2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 68)

Hon. S. Hawkins

Open Learning Agency Repeal Act (Bill 69)

Hon. S. Bond

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70)

Hon. R. Coleman

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71)

Hon. R. Coleman

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr403)

D. Jarvis

Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr404)

R. Nijjar

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

100th anniversary of transpacific cable project

G. Trumper

Affordable housing

J. Kwan

Surrey Business Excellence Awards

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Government caucus workers on municipal election campaigns

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Conflict-of-interest commissioner's report on Glen Clark case

R. Hawes

Hon. G. Plant

Professor supply and student spaces in post-secondary institutions

H. Bloy

Hon. S. Bond

Provincial sales tax in B.C. areas near Alberta border

B. Bennett

Hon. B. Barisoff

Forest industry exports to Taiwan

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of the Whole House

Transportation Investment Act (Bill 67)

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

K. Krueger

J. MacPhail

[ Page 4169 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Bond: I am absolutely delighted to have in the gallery today a number of

people who will be taking part and taking a leadership role in a very exciting

initiative that was announced just this morning: a new on-line learning strategy

for British Columbia called BCcampus.

[1405]

In the

gallery I have several members of the implementation steering committee, and I'm

happy to introduce them to you today: Mr. Skip Bassford, president of the

University College of the Fraser Valley; Greg Lee, president of Capilano

College; David Hughes, partner and VP at Sierra Systems; Devron Gaber, CEO,

Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology; Ian Buckley, a student from

Simon Fraser University's Surrey campus; and from my staff, who has done an

excellent job, Arlene Paton, director of post-secondary institutions. Please

help me make them welcome today.

Hunter: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House today a group of 20 or so

ESL students from Malaspina International High School in Nanaimo, in the company

of their teacher, Mr. D. Butler. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Bell:

Joining us today from the flatlands of Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, is Roy

Warnock of Husky Energy. He's the vice-president of upgrading and refining, and

he's here to have discussions with a number of the ministers regarding the

Prince George refinery. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

VITAL STATISTICS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon.

S. Hawkins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I move that Bill 68 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. Bill 68 makes minor

amendments to update the Vital Statistics Act to reflect the present-day

operations and services of British Columbia's Vital Statistics Agency. We made a

new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden in our province by one-third

within three years, and this bill certainly helps us fulfil that commitment.

Bill 68 is

essentially a housekeeping-measures bill intended to remove references to titles

and processes that are obsolete and no longer accurate or useful. The bill

basically updates the legislation to reflect the agency's existing business

practices. These amendments will ensure that legislation reflects the

designation of B.C.'s Vital Statistics Agency as a special operating agency by

the Treasury Board.

In addition

to the minor housekeeping changes, the amendments will allow hospitals to report

births if the attending doctor or nurse is not available to sign birth notices.

This change will provide more flexibility and prompt recording of new births in

the province. The bill also modernizes a historical system of registration

districts based on geographic boundaries by facilitating the electronic

collection of vital event information across the province, and it repeals other

provisions that are no longer required and haven't been used for several

decades.

These

amendments basically are housekeeping in nature and indicate how our services to

British Columbians have improved over the years through advances in technology

and data processing. They reflect our ongoing commitment to improve quality,

efficiency and access to vital services throughout this province.

I move that

this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 68

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY REPEAL ACT

Hon. S.

Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Open Learning Agency Repeal Act.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 69 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: After a very careful review of the Open Learning Agency, we believe a

new model is needed to ensure that on-line and distance education are delivered

in a way that is efficient and effective, and that we do that as soon as

possible.

[1410]

Government

is committed to enhancing the delivery of on-line service to British Columbians

to more effectively meet the needs of learners and employers. The introduction

of the Open Learning Agency Repeal Act allows us to take the beginning steps to

begin a

[ Page 4170 ]

process to create a new collaborative model for on-line and distance

education, utilizing the strengths and expertise inherent in British Columbia's

public post-secondary institutions.

The

creation of this new collaborative model will ultimately provide greater

flexibility, more choice and increased access for all students. The needs and

interests of students will be uppermost in our minds as we implement changes to

the Open Learning Agency to strengthen on-line and distance learning in British

Columbia. The introduction of this enabling legislation will allow us to begin

the transition of Open Learning Agency programs and services. The transition

will take place over a two-year period to ensure minimal disruption to students

and clients and a careful strategic transfer of services. The amendments will

also allow government to review options for the future of the Knowledge Network.

We recognize that the Knowledge Network has a unique role as the province's

public education broadcaster.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 69

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Residential Tenancy Act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act.

This bill modernizes the Residential Tenancy Act and puts the act in language

that everyone can understand. It properly protects the rights of both landlords

and tenants. The bill provides a clearer understanding of the rights and

obligations of landlords and tenants, which will reduce the number of disputes,

resulting in fewer arbitration hearings.

For

example, landlords will not be able to charge prospective tenants screening

fees, so tenants will not have to pay when applying for a rental unit. The bill

maintains the existing one-half month's rent damage deposit but allows landlords

to collect an extra deposit for keys or access cards to improve security for

tenants. The bill provides a simpler formula for rent increases, making them

more flexible and easier to understand. The bill also provides incentives for

landlords to accept pets in rental units. I believe the bill strikes a fair

balance between the rights and obligations of landlords and of tenants.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill

70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MANUFACTURED HOME PARK TENANCY ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 71 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park

Tenancy Act. When the Residential Tenancy Act was rewritten, a separate

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act was created. The separate act recognizes the

unique needs and interests of homeowners and park owners. Manufactured home park

tenants are distinct from residential tenants, as they own their own home but

rent the site on which the home sits. Homeowners and park owners will have

easier access to information that is relevant to them, rather than having to

search through a larger act to determine which portions apply to them.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 71

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HANSLER OZONE CANADA INC.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

D. Jarvis

presented a bill intituled Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2002.

Jarvis: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Jarvis: This bill is to restore the company name Hansler Ozone Canada Inc.

to the registrar of companies and deem it to have continued in existence.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[ Page 4171 ]

GOLD STANDARD RESOURCES LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

R. Nijjar

presented a bill intituled Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2002.

Nijjar: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced now and read for the first time.

Motion

approved.

Nijjar: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr404

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 b )

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF

TRANSPACIFIC CABLE PROJECT

Trumper: Today in this chamber and outside, our words become instant

information and knowledge to the world. Some of us have our computers right here

in the legislative chamber, connecting us instantly to people outside. That is

the state of communications today, and today the Minister of Advanced Education

has taken learning another step forward with on-line learning.

At the end

of the nineteenth century, the height of communications technology was a sea

cable from the United Kingdom to Canada and a telegraph line across Canada to

the west coast. All that was needed to completely circle the globe was a

connection from the west coast of Canada to Australia. After 25 years, an

agreement amongst the British and Empire governments formed the Pacific Cable

Board. Surveying began. At that time there was no radar and no sonar. Soundings

were made by the old method of dropping a line.

Bamfield

was chosen as the access site, as it was the shortest route to Australia, and

the oceanic floor appeared to be suitable. Sir Sandford Fleming and the Canadian

Pacific took over the development of the site, and Francis Rattenbury was the

architect chosen to design the required facilities. The Pacific Cable Board

transpacific cable was completed on October 31, 1902 — 100 years ago tomorrow.

The first

message sent was from Sir Sandford Fleming to Lord Minto from Ottawa, going both

east and west, to Ottawa. It took 13 hours going via England and a mere ten

hours via the Pacific. If they were here today, those pioneers would be

mystified by our current communication technology, but their innovation was just

as incredible for its time. Tomorrow in Bamfield on the original site of the

cable station, which is now the Bamfield Marine Station, the 100th anniversary

of the completion of the cable is being celebrated. I ask that this House join

them in recognizing the world-changing innovation that was the transpacific

cable project.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

J. Kwan:

I rise today to speak on an issue that is rapidly becoming a crisis under the

Liberal government, and the issue is a scarcity of safe, affordable housing in

B.C. In my community, the gravity of the crisis is more severe than ever. Over

the last few weeks, we've all been witness to the action taken by hundreds of

citizens at the old Woodwards building in a desperate effort to get this

government's attention and to provide housing to the homeless.

[1420]

The issue

is not confined to a small

section of downtown Vancouver. Indeed, the

availability of affordable housing is an issue in Victoria, Prince George,

Kamloops and almost every community in B.C. Sadly, in the last 16 months B.C.

has lost its place as a social housing leader. For almost a decade our province

was one of two provinces in the country that funded social housing. Between 1994

and 2001, under B.C. Housing, over 5,000 units of housing for low- and

moderate-income British Columbians were built. However, in keeping with the

right-wing policy agenda, the B.C. Liberal government and the minister

responsible for housing cancelled more than 1,100 units of affordable housing,

with no new affordable housing initiatives in sight. The result: B.C.'s housing

crisis grows with each passing day. Homelessness and despair are on the rise.

If that's

not bad enough, the Liberal government has made the situation worse by using

hard-earned federal moneys earmarked for housing to build 3,500 units of

assisted living beds as cheap alternatives to thousands of long term care beds

for seniors. That's not a housing strategy; it's damage control for a government

that's kicking seniors out of their homes. The Liberals have also closed

residential tenancy offices, cut legal aid for tenancy and poverty law, and

decreased income assistance shelter rates.

Taken

together, these changes have meant that B.C. has not only lost its place as an

affordable housing leader; it's becoming an affordable housing disaster zone for

tens of thousands of British Columbians who don't count in the new era. Like

other right-wing governments in Canada and around the world, the Liberal

government's only solution to this and other difficult social issues is to leave

the vulnerable, the sick, the elderly and the frail to fend for themselves. It's

an approach that puts ideology over common sense, and it's an approach that more

and more British Columbians are rejecting every day.

SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Hayer: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House to congratulate the

winners of the annual Surrey Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards.

Today I rise to congratulate all those who were final-

[ Page 4172 ]

ists. It took great teamwork — employees, managers and owners — to be

recognized as finalists. I also want to add that part of their success comes

from the business climate this government has worked so hard to achieve.

I now would

like to recognize all finalists: for excellence in small business, sponsored by

Mackay LLP, Bed-Roc Industries, Thornley Advertising Services and Liquid

Labs/CAQTI Cosmetics. In the medium-sized business category, sponsored by Super

Pages, K&D Furniture, Stenberg College and Astrographic Industries. For

excellence in large business, sponsored by RBC Royal Bank, Silent Witness

Enterprises, Cloverdale Paint and B.C. Biomedical Laboratories. Business person

of the year, sponsored by Hamilton Duncan Armstrong and Stewart, Jim Fellows of

Vanguard Plastics, Jim King of Surrey Crime Prevention Society and Lloyd Craig

of Coast Capital Savings.

Finalists

for the new entrepreneur of the year, sponsored by Simon Fraser University, were

Jarnail Arts, Fraser Valley Safety and Dog Day Afternoon. Finalists for the best

practices customer service award, sponsored by B.C. Gas Utility Ltd., were

Richard's Rolling Repairs, RSM Automotive and Gold Room Jewellers.

I would

also like to mention additional sponsors: the Business Development Bank of

Canada, Cambridge Press, Silent Witness Enterprises, Think Profit.com, News

11:30, Rayna Group Enterprises, Foundex Explorations, Surrey-Delta Leader

newspaper. MC for the event was Bridget Anderson of BC-CTV.

I ask, Mr.

Speaker, that everybody in the House join me in congratulating Surrey's business

success stories. Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT CAUCUS WORKERS ON

MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

J. Kwan:

Can the Deputy Premier tell us if Liberal caucus resources are being used to

help candidates that this government supports in the upcoming municipal

election?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm certainly not aware of any. If the member is, I'd be pleased to

know. I'm surprised she'd be asking this question, however, given that the

anti-recall campaign that took place prior to the last election was run out of

the NDP Premier's office.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

Well, if the minister doesn't know, let me save him the time from asking Martyn

Brown and give him the details in this House. The web page administrator for

Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe's campaign is listed as Herman Cheung. Mr. Cheung is

the technology guru for the Liberal caucus and the administrator for the

government caucus website. He's using his legislative e-mail address and

legislative telephone number as Alan Lowe's contact. Does the minister know why

taxpayers are being abused to help municipal candidates?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: Certainly, if the legislative phone number is being used as a

contact and e-mail, that shouldn't be done. It will stop immediately. There's no

question of that. I'm surprised at the member's outrage, though, given that Jan

Pullinger put up her constituency office for the federal NDP election campaign.

MacPhail: This is not the first time that this has happened. A couple of

years ago…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: A couple of years ago…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MacPhail: …the now Premier's special assistant was caught using his

legislative computer for campaign purposes in the Delta by-election. At that

time the now Premier's chief of staff said that it was completely inappropriate

and assured British Columbians that the person in question would be firmly

disciplined and that it would never happen again. Now we learn that Liberal

caucus staff are at it again.

Can the

Deputy Premier tell us how many more civic campaigns are being run out of the

Legislature's basement?

Hon. G.

Collins: I can only assume that Mr. Cheung is doing this on a volunteer

basis. He should not be doing it during business hours. He should not be using

his e-mail or his telephone. If that is the case, it will be corrected

immediately. There is no question of that.

However,

the outrage and the indignation of the member opposite are a little hard to

take, considering the year-after-year flow of constituency office funds to the

Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society of the NDP.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: This government has never respected the line between partisan

politics and the public's business. We all remember the illegal partisan

mailout.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 4173 ]

MacPhail: They've turned every communications officer into a public hack.

Now this government is letting their staff campaign directly from the

Legislature.

If we're to

believe this government, they don't know anything about it, even though they've

been caught out before and promised that it would never happen again. British

Columbians want to know that their tax dollars aren't being used to help

Liberal-friendly municipal candidates — though that might be harming those

candidates these days.

Will this

government take immediate action and call an independent, objective

investigation to determine what Liberal caucus resources are being used to

support what municipal campaigns?

Hon. G.

Collins: I've already assured the House and the member opposite that if

somebody working for the caucus….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the answer to your question.

Hon. G.

Collins: I have now, on four occasions here today, assured the member

opposite that if an individual is using their government e-mail or their

government phone number as a contact, it will stop immediately. The individual

case that she makes reference to previously was dealt with. The individual was

dealt with and reprimanded. I find it….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Talking about arrogant, I am still waiting for the answer to a

question I posed to the member opposite last year, about the staff member who,

when she was Minister of Finance, had contract after contract as that member

travelled around the province to set up meetings with the party members and set

up dinners with party members across British Columbia. Perhaps she can answer

that question. I don't know that any action was ever taken on that. If there's

an issue, we will deal with it.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER'S

REPORT ON GLEN CLARK CASE

Hawes: My question is to the Attorney General.

Interjection.

Hawes: When that member is finished….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has the floor.

[1430]

Hawes: My question is to the Attorney General. This morning's papers claimed

that former Premier Glen Clark is trying to block the conflict-of-interest

commissioner's report into allegations that he interfered in a casino

application. His lawyers, too, are trying to block it for all time. To the

Attorney General: can you tell us if that report is going to be released and, if

so, when?

Hon. G.

Plant: I thank the member for his question. The report was commissioned by

the former government on the basis that it would be made public. Cabinet has

decided that the intent of the original commissioning of the report will be

honoured. We are awaiting the completion of appeal periods and things like that,

but as soon as we are in a position to release the report, it is our intention

to do so.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has a supplementary question.

Hawes: I know and my constituents know that investigations by the conflict

commissioner don't come free. Can the Attorney General tell my constituents what

the cost of the investigation has been and who's going to foot the bill?

Hon. G.

Plant: We're still gathering together the costs associated with both the

criminal proceedings and the conflict-of-interest proceedings. The indemnity

agreement under which the former Premier was provided with legal assistance is

subject to solicitor-client privilege. We're also asking whether that will be

waived so that when we get all the figures together, we'll be able to tell the

taxpayers of British Columbia just how much this whole exercise has cost. We

haven't got the figures together completely yet, but we're still working on it.

I'm hopeful that we'll have something we can release very shortly.

PROFESSOR SUPPLY AND

STUDENT SPACES IN

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burquitlam has the floor.

H. Bloy:

My constituency is home to Simon Fraser University and many thousands of

students that attend this world-class institution. As enrolment at

post-secondary institutions is expected to rise between 20 and 30 percent over

the next ten years, the Association of Universities and Colleges estimates that

nearly 40,000 new professors will be needed to keep pace with the increased

demand. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what the government is

doing to attract highly skilled and educated professors to B.C.'s post-secondary

institutions?

[ Page 4174 ]

Hon. S.

Bond: We're not only looking at a strategy that would attract the best and

brightest to this province, we're looking at a strategy that would train and

keep the best and brightest in the province of British Columbia. One of the most

important things that attracts people to this province in terms of our

professionals and, in particular, our professors is a vibrant economy that

attracts investment. We're working hard at that.

Most

recently, we were absolutely delighted to be able to announce the doubling of

graduates in the computer science and the electrical and computer engineering

programs. When we did that, one of the best parts of that initiative was the

fact that we are going to add almost 400 graduate positions for students in this

province. That's what will attract professors, and that's what will create more

professors in the province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burquitlam has a supplementary question.

H. Bloy:

With many more thousands of students expected to enter the post-secondary

institution over the coming years, we must ensure that there is enough space

available. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what she is doing to

ensure that student spaces will be available and that no qualified student will

be denied entrance?

[1435]

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, I'm very proud of the record of this government. In very

difficult fiscal times we protected the budget to Advanced Education, and within

that envelope we were able to add 2,700 new seats, including 600 spaces for

registered and practical nurses in this province. We are going to nearly double

the number of physicians trained in this province.

In addition

to that, we're asking institutions to look at the utilization of their buildings

to make sure that we're using them as often and as long as we possibly can. In

fact, today we looked at a new way to increase access and exciting opportunities

for the students of this province with a new on-line learning strategy named

BCcampus.

We think

all of those things together will help increase access and allow students to

attend and have a post-secondary opportunity in British Columbia.

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX IN

B.C. AREAS NEAR ALBERTA BORDER

Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Provincial Revenue. B.C. loses

millions of dollars of tax revenue each year to cross-border shopping. In my

riding of East Kootenay there are many communities that are hurt by the local

residents who travel across the border to Alberta, where they benefit from not

having to pay provincial sales tax on the purchase of goods and services. Can

the Minister of Provincial Revenue tell my constituents if he is considering

changes to the provincial sales tax in order to help B.C. communities near the

Alberta border?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: We are prepared to step outside the box and look at the

implications that cross-border shopping has for the residents and businesses

along the B.C.-Alberta border, but in saying that, it's a complex issue. Where

would you draw the line? Is it revenue-neutral? The city of Dawson Creek has

actually done a preliminary study right now, and they're in the throes of doing

a comprehensive study to look at further implications of what might happen.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for East Kootenay has a supplementary question.

Bennett: Over the summer I heard from a lot of my constituents who believe

that some action has to be taken by the provincial government to strengthen the

local economy. I appreciate the fact that this is the first government that has

ever taken this initiative seriously. This is an initiative that has been around

in the East Kootenay and in the Peace for many, many years. I appreciate the

fact that this minister has taken this seriously.

Can the

Minister of Provincial Revenue tell us when he expects the city of Dawson Creek

to complete their study?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I did meet with the city of Dawson Creek at UBCM. They are

engaging the services of the other communities, and they're expecting they

should have something back to us sometime in six to 12 months. At that time, the

Minister of Finance and I will have a look at that and make a decision on what

we're going to do.

FOREST INDUSTRY EXPORTS

TO TAIWAN

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. The softwood lumber dispute has certainly illustrated the problems

of being overly dependent on a single market. Nowhere has this problem been more

apparent than in my constituency of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, where hundreds of

workers have been laid off as a result of the lumber dispute.

understand that while on a trade mission to Taiwan and Japan this month, the

minister met with officials in Taipei that are interested in adopting B.C.'s

wood frame code for building homes. To the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise: can he tell us how B.C. would benefit if Taiwan were to adopt our

code?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I had very, very positive meetings with the Construction Planning

Administration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior,

and the Architecture Building and Research Institute regarding the adoption of

wood frame construction codes in Taiwan. The industry, together with COFI and

[ Page 4175 ]

in particular Ron MacDonald, has worked very hard on behalf of the industry

for the past two years.

[1440]

I believe

— and we've had undertakings from officials in Taiwan — that we could see

the approval of a wood frame construction code by the end of January 2003. That

introduction, when it happens, will give great opportunities to forest workers,

companies throughout British Columbia and all British Columbians. I'm sure

everybody in Houston and Quesnel would appreciate the opportunity to increase

exports to Taiwan and Japan. We have a great future.

[End

of question period.]

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to make sure that I did not mislead the House earlier

today. I've just been handed two notes. The first one is that Herman Cheung did

not use his work e-mail for the mayor's campaign. He was helping set up a domain

and did not know that his name was being used. He was doing his work as a

volunteer. The only thing he did for the campaign was advise them how to set up

a domain for the website.

Secondly,

just to show the….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the explanation.

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: It's a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Anybody can speak to it. If the

member wants to….

She might

want to listen to the next part, because I want to illustrate the government's

fairness and evenhandedness. Bill Burrill, a government employee and a chair of

the NDP slate of candidates in Victoria, was in fact using his government e-mail

as his contact for the campaign. When that was brought to our attention, it was

stopped.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please!

If the

Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a point of order to respond, she may

do so.

MacPhail: There was no point of order made, with the greatest of respect.

Mr.

Speaker: With the greatest of respect, hon. member, you can rise and reply

on a point of order.

MacPhail: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I will do so out in the hallway.

The fact of

the matter — that this government uses this chamber with no order from the

Chair — is to be questioned.

Mr.

Speaker: Please be seated.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 67.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 67; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

When we engaged in debate with the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, there

were lots of questions related to tolls, their application and so on. The

minister had a reply, at that time, that those questions ought to be canvassed

under Bill 67. I also asked the minister if it would be appropriate at that time

to canvass these questions under the "Definitions"

section of Bill 67,

and she said if that's my wish. I'd like to actually canvass some of these

broader questions with the minister under the "Definitions" section.

First of

all, let me ask the minister this question. Two weeks ago, the Premier announced

a P3 project in Vancouver. This was for a health care facility attached to

Vancouver Hospital. The Premier also noted there were no private sector partners

lined up to build and operate this facility. Does the minister then anticipate a

similar process for highways — that is, announce the project first and then

look to see if there's a private partner in place?

Hon. J.

Reid: This act is a piece of enabling legislation. The government has

expressed interest in being able to provide transportation infrastructure in

this province. As we've looked at the constraints on the budget, we realize we

need to explore other opportunities. We believe there is an opportunity for

private investors to be involved in providing transportation infrastructure.

This bill is the framework to allow us to do that, as it lays out in detail the

different parameters around how that would be structured.

Yet as we

move forward from having this enabling legislation, it will be in a public way.

Tenders will be in the public. We will certainly be having that communication

and interaction. As I communicated with the member over our previous discussions

in committee stage on Bill 62, we do engage in working with municipalities and

do have an ongoing relationship with municipalities.

J. Kwan:

The question to the minister is: does the minister anticipate a process for

highways similar to the one announced earlier by the Premier on a public-private

partnership in Vancouver to build a health care facility attached to the

Vancouver Hospital, even

[ Page 4176 ]

though no private partners have been lined up? Will the minister simply

announce the project and say, "Here it is," and then look for private

partners? What process would be adopted? That's one question.

The second

question to the minister is this. We canvassed this a little bit under the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — that is, local government consultation.

In fact, yesterday the minister and this government voted down an amendment to

the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that consultation be required to take

place and that there be an agreement sought with local governments on the

off-loading of maintenance and construction on arterial highways.

[1450]

The

minister says: "We'll talk to local governments." What if local

governments disagree with the government's approach to public-private

partnership, to tolls for highways and bridges and the like? What if they

disagree? Will the minister respect the opinions of local governments?

Hon. J.

Reid: To answer the first question, we have to formulate the projects. We

have to understand. With all the information that comes in across the province

of the needs, we have to look at what the needs are and the way they can be

delivered, whether it's through a partnership with the federal government,

municipal governments or private investors; whether, as we discussed previously,

it's around contractors on specific interchanges or a larger investment into

infrastructure as what is supposed here with this bill.

Formulating

that project will involve discussion, depending on the project. It would depend

on the kind of discussion that would have to take place. Then we would be

calling for requests for proposals. That would be a public call. That's the

procedure. That's anticipated.

The other

part of the member's question goes back to a conversation that we did have over

Bill 62. There is the requirement for the provincial government to provide a

highway system, a transportation system, that meets the needs of the province

economically, socially and for safety reasons. That's the responsibility of the

province, and while we have discussions upon those items, it's also the

responsibility of the province to look at how the province is going to be able

to pay for those projects and how to use the available dollars in the best way.

That is a responsibility of the province, and that remains. As we go forward in

these discussions, it can't take away from that being the ultimate

responsibility of the province.

J. Kwan:

What the minister basically said in her answer to my question is that she

doesn't have the answers. I asked the question, "What will the minister do?

Does she anticipate that there is going to be a similar process for highways on

public-private partnership as that of the health care facility?" and the

minister didn't answer that question. The minister didn't answer the question of

whether they would simply put projects out there first and then look for a

private partnership.

The

minister says: "Well, this is just enabling legislation." Yes, it's

enabling legislation, but also with a plan. One would only assume that the

government has a plan and the minister has been out in the public talking about

public-private partnerships. What's the plan? Doesn't she have a plan? Doesn't

she have some sort of scheme, some sort of draft scheme in place? If she does,

she's not sharing it with British Columbians — that's clear — or else she

doesn't have any plan at all. Here's a piece of legislation that says:

"Okay, go ahead; go out there and look at privatization. That's the way to

go." Yet there are no steps — procedures, if you will; protocol, if you

will — put in place.

You know,

it is interesting, Mr. Chair. If you look at some information, not from the

opposition's source but some other sources, what they think about public-private

partnerships and tolls and so on…. It's interesting to have this information.

In fact, this is a presentation that was made to the B.C. Transportation Summit

on September 5, 2002, by Jock Finlayson, who is the Business Council of B.C.

executive vice-president. He actually put out a PowerPoint presentation, Funding

Transportation Infrastructure: Issues and Alternatives . In it he talks about

some of the recent experiences, and one of the items he's brought to light is

that today there are approximately 19 toll roads, bridges and tunnels in Canada.

Most road expenditures in Canada, however, still come from consolidated tax

revenues, and Canadians, British Columbians, view roadways as a public good.

[1455]

Then you

skip over. There were many slides within it that laid out the foundation of his

case, but ultimately his conclusion is this — a couple of points that I want

to highlight: "Some of the funding shortage can be addressed through the

use of tolls but only on a limited basis. Realistically, they will not come into

widespread use over the next decade." Then it goes on to say: "Public

sector must still contribute to funding major transportation infrastructure

projects — e.g., U.S. Federal Transportation Equity Act." Then there are

a number of other points around issues and concerns relating to tolls, user fees

and the like relating to transportation infrastructure.

The

minister doesn't have an answer as to what the process is going to be. She

doesn't know. In fact, she voted against the suggestion that the government

would consult with local governments and actually would not override and

off-load costs onto local government. She did that yesterday. This government

and all of the Liberal MLAs did it yesterday and violated their own New Era

document, which says no off-loading.

Let me ask

the minister this question. Does the minister have any idea what project would

be put up first for consideration for tolls and user fees and the like? Would it

be the Sea to Sky Highway?

Hon. J.

Reid: I believe I did answer the question. I'm sorry if the member doesn't

appreciate the answer. The process is a very straightforward process. The

[ Page 4177 ]

member opposite is encouraging the government to be careful about planning.

That's exactly what we are doing. As I've been very publicly speaking over the

past…. Well, I started speaking to people around this province in July —

over the past year at that time and, since then, almost a year and a half.

People from all over this province have been coming to the government with their

needs for transportation infrastructure.

Those needs

are complex. They stretch from funding for rural roads, northern roads, resource

roads, roads into wilderness areas and gateway connections to relieving

congestion, cutting down pollution, providing economic development, roads for

intersections, safety improvements. As well, we get information from people

around other concerns they have around airports, ports, ferries — all sorts of

transportation needs.

The role of

government and the role I have is to take that wish list and make some sense of

it. The wish list, at a count a number of months ago, was approximately $10

billion over the next ten years. That's a huge amount of infrastructure that's

needed in this province. We find that going back to the sixties and 1970s was

the time when the bulk of investment took place in infrastructure. Since that

time, we've been feeding off that capacity. We now need to reinvest. That need

is very great. The fiscal reality of this province, after a decade of stagnant

and decreasing economic growth, has left us very vulnerable — to be able to

provide this transportation infrastructure, which is integral to the economic

development of this province.

Are we

going slowly and carefully? Yes. What is the process? Talking to communities,

working with staff, assessing what is safety-oriented and what is economically

oriented, validating the different proposals that have come forward, looking at

the cost benefit according to them, looking at where business cases could be

made for private sector investment. That's a lot of work, a lot of analysis.

That is underway. That is a process.

This is a

piece of legislation because we believe that there is a role for the private

sector to play and that there are times when toll roads can make economic sense

and produce a benefit to people where they are wanting to see that benefit

sooner rather than later. This legislation provides a framework for government

to do that. We are in the process of formulating that plan.

The

discussion about consultation was, I believe, well canvassed on Bill 62. We have

been involved in consultation. We continue to look for consultation, but there

is a lot of work that has to be done by the ministry. When you're talking about

a $10 billion plan, you have to take the time and develop that carefully. That's

exactly what this government is doing.

J. Kwan:

Well, it's interesting. Let's just break down piece by piece some of the items

the minister has raised, first on the issue around consultation. She says she's

out there and she's consulting. Well, just some headlines. I won't read the

entire

article into the record but some headlines around consultation.

[1500]

October 12,

Vancouver Sun : "Selling Coquihalla a Sore Point in Kamloops."

September 26, 2002: "B.C. Municipal Leaders Vow to Fight Toll Roads."

October 9, 2002, Vancouver Sun : "Private Toll Roads a Bumpy

Investment." These are just some of the items that have been brought to

light in terms of what local governments think about privatization of roads and

imposition of tolls.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the member for Kamloops–North Thompson agrees with privatizing the

Coquihalla. Maybe that's his position. I don't know. I haven't heard him say

anything in this House or question the minister on any of these issues. Maybe

he's not rising up, but you know what? His own community constituents are

concerned about it and do not support it.

More to the

point, when I asked a question of the minister around consultation and whether

or not the government will respect local government's wishes on this issue….

This government, including the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, voted

against consultation and seeking agreement from local government. That was just

yesterday when the vote was placed in this House.

Maybe this

government is proud of that. Maybe the backbench MLAs are proud of that. Maybe

the government is proud to say: "We say we want to do consultation, but

we're only just pretending we're going to do consultation. When it comes right

down to it, we're not going to consult. If we don't have agreement from you,

that is just tough luck." That's the message that's being sent out there

right now.

Now, the

government says that they're big on consultation. Where is the promised final

version of Creating Opportunities for Expanding Transportation Infrastructure ?

That was promised in the July 9 information bulletin from this ministry.

Hon. J.

Reid: I did reply to that comment in our discussion around Bill 62. The

process there was to go out and advertise, to elicit comments on policy — the

tolling policy that was put out — as well on as this bill. The reason it was

changed from Bill 57 to Bill 67 was that we received input from many different

sources, took it very seriously and incorporated it into the bill. I hope the

member eventually gets to that discussion, because I think there is some really

excellent advice that we received in protecting the public good, which you now

see reflected in this bill.

The member,

I believe, misconstrues the vote on the amendment yesterday. If she goes and

reads the record, consultation is part of the present process. Everybody agrees

with consultation. To misconstrue that as people being against consultation is

just totally distorting the facts. I think the facts are part of the public

record. My exact reply to the amendment, on how consultation is built into the

present process, has continued, and there are other factors involved of

responsibil-

[ Page 4178 ]

ity that the province has and that is appropriate for the province to retain.

I'm not

going to further discuss that amendment from yesterday, but it is again

important to understand that there is a need out there. There is $10 billion

worth of need for transportation infrastructure. We have to work through that.

We have to devise a plan. We don't have that plan yet, because we haven't worked

through all the many different aspects of identifying that need, quantifying

that need, assessing that need and being able to attach funding sources to it.

It's very

apparent that this government does not have an extra $10 billion just waiting to

fill this. We have to be creative. We have to be innovative. Bill 67 gives us

the structure, a very strict structure, a structure that's out there for the

public to see.

There is a

public good to be protected. It's outlined in this bill. I look forward to that

discussion, because I believe that does give the framework so that people will

have confidence in moving ahead. This allows one possibility for funding into

the future.

The

important part when you're looking at private investment is that there has to be

a business case. There are certain places in the province where that might be

applicable. There are other places where it's clearly not applicable, because

there just is no business case. That work is yet to be done. We have to work

through that. It's a process. This is enabling legislation that will help us get

on with that process.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

I want to correct the information the minister just put on record. There was no

misconstruing of what happened yesterday and what vote took place around what

issue. I want to actually put at this moment the motion that was voted on and

voted against by this minister and the Liberal caucus yesterday, because it was

against consultation, against local governments' wishes and respect for local

governments' decisions.

The motion

was dealing with arterial highways under Bill 62, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. The motion reads: "Subject to subsection (2),

some or all of the cost of construction and maintenance of arterial highways

may, but need not, be borne by the ministry." That was what the minister

wanted. The amendment included the following words: "…but only after

consultation with, and agreement by, the local government, or governments,

within whose jurisdiction the arterial highway lays."

Let's be

clear in terms of what the government's position is. They voted against

consultation, and they voted against respecting local governments' decisions and

authority. This is what they say in the New Era document — that they

were going to outlaw downloading. When it came right down to it, would the

government respect that? The answer is no.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

That was clear yesterday, because the member for Kamloops–North Thompson,

along with all the Liberal government representatives, voted against that

amendment.

On the

issue around consultation, the minister says they are consulting, but there's no

information made public yet. There's no information that has been made public in

spite of a press release that came out from the ministry on July 9, 2002, for

immediate release: "P3 Discussion Paper Aimed at Increasing

Infrastructure." It goes on to talk about how they want to consult, what

some of the issues are and so on. Then the final sentence in the press release

is: "Comments received by 4:30 p.m. September 12 will be given

consideration, and a

summary of comments received will be made public. The paper

will be finalized this fall."

We have not

seen any of the comments to date. Where is the result of the consultation

process that was promised to be made public in the July 9 information bulletin?

Where is it? Did the minister receive any completed questionnaires and e-mailed

comments on the bill and discussion paper? If so, if she has received it and is

prepared to make it public, will she table it in the House today?

Hon. J.

Reid: I was trying to explain to the member the process of receiving the

information back, the priority being to take that information and make the

amendments to the bill. That was the first priority for staff to do. The next

priority was to compile it and put it in a form so we can put it on the website,

which will be done. The number of submissions we received was 85 — 85

submissions giving their comments, 30 from organizations. That's a lot to put

together and compile. Again, the first priority was taking a look at the

submissions that were given to make sure the legislation reflected those

submissions. We are now in the work of compiling those submissions to publish on

the website.

To follow

up on the point of consultation, the member says she doesn't see the

consultation. I don't know why she wouldn't be aware of all the consultation

that's going on around the Sea to Sky Highway — the number of meetings that

have been conducted there by my staff; the number of meetings I have attended;

the number of reports that have been done on that, looking at train travel,

looking at ferry travel; working with the Olympic bid committee, exploring the

different options, exploring alternate routes; extensive work, working with

people, exploring alternate routes and what the concerns were there.

This has

been going on for many, many months, and it continues to go on. That's extensive

consultation, so while we've identified the safety concerns along that

highway…. In the five years from 1996 to 2001, there were 3,300 accidents on

that

section of road and over 34 deaths. It's an extremely serious situation.

This has been a project that was certainly known about when that member was in

government. It's a difficult project to undertake, and we are doing our utmost

in working through it.

[1510]

If the

member has any concern about consultation, if she has been paying any attention

over the last num-

[ Page 4179 ]

ber of months, she can take a look at the process there and realize there has

been enormous work put into consultation.

J. Kwan:

If anybody is not paying attention, it will be the minister. All she has to

do is absolutely look in the newspapers in terms of what's being put out. I just

read onto the record a couple of headlines: "Municipal Leaders Vow to Fight

Toll Roads."

Krueger: You've got to read beyond the headlines.

J. Kwan:

Another

article about "Private Toll Roads a Bumpy Investment" and

"Selling Coquihalla a Sore Point in Kamloops."

Krueger: Hire some different researchers. The headlines don't really give

you that much to go on.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will want to rise up and say,

"Hey, let's go and sell the Coquihalla. Hurray" — because that's the

thing that would be great for his community. Maybe he'll rise up and say that.

But in my colleague's discussion — my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings — in

talking to the people…. In fact, just last weekend in Kamloops, they were

concerned with what the government might do to the Coquihalla and privatizing

the Coquihalla.

So for the

minister to lecture me about how I should open my eyes and see what's going

on…. The real truth is this minister is closing her eyes and this government

is closing their eyes to what's going on. In fact, MLAs are locking their doors

so constituents can't get to them and tell them what they really think.

The

minister misses the point on the issue around consultation, openness and

transparency. She just said so herself in this House with the protest. The

protest is around, "Well, we'll go out and consult people, and after we

receive it, we're going to pass legislation in the House, and then we're going

to tell you what people really said," as though somehow we should simply

take her word for it when she says she has taken the submissions and the input

from community members and community groups and incorporated it in the

legislation.

So far,

there is not one shred of evidence on any of the issues that have been debated

in this House that this government actually respects the voices of the people.

In fact, the Premier in Penticton came right out and mocked the people who want

to raise the issues and concerns with them. Seniors out there are saying no to

this government — "Do not take our homes away; do not take our health

care services away" — and the Premier just mocks them as though somehow

they don't know how to spell or how to add and so on.

You know

what? From the way it sounds, the members in this House actually support that

outrageous approach and flippant response to British Columbians and their points

of view. That is what is happening, and that is reality. How could it be that in

your own press release, through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister, who promised

she will make the consultation public…? One would have assumed that the time

line would be such that the consultation would be before the public before the

bill is before the House for debate, before the bill is to be passed before the

House.

How could

it be that this minister says: "Don't worry. We're consulting, but we're

not going to show you in a timely fashion what people really said to us. But

don't worry. Trust us; we're listening"? It's somehow as though we should

just sit back and not worry about a single thing, because this government is

taking care of business, hurting every single British Columbian who needs health

care services and making sure they don't get access to it, hurting children in

and around education so that their classroom sizes are being increased, so

schools are being closed in their own communities. In the rural communities they

actually have to take a bus over to Alberta in order to attend school.

Somehow the

government says: "Don't worry; trust us. There is consultation. I know what

I'm doing." It can only be further from the truth. That is the reality of

what's going on with this consultation. It's a sham; it is an absolute sham. And

it flies in the face of the notion of what this minister, this government —

the Liberal MLAs who campaigned in the last election under the New Era document

that they would be open, transparent and consultative…. It is anything but

that.

We know

there's no consultation. We know there's no respect for local governments in

terms of their voice. We know that this government is going to off-load, whether

local governments like it or not, and we know that the government is going to

keep it secretive. The information is not going to be made public in a timely

fashion, when the bill is before us for debate. We all know that now.

[1515]

I want to

ask the minister this question. The Premier announced a list of priorities at

the UBCM. There's a wish list for road infrastructure improvements. Is this the

list the minister will be working from to develop public-private partnerships

and the imposition of tolls as contemplated under Bill 67?

Hon. J.

Reid: I have to respond to some of the comments the member made. While she

didn't ask me some direct questions, she left a lot of things unsaid. She was

wondering who in this House supports tolls, and I would have to say everyone in

this House according to the record, including the members of the opposition.

When I look at what the former government introduced in this House, if I look at

the GVTA Act in 1998, both members of the opposition voted in favour of the

ability to collect tolls on roads. The Build BC Act in 1993 also includes a

section on tolling and….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member. Order. Let's listen to the minister speak, please.

[ Page 4180 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: The ability to collect tolls was part of that government's premise.

Moving

ahead from that — and I presume, then, they had the understanding, at that

time, of the economy and transportation and how those two fit together — and

in looking at allowing provisions in order to be able to accomplish

transportation goals which will move us ahead socially, economically and

environmentally, it is, I believe, accepted that tolls are a way of being able

to provide that infrastructure sooner rather than later.

As the

member wants to discourse on this, the concept of using tolls to be able to

accomplish transportation infrastructure, I believe, has been endorsed by the

opposition members in times past.

The member

asked about the needs in the province. I will very briefly address this, because

I believe I've already covered this. How I've compiled the needs is by listening

and receiving submissions from all across the province, from councils, from

mayors, from private individuals, from industry and from MLAs. We've compiled a

list in addition to that, in talking with the different ministries and with

staff. That is the list of needs that exists.

Then as we

work through that, there are some obvious ones on that list, as I've already

mentioned. Northern and rural roads suffered terribly under the last

administration. There's a very real need there. There is also a need on the

Kicking Horse Canyon, a very serious safety issue. There's a need on the Sea to

Sky Highway, a serious safety issue. There's a need in the lower mainland with

another crossing of the Fraser River, which we've discussed previously, that's

to do with congestion, economics, gateways, border crossings, ports, airports.

We can

canvass all those different needs, but again, they fall into safety as number

one. Rehabilitation and being able to keep the condition and the investment of

the current infrastructure are on that list. Being able to build for economic

development is on that list. Looking at relieving congestion for economic and

environmental reasons is on that list.

It's an

enormous list. We have to work through it, but as the member opposite noted,

there are some high-profile projects that the Premier has referred to, and I

have just referred to them myself.

[1520]

Krueger: Listening to the member question the minister, you would think she

was brand-new to this Legislature and didn't have any experience in the previous

government. She sounds a lot like her leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who

in her second reading remarks said this: "To that lovely older woman who

called in, I'm Alice. I'm Alice in Wonderland." She went on to thread that

all through her second reading speech about how she's Alice in Wonderland. You

know, that's a fitting analogy in some ways, given the experience that we had

for ten years with that government and, indeed, the experience we're having with

these members in opposition.

constituents say to me: "Alice doesn't live here anymore." They want a

government to move forward. We've got $10 billion, as the minister has said, in

high-priority projects that are waiting, which these members never addressed

while they were in government. Not only that, but we've got a tremendous deficit

in rehabilitation and maintenance of our existing $66 billion of highways

infrastructure — things that weren't looked after, emergency situations.

We've got a

president of the local CUPE named Larry Bancroft in my constituency, who wrote

to the member who used to be a minister who seldom listened.

Interjection.

Krueger: She's heckling now. She never listened for ten years and isn't

listening now. He's a constituent of theirs, really; he's an NDP supporter,

big-time. Member, you might show him a little respect. His name is Larry

Bancroft, and he votes for you folks.

He wrote to

the previous government and said that we've got a dangerous situation on Highway

5, in my constituency. It's called Preacher Hill curves by the ministry. It's

called pig corners by the local people, because truckloads are always flopping

over there, and one of them was a truckload of pigs. The pigs ran all over the

countryside and ended up in freezers. Trucks can't navigate that corner at the

speeds they try to. It's very dangerous.

That

government — the heckling member's government, the government that drove this

province's economy to ruin over ten years — never came up with the money to

fix it, even though Mr. Bancroft, who represents school bus drivers, was

pleading for help with it, saying: "We need the money to fix this, because

we're afraid that one of our school buses is going to get hit by one of these

flopping trucks." But her government couldn't respond. They left this

government with a debt of $40 billion; 125 years of previous B.C. government

accumulated a debt of $16.5 billion. It took those losers ten years to get it up

to $40 billion and leave us in a situation where we're facing a deficit, a

structural deficit, of $3.8 billion per year according to non-elected people,

experts outside government, who were commissioned to do a fiscal report.

Here's this

minister having to look at this problem: how do we catch up in the year 2002?

How can we possibly get British Columbia back up to speed on the rehabilitation,

on the maintenance, on the important safety-related projects that the NDP

ignored all those years and also into the new millennium?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member, would you kindly be seated for a second.

We're

getting an awful lot of noise, and I'm having difficulty hearing the speaker.

Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, you might perhaps want to listen to what

he's saying.

[ Page 4181 ]

K. Krueger:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would indeed be a refreshing change.

As I say,

my constituents say: "Alice doesn't live here anymore. We really don't want

you spending a lot of time on Alice." When the member says, "Where's

the money going to come from to do these things? Why can't we do anything

besides public-private partnerships?" we suggest to her: go ask Alice. Go

ask Alice: what else can we do?

I'm

interested to know whether the NDP or the B.C. Federation of Labour or any of

the public sector unions made any concrete submissions to the minister by way of

alternatives. I know the minister travelled the province asking for public

input, inviting everyone to tell her what the other options are. What can the

public think of by way of helping us chart a course out of this mess that the

NDP put us in?

That's one

of my questions to the minister. Did the NDP…?

Interjection.

Krueger: Did the member who's heckling again or did the Leader of the

Opposition come up with any concrete suggestions?

I think we

got a very clear message from the public on May 16, 2001. In the prophetic words

of Dr. Hook: "We gotta get used to not living next door to Alice."

Alice is gone, and her government is gone, but we're left with the

responsibility of dealing with all of this.

[1525]

I'm asking

the minister — and I'd really like the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

to pay attention to the minister for a change — what the results of the

consultation were as far as any sort of constructive proposals from the member

or the Leader of the Opposition or the NDP or the B.C. Federation of Labour or

any of the usual suspects who ran British Columbia throughout the 1990s and put

us in this mess. They had consultations till the cows came home. We always all

knew in advance what the results of those consultations would be: exactly the

things the NDP government intended to do in the first place. Their consultations

were bogus and illegitimate and didn't amount to anything.

The

opposition claim they do some consultation now while in opposition. In fact,

here's another quote from the Leader of the Opposition in her second reading

speech. She said she talked to people at the UBCM in Whistler. She says: "A

lot of people were coming to Whistler and saying 'Yo, man. This highway ain't

bad. You ought to travel around the highways outside of my community.'"

Well, both

the heckling member and the Leader of the Opposition represent postage

stamp–sized constituencies compared to mine and most of the members on this

side of the House. I've lived in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Smithers, Vernon,

Prince George, Salmon Arm, Cranbrook and Kamloops, and I've never met anybody

that says "Yo, man" — none. None of the constituents, none of the

people they would elect to go to the UBCM, but apparently the Leader of the

Opposition found somebody at Whistler — various people, she said — who said:

"Yo, man. This highway ain't bad."

Nobody

talks like that where I come from. I'm interested in who she is talking to and

where she does her consultation, because I just don't think it's as broad a

cross-section as the minister reached in her tour around the province. In their

consultations the NDP came up with ideas like building three fast cat ferries.

The

Chair: Member, I think we're getting into second reading debate here on both

sides of the House. I would certainly like to get back to the committee stage of

this bill, where we were dealing with

section 1

definitions. Perhaps we could

have a question related to the committee stage of this bill.

Krueger: Mr. Chair, I certainly respect that, and as long as the member will

comply with that, I certainly will.

Since we

were dealing with the issue of consultation, perhaps the minister could answer

the question about whether there's been any constructive response to the

consultation from the member who was doing the previous questioning or anyone

associated with her.

Hon. J.

Reid: I haven't heard from the member opposite with regard to this bill, but

she knew she had this opportunity to add her comments. We did hear from the

BCGEU, and I'm checking right now to see, within those 85 submissions, who else

might have given us a submission. When I get that information, I will add it

into the record.

I just

wanted to clarify a statement that the member of the opposition made with regard

to my statement about the support for tolls and believing that the members of

the opposition also support this concept. The comment was around the Build BC

Act. The Build BC Act gave power to the BCTFA to levy tolls, so that is not

restricted to municipalities. I'd just like to read into the record what was

passed by the former government. This is the Build BC Act under "Tolls and

Charges,"

section 21:

"

(2) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the authority

may establish a system of tolls or charges to be paid to the authority in

respect of the use of a highway, bridge, structure or other property of the

authority.

"

(3) If a toll station has been established by the authority for the collection of

tolls or charges in respect of the use of a highway, bridge or other

structure, a person must not take or operate a vehicle, other than a vehicle

exempted from this

section under the regulations, through the toll station

without paying the toll or charge applicable to the vehicle."

[1530]

I'm also

introducing that at this point in time to show the contrast between what we have

produced in Bill 67 in looking at addressing the concerns of the public, looking

at being able to be absolutely straightfor-

[ Page 4182 ]

ward, looking at the

definitions in

section 1 and the amount of detail we

have put into this. Indeed, we take very seriously the public good, and I'm

quite interested in discussing the different sections of this act.

According

to the instructions from the Chair, I will just reply to specific questions

pertaining to specific sections of the act.

J. Kwan:

I want to respond to the minister's comments. The first comment she brought up

was the notion of allowing the GVTA to have the authority for tolls. You know

what? The GVTA is composed of local government representatives. They get to make

the decision whether or not they want to go ahead. This is consistent with a

motion we brought forward yesterday, overall, around consultation and agreement

with local government to act.

That is the

difference here that this minister fails to understand continuously and that the

MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson, as well, fails to understand. That is the

issue, so I want to highlight that as one issue.

The other

issue around the BCTFA is that on the BCTFA, while the authority….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member, would you please be seated. Leader of the Opposition, I find

those actions entirely inappropriate for this House.

MacPhail: Really.

The

Chair: I don't think mockery is a particularly parliamentary procedure in

this House.

J. Kwan:

On the issue around the BCTFA, let's be very clear that the authority's been

given to the BCTFA, but in no instance with the previous government were tolls

imposed. They were never imposed, and when this minister was asked whether or

not she will impose tolls or privatization of road infrastructure onto local

jurisdictions without the consent of local government, would she actually commit

that she would not do that without their consent? She would not make that

commitment.

She can

cite the BCTFA's policies, and so on and so forth, but so what, quite frankly,

because the government never exercised the right to impose it on them. Maybe she

would want to actually look back in history and understand the practices of the

previous government versus what this government is doing today.

You know, I

find it very interesting. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson got up and

ranted about something — not a question to a minister, but attacked the

opposition. Never mind, it's his prerogative, and he can do that. It's

surprising. When he actually had the floor, he wouldn't get up and ask this

question: "There continues to be much uncertainty about the sale or the

privatization of the Coquihalla Highway. Is it or will it be put up for sale or

operated by a private sector partner?" Simple question to the minister. The

MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson didn't ask it on behalf of his constituents,

so it's left up to the opposition to ask that question once again.

Hon. J.

Reid: While that's not, strictly speaking, part of the act, I'm going to

respond to the question. It's part of the service plan that was published that

we would further the work that had been started under the previous government

and continue to look at private sector investment and participation in the

Coquihalla. That's part of the service plan, that work in doing the examination

of….

There are

several studies we've had underway to further our information around that. I

haven't received the information back from those studies yet. It is a process

that's been out there and that's been public. There's been no decisions. As I

say, I haven't even received the information back from the studies that we're

working on right now.

[1535]

Krueger: Since the subject has been raised and the members have challenged

me to deal with it, just a quick refresher for the House. The toll was

instituted not by the NDP government but by the previous Socred government. It

was set at $10 per passenger vehicle, more for trucks and more axles and so on.

Still, at $10, as I understand it, it generates about $40 million a year.

understanding, also, is that the cost to build the Coquihalla was some $800

million. Incidentally, the cost to build the mid-Island highway, as I understand

it, was about 50 percent more than that. The NDP never tolled it, but they never

did away with the tolls on the Coquihalla either, probably largely for the same

reasons we can't. We were very upfront about that in the election — that we

weren't going to — because that money is needed for general revenue not only

to cover the costs of maintaining the Coquihalla but also to cover the

incredible commitments that the previous government made and that we're trying

to meet while struggling with this $3.8 billion inherited structural deficit.

The Leader

of the Opposition, who referred to herself in second reading debate as Alice in

Wonderland, has joined us now. I was thinking about — I don't recall it

precisely — her history as Alice in Wonderland in the original story. The

Cheshire cat's in the tree, and Alice says to the Cheshire cat: "Which way

do I go from here?" The cat says, "Well, where are you going?"

and Alice says: "I don't really know." The Cheshire cat says:

"Well, then it doesn't really matter which way you go if you don't know

where you're going." That's very much the experience that we had with Alice

and her government.

The fact is

that we were left with this highway with a toll on it. Members from that area

would really have liked to be able to promise in the election that we were going

to remove the toll. We went to the Premier, who was then the Leader of the

Opposition, and said: "Can

[ Page 4183 ]

we get rid of this toll? Will we be able to promise that?" He said:

"No, we won't. We think it's far more important to restore the economy of

British Columbia, which these people have destroyed in taking us from the

best-performing to the worst-performing economy in Canada. We're going to commit

to the lowest base personal income tax rate in Canada for the first $60,000 of

income by the end of our first term."

We said,

"That sounds pretty good," and he said: "Yes, it'll generate

economic activity throughout the province, and as the economy grows, we'll move

to make this the most competitive tax regime in the country." That sounded

good to us, so we squared our shoulders and went out in public to the public

forums. People asked us: "Will you get rid of the toll on the

Coquihalla?" We said: "No. We have specifically put that to the Leader

of the Opposition, and he's given us the answer. This is the answer, and it

makes sense to us. Our commitment to you is that by the end of the first term in

office, you will have the lowest personal income tax of anybody in Canada up to

the first $60,000 in income."

Did we make

good on that promise? Well, we didn't have to until the end of this term, but

our cabinet made good on it on their very first day in office. I think that's

really commendable, and I think we should give a round of applause to the

government — absolutely. But the toll on the Coquihalla remains, because if we

didn't have that, there would be $40 million less per year flowing into the

provincial coffers to meet the many important obligations we have in health

care, education, transportation, public safety and all the rest of the things

that we fund.

I don't

think I'll be responding to any further goading by the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — or Alice, the Leader of the Opposition — or

anyone on this subject, but I did want to be on the record that we were up front

before the election, and we have been up front during the election, since the

election and as government. We always said we didn't believe we would be able to

do away with that toll anytime soon, and I don't expect we will.

I commend

this minister for travelling, as she did, throughout the province, taking time

away from her husband, her family, her business, her home — all the things

that are important to her — and going out, doing her job, visiting this whole

province. I'm shocked when the Leader of the Opposition comes back from a mini

tour of the province with the Committee on Finance and Government Services and

expresses surprise that rural communities are hurting. You bet they're hurting,

Mr. Chair and Leader of the Opposition. They've been hurting for a long time,

ever since the NDP drove the economy into the ground the way it did.

We're

helping them get back on their feet. We've seen 90,000 new jobs created in this

province since December. That is benefiting everyone.

The

Chair: Member, could I suggest we get back to the committee stage of this

bill.

Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's what I'll do.

I just,

perhaps, would like the minister to confirm that the numbers I have for the

Coquihalla are roughly correct — that we generate about $40 million per year

with the tolls; that the highway itself cost over $800 million; and that in fact

when you consider that we're $40 billion in debt and all of that is borrowed

money that we have to pay interest on, there's going to be a need for that toll

revenue for quite some time to come.

[1540]

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes, he's correct in the figures he has provided. Certainly, the

ongoing challenge for this government is to find ways of financing not just

highway infrastructure but all the other needs in this province. Again, bringing

it back to this bill, this is one of the ways we can look for investment to

provide infrastructure that will meet those needs, the needs that are not just

economic but certainly social as well.

MacPhail: Rumour has it that the government is in receipt of new polling

that shows them in deep, deep trouble in, well, lots of areas in the province

but particularly in the regions — hence the new strategy to attack both the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me. We've just received that

information. This isn't the McIntyre and Mustel polling; it's new polling

they've received.

The

Minister of Transportation is always hiding behind actions of the previous

government to somehow suggest she is just doing what was the intention of the

previous government, reading from legislation that allows tolling, public tolls,

and that somehow indicates that…. I think this is probably the line of

argument. Although it's an interesting one, it's: "Well, we're only just as

bad as the previous government." It's interesting logic for a government

that has a 77-seat majority. Now they're struggling for ground to say,

"Well, we're no worse than the previous government," when they very

clearly know they're taking actions they themselves will have to answer for

completely. They are extremely nervous about that. Apparently their polling

shows that no one accepts their actions, particularly in the rural areas. I make

note of that for the minister — that as a strategy, the strategy is failing.

When I was

in Kamloops this weekend, the whole issue of this government's actions around

the Coquihalla had nothing to do with the tolls — absolutely nothing to do

with the tolls. Once again, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson doesn't

even know how to get in the game. What I did hear over and over again was a

demand for a commitment from this government to not privatize the Coquihalla.

Will the minister commit to not privatize the Coquihalla — yes or no?

Hon. J.

Reid: I really would like to direct the discussion to the bill, but

certainly, I will reiterate the answer I already gave for the member. In the

service plan of the ministry it's clear that we're looking at private sector

involvement in the Coquihalla. I have engaged

[ Page 4184 ]

several studies to provide more information to government to be able to

assess that, to be able to look at future decisions, because no decision has

been made around that. We're gathering that information. That has been part of

the public process.

J. Kwan:

I would make a prediction that the government is going to privatize the

Coquihalla. That's my prediction.

[1545]

The

roadbuilders, the engineers and even Jock Finlayson have noted that given the

geography of B.C. and our relatively sparse population, the attractiveness of

toll highways is not as great as it is in many other places. We have amongst the

highest, if not the highest highway construction costs on the continent. How

does the minister intend to attract private sector investment to highway

construction, operation and maintenance when these huge cost factors would mean

a level of tolls that would be prohibitive to the travelling public, tourists

and the trucking industry if the private sector is to get a return on its

investment and would be acceptable to its shareholders?

Hon. J.

Reid: It states in the policy document that was released with this piece of

proposed legislation, which was actually introduced in the House last spring,

that the business case for any toll road would have to have a calculation where

the benefits to the travelling public would have to exceed the tolls. Along with

that there has to be a business case that, in order to get a private sector….

Obviously, if your tolls are too high, people won't use that route, and they

can't have a return on investment. There does have to be a reason that works.

When we

talk about public-private partnerships, those can be a range of different

agreements from complete private sector investment to, obviously, the complete

public sector investment and any range in between. If the government has to put

in a certain amount in order to bring down the tolls so they meet this criterion

and so there is a business case that can be made, that's all within that realm

of options available to government in looking at how we're going to move forward

and finance projects.

It makes no

sense whatsoever to think of anyone investing and building a road where the

tolls were so high that people wouldn't use it. We have to look at business

cases where it's workable. The example I used when we were discussing this in

committee stage on Bill 62 was in the lower mainland, where you have high

traffic volumes. The higher the traffic volumes the more sense it makes, because

then you're providing a good benefit, and it brings the tolls down low enough so

people are enjoying that benefit and are willing to use those roads, and it

works out well for the different parties involved.

There is a

full range of opportunity and possibility, but there are a lot of natural

constraints around this where it just does not make sense to use toll roads. It

doesn't make sense from a business case, where you wouldn't attract an investor,

and it wouldn't make sense if the tolls are too high and they exceed the benefit

that people are receiving. There are natural, commonsense restraints around

this. There is limited application of this. We do believe that there are some

applications, and the lower mainland is a case in point, around the gateway and

another crossing of the Fraser River.

J. Kwan:

Are shadow tolls captured by the definition of tolls in the bill?

Hon. J.

Reid: A shadow toll is where the government would pay a toll per vehicle,

rather than a direct user-pay. Under the definition of toll in this section, it

would include the concept of a shadow toll.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please explain what a shadow toll is? I actually don't know

what a shadow toll is. That was in the discussion paper. It's not incorporated

in the act. But what is it? In some ways, I suppose one could argue that it

might just be a hidden tax.

Hon. J.

Reid: A shadow toll is a situation where you have a private investor who has

built a road or a

section of road, but the arrangement is that vehicles

themselves don't stop and pay the toll. There is a calculation of the vehicles

using the roadway, and the government compensates the company based on the usage

of that roadway.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

So the government pays for the toll and to the private sector, whoever

happens to be operating the roadway. That's incorporated within the definition

of tolls in this bill. Are Forests roads captured in the definition of highways,

then, in this act?

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. I think it's an excellent

question. I just want to verify some legal wording around this, so I will be

responding to that question as soon as that information comes in to me.

J. Kwan:

I assume that the answer will come at some point during this debate — yes?

Thank you.

Just back

to the issue around shadow tolls for one minute. Why isn't there a specific

definition to say what a shadow toll is? In the

definitions section, a

"toll means a charge for the use of some or all of a concession highway by

a vehicle." When you read that, one assumes that the charge is actually to

the consumer. Although if government pays for it, it is also charged to the

consumer, but it's not the direct charge. Why isn't that term "shadow

toll" in the definition section? It was in the discussion paper.

Hon. J.

Reid: The

definitions

section of the act is around legal terms, and shadow

toll is a concept. In order to give validity to the act, it isn't necessary to

have that under the

definitions.

[ Page 4185 ]

J. Kwan: In

regulations, then?

Hon. J.

Reid: It's a concept. It's a common-usage term. It's another way of a

public-private partnership. It's just out amongst that range of different

applications of combinations. I'm sure there would be many different terms used

in examining the different situations around the world, but it's a concept that

exists and just wasn't required to give legal validity to the act to put it

under the

definitions.

J. Kwan:

In the discussion around highways — we don't know whether or not Forests

roads are captured, and the minister is going to bring forward that answer —

what about recreational roads, roads that are designated or lead into a

recreational site, a campsite or those kinds of things? Would those fall under

what's defined as highway?

Hon. J.

Reid: Forests roads and recreational roads are not captured under the

definition of highway.

[1555]

Section

1 approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 2(1)(a)(

i) gives the minister, with cabinet approval, the ability to

transfer or grant interests in or rights relating to land that is used as a part

of a concession highway.

Section 2(3) states that a concession agreement must

not transfer for a fee simple interest in the land. What interests or rights

would a private company have to the land that remains the ownership of the

Crown? Would it have the ability to lease land to a gas station, for example, or

to allow a McDonald's to be built on it? Will the private operator have the

ability to expand its revenue base beyond that of the actual operation of the

highway?

Hon. J.

Reid: This

section of the act the member has referred to covers the

relationship with the government in respect to the concessionaire that this land

is leased…. It is not sold to them, and it is restricted to the amount of

property required to operate a highway. She asked about other abilities of the

concessionaire. If the concessionaire wants to do something else, other than the

land required to operate the highway, the province would look at that as

separating the parcel of land from the right-of-way and entering into a separate

lease or sale agreement. The piece of property would be subject to local zoning

and local land use, and it would be treated not as part of the right-of-way but

as a separate parcel.

J. Kwan:

Would the government lease the land to the private operator who, in turn, could

lease it out? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J.

Reid: There would be the potential to do that, but it's important to

recognize that the piece of land that's not used strictly for highway

right-of-way comes under the local or the regional land use and other related

stipulations.

J. Kwan:

Yes, thank you. I understand this in terms of land use decisions and that it

rests with local government. I understand that, but if it were Crown land for

which the government has entered into a public-private partnership, so to speak,

so that the private company has access to the land, it does not mean they own

the land. The Crown still owns the land. If the private company wants to put a

McDonald's on the land, then yes, they will have to go through…. I would just

automatically assume they would have to go through the land use decision of the

local jurisdiction.

The

question is how that would work from the point of view of land use itself. Would

the government lease the land to this private company for usage as a gas station

or whatever the case may be, or does the private company already have the right

to do that? Do they just have to go through the local zoning authorities to put

up whatever structure they wish to put there?

[1600]

Hon. J.

Reid: The highway right-of-way is only for the highway use. If somebody

wanted to do something other than strictly the highway use, that would have to

be a parcel that's separated off from the rest of the agreement. Then in the

terms, whether it be leased or whether it be sold, those are the options

available. So the concession agreement would be for a highway right-of-way

that's required to operate the highway. Anything else would be treated as a

separate parcel.

J. Kwan:

The simple answer, then, is yes. The government will either lease or sell the

land to the private owner, and then they will have to go through the local

municipal land use zoning process to determine whether or not they can put up

whatever structure they wish.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

The

question, then, is: if Crown land is designated for the time being for the

purposes of highway operations, can it be sold off for purposes of private lease

or owned for purposes of developing other structures? In other words, does the

private operator have an opportunity to expand the revenue base beyond that of

the actual operation of the highway? That's what I gathered. If I'm wrong, I

would ask the minister to correct me; if I'm not wrong, then I will move on to

section 2(4).

Hon. J.

Reid: I think the important point the member is trying to make, and wants

clarification on here, is that any of those kind of agreements can be put in the

concession agreement that's originally struck with the province. If there's

concern around what that concessionaire could do or develop or add to, that all

has to

[ Page 4186 ]

be worked out in advance in the concession agreement. There is not the

unlimited ability for them to do anything. There's a very limited ability, and

that limited ability is spelled out in advance through the concession

agreements.

J. Kwan:

If it is not spelled out in advance, then there is no opportunity for that, so

the agreement cannot be amended in any way, shape or form. Is that what the

minister is saying?

Hon. J.

Reid: Concession agreements could be amended by mutual consent.

J. Kwan:

Then it is open. Agreements could be entered into. Those concession provisions

might not be in there, but at some point in time it could all change. It could

be changed at any time. The certainty this minister wishes to provide to this

House lessens as the questions are asked and the answers become more and more

clear.

Section

2(4) states that nothing in

section 2(3) prevents the transfer of title to or

interests in improvements or fixtures on land that is to become part of a toll

highway. Does that mean that in the event of a sale of an existing highway —

let's take, as an example, the Coquihalla — the buyer would then own all of

the things that are part of the highway, but not the land?

[1605]

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes. This refers to those structures that might be on the road. They

would have the ability if the concessionaire built those structures that were

necessary for the running of the roadway. Yes, there's ownership of those

structures, so if there's a sale, then that involves the structures that are

necessary for the operating of the right-of-way.

J. Kwan:

So if those things that are on whatever highway — I use the instance of the

structures on the Coquihalla — are sold to a private company, they will own

everything on the Coquihalla except for the land. That would be the same with

every other roadway or bridge or highway.

Hon. J.

Reid: The question is what's considered an improvement or fixture and what

is part of the land. The pavement stays. It would not fall under this section.

As the member said, it could be a tollbooth. It could be something that could be

separated from the land — a tool shed or something like that, which is

separated from the land. This is not what's fixed to the land.

J. Kwan:

Section 2(1)(a)(iii) allows the minister to transfer or grant shares or

interests in those shares to any corporation that operates a highway that is to

be a toll highway. Can the minister please explain what corporations are being

referred to by this subsection?

Hon. J.

Reid: This is a piece of enabling legislation, so this

section would allow

the transfer of the lease of the assets to a company that we the government

would own. Then we would be able to sell the shares of that company. It is a

form of effecting that business transaction.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

If it is Partnerships B.C., how will this operate? The Minister of Finance is

the sole shareholder in Partnerships B.C. How will shares in a company wholly

owned by the Crown be given to a private company? How will they be valued? Will

they be able to be traded once they have been transferred or granted to a

private company?

Hon. J.

Reid: We're not looking at involving Partnerships B.C. That's not part of

what this is talking about. If we transfer the lease of assets into a company,

then there would be a competitive procurement process. The market would value

the shares and what that would be worth. As to the future of those shares, it

would depend on the buyer of the shares and whether they wanted to be a publicly

or privately traded company. That would be determined by the facts of any

individual situation.

J. Kwan:

section 2 of Bill 57 introduced in the spring, the minister had the ability

to transfer but not to grant "a licence to use any or all of the

land…." Why was this licensing requirement dropped for Bill 67?

Hon. J.

Reid: We believed the word "licence" was covered within the

existing language of interest and felt it was a redundant statement. Also, the

word "licence" wasn't used elsewhere, and it wasn't helpful to add

clarity. It was best to keep with the language that was already in there and was

already consistent.

Section

2 approved on the following division:

[1615-1620]

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

[ Page 4187 ]

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

section 3.

J. Kwan:

Section 3(

c) says that the concession agreement must state whether or not tolls

may be charged on a concession highway. What other revenue sources would be

available to a private partner if not tolls?

The

Chair: We'll wait one minute for staff.

[1625]

Hon. J.

Reid: In looking at the possible arrangements that we could enter into in

partnership with a concessionaire, we had to take into account the possibility

of a road being built where that concessionaire was actually going to be

receiving the benefit in another way — for example, a road accessing a

development — so that the form of revenue might not be up front but might be

through other opportunities available to that concessionaire. There is that.

We're trying to cover off those different kinds of possibilities, different

kinds of agreements.

formulating this piece of legislation, we looked literally around the world at

different agreements that existed at different realities and in different

variations and tried to make sure we were covering off many different

opportunities and possibilities. That would be what would be reflected here.

J. Kwan:

Section 3(c), states: "…whether or not tolls may be charged for vehicular

use of the concession highway and, if so, how those tolls are to be set and

varied from time to time." Is this also a provision that would allow for

shadow tolls to apply?

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes.

J. Kwan:

Section 3(

e) says the agreement must specify what permits and approvals will be

granted to concessionaires by the government under the act. Does that mean the

government would actually obtain the permits? What permits and what approvals?

Or is the onus on the private corporation or the private company to do that?

Hon. J.

Reid: Initially, there are certain permits the province might have that

would be able to be transferred to the concessionaire. Further than that, there

are a lot of decisions that are made around highways and highway usage — for

example, how access could be built to a highway — and so the ability that

exists here is that those broader decisions can involve the concessionaire.

J. Kwan:

In some instances then, it's the government who makes the application for the

permits. Would the government be required to make permit applications or not? To

use another example, with projects that are subject to the environmental

assessment process, who presents the project? Would it be the government, the

private partner or both?

[1630]

Hon. J.

Reid: This reflects that a combination is possible, whether the

concessionaire would have to apply for permits or whether the government had

existing permits. Obviously, the context of what happens in any kind of

development would have to be followed. Again, there's the opportunity to assess

that on an individual basis and make sure that all requirements were being

complied with.

J. Kwan:

And would that include, if environmental assessment is required, not only

provincial governments but the federal government as well? Then can the

provincial government be an applicant in that case or jointly with the private

partner?

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes.

Section 3

approved on division.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section deals with what's called provisions of concession

agreement respecting breaches not punitive. One of the things I noted in this

legislation is that it's not a plain-language piece of legislation. Perhaps the

minister could explain the intent of this section.

Hon. J.

Reid: The plain language around this is that if a concessionaire fails to

deliver, then the government is able to impose damages. In addition to those

damages, government can also impose penalties, and the courts can't construe

that as being punitive. This is a way for the government to be able to hold the

concessionaire to account. With what happens in the courts around these kinds of

things, we want not just the damages but want to be able to impose an additional

penalty. This allows us to do that.

MacPhail: That's imposing a fairly strict liability requirement on the

concessionaire. Does this differ from what the government is accepting as its

own liability in matters now?

[ Page 4188 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: These would be for breaches of the concession agreement. There isn't

an equivalent comparison with government.

MacPhail: So there's no question of liability here?

[1635]

Hon. J.

Reid: This

section refers to the concessionaire being liable to pay the

penalty. The broader topic of liability comes under

section 8.

MacPhail: Yes. Exactly my point. We will be discussing liability at length.

Our premise will be that the government is getting out of the business of

accepting any liability about anything. Is there a different test for the

concessionaire than what the government is applying to itself in this

legislation?

Hon. J.

Reid: This legislation is built around a concession agreement. What's

negotiated in that concession agreement…. If it's not fulfilled, if it's not

lived up to, this allows the government to hold that concessionaire to account.

MacPhail: I'll take that as the minister didn't answer my question.

Section 5

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: We want to spend some time on this. It's the

section entitled

"Rights, powers and obligations of minister and concessionaire." This

section should be read in conjunction with

section 8, as both go to the issue of

liability. Let me just put that in context.

Section

6(3) provides that the minister may delegate to the operator of a toll highway

those rights, powers or functions that the minister has under legislation.

That's the

section that needs to be read in conjunction with

section 8 of the

bill, regarding liability.

Section

6(1) says that the ministry and the minister have all of the rights and powers

in relation to concession highways as they have to common highways.

Section

6(2) then says that subsection (1) does not require the government to take any

action relating to a toll highway, including the payment of money.

Then you

have to look at subsection (3), which allows for the minister to delegate

rights, powers and functions. In subsection (4), the minister can impose on the

private operator any obligations the minister has in relation to the operation

of highways in the province, and if she does so, she is relieved of any

obligations under the agreement or any other statute in relation to the toll

highway.

What all of

this means is the limiting — one might even say eliminating — of the

government's liability and statutory obligations when it comes to the operation

of toll highways.

This

actually takes us much further than the example provided by the Coquihalla

Highway. While many, in our view, would be willing to pay a toll for the use of

a reliable transportation route, the question is: how many British Columbians

are willing to do so if it means that the government has no practical

responsibility for its efficient and safe operation?

Not only is

the road being truly privatized, but so is the public interest. People are

paying a toll to travel on a road for which the government assumes no obligation

and no liability. Once the contract is signed, the government no longer has or

— it's clear — wants anything to do with the operation of the highway. In

the process, this government is trying to limit, if not eliminate, its statutory

obligations with regard to the highways.

Subsection

(6) goes on to clarify that the private operator has the same "duty of

care" as the minister in relation to a common highway, and subsection

(7) states that it is the private operator alone that is liable for any loss or

damage that may be caused by the actions or inactions of the private operator.

The effect is that once the concession agreement is signed, the government rids

itself of all legal and statutory responsibility for its operation and any

adverse effects from its operation.

[1640]

The

questions that arise out of that section, then: how do the provisions of this

bill mesh with the review being undertaken by the Attorney General? The Attorney

General is doing a review of the government's policy on civil liability. That

review has not yet been concluded. The Attorney General has announced that

legislation will be introduced in the spring of 2003 to address the issues of

liability.

Hon. J.

Reid: I wanted to initially direct the attention of the Leader of the

Opposition to

section 3(f), as she talked about the concern over efficient and

safe operation of highways. One of the mandatory provisions under

section 3(

f) is to require the concessionaire to meet or exceed the standards applicable to a

comparable public highway or even higher standards if defined in the concession

agreement. It is within the agreement that the highways will be safe, that they

will be operated properly and that they will be operated in accordance with the

set standards.

The

question is: what happens if the concessionaire does something that results in a

problem? There are two things. First of all,

section 3(

m) requires the

concessionaire to have insurance, and it goes into the details of what that

requirement is. Initially, it is the concessionaire that is held liable for

those actions. However, the government still has the obligation — the

section

we were just talking about — of holding them to account, being able to impose

penalties and making sure they comply with the concession agreement. If we do

not hold them to account, then we would be liable.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could point in the legislation to that

liability requirement on behalf of the government.

Hon. J.

Reid:

Section 8(4) refers to the government if we act in bad faith.

[ Page 4189 ]

[1645]

MacPhail: Well, okay. I just want to paint this scenario, because this is

not something we're going to agree on at all.

Section 3 doesn't answer my

questions at all. Of course there have to be minimum requirements in a contract,

that the contractor or the private operator provide minimum standards of safety.

That's the least we would expect. The point here is: what happens when the

contractor fails to do so? The minister then points me to

section 8, which….

Chair, I know we're getting ahead of ourselves, but it has to be read in context

with

section 6. It says "if someone's acted in bad faith."

Let me tell

you about an example of privatization. It's to deal with the school system, not

highways, but it's exactly the case in point. There's a publicly traded company

operating schools in the United States, in Philadelphia. They operate 20 schools

— publicly traded. Agreement was reached with the school boards. Everything

was hunky-dory. Minimum standards were set. Then the publicly traded company's

stocks plummeted on the stock market, so they went in and took all of the

provisions of the school — the computers, the books, the audiovisual equipment

— out, because they needed it for their cash flow. Business — it was

business. Now they're going to be in the courts.

There is

nothing in this legislation to say exactly the same thing. A publicly traded

company running a highway can get in trouble and cut back on the highway.

Nothing's done in bad faith. There's no bad faith. There's no liability on the

part of the government.

The

minister can try all she likes to say this isn't groundbreaking legislation in

removing the government from any liability, but it's groundbreaking legislation

in removing the government from having any liability. Where is the legal

opinion, or upon what legal basis does the minister assume that she can remove

herself from the liability for the planning, design, construction or operation

of a toll highway?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order.

Hon. J.

Reid: I do believe that this legislation covers off what the member was

referring to. There are standards. There was a suggestion that if the

concessionaire tried to cut back the standards for safety, the standards for

maintenance…. All those are in the concession agreement. If the concessionaire

tries to do that, we have recourse here. That's what's spelled out.

Not only

does the concessionaire have to carry full insurance, as stipulated under this,

but as well, we have the ability to hold them to account. Those are the

provisions within this act to be able to do that, making sure that the public

good is a priority and is protected. Here it is doubly protected not only by the

insurance provisions they have to carry but by the standards that are decided on

prior to any agreement and, as well, the ability to hold them to account and to

add penalties to damages by government.

MacPhail: Could the minister show me where she holds them to account?

[1650]

Hon. J.

Reid: This act is the enabling piece that does give government power to be

able to hold to account. There are the two ways that we already mentioned —

that they have to have the proper insurance and that we are able to impose

penalties. The third action that government is able to take is that if the

concessionaire fails to comply with the obligations of the concession agreement,

it can be terminated, and the highway comes back to government. We have power to

be able to make sure that public good is maintained, is fulfilled.

MacPhail: Well, if the contractor fails completely — goes out of business,

goes bankrupt — or if the stocks of a publicly traded company plummet, it

doesn't matter whether you impose a million-dollar penalty. If they've gone

bankrupt, it can't happen. Is the minister saying the liability then returns to

the government? That's not ownership, but liability.

Hon. J.

Reid: Back in

section 3 it also specifies that not only insurance but

bonding has to be in place. If there is a failure, either the bonding company

would take over operation, or we would use the money from the bonds to be able

to operate. When the agreement is terminated, that's when the liability would

come back to government.

MacPhail: Bonding companies don't provide liability. I'm asking about what

happens while the concessionaire still has the contractual obligation and fails

in that contractual obligation and disappears. There could be liability issues

that arise out of that. Does the government assume all liability for everything

that happened, then? It's a big giant crack through which people will fall, if

that's not the case.

Hon. J.

Reid: The insurance and the bonding are separate from the operator. If that

operator or concessionaire disappears, the insurance is still in place. That's

where the liability is taken care of with the insurance. The bonding ensures

we're able to maintain the operation of that highway until there is a

termination of that agreement.

MacPhail: If because of a problem with maintenance on the highway, an issue

of liability occurs while the concessionaire is in charge, and the

concessionaire fails in its provision of any of its obligations and in fact goes

out of business, who has liability? Is it the insurance company, the bonding

agency? When is it that somebody gets to rely on something other than a

privately offered service?

You know,

bonding companies have gone out of business, and insurance companies have gone

out of business. In fact, we're seeing failures like that in P3 operations

throughout the United States. It's not out of

[ Page 4190 ]

the realm of possibility at all in this day and age that the private sector

collapses completely in its obligation.

[1655]

We're

seeing that in Britain around private sector energy. They're fighting right now

over who has the obligation from a failed privatization of energy in Britain.

Nobody in the private sector is assuming any responsibility for anything because

of the complete collapse of the private sector delivery.

I'm more

than willing to take the minister's word that there will be no break in

liability for the taxpayer or for the user of the highway — that if the

private sector company fails in its indemnification, in its liability, then the

government steps in without a break. If that's the commitment, good.

Hon. J.

Reid: In the event of failure, the member is concerned with what would

happen in that case and talks about other failures. Even if we reflect on what

happened over a year ago on September 11, the insurance companies didn't fail.

There were consequences for insurance, but there wasn't a failure there. It's

our obligation to make sure that proper and sufficient insurance and bonding are

in place. Through the concession agreement and through this legislation, that's

what government will do.

MacPhail: Well, I know the history is just a year old, but insurances did

fail throughout the world. That's why airlines collapsed. Perhaps the minister

was trying to throw me off by that comparison, because it's ridiculous. There

were failures all over the place of provisions of insurance as a result of

September 11.

Perhaps the

minister could actually answer my question. If the provision of private services

fails, will there be a complete stepping-in by the government of all liability

obligations without a break?

Hon. J.

Reid: In times of the problems the member might be speculating about, again,

the resources available to us, which we have to ensure are in place, are both

the insurance and the bonding. To make sure that that obligation is sufficiently

discharged is up to government in the concession agreement and in the

legislation we have before us. That is where the member is trying to suggest

there is a gap. We don't believe there is a gap. To speculate that there's some

unforeseen problem…. Once you have these mechanisms in place, then that's what

you are able to employ in the event that there is a problem. That's how we will

make sure that people are protected.

[1700]

MacPhail: Bonding companies have gone out of existence or have failed in

Canada this year. Insurance companies have failed this year.

The

assurances that the public now have…. There's no liability. The government's

getting completely out of its liability responsibilities, its indemnification,

but they're going to rely on the private sector. Well, that's really encouraging

news.

Here's why

I think the government's doing it: because there's a Supreme Court of Canada

decision that ruled that the ministry's liable for actions of its contractors.

This completely overrides that Supreme Court of Canada decision. What the

decision said was that a contractual arrangement in which the government agrees

to, but does not surrender the use of public land for a private purpose,

obligates the government to retain liability for actions.

Now that

Supreme Court case is completely done away with by this legislation, and the

government's now going to rely on the private sector, bonding companies and

insurance. That means there is a real potential that nobody will be held liable

for the provision of highway services or for any liability that may arise while

on that highway or during the building of the highway.

It's clear

that it's only the opposition that objects to this, that will vote against this,

so when there is a vote on division, it will mean that the opposition, and the

opposition alone, is opposed to this section.

Section

6 approved on division.

On

section

MacPhail: As we've already discussed in

section 6, the government places all

liability for the development, planning, design, construction and operation of a

toll highway on its private contractor. In this

section the government retains

its right to expropriate land for the construction and operation of a highway.

Why is the government moving to allow for private highways in British Columbia

with all the risk and responsibility transferred to the private sector, which

the minister has just acknowledged, yet it's retaining the ability to

expropriate land?

Hon. J.

Reid: We believe that the power of expropriation should only be exercised by

government, and that's why it's expressed this way.

MacPhail: Well, there's another way of getting land. It's the market. It's

where contractors have to go in and negotiate with the landowner. That's the

other way. Why not make them responsible, and why not make the contractor buy

through the market?

Hon. J.

Reid: We would expect that land would be acquired through the market

process. This would only be used as a last resort. Because the ownership of the

land is retained with the Crown, it's the Crown that would be responsible for

expropriating.

MacPhail: Let me get this clear. The private sector gets to keep the

profits. The government helps them by expropriating land on their behalf, and

that expropriation, which is a unilateral action against the private land owner

by the government, is used to enhance the ability of a private contractor to

make profit. Is that right?

[ Page 4191 ]

[1705]

Hon. J.

Reid: No, that's not correct. The process of expropriation assesses a market

value, so that's part of the process that currently exists. There is a process

that is considered to be fair, is considered to be workable, and certainly meets

the needs and the tests of fairness. It's exactly the same