British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 20, 2004

h0520pm-19

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 20, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 19 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 20, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ........................................................... 11293 Gulzar Cheema J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell G.

Cheema Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11293 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11294 Protection of Public Assets Act (Bill M206) J.

MacPhail Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11295 Rapid transit in greater Vancouver K. Manhas World partnership walk and Aga Khan Foundation J. Nuraney Canadian Forces Appreciation Day B. Kerr Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11296 Cancellation of court decision on Whistler hotel development J. Kwan Hon. G.

Abbott Privatization of automobile insurance J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman Economic growth in B.C. K. Krueger Hon. G. Campbell Agreements between government and first nations G. Trumper Hon. G. Plant B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and first nations benefits trust P. Nettleton Hon. G. Plant Reports from Committees........................................................................................................ ............................................. 11299 Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner J. Bray Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report B.

Locke Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11299 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54) (continued) Hon. G. Plant J.

Kwan Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 11303 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ................................................... 11303 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54)

Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11303 B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, annual report, 2003-04 Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11303 Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued) Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail J.

Kwan Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11324 Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48) Hon. G. Collins Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11324 Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48) Hon. G.

Collins Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11324 Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 11325 Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48) Royal Assent to Bills.......................................................................................................... .................................................... 11325 Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 39) Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 43) Correction Act (Bill 44) Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 49) Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 50) Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 51) Electoral Reform Referendum Act (Bill 52) International Financial Activity Act (Bill 53) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54) Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 55) Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill 56) Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

11293 THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Tributes GULZAR CHEEMA J. MacPhail: Today is the last day of the session, which I think we're all aware of. Before we adjourn and recess for the summer, I want to take a moment to wish the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge well in the forthcoming federal election. I probably will be cam- paigning for a different party. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it — I'm pretty sure — and I suspect that some of the gov- ernment caucus members may be campaigning for a different party too.

But I do want to wish the member the best of luck and thank him for the contribution he has made to public life. I look forward to the by-election. [1405] Hon. G. Campbell: I want to echo the comments. I should say, in terms of the member for Surrey– Panorama Ridge, that I think what we all will miss in this House is his consistent commitment to a mental health strategy that actually delivers to the people of British Columbia. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still hear in my right ear his answers to some of the questions that the opposition has been asking, and I know he will be missed.

It's important to note this. When the member is elected — should he be elected — we will finally have someone in Ottawa who understands health care, who understands fiscal prudence, who understands the west and who understands British Columbia. That's exactly what we need. I wish him all the best. G. Cheema: I just want to say thank you to my con- stituents, my Premier, my colleagues and the NDP, especially Ms. MacPhail and Ms. Kwan. I think I have worked hard. I have done my best, and it's really an honour for me to be a part of this House.

I have learned a lot from this House, and I will continue to abide by the principles of democratic process. I will work hard for this province. I'm very proud to be a member of this caucus and also very proud to be part o f t h i s c o u n t r y . I t ' s a n amazing country, where a per- son from another nation can come and be a member of the assembly, be a part of the cabinet, and run and be whatever they want to be. I th ink that's a tribute to this nation, and I have a lot of respect for the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again say thank you to my Premier.

He gave me this opportunity to be the first minister of mental health in the whole Commonwealth. I did my best. I know that mental health is a lot better than before. I will continue to pursue those goals fed- erally as well. I am somewhat emotional today. It's very tough for me to stand and say goodbye, but I also want to say thank you to you, to the staff and to everyone in my constituency who has been so good to me. Introductions by Members G. Cheema: I also wanted to make a couple of intro- ductions. I have two guests in this House today, Muneesh Sharma and Sunny Sundher. Muneesh used to work with me.

I think he worked very hard. He was an excep- tional worker, and I want to say thank you to him. Also, just a last thank-you again to my family and to all my friends, who have been great to me. Mr. Speaker, thanks and goodbye. Hon. S. Hagen: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House today members of the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities. In the House today are Alice Downing, Ron Drolet, Kevin Evans, Lynn Jackson, Mary Mahon Jones, Winston Leckie, Michele Mawhinney and Mike Touchie.

This council brings together public and private sector leaders to explore ways to improve employment oppor- tunities for British Columbians with disabilities in our communities across this province. I am proud that British Columbia is leading the country in our commitment to people with disabilities with initiatives such as investing $55 million in employment programs for people with disabilities, establishing a $20 million Disability Supports for Employment Fund and creating the Minister's Coun- cil on Employment for Persons with Disabilities.

This morning I had the privilege of attending the council meeting for the first time as Minister of Human Resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hosting our lunch today for the council. To all council members, I want to say thank you for your dedication to helping people with disabilities achieve greater independence for themselves and their families. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. [1410] K. Krueger: Over the course of this session this House has had the privilege of the service of a group of very bright young people from the B.C. legislative in- ternship program.

Although they don't finish the pro- gram until June 30, this is our last formal day with them in this place. Their names are Lesley Clayton, Joanna Ellis, Chris Ferronato, Regan Garbutt, Amy Hinterberger, Sara Irvine, Nathan McDonald, Byron Plant, Paul Rushton and Tara Shirley. We want to say a fond farewell to the interns. We're sorry a few of you were assigned to the dark side, but we'll never think the less of you for it. You soldiered through well. It's been a real pleasure to work with you and get to know you. Thanks so much for working with us. R.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to welcome some stu- dents and their accompanying adults from Rochester Elementary, a total of 91 peop le from my riding. It in- cludes 80 students from grad es 4 and 5. These students are accompanied by ten adul ts including teacher Mr. John Kore, who my wife and I have known for many

11294 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 years and who taught several of our own children. Would the House please make this group of children and the accompanying adults welcome. As well, I wanted to acknowledge a group of stu- dents that has had a major achievement in my riding. They're heading off to the world competition for Odys- sey of the Mind held in Maryland. This group is from Monty Middle School: Ben Hsu, Matthew Locke, Nick Lowther, Patrick Lundgren, Alex Franciosi and Paniz Pahlavanlu. Would the House please acknowledge their outstanding achievement. B.

Kerr: I don't make introductions to the House very often, so I think I'll do a little catching up right now. Unlike my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith, I don't have many friends, so I have to rely on relatives. I'd like to introduce my wife's cousin, Paul Ber- tholet, and his wife, Elaine. They've come down from Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Elaine's CV with Canadian public health is too long to list, but as a result of her extensive commitment to health in the north of Canada and in ternationally, she was awarded the very prestigious Defries Award by the Canadian Public Health A ssociation.

Paul has been equally busy with developing countries, working for the federal government managing a number of pro- jects in developing countries and taking them to frui- tion. They've been 27 years in the Northwest Territo- ries. They're now seeking warmer climates in the south here, looking for a place on Vancouver Island. I'd ask the House to give them a very good southern welcome. The next introductee is a person I've been trying to get down here for three years. Clearly, I haven't had any pull in this issue. It's taken her cousin to bring her down.

I'd like the House to make my wife, my partner, my best friend feel really welcome. It's her first visit to the House — my wife, Elaine. P. Nettleton: I'd like to introduce a young lady who i s n o s t r a n g e r t o t h i s H ouse, to politics. When her daddy was first elected, I think she was ten months old. I had her out in the rose garden today and remi- nisced about her crawling about in the rose garden. Next month she's nine years of age: Disa Nettleton. During the course of our discussions in the rose garden she was quite insistent that she wanted to meet the Premier.

I didn't really know where to go with that, so I said: "Later, later." But she was quite insistent, and I started getting a little ticked off. In any event, we…. Interjections. P. Nettleton: That's it. We came around a corner, and lo and behold, there was the Premier, who was kind enough to stop and chat with her briefly. She was thrilled. Later, back in my office, she made this comment to me. "Daddy," she said, "the Premier is very cu te, he's very nice, and now I know why so many people like him." So there you have it. Please give Disa a big welcome. [1415] Hon. G.

Campbell: I was just going to say to Disa: thank you, thank you. Thank you very much, Disa. G. Trumper: Today we have students visiting us from Alberni District Secondary School. I suspect that because there are 90 people from another riding, they may not have made it into the House yet, but I would ask the House to please give them a very warm wel- come as they visit the House. K. Manhas: I'd like to join my colleague from Co- quitlam-Maillardville in wishing an outstanding group of students who are travel ling down to the world com- petition for Odyssey of the Mind in Maryland….

These kids are from Coquitlam River Elementary School in my riding. Grades 4 and 5 students are Cynthia McDowell, Ashley Chandler, Shelby Woita, Tamara Bobcock, Anna Boskovich, Kellen Roman Barnes and Taylor Trotter, who will be joining their coach Brian Babick. We wish them luck . Would the House please join me in wishing this group of students the best of luck for British Columbia as they compete. Introduction and First Reading of Bills PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ASSETS ACT J. MacPhail presented a bill intituled Protection of Public Assets Act. J.

MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Protection of Public A ssets Act. One of the funda- mental principles of this bill is that British Columbia's Crown corporations and Crown agencies constitute invaluable public resources. These public resources belong to all people of British Columbia. However, public resources such as transportation systems, public utilities and our health care and education systems need to be protected.

To that end, this bill limits the sale and incremental privatization of public assets. Both present and future generations have the right to obtain full public disclosure regarding the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and agencies, and this bill solidifies that ri ght. This bill is a critical step in ensuring that communities, local governments and citizens in British Columbia receive full value and a fair share of the benefits of our public assets. What is unfortunate is that this bill is necessary at all.

Of course, it wouldn't be if politicians didn't say one thing when running for election and then do an- other once in office. That we need legislation to protect our public assets is indicative of the lack of faith the electorate has in its elected representatives to keep their word and to act in the public interest.

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11295 Crown corporations enhance our quality of life by making the benefits of our public resources accessible to all British Columbians, regardless of where they live or how much they make. This legislation protects the right of British Columbians to have a real say in how their collective heritage is managed in the future. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) RAPID TRANSIT IN GREATER VANCOUVER K. Manhas: With so much discussion going on about the future of the RAV line in Vancouver, I think it's important that we reflect on the significance of building or not building mass transit in the city. Just as forestry operations and re source roads in the heart- lands are important to business and economic pros- pects in Vancouver, efficient operations and movement around the province's largest centre is important to commerce in the rest of the province. To move goods and services means moving some of the traffic off the streets.

Traffic congestion and hor- rendous travel times are perhaps the most unattractive and unappealing aspects of the city. On a recent Saturday when I was travelling from Port Coquitlam to a meeting in Coquitlam city centre, along with what often feels like the rest of the world, I decided to time my trip. The under-five-kilometre journey took me a total of 44 minutes start to finish, for a speedy average of nine minutes per kilometre. Coquitlam is a key part of the growth management strategy for the lower mainland, and the Coquitlam region has the ability to take significant increases in population and density.

It cannot do that unless people can move in and out of the area and within the area without dedicating their entire day and their sanity. Building rapid transit to Coquitlam is not only critical to the growth management for the entire region, but it's important to the health and safety of those on the road. [1420] Building rapid transit to Richmond and the airport is important to free up capacity in the clogged routes leading from the south into downtown Vancouver and vice versa. SkyTrain has benefited and affected the lives of millions of people in its operation.

It allowed Vancouver to be manageable during Expo and helped manage growth, movement and quality of life in the years that followed. Transit directors now have the opportunity to cre- ate another legacy, this time for the Olympics. They can build two lines — one to link Richmond and the airport and another to Coquitlam — or build none. The bene- fits to millions for decades to come are now in the hands of TransLink's ability to work together to a solu- tion. Building rapid transit will be critical to Vancou- ver's ascension as a truly world-class city. WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK AND AGA KHAN FOUNDATION J.

Nuraney: The Ismaili community will hold its twentieth annual partnership walk on Sunday, May 30 at Stanley Park. This event was first held in Vancouver 20 years ago and has now taken a national appeal, with ten cities across Canada taki ng part. So far the organi- zation has raised over $23 million, which go towards "smart solutions" under the aegis of the Aga Khan Foundation. The projects are targeted towards alleviat- ing poverty in developing countries by enhancing community-based organizations.

The Aga Khan Foundation's work is world- renowned and enjoys the reputation of delivering maximum direct benefit to those being helped. A very large component of volunteers throughout the world helps towards achieving these goals. Health, education and rural development are th e main focus. These pro- jects are located in East Africa and South and Central Asia. The foundation shares and disseminates lessons learned from its projects to other development practi- tioners and policy-makers and promotes greater un- derstanding of global issues.

The Ismaili community around the world takes enormous pride in the work of the Aga Khan Founda- tion and the involvement of their spiritual leader, His Highness the Aga Khan. The United Nations and other world organizations have paid great tribute to this or- ganization for its innovative and creative way of deliv- ering help where it is most needed. Over 60,000 Cana- dians and 800 corporate citizens are expected to take part on Sunday and walk for a cause to improve the lives of those who are less fortunate. This is truly the Canadian way. CANADIAN FORCES APPRECIATION DAY B.

Kerr: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand on the floor of this House to recognize Canadian Forces Appreciation Day. The Department of National De- fence contributes approxim ately $390 million annually to the capital region's local economy. It's the third- largest employer on Vancouver Island, with a payroll in excess of $232 million. In 2003, Department of National Defence personnel raised over $400,000 for the United Way, which is ap- proximately 10 percent of the entire total.

Last year military personnel and their families contributed in excess of 300,000 volunteer ho urs in aid of various or- ganizations. This substantial investment benefits virtu- ally every municipality and business within the region, directly and indirectly. The first Sunday of June is nationally designated as Canadian Forces Apprecia tion Day. The Canadian Forces Appreciation Day committee was formed as an initiative of the West Shore Chamber of Commerce. It

11296 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 is a multi-jurisdictional working group of municipali- ties, businesses, and commu nity and service organiza- tions creating a regional event to honour members of the Canadian Forces. This special day will acknowledge the contribution that our military, civilian and reserve members, including their families, make to our re- gion. The event will be held on Sunday, June 6 at the Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre, with activities planned from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m.

We have a barbecue, music and en- tertainment for all ages, and a regional celebration in honour of the approximately 15,000 DND reserve per- sonnel and their families living in the capital region. It's also open to the general public. Our guest speaker will be Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. On behalf of my colleague from Esquimalt- Metchosin and myself, we invite everyone to come to the barbecue and show your support for our members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. [1425] Oral Questions CANCELLATION OF COURT DECISION ON WHISTLER HOTEL DEVELOPMENT J. Kwan: Today is the last day of the session — a session marked by scandal, failed privatization schemes and special deals for Liberal friends and in- siders. We have already covered extensively the sweet- heart deals for the Premier's cousin, Doug Walls. To- day we have yet another example. In March the Supreme Cour t ruled that the munici- pality of Whistler's approval of a $120 million luxury hotel development at Nita Lake was illegal.

The House is currently examining the legislation that would over- turn that decision. My question is not about the legisla- tion. My question is about the motivation of this gov- ernment to overturn a decisi on by the supposedly in- dependent courts. The development proposal is headed by Mr. John Haibeck, who is the president of Nita Lake Lodge Cor- poration. In 2002, Mr. Haibeck's company donated more than $3,000 to the B.C. Liberal election campaign war chest. Can the Attorney General confirm that he is overturning a decision of th e Supreme Court solely to benefit a B.C. Liberal campaign donor? Hon. G.

Abbott: That's absolute nonsense, and the member knows it. MEVA is a well-used tool to work out issues, administrative failures at the municipal level, and this MEVA is entirely appropriate in doing that. J. Kwan: I'm sure it's just a coincidence — uh-huh. Not only did Mr. Haibeck donate more than $3,000 in 2002, but another company, Whistler Rail Tours, also made a substantial investment in the B.C. Liberals. Mr. Haibeck is a partner in Whistler Rail Tours, and this company will also benefit thanks to this Attorney Gen- eral riding to the rescue with legislation.

In 2002, Whis- tler Rail Tours donated $8,500 to the B.C. Liberal cam- paign fund — money that is apparently being put to use to pay for websites and other negative campaign tools. Again to the Attorney General: why should British Columbians believe that overturning this court decision serves the public interest when, clearly, it serves the pri- vate interest of a big B.C. Liberal campaign donor? Hon. G. Abbott: The question is entirely disrespect- ful of a whole community and the people in it. I think it is perhaps typical of the opposition to raise this sort of question.

The member should know that the munici- pality of Whistler is very much supportive of this MEVA to assist them in the situation. There have been public hearings around this, which have brought very broad support from the commu nity. There is extensive support in and around the community of Whistler in respect of this matter. For the member to suggest there's something unto- ward here…. She should look back on her own record as a Municipal Affairs minister.

She should look back on the record of her government over ten years, during w h i c h t i m e t h e y u s e d t h e M E V A a s a n i n s t r u m e n t t o correct administrative oversi ghts. There is nothing un- usual here. There is nothing nefarious here. If the member wants to be entirely disrespectful of a com- munity, she does it at her own risk. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question. J. Kwan: This is hardly an administrative oversight. The government is bringing in legislation to overturn a court decision. Now, I know that this government is used to doing that.

I know that maybe they think it's just, well, another one of th ose little things they're do- ing. But you know what? British Columbians are tired of special deals…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Attorney General, please come to order. J. Kwan: British Columbians are tired of special deals for friends of this government. Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management table today all correspondence between his office and the B.C. Liberal campaign donor who's benefiting from this arbitrary cancellation of a Supreme Court decision? [1430] Hon. G.

Abbott: I know that the members of the opposition love to climb that grassy knoll of conspiracy

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11297 on a pretty much constant basis during this session. Frankly, here again what we are doing is serving good public policy through the use of an instrument which I think the member used on at least three occasions when she was Municipal Affairs minister. She is saying to the community of Whistler that Whistler is wrong, that Whistler doesn't know where they want to go as a community, that Whistler do esn't know what's right for a community.

It is entirely typical of an NDP government that, I think — was it in 1996? — cut municipal grants by $113 million without even the courtesy of discussing it with those municipalities. Again, we have today the opposi- tion telling us that they know better than the communi- ties themselves about what they want. PRIVATIZATION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE J. MacPhail: In the past year, we've seen what hap- pens to auto insurance rates in provinces with private auto insurance schemes. Th ey go through the roof.

Given this government's absolute faith in privatization — even though they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in implementing their privatization scheme — the pub- lic is concerned that by the time we return here in the fall, the B.C. Liberals will have privatized a big portion of auto insurance in B.C. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question. J. MacPhail: Just to reassure ourselves, can the min- ister responsible for ICBC assure all British Columbians that Nick Geer's dismissal as head of ICBC is not the prelude to auto insurance privatization? Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm more than happy to give that assurance. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question. J. MacPhail: That's very interesting, because it con- tradicts Colin Brown, the chief operating officer of Canada's biggest private in surance outfit, Canadian Direct Insurance. I'm sure the Liberals are well aware of them. Now, according to Mr. Brown, just yesterday he was quoted in Thompson's Insurance News , and we all know that's the bible of insurance news. Here's what he had to say. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J.

MacPhail: Here's what Mr. Brown said in Thomp- son's Insurance News : "Nick Geer is gone because he was not keen for ICBC to gi ve over its optional insur- ance business to the private sector." Brown said that the government wants more private insurance, but that wasn't where Mr. Geer was going. Again, to the minister. It's not me; it's Colin Brown — that great conspirator, Colin Brown. Here's what he said: "So if Nick Geer left on good terms and the B.C.

Liberals have no plans to privatize auto insurance, why are private outfits delighted that he's gone and frothing at the mouth, waiting for this government to hand them ICBC's business?" Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. An Hon. Member: Are you allowed to say "froth- ing" in here? Mr. Speaker: Frothing is permitted. Hon. R. Coleman: F i r s t o f a l l , I f i n d i t q u i t e h u - morous, because there has been competition and op- tional insurance long before this government came to power on the optional side of insurance with ICBC and other people in the busi ness.

We have said from the very beginning that ba sic insurance will be pro- tected in public hands and that the ICBC optional marketplace will not change other than what it is al- ready today. But for you to sit there and even think about telling me how to deal with auto insurance when you gave away $200 million just before the last election to policy holders in B.C. and put this company in a financial problem because you wanted to buy an election…. For you to talk to me about the fact that you went into the development business from insurance and lost tens of millions of dollars for ICBC shareholders….

We put this thing back on the fina ncial footing it belongs on. We protected insurance rates for people in British Co- lumbia. We are the market that people look at, because we're doing the job right in B.C. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You can only froth when you have the floor. Order, please. ECONOMIC GROWTH IN B.C. K. Krueger: That wasn't frothing, but it was close. [1435] We got an e-mail from the RBC Financial Group — Canada got this e-mail this morning. It talks about Brit- ish Columbia's economy improving with solid growth of 3 percent this year and 3½ percent in 2005. Mr.

Derek Holt, the assistant chief economist at RBC, said that the fiscal climate has improved so much that B.C. now has the second-lowest provincial debt-to-GDP

11298 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 ratio behind Alberta. Addi tionally, net migration in- flows are on the rise. He go es on to talk about fiscal prudence over the past three years, exemplified by keeping average spending gr owth to 2½ percent and increasing tax revenues. I'd like to have the Premier's comments on this and on where we're going from here. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: Let me just say that when you get a report like this — a Provincial Outlook from RBC Financial Group — it's obviously encouraging.

There have been a lot of difficult decisions that have had to be made. It's interesting to look back. When this govern- ment came into office, B.C. had the last-place economy in the country. RBC suggested that by 2005 we will have the number one econo my in the country, with number one growth. Most importantly, it's going to have the number one job growth figures in the country. Jobs mean better times for families, so it's always encouraging. There is a new optimism in British Columbia, and it's reflected in independent analyses in every institution across this nation.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND FIRST NATIONS G. Trumper: My question is to the Minister Re- sponsible for Treaty Negotiations. Today there has been a large number of people at the legislative build- ings who are concerned about first nations issues. In my riding of Alberni-Qualicum we have signed one agreement-in-principle and f eel very fortunate to be finally bringing resolution to some long-outstanding issues. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotia- tions explain what this government is doing to create opportunities for first nations within the context of treaty negotiations? Hon. G.

Plant: We are at an unprecedented stage of progress in the treaty process in British Columbia. For the first time we are in final agreement negotiations at four tables across the province, including a table repre- senting five first nations in the member's riding. I think that progress holds out hope for the treaty process, but we haven't waited for the treaty process to make a real difference in the lives of aboriginal British Columbians.

The Forests minister has been delivering agreement after agreement — as many as 50 and more agreements to put as much as $95 million in the hands of first nations across the province. Millions of cubic metres of fibre, 145 economic development agreements, interim measures agreements , land protection meas- ures, the first government in the history of the province to have annual cabinet meetings with the First Nations Summit, a first citizens forum…. We doubled the amount for the Firs t Citizens Fund — initiative after initiative. Is everybody happy?

It's very difficult in this excit- ing province to make everybody happy. We are mak- ing progress, and we will continue to do what it takes to make progress for all British Columbians. B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT AND FIRST NATIONS BENEFITS TRUST P. Nettleton: I, too, have a question for the At- torney General. There's a growing concern among first nations leaders along th e B.C. Rail corridor that this government is trying to manipulate them re- garding the CNR–B.C. Rail deal and their signing on to the trust fund benefit.

Government had indicated that the trust fund legisl ation would be introduced this past March. They also indicated that bands to benefit from the trust fund must allow their names to be included in the legislation, to which most of them are opposed. First nations are now concerned that any agreement reached outside of their involvement in participation will infringe on aboriginal title and rights. Is the gov- ernment today prepared to back off from closure on the sale of B.C. Rail and first deal with the outstanding issues impacting first nations? Hon. G.

Plant: We canvassed this subject exten- sively in estimates. The fi rst nations benefits trust represents a one-time, $15 million opportunity for 25 first nations to do some work to advance culture, to renew and advance education, and to provide eco- nomic development in their communities. It comes with no strings attached. There is no connection be- tween acceptance of those funds and any aspect of whatever obligations may arise by virtue of the abo- riginal rights and title of the aboriginal people of Brit- ish Columbia. [1440] We believe that the B.C.

Rail Partnership initiative does not, in fact, infringe aboriginal rights or title, but of course, first nations are free to pursue that issue as they wish. I am looking forward to a decision from the compe- tition bureau that will allow government to move for- ward, to bring in the enablin g legislation when it's ap- propriate, to make this important opportunity a reality for all British Columbians — a billion dollars in private sector investment for the benefit of communities all across this province, $5 billion in private sector invest- ment over the life of this agreement.

More good news for the people of British Columbia. It's a great day to be a legislator and a member of the B.C. Liberal govern- ment in British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections.

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11299 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The bell terminates question period. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees J. Bray: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commis- sioner for the fifth session of the thirty-seventh parlia- ment. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. J. Bray: I ask leave of the House to permit the mov- ing of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J. Bray: I move that the report be adopted.

The special committee conducted a provincewide and national search for applicants for the position of merit commissioner and deputy minister for the public service. We received 19 applications from across Can- ada, and four individuals were interviewed. I am pleased to advise that Diane Rabbani is the unanimous choice of the special committee and is to- day being recommended to the Legislative Assembly for the position of merit commissioner, deputy minister of the Public Service Agen cy and the public service employee relations commissioner.

The appointment of the merit commissioner is an important component of the revitalization of the pub- lic service. I would like to thank all applicants who expressed interest in B.C.'s public service, all the members of the committee who worked so hard, and the staff of the Clerk of the Committee's office, par- ticularly Craig James and our researcher, Jonathan Fershau. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: B y l e a v e , I m o v e t h a t t h i s H o u s e r e c - ommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, pursu- ant to

section 5 of the Public Service Act, RSBC 1996, C. 385, the appointment of Ms. Diane Rabbani as the public service employee relations commissioner, deputy minis- ter responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission and to hold the office as the merit commis- sioner for the province of British Columbia. Leave granted. Motion approved. E. Brenzinger: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members E.

Brenzinger: I t g i v e s m e g r e a t p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o - duce to you someone who has done much to promote and bridge parental involvement and initiative to our Surrey school district board. She has worked tirelessly in our district to uphold parent representation in our children's education. She is the Surrey district parent advisory president, Patricia Landsley, and her children are Justin and Tara. Would the House please help me make them welcome. Reports from Committees B.

Locke: I have the honour to present the first re- port of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fifth session of the thirty- seventh parliament respecting the supplementary funding for the office of the information and privacy commissioner. I move now that the report be taken and read as received. Motion approved. B. Locke: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. B. Locke: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted. Motion approved. [1445] Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the previous motion, the motion to recommend the appointment of Ms. Rabbani, was a motion by the Chair of the committee. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 54. Committee of the Whole House MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:47 p.m. On

section 35 (continued). Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chair, I note that this morning when we concluded, the A ttorney General was just

11300 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 making some statements on this section, and his time had expired. I would ask that perhaps he could resume his comments, and we'll hear the rest of those com- ments. Hon. G. Plant: I was in the process of describing h o w , i n f a c t , t h e p r o p o s a l h e r e t o c r e a t e s e c t i o n 1 4 o f the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) was not that revolutionary a matter. In fact, govern- ments routinely come into the chamber to enact legisla- tion that helps municipalities deal with administrative errors.

I think it would be interesting — given the extent to which the issue excited the attention of the opposition during question period and, really, has excited the in- terest of the opposition over the last day or so — to remind members of the House that this is a tool that was routinely used by the op position when they were in government. In fact, they used it while they were in government to overturn court decisions.

In 1998, for example, at the initiative of the Ministry of Health, there was an am endment introduced by the former government to validate local government anti- smoking bylaws, and it made that validation despite any court decision to the contrary. That validation came in direct response to a court decision, which had found that a bylaw was inva lid. That's one example, and there are other examples. Earlier this session…. It may not have been earlier this session.

It may have been last year when the oppo- sition was happy to support government in essentially overturning a court decision under the Strata Property Act which, had it been allowed to stay in effect, would have made it extraordinarily difficult for the victims of leaky condos to maintain lawsuits against those they claim caused the damage they had experienced. We had to make a change to the Strata Property Act with respect to the rules that applied to how you decide when a strata council had th e authority of its members to proceed with litigation. Now, that's not to say that the court had made an error in its

interpretation of the

section as it was worded in the Strata Proper ty Act that the former gov- ernment had introduced an d passed, but rather, the court decision would have had the effect of denying justice to many, many British Columbians. In those circumstances, it was argued that the public interest required that the Legislatur e step in and enact a provi- sion that undid the court decision. [1450] This is not that unusual. It's certainly not done lightly. It's not done in a way that is in any way cava- lier or does not take into account the whole of the pub- lic interest, but it is done from time to time.

It's neither stunning nor revolutionary. I know that the opposition leader in particular, who has expressed herself on this point in the last day or so, must have had a hard time choking back her indigna- tion as routinely during the course of the years in which she was in government her colleagues brought in legislation which overturned court decisions.

She must have had a particularly difficult challenge doing that on the occasions when she herself tabled legisla- tion that had exactly the same result — as she did, for example, when it was necessary for the government of British Columbia to save all of the money it had col- lected through probate fees under a probate fee collec- tion regime that was determined to be unconstitu- tional. Each of these issues has to be taken on its own mer- i t s . I n t h i s c a s e w e a c t e d , a s g o v e r n m e n t , b e c a u s e t h e resort municipality of Whistl er asked us to act.

That was where the initiative came from. We acted only because we were satisfied that that community as a whole, both through formal and informal means, strongly supports this $120 million development that is clearly going to make a great difference in the lives of the people of Whistler, create a great opportunity for that community to add to it s already powerful appeal to visitors and help as we all — as a province — move towards the 2010 Olympics. I do think it's important that we take a step back from the rhetoric that often pervades these things and look at the facts.

In this particular case the facts are that while there was, without a doubt, an error identified by a court in the course of the zoning process that led to the improvement of this deve lopment, the public inter- est requires that we intervene now and ensure that that error does not hold back this development. That is what we're going to do. I thought it was important that we at least spend a minute or two putting this amend- ment into its context for the benefit of members of the Legislature and other citizens who may be following the debate. J.

Kwan: I'll just make a short comment to reply to the Attorney General with

section 35. The issue, of course, is about the motivation, which the opposition questioned in question period today, whereby the Nita Lake project is getting a green light through the miscel- laneous bill that's before us. It is just coincidence, I know. The government likes coincidences, and it is just coincidence that Mr. Haibeck happened to donate $3,000 in 2002 to the Liberal campaign coffers and then another $8,500 through the Whistler Rail Tours com- pany which Mr. Haibeck happens to be a partner in. It just so happens — and I know it's all coincidence — that we have this bill before us.

H a v i n g s a i d t h a t , I w a n t t o b e v e r y c l e a r t h a t t h e opposition actually takes no position on whether or not Nita Lake should proceed. The issue we do take, of course, is the overriding of court decisions through legislation. Anyway, it's not an attempt to prolong de- bate on this matter because we do have the Premier's estimates that we want to wrap up today — that we have to wrap up today — but I just wanted to make those comments on the record. Hon. G.

Plant: Just to remind the member that in this case, as I'm sure she knows, the bylaws related to the development were passed in the fall by Whis- tler following public hear ings and other opportuni-

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11301 ties for public input. Whistler council made the deci- sion that this project was in the best interests of the community. Their view was that the project had the support of the community and would provide nu- merous benefits to the community. There were sig- nificant financial and legal commitments made when the bylaws were approved, including land transfers. By the time th e court decision was made on March 15, work was well underway on the con- struction of the hotel.

The project actually will allow for the preservation o f t e n h e c t a r e s o f w e t l a n d s . I t w i l l a l l o w f o r t h e e n - hancement of trails and pa rks, residential housing, employee housing and enhanc ements to public tran- sit, including connection with the new passenger rail station. It's a $120 million investment creating 100 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs. Those con- struction jobs have been in limbo along with the de- velopment as a whole.

According to Whistler, without this amendment Whistler is very concerned that the development might not proceed, as any delay obvi- ously always is a risk for financial viability of a pro- ject. That is also part of th e factual context of the deci- sion to accept the request by Whistler that we act in this way. [1455-1500]

Section 35 approved on the following division: YEAS — 40 Chong Hansen Bruce van Dongen Bray Roddick Masi Lee Cheema Hagen Murray Plant Campbell Collins de Jong Harris Christensen Abbott Coleman Cobb Jarvis Anderson Nuraney Nebbeling Hunter Long Trumper Johnston Krueger J. Reid Stephens Nijjar Wong Visser MacKay Halsey-Brandt Suffredine Sultan Sahota Manhas NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Sections 36 and 37 approved. On

section 38. J. Kwan: Sections 38 through 47 repeal significant portions of the Railway Act. What is the general reason for these repeals? Hon. G. Plant: M y u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s t h a t m o s t o f the provisions that are being repealed relate to incorpo- ration requirements, and the intention is that the incor- poration requirements of the Business Corporations Act take the place of the Railway Act incorporation requirements. We are simply removing a whole set of rules that have traditionally applied to railways and actually may not have been used for a very long time because they're no longer needed.

Railway businesses that wish to incorporate in British Columbia will do so under the Business Corporations Act. J. Kwan: As far as I understand from the Business Corporations Act, "Foreign entities required to be regis- tered," specifies that a foreign entity does not carry on business in British Columbia if its only business in Brit- ish Columbia is constructing and operating a railway. That's the relevant

section that applies under the Busi- ness Corporations Act. [1505] O n t h a t b a s i s , i s i t t h e c a s e t h a t w e o n l y h a v e r a i l within British Columbia that is a foreign entity oper- ated by a foreign business? I actually know of other smaller rails in British Columbia that are not operated by foreign entities. Of course, I might add — and this certainly applies to B.C. Rail and to CN with the trans- fer and so on — that the competition bureau has yet to finish its review of that matter, so the deal is not yet done. But we are already repealing this piece of legisla- tion? Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not sure if this will answer all of the member's question, and if it doesn't, the member should ask again. The B.C. Railway Company has its own statute and is unaffected by these amendments. J. Kwan: Let me go to

section 40 for a question to the minister, then. Sections 38 and 39 approved. On

section 40. J. Kwan:

Section 40 repeals parts 2 and 4 of the Railway Act.

Section 29(1) of

part 4 relates to special matters requiring permissi on. This repeal removes provisions on special matters requiring permission.

Section 29(1) states: "A company may apply to the minister for any of the fol- lowing: (

a) permission to construct branch lines, or to ex- tend the railway of the company; (

b) permission to ex- tend or add to the undertaking of the company and not falling within the scope of any statutory prohibition; (

c) permission to invest the money of the company in the purchase of the bonds, stocks, shares or securities of any other company; (

d) permission to acquire the undertak- ing or any part of the railway of any other company, or to sell the undertaking or any part of the railway of the company; (

e) permission to amalgamate and consolidate the undertaking of the company with the undertaking of any other company."

11302 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 Sub (4) then goes on to say: "A company must not do, or commence or attempt to do, any of the things referred to in this

section without first applying to the minister and obtaining the minister's permission." Sub (10) states: "A spur or br anch line constructed under this

section must not be removed without the consent of the minister." Let me ask this question, then, pertaining to

section 40, which is

section 29. Why are these provisions being repealed? Hon. G. Plant: The main purpose here of removing these two parts of the old Railway Act is that, as I said earlier, new incorporations will occur under the Busi- ness Corporations Act. The fact that you incorporate, under the Business Corporations Act, means that you become a person in the eyes of the law with all the powers that a person has. Therefore, you would have all the powers that are contemplated under

section 29 of the old act. So there is no longer any need to create a process whereby companies could acquire those rights or opportunities. J. Kwan:

Section 40 repeals parts 2 and 4 of the Rail- way Act. Is the minister saying those are duplications and are therefore not needed because the provisions contained in parts 2 and 4 are already contained within another bill under

section 29 of the Railway Act? [1510] Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that there are other pro- visions in other legislation, such as the Railway Safety Act, which would come into play and have some appli- cation if, for example, an existing railway wanted to construct a spur line. They may not cover exactly the same territory as is currently covered by

part 4 of the act, but the view is that the requirement in

part 4 of the act that you get the approval of the Minister of Trans- portation before any of those things can take place is regarded as unnecessary red tape. Obviously, anything that a railway wants to do on land is going to have to involve acquisition of land, and it'll be subject to whatever rules apply to the land in question that they're buying or acquiring. There's a whole host of other rules and laws around things like environmental protection, an d so on, that would come into play, but the additional requirement that rests here in

part 4 — that you need to get approval of the Minis- ter of Transportation before you set out to try to do any of those things — is, in the view of government, simply unnecessary red tape. J. Kwan: Does the repealing of this

section of the Railway Act — and, really, sections 38 to 47 — have anything to do with the B.C. Rail deal? Is it necessary? In other words, are any of these sections of this act re- quired to facilitate the B.C. Rail deal? Hon. G. Plant: None of these proposed amend- ments are required as a result of the B.C. Rail deal. They are unconnected to that deal. J. Kwan: Does it have any impact, with respect to the operators, on the B.C. Rail line, soon to be CN? Hon. G. Plant: It has no impact. Sections 40 to 46 inclusive approved. On

section 47. J. Kwan:

Section 47 repeals parts 40 and 41 of the Railway Act.

Part 40 deals with amalgamation agree- ments. Could the Attorney General please advise why it was necessary to remove the sections on the agree- ment for sale, lease or amalgamation of a railway? Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that there are similar powers and rules about amalgamations and those sorts of things in the Business Corporations Act. The view of government is that there is no need for a separate set of rules for railways. J. Kwan: Sorry. I didn't quite catch the Attorney General's answer. For some reason, part of it…. Hon. G. Plant: I understand that

part 40 sets out provisions regarding corporate amalgamations, and I know there are provisions in the Business Corporations Act that deal with the ru les around when and how corporate amalgamations can take place. The view of government is that those rules, which apply to business corporations generally, should also apply to railways and that there's no need for a separate set of rules around issues like amalgama tion for railways. That's why this set of rules is being repealed. Sections 47 to 49 inclusive approved. On

section 50. [1515] J. Kwan: We debated

section 50 earlier under, I think,

section

Section 50 repeals the Video Games Act. I don't want to go into talking about the Video Games Act other than just to put on record that the opposition is against repea ling the Video Games Act. I do think it does add to providing some regulation to- wards video games. Particularly in light of the chang- ing medium that is out ther e around this and the expo- sure to video games of young people today — and children more particularly — we need to be ever more vigilant to come up with tools to deal with that, and I thought that the Video Games Act was a good tool.

Section 50 approved on division. Sections 51 to 54 inclusive approved. On

section 55. Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment to

section 55 standing in my name.

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11303 [SECTION 55, by deleting items 11 and 12 in the com- mencement table.] Amendment approved.

Section 55 as amended approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:17 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, reported complete with amendment. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. G. Plant: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, read a third time and passed. Hon. G.

Plant: I seek leave to table a report. Leave granted. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Plant: I table the annual report of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for the year 2003-04. I call Committee of Supply. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:20 p.m. ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER (continued) On vote 8: office of the Premier, $44,129,000 (contin- ued). Hon. G. Campbell: Before we commence today, I would just like to table two things in the House in re- sponse to some of the questions I received yesterday from some of the members.

The first is in the matter of the Society Act and the matter of the CareNet Technology Society. There was concern raised by the member from Mount Pleasant that we had not had access to the society's records. In fact, we did have that access. It was requested by Mr. Parks for the Pricewaterho useCoopers investigation that took place. I'd like to submit the order from the minister for the House. I would also like to poin t out that in terms of the chronology that took place, there were significant con- cerns raised about CareNet Technology Society and the relationship with Mr.

Walls, as was pointed out, as we established that. CareNet had declared bankruptcy in 2003. All of CareNet's records were in the custody of the bankruptcy trustee, MacKay and Company. When PricewaterhouseCoopers initially contacted MacKay and Company to arrange access to CareNet's records, they were refused and were informed that they would need a court order before they could access the records. The trustee was not convinced that PwC had the appropriate standing to access the records.

The office of the comptroller general met with the society registrar to determine if there were sufficient grounds to appoint PwC as an investigator under the Society Act to allow them access to the CareNet records. The registrar determined that it would be in the public in- terest to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers under sec- tion 84 of the Society Act to investigate the affairs and conduct of CareNet. The Mini ster of Finance approved that appointment on February 4, 2004.

When presented with th e appointment under the Society Act, MacKay and Company still refused PwC access to the CareNet records and continued to require a court order. In discussion with the registrar, it was determined that a ministerial order under the Society Act would be quicker than going through the courts. As there was some urgency for PricewaterhouseCoop- ers to complete the work, it was agreed to obtain the ministerial order.

The Minister of Finance approved that order on February 12, 2004, and when presented with that order, MacKay and Company provided PricewaterhouseCoopers with full access to the Care- Net records. PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed the records of CareNet, completed their work and issued their final report on May 6. In the opinion of Pricew aterhouseCoopers, Mr. Ron Parks, they had received what they believed was re- quired, and they felt no fu rther work needed to be done. I would like to table that in the House for mem- bers' information. J.

MacPhail: Just for the information of the Pre- mier and his staff, I am going to do public-private partnerships, intergovernmental relations and then the 2010 Olympics. After we get through that, Mr. Chair, I'll have to give you another list, because I think we will be running do wn. I have several topics, and I'll have to choose amongst them, but those will be my next three.

11304 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 I told the Premier yesterday that we would talk about the public-private partnership that is left on the agenda, which is the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre. Now, I did canvass this with the Minister of Finance under the Partnershi ps B.C auspices. We have a body in this province called Partnerships B.C., and they report to the Minister of Finance. We did talk about this. [1525] What we do know from that — and I reviewed the estimates discussion via Hansard last night — is that there is only one bidder on the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre.

The original request for proposal was for about $220 million. It is now up to $300 million. The Minister of Finance explaine d that as because of a lar- ger scope. The scope in no way matches the increase in the price. Of course, there is only one bidder left. Per- haps the Premier could tell me what the status is of that request for proposal. Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciated the heads-up yes- terday from the member that she would be talking about the MSA Hospital and the P3. I think it's impor- tant to go back and look at why this project was initi- ated.

Going back a number of years, the people of Ab- botsford were told they would be having a new hospi- tal. It was clearly something that was required for that community, which is one of the fastest-growing com- munities in British Columbia. In fact, the facility was fi rst approved in 1992, when the member was previously in government. In 1993 the Health minister said that the MSA Hospital would come on stream in 1997. In April of 1995 the government an- nounced that the facility would not be built until 2002. In 1999 a former Minister of Health pointed out: "It is not approved this year in the capital budget.

It's $150 mil- lion, so it would be the only capital project approved in any year. We will look at that again next year." The people of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley were promised consistently by the previous govern- ment that they would be getting a new hospital be- cause a new hospital was so required. In fact, over 13 years there was $10 million invested to deliver virtu- ally nothing. We did decide to move ahead with a new hospital for Abbotsford. There are 150,000 people that currently live in Abbotsford. There are some 330,000 people that live in the Fraser Valley.

It is important that their health care facilities be upgraded in terms of providing care for people in the communities where they live. That was clearly a critical component of any future- oriented health plan, and it was a component we felt we had to commit to. A s w e m o v e d f o r w a r d , i t w a s n e c e s s a r y f o r u s t o define the scope of the projec t, and in doing so, I think there was a substantial scop e increase.

There are some 240 health care professionals that have been involved — doctors, nurses and administrators in the Fraser Valley — to be sure that we do have a program in place that will meet the needs not just of today but of tomor- row. I think it is also important to note that P3s have been part of the health care service and delivery system for over a decade in British Columbia. There are a sig- nificant number of long-term care facilities that are built, owned and operated by private partners and have been since the 1970s.

A number of private part- ners for minor surgical serv ices, like cataract surgery and diagnostic work, were begun under the previous government. This is really a continuation of that thrust to look at how we can secure the best possible value for British Columbians. As the minister noted and as the member opposite noted, there was a significant expansion in the scope of the project. One of the real advantages of P3s is that they require you to determine and define specifically the scope of a project before you come to completion.

That does in fact remove some of the uncertainty and, frankly, a lot of the risk fo r the taxpayers as they look at creating new public infr astructure to meet their needs. Let me give an example of some of the scope ex- pansions. There are far more stringent infection control measures to deal with outbreaks such as SARS. We know how critical that is. That was reinforced to us all last year. There is an expansion of the emergency area. There are two separate and distinct comprehensive cardiology care and intensive care units to allow more effective care for patients that is specific to their needs.

There are two cancer programs, for breast health and for heredi- tary cancer problems. There is more chemotherapy and treatment space, as well as enhanced brachytherapy services. There is more focus on providing specialized child and youth care.

There are special spaces designed to meet the needs of younger people for such things as rehab and physio space that are specifically there for children. [1530] There are teleconferenci ng and videoconferencing facilities in two of the eight operating rooms now, which will allow us and will allow all British Columbi- ans to benefit from the expertise locally and, indeed, throughout the province. There are equipment and medical services. There are more stretcher beds. There are six more hemodialysis stations. There is a second CT procedure room.

There is academic space expan- sion to create a centre for learning in cooperation with the universities to train heal th care professionals of the future. There are environmen tal and facility enhance- ments to ensure that we're creating an excellent work- ing environment for a green building. It is, I think, significant that as we move forward with the bidder that is in place, we are moving towards the completion of that bid. It is not complete as yet, but as Mr. Parks even pointed out, the time to get the value-for-money audit done is following completion of a bid that looks acceptable.

The time for the public sec- tor comparator to be finalized would be at that time. We are confident that the people of British Colum- bia will not just have a health facility delivered that is

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11305 long overdue — it's a decade overdue — but they will also have a health facility that meets their needs not just when it's complete but for years to come, both for those who need cancer support and for those who need the regular support we'd expect from an acute care facility. We would expect that will move forward in a way that is done thoroughly and completely and that benefits all taxpayers. J. MacPhail: My question was: what is the status of the bid? I'll get into the de tails of the expansion of the scope.

When is the one bidder going to be told whether they've got it or not? Hon. G. Campbell: As the member knows from the Partnerships B.C. website, the construction will, hope- fully, begin in the winter of 2004. We're obviously past that, but we expect it to be completed by late 2007-08. We're still in negotiations, and when those negotiations are complete, we will be in a position that we can move forward. J. MacPhail: Well, let me put on the record my ver- sion of this.

My version of the record is going to be assisted by Ron Parks, that wonderful auditor that the Premier lauded and said that his words should stand independently of government when the Premier was referring to the Doug Walls audit done by Ron Parks. I'm not going to overstate the case by Mr. Parks. That doesn't do anybody a service here. But here's what I know about the status of the MSA Hospital in Abbotsford. It's behind

schedule for even completion of the bidding process. There is one bidder left, out of what was originally four bi dders. Three bidders are no longer in the process. There has been no value-for- money audit done and no public sector comparator done yet. Ron Parks did an audit, a review, of the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre request for proposal back in 2002. He did the initial evaluation in May 2002. Then the government, as the Premier has just listed, changed the scope, so Mr. Parks did another assessment of how the project had changed, and he did another review of the proposal.

L e t m e j u s t r e a d i n t o t h e r e c o r d h i s f i n d i n g s a s o f February 25, 2004. This is based on the changed scope that the Premier just read. He found project costs have skyrocketed since his initial evaluation in May 2002 due to significant changes in facility scope and financ- ing.

Construction costs have risen from $210 million to $286 million, and annual lease payments to the win- ning private consortium have skyrocketed from $20 million a year to at least $39.7 million a year in each of the 30-year deals. [1535] "No further assessment of value for money has been performed to re-evaluate the decision to proceed as a P3 project…." Of course, he said that that contra- dicted the requirement that P3 projects demonstrate value for money to the taxpayer.

Government pay- ments to project co, the name that the government has identified for the successful bidder, are $393 million above the expenses and debt servicing costs of the pri- vate consortium, with no explanation as to why. "How much risk the succe ssful bidder will assume from the public sector and what value can be placed on the transferred risks are unknown. Financing risk and ownership risk are likely to remain within the public sec- tor because (

a) the initial contribution of $71 million of public money from the Fraser Valley regional hospital district, and (

b) the private consortium will have nothing other than the government guarantees to provide as col- lateral because government will own the asset. "There is little assurance that the public interest will be protected or that all stakeholders, including health care unions, will be involved in the process, a require- ment for public-private partnership projects.

Lastly, the 30-year term of the project's alternate service delivery contracts for the private partner could result in reduced competitiveness in the long run." So there's Ron Parks updating his original 2002 review of the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre request for proposal — updating it in February — taking into account the changed scope. Now, here's what Mr. Parks said publicly after he released his review. He said that "the cost of the project has nearly doubled, but there is no new evaluation on whether taxpayers would benefit from the public- private partnership.

As well, with only one bidder left on the project, there is no competition. I think there are serious questions that aris e when we analyze what we've seen so far in this project. Who was hired to do the audit by Hospital Employees Union?" The government dismissed Mr. Parks's audit be- cause it was done by the Hospital Employees Union. Well, they can no longer dismiss it, based on their abso- lutely embracing of Ron Parks as being the final word in the Doug Walls audit. Perhaps the Premier could answer some of the con- cerns raised by Ron Parks. Hon. G.

Campbell: Perhaps the member can tell me the pages from the report that she is quoting from there. I don't recall those sections from the report. If those are quotes directly from the report, it is easier for me to respond to them. Let me say that in the report I have, it is very clear — and this is from Mr. Parks directly: "At this time, it is unknown what portion of this difference is likely to profit project co and what other costs project co will have to incur to build the hospital and provided the services indicated." Mr.

Parks is unquestionably an excellent auditor, but as I tried to point out earlier, he was relying on old information in terms of developing his report. The re- port that he built was based on a much smaller scope. I mentioned earlier, I think, the expansion of some of the areas of scope. PwC did a study that the MSA Hospital project has expanded to become a regional referral cen- tre with far more health se rvices. In othe r words, the increased costs that were found by Mr. Parks are di- rectly attributable to the increased scope and services of the project, not to the P3 model.

11306 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 In addition, there is a different set of facilities man- agement services expected fr om the partner than indi- cated in the original PwC report. There is a larger bun- dle of facilities management services to be included in services — such as food, materials management, portering and supplies, la undry and linen services, utilities management and parking services. Mr.

Parks himself acknowledged — at the HEU press conference, in fact — that the appropriate time to prove value for money for taxpayers is after the final proposals are in and the agreement is finalized. I think we recognize that, and we are clearly moving forward with that. The Parks report vis-à-vis the competitive process that the member opposite has referred to…. As the member opposite pointed out, we issued a request for proposal. There were four proponent teams in Septem- ber of last year. In November two teams officially en- tered the competition.

In other words, there were two teams that felt, with the stringent criteria we had estab- lished with the requirements for the consortia that may bid on this…. There were two left. For months the two proponent teams worked on preparing preliminary designs and on negotiating terms of the project, and in February of this year the Healthcare Infrastructure Co. of Canada indicated that they could not continue and submit what they felt would be a winning proposal in the time lines that were available. [1540] At this point, as far as I know, we are actually ahead of

schedule in terms of the request for proposal. There is a complete financial model, including an up- dated public sector comparator, which will be used in analyzing the proposal that comes forward. It is also important, I think, to note that the single proponent is still required to meet all the specifications of the re- quest for proposal. They are still required to clearly demonstrate the value for money prior to the awarding of any contract. Again, to go back to Mr.

Parks, he was interviewed on the CBC on February 25, the date the member oppo- site just referred to, and he said it would be a very good opportunity to negotiate with the remaining bid- der and still come up with a project. We concur with that. We believe the project is in the best interests of the public. We believe that if you look at the cost-effective use of these dollars, it is important to note that as we look at this…. The PwC audit, as well, doesn't recog- nize some of the impacts, and not just of the scope ex- pansion that we've got.

It also did not take into consid- eration some of the substantial savings that were rec- ognized through operating costs and alternative service delivery models — at least, the Parks report. So we've got to be careful, because there was an- other PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was done. It did report that, conservatively speaking, they were expecting a 1 percent to 4 percent savings with regard to the building. That results in significant dollars.

But they also identified up to $67 million of potential sav- ings through operating costs and alternative service deliveries, so looking at the P3 and looking at the alter- native service delivery, we are looking at a potential for a $70 million savings. That $70 million can go into pro- viding care for patients, and that's also critical as we look to the future in the province. J. MacPhail: I'm not clear. Is the Premier saying neither of Mr. Parks's two reports, May 2002 and Feb- ruary 2004, is accurate? Is that what he is saying? Hon. G. Campbell: I have a report dated….

Sorry, the member can pass me the reports she is referring to. I have a report dated December 24, 2003. J. MacPhail: Yes — and was commented on in Feb- ruary 2004. So is the Premier saying, just to be clear, that the Parks report is inaccurate in not having all the up-to-date information? Is that what the Premier is saying? Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am saying, in fact, that the expansion of the scope and the expansion of the opportunities for both operating opportunities and alternative service deliveries are significantly different from the report I'm aware of, of December 24. J.

MacPhail: That is simply wrong, but isn't it inter- esting how the Premier will embrace Mr. Parks when it suits his purpose? Then at other times when it puts him at risk, he says Mr. Parks is wrong. The second report in December '03 took into account the publicized changed scope and the public ized reportings on what would be the cost of operating expenses from the Fra- ser Valley health authority to project co. Nothing different has occurred since that time, December '03 — nothing that's not public, anyway. Maybe there is something hidden about it. But I find it unbelievable…. Actually, Mr.

Chair, it works both ways for us. It absolutely works both ways. If he is going to discredit Mr. Parks in this area, then he dis- credits Mr. Parks in the Doug Walls audit. That's ex- actly what he does, and it's ridiculous to suggest any- thing otherwise. I at no time in any way indicated that Mr. Parks said the project shouldn't proceed. Mr. Parks doesn't reach that conclusion, but he does outline what his view is of the costs of this project. So when is the public sector comparator going to be done? Perhaps the Pre- mier could just put on record now how this bid is go- ing to move forward.

What will be the legal obligations to the one bidder left? Regardless of the circumstances of why the other bidders wi thdrew, there is only one bidder left. So how do negotiations proceed with one bidder? [1545] Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying that at no time have I suggested that Mr. Parks is not an able auditor, whether it is with regard to this report or other reports. One of the things we know from the Walls report was that all information that Mr. Parks required was made available, and he had it. One of the things we know from this report was….

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11307 J. MacPhail: That's not true. Hon. G. Campbell: Just so we're clear, Mr. Chair: that is true. Mr. Parks could access any information that he required. J. MacPhail: Could he access your hard drive? Hon. G. Campbell: He could access any informa- tion he required. Interjection. The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, let's hear the answer, please. Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Parks had access to any information that he required and requested with re- gard to the investigation into CareNet Society. In this particular case, the information that he had was not correct.

The scope of the pr oject had expanded signifi- cantly. Mr. Parks himself said that the time for value- for-money audits was after the request for proposal and the process was complete. As I mentioned earlier, the proponent will have to meet the requirements and the standards established in the request for proposal — number one. There is a pub- lic sector comparator which has already been com- pleted. It is part of the negotiations. Obviously, I'm not going to make that public sector comparator public here today or to the bidder. That's something we use as part of our negotiations.

When that is complete, there will be an evaluation done to ensure that the public is getting full value for their investment. In fact, there are full benefi ts to the public. I identi- fied earlier to the member opposite that it looks at this point like we could achieve up to $70 million-plus in terms of benefits from going through the public-private partnership route. That's number one. Number two.

Unlike the previous government, this government intends to have a hospital built by 2007 or early 2008 to meet the needs of the 150,000 people that live in Abbotsford and the 330,000 people that live in the Fraser Valley. J. MacPhail: I wouldn't hold my breath. This gov- ernment has been spectacularly unsuccessful in deliv- ering on any infrastructure th at they promised in this province — spectacularly unsuccessful. Well, when did the scope of the project change? Hon. G.

Campbell: When the member opposite says that we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in building infrastructure, I think it's important to look back at her government's success in building infra- structure. Virtually none of the projects that the gov- ernment initiated were brought in on budget. That's one of the reasons that establishing a full scope for a project through public-private partnership is actually an excellent financial discipline. It is an ex- cellent design discipline.

It allows you, with the end of the process, to look completely at the scope to see what the costs are, what the benefits are and whether the taxpayer in fact is getting the kinds of benefits they need. Currently, as the member opposite knows, we are proceeding with the MSA Hospital, one that was prom- i s e d b y h e r g o v e r n m e n t f o r o v e r a d e c a d e a n d w a s never delivered. We are also in the midst of a public- private partnership for the academic ambulatory care centre at the Vancouver Hospital at 12th and Oak.

We have a public-private partnership that is currently go- ing forward with Britannia Mining as we move to the cleanup of that. If the memb er has visited the Peace, she will know the Sierra Yoyo Desan Road is under- way as a public-private part nership that is being built even now. [1550] There are opportunities th ere, but every project is not a public-private partnership. I think every project has to be looked at on its own merits, and that's exactly what we are doing. The initial scope of the project was expanded sig- nificantly in the fall of 2003.

In fact, it will be continu- ing on as we move through and make sure that we deliver a hospital that is cost-effective, meets the needs of the people of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley, and is delivering fair value to the taxpayers of British Co- lumbia. J. MacPhail: Yes, exactly. When the scope of the project was expanded in the fall of 2003, Ron Parks did his second review — on the expanded scope of the pro- ject. That's when he reached the conclusions that I read into the record. How is it that Mr. Parks didn't have the extra information? Of course he did. That was the basis for his second review.

Let's be clear. This government has very little, if any, factual basis on which to claim $70 million of sav- ings. It's over a 30-year period, as I understand it, that the $70 million of savings may occur. It's like a round- ing error in the life of this project. No matter how much the government tries to dis- credit Mr. Parks's second review by saying he didn't have all the facts, he did have all the facts. The facts came from the government. Who does the public sector comparator? Will the public sector comparator be made public in relation to the final bid before the final bid is accepted? Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me answer the member's question quickly. The public sector comparator will not be made public until after the analysis and the decision is made. That's number one. Number two, I would like the member to give me the explicit page references to the report of Mr. Parks that she is referring to, because the quotes I've heard today are not quotes I can find in the report that I have available. If she can give me the explicit page refer- ences, that would be very helpful. [H. Long in the chair.]

11308 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 J. MacPhail: Yes, I will give the Premier a high- lighted copy of the report with all of that information. I'd be happy to. Is the final bid not proceeding until the public sec- tor comparator is made public? Hon. G. Campbell: The request for proposal is un- derway, as I mentioned. The public sector comparator is being developed, as I mentioned. The public sector comparator is a critical part of the negotiations that we have with the private sector with regard to this. When the decision is made, the de cision will be made.

At the time the decision is made, the public sector comparator will be made available to the public. J. MacPhail: What happens if the public sector comparator comes out as a better value for money for the taxpayer? Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, if the public sector comparator looks like it's going to be a better value for the taxpayer, we would proceed with that, just as we did for the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. We looked at that to see whether or not there were public sector benefits. We looked to see what the risk allocation would be.

We felt it was better to keep that project in the public than to go to a public-private part- nership. This is an important point. There is no one who is saying that public-private partnerships are the only way to go with regard to these things. They are an im- portant opportunity. They're an alternative way to the traditional public building of the facilities.

We've seen what happens, and we've se en the disappointments that so often have taken place when we don't in fact develop proper scope, when we don't develop the standards and when we don't require the same disci- plines of ourselves in public life as they might in pri- vate life. [1555] One just has to walk to 12th and Oak in Vancouver to see an example of a public sector project that was not complete in its scope, which did not have any operat- ing opportunities and sat there as a shell for ten years while we waited to figure out how the taxpayers' in- vestment was going to reflect itself and care for pa- tients.

It is almost 20 year s from when the Vancouver General Hospital facility was started. It finally is being completed so that there are patients in that hospital for the whole hospital. That's pr obably cost taxpayers an additional $100 million. If you look back across the government's record in a whole series of activities that only the public was involved in, there were no comparators of any sort. What we find are substantia l overruns, substantial ad- ditional cost to taxpayers.

One of the benefits of looking at a public-private partnership in this way is not just whether the people of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley will get a regional hospital and cancer care facility and centre, but they will get one built on the basis of the best possible value. The public sector comparator w ill be there. If in fact it offers better value, obviously we're not going to be going to the public-private partnership. If the public- private partnership, on th e other hand, offers better value, that frees up additional resources to provide care for patients.

I want to be very clear with the member opposite. This is a legitimate negotiat ion that's going on. We will not make the comparator available until we have had a chance to review it and complete it in terms of the overall negotiation. If there is a decision made to go to public-private partnership, then I can guarantee the member opposite that the public sector comparator will be available to the public for their scrutiny. J. MacPhail: I'm reassured by that.

I think it's excel- lent that it's not a given that the hospital will be built by a public-private partnership and that the public sector comparator will be made public. When the Premier makes the public sector com- parator public, will he also make the full contract with the project co public? Hon. G. Campbell: The expectation is that the overall agreement would be released, subject to what are considered commercial limitations. For example, part of the request for proposal gives the government the opportunity to renegotiate parts of the agreement every five years.

There may be information that the proponent doesn't want available to their competitors in the outside market. Those are things that would be subject, effectively, to holdback, but our general intent is to make the contract available to the public, subject to those commercial limitations. J. MacPhail: I've had a chance, while awaiting an answer, to read the documents the Premier tabled re- lated to the chronology of events relating to Doug Walls and also to the matters of the Society Act and the CareNet Technology Society. I thank the Premier for that. Just a question arising from that, and it's a separate topic.

I'm going to move to RAV in a moment, in be- tween that. Is the office of the comptroller general do- ing a separate audit into any aspects of the dealings between Doug Walls, any of his companies and the government? Hon. G. Campbell: The office of the comptroller general did an initial audit, which led to the recom- mendation for the independent, external investigatory audit that Mr. Parks carried out. At this point I believe they would consider that matter at an end. [1600] J. MacPhail: I want to discuss the Richmond- Airport-Vancouver rapid tran sit line.

Can the Premier give his view of what the status is of that project? Hon. G. Campbell: My understanding is that the requests for proposals have been completed. The

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11309 RAVCO board has suggested that they move forward to best and final offer. The TransLink board has not, at this point, decided to do that. When the TransLink board decided not to move forward, although per- plexed by the decision, we were asked if we could give them more time. We extended our commitment by 30 days. We requested the federal government to extend their commitment by 30 days. My understanding is that the TransLink board me t yesterday, and they are meeting again on June 2 or 3, or some time like that. J.

MacPhail: The provincial money contribution to the RAV rapid transit project remains on the table for 30 days. Does it expire, or is it that it's revisited at that point? Could the Premier give me a specific date of when that 30 days is, please? Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the date of the letter. We were asked to send the letter last week. We did do that. I think it was Wednesday or Thursday of last week, so it would be 30 days from then.

The status of the dollars, as I'm sure the member opposite is aware, is that the province has had an agreement with the TransLink board — I think that agreement was in July of last year — on how we would move forward with the RAV project, which was a pro- ject they agreed was something they wanted to do.

The member may not know this, but I can tell the member that I met — I think, actually, we might have talked about this last year — with the chair of TransLink, the chair of the greater Vancouver re- gional district, the mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Richmond to be sure that they wanted the p r o v i n c e t o g o a n d a d v o c a t e o n t h e i r b e h a l f f o r t h e resources for this project with the federal govern- ment. There was an initial commitment, I can recall. I think it was July 2002.

I met with the Prime Minister and told him that our first priority indeed was the Kicking Horse line and that the RAV line was going to be something that was very important as we move forward. In July 2003, I met with the Prime Minister again. I reiterated the commitment and the concern that was raised by the local government representa- tives I mentioned earlier. The federal government was willing to come with their funding through the st rategic infrastructure pro- gram. We have $300 million from that program that's there. The federal government has $300 million from that program that's there.

They topped that up by $150 million. The infrastructure resources are going to be there for the province, and what we were trying to say to the TransLink board is: "As you go through, have a look at what you're doing. Decide whether you want to go ahead with this. You should know that we will advocate on your behalf to the federal government to maintain those resources, and our resources are on the table. But if there is no plan, then obviously there are an awful lot of transportation requests that are being made all over the province, and we would con- sider those." J.

MacPhail: Has anything changed from the prov- ince's commitment since the failure of the vote? I can't remember the dates myself. The failure of the TransLink board to pass, proceeding to BAFO — has anything changed from that time to now in terms of how the province's financia l contribution is commit- ted? G. Trumper: Mr. Chair, I ask leave to make an in- troduction. Leave granted. [1605] Introductions by Members G. Trumper: In the House now are a group of 40 grade 11 students from Alberni District Secondary School. About 16 of them ar e from the French immer- sion class. They are with Mr. Contant and Mr.

Carl Poole. They are here for the next few minutes to listen to the estimates of the Premier, so I would ask you to please give them a very warm welcome. Debate Continued Hon. G. Campbell: No. Nothing's changed. J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, I think public transit is extremely important to proceed on. I think rapid transit makes perfect sense. I think the Richmond-Airport- Vancouver rapid transit line makes perfect sense. It would be my second priority . My first priority would be rapid transit to the northeast corner, but I'm on re- cord that….

Actually, I was on record as funding that opportunity when I was responsible for rapid transit. This is about me trying to understand from the provincial government what role they're playing to try to bring about a successful RAV line and, at the same time, deliver or assist Tran sLink and the GVRD in de- livering on their priorities. That's the basis for all of these questions. I may have misinterpreted the Minister of Trans- portation right after the failed vote of TransLink, but I heard him speak. He spoke in the "I," not the "we," so maybe it was just him speaking. He said: "It's dead.

Our money's gone." I paraphrase, but I listened to it about five times over the course of that weekend. I would rather take the Premier's word right now that the money is still there than the Minister of Transporta- tion's, because I want rapid transit to occur. What is it that's going on in terms of discussions now? I don't want to know the content of the discus- sions, but what's going on to try to bring conciliation and resolution amongst the competing interests? Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, as I mentioned, the dollars are there for RAV over the next 30 days.

In terms of our commitment to th is, I think it's important to note that we said all along that we were going to allow the region to make their decisions and set their

11310 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004 priorities. They did that. We have an agreement that was signed with the GVTA. I think it was in July of 2003. It's pretty clear that in doing this, the question is not what the province is doing; the question actually is: what is the GVTA doing? What is TransLink doing? What do they want? The agreement was very clear that the dollars that were left over from the SkyTrain agreement on the direction of the GVTA…. I want to go back and stress this. This was a deci- sion of the Greater Vancou ver Transportation Author- ity, not the province. We were trying to work with the GVTA. I have letters from Mayor

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0520pm-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0520pm 19
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	24fe2abf1c9d6b931594d8680b673968efff3d72

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).