British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, December 2, 2003

H1202pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 19, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH 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.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark 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 Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray 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/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard 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 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, 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 H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet 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, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. 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, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-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, Hon. 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-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille 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, Hon.

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, Hon.

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.......................................................................G illian 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 .................................................................................

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 ............................................................................... Hon. 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 ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... 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................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

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

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

Gary Co llins 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 ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 8359 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 8359 Mission school district and teachers' contracts R. Hawes Skiing in B.C. R. Sultan 2004 B.C. Winter Games in Port Alberni G.

Trumper Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8360 Public release of B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail Payment of fees to B.C. College of Teachers P. Nettleton Hon. C. Clark Maritime Museum J. Bray Hon. G.

Abbott Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 8363 Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report B. Locke Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, second report J.

Les Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 8363 Strategic Direction and Funding Proposal — December 2003, auditor general report Legislative Assembly pension plan, annual report, 2003 Motions without Notice......................................................................................................... .................................................. 8364 Appointment of special committee to appoint a public service employee relations commissioner Hon. G.

Collins Powers of Health Committee Hon. G. Collins Powers of Education Committee Hon. G.

Collins Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8365 Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8365 Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8365 British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued) P.

Nettleton Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail

Personal Statement............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 8377 Hon. C.

Clark Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8377 British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8377 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 92) R. Harris Hon. C. Hansen W. Cobb S. Brice B. Penner R. Hawes G.

Trumper Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8382 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 92) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 8382 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 92) Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 8382 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84) British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90) Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 92) Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93) Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act (Bill 94) Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95) Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill 96) Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97) Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410) Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 2) (Bill 98)

8359 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Les: I'm delighted to introduce to the House this afternoon my legislative assistant, whom I share with the member for Chilliwack-Kent. She's an absolutely wonderful assistant to have, and I would like to ask the House to please make her very welcome. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Sumas seeks the floor. J. Les: I'm delighted to inform the House that she also has a name. It's Janet MacKenzie. Hon. G. Bruce: I have three friends in the gallery today that all have names — absolutely.

They're from that wonderful little community up-Island, Ladysmith, where we have thousands and thousands and thou- sands of lights lighting up the little town. I would like the House to make Ed, Sharon and Chase Bricker feel very, very welcome. I know they'd feel a whole pile better if, on your way home, those of you driving up and down the Island would pop into Ladysmith and have a look. It's absolutely brilliant. The Brickers. [1405] R. Stewart: Well, it's also my pleasure today to mention the names of two of our legislative staff in the east annex.

Kerri Sieg and David Burnie are legislative assistants that work with me. Would the House please make the two of them welcome here. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) MISSION SCHOOL DISTRICT AND TEACHERS' CONTRACTS R. Hawes: Nancy Wells, the superintendent of Mis- sion school district 75, has accepted a position as the superintendent of the Gold Trail school district in order to be closer to her family. Many times over the last few years I have discussed the challenges of operating the Mission school district with Nancy, and as the eve of her departure nears, I've thought about what would be her ideal parting gift. If she had a wish list, my guess is that it would in- clude, first, standardization of the teachers' collective agreements throughout this province.

There's a provin- cial master contract with BCTF, but there are also local contracts that provide big differences between school districts. The Mission contract, for example, unlike others, stipulates that teacher layoffs will be based on local seniority but that severance will be paid on global sen- iority. A little over a year ago, a teacher in Mission with only 18 months of local service and over 20 years of provincial service was laid off. Severance of over $90,000 had to be paid, and that teacher was then free to seek employment at another school district immedi- ately.

Clearly, this is not in the public interest. I know Nancy would wish that a standard provincial contract could be implemented where such issues are handled fairly provincewide. Her second wish would be that the personal har- assment clause within the master provincial agreement be removed. In 1996 personal harassment was added to the collective agreement supposedly to protect teachers from being harassed by principals and vice-principals. Since '97 there have been 106 harassment charges lev- ied and adjudicated.

Of these, 105 have been dismissed, and in each case an innocent school administrator had to suffer through the personal stigma associated with this type of allegation. I'm sure Nancy's wish would be that the BCTF and the employer agree that this very costly failed initiative could be removed from the col- lective agreement. L a s t l y , t o N a n c y , m y w i s h f o r y o u w o u l d b e t h a t your wishes come true and that you have every success in your new life in the Cariboo. SKIING IN B.C. R. Sultan: Dr.

Perry Kendall, our provincial health officer, reports improvement in 41 of 91 health indica- tors but says we're at risk through physical inactivity. On Sunday, I took his advice. I went skiing. In what other fair-sized city can you exit your driveway at 1 p.m., make the tough decision of choosing among three ski areas in your neighbourhood, snap on the old Ros- signols and be carving turns in the snow 30 minutes later? I chose Grouse Mountain over our official Olympic venue, Cypress Bowl, because I wanted to check out a new high-speed quad chair christened by our Premier in September.

It will escalate 2,000 skiers an hour to the p e a k o f V a n c o u v e r . A s m e d i a r a n f o r c o v e r , t h e P r e - mier ignited a dynamite charge — symbolically, of course. Stuart McLaughlin says Grouse Mountain Re- sorts made this $4 million investment because of the 2010 Olympic Games — tangible evidence of growing economic and recreational spinoff. Sunday was brilliantly sunny. Snow conditions were good. Over 2,000 other snowboarders, ice skaters, snowshoers and old-fashioned skiers such as myself were also following Dr. Kendall's advice.

Somewhere in the crowd was the President of Singapore and his first lady. Let's face the facts. As I slouched on the deck nurs- ing a hot cider and watching the lights come on and the sunset behind Nanaimo, I realized we're spoiled rotten. With snow and mountains like this in our back yards — virtually everywhere in British Columbia — is there any reason to spend the afternoon watching television or playing Nintendo? Certainly not. Ski on, British Co- lumbia.

8360 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 [1410] 2004 B.C. WINTER GAMES IN PORT ALBERNI G. Trumper: One week ago in Port Alberni we celebrated the 100th day of the countdown to the B.C. Winter Games, which will be held at the end of Febru- ary in Port Alberni, with the lighting of the torch. The city of Port Alberni is the only city in British Columbia to have hosted all four B.C. Games. We had the opportunity to host the 1992 B.C. Summer Games, the 1995 B.C. Disability Games and the 1998 B.C. Sen- iors Games, and we'll soon host the 2004 B.C. Winter Games.

If we had a little bit more snow, we might even host the B.C. northern games. More than 2,400 partici- pants are expected to take

part in this year's Winter Games, and we have always had enough volunteers to enable the games to be a success in our valley. An addition to the B.C. Winter Games will be the B.C. Olympic youth leadership academy. The program is an ideal platform to provide leadership experience for students who have a commitment to sport. The B.C. Games are about bringing communities together. They are about instilling pride into our city and boosting our local economy. It's about our youth and providing them with a positive, healthy experience that would leave an impression for a lifetime.

I am looking forward to the opening ceremonies for the 2004 B.C. Winter Games, and I hope all members of the House will have the opportunity to take in some of the festivities. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions PUBLIC RELEASE OF B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT J. Kwan: For days now one Liberal backbencher after another has got up to say how wonderful it feels to break their promise not to sell B.C. Rail. The session was extended so Liberal MLAs could have a group hug on B.C. Rail. British Columbians… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. J.

Kwan: …have no idea what these Liberal back- bench MLAs are talking about, because they have not been let in on the details of the agreement with CN. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us which mem- bers of the Liberal caucus were shown the agreement with CN? Can she explain why the public has been shut out? Hon. J. Reid: This agreement with CN has got so many benefits for this province, so many benefits for the north. Most everybody understands that.

In fact, I believe it's the NDP's new leader, Carole James, who said just this morning, in respect to this: "I think every- one appreciates the money that's coming to the north." Everyone. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: What the Minister of Transportation didn't s a y i s t h a t C a r o l e J a m e s i s o n r e c o r d s a y i n g t h a t t h e selling of B.C. Rail is a bad deal for British Columbians and is a broken promise and a sellout for the Liberal Party. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members.

Order, please. J. Kwan: The deal to sell B.C. Rail breaks a funda- mental election commitment, but all that the Premier has provided to the public is a bunch of press releases and bad spin for the backbench MLAs. Now we're de- bating legislation that says nothing, because the only p e o p l e , as we u nd e rs t a nd f ro m t hi s m o rni ng , t hat are allowed to see the CN deal are a few special Liberal MLAs. Again to the minister: why should British Co- lumbians have less access to information than a few of the special Liberal MLAs on the B.C. Rail deal? [1415] Hon. J.

Reid: The details of this agreement have been published. They've been expressed, and they are so numerous. Just for the members' benefit — they don't seem to understand this — I'll be glad to reiterate some of those. We're going to see 600 new railcars on the B.C. Rail system. We're going to see a new gateway proposal, where we're going to see better synergies. We're going to see a Chicago express that goes from Prince George to Chicago, cutting the time off. We're going to see the reopening of a line that's very important to the people of the Peace River country. We're going to see invest- ment in the rail line.

We're going to see a new wheel shop for Prince George. These benefits go on and on and on. Again, the people of the north, including Carole James, do believe that everyone appreciates the money. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: The minister only knows spin, and she's spinning as best she can. The government, the Premier, promised openness and accountability. British Colum- bians have a right to know what's in the contract the Premier has signed on their behalf.

If the Premier wants British Columbians to trust him, he should have the courage to make the agreement with CN public. If he should have the courage to share the deal with his

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8361 own caucus members — who, one by one, have been singing his praises without knowing what's in it — then the contract should be released today. Again to the minister — she sings the praises her- self: prove it in this House. What is she hiding from the public? What is she hiding from her own MLAs? Why won't she release the contract today? Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, for brevity's sake, which I know you appreciate, today in the committee stage debate I went over a whole list of the benefits that are embedded in contract.

The member certainly can look at the Hansard for that entire list, and it is a long list. This morning we also went over the exhaustive process that has taken place, including the hard work and oversight of MLAs up and down along that line. We have been very clear that everything that is not sensi- tive commercial information will be released when the final deal is signed, subject to the… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. J. Reid: …competition bureau review, as again was thoroughly examined this morning in com- mittee stage debate. J.

MacPhail: The minister said this morning that the legislation didn't have anything to do with the contract. In fact, she was really objecting to having to answer any questions. She said the legislation has nothing to do with the contract. Lord knows how much it's cost- ing to keep the Legislature open so that frustrated backbench MLAs can jockey for that handful of cabinet posts the Premier is going to dole out next week. We see some really just wanting to get up there and prove their worth. Maybe this whole two days has been about the prize for the best lap-dog defence of the broken promise.

If that's the case, the member for North Island is a shoo-in for cabinet. [Applause.] You betcha. He's a shoo-in. Yep. He's never seen the agreement. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: He said he issued a news release say- ing that B.C. Rail doesn't have anything to do with his riding and that there won't be any benefit, but he's be- hind it 100 percent. Yes! Him for cabinet! Him for cabi- net! That's the kind of quality of cabinet minister this Premier wants. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. J. MacPhail: But without the agreement… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Order. [1420] J. MacPhail: …it's all just an embarrassing spectacle and a waste of time. This morning the minister said she shared the contents of the deal with a few select Liberal MLAs, at least one mayor and maybe some shippers. She really wasn't sure about that. If they have a right to see the deal, so should everyone else. All we're asking the minister to do is show the same courtesy to her colleagues — all of those who have not yet seen the deal — and to the public. Make the deal public. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. J. MacPhail: Why is she refusing to do that? Hon. J.

Reid: The agreement that we have with CN — the benefits that have been listed…. Some of those are embedded in contract. Others are in legislation that is before the House at this point in time. Some of it is before the federal government because it pertains to their legislation. Again, that's all discussed in commit- tee stage. The sensitive commercial aspects of this agreement will be protected, as is usual in these kinds of transactions. All the legal wording that supports a contract, other than that information, will be made public. I think that is clear for all of the House, and everyone can stand on that.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Clearly, some MLAs are more special than others, and the member for North Island is trying to be more special than others. He just ain't making it. I can hardly wait to see how B.C. Rail… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …which has nothing to do for him… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …is good for his riding. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order. J.

MacPhail: The leader of the NDP said — and the minister knows it — that because of the terrible eco- nomic circumstances, the communities in the north welcome the money, but the Liberals are doing it the

8362 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 wrong way by selling off B.C. Rail. That's exactly what was said, and she's right. The minister knows that. Some MLAs get to see the deal. Others don't. Every British Columbian will just have to take the Premier's word for it. My gosh, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet didn't even approve the final deal. For the benefit of the Lib- eral backbench and, actually, the cabinet…. Maybe just the ones that are on their way out didn't approve it.

But for the benefit of those who still have to sit in the Lib- eral caucus, the Liberal backbench, and who haven't seen the deal yet, and most importantly of all, for Brit- ish Columbians who think they're getting the raw end of this deal, why is the minister hiding behind process that she doesn't even fully understand? Why doesn't she just release the deal? Hon. J. Reid: That member is absolutely wrong in suggesting that cabinet didn't approve the deal. Cabi- net did approve the final deal. It's unfortunate that something so simple could be misunderstood. Cabinet absolutely approved the final deal. Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. J. Reid: It was pending the agreement to that deal of CN, who agreed to that on the 24th — that is, final approval of the final deal. I'm not sure yet why this member does not understand or appreciate $1 bil- lion for the benefit of British Columbians. PAYMENT OF FEES TO B.C. COLLEGE OF TEACHERS P. Nettleton: I have a question… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. P. Nettleton: …to the Minister of Education. In Prince George there are about 700 teachers who are in jeopardy of being forced from their classrooms due to Bill 51 and the dissolution of the College of Teachers.

This follows 14 school closures and education funding shortfalls amounting to some $15 million. [1425] I've spent five years in opposition, working with this member, opposing a government that we agreed had become increasingly arrogant and contemptuous. Sadly, actions of the minister to date suggest that that which she once loathed, she now typifies.

Will this minister do the right thing and commit today on behalf of parents, communities, students and trustees to turn from confrontation and to begin working honestly with teachers, instead of holding them in contempt merely because she believes public opinion is on her side? Will this minister respond to concerned parents in these communities who are wondering when stability will be restored to the K-to-12 system and comment on how she plans to resolve the situation, in which thousands of B.C. teachers have refused to pay their college fees? Hon. C.

Clark: Y o u k n o w , i t ' s a l w a y s e a s y o n t h e last d ay of question pe riod to stand up and e ngage i n name-calling, I suppose, and start using that kind of…. Interjection. Hon. C. Clark: What's really…. Interjection. Hon. C. Clark: On the last day of session to stand up and reduce this kind of a debate to that kind of lan- guage…. But I will say this…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Clark: But I certainly will be happy to an- swer the member's question, no matter how he's cho- sen to pose it, and that is to say this.

We will make sure that this dispute does not affect children in the class- room, because what's important here…. The independ- ence of the college is important. The right of parents to be able to complain about what's happening in the sys- tem is important. Standards for teachers are important. All of those things are important. But this dispute is a dispute between adults. And like all disputes between adults, we need to make sure that they don't affect kids in the classroom.

That is something that I stood for every time I had the oppor- tunity when I sat on that side of the House, and it's something that I stand for today. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. MARITIME MUSEUM J. Bray: My question is to the Minister of Commu- nity, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Victoria's Mari- time Museum provides an important public service in my riding, as well as maintaining one of the largest maritime displays in North America. It's also a signifi- cant part of the cultural precinct here in the capital and provides a major tourism opportunity for Victoria.

Media reports concerning the future of the Maritime Museum have caused some concern in my community. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Bray: Additionally, as the museum does have one of the largest collections of maritime assets in North America, there is a concern about the potential loss of these cultural assets.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8363 Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services explain what action is being taken to help the Maritime Museum continue to be a cultural anchor in our community? Interjection. Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the Leader of the Op- position pointing out that there's actually a scale model of the first fast ferry in the Maritime Museum. That fact alone, Mr. Speaker, leads me to be concerned about the future of that institution. Seriously, though, we have had a couple of very good meetings with the Maritime Museum in the last couple of weeks.

I think what I'm seeing from the Mari- time Museum and its board is certainly a recognition of some of the challenges that they face. The principal challenge, in fact, is that we have seen dramatically declining admissions or attendance at the Maritime Museum over the past decade. I think the board has come to the realization that the location of the Maritime Museum is one of the issues that they need to address. Interjection. Hon. G. Abbott: What impressed me, Mr. Speaker — apart from their tenacity, which is similar to the member across the way — is that they are very enthusi- astic about the future.

They are looking at what I think are some alternative venues that they are excited about. [1430] I'm looking forward to working with the Maritime Museum to try to see that, in fact, the Maritime Mu- seum can continue to be a great amenity, a great attrac- tion for the city of Victoria, for the province of British Columbia — including that scale model of the fast ferry, which I know we all covet. [End of question period.] 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 fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament, respecting contingency funding for statutory officers. I move 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: I m o v e t h e r e p o r t b e a d o p t e d , a n d i n moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make the following comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, of which I am the Chair, met earlier this year with the chief electoral officer to consider his request for reimbursement… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. B. Locke: …of the costs incurred under the Recall and Initiative Act, in administering eight recall petitions during the first three months of the current fiscal year. On June 12, 2003, the committee recommended that the sum of $310,000 be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to Elections B.C. for these recall expenses.

As the Legislative Assembly was not in session at the time, the report was deposited with the Clerk of the House, and I now present it to the Legislative Assembly. Motion approved. J. Les: I have the honour to present the second re- port of the Special Committee on the Citizens' Assem- bly on Electoral Reform for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J.

Les: I move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report I wish to report to the House that the work of the Citizens' Assembly ini- tiative is well underway. The special committee has confirmed an impressive group of senior staff appoint- ees. They in turn have been hard at work laying the groundwork for the work of the Citizens' Assembly itself commencing early in January. Delegate selection meetings have been conducted in all 79 ridings across the province.

These have been well- organized and exciting events, the excitement only dampened by the disappointment of those who were not selected to be part of the assembly. This groundbreaking initiative in potential democratic reform has already intrigued many students of democracy across this coun- try and abroad. British Columbians will be watching with great interest in the year ahead as the Citizens' As- sembly conducts its deliberations. Motion approved. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's Strategic Direction and Funding Proposal — December 2003. Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2003 of the Legislative Assembly pension plan.

8364 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 Hon. G. Collins: By leave, I would like to move three motions to charge three legislative committees. The first is a special committee to be appointed to appoint an individual to be the public service em- ployee relations commissioner, the said members of the special committee to be John Les, convener; Ms. MacPhail; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Hunter; Ms. Locke; Ms. Orr and Mr. Harris. Leave granted. Motions without Notice APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSIONER Hon. G. Collins: I move the motion.

It's in the hands of the opposition and the Table as well. [That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, (pursuant to

section 5 of the Public Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.385) the appointment of an individual to be the Public Service Employee Relations Commissioner, Deputy Minister responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission and to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee; (

b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of John Les, Convenor Joy MacPhail Randy Hawes Mike Hunter Brenda Locke Sheila Orr Roger Harris] Motion approved. [1435] POWERS OF HEALTH COMMITTEE Hon. G.

Collins: I seek leave to move a motion to empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine, inquire into and make recommendation with respect to finding effective strategies to change behav- iour and encourage people to adopt lifelong health habits that will both improve their health and sustain the health care system. [That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to finding effective strategies to change behaviour and encourage people to adopt lifelong health habits that will both improve their health and sustain the health care system. 1.

Conduct consultations and report on recommendations from the Select Standing Committee on Health Reports from 2001 and 2002. Investigate other successful health promotion campaigns in other jurisdictions to analyze their potential effectiveness in BC. Undertake discussions on how to promote "healthy lifestyles" including the appropriate use of incentives and disincentives to help influence public behaviour. 2. Determine any potential financial savings to the Health Care system as a result of improved fitness of the general population and children and youth in particular.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, the Committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House no later than March 31, 2004; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] That motion is also in the hands of the Table and the opposition. Leave granted. Motion approved. POWERS OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE Hon. G.

Collins: Finally, I seek leave to move a motion to empower the Select Standing Committee on Education to investigate measures to improve access, choice, flexibility and quality in public education and additional measures to strengthen our network of col- leges, institutes and on-line learning throughout the province. [That the Select Standing Committee on Education be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the following matters: 1a) To follow up on the 2002 recommendations of A Future for Learners: A Vision for the Renewal of Education in British Columbia; and, in particular;

b) Based on the 2002 recommendation for a process for public post-secondary institutions to report back to the Select Standing Committee on Education on the enhanced tuition revenues to benefit students, the Committee is hereby empowered to request and receive

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8365 reports on this matter from public post-secondary institutions. 2. The Committee may consider any other matters referred to the Committee by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education. 3. The Committee shall prepare a report no later than April 30, 2004 on the results of this review. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Education, the Committee shall be empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such subcommittees any of the matters referred to in Committee; (

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; (

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] Leave granted. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 97. Committee of the Whole House MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 3) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 97; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

Section 1 approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:38 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 97, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 89. Committee of the Whole House BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 89; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 2:40 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). P. Nettleton: I have a number of straightforward questions to the minister for my own information, tied directly to

section 1, the

definitions section. Perhaps the minister could assist me in terms of getting some in- formation. I noticed with interest discussions with respect to properties that may — in fact, I expect will be…. There's reference made to subdividable properties, which means there are some properties that will be subdivided at some point and presumably sold or somehow disposed of. I know the properties, as they relate to B.C. Rail or what was once B.C. Rail, are cer- tainly considerable.

I know this is kind of a general question, and perhaps it's not specific enough, but what is the nature and extent of BCR properties outside of those lands designated as rail corridor? Perhaps the minister could comment on that, please. Hon. J. Reid: There are hundreds of these proper- ties. Some of them are vacant, and some of them are occupied by commercial tenants. P. Nettleton: Are these properties outside of the rail corridor all to be disposed of in some fashion following the finalization of this agreement? Hon. J. Reid: The answer to the question is yes.

These properties could go to communities; they could go to first nations; they could go to the tenants that are occupying them. In some cases, they could be returned to the Crown, if there isn't any active interest in them at this point in time. P. Nettleton: That's very interesting, and I expect there would be a great deal of interest in terms of get- ting some sense as to where those properties are, the extent of those properties, the nature of those proper- ties and also some time line for disposal.

I wonder if perhaps the minister could assist not only myself but others in terms of when information might be made available with respect to the properties that will at some point be available for disposal, for sale — some sense of the time line, how the process works in terms of having some sort of information with respect to the

8366 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 disposal of those properties — all of which would be very helpful. [1445] Hon. J. Reid: We anticipate that within the next six months, we'll have a fully engaged process in place. Right now we have had preliminary discussions with first nations, communities, tenants who have expressed interest in certain parcels of property. Those decisions won't be made until there's a fuller understanding of what the interests are. We can expect six months to get that process in place, and then I would anticipate up to 24 months before we see the completion of that. P.

Nettleton: I'm wondering if the minister has any sense as to the value of the properties that will be dis- posed of at some point in the future — some estimate as to the values — and also some sense beyond that as to where it is the moneys derived from the proceeds of those sales would be directed. Hon. J. Reid: We have an estimate on those proper- ties as being $100 million. Those properties will be held in BCRC. That's the Crown corporation which, as we move forward, holds the land, holds the railbed, etc. So those proceeds will go there. That is the Crown corpo- ration.

Any decision on those proceeds, the expendi- ture of those proceeds, has not been made to date and would have to be made at some time in the future. P. Nettleton: One final question for me, at least, on

section 1. Within the context of municipal taxation and taxes flowing to municipalities as a result of this trans- action — assuming, then, that BCR lands are subdi- vided and sold outside of the rail corridor — will this have any impact on municipalities and CN with re- spect to municipal taxation? Or does this have no bear- ing on that at all? Hon. J. Reid: The answer to that question is that those properties are outside the estimate of the mu- nicipal taxation — the revenues that they're going to receive. J. MacPhail: What is the value of the lease, and what are its terms? Hon. J. Reid: Mr.

Chair, we left off this morning…. The member had put a question forward with regard to the proceeds of the B.C. Rail agreement.

I just wanted to be able to make sure that I had fully answered that question, had that opportunity, put that on the record, because I do believe this is very exciting news for the communities across the north and across this province. [1450] There is going to be a $135 million northern devel- opment initiative, and that includes $25 million operat- ing endowment; $60 million divided equally to four regions, $15 million each to Prince George, the Peace, the northwest, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, including Lil- looet; and $50 million for a general trust to support cross-regional investments.

In addition to that, there's going to be another $15 million for first nations for their benefit as well. I just wanted to make sure, because of a discussion this morning of what was in contract and what wasn't in contract…. That is certainly being published by the government as the commitment moving forward on the proceeds. I just wanted to make sure that question had been answered. I'm quite happy now to take the member's following question. J. MacPhail: Well, let's just finish up on that, then. Those commitments are not part of any deal with CN, though. Is that correct? Hon. J.

Reid: Those commitments are because of a deal with CN. J. MacPhail: Does that mean that the $4 million to the airport that the government has been promising forever wouldn't have gone ahead without the CN deal? That promise has been there from this govern- ment to the airport of Prince George for a long time. Is that what it is? It's a zero sum? The only thing the north gets now is money out of this deal, and anything else they've been promised by their backbench MLAs is a no go? How is that a gain for the north? What per- centage of the CN proceeds goes into the communities? Hon. J.

Reid: I did leave out some of the expendi- tures that the province is making. The member does talk about $4 million to Prince George Airport — a wonderful opportunity to make that into an interna- tional airport. That had not been agreed upon previ- ously. The member might or might not know that there are a lot of airports across this province looking for funds for growth, for opportunities. This was a won- derful opportunity. This is about transportation. As well, there's $17.2 million from the province going to Prince Rupert to support the container development initiative there.

These are transportation improvements that will have far-reaching and long-lasting effects upon the economy of the north, producing all sorts of synergies that the people in this House representing their constituencies can realize, can recognize. In fact, the member for North Island, I believe, gave a very good example of somebody with some vision, somebody with confidence in the future of B.C., some- body looking for opportunities instead of somebody looking to be negative.

The dollars that will flow into the province — the $1.5 billion — are going against the debt, and the government gets to make the decision on those remaining proceeds. Some of them have already been committed, as I said, and some have yet to be committed. J. MacPhail: Actually, what the member for North Island said was that maybe it will help if there's a cruise ship terminal — well, he didn't even make that clear — b e t w e e n P r i n c e R u p e r t a n d h i s c o m m u n i t y .

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8367 The link was completely manufactured. It had nothing to do with B.C. Rail, had nothing to do with CN and was pretty much wishful thinking. But, hey, good on him. Any audition to get into cabinet is good, I guess. What percentage of the proceeds is going into the communities as the minister has just listed? Hon. J. Reid: I believe this is straightforward: $1 billion in proceeds. The government gets to make the decision on those proceeds. The government has de- cided $500 million — perhaps $502 million — goes to pay down the debt.

Then the government gets to make the decision on the remaining dollars. The government has made a number of commitments with regard to those proceeds, with more commitments to come in the days and months ahead. J. MacPhail: I know why the minister never wants to answer these questions. It's because they're embar- rassing for her. The announcements they made related to spending in the north, which have nothing to do with the CN deal and aren't guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination, are less than 17 percent of the pro- ceeds of the sale of B.C. Rail. [1455] Let's be clear.

When the minister said this morn- ing…. When I asked what sort of guarantee there is for the airport to be developed, she said: "Because the gov- ernment said it would do it." Well, we got a flood of e- mails — from Prince George, it turns out. I'm not sure why. They said: "Ask her about her commitment not to sell B.C. Rail." That commitment about investing money in the north and four bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee — not at the Prince George Airport. So let's just see…. Let's just talk about the port authority now at Prince Rupert. The government has committed $17 million.

What's the total cost of developing the port at Prince Rupert? Hon. J. Reid: While I thoroughly believe in the de- velopment of Prince Rupert as a gateway port and the opportunities for containerization, I do not have all the material available to me. I did prepare to come here and talk about the legislation today, and I'm quite happy at some time in the future…. If this member is not familiar with those opportunities, never received a briefing from the port authority in Prince Rupert, which would be a shame at this point in time….

If the member does not understand what's at stake and all the work that's gone into developing that proposal and the different steps engaged in that, we are happy to provide that information. I do believe that today we are looking at specific legislation that enables the completion of an agreement between B.C. Rail and CN. It talks about the port sub- division. It talks about consolidating the land values to protect the railway, the corridor, the rights-of-way and lines in government's hands. So if the member doesn't have that information and would like it, I'm quite happy to set up that briefing for her. J.

MacPhail: Well, in fact, that's why we're here. Or is that not why we're here? For the minister to answer questions about the deal that her government pack- aged up in a nice, expensive presentation, and now she doesn't want to answer questions. It was her government that linked all of this to- gether, not anyone else. It was her Premier that went over there and spent more than 50,000 bucks on a pres- entation that said: "Here's why this deal is so good." And now the minister doesn't want to answer ques- tions?

Now that we've extended the session for tens of thousands of bucks, she doesn't want to answer ques- tions? What? Is all the glory over from the silly little second reading statements made on non-information from the back bench? Here's the reason why I'm asking: because the min- ister justifies the sale of B.C. Rail. And by the way, it was the minister that changed the title to British Co- lumbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. There's nothing that exists that they're amending to that, so it was she who added the word "revitalization." I'm trying to figure out where the revitalization is.

One of the great examples she gave was the Prince Rupert port. Well, it turns out that the Prince Rupert port expansion will be in direct competition with the Roberts Bank container expansion project. I received a letter from the Vancouver Port Authority, which runs the Roberts Bank container expansion project, just last week, saying how hard they were working to expand. So I investigated to see who they were in competi- tion with. They're looking for Canadian exports, so it's a zero-sum game. This revitalization scheme related to Prince Rupert is a zero-sum game.

What will go through Prince Rupert now won't go through Delta Port. So the government again is claiming all sorts of benefits from a deal that simply aren't there. The bene- fits aren't there. No wonder the minister doesn't want to answer the questions. [1500] Mr. Chair, part of this is about the revitalization agreement, which is contained in

section 1. That's all I'm trying to find out about: how's the revitalization going to occur? Well, we're not going to get any answers about how it's going to occur through the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Let me just put on the record, Mr. Chair, that 17 million bucks for the Prince Rupert port ain't going to be even a third…. Oh, it'll be a third of the money. I guess the minister's just counting on that money flowing from the federal government, but the federal government is also being asked to invest in Roberts Bank.

If the federal government does flow money to Prince Rupert, it will be at the expense of Roberts Banks, and there won't be one iota of increased eco- nomic activity as a result of this CN deal — not one. It's a zero-sum game. That's why it makes a mockery of the title "revitalization agreement." My question was on the lease. Can the minister tell what the value of the lease is, over what term? Hon. J. Reid: It is so telling, this member's pessi- mism about this province. Her absolute refusal to be-

8368 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 lieve in the potential of British Columbia and her re- fusal to believe there can be growth in this province…. She fulfilled this when they were in government. We believe there are opportunities for growth. We are searching them out. We are looking for them. We believe there's growth for Roberts Bank. We believe there's poten- tial for Prince Rupert. We believe there are grain shipments and containerization. We believe there is opportunity. That member doesn't want the revitalization of British Columbia.

That member is totally against growth in British Columbia. That member is not inter- ested in seeing this province grow, expand and do well economically for her own political interests. We are interested, and we care about this province. With this agreement we are able to take a railway that was shrinking, Mr. Chair. We shrunk it on purpose to contain the leakage of the costs. We contained it so that it could function strictly as a freight railway busi- ness.

But we weren't able to invest in it, so the revitali- zation is a company that believes it will put a billion dollars on the table in British Columbia to make sure it grows that business. They want to invest in it, and they believe in its potential. We weren't able to do that as taxpayers. That's the revitalization of the railway that this member refuses to accept and acknowledge and that everyone out there sees the potential of. The opportunities for the other proceeds, in looking at other initiatives — whether it be an airport, whether it be the port, whether it be… Interjection. The Chair: Order, members.

Order, members. Hon. J. Reid: …the $135 million to the northern communities, where they get to make their own deci- sions and are able to invest in their communities…. She's belittling the amount of $135 million. I am abso- lutely frustrated and concerned that she would not think this is a benefit to communities, because the communities understand it's a benefit. To answer the last part of her question with regard to the value of the lease, the value of the lease at this point in time — and I listed earlier this morning the different influences on that value — is $150 million.

The term is 60 years with a 30-year renewal. J. MacPhail: Perhaps if the member for Prince George–Mount Robson had actually campaigned on what the Minister of Transportation just said, maybe we would n't be having thi s d ebate now. But s he cam- paigned on saying they weren't going to do what they're just doing right now. [1505] Let's be clear. This government doesn't have one piece of new financial information that they didn't have during the election. During the election they said: "We're not going to sell B.C.

Rail." The member for Prince George–Mount Robson got elected on that basis, so it ain't me being cynical. It's the voters out there be- ing cynical, wanting to know why the government flip- flopped on their promise, and all they get in Prince George is a measly 27 million bucks. Interjections. J. MacPhail: A measly 27 million bucks — exactly. The Chair: Order, members. Order. J. MacPhail: In the 1990s… Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. J.

MacPhail: …Prince George had invested in it almost a quarter of a billion dollars — a quarter of a billion dollars — and this government wants credit for investing 27 million bucks. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. J. MacPhail: It's the cynicism created around this government misleading the voters during the last elec- tion, and this minister feels frustrated that she has to answer questions. We have a $150 million lease for 60 years, and it's CN's option to extend it for another 30. Is that correct? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. J. MacPhail: How much will the lease payments increase if CN exercises that option?

Hon. J. Reid: The $150 million would be for the 90- year period. At the end of 60 years there is an opportu- nity for them not to continue on with the agreement, but the $150 million would include the 90 years, if they so choose. J. MacPhail: Okay, so we have a 90-year lease where CN pays $150 million for that. Let's say they take the full 90-year lease.

You'd have to calculate the net present value of the lease, but at a minimum it's less than a couple of million bucks per year — proba- bly closer to a million bucks a year on average — CN is paying to lease all of the tracks of British Columbia Rail all throughout British Columbia. If CN exercises its use of those tracks during that 90-year period, who else gets to use it? Hon. J. Reid: Through the RFP process, we are re- quiring CN to allow access for the tourism trains, and t hat 's p a rt o f t he c o nt r ac t as we m o v e a he ad .

T he re i s nothing that would prevent CN allowing others usage of the tracks under circumstances they would arrange. J. MacPhail: But it's CN that gets to determine that use, not taxpayers. Is that correct?

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8369 Hon. J. Reid: It is CN that has the operating rights. That's what we wanted — to have an entity to take on the operation of the B.C. Railway, to invest in the B.C. Railway, to grow the business of the railway transporta- tion sector in British Columbia. That indeed is the out- come that we have wanted all along, in response to the member's earlier statement. That is how we are revitaliz- ing the rail transportation sector in British Columbia. [1510] J.

MacPhail: So CN has exclusive rights to the use of the rail property and rail lines for 90 years at an av- erage of less than $2 million a year, yet the Premier still insists: "Oh no. British Columbia owns the right-of-way and owns the railbed." Well, for all intents and pur- poses, it's got zero value attached to it for British Co- lumbians. CN has the lease. It's up to them to extend it or not. They have a veto on use of the track, and they get the profits from the use of that. So I don't know why the Premier still insists that there's anything in this for British Columbians. I was corrected.

I was very taken aback when I was told that the 7 percent reduction that CN is guarantee- ing in fees charged, on average, only applies to inter- line. Now, of course, the documents do say that — in- terline shipments. But what the documents don't say is that 60 percent of B.C. Rail's business isn't interline shipping. It's intraline shipping, and that has no price guarantee attached to it whatsoever. Am I correct? Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Chair, I believe there were two questions in there.

One, in talking about the value of the lease, it's important for a reasonable person to un- derstand that those tracks, without trains running on them, don't have much of a value to the province. What's important, what's valuable are the operations on those tracks, and that indeed is what this agreement is all about. It's also important to realize that those tracks and those lines have to be returned to the province in the state they originally are used today. That is going to require, on today's financial terms, a $40-million-a-year investment.

So the member, if she wants to use that math of multiplying those kinds of figures as the years go ahead — as she's dividing the lease figures into the years — certainly realizes that there is a lot more in- vestment and a lot more value. The value to British Columbia is also in the growth of this business, and that is a huge asset and value. The other question was with regard to the shippers and their prices. First of all, it's important to note that the existing contracts are all honoured, and for the shipments that travel within B.C., their competition is mainly with the trucking industry.

That puts them in a different situation. Their concerns were a different type of concern than the concerns of the shippers who take their goods and actually connect with other railway networks outside of B.C. J. MacPhail: Clearly, the minister thinks she can just use this as an opportunity to use her spin without answering my question, so I'll just assert it as the truth, because she didn't challenge it. When all these Liberal backbenchers stand up and say, "The interline shipping has an average reduction in price of 7 percent," that only refers to 40 percent of B.C. Rail's business. Fully 60 percent of B.C.

Rail's business has no guarantee of re- duction of shipping costs whatsoever. The minister keeps on saying that the competition, now that CN has a freight rail monopoly in this prov- ince, will be with intermodal services. Does CN run any intermodal freight services in this province? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. [1515] J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, CN runs quite a substan- tial intermodal freight service in this province, and yet the minister is somehow saying: "Oh no. There will be lots of competition." Yeah.

So we give CN a monopoly of freight rail traffic in this province, and then we ex- pect that the way that the monopoly won't be exercised as a disadvantage to shippers is because they'll be competing with intermodal freight services. Turns out that the biggest intermodal freight service in the prov- ince is owned by CN. Gee, how's that going to produce a nice competitive situation? I didn't hear anybody in the Liberal caucus talking about that. Let's just look at the definition of railbed assets, which is in

section 1. Railbed assets are defined in sec- tion 1. I gather that the reason why railbed assets are there is because this is what the Premier rests all of his hat on that he's not breaking a promise he made during the election. This is what the government retains own- ership of.

Looking at subsection (c), it states: "…all works of infrastructure under the control or ownership of the BC Rail Partnership, a subsidiary of the company or the revitalization rail operator that support the safety, se- curity and operating integrity of the railway track, in- cluding, without limitation, cuttings, embankments, drainage works, bridges, tunnels, culverts, retaining walls, works of stabilization, signals and detection de- vices and at-grade road crossings and signals." Given that definition, who actually is responsible for the safety and operating integrity of the track? Hon. J.

Reid: The revitalization rail operator would be. J. MacPhail: So even though all those things are defined as railbed assets — and this is what the Pre- mier uses to say B.C. still has some say in this — all of that for 90 years will be under the control of CN. Is that part of the contract that we can't see — the require- m e n t s t h e r e ? I s t h a t p a r t o f t h e … ? W h a t i s i t c a l l e d now? I can't even remember the name of the agreement this morning — the agreement that's going off to the competition bureau. Hon. J.

Reid: The maintenance of the track and, as the member read out, what goes along with it are

part

8370 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 of the revitalization agreement, not the transaction agreement. It's the track, it is the land, and it's the right- of-way that are part of the revitalization agreement. The safety standards are all part of federal regulations and certainly are monitored. J. MacPhail: CN is responsible for the upkeep of the rail lines, but the province owns them. What is the province responsible for in any of this? Hon. J. Reid: The revitalization railway operator will be responsible for all the operations and all that is affected by those operations. When we get to

section 6(51), we talk about some liabilities that the govern- ment will still have with regard to such things as envi- ronmental…. I'm not sure if the member would like to talk about that as we get to that part of the bill. [1520] J. MacPhail: Let's just be clear on this definition of railbed assets. The minister's using language…. I find it quite Liberalspeak for her to say the revitalization op- erator. It's CN, who now owns it. Why doesn't she just say that? CN will be responsible for maintaining the railbed a s s e t s f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d f o r 9 0 y e a r s .

T h i s g o v - ernment won't be investing one red cent in maintaining those. And 90 years from now, who will know whether the tracks will be returned in the condition in which this government sold them off?

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail:

Section 2 adds 5.1, the port subdivi- sion. The port subdivision is a 23-mile

section of rail commencing near Cloverdale, B.C., and it ends at the Westshore Terminals at Roberts Bank coal terminal. Since 1970 the three major railway companies have held running rights on the port subdivision. Those are Burlington Northern, Canadian National — no, we're not allowed to call it Canadian National anymore; it has to be called CN — and the CPR. These running- rights agreements are for a 21-year term running from April 1, 1970, to April 1, 1991, with the right to renew for succeeding terms of 21 years.

These terms of agreement were originally entered into between the railways and the British Columbia Harbours Board. They were then transferred from the Harbours Board to the railway when the railway acquired what is called the port subdivision in '83. Pursuant to the running-rights agreements, CP Rail, CN and Burlington Northern have the right to handle their own traffic on this subdivision. Specifically, the user railways stack their own trains over the port sub- division, including switching and other ancillary movements required by their coal train or container train operations.

Since April 1 of 1970 the railway has been responsible for managing and operating the port subdivision.

Article 6.3 of the port subdivision agreement be- tween B.C. Rail and CP Rail provides, in part, that agreements are for terms of 21 years with the right of renewal. The unique character of the port subdivision agreement is reflected in the following abstract from the

preamble to the agreement. I'm going to read it into the record: "Whereas it is the desire of the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia that Roberts Bank, British Columbia, be developed as a national port serving the whole of Canada.

"Whereas BCR and CP Rail agree on the principle that all parties involved in the development of Roberts Bank, British Columbia, as a national port shall be treated on a fair and equal basis, and that said principle shall apply to all railway companies that may serve Roberts Bank and related facilities now or in the future" My questions flow from those "whereases," Mr. Chair, and the original agreement. B.C. Rail currently employs 30 employees on the port subdivision.

These are crews doing the track mainte- nance, the signal repair crews, the rail traffic controllers and the train supervisors at Roberts Bank terminal. There are 30 workers. Each railway company using the port subdivision pays their portion of the expenses de- pending on the number of trains. For instance, if CP ran 75 percent of the trains, they would pay 75 percent of the cost of the operation, the upkeep, the train control, etc. It is a cost-plus agreement between B.C. Rail and other railways. B.C. Rail owns, maintains and sometimes pro- vides running crews on this

section of track. All the costs are passed on to the private railway operators as they move their shipment to the port. How much money does the port subdivision make for B.C. Rail on an annual basis, and where does that now flow? [1525] [K. Stewart in the chair.] Hon. J. Reid: Those proceeds do flow into B.C. Rail's books, bottom line, but they aren't accounted for separately. They aren't separated out by the company. It's just part of the larger overall operation. J. MacPhail: So what's the future of the port subdi- vision? Hon. J.

Reid: We do have an RFP issued right now for an operator for the port subdivision. It's important to note that before the RFP went out, we did meet with all the stakeholders who are involved in those opera- tions — the people in the port, the people operating trains, etc. What we want to see here, once again, is a railway operator who is able to invest so as Delta Port expands, there is more investment put into that line. One of the main criteria of the RFP is that all users have equal access. J. MacPhail: Well, it's a way of having equal access but still allowing for prices that aren't competitive.

Will CN be allowed to bid on this sale?

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8371 Hon. J. Reid: The existing contracts will be hon- oured with regard to price going forward, and we are not prohibiting anybody from showing or expressing interest in this proposal. J. MacPhail: Well, then I assume that the sale of the port subdivision will also have to go to the federal competition bureau. Hon. J. Reid: We are getting that information with regard to the competition bureau and the port subdivi- sion. [1530] I did want to respond to a comment made earlier by the member with regard to intermodal and inter- modal operations.

She said that CN does have inter- modal trains that operate in B.C. Intermodal trains carry truck trailers or containers, so the trucking indus- try is still there. Just because a train can carry trucks doesn't remove the trucking industry that exists. That competition still exists, and I think the distinction is important to make — that an intermodal train has con- tainers, truck containers or trucks, that actually travel on that train. I will have the answer to the member's last question momentarily. J.

MacPhail: Could the minister please explain 5.1(2), which says: "A BCR collective agreement does not bind, and

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code does not apply to, the Port Subdivision Subsidiary"? Hon. J. Reid: This particular

section ensures that B.C. Rail Ltd. employees remain with B.C. Rail Ltd. in order to make a distinction between the port subdivi- sion. So while we have the…. And in response to an earlier question, the member was talking about why we don't just say CN is the revi- talization rail operator. Obviously, we're looking for another operator on the port subdivision, and that's why I make the distinction. We do believe it's important that the employees stay with B.C. Rail Ltd.

That distinction is made so we can have a railway agreement, a separate process from that, because the railway operates quite separately, operates in a different format that is important to main- tain and that we will be maintaining. So that's where we're making the distinction. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to predict that CN is going to buy the port subdivision as well. Call me crazy. I know the minister said I was crazy when I predicted that CN was going to win the B.C. Rail bid. Day after day she stood up in this House and said: "No, no, that's not the case." Well, I predict it is.

So the employees of port subdivision are now going to work for CN. Is that correct? What happens to their collective agreement? Let's be clear. B.C. Rail Ltd. is now CN. CN bought it lock, stock and barrel. What is the invocation of

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code? What happens to these employees? Hon. J. Reid: The current unionized employees — their certification, collective agreements — will remain with B.C. Rail Ltd., and that goes to the operator, which is CN. J. MacPhail: What is the exemption from

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code? [1535] Hon. J. Reid: While we are accessing some specific information, I want to go back to another question that was asked earlier with regard to the port subdivision and the competition bureau. Because of the size of this transaction, we don't believe it's automatically going to be reviewed by the competition bureau. They'll make that decision based partly on if there are shippers' con- cerns or not. This is a very different structure of deal, where access is going to be required on an ongoing basis and where the existing contracts are going to ap- ply.

Whether or not the competition bureau sees fit to review the port subdivision is not known at this time. J. MacPhail: Sorry — did the minister say she was going to get back to me on

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code? Yes.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. J. MacPhail: This

section basically says that CN has no responsibility to provide rail service after a certain period of time. Much was made that this new partner- ship agreement would provide passenger rail service and freight rail service throughout the B.C. Rail line. However, this

section would allow CN to abandon rail lines, just as was set out in a leaked CN Rail scenario document. Let me ask this. There is a guarantee only for five years that CN won't abandon rail lines. After that, they can abandon rail lines as long as they go through the Canadian Transportation Act process. How can the government possibly guarantee passenger service if CN abandons rail service and maintenance south of Williams Lake, as has been part of their plan? Hon. J. Reid: First of all, that is not part of their plan, but I think the member is misreading this section. This

section is saying that the Crown corporation, the holder of the rail line, the holder of the right-of-way, does not have to provide the railway operations. I think that's a very important distinction to make here. J. MacPhail: Well, I thought CN bought B.C. Rail Partnership. It did. It bought B.C. Rail Partnership completely. It says here: "…the company, any subsidi- ary, BC Rail Partnership or any person under the con- trol of the company, any subsidiary or BC Rail Partner- ship may, but need not, provide rail service over all or any part of the lines of railway referred to in subsection (1)."

8372 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: Once CN completes the deal and pur- chases the partnership units, there is no longer that partnership. Everything referred to here refers to gov- ernment, refers to the government ownership. This does not refer to the revitalization railway operator. This all refers to the government. [1540] J. MacPhail: Well, how? Any subsidiary, the com- pany…. Where does it possibly say it's government? We already know — CN announced — that it only has a service guarantee of five years.

Is the minister some- how saying that this legislation protects against CN abandoning rail lines? Hon. J. Reid: If we'd spent a little bit more time on

definitions, this might be apparent. It's important in understanding this legislation that any reference to the company or its subsidiaries.… All of that refers back to government. The only time it refers to CN or the poten- tial port subdivision operator is when the wording "revitalization rail operator" is used. In discussing the other general question with re- gard to continued service on these lines, it has certainly been CN's intent to be able to grow that service. There are the provisions that there could be no application for abandonment of service for at least five years.

Any application at that point would have to go through the CTA process, which usually takes several years and which investigates what has been done to keep that line in service. It's quite an exhaustive process. It also looks at opportunities for short-line. Ultimately, at the end of the day, what's very im- portant to the people of British Columbia is that the railway — the line, the track and the right-of-way — always stays in the public's hands and always has to be maintained to a condition as it is today.

Upon any con- cern over the usage of any track in the future, it will always ultimately be government's decision as to what happens on that track if CN decides, through that ex- haustive process, it no longer can operate on any sec- tion of track. J. MacPhail: Cutting through all that, after five years CN can abandon a rail line as long as they follow the Canada Transportation Act process. They can abandon a rail line or a spur. In the RFP that CN is re- quired to deliver on for passenger service, what guar- antees that they will keep the track open south of Wil- liams Lake? How is the RFP working in that area?

Hon. J. Reid: Contained in the RFP for the tourism rail services is a term of ten years, so that would be embedded in contract with any passenger service or tourism service that would contract with CN. J. MacPhail: Where is the passenger service travel going to be? On what line? Hon. J. Reid: The RFP is for the complete expanded network, so it's all the BCR line right now as well as the CN line in British Columbia. The RFP was issued jointly from B.C. Rail and CN to include all of those lines. J. MacPhail: So CN has to provide, through con- tract, passenger rail service on all of its lines?

Or does it get to choose on which? Hon. J. Reid: It opens it up for proposals. Whoever has an interest…. Whether it's going to Prince Rupert, whether it's going to Jasper or whether it's going to Whistler and Vancouver and up to Prince George, whoever has a proposal will put that proposal in. It's up to the proponents to suggest where those trains would run and CN to enter into a commercial agree- ment with them for that minimum of ten years. J. MacPhail: What is the RFP for?

What's the mini- mum passenger service that will now be required through this RFP that the government is touting as a restoration of passenger service? What's the minimum? [1545] Hon. J. Reid: We have required CN to provide ac- cess for those services. It all depends on the proposals that come forward and who wants to use what lines to what extent. That is going to be the foundation of the tourism passenger services in the future. Until those proposals come in and are analyzed…. We know there has been interest. We know there has been adamant interest for over a year now.

That interest continues, and people have publicly expressed interest. As to the extent of what lines they are going to put in a proposal for, I don't have that information. J. MacPhail: Is there any requirement that says you have to guarantee 12-month passenger service? Hon. J. Reid: Access is required to the lines for those passenger tourism trains, so again it's dependent on the proposals that come forward — whether some- body sees it as seasonal or whether somebody wants to run a service that is year-round. Those businesses will make those decisions and will put the proposals in to CN.

CN has to provide access on a commercial basis. J. MacPhail: In other words, there's no guarantee of 12-month passenger rail service, and the tourism ser- vice is going to be decided by CN Rail — another claim that's been blown way out of proportion by this gov- ernment.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. MacPhail:

Section 20 of the British Columbia Railway Act has been repealed, so there's no approval by cabinet of lease or sale of lines. The minister just said that if CN abandons lines, the government owns them and will decide the future of those lines. Who

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8373 decides it now? I predict lines will be abandoned, so by repealing this…. Who's in charge now? Hon. J. Reid: Future decisions on the line. The line is going to be held in the B.C. Railway Company, and the shareholder of that company is the government, so future decisions on those lines still come back to gov- ernment. J. MacPhail: Not according to legislation. The gov- ernment has removed cabinet approval for lease or sale of lines.

It seems a weird thing to do when the Pre- mier's travelling the entire province saying the taxpay- ers still own the railbed and the right-of-way. Does it mean that when CN abandons a line, it will just be abandoned? There are no future plans for lease or sale? Hon. J. Reid: Rather than cabinet being able to make those decisions as it is now, in the future if that instance occurred, it would have to be through legisla- tion. This provides the greater guarantee that while we have the ability to lease the line, we are keeping the line — the roadbed, the right-of-way — in perpetuity. J.

MacPhail: So every lease or sale of the lines — the actual sale and the actual lease — will come to this Legislature to be approved. If you're doing it then, why not now? Hon. J. Reid: We are here in the Legislature debat- ing a bill that enables us to take on a lease. In the fu- ture, the way this act is structured guarantees owner- ship in a vehicle that is so secure that it is not cabinet's decision to sell lines, and we're saying the lines will not be sold. That's what is ensured in this piece of legisla- tion.

It provides an extra hurdle, so if some day some future government has to make a decision, they will h a v e t o c o m e b a c k t o t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . I t i s n o t a d e c i - sion of cabinet at that point. That's greater guarantee to the people of British Columbia. [1550] J. MacPhail: What are we debating right now? Are we debating a lease agreement and a sale agreement? If so, where is it? We're not debating that now. This government isn't putting that up for debate. These members don't even know what they're debating.

Where is it that we are debating the terms of the lease or the terms of the sale? Show me in the legislation. Hon. J. Reid: This legislation enables a lease — in fact, more than one lease. As I've already said, there's the main line of B.C. Rail, and there's also the port sub- division. This enables both of those leases to take place. J. MacPhail: So we're not debating the sale or the lease. We're debating enabling legislation about a lease, a contract, a sale, which is completely secret. How dare the minister stand up and say: "We're debating the lease and the contract." She won't release the details.

In fact, everybody who votes in favour of this is putting up their hand and going, "Aye aye, Cap- tain," when less than a handful of them actually know the details of the contract. This is all being done behind closed doors and breaking an election promise. Sections 4 and 5 approved. On

section 6. J. MacPhail:

Section 6 adds new sections to the Brit- ish Columbia Railway Act, sections 45 through 53. The entire

section would allow CN to be part owner of B.C. Rail property and exempts CN property from certain municipal bylaws and regulations. In fact, the language is fairly strong in

section 6,

section 45(8). If I could just read this, subsection (8) says: "Despite any provision to the contrary in a security agreement or other agree- ment or record, a transfer of a railway property to the company effected under subsection (4) does not consti- tute a breach or contravention of…." What's the purpose of this? Why is the government exempting itself from any other provisions to the con- trary that might be in contracts elsewhere? Hon. J. Reid: I'm going to answer this question on the land transfer and then the question the member posed earlier with regard to

section 35. The purpose of this

section is to consolidate the land. The land right now is under different titles under the subsidiaries of B.C. Rail. There is a requirement, a need, to consolidate it all under the B.C. Railway Company, which will then have the title for that right-of-way so that we can pro- tect the title of that right-of-way. The transfer is really an intracompany transfer so all the terms and condi- tions that apply will continue to apply to that land go- ing forward. This is a consolidation of the land under one title and the need to streamline that because of the large number of properties involved here — I believe over 2,500 properties. [1555] To answer the question the member posed earlier around

section 35 of the Labour Code,

section 35 says that if a business is transferred, the collective agree- ment follows. What we have done here is that the col- lective agreement does not follow the port subdivision, but the employees will stay with B.C. Rail Ltd. and stay under the existing collective agreement. So those em- ployees, because they stay with B.C. Rail Ltd., are still protected by their existing collective agreement. The port subdivision, as I said earlier, is separated off so that we can negotiate a second agreement with a rail- way operator. J. MacPhail: Back to the question on

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code. What collective agreement does apply to the former employees of the B.C. port subdivision? Is it their current collective agreement, or is that ripped up and made null and void, and they have to assume the collective agreement of what?

8374 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: It is a current collective agreement because they go with B.C. Rail Ltd., and that collective agreement goes with the operations. J. MacPhail: Well, I hope somebody out there under- stands that. I'm confused. B.C. port subdivision has a separate collective agreement. B.C. Rail Ltd. has a separate collective agreement. They're shaking their heads, no. If there's one collective agreement, and they're staying un- der that same collective agreement, why exempt them from

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code? Hon. J. Reid: Right now it's all part of B.C. Rail Ltd., and it's all together. We want to make sure that those employees are looked after. Those employees will stay with their existing collective agreement that they will be taken into B.C. Rail Ltd. We will be sepa- rating off the port subdivision to be a separate entity. Right now it's together. It's going to be a separate en- tity, so we can enter into a separate lease agreement with a new operator for the port subdivision. J. MacPhail: Okay.

So then the new person who gets that contract isn't burdened by a collective agree- ment. Is that the purpose of it? Hon. J. Reid: Just as CN, who's been the successful proponent for the main BCR line, has its collective agreements, the new port subdivision operator would have their collective agreements. J. MacPhail: Back to

section 6, Mr. Chair. In subsec- tion (10) it states…. T his i s a

section that I just simply can't understand. It says: "

(10) On and after any transfer referred to in subsection (4), all uses to which the transferred railway property was being or could be put immediately before the transfer, all modifications that had, before the transfer, been made to the railway property and all things and other improvements of any type that were, immediately before the transfer, located on, in, under or over the railway property, are deemed to be wholly consistent with the local government requirements that would otherwise apply to the railway property, including, without limitation, all local government zoning bylaws." Reading that, on the face of it, it sounds like another Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. [H.

Long in the chair.] Hon. J. Reid: This

section basically grandfathers the existing use. If CN wanted to do anything different in the future as a private corporation, they would have to apply for zoning applications, as anybody else would. This just grandfathers the existing use that's there today. J. MacPhail: So there's no forward-looking at this. CN, in the future, has to apply to city governments for zoning bylaw changes as would anyone else? [1600] Hon. J. Reid: The answer is yes. J. MacPhail: Under

section 48 of

section 6, which basically is the section….

Section 6 is what gives life to CN buying this company. Therefore, the opposition will be voting by division against this section, Mr. Chair.

Section 48 says there will be no government liabil- ity after transfer. Let me just make sure. Yes, that's the title. It's pretty succinct: "No government liability after transfer." If the government owns the railbed and the right-of-way, why is it opting out of any liability? Who is liable, then? Hon. J. Reid: As BCRC will be a passive landowner of the railway rights-of-way, we won't have control over the railway operations. This provision insulates BCRC against any claims made on the railway operator by third parties.

It also ensures that BCRC will not have to be made responsible for maintenance of the railbed assets, which is the sole responsibility of the railway operator. J. MacPhail: Yeah, but what if CN doesn't do it? The government still, according to the Premier, owns this. Why is the government opting out of liability for an asset that it owns? Hon. J. Reid: The operator is responsible for the maintenance. It's responsible for the upkeep. It's re- sponsible for the operations. Why would the taxpayer want to take on liability for their operations? That wouldn't make any sense.

This makes sure that the operator that is managing the railway operations is liable, as it should be, for the results of its operations. J. MacPhail: Call me crazy, but if a taxpayer says the owner…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Oh, another wonderful contribution from a member of cabinet. If the taxpayer owns the asset, as the Premier says every day, why wouldn't the taxpayers want the gov- ernment to have liability in case of abandonment by the operator? It's quite easily considered, easily con- templated that the contractor might not fulfil its con- tract.

In fact, those very issues are facing this govern- ment right now in highway maintenance. If this government is trying to claim that it still owns the asset, what allows it — other than through its heavy hand of legislation — to opt out completely from liability? What if CN abandons its responsibility? Is the person harmed or injured completely abandoned then as well, even though the government owns the asset? Hon. J. Reid: I believe there are two different issues that the member is talking about. One is about liabili- ties for a company that is going to be running the op- eration.

Again, I have no idea why the member would want the taxpayer to be liable for what might ensue from the operations of that company. That company should be liable.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8375 The second part of the question, I believe, and the answer.… If there is eventually an abandonment of track, that comes back to the province, and the prov- ince then would have the liability over that

section of track once again. [1605] J. MacPhail: Where does it say that? Hon. J. Reid: If a piece of railway property that's been leased, through an abandonment process many years into the future, came back to the government, it w o u l d t h e n n o l o n g e r b e p a r t o f t h e r e v i t a l i z a t i o n agreement. That enables the government to once again have the liability on it. J. MacPhail: Where in the legislation does it con- firm what the minister just purported? Hon. J. Reid: The revitalization agreement is a lease agreement that is for the lands as so defined.

That's set out in the legislation, obviously. Once a property is no longer part of that lease through an eventual aban- donment — as I say, many years in the future, if there were an abandonment — then that is no longer part of the lease and would no longer be covered under this exemption. It is a straightforward process. The member doesn't want to accept that, but it is actually a logical progression. The act allows for the lease properties to be covered under this exemption from liability.

If they were no longer part of the lease properties, then the government gets back and has full authority over those properties. J. MacPhail: It's not a matter that I don't want to accept it. I just don't have any evidence in front of me. I guess it's in the revitalization agreement, which we don't have before us. There's nothing in the legislation that in any way confirms what the minister just said. Don't accuse me — Mr. Chair, through you — to say that I don't accept or don't want to accept it.

I have no idea whether to accept it or not — j u s t t h e s a m e w a y that the minister said she wasn't going to sell B.C. Rail during the last election. We're now being asked to take her word for it on process. Let's look at

section 50 of this. It says: "No liabil- ity…." This is exactly the title. God, the person who wrote this legislation was being very frank. "No liability for failure to terminate or enforce revitalization agree- ment." The minister just said, "Oh, don't worry. It's all right there in the revitalization agreement," and that there would be no problem with how things are en- forced.

Section 50 says that either the government or CN can cancel the agreement at any time, and there's no penalty for anybody refusing to uphold the agreement. [1610] If I were a taxpayer and CN lines ran close to my business or close to my kids' school, and if there was going to be a spill or a fire, I'd sure want some guaran- tee that someone was going to be liable for what hap- pened there — or a derailment that caused property damage. I'd sure want to make sure there was some- body that had liability there. We don't know, in the lease agreement….

We don't know from the revitalization agreement what the liabil- ity is of CN. We know the government isn't going to be liable for the assets it owns. The minister says: "Oh, why would the taxpayers be interested in that?" Well, we'll see. We'll see whether the taxpayers will be inter- ested if CN abandons its responsibility. Believe you me, it ain't a golden boy corporate cus- tomer. It doesn't have an exemplary record in this area. If it abandons its responsibility, government ain't li- able. Someone is killed; property damage is done; pol- lution occurs. This minister doesn't see anything wrong with it.

Then, why should she? They've also said that if CN abandons the agreement, there isn't any penalty. Why? Hon. J. Reid: In speaking to this section, the clarifi- cation that's required here is that government fully intends to enforce the agreement. Government has the ability to decide how to do that, in enforcing that. What this does is not allow a third party to come in and say: "We don't like the way government is enforcing this agreement." It protects government from that.

Unfor- tunately, that seems to be a reality in today's world — that we have to look at these possibilities and make sure they are included in legislation. It is a matter of government enforcing and being able to deal with the revitalization agreement, as it says here: "…may take such actions as they consider appropriate to terminate or enforce a revitalization agreement." This is a very important

section here — that government has ensured that it is able to enforce this agreement. J. MacPhail: What are the enforcement mecha- nisms? Hon. J. Reid: Whatever is appropriate for the cir- cumstances. Government will have to look at whatever is in breach and have to make a decision on what needs to be enforced. This gives government the power to even terminate this revitalization agreement if those enforcement measures are not complied with. This is a very, very important part of this legislation. J. MacPhail: Well, sorry, I'm reading it differently.

I'm asking the minister: what are the enforcement mechanisms available? I read it differently from the minister. It says right here: "…the revitalization agree- ment or any other agreement, no legal proceeding, whether for damages or compensation of any kind or otherwise, lies or may be commenced or maintained against the government, or any employee, agent, minis- ter or ministry of the government, or the company, or any director, officer, employee or agent of the com- pany, in respect of the failure or refusal." The minister says I'm getting it wrong. Great.

Tell me: what are the enforcement mechanisms the gov- ernment has available to it if CN doesn't live up to its agreement?

8376 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: In this subsection (2) we're looking at here —

section 6,

section 50(2) — it is talking about anyone who might disagree with the enforcement measures government takes. Certainly, the realm of opportunities that would be available to government, again, in enforcing that agreement would be wide and varied. This is not limiting, in any way, government's ability to enforce the revitalization agreement any way they see fit. [1615] What this does is that a third party isn't able to come and say: "We don't like the way you have en- forced that, and we're going to take action against you in that means." It does not limit government's ability to enforce.

In fact, it strengthens it by saying we can ter- minate, if necessary. I believe that's exceptionally strong, and it just does not allow the

interpretation of other people with regard to government's enforcement to be a legal action. J. MacPhail: What are the enforcement mechanisms contained in the revitalization agreement that the min- ister is touting with such confidence? Hon. J. Reid: Under standard commercial contract, all those enforcement mechanisms would be "this agreement would be subject to…." Again, this allows government to take those enforcement measures neces- sary. It doesn't restrict government from any enforce- ment measures. That's as strong as this can possibly be. I can't see how the member would want anything stronger than that.

I believe this is the ultimate en- forcement. J. MacPhail: The minister keeps asserting like she can't understand. I have no idea what the enforcement mechanisms are. Is there a financial penalty on CN Rail if it abandons operation? Hon. J. Reid: The member is asking for specific examples, specific enforcement measures, specific is- sues. What we have done here is incorporated a princi- ple of enforcement in the strongest way possible — the absolute strongest way possible — to say that the gov- ernment could take action, including termination, to enforce.

Whatever action is appropriate for those cir- cumstances, government can consider. This is a princi- pled approach. It allows government the ability to pur- sue actions — whatever is necessary. If the member has any suggestions of how to make this any stronger, I would like to hear them, because I do believe this is the ultimate strength. J. MacPhail: I'd like to see the contract that backs up the words the minister is saying — that there are enforcement mechanisms there. That's what the public would like to see, because it ain't here in the legislation. Under

section 53,

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1202pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1202pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	48fd18c170c071a4b2267151f0efc545a496bbc3

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