2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 19

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Gulzar Cheema

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

G. Cheema

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Protection of Public Assets Act (Bill

M206)

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Rapid transit in greater Vancouver

K. Manhas

World partnership walk and Aga Khan

Foundation

J. Nuraney

Canadian Forces Appreciation Day

B. Kerr

Oral Questions

Cancellation of court decision on

Whistler hotel development

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Abbott

Privatization of automobile insurance

J. MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Economic growth in B.C.

K. Krueger

Hon. G.

Campbell

Agreements between government and

first nations

G. Trumper

Hon. G.

Plant

B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and

first nations benefits trust

P. Nettleton

Hon. G.

Plant

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Merit

Commissioner

J. Bray

Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services, first report

B. Locke

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54) (continued)

Hon. G.

Plant

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54)

Tabling Documents

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, annual

report, 2003-04

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

Hon. G.

Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

Hon. G.

Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

Royal Assent to Bills

Financial Institutions Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 39)

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 43)

Correction Act (Bill 44)

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2004-2005 (Bill 49)

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 50)

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

51)

Electoral Reform Referendum Act (Bill

52)

International Financial Activity Act

(Bill 53)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54)

Teaching Profession Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 55)

Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill

56)

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Bill 48)

[ Page 11293 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Tributes

GULZAR CHEEMA

MacPhail: Today is the last day of the session, which I think we're all

aware of. Before we adjourn and recess for the summer, I want to take a moment

to wish the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge well in the forthcoming federal

election. I probably will be campaigning for a different party. In fact, I'm

pretty sure of it — I'm pretty sure — and I suspect that some of the

government caucus members may be campaigning for a different party too. But I do

want to wish the member the best of luck and thank him for the contribution he

has made to public life. I look forward to the by-election.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I want to echo the comments. I should say, in terms of the member

for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, that I think what we all will miss in this House is

his consistent commitment to a mental health strategy that actually delivers to

the people of British Columbia. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still hear in my

right ear his answers to some of the questions that the opposition has been

asking, and I know he will be missed.

It's

important to note this. When the member is elected — should he be elected —

we will finally have someone in Ottawa who understands health care, who

understands fiscal prudence, who understands the west and who understands

British Columbia. That's exactly what we need.

I wish him

all the best.

Cheema: I just want to say thank you to my constituents, my Premier, my

colleagues and the NDP, especially Ms. MacPhail and Ms. Kwan.

I think I

have worked hard. I have done my best, and it's really an honour for me to be a

part of this House. I have learned a lot from this House, and I will continue to

abide by the principles of democratic process. I will work hard for this

province. I'm very proud to be a member of this caucus and also very proud to be

part of this country. It's an amazing country, where a person from another

nation can come and be a member of the assembly, be a part of the cabinet, and

run and be whatever they want to be. I think that's a tribute to this nation,

and I have a lot of respect for the democratic process.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to again say thank you to my Premier. He gave me this

opportunity to be the first minister of mental health in the whole Commonwealth.

I did my best. I know that mental health is a lot better than before. I will

continue to pursue those goals federally as well.

I am

somewhat emotional today. It's very tough for me to stand and say goodbye, but I

also want to say thank you to you, to the staff and to everyone in my

constituency who has been so good to me.

Introductions by Members

Cheema: I also wanted to make a couple of introductions. I have two guests

in this House today, Muneesh Sharma and Sunny Sundher. Muneesh used to work with

me. I think he worked very hard. He was an exceptional worker, and I want to say

thank you to him.

Also, just

a last thank-you again to my family and to all my friends, who have been great

to me. Mr. Speaker, thanks and goodbye.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House today members of the

Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities. In the House

today are Alice Downing, Ron Drolet, Kevin Evans, Lynn Jackson, Mary Mahon

Jones, Winston Leckie, Michele Mawhinney and Mike Touchie.

This

council brings together public and private sector leaders to explore ways to

improve employment opportunities for British Columbians with disabilities in our

communities across this province. I am proud that British Columbia is leading

the country in our commitment to people with disabilities with initiatives such

as investing $55 million in employment programs for people with disabilities,

establishing a $20 million Disability Supports for Employment Fund and creating

the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities.

This

morning I had the privilege of attending the council meeting for the first time

as Minister of Human Resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hosting our lunch

today for the council. To all council members, I want to say thank you for your

dedication to helping people with disabilities achieve greater independence for

themselves and their families. Would the House please join me in making them

welcome.

[1410]

Krueger: Over the course of this session this House has had the privilege of

the service of a group of very bright young people from the B.C. legislative

internship program. Although they don't finish the program until June 30, this

is our last formal day with them in this place. Their names are Lesley Clayton,

Joanna Ellis, Chris Ferronato, Regan Garbutt, Amy Hinterberger, Sara Irvine,

Nathan McDonald, Byron Plant, Paul Rushton and Tara Shirley. We want to say a

fond farewell to the interns. We're sorry a few of you were assigned to the dark

side, but we'll never think the less of you for it. You soldiered through well.

It's been a real pleasure to work with you and get to know you. Thanks so much

for working with us.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to welcome some students and their accompanying

adults from Rochester Elementary, a total of 91 people from my riding. It

includes 80 students from grades 4 and 5. These students are accompanied by ten

adults including teacher Mr. John Kore, who my wife and I have known for many

[ Page 11294 ]

years and who taught several of our own children. Would the House please make

this group of children and the accompanying adults welcome.

As well, I

wanted to acknowledge a group of students that has had a major achievement in my

riding. They're heading off to the world competition for Odyssey of the Mind

held in Maryland. This group is from Monty Middle School: Ben Hsu, Matthew

Locke, Nick Lowther, Patrick Lundgren, Alex Franciosi and Paniz Pahlavanlu.

Would the House please acknowledge their outstanding achievement.

B. Kerr:

I don't make introductions to the House very often, so I think I'll do a

little catching up right now. Unlike my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith, I

don't have many friends, so I have to rely on relatives.

I'd like to

introduce my wife's cousin, Paul Bertholet, and his wife, Elaine. They've come

down from Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Elaine's CV with Canadian

public health is too long to list, but as a result of her extensive commitment

to health in the north of Canada and internationally, she was awarded the very

prestigious Defries Award by the Canadian Public Health Association. Paul has

been equally busy with developing countries, working for the federal government

managing a number of projects in developing countries and taking them to

fruition. They've been 27 years in the Northwest Territories. They're now

seeking warmer climates in the south here, looking for a place on Vancouver

Island. I'd ask the House to give them a very good southern welcome.

The next

introductee is a person I've been trying to get down here for three years.

Clearly, I haven't had any pull in this issue. It's taken her cousin to bring

her down. I'd like the House to make my wife, my partner, my best friend feel

really welcome. It's her first visit to the House — my wife, Elaine.

Nettleton: I'd like to introduce a young lady who is no stranger to this

House, to politics. When her daddy was first elected, I think she was ten months

old. I had her out in the rose garden today and reminisced about her crawling

about in the rose garden. Next month she's nine years of age: Disa Nettleton.

During the

course of our discussions in the rose garden she was quite insistent that she

wanted to meet the Premier. I didn't really know where to go with that, so I

said: "Later, later." But she was quite insistent, and I started

getting a little ticked off. In any event, we….

Interjections.

Nettleton: That's it.

We came

around a corner, and lo and behold, there was the Premier, who was kind enough

to stop and chat with her briefly. She was thrilled. Later, back in my office,

she made this comment to me. "Daddy," she said, "the Premier is

very cute, he's very nice, and now I know why so many people like him." So

there you have it. Please give Disa a big welcome.

[1415]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I was just going to say to Disa: thank you, thank you. Thank you

very much, Disa.

Trumper: Today we have students visiting us from Alberni District Secondary

School. I suspect that because there are 90 people from another riding, they may

not have made it into the House yet, but I would ask the House to please give

them a very warm welcome as they visit the House.

Manhas: I'd like to join my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville in

wishing an outstanding group of students who are travelling down to the world

competition for Odyssey of the Mind in Maryland…. These kids are from

Coquitlam River Elementary School in my riding. Grades 4 and 5 students are

Cynthia McDowell, Ashley Chandler, Shelby Woita, Tamara Bobcock, Anna Boskovich,

Kellen Roman Barnes and Taylor Trotter, who will be joining their coach Brian

Babick. We wish them luck. Would the House please join me in wishing this group

of students the best of luck for British Columbia as they compete.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ASSETS ACT

MacPhail presented a bill intituled Protection of Public Assets Act.

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

Motion

approved.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Protection of Public

Assets Act. One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that British

Columbia's Crown corporations and Crown agencies constitute invaluable public

resources. These public resources belong to all people of British Columbia.

However, public resources such as transportation systems, public utilities and

our health care and education systems need to be protected. To that end, this

bill limits the sale and incremental privatization of public assets.

Both

present and future generations have the right to obtain full public disclosure

regarding the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and agencies, and

this bill solidifies that right. This bill is a critical step in ensuring that

communities, local governments and citizens in British Columbia receive full

value and a fair share of the benefits of our public assets.

What is

unfortunate is that this bill is necessary at all. Of course, it wouldn't be if

politicians didn't say one thing when running for election and then do another

once in office. That we need legislation to protect our public assets is

indicative of the lack of faith the electorate has in its elected

representatives to keep their word and to act in the public interest.

[ Page 11295 ]

Crown

corporations enhance our quality of life by making the benefits of our public

resources accessible to all British Columbians, regardless of where they live or

how much they make. This legislation protects the right of British Columbians to

have a real say in how their collective heritage is managed in the future.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) RAPID TRANSIT IN GREATER VANCOUVER

Manhas: With so much discussion going on about the future of the RAV line in

Vancouver, I think it's important that we reflect on the significance of

building or not building mass transit in the city. Just as forestry operations

and resource roads in the heartlands are important to business and economic

prospects in Vancouver, efficient operations and movement around the province's

largest centre is important to commerce in the rest of the province.

To move

goods and services means moving some of the traffic off the streets. Traffic

congestion and horrendous travel times are perhaps the most unattractive and

unappealing aspects of the city.

On a recent

Saturday when I was travelling from Port Coquitlam to a meeting in Coquitlam

city centre, along with what often feels like the rest of the world, I decided

to time my trip. The under-five-kilometre journey took me a total of 44 minutes

start to finish, for a speedy average of nine minutes per kilometre.

Coquitlam

is a key part of the growth management strategy for the lower mainland, and the

Coquitlam region has the ability to take significant increases in population and

density. It cannot do that unless people can move in and out of the area and

within the area without dedicating their entire day and their sanity. Building

rapid transit to Coquitlam is not only critical to the growth management for the

entire region, but it's important to the health and safety of those on the road.

[1420]

Building

rapid transit to Richmond and the airport is important to free up capacity in

the clogged routes leading from the south into downtown Vancouver and vice

versa. SkyTrain has benefited and affected the lives of millions of people in

its operation. It allowed Vancouver to be manageable during Expo and helped

manage growth, movement and quality of life in the years that followed.

Transit

directors now have the opportunity to create another legacy, this time for the

Olympics. They can build two lines — one to link Richmond and the airport and

another to Coquitlam — or build none. The benefits to millions for decades to

come are now in the hands of TransLink's ability to work together to a solution.

Building rapid transit will be critical to Vancouver's ascension as a truly

world-class city.

WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK

AND AGA KHAN FOUNDATION

Nuraney: The Ismaili community will hold its twentieth annual partnership

walk on Sunday, May 30 at Stanley Park. This event was first held in Vancouver

20 years ago and has now taken a national appeal, with ten cities across Canada

taking part. So far the organization has raised over $23 million, which go

towards "smart solutions" under the aegis of the Aga Khan Foundation.

The projects are targeted towards alleviating poverty in developing countries by

enhancing community-based organizations.

The Aga

Khan Foundation's work is world-renowned and enjoys the reputation of delivering

maximum direct benefit to those being helped. A very large component of

volunteers throughout the world helps towards achieving these goals. Health,

education and rural development are the main focus. These projects are located

in East Africa and South and Central Asia. The foundation shares and

disseminates lessons learned from its projects to other development

practitioners and policy-makers and promotes greater understanding of global

issues.

The Ismaili

community around the world takes enormous pride in the work of the Aga Khan

Foundation and the involvement of their spiritual leader, His Highness the Aga

Khan. The United Nations and other world organizations have paid great tribute

to this organization for its innovative and creative way of delivering help

where it is most needed. Over 60,000 Canadians and 800 corporate citizens are

expected to take part on Sunday and walk for a cause to improve the lives of

those who are less fortunate. This is truly the Canadian way.

CANADIAN FORCES APPRECIATION DAY

B. Kerr:

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand on the floor of this House to

recognize Canadian Forces Appreciation Day. The Department of National Defence

contributes approximately $390 million annually to the capital region's local

economy. It's the third-largest employer on Vancouver Island, with a payroll in

excess of $232 million.

In 2003,

Department of National Defence personnel raised over $400,000 for the United

Way, which is approximately 10 percent of the entire total. Last year military

personnel and their families contributed in excess of 300,000 volunteer hours in

aid of various organizations. This substantial investment benefits virtually

every municipality and business within the region, directly and indirectly.

The first

Sunday of June is nationally designated as Canadian Forces Appreciation Day. The

Canadian Forces Appreciation Day committee was formed as an initiative of the

West Shore Chamber of Commerce. It

[ Page 11296 ]

is a multi-jurisdictional working group of municipalities, businesses, and

community and service organizations creating a regional event to honour members

of the Canadian Forces. This special day will acknowledge the contribution that

our military, civilian and reserve members, including their families, make to

our region.

The event

will be held on Sunday, June 6 at the Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre, with

activities planned from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. We have a barbecue, music and

entertainment for all ages, and a regional celebration in honour of the

approximately 15,000 DND reserve personnel and their families living in the

capital region. It's also open to the general public. Our guest speaker will be

Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. On behalf of my

colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin and myself, we invite everyone to come to the

barbecue and show your support for our members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[1425]

Oral Questions

CANCELLATION OF COURT DECISION

ON WHISTLER HOTEL DEVELOPMENT

J. Kwan:

Today is the last day of the session — a session marked by scandal, failed

privatization schemes and special deals for Liberal friends and insiders. We

have already covered extensively the sweetheart deals for the Premier's cousin,

Doug Walls. Today we have yet another example.

In March

the Supreme Court ruled that the municipality of Whistler's approval of a $120

million luxury hotel development at Nita Lake was illegal. The House is

currently examining the legislation that would overturn that decision. My

question is not about the legislation. My question is about the motivation of

this government to overturn a decision by the supposedly independent courts.

The

development proposal is headed by Mr. John Haibeck, who is the president of Nita

Lake Lodge Corporation. In 2002, Mr. Haibeck's company donated more than $3,000

to the B.C. Liberal election campaign war chest. Can the Attorney General

confirm that he is overturning a decision of the Supreme Court solely to benefit

a B.C. Liberal campaign donor?

Hon. G.

Abbott: That's absolute nonsense, and the member knows it. MEVA is a

well-used tool to work out issues, administrative failures at the municipal

level, and this MEVA is entirely appropriate in doing that.

J. Kwan:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence — uh-huh. Not only did Mr. Haibeck donate

more than $3,000 in 2002, but another company, Whistler Rail Tours, also made a

substantial investment in the B.C. Liberals. Mr. Haibeck is a partner in

Whistler Rail Tours, and this company will also benefit thanks to this Attorney

General riding to the rescue with legislation. In 2002, Whistler Rail Tours

donated $8,500 to the B.C. Liberal campaign fund — money that is apparently

being put to use to pay for websites and other negative campaign tools.

Again to

the Attorney General: why should British Columbians believe that overturning

this court decision serves the public interest when, clearly, it serves the

private interest of a big B.C. Liberal campaign donor?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The question is entirely disrespectful of a whole community and the

people in it. I think it is perhaps typical of the opposition to raise this sort

of question. The member should know that the municipality of Whistler is very

much supportive of this MEVA to assist them in the situation. There have been

public hearings around this, which have brought very broad support from the

community. There is extensive support in and around the community of Whistler in

respect of this matter.

For the

member to suggest there's something untoward here…. She should look back on

her own record as a Municipal Affairs minister. She should look back on the

record of her government over ten years, during which time they used the MEVA as

an instrument to correct administrative oversights. There is nothing unusual

here. There is nothing nefarious here. If the member wants to be entirely

disrespectful of a community, she does it at her own risk.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

This is hardly an administrative oversight. The government is bringing in

legislation to overturn a court decision. Now, I know that this government is

used to doing that. I know that maybe they think it's just, well, another one of

those little things they're doing. But you know what? British Columbians are

tired of special deals….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Attorney General, please come to order.

J. Kwan:

British Columbians are tired of special deals for friends of this government.

Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management table today all

correspondence between his office and the B.C. Liberal campaign donor who's

benefiting from this arbitrary cancellation of a Supreme Court decision?

[1430]

Hon. G.

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

knoll of conspiracy

[ Page 11297 ]

on a pretty much constant basis during this session. Frankly, here again what

we are doing is serving good public policy through the use of an instrument

which I think the member used on at least three occasions when she was Municipal

Affairs minister. She is saying to the community of Whistler that Whistler is

wrong, that Whistler doesn't know where they want to go as a community, that

Whistler doesn't know what's right for a community.

It is

entirely typical of an NDP government that, I think — was it in 1996? — cut

municipal grants by $113 million without even the courtesy of discussing it with

those municipalities. Again, we have today the opposition telling us that they

know better than the communities themselves about what they want.

PRIVATIZATION OF

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MacPhail: In the past year, we've seen what happens to auto insurance rates

in provinces with private auto insurance schemes. They go through the roof.

Given this government's absolute faith in privatization — even though they've

been spectacularly unsuccessful in implementing their privatization scheme —

the public is concerned that by the time we return here in the fall, the B.C.

Liberals will have privatized a big portion of auto insurance in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Just to reassure ourselves, can the minister responsible for ICBC

assure all British Columbians that Nick Geer's dismissal as head of ICBC is not

the prelude to auto insurance privatization?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm more than happy to give that assurance.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: That's very interesting, because it contradicts Colin Brown, the

chief operating officer of Canada's biggest private insurance outfit, Canadian

Direct Insurance. I'm sure the Liberals are well aware of them. Now, according

to Mr. Brown, just yesterday he was quoted in Thompson's Insurance News ,

and we all know that's the bible of insurance news. Here's what he had to say.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Here's what Mr. Brown said in Thompson's Insurance News :

"Nick Geer is gone because he was not keen for ICBC to give over its

optional insurance business to the private sector." Brown said that the

government wants more private insurance, but that wasn't where Mr. Geer was

going.

Again, to

the minister. It's not me; it's Colin Brown — that great conspirator, Colin

Brown. Here's what he said: "So if Nick Geer left on good terms and the

B.C. Liberals have no plans to privatize auto insurance, why are private outfits

delighted that he's gone and frothing at the mouth, waiting for this government

to hand them ICBC's business?"

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

An Hon.

Member: Are you allowed to say "frothing" in here?

Mr.

Speaker: Frothing is permitted.

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, I find it quite humorous, because there has been

competition and optional insurance long before this government came to power on

the optional side of insurance with ICBC and other people in the business. We

have said from the very beginning that basic insurance will be protected in

public hands and that the ICBC optional marketplace will not change other than

what it is already today.

But for you

to sit there and even think about telling me how to deal with auto insurance

when you gave away $200 million just before the last election to policy holders

in B.C. and put this company in a financial problem because you wanted to buy an

election…. For you to talk to me about the fact that you went into the

development business from insurance and lost tens of millions of dollars for

ICBC shareholders…. We put this thing back on the financial footing it belongs

on. We protected insurance rates for people in British Columbia. We are the

market that people look at, because we're doing the job right in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. You can only froth when you have the floor. Order,

please.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN B.C.

Krueger: That wasn't frothing, but it was close.

[1435]

We got an

e-mail from the RBC Financial Group — Canada got this e-mail this morning. It

talks about British Columbia's economy improving with solid growth of 3 percent

this year and 3½ percent in 2005. Mr. Derek Holt, the assistant chief economist

at RBC, said that the fiscal climate has improved so much that B.C. now has the

second-lowest provincial debt-to-GDP

[ Page 11298 ]

ratio behind Alberta. Additionally, net migration inflows are on the rise. He

goes on to talk about fiscal prudence over the past three years, exemplified by

keeping average spending growth to 2½ percent and increasing tax revenues.

I'd like to

have the Premier's comments on this and on where we're going from here.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me just say that when you get a report like this — a Provincial

Outlook from RBC Financial Group — it's obviously encouraging. There have

been a lot of difficult decisions that have had to be made. It's interesting to

look back. When this government came into office, B.C. had the last-place

economy in the country. RBC suggested that by 2005 we will have the number one

economy in the country, with number one growth.

Most

importantly, it's going to have the number one job growth figures in the

country. Jobs mean better times for families, so it's always encouraging. There

is a new optimism in British Columbia, and it's reflected in independent

analyses in every institution across this nation.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT

AND FIRST NATIONS

Trumper: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

Today there has been a large number of people at the legislative buildings who

are concerned about first nations issues. In my riding of Alberni-Qualicum we

have signed one agreement-in-principle and feel very fortunate to be finally

bringing resolution to some long-outstanding issues.

Can the

Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations explain what this government is

doing to create opportunities for first nations within the context of treaty

negotiations?

Hon. G.

Plant: We are at an unprecedented stage of progress in the treaty process in

British Columbia. For the first time we are in final agreement negotiations at

four tables across the province, including a table representing five first

nations in the member's riding.

I think

that progress holds out hope for the treaty process, but we haven't waited for

the treaty process to make a real difference in the lives of aboriginal British

Columbians. The Forests minister has been delivering agreement after agreement

— as many as 50 and more agreements to put as much as $95 million in the hands

of first nations across the province. Millions of cubic metres of fibre, 145

economic development agreements, interim measures agreements, land protection

measures, the first government in the history of the province to have annual

cabinet meetings with the First Nations Summit, a first citizens forum…. We

doubled the amount for the First Citizens Fund — initiative after initiative.

everybody happy? It's very difficult in this exciting province to make everybody

happy. We are making progress, and we will continue to do what it takes to make

progress for all British Columbians.

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT AND

FIRST NATIONS BENEFITS TRUST

Nettleton: I, too, have a question for the Attorney General. There's a

growing concern among first nations leaders along the B.C. Rail corridor that

this government is trying to manipulate them regarding the CNR–B.C. Rail deal

and their signing on to the trust fund benefit. Government had indicated that

the trust fund legislation would be introduced this past March. They also

indicated that bands to benefit from the trust fund must allow their names to be

included in the legislation, to which most of them are opposed.

First

nations are now concerned that any agreement reached outside of their

involvement in participation will infringe on aboriginal title and rights. Is

the government today prepared to back off from closure on the sale of B.C. Rail

and first deal with the outstanding issues impacting first nations?

Hon. G.

Plant: We canvassed this subject extensively in estimates. The first nations

benefits trust represents a one-time, $15 million opportunity for 25 first

nations to do some work to advance culture, to renew and advance education, and

to provide economic development in their communities. It comes with no strings

attached. There is no connection between acceptance of those funds and any

aspect of whatever obligations may arise by virtue of the aboriginal rights and

title of the aboriginal people of British Columbia.

[1440]

We believe

that the B.C. Rail Partnership initiative does not, in fact, infringe aboriginal

rights or title, but of course, first nations are free to pursue that issue as

they wish.

I am

looking forward to a decision from the competition bureau that will allow

government to move forward, to bring in the enabling legislation when it's

appropriate, to make this important opportunity a reality for all British

Columbians — a billion dollars in private sector investment for the benefit of

communities all across this province, $5 billion in private sector investment

over the life of this agreement. More good news for the people of British

Columbia. It's a great day to be a legislator and a member of the B.C. Liberal

government in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 11299 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The bell terminates question period.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Bray:

I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a

Merit Commissioner for the fifth session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

J. Bray:

I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

J. Bray:

I move that the report be adopted.

The special

committee conducted a provincewide and national search for applicants for the

position of merit commissioner and deputy minister for the public service. We

received 19 applications from across Canada, and four individuals were

interviewed.

I am

pleased to advise that Diane Rabbani is the unanimous choice of the special

committee and is today being recommended to the Legislative Assembly for the

position of merit commissioner, deputy minister of the Public Service Agency and

the public service employee relations commissioner.

The

appointment of the merit commissioner is an important component of the

revitalization of the public service. I would like to thank all applicants who

expressed interest in B.C.'s public service, all the members of the committee

who worked so hard, and the staff of the Clerk of the Committee's office,

particularly Craig James and our researcher, Jonathan Fershau.

Motion

approved.

Mr.

Speaker: By leave, I move that this House recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, pursuant to

section 5 of the Public Service Act,

RSBC 1996, C. 385, the appointment of Ms. Diane Rabbani as the public service

employee relations commissioner, deputy minister responsible for the Public

Service Employee Relations Commission and to hold the office as the merit

commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Brenzinger: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Brenzinger: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you someone who has

done much to promote and bridge parental involvement and initiative to our

Surrey school district board. She has worked tirelessly in our district to

uphold parent representation in our children's education. She is the Surrey

district parent advisory president, Patricia Landsley, and her children are

Justin and Tara. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

Reports from Committees

Locke: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fifth session of the

thirty-seventh parliament respecting the supplementary funding for the office of

the information and privacy commissioner.

I move now

that the report be taken and read as received.

Motion

approved.

Locke: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

Leave

granted.

Locke: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

[1445]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the previous motion, the motion to recommend the

appointment of Ms. Rabbani, was a motion by the Chair of the committee.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 54.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:47 p.m.

section

35 (continued) .

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Chair, I note that this morning when we concluded, the Attorney

General was just

[ Page 11300 ]

making some statements on this section, and his time had expired. I would ask

that perhaps he could resume his comments, and we'll hear the rest of those

comments.

Hon. G.

Plant: I was in the process of describing how, in fact, the proposal here to

create

section 14 of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) was

not that revolutionary a matter. In fact, governments routinely come into the

chamber to enact legislation that helps municipalities deal with administrative

errors.

I think it

would be interesting — given the extent to which the issue excited the

attention of the opposition during question period and, really, has excited the

interest of the opposition over the last day or so — to remind members of the

House that this is a tool that was routinely used by the opposition when they

were in government. In fact, they used it while they were in government to

overturn court decisions.

In 1998,

for example, at the initiative of the Ministry of Health, there was an amendment

introduced by the former government to validate local government anti-smoking

bylaws, and it made that validation despite any court decision to the contrary.

That validation came in direct response to a court decision, which had found

that a bylaw was invalid. That's one example, and there are other examples.

Earlier

this session…. It may not have been earlier this session. It may have been

last year when the opposition was happy to support government in essentially

overturning a court decision under the Strata Property Act which, had it been

allowed to stay in effect, would have made it extraordinarily difficult for the

victims of leaky condos to maintain lawsuits against those they claim caused the

damage they had experienced. We had to make a change to the Strata Property Act

with respect to the rules that applied to how you decide when a strata council

had the authority of its members to proceed with litigation.

Now, that's

not to say that the court had made an error in its

interpretation of the

section

as it was worded in the Strata Property Act that the former government had

introduced and passed, but rather, the court decision would have had the effect

of denying justice to many, many British Columbians. In those circumstances, it

was argued that the public interest required that the Legislature step in and

enact a provision that undid the court decision.

[1450]

This is not

that unusual. It's certainly not done lightly. It's not done in a way that is in

any way cavalier or does not take into account the whole of the public interest,

but it is done from time to time. It's neither stunning nor revolutionary.

I know that

the opposition leader in particular, who has expressed herself on this point in

the last day or so, must have had a hard time choking back her indignation as

routinely during the course of the years in which she was in government her

colleagues brought in legislation which overturned court decisions. She must

have had a particularly difficult challenge doing that on the occasions when she

herself tabled legislation that had exactly the same result — as she did, for

example, when it was necessary for the government of British Columbia to save

all of the money it had collected through probate fees under a probate fee

collection regime that was determined to be unconstitutional.

Each of

these issues has to be taken on its own merits. In this case we acted, as

government, because the resort municipality of Whistler asked us to act. That

was where the initiative came from. We acted only because we were satisfied that

that community as a whole, both through formal and informal means, strongly

supports this $120 million development that is clearly going to make a great

difference in the lives of the people of Whistler, create a great opportunity

for that community to add to its already powerful appeal to visitors and help as

we all — as a province — move towards the 2010 Olympics.

I do think

it's important that we take a step back from the rhetoric that often pervades

these things and look at the facts. In this particular case the facts are that

while there was, without a doubt, an error identified by a court in the course

of the zoning process that led to the improvement of this development, the

public interest requires that we intervene now and ensure that that error does

not hold back this development. That is what we're going to do. I thought it was

important that we at least spend a minute or two putting this amendment into its

context for the benefit of members of the Legislature and other citizens who may

be following the debate.

J. Kwan:

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

section 35.

The issue, of course, is about the motivation, which the opposition questioned

in question period today, whereby the Nita Lake project is getting a green light

through the miscellaneous bill that's before us. It is just coincidence, I know.

The government likes coincidences, and it is just coincidence that Mr. Haibeck

happened to donate $3,000 in 2002 to the Liberal campaign coffers and then

another $8,500 through the Whistler Rail Tours company which Mr. Haibeck happens

to be a partner in. It just so happens — and I know it's all coincidence —

that we have this bill before us.

Having said

that, I want to be very clear that the opposition actually takes no position on

whether or not Nita Lake should proceed. The issue we do take, of course, is the

overriding of court decisions through legislation. Anyway, it's not an attempt

to prolong debate on this matter because we do have the Premier's estimates that

we want to wrap up today — that we have to wrap up today — but I just wanted

to make those comments on the record.

Hon. G.

Plant: Just to remind the member that in this case, as I'm sure she knows,

the bylaws related to the development were passed in the fall by Whistler

following public hearings and other opportuni-

[ Page 11301 ]

ties for public input. Whistler council made the decision that this project

was in the best interests of the community. Their view was that the project had

the support of the community and would provide numerous benefits to the

community. There were significant financial and legal commitments made when the

bylaws were approved, including land transfers. By the time the court decision

was made on March 15, work was well underway on the construction of the hotel.

The project

actually will allow for the preservation of ten hectares of wetlands. It will

allow for the enhancement of trails and parks, residential housing, employee

housing and enhancements to public transit, including connection with the new

passenger rail station. It's a $120 million investment creating 100 construction

jobs and 150 permanent jobs. Those construction jobs have been in limbo along

with the development as a whole. According to Whistler, without this amendment

Whistler is very concerned that the development might not proceed, as any delay

obviously always is a risk for financial viability of a project. That is also

part of the factual context of the decision to accept the request by Whistler

that we act in this way.

[1455-1500]

Section 35

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Chong

Hansen

Bruce

van Dongen

Bray

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Cheema

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Abbott

Coleman

Cobb

Jarvis

Anderson

Nuraney

Nebbeling

Hunter

Long

Trumper

Johnston

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Nijjar

Wong

Visser

MacKay

Halsey-Brandt

Suffredine

Sultan

Sahota

Manhas

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections 36

and 37 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Sections 38 through 47 repeal significant portions of the Railway Act. What is

the general reason for these repeals?

Hon. G.

Plant: My understanding is that most of the provisions that are being

repealed relate to incorporation requirements, and the intention is that the

incorporation requirements of the Business Corporations Act take the place of

the Railway Act incorporation requirements. We are simply removing a whole set

of rules that have traditionally applied to railways and actually may not have

been used for a very long time because they're no longer needed. Railway

businesses that wish to incorporate in British Columbia will do so under the

Business Corporations Act.

J. Kwan:

As far as I understand from the Business Corporations Act, "Foreign

entities required to be registered," specifies that a foreign entity does

not carry on business in British Columbia if its only business in British

Columbia is constructing and operating a railway. That's the relevant

section

that applies under the Business Corporations Act.

[1505]

On that

basis, is it the case that we only have rail within British Columbia that is a

foreign entity operated by a foreign business? I actually know of other smaller

rails in British Columbia that are not operated by foreign entities. Of course,

I might add — and this certainly applies to B.C. Rail and to CN with the

transfer and so on — that the competition bureau has yet to finish its review

of that matter, so the deal is not yet done. But we are already repealing this

piece of legislation?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not sure if this will answer all of the member's question, and if

it doesn't, the member should ask again. The B.C. Railway Company has its own

statute and is unaffected by these amendments.

J. Kwan:

Let me go to

section 40 for a question to the minister, then.

Sections 38

and 39 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

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

Section 29(1) of

part 4

relates to special matters requiring permission. This repeal removes provisions

on special matters requiring permission.

Section 29(1) states:

"A company may apply to the minister for any of the following:

(

a) permission to construct branch lines, or to extend the railway of the

company; (

b) permission to extend or add to the undertaking of the company and

not falling within the scope of any statutory prohibition; (

c) permission to

invest the money of the company in the purchase of the bonds, stocks, shares

or securities of any other company; (

d) permission to acquire the undertaking

or any part of the railway of any other company, or to sell the undertaking or

any part of the railway of the company; (

e) permission to amalgamate and

consolidate the undertaking of the company with the undertaking of any other

company."

[ Page 11302 ]

Sub (4)

then goes on to say: "A company must not do, or commence or attempt to do,

any of the things referred to in this

section without first applying to the

minister and obtaining the minister's permission." Sub (10) states: "A

spur or branch line constructed under this

section must not be removed without

the consent of the minister."

Let me ask

this question, then, pertaining to

section 40, which is

section 29. Why are

these provisions being repealed?

Hon. G.

Plant: The main purpose here of removing these two parts of the old Railway

Act is that, as I said earlier, new incorporations will occur under the Business

Corporations Act. The fact that you incorporate, under the Business Corporations

Act, means that you become a person in the eyes of the law with all the powers

that a person has. Therefore, you would have all the powers that are

contemplated under

section 29 of the old act. So there is no longer any need to

create a process whereby companies could acquire those rights or opportunities.

J. Kwan:

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

those are duplications and are therefore not needed because the provisions

contained in parts 2 and 4 are already contained within another bill under

section 29 of the Railway Act?

[1510]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm advised that there are other provisions in other legislation,

such as the Railway Safety Act, which would come into play and have some

application if, for example, an existing railway wanted to construct a spur

line. They may not cover exactly the same territory as is currently covered by

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

part 4 of the act

that you get the approval of the Minister of Transportation before any of those

things can take place is regarded as unnecessary red tape.

Obviously,

anything that a railway wants to do on land is going to have to involve

acquisition of land, and it'll be subject to whatever rules apply to the land in

question that they're buying or acquiring. There's a whole host of other rules

and laws around things like environmental protection, and so on, that would come

into play, but the additional requirement that rests here in

part 4 — that you

need to get approval of the Minister of Transportation before you set out to try

to do any of those things — is, in the view of government, simply unnecessary

red tape.

J. Kwan:

Does the repealing of this

section of the Railway Act — and, really, sections

38 to 47 — have anything to do with the B.C. Rail deal? Is it necessary? In

other words, are any of these sections of this act required to facilitate the

B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. G.

Plant: None of these proposed amendments are required as a result of the

B.C. Rail deal. They are unconnected to that deal.

J. Kwan:

Does it have any impact, with respect to the operators, on the B.C. Rail

line, soon to be CN?

Hon. G.

Plant: It has no impact.

Sections

40 to 46 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

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

Part 40 deals with

amalgamation agreements. Could the Attorney General please advise why it was

necessary to remove the sections on the agreement for sale, lease or

amalgamation of a railway?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm advised that there are similar powers and rules about

amalgamations and those sorts of things in the Business Corporations Act. The

view of government is that there is no need for a separate set of rules for

railways.

J. Kwan:

Sorry. I didn't quite catch the Attorney General's answer. For some reason,

part of it….

Hon. G.

Plant: I understand that

part 40 sets out provisions regarding corporate

amalgamations, and I know there are provisions in the Business Corporations Act

that deal with the rules around when and how corporate amalgamations can take

place. The view of government is that those rules, which apply to business

corporations generally, should also apply to railways and that there's no need

for a separate set of rules around issues like amalgamation for railways. That's

why this set of rules is being repealed.

Sections 47

to 49 inclusive approved.

section

[1515]

J. Kwan:

We debated

section 50 earlier under, I think,

section

Section 50 repeals

the Video Games Act. I don't want to go into talking about the Video Games Act

other than just to put on record that the opposition is against repealing the

Video Games Act. I do think it does add to providing some regulation towards

video games. Particularly in light of the changing medium that is out there

around this and the exposure to video games of young people today — and

children more particularly — we need to be ever more vigilant to come up with

tools to deal with that, and I thought that the Video Games Act was a good tool.

Section 50

approved on division.

Sections 51

to 54 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment to

section 55 standing in my name.

[ Page 11303 ]

[SECTION 55, by deleting items 11 and 12 in the commencement

table.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 55

as amended approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 54,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, reported complete with

amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 54,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave

granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Plant: I table the annual report of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for the

year 2003-04.

I call

Committee of Supply.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:20 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote 8:

office of the Premier, $44,129,000 (continued) .

Hon. G.

Campbell: Before we commence today, I would just like to table two things in

the House in response to some of the questions I received yesterday from some of

the members.

The first

is in the matter of the Society Act and the matter of the CareNet Technology

Society. There was concern raised by the member from Mount Pleasant that we had

not had access to the society's records. In fact, we did have that access. It

was requested by Mr. Parks for the PricewaterhouseCoopers investigation that

took place. I'd like to submit the order from the minister for the House.

I would

also like to point out that in terms of the chronology that took place, there

were significant concerns raised about CareNet Technology Society and the

relationship with Mr. Walls, as was pointed out, as we established that. CareNet

had declared bankruptcy in 2003. All of CareNet's records were in the custody of

the bankruptcy trustee, MacKay and Company.

When

PricewaterhouseCoopers initially contacted MacKay and Company to arrange access

to CareNet's records, they were refused and were informed that they would need a

court order before they could access the records. The trustee was not convinced

that PwC had the appropriate standing to access the records. The office of the

comptroller general met with the society registrar to determine if there were

sufficient grounds to appoint PwC as an investigator under the Society Act to

allow them access to the CareNet records. The registrar determined that it would

be in the public interest to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers under

section 84 of

the Society Act to investigate the affairs and conduct of CareNet. The Minister

of Finance approved that appointment on February 4, 2004.

When

presented with the appointment under the Society Act, MacKay and Company still

refused PwC access to the CareNet records and continued to require a court

order. In discussion with the registrar, it was determined that a ministerial

order under the Society Act would be quicker than going through the courts. As

there was some urgency for PricewaterhouseCoopers to complete the work, it was

agreed to obtain the ministerial order. The Minister of Finance approved that

order on February 12, 2004, and when presented with that order, MacKay and

Company provided PricewaterhouseCoopers with full access to the CareNet records.

PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed the records of CareNet, completed their work and

issued their final report on May 6.

In the

opinion of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mr. Ron Parks, they had received what they

believed was required, and they felt no further work needed to be done. I would

like to table that in the House for members' information.

MacPhail: Just for the information of the Premier and his staff, I am going

to do public-private partnerships, intergovernmental relations and then the 2010

Olympics. After we get through that, Mr. Chair, I'll have to give you another

list, because I think we will be running down. I have several topics, and I'll

have to choose amongst them, but those will be my next three.

[ Page 11304 ]

I told the

Premier yesterday that we would talk about the public-private partnership that

is left on the agenda, which is the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre. Now,

I did canvass this with the Minister of Finance under the Partnerships B.C

auspices. We have a body in this province called Partnerships B.C., and they

report to the Minister of Finance. We did talk about this.

[1525]

What we do

know from that — and I reviewed the estimates discussion via Hansard

last night — is that there is only one bidder on the Abbotsford hospital and

cancer centre. The original request for proposal was for about $220 million. It

is now up to $300 million. The Minister of Finance explained that as because of

a larger scope. The scope in no way matches the increase in the price. Of

course, there is only one bidder left. Perhaps the Premier could tell me what

the status is of that request for proposal.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I appreciated the heads-up yesterday from the member that she

would be talking about the MSA Hospital and the P3. I think it's important to go

back and look at why this project was initiated. Going back a number of years,

the people of Abbotsford were told they would be having a new hospital. It was

clearly something that was required for that community, which is one of the

fastest-growing communities in British Columbia.

In fact,

the facility was first approved in 1992, when the member was previously in

government. In 1993 the Health minister said that the MSA Hospital would come on

stream in 1997. In April of 1995 the government announced that the facility

would not be built until 2002. In 1999 a former Minister of Health pointed out:

"It is not approved this year in the capital budget. It's $150 million, so

it would be the only capital project approved in any year. We will look at that

again next year."

The people

of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley were promised consistently by the previous

government that they would be getting a new hospital because a new hospital was

so required. In fact, over 13 years there was $10 million invested to deliver

virtually nothing.

We did

decide to move ahead with a new hospital for Abbotsford. There are 150,000

people that currently live in Abbotsford. There are some 330,000 people that

live in the Fraser Valley. It is important that their health care facilities be

upgraded in terms of providing care for people in the communities where they

live. That was clearly a critical component of any future-oriented health plan,

and it was a component we felt we had to commit to.

As we moved

forward, it was necessary for us to define the scope of the project, and in

doing so, I think there was a substantial scope increase. There are some 240

health care professionals that have been involved — doctors, nurses and

administrators in the Fraser Valley — to be sure that we do have a program in

place that will meet the needs not just of today but of tomorrow.

I think it

is also important to note that P3s have been part of the health care service and

delivery system for over a decade in British Columbia. There are a significant

number of long-term care facilities that are built, owned and operated by

private partners and have been since the 1970s. A number of private partners for

minor surgical services, like cataract surgery and diagnostic work, were begun

under the previous government. This is really a continuation of that thrust to

look at how we can secure the best possible value for British Columbians.

As the

minister noted and as the member opposite noted, there was a significant

expansion in the scope of the project. One of the real advantages of P3s is that

they require you to determine and define specifically the scope of a project

before you come to completion. That does in fact remove some of the uncertainty

and, frankly, a lot of the risk for the taxpayers as they look at creating new

public infrastructure to meet their needs.

Let me give

an example of some of the scope expansions. There are far more stringent

infection control measures to deal with outbreaks such as SARS. We know how

critical that is. That was reinforced to us all last year.

There is an

expansion of the emergency area. There are two separate and distinct

comprehensive cardiology care and intensive care units to allow more effective

care for patients that is specific to their needs. There are two cancer

programs, for breast health and for hereditary cancer problems. There is more

chemotherapy and treatment space, as well as enhanced brachytherapy services.

There is

more focus on providing specialized child and youth care. There are special

spaces designed to meet the needs of younger people for such things as rehab and

physio space that are specifically there for children.

[1530]

There are

teleconferencing and videoconferencing facilities in two of the eight operating

rooms now, which will allow us and will allow all British Columbians to benefit

from the expertise locally and, indeed, throughout the province. There are

equipment and medical services. There are more stretcher beds. There are six

more hemodialysis stations. There is a second CT procedure room. There is

academic space expansion to create a centre for learning in cooperation with the

universities to train health care professionals of the future. There are

environmental and facility enhancements to ensure that we're creating an

excellent working environment for a green building.

It is, I

think, significant that as we move forward with the bidder that is in place, we

are moving towards the completion of that bid. It is not complete as yet, but as

Mr. Parks even pointed out, the time to get the value-for-money audit done is

following completion of a bid that looks acceptable. The time for the public

sector comparator to be finalized would be at that time.

We are

confident that the people of British Columbia will not just have a health

facility delivered that is

[ Page 11305 ]

long overdue — it's a decade overdue — but they will also have a health

facility that meets their needs not just when it's complete but for years to

come, both for those who need cancer support and for those who need the regular

support we'd expect from an acute care facility. We would expect that will move

forward in a way that is done thoroughly and completely and that benefits all

taxpayers.

MacPhail: My question was: what is the status of the bid? I'll get into the

details of the expansion of the scope. When is the one bidder going to be told

whether they've got it or not?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As the member knows from the Partnerships B.C. website, the

construction will, hopefully, begin in the winter of 2004. We're obviously past

that, but we expect it to be completed by late 2007-08. We're still in

negotiations, and when those negotiations are complete, we will be in a position

that we can move forward.

MacPhail: Well, let me put on the record my version of this. My version of

the record is going to be assisted by Ron Parks, that wonderful auditor that the

Premier lauded and said that his words should stand independently of government

when the Premier was referring to the Doug Walls audit done by Ron Parks.

I'm not

going to overstate the case by Mr. Parks. That doesn't do anybody a service

here. But here's what I know about the status of the MSA Hospital in Abbotsford.

It's behind

schedule for even completion of the bidding process. There is one

bidder left, out of what was originally four bidders. Three bidders are no

longer in the process. There has been no value-for-money audit done and no

public sector comparator done yet.

Ron Parks

did an audit, a review, of the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre request for

proposal back in 2002. He did the initial evaluation in May 2002. Then the

government, as the Premier has just listed, changed the scope, so Mr. Parks did

another assessment of how the project had changed, and he did another review of

the proposal.

Let me just

read into the record his findings as of February 25, 2004. This is based on the

changed scope that the Premier just read. He found project costs have

skyrocketed since his initial evaluation in May 2002 due to significant changes

in facility scope and financing. Construction costs have risen from $210 million

to $286 million, and annual lease payments to the winning private consortium

have skyrocketed from $20 million a year to at least $39.7 million a year in

each of the 30-year deals.

[1535]

"No

further assessment of value for money has been performed to re-evaluate the

decision to proceed as a P3 project…." Of course, he said that that

contradicted the requirement that P3 projects demonstrate value for money to the

taxpayer. Government payments to project co, the name that the government has

identified for the successful bidder, are $393 million above the expenses and

debt servicing costs of the private consortium, with no explanation as to why.

"How

much risk the successful bidder will assume from the public sector and what

value can be placed on the transferred risks are unknown. Financing risk and

ownership risk are likely to remain within the public sector because (

a) the

initial contribution of $71 million of public money from the Fraser Valley

regional hospital district, and (

b) the private consortium will have nothing

other than the government guarantees to provide as collateral because

government will own the asset.

"There

is little assurance that the public interest will be protected or that all

stakeholders, including health care unions, will be involved in the process, a

requirement for public-private partnership projects. Lastly, the 30-year term

of the project's alternate service delivery contracts for the private partner

could result in reduced competitiveness in the long run."

So there's Ron Parks updating his original 2002 review of the Abbotsford

hospital and cancer centre request for proposal — updating it in February —

taking into account the changed scope.

Now, here's

what Mr. Parks said publicly after he released his review. He said that

"the cost of the project has nearly doubled, but there is no new evaluation

on whether taxpayers would benefit from the public-private partnership. As well,

with only one bidder left on the project, there is no competition. I think there

are serious questions that arise when we analyze what we've seen so far in this

project. Who was hired to do the audit by Hospital Employees Union?"

The

government dismissed Mr. Parks's audit because it was done by the Hospital

Employees Union. Well, they can no longer dismiss it, based on their absolutely

embracing of Ron Parks as being the final word in the Doug Walls audit.

Perhaps the

Premier could answer some of the concerns raised by Ron Parks.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Perhaps the member can tell me the pages from the report that she

is quoting from there. I don't recall those sections from the report. If those

are quotes directly from the report, it is easier for me to respond to them.

Let me say

that in the report I have, it is very clear — and this is from Mr. Parks

directly: "At this time, it is unknown what portion of this difference is

likely to profit project co and what other costs project co will have to incur

to build the hospital and provided the services indicated."

Mr. Parks

is unquestionably an excellent auditor, but as I tried to point out earlier, he

was relying on old information in terms of developing his report. The report

that he built was based on a much smaller scope. I mentioned earlier, I think,

the expansion of some of the areas of scope. PwC did a study that the MSA

Hospital project has expanded to become a regional referral centre with far more

health services. In other words, the increased costs that were found by Mr.

Parks are directly attributable to the increased scope and services of the

project, not to the P3 model.

[ Page 11306 ]

addition, there is a different set of facilities management services expected

from the partner than indicated in the original PwC report. There is a larger

bundle of facilities management services to be included in services — such as

food, materials management, portering and supplies, laundry and linen services,

utilities management and parking services. Mr. Parks himself acknowledged — at

the HEU press conference, in fact — that the appropriate time to prove value

for money for taxpayers is after the final proposals are in and the agreement is

finalized. I think we recognize that, and we are clearly moving forward with

that.

The Parks

report vis-à-vis the competitive process that the member opposite has referred

to…. As the member opposite pointed out, we issued a request for proposal.

There were four proponent teams in September of last year. In November two teams

officially entered the competition. In other words, there were two teams that

felt, with the stringent criteria we had established with the requirements for

the consortia that may bid on this…. There were two left. For months the two

proponent teams worked on preparing preliminary designs and on negotiating terms

of the project, and in February of this year the Healthcare Infrastructure Co.

of Canada indicated that they could not continue and submit what they felt would

be a winning proposal in the time lines that were available.

[1540]

At this

point, as far as I know, we are actually ahead of

schedule in terms of the

request for proposal. There is a complete financial model, including an updated

public sector comparator, which will be used in analyzing the proposal that

comes forward. It is also important, I think, to note that the single proponent

is still required to meet all the specifications of the request for proposal.

They are still required to clearly demonstrate the value for money prior to the

awarding of any contract.

Again, to

go back to Mr. Parks, he was interviewed on the CBC on February 25, the date the

member opposite just referred to, and he said it would be a very good

opportunity to negotiate with the remaining bidder and still come up with a

project. We concur with that. We believe the project is in the best interests of

the public. We believe that if you look at the cost-effective use of these

dollars, it is important to note that as we look at this…. The PwC audit, as

well, doesn't recognize some of the impacts, and not just of the scope expansion

that we've got. It also did not take into consideration some of the substantial

savings that were recognized through operating costs and alternative service

delivery models — at least, the Parks report.

So we've

got to be careful, because there was another PricewaterhouseCoopers report that

was done. It did report that, conservatively speaking, they were expecting a 1

percent to 4 percent savings with regard to the building. That results in

significant dollars. But they also identified up to $67 million of potential

savings through operating costs and alternative service deliveries, so looking

at the P3 and looking at the alternative service delivery, we are looking at a

potential for a $70 million savings. That $70 million can go into providing care

for patients, and that's also critical as we look to the future in the province.

MacPhail: I'm not clear. Is the Premier saying neither of Mr. Parks's two

reports, May 2002 and February 2004, is accurate? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have a report dated…. Sorry, the member can pass me the

reports she is referring to. I have a report dated December 24, 2003.

MacPhail: Yes — and was commented on in February 2004. So is the Premier

saying, just to be clear, that the Parks report is inaccurate in not having all

the up-to-date information? Is that what the Premier is saying?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yes, I am saying, in fact, that the expansion of the scope and the

expansion of the opportunities for both operating opportunities and alternative

service deliveries are significantly different from the report I'm aware of, of

December 24.

MacPhail: That is simply wrong, but isn't it interesting how the Premier

will embrace Mr. Parks when it suits his purpose? Then at other times when it

puts him at risk, he says Mr. Parks is wrong. The second report in December '03

took into account the publicized changed scope and the publicized reportings on

what would be the cost of operating expenses from the Fraser Valley health

authority to project co.

Nothing

different has occurred since that time, December '03 — nothing that's not

public, anyway. Maybe there is something hidden about it. But I find it

unbelievable…. Actually, Mr. Chair, it works both ways for us. It absolutely

works both ways. If he is going to discredit Mr. Parks in this area, then he

discredits Mr. Parks in the Doug Walls audit. That's exactly what he does, and

it's ridiculous to suggest anything otherwise.

I at no

time in any way indicated that Mr. Parks said the project shouldn't proceed. Mr.

Parks doesn't reach that conclusion, but he does outline what his view is of the

costs of this project. So when is the public sector comparator going to be done?

Perhaps the Premier could just put on record now how this bid is going to move

forward. What will be the legal obligations to the one bidder left? Regardless

of the circumstances of why the other bidders withdrew, there is only one bidder

left. So how do negotiations proceed with one bidder?

[1545]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me start by saying that at no time have I suggested that Mr.

Parks is not an able auditor, whether it is with regard to this report or other

reports. One of the things we know from the Walls report was that all

information that Mr. Parks required was made available, and he had it. One of

the things we know from this report was….

[ Page 11307 ]

MacPhail: That's not true.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Just so we're clear, Mr. Chair: that is true. Mr. Parks could

access any information that he required.

MacPhail: Could he access your hard drive?

Hon. G.

Campbell: He could access any information he required.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition, let's hear the answer, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Parks had access to any information that he required and

requested with regard to the investigation into CareNet Society. In this

particular case, the information that he had was not correct. The scope of the

project had expanded significantly. Mr. Parks himself said that the time for

value-for-money audits was after the request for proposal and the process was

complete.

As I

mentioned earlier, the proponent will have to meet the requirements and the

standards established in the request for proposal — number one. There is a

public sector comparator which has already been completed. It is part of the

negotiations. Obviously, I'm not going to make that public sector comparator

public here today or to the bidder. That's something we use as part of our

negotiations. When that is complete, there will be an evaluation done to ensure

that the public is getting full value for their investment.

In fact,

there are full benefits to the public. I identified earlier to the member

opposite that it looks at this point like we could achieve up to $70

million-plus in terms of benefits from going through the public-private

partnership route. That's number one.

Number two.

Unlike the previous government, this government intends to have a hospital built

by 2007 or early 2008 to meet the needs of the 150,000 people that live in

Abbotsford and the 330,000 people that live in the Fraser Valley.

MacPhail: I wouldn't hold my breath. This government has been spectacularly

unsuccessful in delivering on any infrastructure that they promised in this

province — spectacularly unsuccessful. Well, when did the scope of the project

change?

Hon. G.

Campbell: When the member opposite says that we have been spectacularly

unsuccessful in building infrastructure, I think it's important to look back at

her government's success in building infrastructure. Virtually none of the

projects that the government initiated were brought in on budget.

That's one

of the reasons that establishing a full scope for a project through

public-private partnership is actually an excellent financial discipline. It is

an excellent design discipline. It allows you, with the end of the process, to

look completely at the scope to see what the costs are, what the benefits are

and whether the taxpayer in fact is getting the kinds of benefits they need.

Currently,

as the member opposite knows, we are proceeding with the MSA Hospital, one that

was promised by her government for over a decade and was never delivered. We are

also in the midst of a public-private partnership for the academic ambulatory

care centre at the Vancouver Hospital at 12th and Oak. We have a public-private

partnership that is currently going forward with Britannia Mining as we move to

the cleanup of that. If the member has visited the Peace, she will know the

Sierra Yoyo Desan Road is underway as a public-private partnership that is being

built even now.

[1550]

There are

opportunities there, but every project is not a public-private partnership. I

think every project has to be looked at on its own merits, and that's exactly

what we are doing.

The initial

scope of the project was expanded significantly in the fall of 2003. In fact, it

will be continuing on as we move through and make sure that we deliver a

hospital that is cost-effective, meets the needs of the people of Abbotsford and

the Fraser Valley, and is delivering fair value to the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

MacPhail: Yes, exactly. When the scope of the project was expanded in the

fall of 2003, Ron Parks did his second review — on the expanded scope of the

project. That's when he reached the conclusions that I read into the record. How

is it that Mr. Parks didn't have the extra information? Of course he did. That

was the basis for his second review.

Let's be

clear. This government has very little, if any, factual basis on which to claim

$70 million of savings. It's over a 30-year period, as I understand it, that the

$70 million of savings may occur. It's like a rounding error in the life of this

project.

No matter

how much the government tries to discredit Mr. Parks's second review by saying

he didn't have all the facts, he did have all the facts. The facts came from the

government.

Who does

the public sector comparator? Will the public sector comparator be made public

in relation to the final bid before the final bid is accepted?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me answer the member's question quickly. The public sector

comparator will not be made public until after the analysis and the decision is

made. That's number one.

Number two,

I would like the member to give me the explicit page references to the report of

Mr. Parks that she is referring to, because the quotes I've heard today are not

quotes I can find in the report that I have available. If she can give me the

explicit page references, that would be very helpful.

[H. Long in the chair.]

[ Page 11308 ]

MacPhail: Yes, I will give the Premier a highlighted copy of the report with

all of that information. I'd be happy to.

Is the

final bid not proceeding until the public sector comparator is made public?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The request for proposal is underway, as I mentioned. The public

sector comparator is being developed, as I mentioned. The public sector

comparator is a critical part of the negotiations that we have with the private

sector with regard to this. When the decision is made, the decision will be

made. At the time the decision is made, the public sector comparator will be

made available to the public.

MacPhail: What happens if the public sector comparator comes out as a better

value for money for the taxpayer?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Obviously, if the public sector comparator looks like it's going

to be a better value for the taxpayer, we would proceed with that, just as we

did for the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. We looked at that to see

whether or not there were public sector benefits. We looked to see what the risk

allocation would be. We felt it was better to keep that project in the public

than to go to a public-private partnership.

This is an

important point. There is no one who is saying that public-private partnerships

are the only way to go with regard to these things. They are an important

opportunity. They're an alternative way to the traditional public building of

the facilities. We've seen what happens, and we've seen the disappointments that

so often have taken place when we don't in fact develop proper scope, when we

don't develop the standards and when we don't require the same disciplines of

ourselves in public life as they might in private life.

[1555]

One just

has to walk to 12th and Oak in Vancouver to see an example of a public sector

project that was not complete in its scope, which did not have any operating

opportunities and sat there as a shell for ten years while we waited to figure

out how the taxpayers' investment was going to reflect itself and care for

patients. It is almost 20 years from when the Vancouver General Hospital

facility was started. It finally is being completed so that there are patients

in that hospital for the whole hospital. That's probably cost taxpayers an

additional $100 million.

If you look

back across the government's record in a whole series of activities that only

the public was involved in, there were no comparators of any sort. What we find

are substantial overruns, substantial additional cost to taxpayers.

One of the

benefits of looking at a public-private partnership in this way is not just

whether the people of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley will get a regional

hospital and cancer care facility and centre, but they will get one built on the

basis of the best possible value. The public sector comparator will be there. If

in fact it offers better value, obviously we're not going to be going to the

public-private partnership. If the public-private partnership, on the other

hand, offers better value, that frees up additional resources to provide care

for patients.

I want to

be very clear with the member opposite. This is a legitimate negotiation that's

going on. We will not make the comparator available until we have had a chance

to review it and complete it in terms of the overall negotiation. If there is a

decision made to go to public-private partnership, then I can guarantee the

member opposite that the public sector comparator will be available to the

public for their scrutiny.

MacPhail: I'm reassured by that. I think it's excellent that it's not a

given that the hospital will be built by a public-private partnership and that

the public sector comparator will be made public.

When the

Premier makes the public sector comparator public, will he also make the full

contract with the project co public?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The expectation is that the overall agreement would be released,

subject to what are considered commercial limitations. For example, part of the

request for proposal gives the government the opportunity to renegotiate parts

of the agreement every five years. There may be information that the proponent

doesn't want available to their competitors in the outside market. Those are

things that would be subject, effectively, to holdback, but our general intent

is to make the contract available to the public, subject to those commercial

limitations.

MacPhail: I've had a chance, while awaiting an answer, to read the documents

the Premier tabled related to the chronology of events relating to Doug Walls

and also to the matters of the Society Act and the CareNet Technology Society. I

thank the Premier for that.

Just a

question arising from that, and it's a separate topic. I'm going to move to RAV

in a moment, in between that. Is the office of the comptroller general doing a

separate audit into any aspects of the dealings between Doug Walls, any of his

companies and the government?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The office of the comptroller general did an initial audit, which

led to the recommendation for the independent, external investigatory audit that

Mr. Parks carried out. At this point I believe they would consider that matter

at an end.

[1600]

MacPhail: I want to discuss the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit

line. Can the Premier give his view of what the status is of that project?

Hon. G.

Campbell: My understanding is that the requests for proposals have been

completed. The

[ Page 11309 ]

RAVCO board has suggested that they move forward to best and final offer. The

TransLink board has not, at this point, decided to do that. When the TransLink

board decided not to move forward, although perplexed by the decision, we were

asked if we could give them more time. We extended our commitment by 30 days. We

requested the federal government to extend their commitment by 30 days. My

understanding is that the TransLink board met yesterday, and they are meeting

again on June 2 or 3, or some time like that.

MacPhail: The provincial money contribution to the RAV rapid transit project

remains on the table for 30 days. Does it expire, or is it that it's revisited

at that point? Could the Premier give me a specific date of when that 30 days

is, please?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't recall the date of the letter. We were asked to send the

letter last week. We did do that. I think it was Wednesday or Thursday of last

week, so it would be 30 days from then.

The status

of the dollars, as I'm sure the member opposite is aware, is that the province

has had an agreement with the TransLink board — I think that agreement was in

July of last year — on how we would move forward with the RAV project, which

was a project they agreed was something they wanted to do.

The member

may not know this, but I can tell the member that I met — I think, actually,

we might have talked about this last year — with the chair of TransLink, the

chair of the greater Vancouver regional district, the mayor of Vancouver and the

mayor of Richmond to be sure that they wanted the province to go and advocate on

their behalf for the resources for this project with the federal government.

There was an initial commitment, I can recall. I think it was July 2002. I met

with the Prime Minister and told him that our first priority indeed was the

Kicking Horse line and that the RAV line was going to be something that was very

important as we move forward. In July 2003, I met with the Prime Minister again.

I reiterated the commitment and the concern that was raised by the local

government representatives I mentioned earlier.

The federal

government was willing to come with their funding through the strategic

infrastructure program. We have $300 million from that program that's there. The

federal government has $300 million from that program that's there. They topped

that up by $150 million.

The

infrastructure resources are going to be there for the province, and what we

were trying to say to the TransLink board is: "As you go through, have a

look at what you're doing. Decide whether you want to go ahead with this. You

should know that we will advocate on your behalf to the federal government to

maintain those resources, and our resources are on the table. But if there is no

plan, then obviously there are an awful lot of transportation requests that are

being made all over the province, and we would consider those."

MacPhail: Has anything changed from the province's commitment since the

failure of the vote? I can't remember the dates myself. The failure of the

TransLink board to pass, proceeding to BAFO — has anything changed from that

time to now in terms of how the province's financial contribution is committed?

Trumper: Mr. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1605]

Introductions by Members

Trumper: In the House now are a group of 40 grade 11 students from Alberni

District Secondary School. About 16 of them are from the French immersion class.

They are with Mr. Contant and Mr. Carl Poole. They are here for the next few

minutes to listen to the estimates of the Premier, so I would ask you to please

give them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Campbell: No. Nothing's changed.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, I think public transit is extremely important to

proceed on. I think rapid transit makes perfect sense. I think the

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line makes perfect sense. It would be

my second priority. My first priority would be rapid transit to the northeast

corner, but I'm on record that…. Actually, I was on record as funding that

opportunity when I was responsible for rapid transit.

This is

about me trying to understand from the provincial government what role they're

playing to try to bring about a successful RAV line and, at the same time,

deliver or assist TransLink and the GVRD in delivering on their priorities.

That's the basis for all of these questions.

I may have

misinterpreted the Minister of Transportation right after the failed vote of

TransLink, but I heard him speak. He spoke in the "I," not the

"we," so maybe it was just him speaking. He said: "It's dead. Our

money's gone." I paraphrase, but I listened to it about five times over the

course of that weekend. I would rather take the Premier's word right now that

the money is still there than the Minister of Transportation's, because I want

rapid transit to occur.

What is it

that's going on in terms of discussions now? I don't want to know the content of

the discussions, but what's going on to try to bring conciliation and resolution

amongst the competing interests?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First of all, as I mentioned, the dollars are there for RAV over

the next 30 days. In terms of our commitment to this, I think it's important to

note that we said all along that we were going to allow the region to make their

decisions and set their

[ Page 11310 ]

priorities. They did that. We have an agreement that was signed with the

GVTA. I think it was in July of 2003.

It's pretty

clear that in doing this, the question is not what the province is doing; the

question actually is: what is the GVTA doing? What is TransLink doing? What do

they want? The agreement was very clear that the dollars that were left over

from the SkyTrain agreement on the direction of the GVTA….

I want to

go back and stress this. This was a decision of the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority, not the province. We were trying to work with the

GVTA. I have letters from Mayor Campbell in Vancouver saying: "Thank you

for the extraordinary effort you made to secure an additional $150 million from

the federal government for the RAV line. I am writing to thank you for your

tremendous efforts to support the development of the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver

transit line. Without your commitment and your willingness to advocate for the

project in Ottawa, we could never have come as far as we did."

[1610]

What I was

doing, and what the province was doing, with regard to the RAV line was trying

to act as a supporter of the regional decision that was made and regional

priorities that were made. The agreement was pretty clear that up to $400

million could go to RAV and that $140 million would be left for additional

projects, whether it was expansion to the northeast sector or elsewhere in the

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority area. Any savings within the $400

million would be there for the GVTA and TransLink to invest how they wanted in

the project.

TransLink

drove the project. They created their own subsidiary, RAVCO, with independent

directors. They carried out full public sector comparators of the

Richmond-to-Vancouver line under the auspices of the former auditor general.

They had international peer reviews. They agreed with me discussing with the

Prime Minister and the federal government the need for an additional $150

million from the federal government, which was announced prior to their decision

on the Friday — whatever the Friday was. I don't remember the date.

My response

to the initial decision on the Friday was that I was baffled by it. I, candidly,

remain baffled by it. It's hard to understand it, because they have done the

public sector comparator, and we know that the RAV line meets the objectives

they set for it. We know that the risks some of the directors said they were

concerned about were going to be assumed by a private sector proponent. I

understand, believe me — I was formerly a chair of the greater Vancouver

regional district — the need for transportation improvements in the northeast

sector.

I also

believed that the appropriate decision-making body was at the regional level.

The appropriate decision-making body said: "Our first priority would be to

go the Vancouver-Richmond line." The appropriate decision-making body said:

"Let's look at a public-private partnership." They went through a

design process with the public-private partnership. They went through a planning

process with the public-private partnership. They made decisions that they

wanted to proceed with that on the basis of estimates, the cost would be between

$1.5 billion and $1.7 billion for that line.

In making

that decision, they recognized — and this was recognized some time ago and,

candidly, was recognized by the previous government, not the public-private

partnership — the value of the line for the Olympics. It was not part of our

bid, but it was certainly part of the presentations that were made by the

previous government. They knew that one of the key components of that was to get

additional revenues, or capital investment, from the Vancouver Airport

Authority, and there is $300 million that's been committed by the airport

authority to match the $300 million from the province and the $450 million from

the federal government.

It's pretty

clear that in terms of the project that was established last year, the project

was meeting the criteria. If the decisions have been changed by TransLink,

that's their choice. One of the reasons we provided for the extension was for

them to have a good, hard look at that. We know that the RAVCO directors

believed this was a process that was not just thorough but complete. There was

investigation of costs. There was investigation of comparatives. There were peer

reviews done. None of that has been done, I should mention, for the northeast

sector.

RAV has

been at least a two- or three-year project, that I'm aware of. Part of looking

at a regional transportation plan, if indeed it is shifting the way it is….

Clearly, there are resources that are available for transportation improvements.

They will be available for the region, but in the short term, if there is no

plan, it's hard to allocate resources to what doesn't exist when there are so

many transportation demands not just throughout the region but across the

province.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, the Premier started off…. Thank you for that

information. It's what has been in the public domain. The Premier did start off

by saying it's not what he's about to do but what GVTA should be doing. He

didn't use the word "should," but it's about what they're going to do.

Let me just

give my historical perspective on this. If I could work with George Puil, this

Premier should be able to work with Derek Corrigan and David Cadman. That's my

view.

Interjection.

MacPhail: It was a joke — hello. George….

Interjection.

[1615]

MacPhail: Well, here's what it has to do…. Then I'll give that answer in a

serious context. When I was minister responsible for public transit and the

birth of

[ Page 11311 ]

TransLink, George Puil, who worked every day to ensure that the New Democrats

were vilified as government, rose above that. He and I — I, who had no love

for the NPA, and George Puil — worked to ensure that Transit moved forward in

a way that everybody could buy into.

Now, the

provincial government of the day also did say that infrastructure projects that

went across municipal lines would be under the auspices of the provincial

government. They would be publicly built under the auspices of the provincial

government, and the Millennium Line, under that model, was built under budget

and in record time. Let's be clear again — under budget and in record time.

Over and

above that, the differences around the operation of transit beyond the

Millennium Line were worked through by George Puil and the provincial government

and other municipal leaders as well. A lot of that was done through

conciliation, negotiation, cajoling and strong leadership at the staff level.

All I'm

asking here is: what is going on? I don't even want to know the details. Believe

you me, I don't need to know the details. Is there anything going on where the

provincial government is working to encourage a resolution that delivers public

transit?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm not even sure of the direction the member is taking here. I

don't know whether the member agrees with Mayor Larry Campbell in Vancouver, who

I have been working with; or Mayor Malcolm Brodie in Richmond, who I have been

working with; or the chair of TransLink, who replaces Mr. Puil, who I have been

working with; or the chair of greater Vancouver regional district, who has

replaced Mr. Puil, who I've been working with. We have been working with

TransLink, so let's not get cute about it. We've worked all the way through on

this.

We now have

people like some of the member opposite's supporters who are fighting this.

Well, they can fight it. It's an open decision-making process they have in the

region. We have motion after motion where we have worked with TransLink. If you

want to talk about what we've tried to do, read the mayor of Vancouver's letter:

"Thank you for your tremendous efforts. Without your commitment and your

willingness to advocate for this project in Ottawa, we could never have come as

far as we did. Knowing, as I do" — this is Mayor Larry Campbell

—"how hard you worked on this project, I have some sense of the

frustration you must feel with TransLink's decision on Friday."

Of course

you're frustrated with it when you're trying to work with a board. I've never

had trouble working with Mr. Cadman or with Mr. Corrigan, but our job is not to

say that there won't be disagreements at the regional level. On May 23, 2003, we

had a recommendation from the TransLink board, who we were working with. The

board approved in principle the preparation issuance of a request for proposal.

We have a

resolution saying that the board approved the special-purpose corporation to

manage procurement and construction and testing of the RAV line. This is the

TransLink board. We've worked all the way through with the TransLink board.

We've said to them: "What are your decisions? How can we help? What is it

you need from us?" TransLink says to us: "What we need is for you to

go to Ottawa and make sure we get some financial support."

We got $150

million more than they initially expected — $450 million in total. That's

pretty significant help, I'd suggest. It's $450 million more that went into the

Millennium Line. We worked with the airport to make sure that they contributed

— $300 million. That's 300 million more dollars from another source than the

provincial government or the region than went into the Millennium Line. So we've

been working throughout this project.

[1620]

Then we

have CUPE come up and say they don't like it. That's their choice. TransLink

board will make their decisions, and that will obviously have impacts. What

we've said to the TransLink board now — and, frankly, I'd say it to Mr.

Sinclair as well — is: "Why aren't you working to try and get this

project through?" It's $1.7 million of investment. There's a substantial

chunk of that investment coming from the private sector, which is not coming

from the region. Here we have a regional transit authority that's deciding to

turn their back, evidently, on $450 million from the federal government — $300

million that will be there for sure.

There's no

guarantee that the $150 million will stay. One of the ways we convinced the

federal government to put that in place was because we have an Olympics coming.

It was the Canada line, we told them. It would connect Canada's gateway to the

world through Vancouver's international airport to Canada's convention centre on

the Pacific in Vancouver. It would provide for huge opportunities in terms of

improving the environment. It would take thousands of cars off the street to

meet some of the concerns they've had with regard to the environment.

We worked

together. You know, it's not one voice. It was the voice of the Premier of

British Columbia. It was the voice of the former Minister of Transportation and

the current Minister of Transportation. It was the voice of Doug McCallum. It

was the voice of Malcolm Brodie. It was the voice of Larry Campbell. It was the

voice of Marvin Hunt., Indeed, until a couple of weeks ago it was the voice of

the TransLink board. That's how we work with people. So when they decided they

weren't going to go ahead, frankly, what we said was: "Yes, I'm surprised

by the decision." Of course I'm surprised by the decision. I can't imagine

if I had been in a similar position locally — as they are with those dollars

coming in — not saying: "Great news. Let's get on with it." But

they've made that decision.

Then there

was a flurry of activity around the decision. I got letters from mayors. I got

calls from chairs. They said: "We understand what's going on here. We need

to have some time. Let us think this through. Let us think of how we can do

it." And that's exactly what we've done. It was the TransLink board that

drove this project. It was around before we started, before we

[ Page 11312 ]

were brought into government. When we came into government, we continued. We

continued to try and walk down the street together. We tried to provide

financial support. We tried to provide advocacy support with the federal

government and the airport.

Again, my

goal is for the region to make excellent transportation decisions. Their

regional members will be held to account for that. I was not involved with the

Millennium Line. I did not think it was the best decision, but you know what?

When they made that decision, I said that was their choice. If they decided to

do the Millennium Line and get themselves two-thirds of where they wanted to get

to with 20 percent more than they thought was going to be required the other

way, that was up to them. They made that choice.

When we sat

down and they said they wanted RAV, we said: "Fine. What can we do to

help?" They made that choice. When they decided not to do RAV, we said:

"That's a shame. I don't understand it. What can we do?" When they

said they'd like to have more time, we said: "Fine. Here's more time."

We're working with them. We're ready to work with them. We'll continue working

with them. Obviously, everyone will benefit from an excellent transit system.

Frankly,

I'm disappointed in CUPE's actions. I'm disappointed to see Mr. Sinclair saying

he doesn't want all those jobs for British Columbia. But it was TransLink's

decision, not the province's.

MacPhail: Well, I am very disappointed in what the Premier has just outlined

in what was supposed to be a cooperative discussion. The Premier again attacks

the part of the participants in his very partisan way. I have no idea why he

decided to attack CUPE and Mr. Sinclair. I have no idea whatsoever.

When he

says that somehow it was my friends…. I don't even know the mayor of Pitt

Meadows. I don't know the mayor of New Westminster. I know the mayor of North

Vancouver is not a member of my political party. So I'm not quite sure why the

Premier thought that he had to do that — what he did just now.

I'm

offering my experience. It may be completely rebuffed. Clearly, it was

completely rebuffed by the Premier — my experience in these matters. Once

again he stands up and chooses his friends — those who he says are his friends

and those who are his enemies. I didn't do that, and I made it quite clear that

I was a supporter of RAV as my second choice. Whatever.

All I was

asking was: as the senior level of government to TransLink, was he doing

anything to cajole or conciliate, to move the project along?

[1625]

What I do

know is that a couple of hours or days after the TransLink board turned this

down, his Transportation minister was saying: "We're not going to pass the

parking tax that they've required." He did say that and poked a stick in

the eye of TransLink. And the Minister of Transportation did say: "The

money is gone. The project is dead." I'm not quite sure why the Premier, as

the leader of this province, has to somehow say that all of the pettiness is on

one side.

I am once

again disappointed. We have about an hour and a half left. I don't have time

to…. I didn't even want to fight over this. I wanted to get some reassurances

and ended up not.

I'm moving

to Intergovernmental Relations now, Mr. Chair. I want to deal with a matter out

of Montana, the cross-border agreement with Montana on environmental

cooperation. This Liberal government has plans to develop a coalmine on Cabin

Creek, six miles north of Glacier, and is interested in offering coalbed methane

leases just north of Fernie. Both projects could possibly have environmental

ramifications on the water supply flowing into Montana.

The Premier

signed an environmental cooperation agreement with the state of Montana last

summer. I have that here. It's not signed. Can the Premier confirm with me that

he did sign this environmental cooperation agreement last year with the state of

Montana?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yes.

MacPhail: The Governor of Montana, a woman named Judy Martz, has expressed

concerns. I understand she has written to the government and expressed concerns

over the long-term effects of a possible coalmine and the extraction of coalbed

methane in southern British Columbia. Her concerns revolve around the quality of

water flowing into Montana. She also sent the Premier a letter last week — I

think it was last week — asking him to hold off on any plans until the

International Joint Commission could review the projects.

investigation by the International Joint Commission would allow us to move ahead

on these projects with the confidence that we upheld our commitments to our

partners in the south and that the projects are environmentally sound. However,

as I understand it, the International Joint Commission can only take action if

both Canada and the United States make a formal request. Has the Premier

responded yet to Governor Martz's letter?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No.

MacPhail: What is he planning on doing? What is the investigation around

this request, and what are his plans?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have asked the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management, as well, to give me a report on the mine that

is referred to by the Governor — I am not aware of the mine — so that I will

be in a position where I can respond to the Governor.

I should

say to the member opposite that the environmental agreement that was signed is

one that I think is important. We will take fully into consideration the

concerns of the state of Montana, and I'm looking forward to getting the report

from my ministers so that I can respond to her.

Obviously,

we're concerned about water quality. We are concerned about cooperation between

British

[ Page 11313 ]

Columbia and Montana, and we will be as open as we can as we move forward.

MacPhail: The environmental cooperation arrangement — it is called —

between British Columbia and the state of Montana states this: "Now

therefore the province of British Columbia and the state of Montana undertake to

establish the British Columbia–Montana Environmental Cooperation Initiative to

identify, coordinate and promote mutual efforts to ensure the protection,

conservation and enhancement of our shared environment for the benefit of

current and future generations." It was on the basis of that, that Governor

Martz wrote to the Premier.

[1630]

Does the

Premier have a time line on which he is going to respond to Governor Martz?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't have a specific time line, but I can tell the member

opposite that we will respond as expeditiously as possible. I do think it's

important that we listen to the concerns of Montana, just like I thought it was

important that Washington State listened to the concerns of British Columbia

when we dealt with Sumas 2.

The

benefits of these agreements are to say that we will work with one another,

we'll share information with one another, we'll listen to the concerns of one

another, and hopefully we'll be able to find resolution that will allow us to

move forward. Unfortunately, that was not possible between the province of

British Columbia and the state of Washington, but I do think we had open access

and discussions, so at least the Governor of Washington understood that.

That's the

same thing that will take place here. I think the important component of this is

that Governor Martz feels comfortable letting us know the concerns that her

constituents have in her state. I will get the information as quickly as I can

and will respond as quickly as I can. I will be glad to let the member opposite

have a copy of the letter when I do that.

MacPhail: The Environmental Cooperation Arrangement also says, after the

paragraph I just read into the record: "Accordingly, the parties will

develop an action plan within one year of signing this arrangement which will

form part of these efforts, reflecting mutual priorities. The parties may also

enter into specific arrangements necessary to effectively address shared

environmental goals." What is the progress on that?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Very slow. Unfortunately, we have not been able to complete those

framework agreements for a couple of reasons, but one of the most important is

that there have been significant challenges in Montana in terms of bringing them

to the table. It's something that we'll continue to work with them on.

But let me

say that I think the Governor of Montana, again, recognized the spirit of the

agreement that was made. The spirit of the agreement is for us to recognize that

when you're looking at an airshed, an airshed doesn't respect borders; that when

you're looking at a watershed, it doesn't respect borders. We have to work

cooperatively. This is an area where, clearly, Montana has some concerns.

There is a

potential for the development of a coalmine. What is the zone? I don't know what

the land use zoning is, just so the member opposite knows. I don't know right

today what the land use zoning currently is for that. The Governor of Montana

has raised some concerns with regard to coalbed methane. She may have those

concerns based on what they did previously in some of the states in the United

States, which she would be aware of, and she doesn't know what our regime is.

We are

going to make sure that they get all of this information with regard to this

specific item. Let me say that it may well be that through this specific item we

get some urgency behind the creation of the framework, and we'll be able to

present that to the member next year.

MacPhail: I want to move now, under intergovernmental relations, to health

care. What is the Premier's role in the summit that will occur around health

care later this summer? I'm not quite sure who's participating. Is it the

federal government and the provinces? Perhaps the minister could update me on

his role in that and what's on the agenda.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me go back for the member just so that you know what the flow

is. When we had the Premiers' conference in British Columbia in 2001, all of the

Premiers agreed that we had to take some ownership for health care and start

moving that agenda forward. If we waited for the federal government, we weren't

going to start to get the kind of response that patients needed in the country.

We've

undertaken a number of things since that time. One of them is the Premiers'

Council on Canadian Health Awareness. The other is a more comprehensive look at

how we deal with pharmaceuticals and Pharmacare and drug approvals across the

country. Another is the beginning of development of a human resource strategy

across the country which will include the training of doctors, nurses, health

care professionals, physiotherapists, etc.

As the

member opposite will know, there have been some challenges with federal funding

with regard to health care. We have spent a significant amount of time not

getting a very significant amount of return, to be quite candid, in terms of

trying to establish a new federal-provincial financial partnership that meets

the needs of Canadians in terms of health care.

[1635]

We met as

Premiers and formed the Council of the Federation. We had a meeting here in, I

think, February of this year, and we agreed that Premier McGuinty and I will be

having a meeting at the end of this month with Health ministers and Finance

ministers on two fundamental topics. The first one is: generally, what are the

[ Page 11314 ]

reforms that are required to meet the needs of patients across the province?

How do we deal with issues like aging? How do we deal with issues like home

care? How do we deal with issues like pharmaceutical costs? How do we deal with

issues like human resources, like the training needs that we have? We often

think of the financial commitments that the federal government makes, but we

forget that there was a real pullback on training that the federal government

provided for nurses and doctors, etc., in the 1990s as well.

One of the

things the Premiers felt at the February meeting was that we have to try and

outline an agenda for improvement in care as well as an agenda for improvement

of the finances. This is a rough translation, but if we just keep talking about

money, we're never going to get to the place we need to be, which is where

people across the country get the care they need.

At the end

of this month there will be a meeting with Health ministers which Premier

McGuinty and I will chair. We will also be meeting with aboriginal leaders,

because too often aboriginal health care has been forgotten by the federal

government. Indeed, if you look at the federal jurisdiction — we sometimes

forget this — the federal jurisdiction is probably the fourth- or

fifth-largest provider of health services in the country in terms of

responsibilities. We want to be sure that aboriginal health care is there, both

on reserve and off reserve.

We will

look at issues like home care, palliative care, etc. As we develop that, we will

also look at what we have defined as the fiscal imbalance. I think people are

starting to understand this. While the federal government has substantial

resources and substantial room for change, it's clear that in every province,

not just in British Columbia, the commitment that's been made to health care has

been enormous.

And the

additional resources…. As you know, we've added almost $2 billion to the

health budget in the last three years, and that obviously helps to drive out the

available resources for other public services at the provincial level. We want

to make sure that we are focused on that issue of what is, frankly, fiscal

imbalance and make sure that we bring that into force. We'll do that at the end

of this month with all of the provinces and the territorial Health ministers and

Finance ministers. That will then go from that meeting to, in my case, the

Western Premiers' Conferences.

An agenda

will go to the Atlantic Premiers. Premier Charest and Premier McGuinty will each

have the same agendas. That will then be brought to a Council of the Federation

meeting at the end of July, which will be in Niagara on the Lake, in Ontario. At

least Prime Minister Martin has committed that he will meet with Premiers this

summer for a number of days to examine health care and how we can in fact create

a long-term, sustainable health system. Prime Minister Martin made that

commitment in February, I think it was. We will be requesting the leader of the

Conservative Party, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the

Bloc…. If they are willing to meet on the same basis, we will continue to move

forward with the agenda.

The agenda

is not established. It's a broad-based agenda right now. One of our goals will

be to bring it down and bring it into focus so that we can provide for the

financial support for Canada's health system. Our public health care system in

Canada is a true competitive advantage. It clearly is under a substantial amount

addressed. We have to look at and listen to all the ideas on how we may be able

to do that. That's a general outline for the member opposite about the direction

we intend to take.

MacPhail: What role is the newly established Health Council of Canada

playing in all of this?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Health Council of Canada is independent of the exercise that

will be taking place between the Premiers and, hopefully, eventually with the

Prime Minister. The Health Council is there to provide a common look at the

results of various initiatives that are taking place in di