar fare. In Mount Pleasant, where I grew up, she was famous forever after as Low-Fare Effie. Low-Fare Effie lost.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to rise today to speak to the motion here put before us to support the provincial transit plan. First of all, I'd like to add a few counterbalances to the supposition that this is about a provincial transit plan, because in fact, what we're talking about is a $14 billion Lower Mainland transit plan. We are not talking about a provincewide transit plan.

I would have to say that I have, then, some concerns about the expectation that we would support a provincial transit plan that is so very Metro Vancouver–centric, because there are lots of players and lots of communities left out of this motion. I think that in some ways it misleads us a little bit. The provincial plan is really all about Metro Vancouver.

I'd first like to look at the premise on which the previous speaker laid out the rationale for the transit plan — this really exorbitant announcement that was made on a $14 billion plan for the Lower Mainland, with a few crumbs thrown to other communities around British Columbia. Let's take a look at the reality of the $14 billion announcement.

First of all, this is a compilation of projects, some of which are already underway. Some projects have already had the sanction of TransLink. Buses have been ordered, and SkyTrain expansion has already begun. So when you look at that, some of the dollars within this are actually already allocated to pre-existing plans and expansion.

Secondly — and I think the member very clearly specified it — the federal contribution to this plan is but a hope in government's eye at this point. There is no firm commitment of federal dollars to the larger plan. So as always, we're sitting here crossing our fingers that perhaps the funding will be adequate as we move forward, but without any kind of guarantee from the federal government. In fact, frankly, their contribution so far has not been for any spectacular amount that would give us confidence that they are an equal player in an expansion plan, as laid out by the government here, of $14 billion.

If you look at the other component that has to come together on this in Metro Vancouver, it's TransLink. They are, by legislation, dependent on transit fares and property taxes as key components to their funding formula. One has to say: at what point do you break the piggy bank on that?

Certainly, we know that higher transit fares are not a way to motivate more people to ride transit. In fact, at the end of the day, that is the ultimate goal — to have a

transit plan both in Metro Vancouver and elsewhere in the province that motivates and attracts riders and encourages people to leave their cars behind and ride. With higher fares as a component of this, we already see that we have some of the highest fares in the country. Why would we consider that part of any future transit plan that would in fact jack up fares to the point that they discourage people from getting out of their cars and riding transit?

Higher property taxes. I expect that at some point there will be serious resistance from communities around the Lower Mainland and elsewhere that see that their property taxes are going to continue to go up and up with a transit plan that does not have adequate funding from the feds. At some point you simply have to say: how much can the property tax payer bear? I think we are going to see more and more that we're going to have to turn to other forms of funding in order to make this a reality.

When we look at the kind of plan that's been laid out here — again, very much specific to Metro Vancouver — timeliness of this expansion, I think, is also a very critical key. Most of the buildout and ridership capacity that'll be provided here won't exist until 2020.

In the Transportation estimates, by discussion and questions with the minister, we know that even the government knows there will be at least a million people moving to the South Fraser in the coming years. If we have a transit plan that doesn't even deliver real ridership until 2020, then there's got to be some serious concerns about the timeliness of this expansion.

It's great to say that we're going to have this great plan and that there's going to be a fabulous public transit system, but it's not till 2020 and beyond that anybody will actually be able to take advantage of that and that we will provide ridership and give people options to get out of their cars.

I would also say that the third component of this that I think is seriously at fault is the government's premise that this somehow is supporting a provincial transit plan by funnelling most of this plan into the Lower Mainland in any way speaks to the issues around the rest of the province.

Here in Victoria we already know that we have a very contentious project, which is really one of the little crumbs that fell off the table of this plan that was given to Victoria. It has now resulted in a project that has us all discussing the lack of a proper transit authority here in Victoria, of adequate planning, of integrated planning for a whole variety of needs and of a real integrated transportation plan here on the south Island that gets people out of their cars and allows people to get where they need to go — out of the Western Communities, downtown, out to the university, to the dockyard and to the base.

We do not have any kind of integrated plan there. Without any kind of dollars to that, we have instead a very small, isolated project that has the business community up in arms. The government has failed, in that respect, to deliver any kind of provincial transit plan to us.

Also left out of this equation are rural communities — rural British Columbia and communities beyond the south Island and beyond metropolitan Vancouver. Where are they in this provincial transit plan? Well, they're nowhere either. The government has repeatedly left rural B.C. out of the discussion over and over again.

When we talk about a provincial plan, let's not fool ourselves. This is a Lower Mainland plan without adequate funding and with a time line that does not adequately address the need to supply real transit solutions, public transit solutions and transit expansion now into those communities — not in 2020 but from now till 2020.

In addition, we see rural B.C. again left out of the consideration for any kind of transportation expansion. The Cariboo connector has been promised over and over again to communities — no kind of time line here for delivering that.

How can you have a provincial transit plan that does not include other parts of the province, that is very specifically about a plan for metropolitan Vancouver and doesn't even deliver on the promise there? We're not going to see any kind of solutions until long after we need them. We're going to see huge expansions of highways and bridges and the Gateway project, which will be all about getting more cars back and forth in the Lower Mainland and which will open seven years before we can deliver adequate transportation solutions to the South Fraser.

You've got to say to yourself: what kind of provincial transit plan do we have? It has left rural B.C. out of the plan. It has left Victoria and other city centres like Kelowna out of the equation. It certainly doesn't deliver any of the funding and doesn't deliver adequate time lines.

I would have to say that we on this side of the House will oppose this because it is both misleading and inadequately resourced. With that, I know that there will be others who would like to speak to this as well, and I will conclude my remarks.

M. Polak: Well, it's interesting to hear the Transportation critic finish off by saying that this is a transportation plan that is misleading. As I read through some of the quotes and comments that have been made by the opposition ever since we began this legislative session, it strikes me that what is more misleading is to pretend that you have an alternate plan when the only thing you've costed out is $11 million.

I read a quote. I believe it's from the Transportation critic who just spoke. "We've got to get commuters out of their cars by expanding alternative modes of transport such as buses, bikes and, in the long run, light rail transit. B.C. New Democrats propose to increase funding for public transportation and have committed $11 million" — $11 million, imagine that — "for green transportation and transit in our fully costed platform."

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that is an absolute drop in the bucket for a region of the province that has been waiting and waiting decade

Certainly, we can go back to people even such as Art Charbonneau in '93, who was the NDP Tranportation Minister and at the time said — guess what — that we need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. There's a big reason why we need to see the Port Mann Bridge in place ahead of being able to provide transit south of the Fraser. Why? Because it's so congested, after decades of neglect, that you can't get a bus over it.

Now, I should give the opposition the benefit of the doubt perhaps. All their opposition and delay and desire for more studies of the Port Mann Bridge while they maintain that they want to see transit south of the Fraser is all part of a grand plan, yet to be announced by the opposition, to initiate flying buses across the Fraser River. It's possible, perhaps, that it's new technology that they've kept secret. But that is the only way, short of the plan that we have with Gateway and the provincial transportation plan, that you would see a bus across that corridor without the building of the Port Mann Bridge first.

Anyone who wants to stand up and say that the Gateway infrastructure project has nothing to do with transit hasn't been paying attention south of the Fraser for an awfully long time. The only way to get things moving is to move trucks off the No. 1 and get them on the perimeter roads. You will then have freed up movement on the new Port Mann Bridge, along with its sister. You will have HOV lanes that — guess what — will allow us to have RapidBus service out to Langley.

In case you wonder about the impact of that, imagine the difference. Right now if I want to get in my car in the morning and drive into Coquitlam or Burnaby, I easily have to give myself an hour and a half travel time. Sometimes even then, I'll be late. With the institution of RapidBus, I'll be able to travel that same distance in 23 minutes. Imagine the impact. In truth, our B.C. transit plan means what we've been wanting south of the Fraser.

It means more buses. It means more SkyTrain cars. It means more opportunities for people to use transit. It means that those buses, those SkyTrain cars and the RapidBus are going to be there more frequently, and that's hugely important.

My father lives in Newton. A lot of his shopping he likes to do is in Langley — as the crow flies, not a long trip. If I want to drive out and get him, it takes me 20 minutes. If he wants to take a bus and do his shopping trip, after all the changes and the waiting that he has to go through, it takes him two hours. God forbid that he should miss the bus, because the one from Langley out to where he needs to go only runs once an hour.

Take my daughter. If my daughter decides that she wants to work late on an evening, she can't get a bus home, because it doesn't run frequently enough.

That's why this transit plan is hugely important. It meshes with the plans we have in Langley city. Langley city is now planning a densification of their community that fits perfectly with what we have in the transit plan. Langley township has been building up the route along 200th with high density so that we can then have an effective transit plan that moves people around.

The reality is that you cannot build outside of what's happening with communities. You need to plan with them.

This is going to have a huge impact on the whole region, not just in terms of how people get around and what their lives are going to be like every day. It's estimated that the impact of the provincial transit plan is the equivalent of parking all the cars and light trucks in Metro Vancouver for one full year. That is a tremendous, tremendous example of what we can do when we combine planning with communities, planning with infrastructure development and planning with transit.

We've already seen the beginnings of this plan roll out. On Friday we had TransLink announce the very first phase that people will see rolling along the streets, and guess what. It's exactly what communities have asked for. It's about more buses. It's about more SkyTrain cars.

This is about giving people transit improvements immediately. It means that there's going to be greater frequency. It means that they're going to have the opportunity to go to a SkyTrain and instead of having to wait and miss another one or go to a bus station, wait and miss another one, we're going to see the frequencies improve and get closer and closer to what people in Vancouver have known for many years.

It cannot be left without saying that on the Lower Mainland and in particular south of the Fraser we have been without infrastructure investment — be it transit, be it bridges and roadways — since 1986, when the last major road improvement project was constructed, the Alex Fraser Bridge. It is about time.

Those of us who live south of the Fraser have been pushing, and our Transportation Minister has been pushing. I suppose that if I had one desire, one wish, for what I could see from the opposition, it would be to at least take a position.

You can't say that this isn't timely enough and at the same time say that we have a Transportation Minister that is pushing ahead too fast. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we need to have the investment and then decry every form of funding it, and the only thing you have to respond with is to say that we need other forms of funding. If you're not happy with more taxes, you're not happy with higher fares and you're not happy with increased property taxes, you better come up with another plan. I'll tell you right now that $11 million won't cut it.

M. Sather: Well, I'm pleased that the member for Langley is happy for her area in terms of the plan. On the north side, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge–Mission, there really hasn't been any transit planning. For example, for the Golden Ears bridge — there's no capacity for transit on that bridge whatsoever, which is astounding.

When the announcement was made about the transit plan, all that is supposedly planned for Maple Ridge is RapidBus, and that RapidBus is going to go from the Tri-Cities over the Pitt River bridge and then over the Golden Ears bridge. It doesn't even stop in Pitt Meadows. It wasn't going to stop in Maple Ridge either until,

apparently, a local council made enough concern to the minister about that. So he's made some concession that we might actually get a RapidBus stopping in Maple Ridge. This is the plan that the minister does behind closed doors.

When he made the announcement, the TransLink officials knew nothing about it. They didn't know anything about RapidBus in Maple Ridge. That was probably because there wasn't much of anything planned. But it's a big concern for us, and we don't see the action happening for our citizens.

The RapidBus line is not the only problem we have. There's no interchange going to be built at Harris Road and Lougheed, and that's our major tie-up point for commuters. Gateway tells me it's a 2031 horizon that we might see an interchange there, which we badly need to move the traffic along. So we really have concerns about how this is going to improve the situation for us.

It's too bad that I never hear the minister talk about the West Coast Express, because the West Coast Express is a commuter service that we have that works very well. It could use, however, some support from the minister. It has a high cost recovery basis — higher than SkyTrain — and it's got the best on-time service in North America. It's a great service.

I would like to hear more from the minister. I understand he's going to be making some announcements in Tri-Cities on Friday, so maybe we'll hear more about transit service for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, but so far I don't see it.

I talked to him about how the RapidBus is going to work coming down Lougheed Highway going west. There's not going to be any priority lane, at least on the bridge, so there will have to be a queue jumper. It is questionable how that's going to work. For the other side, going east, the only additional lane is a truck-only lane. So is the bus going to use that lane? We don't know.

What we do see, though, is Gateway providing lots of information to the city of Pitt Meadows to put a connector through agricultural land and to move urban sprawl further into our agricultural areas. So we're not happy with what we're seeing from the government and are looking for a lot more in the way of transit improvements.

J. Yap: It's my privilege to rise to speak in favour of this excellent motion from my learned colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano which speaks to a visionary and really important transit plan for our province, a transit plan that is long overdue and that will move us forward in terms of our development, in terms of our economy, in terms of our communities and in terms of our climate change initiatives.

It's great to see that when you sift through what members of the opposition are trying to say, they actually do agree with us that transit is needed. We understand that members of the opposition might be somewhat conflicted on how to deliver transit in a way that is sustainable and financially sound. But really, for a very long time, through the difficult decade of the 1990s, transit was a challenge even for those members when they were in government.

This is from the Ministry of Transportation, opening up a transportation plan for B.C: "Travel times in the Lower Mainland increased by 14 percent" — this is during the last five years of the NDP government — "and it was costing the economy as much as $1.5 billion a year."

We know, as my colleague from Langley said, that there has been a lack of investment in infrastructure for transportation since the 1980s. It is time for us to move on and build a transit system that we need — to move people, to move goods, to support our economy throughout the province.

The Transportation critic is trying to make little of the fact that we are, as part of this plan, looking to make RapidBus investments in communities outside of the Lower Mainland, in greater Victoria and in the Okanagan region — greater Kelowna. Important areas.

Now, of course it would be great to be able to have a transit plan that covers every single community in the province in the same way without reference to the critical mass that's needed so that we can have a sustainable, viable, financially sound transit system that will meet the needs of all citizens of our province.

We know that the members of the opposition know that transit in the areas that are underserved by transit — like the Lower Mainland, like the Central Okanagan, like greater Vancouver — is an issue that causes them some angst, some conflict. It's easy to see that from some of the comments made on the record by members of the opposition.

For example, the Transportation critic is quoted as saying in September 2007: "I fully expect the leader" — of her party — "will have a position here soon, if not this week then possibly next, on the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge."

Then the leader herself saying on CTV on September 27, '07: "I've said it's the wrong bridge and the wrong plan." The wrong bridge and the wrong plan. Well, we know that members of the NDP for a long time have looked at the need, looked at the growth that's happened in the Lower Mainland. Clearly, we need to have the ability to move people and goods across the Fraser River.

The twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, which the other side, the opposition, has talked and talked about but done nothing about…. Our government is doing something about it and is proud of this great plan, this major transportation initiative that will take British Columbia forward over the next number of years, with a goal of completing these projects by 2020.

It just makes sense to invest in transit, because after all, that is one of the underpinnings of what keeps our communities going. It underpins the economy — the ability to move people, to move goods. I couldn't agree more with our colleague from Victoria-Hillside, who is quoted as saying in a news release that investment in public transit is common sense.

I don't think there's disagreement in making the investment. This is a major investment, a visionary investment, that will move people, move goods, support our

economy, address climate change over the next number of years, and take British Columbia forward into continued success and development in the coming years. I support this motion that has been brought forward by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, and I urge all members to support this motion as well.

H. Lali: I want to thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for bringing this forward for debate in the House. It is always a pleasure to rise and give the viewpoint of the New Democrat caucus on this side.

The member who spoke, the member from Langley — I forget the exact name of her constituency — was mentioning something about how the NDP doesn't have a plan, and she was talking about flying buses. That's what she talked about — flying buses. Well, that's about equivalent to the Liberals…. You know, every time they get up in the House, they talk about: "We hope for federal money. We hope it's going to come in." It's about as much as depending on — banking on — federal dollars coming in.

West Vancouver–Garibaldi — I think that's what it was. No, that's not the right name.

Anyway, I rise here to actually oppose this motion. I'll tell you a number of reasons why I'm opposing it. The hon. member from Richmond just spoke for a few minutes saying there's a number of things that cause the NDP angst. I'll tell you what causes me the most angst. It's the fact that this Liberal government continues to abandon the interests of rural British Columbia.

They call this a provincial transit plan. Nothing could be further from the truth, because there are absolutely no moneys in this so-called $14 billion transit plan for the people of rural British Columbia. It's all for Metro Vancouver, it's all for Victoria, and it's all for just Kelowna. It's not even for the entire Okanagan. It's for Kelowna only. There might be the odd bus that might go into Vernon and Penticton, but it's got nothing in it for any other part of the province.

Yet here they are talking about the so-called $14 billion when almost $4 billion of that has already been announced in other projects. They're already underway, and they're just repackaging it as part of this whole thing.

There's no money to back it up. They have no clue where they're going to get the money, but they do talk about raising transit fares. They do talk about that. They're not shy about talking about raising transit fares, and at the same time, they're not shy about, through their new TransLink board and that, raising property taxes for people who live in these three areas of the province.

It really puts a lie to the Liberals' whole so-called vision of greenhouse gas reduction and all this greening up of British Columbia. How is raising property taxes for individuals — and how is it that when they're going to actually also raise the fares — going to get people out of their cars, which actually create greenhouse gases, and put them into transit on commuter rail, into SkyTrain or into transit buses? How does that work? How does that help?

By actually penalizing them even further…. It's just a real sham. This whole so-called provincial transportation plan is a sham because the Premier has never had any vision for the rural part of this province.

Just as they have abandoned the people of rural British Columbia when it comes to health care, they are abandoning it in terms of this whole transportation issue. Just as they have abandoned the people of rural British Columbia when it comes to forestry and the total abdication of their responsibility when it comes to the pine beetle infestation arrestation — that's how they're abandoning this as well. They're abandoning rural British Columbia by closing hundreds of schools in small communities as well.

This is another indication of the continued abandonment of rural British Columbia by this Liberal government. They haven't got a clue in terms of the transportation needs of the people of the rest of the province of British Columbia, outside of area north and east of Hope and outside of the CRD region. That's the real issue.

If they would go out there, they should ask the people who live in communities in my constituency of Keremeos, Princeton, Hope, Merritt, Logan Lake, Lytton, Lillooet — and soon to be Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton — what they need for transportation. They will tell this Liberal government that they want roads, and they want fencing and proper crossings along the B.C. Rail line. They want to get their roads and bridges fixed.

For seven years they've been waiting and looking at this Liberal government to see any kind of investment. All we see is the continued abandonment. They don't even put a few pennies into some of these side roads that need ditching and grading and some of the bushes cut, when billions are being poured into the Lower Mainland.

That's the reality, but they don't go out there and talk to the constituents in rural B.C. to see what they want. They're going to shove down a transit plan, they call it, for all of the province of British Columbia when there is nothing for those communities that I've mentioned and hundreds of other communities in the province.

It's high time the Premier and the Transportation Minister and these Liberal caucus colleagues get out there and talk to the real people outside of Metro Vancouver. I rise on this side to oppose this motion because it is abandoning rural British Columbia.

D. Hayer: It is without question that I and my constituents not only support this motion and this transit plan, but we actually applaud it. This ambitious,

powerful and progressive plan sets into motion a transit and transportation program that addresses current concerns and recognizes the huge population growth that our province, particularly my city of Surrey and the Lower Mainland, will have over the next two decades.

More than one million people, residents, are expected to move to British Columbia over the next few years, and many of them will be moving right into Surrey and its neighbourhood south of the Fraser. Without an aggressive and visionary transit plan such as this, congestion will rule. The cost to our economy will be huge, and people's lifestyle and our environment will have enormous difficulty.

Unless we support this plan and endorse this fully, the consequences of the growth will be disastrous for all of us in British Columbia, especially the Lower Mainland. Our Premier and our Minister of Transportation have the foresight and the vision that will create and put in place a plan that will not only move people throughout the region but move people locally throughout Surrey and the Lower Mainland. This transit plan is not just good for the long term; it will be good for decades to come.

Even though the NDP doesn't support it…. In some of the press releases they sometimes support it; other times they change their mind. In fact, $47 million of this provincial money is already in place right now as part of the $150 million announced by Transit Investments to put 103 more buses on the road and 14 more SkyTrain cars, on top of the already-ordered 34 SkyTrain cars. Those buses and rapid transit units will be carrying Lower Mainlanders as early as 2010.

This is only the first stage. In addition to this visionary $14 billion transit plan is the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, which will immensely improve the quality of air in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Those residents right now suffer from tonnes of vehicle emissions discharged every day into the air they breathe, because the province's biggest traffic jam cuts right through the heart of my riding as vehicles sit idling in gridlock, waiting to cross the Port Mann Bridge.

They are people going to work. They are people taking their kids to games. They're family people, and they're the working people that are stuck there. They are people with trucks, and they are people with taxis. They are people who would like to take the buses but cannot take the buses on the Port Mann Bridge.

We are also going to widen Highway 1 by adding more lanes from Vancouver to Langley. We are also going to make sure that the North and South Fraser perimeter road, which will get the trucks moving to our ports and intermodal yards and to the rest of the province and rest of Canada, is completed. This is going to help not only the Lower Mainland and my constituents but the whole province and the whole of Canada.

In addition to that, we have improvement projects underway in Surrey such as the widening of the Fraser Highway, the Pacific Highway, which is also called 176th Street, and Highway 10. Also, the Golden Ears bridge is being built.

This plan addresses what is needed for the province to progress well into the 21st century and also to make sure that Surrey and the Lower Mainland are represented. But this plan doesn't stop there. It will expand the SkyTrain throughout Surrey, bringing the ease of rapid transit right into Guildford, down the Fraser Highway to 168 Street in the Tynehead area and Fleetwood area, and eventually all the way to downtown Langley.

Also, later on it will go on the King George Highway all the way to Newton around 64th Avenue. To get the people moving even more easily, the plan includes 1,500 new buses, which means the bus service in Surrey will double the system it has today.

The NDP and their leader have said that this is a bad plan. The NDP leader even thinks that the Port Mann Bridge is in the wrong place. I would like to know where she thinks the Port Mann Bridge should be. I'd like to find out what her caucus members, especially from Surrey, think about the Port Mann Bridge twinning, the Highway 1 widening and this transit plan.

I hope they represent the views of their constituents. Many of them, who come over there and talk to me all the time, say: "We need all our MLAs from Surrey to come up there and support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and this transit plan."

I hope they take time out of their busy schedules and actually talk about the Port Mann Bridge today. I know that the member from Merritt has spoken about this, but I hope the members from Surrey — the ones from Surrey-Newton, Surrey–Green Timbers and Surrey-Whalley — actually stand up and support this. This is a great plan for Surrey. It is going to be helping. It's going to be making sure that we have a better transit system for all of our constituents, for everybody.

I have more to say later on, but right now I've been told my time has run out. I hope the NDP MLAs will support this transit plan.

B. Simpson: I'm happy to take up the challenge of the member for Surrey-Tynehead to stand here and speak about the views of my constituents. My constituents were very offended by this government's labelling of a provincial transit plan and $14 billion that left them out. My constituents would howl with derisive laughter at the member for Langley's claim that it's unfortunate that her constituents have to wait an hour for a bus, when we don't have buses.

How about the constituents in 150 Mile House who want to do the right thing? They want to change their behaviours. They would actually like bike path funding, because they have a very dangerous road that all of the kids walk on and that people who walk to work in the 150 Mile area use. Guess what. They can't get bike path funding because they don't have a bus. Bike path funding is associated with public transit. They have no bus. How do they get a bus? They pay for it entirely through their property taxes by a special CRD function. Where are they in the $14 billion that's supposed to be spent?

How about the constituents of mine on Red Bluff Road, who almost lost their transit because the CRD

didn't feel that they could continue to run transit services there? How about them? Were they in the $14 billion fund? No, they weren't. They had to fight to keep their transit and continue to pay for it through their property tax, because there's an ongoing fight between local government, regional governments and this government for who should be assisting with transit outside the Lower Mainland.

Now, this $14 billion provincial transit plan — I really do think this motion is misnamed; if it was a debate about the transit plan and urban transit, that's a different debate — excludes the vast majority of the province and all of the communities. The member for Richmond-Steveston says: "It would be great to have better transit in more communities, but we just don't have the critical mass." The critical mass of what? The critical mass of transit opportunities that allow people to make the decision to get on transit or the critical mass of population?

This government goes by population figures. "Oh, you don't have the critical mass of population for us to even pay attention to you," which is what this government does. This provincial transit plan — as long as we continue to label it as provincial — proves in spades how urban-centric this government is, how urban-centric this Premier is and the fact that they are once again leaving the rest of British Columbia behind.

I would fully and heartily support this. I fully and heartily support more public transit, but I want it for all the province. I want it for my communities and all the communities that I represent, particularly with the added insult of a fuel tax with no enabling behaviours.

Let's make this a provincial transit plan, and bring it back into the House. You'll see how much support we get from this side, including all of the rural MLAs who are standing up here today.

J. McIntyre: I also rise to proudly speak in favour of this motion, which I thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano for bringing to the House today for discussion.

Before I begin my very brief remarks, I just have a news flash. I wanted the House to know that the member for Langley's father was actually watching her this morning as she spoke. He wanted to make sure that the member was up to date with the latest. She should be on top of what the government is doing.

Thanks to the recent improvements in transit and the additional buses, his bus now comes every 30 minutes, and he doesn't have to transfer any longer. So he's delighted about what this government is doing, and so am I.

Anyway, I have to say that I'm amazed in listening to the debate this morning that the opposition members who are on record — from the Transportation critic herself to the Environment critic, and the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — have all been on the record asking for transit. In fact, the Environment critic, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, is quoted on CKNW on February 20 saying: "The government announced a $14 billion transit plan back a few weeks ago, which is a good initiative."

Here we have a plan, an enormous significant amount of money, billions and billions of dollars going into a long-term plan, and we have the members this morning sitting here finding reasons to say that this is not a good thing. I continue to be astounded, and it just proves to me that the opposition isn't capable of ever giving credit where credit is due.

I listened to the Transportation critic this morning. She was very concerned. She called it crumbs. She said that what's being left outside the Lower Mainland is crumbs. Well, I hope that the people in Victoria and Kelowna, who will be receiving the service of RapidBus…. I hope that those constituents in those communities don't consider it crumbs, because it's not crumbs.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was very upset. He's on the record saying that he had great concerns about the RapidBus system that's now going out into the valley to reach Maple Ridge.

It's just amazing. We are finally in a position, because we have such a strong economy, to be able to commit to these kinds of plans that will help with the greenhouse gases.

The Transportation critic was also upset about the timeliness. Well, I think she must have missed the announcement. There was an announcement last Friday where $150 million is going into the transit system, $47 million being provided by the government of British Columbia, for buses. Oops, I guess she must have missed that little notice.

She was also concerned about the federal commitment. She was worried. Well, let me give her a quote from Lawrence Cannon, who's actually the Transport Minister. "Premier Campbell's transit plan is a good indication for us of where the province wants to invest, and we continue to discuss joint-funding priorities in the spirit of open federalism." Let me reassure her that we're pretty confident there will be some federal support for such a large and significant plan.

Mr. Speaker, I know you're going to say in a moment, "Noting the hour," so I'll reserve the right to perhaps continue this conversation. But noting the hour, I would like to move adjournment of this particular debate.

S. Simpson: The previous member talked about being astounded by the position on this side. Well, what's astounding is the arrogance around this government on this.

Let's be clear. This government had no position on transit at all. Our leader came out and talked about a transit-first strategy and laid out a number of initiatives. Then, lo and behold, this government comes and puts out its unfunded wish list of $14 billion, and it essentially incorporates the ideas that were put forward by this side.

The problem with this, though…. I had a member who had been in this House for a long time giving me some advice when I got elected, and they said: "If you want to know what the government is really up to, follow the money. Show the money." So that's what we should do.

What do we see? This government talks about $14 billion — almost $5 billion in provincial money. There's $60 million of money in the budget for this year — over $800 million for roads and bridges and $60 million for transit. Over the next four years there's a little more than $200 million for transit in the budget, about 5 percent of the provincial commitment.

They talk about the federal money they need. Well, we see some $60 million of federal commitment over two years.

The reality is this. There is no money to fulfil this plan. This is the government doing what it does time and again, which is to say: "Believe what we say, not what we do. As long as we get past 2009, we don't care if we keep our promises or not."

Be assured, hon. Speaker, that these promises, like most of this government's promises, will fall by the wayside should they fool British Columbians again in 2009. If they fool them with their duplicitous action in 2009, it will all be by the wayside.

This is a government that doesn't care. All they want to do is misrepresent themselves to the people of British Columbia as a government and get through the next election. They don't care what they do. It's false promises — more false promises — on transit. It's shameful.

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.