2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Mourning for earthquake victims

in China

Hon. S.

Bond

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M213)

Conroy

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

First nations annual elders

gathering

G. Coons

Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary

J. Yap

Quintin and

Elizabeth Robertson

C. Wyse

Abbotsford regional hospital and

cancer centre

R. Hawes

Esquimalt Naval and Military

Museum

Karagianis

Behaviour of MLAs in the chamber

MacKay

Oral Questions

B.C. Ferries board remuneration

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Karagianis

Funding for post-secondary

education

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

Simpson

Availability of beds at Vernon

Jubilee Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Cowichan Valley schools and child

care spaces

Horgan

Hon. S.

Bond

Routley

Child care spaces in B.C.

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Committee of the Whole House

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Ralston

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Chouhan

Trevena

Fraser

H. Lali

Puchmayr

Simpson

Conroy

Ralston

J. Brar

[ Page 12595 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

MOURNING FOR EARTHQUAKE

VICTIMS IN CHINA

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of the Premier, I would like to

acknowledge that on Monday, China began three days of mourning for the more than

34,000 victims of the earthquake that struck last week. British Columbians join

the people of China and people around the world in sorrow for the devastating

effect of this tragedy. It is difficult to imagine the impact that this has had

on an entire nation and on family and friends in all parts of the world.

As the Premier said last week, British Columbia's emergency

personnel and resources are available to assist in this very difficult time. The

Premier has also emphasized the province's sympathy and offer of support to the

government of China through the Chinese consulate in Vancouver.

[1335]

I know that all members of the Legislature join me in extending

our condolences, our support and our prayers during these days of mourning. I

ask that all members join together as we honour and remember the victims of the

earthquake and their families as they cope with this very tragic event.

Introductions by Members

C. Wyse: Today in the House, I welcome Irene Robertson of

Victoria and Caroline Robertson of rural Alberta. The Robertson sisters are

former residents of Williams Lake and the daughters of Quint and Liz Robertson,

longtime friends of ours. I'd ask the House to make them both welcome.

J. Yap: There are two people in the visitors' gallery I

would like to introduce today: Steven and Carolyn Dribnenki, who have been

spending some time in our beautiful capital for a wedding this past weekend.

They are visiting from Regina, Saskatchewan. Would the House please join me in

making them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome two

parents of school kids from our school district in Cowichan Valley. Hannah

Seymour is the chair of the Koksilah Elementary PAC. Hannah is committed to

furthering the Cowichan people's traditional ways through that unique school.

Michelle Martin is from Tansor Elementary and is a tireless

advocate for her neighbourhood school. Will the House please help me welcome

Hannah and Michelle.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of

distinguished guests who have travelled far to be with us here today: Minister

Horst Guenther, a retired federal associate minister of Labour and Social

Affairs of the government of Germany and a 22-year veteran of the German

Bundestag ; secretary Steven Hill, administrator of the Washington State

Health Care Authority and co-chair of the International Disability Management

Standards Council; Dr. Joachim Breuer, chief executive officer of the German

federal workers compensation system and co-chair of the International Disability

Management Standards Council; Prof. Allan Clayton, Deakon University, Melbourne,

Australia, an internationally recognized workers compensation systems expert;

Dr. Donal MacAnaney, University of Dublin, Ireland, foremost European researcher

on mental health issues and return to work of disabled workers; Mr. Ralph

McGuinn, former chief executive of WorkSafe B.C. and chair of the International

Disability Management Standards Council on the global audit; also Joyce

Gravelle, Kathy Eccles, Heather Persons and Wolfgang Zimmerman with the National

Institute of Disability Management and Research.

Please make these guests very welcome in our House.

S. Fraser: I will follow suit on introductions. One of my

constituents and a good friend, Wolfgang Zimmerman, is in the audience today. He

is the most powerful advocate for disability management in the world. Please

make him feel very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have some visitors

from King George high school, which is in my neighbourhood of Vancouver-Burrard.

Even though they are the best high school in my riding and the only high school

in my riding, I want to acknowledge the hard work….

They are a groundbreaking school, and that's due in large part to

the leadership of Terry Howe, who is the principal there, and also quite notably

one of their teachers, Damian Wilmann. Damian was recently honoured by the

Premier as one of British Columbia's most forward-thinking teachers, and we're

very, very proud of him. He could not make it here for the ceremony to

acknowledge that.

Would the members of the House please welcome all the students,

welcome Terry Howe, but give a special round of applause for Damian Wilmann.

J. Horgan: I join my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith in

welcoming some visiting parents from Ecole Mill Bay in my constituency of

Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Joining us in the precincts today for meetings with the

Minister of State for Childcare about important issues are LeAnn Williams,

Blaine Cassel, Erin Arrowsmith and her lovely daughter Kate. Would the House

please make the four of them welcome.

[1340]

Hon. L. Reid: I have many guests in the chamber today.

First, June Draude is visiting us, a dear colleague of mine for many years,

representing the province of

[ Page 12596 ]

Saskatchewan. She is the Minister of First Nations and Métis Relations. I

would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Visiting from Zheng Sheng College in Hong Kong are 14 students,

three teachers and their three Canadian hosts. The Integration Youth Services

Society, led by Esther Ho, along with the Richmond Community Assessment and

Action Network are hosting a Canadian youth drug-free project which brings

students from Hong Kong to spend four weeks in Vancouver, San Francisco and Los

Angeles, speaking with youth in North America about issues of substance abuse,

cross-cultural education, personal development and community outreach.

We have Mr. Chan Siu Cheuk, Mr. Lam Hay Sing, Ms. Leung Kwai Fong,

Miss Choi, Miss Ng, Mr. Luk, a second Mr. Luk, Mr. Lau, Mr. Tang, Mr. Benoza,

Mr. Gurung, Mr. Leung, Mr. Wong, Mr. Lui, Mr. Woo, Mr. Chan, Mr. Wong, and with

the youth services, Esther Ho, Tina Tsai and Rocky Zhang. I would ask the House

to please make them incredibly welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today over the noon hour in the

rotunda, I had the pleasure to present the progress report for the child and

youth mental health plan that was launched in 2003. I was joined there by a

group of parents, counsellors, clinicians, mental health workers and advocates,

all of whom have been very instrumental in the success of that plan.

I'm pleased to welcome to the House and hope that you will all

join me in welcoming Dr. Jean Moore, Donna Murphy and Lisa Hansen from FORCE,

which is aptly named in terms of its advocacy on behalf of families and children

and youth with mental health challenges.

As well, we have two school counsellors from district 61, Helen

Lenny and Diane Brown, and five folks from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development in different parts of the province, doing great work on behalf of

children and youth in the mental health area: Sarah Flans from Burnaby and New

Westminster, David Barker from Trail, Kathi Camilleri from Campbell River, Karla

Tait and Sandy Wiens. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of them.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would ask all members of the House to

please welcome Dan D'Autremont. Dan is the Minister of Government Services in

the new government of Saskatchewan. Would everyone please make him welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is a great supporter and

friend of many of us on the government side of the House, Terri Rainey from

Maple Ridge. Could the House please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: Many members will know that we just had the

Victoria Day Parade here in Victoria. It's an annual event that brings thousands

and thousands of people to the community.

I just want the House to know that from my alma mater, the

Reynolds marching band was voted the No. 1 one band in the parade. Also our

pages — Dylan, Reid, Kayla, Nicki and Ross — are in the marching band. Could the

House please congratulate them.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the precinct is a school group

visiting from my former alma mater, Mount Douglas High School. There are 29

people — 25 grade 11 students and four adults. The teacher accompanying them is

Mrs. Susan Phillips.

Unfortunately, they are touring right now and will probably be

joining us at the beginning of question period and leaving shortly thereafter.

At this time, I would still like the House to offer their hearty welcome to

them, as they will be joining us shortly.

C. Trevena: I would like to join the Minister of Children

and Families in welcoming Kathi Camilleri to the House. She has recently joined

the ministry. I know that after many years with Laichwiltach Family Life, it was

a sad loss for them to lose Kathy and a great benefit for the ministry to have

her. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2008

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008.

K. Conroy: I move introduction of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008, for first

reading.

[1345]

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: It gives me great pleasure today to be

introducing a piece of legislation that amends the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act in order to restore public access to information.

The amendments increase the scope of the act to include

information from quasi-public bodies in order to preserve public access to

information concerning bodies that are performing governmental functions.

Control over excessive costs also makes information more readily available to

the public.

Amendments to

section 13 narrow policy advice exceptions,

preventing information from being withheld when it is not directly related to

policy or when the relevant government decision has already been made, and

restoring the purpose of this

section to its original intent. This act also

returns the definition of "day" to its ordinary meaning and strengthens the

principles of public interest paramount.

As well, this act increases the transparency of government with

regards to information available to the

[ Page 12597 ]

public. By expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, enhancing

the public interest paramount principle and limiting exemptions under

section

13, as recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, it restores a

high standard for public access to information. Coupled with improvements in the

time and cost involved, this act improves government accountability,

transparency and openness.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) Mr. Speaker: Just before we get started on statements by

members, I want to remind members, particularly those reading statements today,

that they read this morning's Hansard .

FIRST NATIONS ANNUAL

ELDERS GATHERING

G. Coons: I am proud to announce that the 32nd annual B.C.

Elders Gathering will be hosted by the Prince Rupert Kaien Island elders. For

those of you that don't know, the annual elders gathering is an event that is

much anticipated by first nations across the province.

Since the first elders gathering in 1977, it has grown into an

important yearly event rich in history and tradition. For example, in 1982 in

Prince George they began the tradition of choosing the king and queen of the

gathering. This year's king and queen are two of my closest and dearest friends,

Leonard and Mona Alexcee from the Tsimshian Nation. They deserve the highest

respect and praise, as they were chosen for their ability to lead and their

demonstrated community spirit.

Another tradition is the act of bidding for the totem pole carved

by Frances Harne of the Stó:lô Nation for the very first elders gathering. Any

group or nation wishing to host the next year's gathering must successfully bid

on the pole. This bidding is a highlight of the gathering. Usually several

groups are competing through song, dance and by trying to convince everybody at

the gathering that they have the support of their community and much to offer.

Exaggeration is allowed, but the winner must be able to follow through on their

promises.

I'd like to congratulate the Kaien Island elders for their

successful bidding on the pole this year. I'm glad that they feel strongly about

what our region has to offer, and I'm sure that the attending elders will be

satisfied that the Kaien Island elders, and especially Leonard, did not

exaggerate too much when they made their presentation about the beauty, the

opportunity for fun and the welcoming atmosphere of Prince Rupert.

I'll look forward to seeing elders from across the province in my

home community this summer from July 7 to July 9. I'm confident that this

gathering will build on the success of gatherings held in the past, bridging the

gap between our first nations youth and their elders, preserving traditions and

building on passing on new ones.

This year's theme is "The Elders are Watching," and we are all

lucky that the elders are watching — watching to ensure that we don't forget

history and watching to ensure that in our rush towards the future, we do not

make foolish decisions.

CANADIAN COAST GUARD AUXILIARY

J. Yap: I rise today to speak of a group of unsung heroes

in my community and many others in British Columbia. These men and women bravely

risk their lives, take time away from their families and spend countless hours

in training, all with the end goal of keeping people on our waters safe. I'm of

course speaking of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary Pacific is manned by

approximately 1,000 highly trained volunteers who are there to lend search and

rescue assistance services in the coastal waters of B.C. 24 hours a day every

single day of the year. In the past year the Coast Guard Auxiliary has been

responsible for saving over 186 lives in our coastal waters and assisting

countless others.

These volunteers come to the rescue in boating emergencies,

missing persons operations, medical evacuations and any other marine-related

incident that needs assistance. My community, Richmond-Steveston, is fortunate

to be looked after by Coast Guard Auxiliary Unit 10 since its beginnings in

1988. This unit is recognized countrywide as one of the top units in Canada.

[1350]

The operations of the auxiliary Coast Guard unit 10 are funded

mainly through two non-profit organizations, the Richmond Marine Rescue Society

and the Strait of Georgia Marine Rescue Society. These organizations work

tirelessly to raise the funds needed to ensure that our waters are safe for all

of us.

I was fortunate to attend the unit 10 open house recently, and I

felt humbled to mingle with the many volunteers who so selflessly work to ensure

the safety of others. These exemplary citizens are what community spirit is all

about. I would like members of the House to give a huge thanks to all those men

and women who put their own safety aside to help people when they need it most

while on the waters of our coast.

QUINTIN AND ELIZABETH ROBERTSON

C. Wyse: During introductions today the House welcomed

Irene and Caroline Robertson. As I mentioned, they are daughters of Quint and

Liz Robertson, who died recently in Victoria.

While the Robertsons moved to Victoria a few years ago, they lived

in Williams Lake for almost 40 years. Sadly, they passed away recently, within

ten months of

[ Page 12598 ]

each other. Their passing leaves a hole in the lives of their family, their

friends and in many communities throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The Robertsons were a fine example of lives lived well. Their

commitment and contribution to their community was remarkable. Both longtime

teachers, they also served at different times as presidents of the local

teachers association and as councillors for the city of Williams Lake and were

life members of the Williams Lake Stampede Association. Quint also served two

terms as trustee on the local school board.

Elizabeth established the first native Indian teacher education

program through UBC, was a founding member of the Cariboo Friendship centre, the

Station House Art Gallery and the Williams Lake Museum and Historical Society.

She also served on the National Parole Board, as a director of the Social Policy

and Research Council of B.C. and as a returning officer for federal elections.

She was recognized as Williams Lake Citizen of the Year in 1991 and received

both the Canada 125 Medal and the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

Like Elizabeth, Quint was an involved and reliable volunteer in

the community. In addition to his terms as city councillor and school trustee,

he served as president of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 139 in Williams Lake.

Quint often visited schools on Remembrance Day to share his World War II naval

experience with district students. He delivered meals to seniors and shut-ins

and offered his help in many community organizations.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing this wonderful couple,

who demonstrated such a strong commitment to their community. They will be

missed.

ABBOTSFORD REGIONAL

HOSPITAL AND CANCER CENTRE

R. Hawes: Last Friday a ceremony marked 100 days until the

new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre will open. It will be the

first acute care hospital in British Columbia built from the ground up and fully

integrated with a cancer centre, and what a remarkable facility it is.

Rooms are all orientated to views of Mount Baker, rooftop gardens

run into beautifully landscaped courtyards, and all have very large windows to

allow in maximum natural light. There are no rooms with more than two beds. The

new acute care hospital expands OR capacity, maternity, ICU, pediatrics and

psychiatric beds.

There are new services including geriatric beds, a cardiac care

unit, oncology beds and a new dialysis unit. The cancer centre will house 12

chemotherapy chairs, four linear accelerators for radiation therapy as well as

pain management and palliative care. Included with two new CT scanners will be

the Fraser Valley's first MRI scanner.

Already the hospital is attracting new physicians from across

Canada and internationally. It's attracted much other attention as well. The

building is built to the greenest standards, and certification under the LEED

program is being sought.

The $330 million project was built as a P3 with Access Health

Abbotsford and was on time and within budget. It was named the top P3 of North

America by the prestigious Project Finance magazine in 2005.

Fraser Valley residents have waited patiently for over 20 years

and through numerous false sod turnings and announcements for this new facility.

On August 24 of this year the hospital will see its first patients transferred

from the old MSA Hospital.

[1355]

On a personal note, my daughter-in-law Nikki is expecting a little

sister for Dylan, Hayden, Nick and Benny, and her doctor projects August 24 as

her due date. That would be my ninth grandchild and would make opening day extra

special.

ESQUIMALT NAVAL

AND MILITARY MUSEUM

M. Karagianis: My community of Esquimalt has a long and

proud naval and military tradition, and that pride is on display at CFB

Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum. Located in 19th century buildings at Naden

on Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, this museum informs and educates with

displays and exhibits telling the remarkable story of Canada's naval presence on

the west coast right from 1848, when Esquimalt Harbour began to be used as an

anchorage.

The museum is part of a national historical district and traces

the ups and downs of the Canadian navy with a series of exhibits from the navy's

formation in 1910 through the turbulence of two world wars, the conflict in

Korea and beyond.

It tells the story of the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service and

the challenges of defending Canada's west coast. The museum represents the proud

heritage of the Canadian Women's Army Corps, which had its beginnings at the

Esquimalt base in 1941. Nearly 22,000 women served in the Canadian Women's Army

Corps in the Second World War, paving the way for future generations of Canadian

servicewomen and bringing the issues about equality to the forefront.

As well as exhibits and displays, CFB Esquimalt Naval and Military

Museum houses an expanding archive and library that includes thousands of

photographs, documents, histories of Canadian naval vessels, navigational

charts, biographies of important leaders in the Royal Canadian Navy and much,

much more.

The museum has grown in size and scope thanks to the tireless and

dedicated efforts of its staff and volunteers. I hope the members here will join

me in acknowledging the importance of their work and thank them for their

contribution in celebrating our proud military and naval history. I sincerely

hope that members will take the advantage to go to the museum and view the

things that they have on display there.

BEHAVIOUR OF MLAs IN THE CHAMBER

D. MacKay: Today I would like to take the two minutes

allotted to me to speak about peace, order and

[ Page 12599 ]

good government. That's what this place is all about. All of us in here were

elected by our constituents for a period of time for that sole purpose.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that there are times in this

chamber when this is not happening. There are times when the behaviour of the

members makes your job very difficult. The behaviour would not be tolerated in

classrooms in our school system today. However, it does happen here in spite of

your attempts to control elected members. At times it sounds like dogs who bark

just for the sake of barking in spite of the repeated attempts by the owners to

get the dogs to be quiet.

I received the following suggestion from a constituent, and I

support this. In the case of the dog, the owner does have an electronic device

that can be used to train dogs not to bark. I refer, of course, to the bark

collars that send an electrical shock through the collar when the dog barks.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you could look at a similar

device to control members of this Legislature. All members who enter this

chamber for the debates would be required to wear a similar device. Once

recognized by the Speaker and when the member's speaker light is illuminated on

here, the bark collar or bracelet would be neutralized. If another member tries

to speak or heckle who has not been recognized and his or her light is not on,

they would receive the appropriate electronic shock. This would ensure peace,

order and good government.

Mr. Speaker: Members, just a friendly reminder that cell

phones should be made sure that they're turned off. I'm sure the offending

member will report to their respective Whip right after question period.

The other thing is that last week, leading right off where the

member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine finished off, wasn't something…. I don't think

any of us can be very proud of what took place. Even though we won't have

collars, certainly I think that we all should take heed of the fact that we do

have a lot of school children watching and a lot of school children in the

galleries at times. I think that we should act appropriately for what we were

elected to do.

[1400]

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRIES BOARD REMUNERATION

G. Coons: Earlier this year the Minister of

Transportation's handpicked Ferries board gave themselves a hefty 60 percent pay

raise and a big boost to their stipends, where the minister's own friends got in

on the deal. Under this minister's watch, the B.C. Ferry Services board has

increased from eight to 16 members. Directors' pay has shot up 140 percent from

$20,000 to $48,000, and their stipends have shot up to $1,500 from $1,000.

Looking back at the board minutes, they show that these decisions have happened

over the years in a series of three-, four- and five-minute meetings —

five-minute meetings, hon. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain why his handpicked

board should get $1,500 to meet for five minutes about their own pay while ferry

users are being hit with ever-increasing fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, I think it would be

helpful if the member actually got his information right for once. It's not a

handpicked board by this government, and the member knows that. [Laughter.]

Well, there's apparently laughing on the other side, so they

forget that it's communities that put forward names. It's labour that puts

forward names. Nevertheless, I'll put that aside for a moment.

The fact of the matter is that the member is confused. He's

confusing the work of the B.C. Ferry Authority and the work of the B.C. Ferries

board. Most members of the board serve on both of those boards. They may handle

the information on….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, I'm sorry this is a challenge for the

members opposite. I'll try and walk them through corporate governance, if they'd

like. I'm happy to take a few minutes on that. I realize that there's not a lot

of corporate experience on the other side, so I'll go slow here.

The fact of the matter is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …that the members that sit on the authority

may only have a few minutes' meetings, because they're talking about strategic

direction. Then they move to the ferry corporation board, which oversees all of

the decisions of the board. That takes the better part of a day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Yes, the theme is very evident here. It's another

do-nothing minister who is also very confused about the boards that he has

created.

In February 2004 the B.C. Ferry Authority board met for six

minutes at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Vancouver. Eight of the nine directors were

there. They each got a thousand bucks for those six minutes. That's just one of

the examples, one of the many examples. Now there are even more directors making

thousands more, with even bigger stipends. Taxpayers and ferry users are

shelling out thousands of dollars while fares keep going up. This is a

significant amount of money when communities up and down the coast are hurting.

When will the minister finally get involved and put an end to this

wasteful use of taxpayer money?

[ Page 12600 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and be more helpful and clarify

things for the member, because obviously the member is not understanding what I

said the first time. For the benefit of the member, the reason why they had an

eight-minute meeting is because they were dealing with governance issues, and

there were no governance issues necessary to spend more than eight minutes on.

The member should know that they then immediately move into the

board issues dealing with the ferry corporation board. Those are all of the

issues dealing with the ferry corporation procurement — building new ships,

investing in terminals — as, by the way, they have over the last seven years,

with almost $1 billion in new investment to make up for the total mismanagement

and lack of investment under that NDP government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

G. Coons: I'd like to clarify this for the minister. I

would assume that the governance committee would look after the governance

issues that he was referring to, and not the board of directors.

[1405]

So let's review. Under this minister, the number of directors on

B.C. Ferry Services has increased 100 percent. The stipend for meetings has

increased 50 percent. Their salaries have shot up 140 percent — and thousands

and thousands of dollars for meetings like the one at the Kingfisher Oceanside

Resort and Spa. That meeting at this oceanside resort and spa was four minutes

long. The only thing on the agenda was setting the date for the annual general

meeting.

Can the minister please explain when huge raises and cushy

appointments for his friends become more important than affordable fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think the member has to think about

this for a second. I mean, does the member really believe that they went to the

Kingfisher and had a four-minute meeting? Even in the member's bizarre world,

does that actually make any sense to the member? Of course that's not the case,

Member.

Their meetings generally take the better part of a day. The fact

of the matter is that there are two issues they deal with — those regarding the

Ferry Authority and those regarding the actual board itself and oversight of the

ferry corporation. I know that's difficult for the member to understand, but

that's just the way it is.

What is really important here is to recognize something, and that

is that, sadly, we had a ferry corporation we inherited where the average age of

the vessels was 42 years old. There had been so much political mismanagement

that the ferry corporation was essentially bankrupt when we took it over in

Today they've got a $2.5 billion capital program underway. All the

vessels are being replaced. All of the terminals have been extensively upgraded.

We've got labour peace, and we've got a ferry corporation that the public can

finally have reliable service with in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: The meeting started at 10:31 p.m.; it ended

at 10:35 p.m. — four minutes. Admittedly, it's at night, so maybe that's worth

more for a meeting. But four minutes and $1,500 — that's $375 a minute for this

meeting. They meet for four minutes, they approve their own wages, and they get

1,500 bucks. Let's hope that the TransLink board doesn't hear about this one, or

they're going to be wanting to jack up their rates.

My question is to the minister. Does the Minister of

Transportation really think his friends are worth $375 a minute while B.C. ferry

users are being slammed over and over again with higher ferry fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and explain this to the member

once again. She's not getting it, apparently. The member, again, thinks that…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. K. Falcon: …the board members met for five minutes,

and that was all they did. That's incorrect, actually. The member shouldn't

mislead the House or the public of B.C. by suggesting that.

The fact of the matter is that these board members that serve on

the authority board — listen, Member, you might learn something — also serve on

the ferry corporation board. There are two boards — okay? They have a meeting of

the authority board that may take only four or five minutes, because it deals

with governance issues. If they don't have issues of governance to deal with,

the meeting ends.

They then move on to the other meeting business, which is the

ferry corporation itself, which often takes most of the better part of the day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: They do not receive a per diem for serving

on each board. They get a per diem for the same work they do on both boards. For

the member to try and suggest that there's $1,500 for five minutes of work is

simply factually wrong. I'm saying it to her in this House as clearly as I can

possibly explain.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am on

record and the government is on record as saying that the recent increases that

were passed and approved by an independent report, I thought, were

[ Page 12601 ]

too generous, and I felt that the board should review them. I'm still of the

same opinion.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's presume just for a moment that we

accept the minister's explanation that at 10:35 p.m., after their four-minute

meeting, the board went on to have another extended meeting. So let's just

presume we accept that.

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: Maybe until midnight — who knows. It will be

interesting to see what the cost was for that.

Hon. Speaker, this past February the board met for 20 minutes by

phone — not even in person, didn't go anywhere, met by phone. For that, they got

$750 each for their phone meeting. Again, let's hope that TransLink doesn't hear

about this, or we're going to see those costs go sky-high for them, because they

don't get $750 every time they make a phone call.

My question to the minister is: does he think that this is an

appropriate expenditure of money — this gross waste of meeting money — when

taxpayers in this province are paying that and ferry users are being slammed

every single day with higher fares? Does he think that this is an appropriate

expenditure of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, a little bit of a history lesson to

the NDP, and I know they don't like history lessons. But there was a reason why

there were recommendations, including from a former Auditor General and others,

that suggested we make the B.C. Ferries board independent of government. The

reason they wanted it independent of government is because, under the NDP, for

ten years they interfered with the corporation to such an extent that the

corporation was effectively bankrupted with over a billion dollars' worth of

debt and an average fleet age of 42 years old. It was a disaster.

What has been done is to set up an independent structure,

independent of government — not handpicked by government; independent of

government — with names that are put forward by communities and by labour to

form a board that acts in the best interests not of government, not of the NDP,

but of the 20 million trips a year and the passengers that use that system.

In terms of the amounts that they pay themselves, I've been on the

record as saying that I thought the increase they put through was inappropriate.

I thought it was wrong. I thought they should review it, but we do not and will

not be interfering with the day-to-day oversight of B.C. Ferries.

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

R. Fleming: When confronted with cancelled courses and

programs and faculty layoffs across B.C., the Minister of Advanced Education has

taken a hands-off approach — a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach. Total

denial.

When the opposition and the media exposed the potential loss of

the deaf studies program at Vancouver Community College last week, the minister

smelled political embarrassment. But instead of reversing his decision on

funding, he's now making up policy as he goes on what cuts are acceptable.

Here's the problem. With no new funding, saving programs for

disabled learners means more cuts to other trades and academic programs. Will

the minister just return the funding that he guaranteed up until two months ago

and ensure that thousands of student spaces and programs aren't cut next year?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member knows that my budget

increased by $68 million this year and that actually thousands of new spaces

will be created this year. I felt that programs that affect people with

disabilities should be continued in the colleges in the province, and I hope the

member agrees with me.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: It's not the cuts to his budget; it's the cuts

that students in British Columbia are going to feel next year because he failed

to defend it. He failed to defend it in cabinet and Treasury Board. What upsets

college and university leaders most about this $50 million cut from the B.C.

Liberals is the timing — two weeks before the beginning of the new fiscal year.

Stable and secure funding — out the window.

It's now late May. Institutions across B.C. are facing deficits.

Boards are cutting programs. At Vancouver community colleges there may be a

thousand fewer student spaces this September. This minister hasn't even sent

letters of expectation yet to institutions like the College of New Caledonia,

but apparently they're supposed to follow his contradictory direction through

the press.

[1415]

Again to the minister: when will you put back the money you

guaranteed to our institutions so programs are protected and young people's

opportunities aren't sacrificed?

Hon. M. Coell: Every institution in this province got an

increase in their budget this year, for a total increase of $68 million. But

over the last seven years, every year they've had an increase in their budget,

and my budget has been increased by 40 percent for post-secondary education.

Only the NDP think that a $68 million increase is a cut.

B. Simpson: The College of New Caledonia has yet to get its

letter of expectation from this minister. Yet the minister had the time to send

an e-mail to CBC in Prince George, outlining his expectations for that college.

In that e-mail he stated that the college will not be allowed to cut the

programs for adults with disabilities, that they will not be given additional

resources to

[ Page 12602 ]

restore it and that they still have to operate within a balanced budget. The

only thing the minister did not state in his expectations to CBC was what

programs the college will have to cut in order to restore the programs for

adults with disabilities.

So my question to the minister is this. Since you're so directive

— through CBC — to the College of New Caledonia, what programs will they have to

cut to restore the programs you're directing them to restore?

Hon. M. Coell: College of New Caledonia's budget has gone

up by a million dollars this year. Now, I think it's important that when

programs for people with disabilities or programs that affect people with

disabilities are threatened, we would step in and say no. I hope you agree with

me.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister knows that this side agrees with

him on that specific issue. He knows that. In estimates debate he was asked that

question specifically about these programs, because the issue is that they are

very expensive programs to run. The minister admitted that they are very

expensive programs, that they're not cost recovery programs, and that the issue

of those programs becoming susceptible to the budget shortfalls because of this

minister's mismanagement of that file is that they cannot cost-recover these

programs.

The minister can fix it. He can fix it today. All he has to do is

commit to one thing. Will the minister fully fund the programs for adults with

disabilities so the colleges will restore those programs year after year? Will

you fully fund them?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the college's budget goes up by a

million dollars this year. That's part of the $68 million increase. That's part

of the 40 percent increase over the lifetime of our government. The college will

be able to fund those programs, and they'll have to make decisions about other

programs in the weeks ahead.

AVAILABILITY OF BEDS AT

VERNON JUBILEE HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Hallway medicine has become a daily reality across

British Columbia under this government's policies. My question is to the

Minister of Health. Nowhere is this the case more than in Vernon. From January 1

of this year, the first four months of this year, there were 41 code purples

called at that hospital — 41 calls to rapidly discharge patients because the

overcrowding of the ER was at a dangerous point.

The minister knows that they need more acute care beds in Vernon,

and he seems determined not to provide them. When is he going to do something

about the emergency room and acute care bed crisis in Vernon?

[1420]

Hon. G. Abbott: What has become a daily occurrence is an

opposition desperate for headlines, so desperate that they call their own code

oranges now. That's quite an amazing thing — to call their own code orange. In

fact, what we saw when we looked into it was that it was actually code

red-in-the-face. That's what the NDP were calling. As far as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know why I seem to trigger bad

behaviour on the part of the opposition. I don't understand that, frankly.

Vernon Jubilee Hospital is going to be the recipient of close to

$100 million in capital investment in the years ahead for a new ambulatory

tower, for additional acute care beds, for improvements to the emergency

department — all of that investment long overdue. The opposition promises. Our

government delivers.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Here's what the minister delivered. Fifteen code

purples were called in a three-week period from March 27 to April 16 — 15 code

purples in 21 days. There's a record to be proud of — 15 calls in 21 days. How

on earth are doctors, nurses and patients expected to have faith in this

government when that's going on? Doctors in Vernon have been calling the

minister to account for months, and he is ignoring what they have to say. They

note that that hospital operates, on average, at 110 percent capacity.

When can this community get a response from the Minister of Health

or the Minister of Children and Families to the serious acute care bed problem

they're suffering and the emergency room crisis they're facing every single day?

Hon. G. Abbott: Often when people ask me how things work in

this Legislature, I explain to them the political division of labour that occurs

here. The NDP delivers empty promises. Our government delivers.

Just last Friday….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know why they bring up this kind of

behaviour. I really don't.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just last Friday I was at the new

Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre — as the member noted, a $355

million investment in the eastern Fraser Valley. For ten long years we heard

empty promises from the NDP. Our government has delivered.

When it comes to Vernon Jubilee Hospital, they did nothing for ten

years. We are going to deliver a new

[ Page 12603 ]

ambulatory tower, new acute care beds — close to a $100 million investment in

Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

COWICHAN VALLEY SCHOOLS

AND CHILD CARE SPACES

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Education. She

will know that on February 1, the Cowichan school district started a process to

close four schools. Four months have gone by, and in that time she has received

a report from her special adviser speaking to the need for those four schools.

But more importantly, today parents are not just looking for spaces for their

children to go to school; they're looking for spaces for child care. With the

closure of those four schools, 260 spaces will be lost.

It's a very simple question to the Minister of Education. Will she

stand in this place today and assure that those spaces will remain for child

care in September?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite is correct. In

fact, this government did respond. We sent a special adviser to do work in the

Cowichan school district, because we in fact expressed concerns, as well, about

schools that are important — schools that parents were very concerned about. The

member opposite knows that I had met with a number of parent groups about the

Cowichan school district.

[1425]

The report has been received. We will be presenting that report to

the board of education. The recommendations are significant. They certainly

point to some significant concerns for me as Minister of Education, but that

report will be passed on to the board of education for their review and then

made public.

J. Horgan: I know the parents in the Cowichan Valley will

be waiting anxiously for Monday night with respect to the school spaces, but

this is a particular question about child care. It's a crisis in the valley.

There are not enough spaces. If these schools go down, 240 child care spaces at

a minimum — up to 260 — will be lost. Can the minister confirm that the report

that will be issued by the board from the special adviser will include those

child care spaces?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure the member opposite would want,

first of all, to allow the board of education to see the report that's been

prepared. It will be made public as quickly as possible after that. We had an

excellent special adviser that did the work and looked at the issue of school

use. One of the important considerations was the capital plan or lack thereof in

this particular school district. All of those issues have been considered. There

are a series of recommendations. The board will see the report, and it will be

made public.

D. Routley: As a former trustee I can tell the minister

that there is a capital plan that keeps coming up every year, and that is to

close more of our neighbourhood schools due to funding shortages brought on by

that minister. She is imposing growing deficits in our community.

We are seeing real people, real families, real children losing

their child care spaces, real workers who can't take jobs because of it, and

real businesses who suffer. Schools in our district are at capacity if you

consider school-age children and child care spaces. The minister said she'll

find spaces for those displaced students, but there's no such help for the

parents who will lose their child care space.

This minister should stop spewing out numbers and face the real

truth. Families are suffering by her policies. Will she finally coordinate her

efforts with the Minister of State for Childcare and ensure that those spaces

remain open for the people of the Cowichan Valley and their children?

Hon. S. Bond: We recognize the concerns that parents in the

Cowichan school district have expressed. The member opposite knows full well

that a very, very capable special adviser was placed to do an incredibly good

job of looking at all of the issues, which includes the necessity for child care

spaces.

But one thing we are going to do on this side of the House is talk

about numbers. We're going to talk about the fact that the Cowichan school

district received a funding increase of $3.7 million since 2001-2002 at a time

when they have lost almost 1,400 students. We've put record levels of funding

into public education, and we're going to continue to do that on this side of

the House.

CHILD CARE SPACES IN B.C.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about numbers, but I think

we are talking about real people here. We're talking about an operating room

nurse who will lose child care. We're talking about people who are invested in

the community. We're talking about a mom who wants to go back to school, who

won't be able to go back to school because of the loss of child care spaces.

This isn't just an issue of the Cowichan Valley; it is an issue of

the whole province. Everywhere people are scrambling. In the Minister of State

for Childcare's own riding there are 80 people who turned up for an open house

trying to find a child care space and basically begging providers for space.

My question is for the Minister of State for Childcare. There is a

big problem in this province with child care. There is a crisis. When will she

recognize that, and when will she actually do something about it — not just talk

about new spaces being created but create real spaces for real parents who have

real problems getting child care?

[1430]

Hon. L. Reid: So $300 million of investment, and I'm happy

to say that I've just canvassed these issues with the critic not so long ago, so

she knows of what she speaks in terms of attempting not, frankly, to be

straightforward with the public in the province of British Columbia. She knows…

[ Page 12604 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: …that she hasn't been straightforward, and

she knows, quite honestly, that 2,200 spaces have been created and that,

frankly, our goal was 2,000 spaces. We have exceeded by 200 spaces the number of

child care spaces created in British Columbia.

Dollars have gone out for subsidy. Dollars have gone out for child

care operating funding. Dollars have been put in place for recruitment and

retention of staff. Everything that the sector has asked for has been delivered,

and indeed, that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, partway through your statement you used the word

"straightforward," referring to the member from the other side. Would you

withdraw that statement, please.

Hon. L. Reid: If I offended, I withdraw.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage

debate on Bill 14, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment

Act, 2008, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of

members, continued debates on the Ministry of Health.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

(PORT MANN TWINNING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

section 1.

M. Karagianis: I do have some questions here with regard to

section 1. The explanatory note here says that this

section amends the

definitions of "agent," "concessionaire," "concession agreement," "due date,"

"excessive toll debt," "toll debt" and "vehicle," and adds

definitions of

"corporation" and "payment mechanism."

We are familiar in this House with the role of Crown corporations

that preserve and manage resources for British Columbia taxpayers, but I would

ask why it is required that we now have incorporated a specific definition here

that talks about the corporation as being pertinent and meaning the

Transportation Investment Corporation.

Can the minister explain why we are creating this new Crown

corporation in this bill, which has been titled Transportation Investment — and

then, in brackets, "Port Mann Twinning" — Amendment Act? Certainly, the primary

explanatory note here makes no reference to the Port Mann Twinning whatsoever,

but can the minister explain to me what the rationale is for creating this new

Crown corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated during my first and second

reading discussion of this bill, the reason we set it up is very much aligned

with why tolling authorities were set up under W.A.C. Bennett in the '50s and

why they are a standard feature across North America. That is, what you want to

do whenever you have any kind of toll authority or tolling revenue is you want

to have, for transparency purposes, the ability to show separately all the

revenues, expenses and debt associated with that particular tolling authority.

The manner in which we believe that that can be appropriately

carried out for the benefit of the public is by setting up a Crown corporation,

a specific special purpose entity whose only purpose is to actually do exactly

that — to collect the revenues, report out on the revenues, expenses, the

authority, and to enter into a concession agreement with the private sector

partner that will be responsible for building, delivering and maintaining the

actual infrastructure.

M. Karagianis: Why could these duties, as the minister has

outlined, not be carried out by ministry staff?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because then all the revenues,

expenses, etc., would all be rolled up into the overall government accounts.

That means that there would be no separate accounts for the public or any

interested members of the media or whoever to look at, and there would be no

separate auditing process, etc.

It is the position of this government, for the purposes of clarity

and transparency, that a special purpose entity, which is this new

Transportation Investment Corporation, be created so that all of those issues

can be shown separately, and all of them can be independently audited for the

benefit of the public.

[1440]

M. Karagianis: I think that there's a bit of a disconnect

here. The minister has talked about this Crown corporation as being set up

specifically to manage the tolling revenues and to manage the concession

agreements, and we'll get into that a little bit further in the bill here. Now

the minister is saying that this corporation is being created so that the tolls

would not go directly into government.

My understanding is that tolls in this case will go to the

concessionaire. Why do we need a Crown corporation to manage tolls if, in fact,

they're going to the concessionaire?

[ Page 12605 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Under GAAP principles, the toll revenue

will be recorded as revenue to the Crown corporation, and then it will be paid

to the concessionaire. So the idea is that by doing it this way, there is very

clear transparency in terms of what the revenue streams are to the Crown

corporation, which are then subsequently paid to the concessionaire. But it

provides that clarity and that transparency that we think are important in

moving forward with a major toll project like this in the province of British

Columbia — similar, of course, to exactly how they were done in the past under

previous governments.

M. Karagianis: Are there no bodies within the Ministry of

Transportation that could handle this, that would be responsible for taking the

tolls and paying them to the concessionaire? Is that not already in existence

elsewhere in the ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: If we wanted, I imagine we could run it

through the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. But of course, that would

then mix in and roll up all these dollars with all of the highway systems

expenditures that are going on in the province, and that doesn't lend itself

very well to the whole principle of transparency that we're talking about.

We think that for the purposes of that transparency it is

important that there be a special purpose corporation that's put into place that

will show all of the revenues that are coming in as a result of the toll

revenues and then show the payouts to the concessionaire openly, plainly, not

mingled or commingled with other dollars or projects, so that it will be very

easily identified by anyone in the public or the Legislature.

M. Karagianis: Will this new corporation, then, be

responsible for all tolls within the province of British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is a special purpose entity, which is

the term we used. It theoretically could be used for new toll projects. That

would certainly be within the realm of possibility. But for the purposes of Bill

14, the primary purpose, of course, is for the Port Mann Bridge project.

[1445]

B. Ralston: I'm having some difficulty in following the

minister's argument. In Bill 14, in the amendment in

part 4.1, "Transportation

Investment Corporation,"

section 24.2, which sets out the purposes of the

corporation…. This is the entity that's being talked about. I'm reading: "The

purposes of the corporation are to engage in and conduct businesses related to

delivering, managing, operating, tolling or funding transportation projects,

including projects described in a concession agreement."

So it's clear, and drawing corporate objects is particularly

important when setting up a company, although I think corporate law has probably

evolved in a way that they don't bind the corporation to certain kinds of

actions. But nonetheless, in the legislation that's proposed, the objects of the

corporation are far more sweeping than the minister is saying here.

So is the minister saying that this is the first of many projects?

Because when the minister says "theoretically," I don't think that accords with

what's set out here in the amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said in my previous answer, Member,

that's exactly right. The way in which this has been written is to allow us to,

in theory, add new potential toll projects. If the government of the day should

determine that there is a need for a new toll project, then this special purpose

entity could be utilized for that new tolling project.

B. Ralston: Well, it's more than a question of discretion.

Does it not bind the government to use this entity in the case of any future

toll project?

Hon. K. Falcon: No.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, explain what the

purpose of the legislation is in the sense that it appears to confer on the

ministry or the minister a discretion to assign projects to this entity or not?

Now, the minister has made a claim of transparency and

accountability. Why would that criterion, if it's to be accepted, not apply to

any future project? Is the minister saying that there may be projects in the

future that the minister would deem not requiring of transparency and

accountability, and therefore not to be placed inside this corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Look, Member, all we're trying to do

when we put together this bill is make sure that we allow government to keep its

options open in the future. What this does is recognize that…. The government

hasn't entered into tolling projects for well over 20 years. The only other

project would be the Coquihalla, which has its own legislation, as the member

would be aware.

So here we are in the year 2008 talking about a major toll

project. As we looked at how we would put this toll project into place, one of

the things we wanted to do was make sure we do it in a manner that clearly

separates and defines the revenues that are going to be generated as a result of

the project, the expenses and the debt associated with the project, in one Crown

corporation, with all that information clearly available and visible to anyone

who's interested.

We did not choose to commingle that with existing Crowns in the

province, though one could argue that may be to our benefit if one is not a

strong adherent to transparency. You could obviously think of ways of doing that

that would make it difficult. That wasn't the approach we took. We wanted to

make sure that all of this information was very clear.

[1450]

Of course, when you do that and you introduce a bill like this, a

special purpose entity that will be dealing with the twinning of the Port Mann

Bridge — the Port Mann, of course, being the toll project we're

[ Page 12606 ]

referring to here…. We also structured it and wrote it in such a way as to

allow the possibility in the future that should a government of the day decide

that they've got a project that is a candidate for being a toll project similar

to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, they could avail themselves of this

piece of legislation that would have the kinds of provisions in it that would

allow for those kind of future projects, should they choose.

B. Ralston: In the original legislation, the Transportation

Investment Act,

part 2, "Public-Private Partnerships for Highways," gives the

government the power to enter into agreements. Is the minister saying, then,

that in the future the options with these two sets of legislation now, Bill 14

and the original act, both streams…? It would be open to the government to

decide that…. Notwithstanding some of the discussion about transparency here, it

would be possible for the government simply to enter into an agreement in the

way that it is contemplated in the present legislation in

part 2,

"Public-Private Partnerships for Highways."

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. Under the current

Transportation Investment Act there would be nothing that would limit government

from entering into a concession agreement with any private sector concern. The

only issue, of course, would be that it would not allow for the separate

accounting of the revenue, the expenses and the debt. We feel, just as most

jurisdictions across North America feel, that the reason you set up a tolling

authority, or in this case a Crown corporation or special purpose entity, is so

that you will have all of that information separately held and separately

reported and audited.

It's the position of this government that that is the most

transparent way to move forward on tolling projects, initially of course, with

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge being the first toll project, but with the

potential for a future government, should they choose, to add additional tolling

projects.

B. Ralston: I wonder if the minister could help me

understand the concession agreement. Sometimes when these kinds of agreements

are discussed, the government is reluctant or refuses to disclose aspects of the

agreement because it's viewed as proprietary commercial information. Is the

minister saying that whether it's in the present Transportation Investment Act

under "Public-Private Partnerships for Highways,"

section 2, or in this

amendment under Bill 14, which would put that project into a separate

corporation…?

[1455]

Is he saying that the transparency that he's speaking of is that

the concession agreement in all its details will be disclosed publicly?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know — I'm sure the

member does — that all concession agreements are made public. The concession

agreements are made public, of course, in accordance with the law. The law that

I speak of, of course, is the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, which

governs these kinds of things. So all of the concession agreements will be made

public in accordance, of course, with the conditions and terms that are laid out

in the legislation governing the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

B. Ralston: Well, I think that's an important qualification

because of the manner in which the minister was speaking. If it is limited by

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, will the minister

agree that the substantive commercial details of the concession agreement will

not be made public according to the law as it sits now? He particularly

references the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: Typically, in previous concession

agreements…. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows for

extensive public review of virtually all parts of concession agreements, but it

does protect those that may have an impact on the commercial interests of the

respective corporations. So there is an allowance there under the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act to protect that for obvious reasons,

but we will be operating in this as we have on every other concession agreement

entered into by government. It will all be done in accordance with the law and

in accordance with the FOIPPA legislation.

B. Ralston: Would the minister agree that the creation of a

Crown corporation isn't necessary, then, for that kind of disclosure?

Hon. K. Falcon: It really goes back to the issue that I

talked about early on. The reason why we set up and were setting up a toll

authority, or a Transportation Investment Corporation, is to ensure that those

issues of the revenue expenses and debt are separately reported out on. If

they're not, then you have a challenge — certainly, a challenge for the public

in trying to figure out what revenues are being generated as a result of the

toll, what expenses are associated with that, what debt levels are, etc.

It is the position of this government — and I think rightly, based

on the experience across North America — that a separate authority is the best

way to move forward in that regard with respect to those issues of

accountability and transparency.

B. Ralston: The minister says that in order to have a

disclosure of the finances of the entity, it's necessary to put the tolling

revenue into a corporation. How does the privacy — if I can put it that way, in

quotation marks — afforded to commercial interests conflict with that goal? It

seems to me that if there is a substantial privacy interest related to the

commercial interests of the corporation, the kind of disclosure that one will

get will be minimal.

[1500]

Let's suppose, for example, that the government has contemplated

engaging not merely this project as a

[ Page 12607 ]

toll project but other projects as toll projects or, as is happening in the

United States, creating sections of highway as toll highways.

Surely the financial arrangements between the government and the

concessionaire would be commercial information. So the future negotiations with

those prospective concessionaires might be compromised if that knowledge became

known — or not. I suppose one could have a different view on that.

Is the minister saying that this particular entity will disclose

its finances transparently and not hide behind the commercial interest provision

of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Crown corporation will be bound by the

legislation, as all Crowns are. The legislation, the Freedom of Information and

Privacy Act, will provide, of course, as a Crown corporation does…. As I said

earlier, all of the revenues, all of the expenses and all of the debt associated

with the Transportation Investment Corporation will be made public. It will have

audited financial statements that will be there for the benefit of the public.

As I say, when we talked about the Freedom of Information and

Privacy Act, it typically takes a very narrow view of information that cannot be

made public, as the member would know. Typically, that is commercially sensitive

information that could impair a company's ability to do business in the future.

B. Ralston: Given that the concession would be held by the

Crown corporation, would it be open to the corporation — in the very broad

powers that it's given later in the amendments — to sell the rights to the

concession to someone else?

[1505]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just reminding the member that we're

dealing here with

definitions. But for the purpose of the member's question, the

short answer is no. The Crown corporation could not sell the rights to someone

else. They would have to enter into a new concession agreement, which would have

to of course be approved by cabinet.

So the short answer is no. Again, the member is probably getting

pretty far into the bill, and I think we're still trying to deal with the issue

here of

definitions.

B. Ralston: Well, the very essence of the bill and what

section 1 purports to do is create a corporation. So in

section 24.23, it sets

out very broad powers under the

section "Capacity and powers," including "(

a) acquire, construct, hold or improve transportation infrastructure or cause it to

be acquired, constructed, held or improved; (

b) acquire, hold or dispose of

land… (

c) with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money…enter into

other agreements…."

So is the minister saying that there is a restriction placed on

the powers of the corporation that would forbid it from selling the rights to a

concession? And if so, could he direct me to the

section in the amendments that

restricts that power?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member quotes

section 24.23, and the

member will know that in the first sentence it says "subject to this act." Now,

if the member flips to

section 2 of the bill, he will see that under 1.1 it

says: "The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in

Council, enter into one or more agreements with the corporation or any other

person under which the minister agrees, on behalf of the government, to the

terms on which the corporation may enter into one or more agreements under

which…."

So it refers to the act, and the act is specific that it requires

that cabinet approval I referred to earlier.

M. Karagianis: So the minister is saying here that the

purpose in creating this Crown corporation is ostensibly around creating a

separate reporting process. But I don't understand what in the present act

precludes that same process from being used. What is it about the present act

that needs to be amended in order to create this new reporting process?

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess to respond again to…. I answered

this question earlier, to the other member. We could, under the existing

Transportation Investment Act, enter into any agreement with any concessionaire

to operate any kind of toll situation. The reason why we are not doing it in

that manner is that all of the revenues and expenses would be commingled with

government accounts, and it would make it pretty much impossible for anyone in

the public to try and ascertain which revenues are actually generated from the

toll revenues.

The point of setting up a special purpose corporation like this is

so that we will have, as is done across North America and as was done by

previous governments, particularly W.A.C. Bennett, who undertook most of the

major infrastructure construction in this province through toll authorities….

The advantage of them is fairly straightforward. It just provides a very clear

picture of what all the revenues, expenses and debt are associated with that

particular toll project.

That's why we're choosing to do it. It makes sense doing it this

way. The bill is written and structured in such a way as to allow future toll

projects, should that be something a future government decides, to have the

option of utilizing the existing structure under this bill to also look at

projects to be utilized through this legislation.

M. Karagianis: The minister has said that this clearly is a

government choice to create this Crown corporation. But with regard to the

reporting-out process, I canvassed the minister with regard to other privatized

concession agreements that are going on in the province right now. The minister

was quite capable of reporting out all aspects of that, including moneys that

had been contributed to the projects by the private partner. Can he please

explain why this process is in any way different?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because the previous concession

agreements we've entered into have not had

[ Page 12608 ]

a specific toll attached to them. So we have arranged those prior concession

agreements, if I could refer to them as that, as performance payments that are

made, based on issues of safety and lane availability, etc., — issues that we've

canvassed fairly extensively in estimates.

In this case, we have toll revenue. One of the things I've been

very clear about from the very beginning is that that toll revenue is to go

towards paying for the cost of the infrastructure. When that infrastructure is

completed, then there is an opportunity for the future government to now

publicly have to acknowledge that the asset has been paid off and that it is

time to remove the toll.

Should the government not decide to do that, then it will have to

do that very publicly, because it will be very clear as part of the Crown

corporation accounts, which are separately audited, exactly what the revenues,

expenses and debt are that are associated with the project.

It is a vehicle for making sure that we have that kind of

transparency and that we do not commingle it with existing government finances.

M. Karagianis: So the government is choosing to create this

body, this Crown corporation, specifically because of the tolls. But the

minister has said that the tolls are going directly to government and then being

channelled back to the concessionaire. In what way is that different from

performance payments?

[1515]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to correct the member there, the tolls

go directly to the Crown corporation, and the Crown corporation in turn pays

them directly to the concessionaire. That is, again, for the purpose of

transparency. I would think that the member opposite would understand the

importance of having a very transparent situation when a government is going to

enter into a toll situation.

That's why governments in the past in British Columbia and why

today across North America you will see toll authorities like this being set

up…. They're being set up not because people love governments and love setting

up authorities. It's because you provide a very clear, very separate, very

transparent set of accounts that govern the revenue, the expenses and the debt

associated with the particular project. They are independently financially

audited so that every year those audited financial statements are made available

for the benefit of the public.

I can't understand what part of that would offend the members

opposite. It strikes me that this is common practice across North America, and

it makes sense. It's transparent. If the member is suggesting to me that we

should in fact commingle this with existing government finances and therefore

hide the revenues, expenses and debt, and make it difficult for the public to

find, then the member should say so. Then I would have clarity about the point

the member is trying to make.

M. Karagianis: I'm not entirely sure why the minister is

not prepared to answer questions on this or why he feels that these questions in

some way are indicating an opinion one way or the other on this. I'm simply

trying to establish why the government is creating a Crown corporation and what

its purposes are.

I hear from the minister that the Crown corporation is being

created as a tolling authority, not as a construction body per se. Is that

correct? Is that what the minister said — that this Crown corporation is a

tolling authority entity that's being created?

Hon. K. Falcon: What it does, Member, is provide the Crown

corporation the ability to oversee the concession agreement. The concession

agreement is the agreement entered into with a successful bidding group that

will be responsible for building certain infrastructure, maintaining that

infrastructure and tolling to pay in part for that infrastructure. So the Crown

corporation is responsible for overseeing that concession agreement.

The Crown corporation, as part of its responsibilities, will also

receive and report out on all the revenues, expenses and debt associated with

the project.

M. Karagianis: So the Crown corporation is being created

for two purposes: one, to oversee private concession agreements; and the other,

to be a tolling authority. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Basically, Member, I'm trying to think of

ways of explaining this so that it can be easily understood by the public that's

viewing it. Essentially, you have a concession agreement with a successful

winning bidder from the bid groups that are competing for the project. Under the

concession agreement, they're going to have obligations to build certain

infrastructure, which obviously would include a new bridge, some interchange

improvements, some highway improvements, etc.

[1520]

They will also have the ability to toll, which sets this apart

from other concession agreements we've entered into as government, because there

will be toll revenue associated with this particular project. As a result of

that, it is the view of government that the best model for providing

transparency in reporting out on the revenues and the expenses and the debt that

will be associated with the work that will be undertaken as part of that

concession agreement…. This structure allows for very transparent reporting of

that information.

It not only allows for it to be reported independently but also

allows for it to be audited annually and for those audited financial statements

to be made available to members of the public. I don't know how much more clear

I can be on that point.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister speaks of it being a very

transparent process. Will a member of the public, viewing the financial

information that will be reported under this scheme, be able to calculate the

return on investment of the concessionaire?

Hon. K. Falcon: After the selection of a concessionaire

that results from the bidding process, there is a

[ Page 12609 ]

value-for-money report that is typically issued. The value-for-money reports

will weigh out the projected rates of return that the concessionaires expect to

earn on the project itself. The member will also know that as part of the annual

financial statements, it will show the revenues and expenses associated with the

concessionaire for the work that's being done and the costs involved in that. It

will show the debt-servicing costs, depreciation costs, etc.

M. Karagianis: In fact, what the minister has just outlined

is the very same process that works for all concession agreements. Again, it

sort of begs the question of why the government is choosing this particular

route.

[1525]

The minister has talked about the reporting-out being the very

standard procedure for concessionaire agreements. He and I have canvassed this

extensively in estimates. Clearly, we can see that this is a process that the

minister is choosing to set up but is not a necessity in any way, shape or form.

I know that we'll talk later in the bill about some of the details

here, but if this is ostensibly to set up as a tolling authority to collect the

tolls, it would appear here that the government doesn't set the tolls. So how is

the reporting process going to be conducted if the government doesn't actually

set them? That's set by the concessionaire, so I don't understand how the

concessionaire would give over its authority for the tolls to this Crown

corporation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member would be incorrect in suggesting

that the tolls are set by the concessionaire. The tolls are actually set out in

the concession agreement, and the tolls in the concession agreement are approved

by cabinet, which is government. So that's simply not the case.

Look, I think that the member should be forthright with the fact,

because we've canvassed this kind of stuff extensively in estimates, that the

NDP are opposed to any form of private-public partnership. They've stated that

on the record many, many times, and I've always been puzzled by that. We've seen

in British Columbia over 24 projects representing $8 billion-plus in capital

that have been delivered by a private-public partnership model, and all of them

have been characterized by two things. They've been built on or ahead of

schedule or on or under budget.

I have to say to this House that I am perplexed by the fact that,

after seeing a string of successes like that, there would not be at least some

acknowledgment by the NDP that this may be a slightly better way to undertake

major complex capital projects than their own preferred method, which resulted

in projects going wildly over budget and creating enormous burdens for the

taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

Here we are again. I have been unable to persuade the members

opposite of the fact that this has been a particularly effective way of

delivering large complex projects. It's not the only way, and it's not ideally

suited for every single major project, but it certainly has been one where we

have experienced some really significant successes.

I can point to projects right across the province that the member

knows about, whether it's Kicking Horse Canyon, Sea to Sky Highway or the Canada

line project — all of them public-private partnerships, all of them being

delivered very effectively on or ahead of

schedule and on or under budget.

The bill that we have here and the establishment of this

corporation is being put into place because this is a unique private-public

partnership only to the extent that it will have specific toll revenues

associated with it. Because it will have those specific toll revenues associated

with it, it is the view of this government, in following the practice of many

other jurisdictions not only across North America but around the world, to set

up an authority. The authority in this case will be a Crown corporation, which

will specifically be set up for the purposes of overseeing the concession

agreement.

The government establishes what the toll rate is as part of the

concession agreement, and the concession agreement is then overseen by the Crown

corporation and the Crown corporation board. It provides the additional benefit,

which we think is very important, of making sure that all the revenues, expenses

and debt associated with this specific project are independently being disclosed

in a very transparent way and are independently financially audited.

I think that's a win for the public. I think that makes sense for

the corporation. I think I've explained why this is a different private-public

partnership arrangement than the others we've entered into, because of the fact

that it's got a toll mechanism associated with it as opposed to the others that

don't have specific direct tolls associated with them. That is why the

government is moving forward and setting up the Transportation Investment

Corporation.

B. Ralston: Would the minister agree that this mechanism

that was set up could also be applied to future concession agreements which

would involve existing infrastructure?

[1530]

For example, if a decision was made to toll an existing bridge,

this mechanism of the Transportation Investment Corporation would be suited for

that purpose.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's question was: could this act

that we are currently debating apply to a toll on an existing bridge? The short

answer is — again, in theory — yes, it could.

But the member would know that our tolling policy is very specific

about the fact that there is not to be a toll on existing infrastructure unless

there is significant investment being made in that infrastructure to provide a

very quantifiable benefit for the travelling public and the toll revenues are

going to be used to pay off the costs of those infrastructure investments that

will provide that benefit. That position has not changed.

[ Page 12610 ]

B. Ralston: The minister will be aware, I'm sure, from

advice he receives that in many American states the practice is to take existing

toll highways and, through a sale, give them over to private interests and

receive, obviously, an immediate infusion of cash for the sale — giving to the

concessionaire the right to take the tolls over an extended period of time. I

spoke to that at second reading. I'm glad to hear the minister is confirming

that this legislation gives that possibility to the government, and if there

were to be policy changes in the future, this vehicle would be perfectly suited

for that purpose. I'll leave the minister to comment on that if he chooses.

I have another question, though, about

section 1. When Bill 43 was

introduced…. It is a separate bill, obviously, from Bill 14. It, too, proposed

amendments to

section 1 of the Transportation Investment Act in the

miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, Bill 43. It proposed amendments to

section 1 too.

Can the minister advise why two bills are before the House, both

purporting to amend the same

section of the Transportation Investment Act? I'm

not sure why. Is it a deliberate choice by the drafters? Is it to correct

mistakes that were made in the first one? If so, why wasn't the amendment

process used that's normally used for amending bills before the House, rather

than introducing separate sections in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act?

Hon. K. Falcon: On the last point first, it was just a

timing issue. The bottom line was that staff had not completed consultations

with some of the groups that would be impacted by the amendments that the member

refers to in the other piece of legislation. It's really not any more complex

than that.

In terms of the first point the member made, I just want to

correct the member because he's quite wrongly, actually, twisting or attempting

to twist the words that I said with respect to what this act is eligible to do

regarding existing infrastructure.

I want to be clear on the record. Now, the member may continue to

do that. I don't mind, but I want to be clear on the record. I've gotten used to

the members opposite twisting information around and making it….

Point of Order

B. Ralston: I object to that characterization. I ask the

minister to withdraw that. It's unparliamentary.

The Chair: Would the minister withdraw those remarks,

please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, Chair. I would withdraw the

remarks. The characterizations were inappropriate.

[1535]

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Falcon: What I do wish to say is that the fact of

the matter is…. I want to state for the record and to be very clear for the

member opposite that selling existing infrastructure to private corporations

would be totally inconsistent with the policy of this government.

For the member to suggest otherwise…. I will put him on notice

that that would be completely inconsistent, wrong, false and not true. I don't

think I can be clearer than that, but I've stated it for the record so that the

member now knows that if he was putting forward that information, it would be

entirely inconsistent with everything that I've said in this House.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that concession.

I won't say gracious concession, but for that concession. I agree that it

conforms with the present policy of the government.

I do have further questions then, in the sense that the

explanation offered is that these amendments in Bill 43,

section 127, and in

Bill 14 — both to

section 1 of the Transportation Investment Act — amend very

basic

definitions. The amendment that's proposed in Bill 43 in

section 1 adds a

definition of a classified vehicle and an inspector. I'm at a loss to understand

how the minister can say that there were some mysterious consultations required

in order to include these very basic

definitions in the act.

Can't the minister simply concede that this bill was constructed

in haste, that it contained errors and that the amendments to the amendments are

simply to correct those errors?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member would be incorrect in suggesting

that. The reason why those amendments that refer to the enforcement of tolls are

in Bill 43 is that the discussions that were taking place were with the FOI

commissioner and also discussions with industry at large with respect to the

issue of enforcement of toll payments on out-of-province vehicles. Those

discussions were not concluded, and that's why they found their way into Bill

43, which, as the member will know — and I'm happy to have those — will be

debated, of course, separately in this House.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Karagianis:

Section 2 amends the

section to provide for

the agreements relating to the Transportation Investment Corporation. We've

established that the investment corporation is being created. It is the choice

of government to create it to oversee concession agreements and to act as a

tolling authority, with the understanding that it could engage in other

activities.

Clearly, in

section 2 it talks about the minister's responsibility

over this. I'm particularly interested in the subsections of this:

"The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council, enter into one or more…"

So I infer by the plurality here of agreements, not one, that this

extends beyond the Port Mann project by talking about:

[ Page 12611 ]

"…agreements with the corporation or any other person under which the

minister agrees, on behalf of the government, to the terms on which the

corporation may enter into one or more agreements under which the corporation

agrees to transfer or grant to the person designated in the agreement as the

concessionaire one or more of the following: (

i) interests in, or rights or

obligations relating to, land that is, or is to be, part of a concession

highway; (ii) interests in or rights to buildings, bridges, walls, tunnels,

culverts, wires, pipes…."

[1540]

Now, I will make note that this is the first and only reference to

the word "bridge" anywhere in this bill. I do know it's ostensibly considered to

be the Port Mann twinning, but this is in fact the only reference whatsoever to

a bridge, and it's plural — bridges. It would seem to me that in

section 2 of

this, the Crown corporation…. Its activities are to engage in agreements on

multiple bridges and highway concession projects.

Can the minister explain, especially given the answers he's given

previously, that this Crown corporation is a choice being created for a specific

project? In fact, the language here talks about multiples. Can the minister

explain that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Quite simply, Member, the bill is written,

as I mentioned earlier in response to the member for Surrey-Whalley, in such a

way that we don't close the door to allowing this legislation to be utilized for

a future government that may have additional projects that are the same kind of

tolling arrangements in which — if that was the case — they could utilize this

legislation.

The legislation is drafted in such a way that we don't close the

door on those future opportunities that a government may come across. To me,

that's just good management. It would make no sense to me to have it written in

such a way that you close the door to that and require a future government to

have to come in with yet another piece of legislation.

The member correctly notes that it refers to bridges in plural.

That's because it is written in a way to, as I say, leave that door open so that

a future government is not constrained by unnecessary legislative work being

required to undertake projects of a similar nature.

But of course this project and this legislation are absolutely

central to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We are, as the member knows, in

the midst of a competitive bidding process as we speak. A concessionaire will be

selected prior to the end of this year and a concession agreement entered into.

The corporation will need to be in place to make sure that we have

the corporation in place, able to oversee the concession agreement and, of

course, to ensure that they can manage the concession agreement in accordance

with the provisions therein and to make sure that we will then have a reporting

structure which, as I said earlier on, will allow for the separate reporting of

the revenue expenses and debt associated with the project.

M. Karagianis: I am trying to establish here with the

minister that this is not about a single project. In fact, the language of the

legislation…. Let's be frank. That will be here long after we're here to

interpret that for the public. The letter of the law here within this bill says

that this is about projects plural, and not about a single project. The Crown

corporation is being created to engage in multiple agreements and projects. Is

that not true?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have absolutely no plans for any future

projects whatsoever. The only project that we'll be applying to this piece of

legislation is the Port Mann twinning project. We are writing it and drafting it

in such a way — and the legislative drafters are very wise in the work that they

do — to ensure that any future government would have the ability to afford

themselves the use of this legislation on any future projects they may have.

We don't have any. We just have one, and it's called the Port Mann

Bridge.

[1545]

I know that it causes discomfort for the members opposite, because

they voted against this bill, and I realize that they don't support it, but we

are very much in support of the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. This

legislation will be very fundamental to allowing that project to go forward in a

manner that provides the kind of transparency that the public would demand and

expect.

I have given up hope that the members opposite will support the

twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, but I know that the vast majority of the

public do and are excited to see us proceeding with legislation which will allow

us as government to move forward with that project in a way that protects the

public interest. That's exactly what this legislation does.

M. Karagianis: You know, our duty here in the Legislature

is to approve laws that will sit on the books and be interpreted long after many

of us have left here. Looking at the very specific language of this bill —

rather than the intention that the minister talks about, which is a project now

but certainly could be many in the future — the language within this bill

creating a Crown corporation is about a multiple of potential projects in the

future. That's what the law says.

I appreciate the minister's

interpretation and his political

intentions behind this, but the letters and clauses contained within this legal

bill that we are creating here say that this Crown corporation is being created

to engage in agreements and multiple projects and certainly — by the minister's

very clear responses in the initial questioning about the corporation — tolling.

Being a tolling authority is a huge component of this.

I'm uncertain as to why the minister does not want to address the

actual language contained within this. It does talk about multiple agreements.

It does talk about multiple projects. Whether the government has one project now

or a dozen is immaterial. I'm looking at why this Crown corporation is being

created. It does talk about multiple projects. Is it not technically true that a

Crown corporation is being created that will engage in — plural — projects,

agreements? Is that not true?

[ Page 12612 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, Member. I don't know how I can be any

more clear about this. We specifically, as I've said on the record, drafted this

to allow and not encumber a future government. A future government will have the

ability — should it decide it has a future project that would require a toll to

be utilized — to benefit, if it chooses, from this legislation which is being

put in place for the express purpose of making sure that we will have

transparency in the accounting and in the disclosure of information related to

the Port Mann project, which is the only toll project that we're doing in

British Columbia.

That's why it's called the Port Mann Twinning Act — because that's

the project. The reason we're doing that project is so we can, obviously,

provide infrastructure for a very important area of the province of British

Columbia and for the folks south of the Fraser River who have seen extraordinary

population growth and have been saddled with this infrastructure that was built

in 1963 and is no longer even coming close to meeting the needs of the people

south of the Fraser River.

As we move forward with the Port Mann Bridge project and as we

made a decision as government that it would be the right thing to put a toll in

place to pay for the cost of the infrastructure improvements in the Port Mann

project, we also felt it was important that we set up a special purpose

corporation for the Port Mann project that would provide a separate accounting

of the revenue and expenses and debts associated with the Port Mann project. The

way we did that was by introducing a bill called the Port Mann Twinning Act.

To make it even better for future governments, we made sure we

worded it in such a way that did not preclude future governments from utilizing

this act. That's why, Member, it does say bridges in the plural. That's

specifically why it's written this way. I don't make any apologies for that. It

was done on purpose.

[1550]

I know that the member is going to do verbal gymnastics to try and

pretend this has nothing to do with the Port Mann Bridge. But the fact of the

matter is that it is the Port Mann Bridge, which is the only toll project that

this government is moving forward with. It is a toll project that is the actual

title of the bill, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment

Act, 2008, so that we will make sure we've got this tolling authority — this

special purpose corporation, this Crown corporation — in place at the time at

which we enter into a concession agreement with the concessionaire.

I just don't think we can be any clearer. It makes sense to me. It

would seem — the member should know that — that it would make sense, as just

good governance, that if you're going to go to all the efforts associated with

drafting amendments to a significant piece of legislation, as we are doing

here…. It might make sense to draft it in such a manner as not to preclude

future governments from — should they decide that they've got a project, maybe

even similar in nature to the Port Mann Bridge twinning…. They will be able to

make use of this legislation and the benefits that are allowed herein.

M. Karagianis: I accept that the minister is talking about

one project at the moment that the government has going. But certainly this

allows for multiples of projects, and I have no doubt that those will come in

the future in some form or another.

I understand the minister is talking about creating a Crown

corporation that at the moment has one project in its sights, but certainly

nothing in this bill precludes the government from having multiples. You know,

it could decide tomorrow that there would be other projects underway here.

I would like to explore, though, in

section 2, where it talks

about "the corporation agrees to transfer or grant" to the concessionaire one of

the following. It can be land, as part of the highway. It can be, as we've

established, bridges; culverts; rights to buildings; "shares in any corporation

that operates all or any portion of the highway that is, or is to be, the

concession highway, or interests in those shares"; and "other interests in, or

rights or obligations relating to, the highway referred to in…(i)."

What are the implications of this? Does this mean that the private

concessionaires that would engage in one or more agreements with the Crown

corporation have full entitlement to all of the things listed within this

description? Those would then belong to the private concessionaire — the

concession highway, the bridges, walls, tunnels, culverts, rights to buildings,

interests, shares in other corporations. Could the minister explain to me what

the implications are of that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The description the member talks about is

no different than the three previous projects that we've undertaken as

concession agreements. Those would be the Sea to Sky Highway, the Kicking Horse

Canyon and the William Bennett bridge. It's no different in that what it

transfers is interests and rights. It does not transfer ownership. I think it's

very important to underscore that.

In fact, for the benefit of the member, if the member goes to

subsection 2(3) of the Transportation Investment Act — and I'll read it into the

record — it states that: "Despite subsection (1)" — or (1.1) now — "a concession

agreement must not transfer a fee simple interest in any land that forms or is

to form part of the concession highway."

[1555]

M. Karagianis: In subsection (iii) of that list it says

that "the corporation agrees to transfer or grant to the person designated in

the agreement as the concessionaire…shares in any corporation that operates all

or any portion of the highway that is, or is to be, the concession highway, or

interests in those shares."

Can the minister please explain what that's about? Certainly, I

will reflect back on some earlier questions that were asked of him with regard

to tolling of other highways that are currently in existence and what the

implications are of this clause on that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the

section the member

refers to, subsection (iii) of (1.1), is put in place

[ Page 12613 ]

in the event that you were to structure a deal using a different model than

the one which we will be utilizing — the Crown corporation model.

Essentially, it would allow the government of the day to set up a

separate concessionaire with shares. The bidders would then bid for the right to

take over those shares and the rights and interests that go with it.

It's a different model that is allowed. It is not the model that

we are utilizing as part of the Crown corporation that we're setting up.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister may say, "That's what it

allows, and we're not going to use it," but in fact, there it is. It's a law

that's going to be created, which allows exactly what the minister has just

described. That again leads to an earlier question that my colleague, the

previous member, asked about — whether or not one concessionaire can sell to

another. Can one concessionaire sell shares to another?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: I go back to the answer I gave to the

previous member. I think it's important to point out that in (1.1) it states

very clearly, "The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in

Council, enter into one or more agreements with the corporation or any…person

under which the minister agrees, on behalf of the government, to the terms on

which the corporation may enter into one or more agreements…." So it requires

the approval of the minister and, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

which is cabinet or government.

M. Karagianis: So can private interest buy shares? If a

concessionaire cannot buy shares, can a private interest buy shares, and how

would the government know that?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understood the member's question

correctly, nobody can buy shares in the Transportation Investment Corporation.

That is a Crown corporation, shares of which would be held by the government. So

those shares aren't available for purchase by any interest.

B. Ralston: Just along the same lines, then, a question.

The airport authority, which is not a Crown corporation but is constructed as a

separate authority to operate infrastructure and has other business interests,

has the right…. Indeed, there was something in the business news just recently

about the airport authority selling a portion of its ownership to another

private investment firm.

So what the minister is saying is that the only way that kind of a

deal could be contemplated would be if there was cabinet approval for such a

sale. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it's a totally different structure than

the airport authority. That would not be a good analogy.

I think it's important to point out that the act is very clear

that it does not allow us to sell Crown corporation shares in the newly formed

Transportation Investment Corporation. It does allow the investment corporation

to set up — and that's what the previous member was asking about subsection

(3) — a subsidiary with the minister and cabinet's authority. That subsidiary would

take the place of a separate concession agreement, which we would be talking

about, which we're talking about doing as part of the Port Mann Bridge twinning.

It allows the corporation to set up a subsidiary, and that

subsidiary, if I understood my staff correctly, would have the ability to sell

shares to whichever the successful winning bidding group was, as opposed to

entering into a concession agreement. It's just a different way of achieving the

same ends, and it allows that flexibility. That is not the model we're doing in

this particular case. It may be a model that some future government may choose

to endorse.

[1605]

B. Ralston: The successful concessionaire will likely hold

their interests — the right to receive the toll revenue and operate that part of

the concession agreement — in a company. Is there anything in the agreement…?

Typically, in these kinds of deals, after the construction phase is finished,

there's often an opportunity then to sell the interest that the concessionaire

has, because it becomes a fairly predictable investment — a long-term investment

with low risk, presumably, and fixed rates of return.

Is there anything in the legislation that would forbid the

successful concessionaire who holds those rights in a company from taking that

company and selling either all or part of it to another investor? Typically,

there are private equity firms that now specialize in infrastructure, for

example.

Hon. K. Falcon: The concession agreements that we currently

have in place in government — no doubt, it will be the case in the agreement we

enter into — now have certain limitations in place to ensure that any purchaser

of the shares of a company that is a concessionaire in one of our P3s has the

ability to honour the obligations that are set out under the concession

agreement.

That would be the same, no doubt, in every agreement that we enter

into, but there is nothing that specifically would prohibit a private company

from selling shares in that company. But there are limitations in place with

reference to the sale of shares in a company that ensure that any purchaser has

the ability to maintain the obligations. Those, I think, are typically mirrored

by creditor arrangements, too, that will provide the same provisos.

B. Ralston: I want to make sure that I understand this,

because I think it's important. In the Abbotsford hospital, after the

construction phase is complete, there is a contract which is for 35 years for

the operation of the non-clinical services — that is, other than the medical

services at the hospital. What I understand is that the right to that contract

and the obligations that come with it have been sold now several times already.

[1610]

[ Page 12614 ]

I appreciate that the bidding process is ongoing and that the

length of time that the concessionaire might hold the right to take the tolls is

up for negotiation or is part of the bidding process. Assuming, hypothetically,

a 30-year period, is the minister saying that the successful bidder who

completes the construction and then wants to sell the rights to take the tolls

for 30 years to another party would only be able to do that with the approval of

cabinet? Are they forbidden from doing that? Or is there some other mechanism to

scrutinize the suitability, or not, of a prospective purchaser?

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff advise me that it's a standard

provision in our concession agreements that essentially says that in the event

of a sale of shares of the corporation that we've entered into the concession

agreement with…. In the event of a sale of their shares to another company, the

purchasing company would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the parties

that they have the ability to undertake and maintain the obligations that are

set out in the concession agreement. That, I understand, is a standard clause in

all of the concession agreements that government enters into.

B. Ralston: Is that to the satisfaction of the corporation?

Or is that to the satisfaction of the cabinet, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Is it one or the other?

Hon. K. Falcon: In this case, obviously, it would be to the

satisfaction of the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is being set up

to oversee the concession agreement. In prior cases it would be the respective

government agency that's entered into the concession agreement.

M. Karagianis: What happens in the case of the government

or the corporation itself not approving of the new purchasing partner of the

existing concession company?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that if they are unable to

demonstrate that they have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to honour the

obligations that are set out in the concession agreement, then the agency, or

the corporation in this case, would not approve the sale of the shares because

they have not demonstrated the capacity necessary to honour the obligations set

out in the agreement.

B. Ralston: There is some public concern in the United

States and other countries. I think, actually, a sale of part of an airport in

New Zealand was vetoed by the government because of a concern of control by what

are called state investment corporations. I think the most prominent example is

that there were agreements to purchase part of the port facilities in the United

States. The firm that was proposing to do that had connections to a single state

in the Middle East, and that sale was vetoed.

Are there any restrictions upon sale of the concession agreement —

is it contemplated? — to state investment corporations that might not be

acceptable to the public or to the government?

[1615]

Hon. K. Falcon: There are provisions in existing concession

agreements that do not allow the sale to what's defined as "unlawful interests."

Putting that aside for a second and assuming they're lawful interests, the key

test that's being looked at is whether they have the financial capacity as a

purchasing agent to honour the obligations that are set out under the concession

agreement.

B. Ralston: For example, the People's Republic has a state

investment firm. There are different states in the United Arab Emirates or the

Middle East where there is some reluctance, certainly in the United States, to

contemplate investment by a state investment corporation in key infrastructure.

Is the minister saying that the concession agreements…? I

appreciate that we're in the middle of the bidding process, but is it

contemplated or is it past practice that a state investment corporation — say,

one from the People's Republic of China; not to pick on them, but just to take

an example — would be permitted as an investor in a concession if that deal were

to be struck?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer would really come down to

whether they were a lawful interest. As long as they're not an unlawful interest

and as long as they have the capacity to manage and own up to their obligations

as set out under the concession agreement, there would be no restrictions that

would be put in place.

I think that the case the member is referring to specifically was

a particular national security concern of certain members of Congress in the

United States because it referred to a United Arab Emirates company. I think it

was Dubai World, if my memory serves me correctly, that was interested in

acquiring the operations of one of their ports, and my understanding is that

certain members of Congress were concerned about a national security element

there. Clearly, in the case of the operation and maintenance of a bridge, I

don't think that the same kind of issues would likely surface.

M. Karagianis: In this same section, 2 here, where we're

talking about agreements relating to this corporation, subsection (

b) talks

about highways, so this does contemplate tolled highways. Could the minister

say…? For example, would this corporation be used if the oft-promised Cariboo

twinning, Highway 97, were determined to be a tolled highway? Would this

corporation then cover that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is no. The government has a

position and a policy, in fact, that we've put in place — I think it was in 2003

— that sets out several policy requirements that have to be in place prior to

the consideration of any kind of tolling. One of them is that there must be a

free, easily attainable, non-tolled alternative that's available for the public.

[ Page 12615 ]

The Cariboo connector would not, obviously, be a candidate for

that. It's one of the reasons why the Sea to Sky Highway is also not a tolled

highway — because there was no easily available, free, non-tolled alternative

that would be available for members of the public to utilize.

M. Karagianis: This would, then, apply to other new

highways as long as a second arterial access was available.

Hon. K. Falcon: It may apply, as long as the policy

provisions of the government are in place and have been met in terms of the fact

that there would be a free, non-tolled alternative available to the public.

[1620]

B. Ralston: I guess I'm interested in the intersection of

the policy that the minister has just spoken of and the rights of a

concessionaire who would enter into this kind of an investment. One can easily

imagine, certainly in the Lower Mainland, a concessionaire wanting the

predictability over the long term of traffic flowing through the tolled bridge

in order to have some certainty of revenue.

On the other hand, what are the likely restrictions or proposed

restrictions on building, let's say, a new expanded Pattullo or other bridges

that would compete with the bridge that the concessionaire has the rights to,

thereby in the long run reducing the revenue to the concessionaire such as to

make it unpredictable or a money-losing proposition? Surely the concessionaire

must be getting some strong assurances from this proposed corporation or from

the government that there will not be competing bridges such that all the

revenue would disappear because people would use a non-tolled alternative.

I appreciate that that's a little bit of a long-winded question,

but I guess I am interested in how the minister reconciles the policy of the

non-tolled alternative with the requirement for the concessionaire, who is

making a big investment, to have some predictability that 30 or 35 years out

they'll be the sole tolled entity and that there won't be undue competition,

which would diminish their revenue.

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is no, we will not be

prohibited from building or adding bridges in the future or from doing

improvements or replacements.

The member mentioned, specifically, the Pattullo Bridge. In fact,

we are going to be specifically exempting the Pattullo Bridge because that is a

bridge, as you know, Member, that I have long encouraged TransLink to deal with,

a bridge that was built in 1938. In my view, it requires immediate replacement

or plans to deal with the safety issues that are associated with that bridge. I

know TransLink is doing some really significant work towards that, but it would

not in any way impair the arrangement that we would have with any future

concessionaire on the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm happy to hit on something that the

minister and I agree on. That's referring to the Pattullo.

Again, it seems counterintuitive that a firm is being asked to

make an investment which would give it a stream of revenue from tolls, yet it's

open to future governments to build other bridges which would be in competition

with that over an extended period of time. I appreciate that the minister is

saying that you can't bind future governments, but then that would make the….

One of the attractions of these kinds of infrastructure investments, certainly

when it comes to toll revenue, is that you basically have a monopoly on the

traffic. You can make a traffic count. You know what that traffic count is, and

you project it out into the future.

[1625]

If the minister is saying that there's no restriction on future

governments building any number of bridges over the Fraser or at any point,

what's the incentive to make the investment, and where is the predictability for

the investor?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that really, it comes down to

investors that invest in these kinds of infrastructure projects also being

people that can take a good look at the Lower Mainland and realize that…. Where

else would you put a bridge, for example? So if the Pattullo, for example, is

replaced, as both you and I hope it will be one day…. If you look around the

Lower Mainland, you don't have a lot of options for adding bridges, certainly

not options that are particularly viable.

The member will know well, given the difficulty of getting any

major infrastructure projects approved in the Lower Mainland, that should you

actually think of an alternative location, each of them would have all its own

joyous challenges to no doubt overcome.

I also think it's important to recognize that there's a Golden

Ears bridge under construction as we speak. It is a TransLink project, but it is

also a toll project that is connecting across the Fraser River — connecting the

northeast sector, Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge, with the Surrey-Langley communities

— which the investors are no doubt very aware of. I think that once you twin the

Port Mann Bridge, once you have the Golden Ears bridge open and once you get

either a renovated or replaced Pattullo Bridge, you are probably, for that whole

area, pretty much bridged out, at least as far as the term of the concession

agreement would likely last.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask the minister some

questions about part (c), then, under this same section. So it says here, again,

that "the concessionaire may undertake to do one or more of develop, plan,

design, construct, expand, extend, upgrade, remove or rehabilitate all or part

of the highway referred to" in part (

a) as one of the many things that might be

undertaken by a concessionaire.

How does the tolling apply to that? And what are the implications

of all of that, given the minister's previous comments about why the Crown

corporation is being created?

[ Page 12616 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: This refers to the concessionaire that the

Transportation Investment Corporation, which is contemplated under this act,