2003 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Mission school district and teachers'

contracts

R. Hawes

Skiing in B.C.

R. Sultan

2004 B.C. Winter Games in Port

Alberni

G. Trumper

Oral Questions

Public release of B.C. Rail–CN Rail

agreement

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

J. MacPhail

Payment of fees to B.C. College of

Teachers

P. Nettleton

Hon. C.

Clark

Maritime Museum

J. Bray

Hon. G.

Abbott

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services, first report

B. Locke

Special Committee on the Citizens'

Assembly on Electoral Reform, second report

J. Les

Tabling Documents

Strategic Direction and Funding

Proposal — December 2003 , auditor general report

Legislative Assembly pension plan,

annual report, 2003

Motions without Notice

Appointment of special committee to

appoint a public service employee relations commissioner

Hon. G.

Collins

Powers of Health Committee

Hon. G.

Collins

Powers of Education Committee

Hon. G.

Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97)

Committee of the Whole House

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) (continued)

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

J. MacPhail

Personal Statement

Hon. C. Clark

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89)

Committee of the Whole House

Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 92)

R. Harris

Hon. C.

Hansen

W. Cobb

S. Brice

B. Penner

R. Hawes

G. Trumper

Reporting of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 92)

Third Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 92)

Royal Assent to Bills

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75)

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)

British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90)

Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 92)

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Health Sector Partnerships Agreement

Act (Bill 94)

Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)

Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill

96)

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97)

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act

(Bill Pr410)

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 2) (Bill 98)

[ Page 8359 ]

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Les:

I'm delighted to introduce to the House this afternoon my legislative assistant,

whom I share with the member for Chilliwack-Kent. She's an absolutely wonderful

assistant to have, and I would like to ask the House to please make her very

welcome.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Sumas seeks the floor.

J. Les:

I'm delighted to inform the House that she also has a name. It's Janet MacKenzie.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I have three friends in the gallery today that all have names —

absolutely. They're from that wonderful little community up-Island, Ladysmith,

where we have thousands and thousands and thousands of lights lighting up the

little town. I would like the House to make Ed, Sharon and Chase Bricker feel

very, very welcome. I know they'd feel a whole pile better if, on your way home,

those of you driving up and down the Island would pop into Ladysmith and have a

look. It's absolutely brilliant. The Brickers.

[1405]

Stewart: Well, it's also my pleasure today to mention the names of two of

our legislative staff in the east annex. Kerri Sieg and David Burnie are

legislative assistants that work with me. Would the House please make the two of

them welcome here.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

MISSION SCHOOL DISTRICT

AND TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

Hawes: Nancy Wells, the superintendent of Mission school district 75, has

accepted a position as the superintendent of the Gold Trail school district in

order to be closer to her family. Many times over the last few years I have

discussed the challenges of operating the Mission school district with Nancy,

and as the eve of her departure nears, I've thought about what would be her

ideal parting gift.

If she had

a wish list, my guess is that it would include, first, standardization of the

teachers' collective agreements throughout this province. There's a provincial

master contract with BCTF, but there are also local contracts that provide big

differences between school districts.

The Mission

contract, for example, unlike others, stipulates that teacher layoffs will be

based on local seniority but that severance will be paid on global seniority. A

little over a year ago, a teacher in Mission with only 18 months of local

service and over 20 years of provincial service was laid off. Severance of over

$90,000 had to be paid, and that teacher was then free to seek employment at

another school district immediately. Clearly, this is not in the public

interest. I know Nancy would wish that a standard provincial contract could be

implemented where such issues are handled fairly provincewide.

Her second

wish would be that the personal harassment clause within the master provincial

agreement be removed. In 1996 personal harassment was added to the collective

agreement supposedly to protect teachers from being harassed by principals and

vice-principals. Since '97 there have been 106 harassment charges levied and

adjudicated. Of these, 105 have been dismissed, and in each case an innocent

school administrator had to suffer through the personal stigma associated with

this type of allegation. I'm sure Nancy's wish would be that the BCTF and the

employer agree that this very costly failed initiative could be removed from the

collective agreement.

Lastly, to

Nancy, my wish for you would be that your wishes come true and that you have

every success in your new life in the Cariboo.

SKIING IN B.C.

Sultan: Dr. Perry Kendall, our provincial health officer, reports

improvement in 41 of 91 health indicators but says we're at risk through

physical inactivity. On Sunday, I took his advice. I went skiing. In what other

fair-sized city can you exit your driveway at 1 p.m., make the tough decision of

choosing among three ski areas in your neighbourhood, snap on the old Rossignols

and be carving turns in the snow 30 minutes later?

I chose

Grouse Mountain over our official Olympic venue, Cypress Bowl, because I wanted

to check out a new high-speed quad chair christened by our Premier in September.

It will escalate 2,000 skiers an hour to the peak of Vancouver. As media ran for

cover, the Premier ignited a dynamite charge — symbolically, of course. Stuart

McLaughlin says Grouse Mountain Resorts made this $4 million investment because

of the 2010 Olympic Games — tangible evidence of growing economic and

recreational spinoff.

Sunday was

brilliantly sunny. Snow conditions were good. Over 2,000 other snowboarders, ice

skaters, snowshoers and old-fashioned skiers such as myself were also following

Dr. Kendall's advice. Somewhere in the crowd was the President of Singapore and

his first lady.

Let's face

the facts. As I slouched on the deck nursing a hot cider and watching the lights

come on and the sunset behind Nanaimo, I realized we're spoiled rotten. With

snow and mountains like this in our back yards — virtually everywhere in

British Columbia — is there any reason to spend the afternoon watching

television or playing Nintendo? Certainly not. Ski on, British Columbia.

[ Page 8360 ]

[1410]

2004 B.C. WINTER GAMES

IN PORT ALBERNI

Trumper: One week ago in Port Alberni we celebrated the 100th day of the

countdown to the B.C. Winter Games, which will be held at the end of February in

Port Alberni, with the lighting of the torch.

The city of

Port Alberni is the only city in British Columbia to have hosted all four B.C.

Games. We had the opportunity to host the 1992 B.C. Summer Games, the 1995 B.C.

Disability Games and the 1998 B.C. Seniors Games, and we'll soon host the 2004

B.C. Winter Games. If we had a little bit more snow, we might even host the B.C.

northern games. More than 2,400 participants are expected to take

part in this

year's Winter Games, and we have always had enough volunteers to enable the

games to be a success in our valley.

An addition

to the B.C. Winter Games will be the B.C. Olympic youth leadership academy. The

program is an ideal platform to provide leadership experience for students who

have a commitment to sport. The B.C. Games are about bringing communities

together. They are about instilling pride into our city and boosting our local

economy. It's about our youth and providing them with a positive, healthy

experience that would leave an impression for a lifetime.

I am

looking forward to the opening ceremonies for the 2004 B.C. Winter Games, and I

hope all members of the House will have the opportunity to take in some of the

festivities.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC RELEASE OF

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

J. Kwan:

For days now one Liberal backbencher after another has got up to say how

wonderful it feels to break their promise not to sell B.C. Rail. The session was

extended so Liberal MLAs could have a group hug on B.C. Rail. British

Columbians…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

…have no idea what these Liberal backbench MLAs are talking about, because

they have not been let in on the details of the agreement with CN. Can the

Minister of Transportation tell us which members of the Liberal caucus were

shown the agreement with CN? Can she explain why the public has been shut out?

Hon. J.

Reid: This agreement with CN has got so many benefits for this province, so

many benefits for the north. Most everybody understands that. In fact, I believe

it's the NDP's new leader, Carole James, who said just this morning, in respect

to this: "I think everyone appreciates the money that's coming to the

north." Everyone.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

What the Minister of Transportation didn't say is that Carole James is on record

saying that the selling of B.C. Rail is a bad deal for British Columbians and is

a broken promise and a sellout for the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

The deal to sell B.C. Rail breaks a fundamental election commitment, but all

that the Premier has provided to the public is a bunch of press releases and bad

spin for the backbench MLAs. Now we're debating legislation that says nothing,

because the only people, as we understand from this morning, that are allowed to

see the CN deal are a few special Liberal MLAs. Again to the minister: why

should British Columbians have less access to information than a few of the

special Liberal MLAs on the B.C. Rail deal?

[1415]

Hon. J.

Reid: The details of this agreement have been published. They've been

expressed, and they are so numerous. Just for the members' benefit — they

don't seem to understand this — I'll be glad to reiterate some of those.

We're going

to see 600 new railcars on the B.C. Rail system. We're going to see a new

gateway proposal, where we're going to see better synergies. We're going to see

a Chicago express that goes from Prince George to Chicago, cutting the time off.

We're going to see the reopening of a line that's very important to the people

of the Peace River country. We're going to see investment in the rail line.

We're going to see a new wheel shop for Prince George. These benefits go on and

on and on. Again, the people of the north, including Carole James, do believe

that everyone appreciates the money.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The minister only knows spin, and she's spinning as best she can. The

government, the Premier, promised openness and accountability. British

Columbians have a right to know what's in the contract the Premier has signed on

their behalf. If the Premier wants British Columbians to trust him, he should

have the courage to make the agreement with CN public. If he should have the

courage to share the deal with his

[ Page 8361 ]

own caucus members — who, one by one, have been singing his praises without

knowing what's in it — then the contract should be released today.

Again to

the minister — she sings the praises herself: prove it in this House. What is

she hiding from the public? What is she hiding from her own MLAs? Why won't she

release the contract today?

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Speaker, for brevity's sake, which I know you appreciate, today in

the committee stage debate I went over a whole list of the benefits that are

embedded in contract. The member certainly can look at the Hansard for

that entire list, and it is a long list. This morning we also went over the

exhaustive process that has taken place, including the hard work and oversight

of MLAs up and down along that line. We have been very clear that everything

that is not sensitive commercial information will be released when the final

deal is signed, subject to the…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …competition bureau review, as again was thoroughly examined this

morning in committee stage debate.

MacPhail: The minister said this morning that the legislation didn't have

anything to do with the contract. In fact, she was really objecting to having to

answer any questions. She said the legislation has nothing to do with the

contract. Lord knows how much it's costing to keep the Legislature open so that

frustrated backbench MLAs can jockey for that handful of cabinet posts the

Premier is going to dole out next week. We see some really just wanting to get

up there and prove their worth. Maybe this whole two days has been about the

prize for the best lap-dog defence of the broken promise. If that's the case,

the member for North Island is a shoo-in for cabinet. [Applause.] You betcha.

He's a shoo-in. Yep. He's never seen the agreement.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: He said he issued a news release saying that B.C. Rail doesn't

have anything to do with his riding and that there won't be any benefit, but

he's behind it 100 percent. Yes! Him for cabinet! Him for cabinet! That's the

kind of quality of cabinet minister this Premier wants.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: But without the agreement…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

[1420]

MacPhail: …it's all just an embarrassing spectacle and a waste of time.

This morning the minister said she shared the contents of the deal with a few

select Liberal MLAs, at least one mayor and maybe some shippers. She really

wasn't sure about that. If they have a right to see the deal, so should everyone

else. All we're asking the minister to do is show the same courtesy to her

colleagues — all of those who have not yet seen the deal — and to the

public. Make the deal public.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

MacPhail: Why is she refusing to do that?

Hon. J.

Reid: The agreement that we have with CN — the benefits that have been

listed…. Some of those are embedded in contract. Others are in legislation

that is before the House at this point in time. Some of it is before the federal

government because it pertains to their legislation. Again, that's all discussed

in committee stage. The sensitive commercial aspects of this agreement will be

protected, as is usual in these kinds of transactions. All the legal wording

that supports a contract, other than that information, will be made public. I

think that is clear for all of the House, and everyone can stand on that.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Clearly, some MLAs are more special than others, and the member

for North Island is trying to be more special than others. He just ain't making

it. I can hardly wait to see how B.C. Rail…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …which has nothing to do for him…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …is good for his riding.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, order.

MacPhail: The leader of the NDP said — and the minister knows it — that

because of the terrible economic circumstances, the communities in the north

welcome the money, but the Liberals are doing it the

[ Page 8362 ]

wrong way by selling off B.C. Rail. That's exactly what was said, and she's

right. The minister knows that.

Some MLAs

get to see the deal. Others don't. Every British Columbian will just have to

take the Premier's word for it. My gosh, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet didn't even

approve the final deal. For the benefit of the Liberal backbench and, actually,

the cabinet…. Maybe just the ones that are on their way out didn't approve it.

But for the benefit of those who still have to sit in the Liberal caucus, the

Liberal backbench, and who haven't seen the deal yet, and most importantly of

all, for British Columbians who think they're getting the raw end of this deal,

why is the minister hiding behind process that she doesn't even fully

understand? Why doesn't she just release the deal?

Hon. J.

Reid: That member is absolutely wrong in suggesting that cabinet didn't

approve the deal. Cabinet did approve the final deal. It's unfortunate that

something so simple could be misunderstood. Cabinet absolutely approved the

final deal.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: It was pending the agreement to that deal of CN, who agreed to that on

the 24th — that is, final approval of the final deal. I'm not sure yet why

this member does not understand or appreciate $1 billion for the benefit of

British Columbians.

PAYMENT OF FEES TO

B.C. COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Nettleton: I have a question…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Nettleton: …to the Minister of Education. In Prince George there are about

700 teachers who are in jeopardy of being forced from their classrooms due to

Bill 51 and the dissolution of the College of Teachers. This follows 14 school

closures and education funding shortfalls amounting to some $15 million.

[1425]

I've spent

five years in opposition, working with this member, opposing a government that

we agreed had become increasingly arrogant and contemptuous. Sadly, actions of

the minister to date suggest that that which she once loathed, she now typifies.

Will this minister do the right thing and commit today on behalf of parents,

communities, students and trustees to turn from confrontation and to begin

working honestly with teachers, instead of holding them in contempt merely

because she believes public opinion is on her side? Will this minister respond

to concerned parents in these communities who are wondering when stability will

be restored to the K-to-12 system and comment on how she plans to resolve the

situation, in which thousands of B.C. teachers have refused to pay their college

fees?

Hon. C.

Clark: You know, it's always easy on the last day of question period to

stand up and engage in name-calling, I suppose, and start using that kind of….

Interjection.

Hon. C.

Clark: What's really….

Interjection.

Hon. C.

Clark: On the last day of session to stand up and reduce this kind of a

debate to that kind of language…. But I will say this….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: But I certainly will be happy to answer the member's question, no

matter how he's chosen to pose it, and that is to say this. We will make sure

that this dispute does not affect children in the classroom, because what's

important here…. The independence of the college is important. The right of

parents to be able to complain about what's happening in the system is

important. Standards for teachers are important. All of those things are

important.

But this

dispute is a dispute between adults. And like all disputes between adults, we

need to make sure that they don't affect kids in the classroom. That is

something that I stood for every time I had the opportunity when I sat on that

side of the House, and it's something that I stand for today.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MARITIME MUSEUM

J. Bray:

My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Victoria's Maritime Museum provides an important public service in my riding, as

well as maintaining one of the largest maritime displays in North America. It's

also a significant part of the cultural precinct here in the capital and

provides a major tourism opportunity for Victoria. Media reports concerning the

future of the Maritime Museum have caused some concern in my community.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Bray:

Additionally, as the museum does have one of the largest collections of maritime

assets in North America, there is a concern about the potential loss of these

cultural assets.

[ Page 8363 ]

Can the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services explain what action is

being taken to help the Maritime Museum continue to be a cultural anchor in our

community?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition pointing out that there's

actually a scale model of the first fast ferry in the Maritime Museum. That fact

alone, Mr. Speaker, leads me to be concerned about the future of that

institution.

Seriously,

though, we have had a couple of very good meetings with the Maritime Museum in

the last couple of weeks. I think what I'm seeing from the Maritime Museum and

its board is certainly a recognition of some of the challenges that they face.

The

principal challenge, in fact, is that we have seen dramatically declining

admissions or attendance at the Maritime Museum over the past decade. I think

the board has come to the realization that the location of the Maritime Museum

is one of the issues that they need to address.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Abbott: What impressed me, Mr. Speaker — apart from their tenacity, which

is similar to the member across the way — is that they are very enthusiastic

about the future. They are looking at what I think are some alternative venues

that they are excited about.

[1430]

I'm looking

forward to working with the Maritime Museum to try to see that, in fact, the

Maritime Museum can continue to be a great amenity, a great attraction for the

city of Victoria, for the province of British Columbia — including that scale

model of the fast ferry, which I know we all covet.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

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

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

thirty-seventh parliament, respecting contingency funding for statutory

officers.

I move that

the report be taken and read as received.

Motion

approved.

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

the report.

Leave

granted.

Locke: I move the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the

report, I wish to make the following comments. The Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services, of which I am the Chair, met earlier this year

with the chief electoral officer to consider his request for reimbursement…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Locke: …of the costs incurred under the Recall and Initiative Act, in

administering eight recall petitions during the first three months of the

current fiscal year. On June 12, 2003, the committee recommended that the sum of

$310,000 be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to Elections B.C. for

these recall expenses. As the Legislative Assembly was not in session at the

time, the report was deposited with the Clerk of the House, and I now present it

to the Legislative Assembly.

Motion

approved.

J. Les:

I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on the

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform for the fourth session of the

thirty-seventh parliament.

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

J. Les:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

Leave

granted.

J. Les: I

move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report I wish

to report to the House that the work of the Citizens' Assembly initiative is

well underway. The special committee has confirmed an impressive group of senior

staff appointees. They in turn have been hard at work laying the groundwork for

the work of the Citizens' Assembly itself commencing early in January.

Delegate

selection meetings have been conducted in all 79 ridings across the province.

These have been well-organized and exciting events, the excitement only dampened

by the disappointment of those who were not selected to be part of the assembly.

This groundbreaking initiative in potential democratic reform has already

intrigued many students of democracy across this country and abroad. British

Columbians will be watching with great interest in the year ahead as the

Citizens' Assembly conducts its deliberations.

Motion

approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's Strategic

Direction and Funding Proposal — December 2003 .

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2003 of the

Legislative Assembly pension plan.

[ Page 8364 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, I would like to move three motions to charge three

legislative committees.

The first

is a special committee to be appointed to appoint an individual to be the public

service employee relations commissioner, the said members of the special

committee to be John Les, convener; Ms. MacPhail; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Hunter; Ms.

Locke; Ms. Orr and Mr. Harris.

Leave

granted.

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT A PUBLIC SERVICE

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSIONER

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the motion. It's in the hands of the opposition and the

Table as well.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and

unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, (pursuant to

section 5 of

the Public Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.385) the appointment of an individual

to be the Public Service Employee Relations Commissioner, Deputy Minister

responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission and to hold

office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, and

that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee, and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the

recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

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

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may

be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative

Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of

John Les, Convenor

Joy MacPhail

Randy Hawes

Mike Hunter

Brenda Locke

Sheila Orr

Roger Harris]

Motion

approved.

[1435]

POWERS OF HEALTH COMMITTEE

Hon. G.

Collins: I seek leave to move a motion to empower the Select Standing

Committee on Health to examine, inquire into and make recommendation with

respect to finding effective strategies to change behaviour and encourage people

to adopt lifelong health habits that will both improve their health and sustain

the health care system.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered

to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to finding

effective strategies to change behaviour and encourage people to adopt

lifelong health habits that will both improve their health and sustain the

health care system.

1. Conduct consultations and report on recommendations from the Select

Standing Committee on Health Reports from 2001 and 2002.

Investigate other successful health promotion campaigns in other jurisdictions

to analyze their potential effectiveness in BC.

Undertake discussions on how to promote "healthy lifestyles"

including the appropriate use of incentives and disincentives to help

influence public behaviour.

2. Determine any potential financial savings to the Health Care system as a

result of improved fitness of the general population and children and youth in

particular.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing

Committee on Health and Social Services, the Committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

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

sitting of the House;

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

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House no later than March 31, 2004; to deposit the

original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

That motion

is also in the hands of the Table and the opposition.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

POWERS OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Hon. G.

Collins: Finally, I seek leave to move a motion to empower the Select

Standing Committee on Education to investigate measures to improve access,

choice, flexibility and quality in public education and additional measures to

strengthen our network of colleges, institutes and on-line learning throughout

the province.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Education be empowered to

examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the following matters:

1a) To follow up on the 2002 recommendations of A Future for

Learners: A Vision for the Renewal of Education in British Columbia; and, in

particular;

b) Based on the 2002 recommendation for a process for public

post-secondary institutions to report back to the Select Standing Committee on

Education on the enhanced tuition revenues to benefit students, the Committee is

hereby empowered to request and receive

[ Page 8365 ]

reports on this matter from public post-secondary institutions.

2. The Committee may consider any other matters referred to

the Committee by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced

Education.

3. The Committee shall prepare a report no later than April

30, 2004 on the results of this review.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Education, the Committee shall be empowered:

(

a) to

appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to in Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and

during any sitting of the House;

(

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

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or

following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be;

to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of

the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 97.

Committee of the Whole House

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING (No. 3) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 97; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:37 p.m.

Section

1 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon.

G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 97,

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 89.

Committee of the Whole House

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

(REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 89; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:40 p.m.

section

1 (continued) .

Nettleton: I have a number of straightforward questions to the minister for

my own information, tied directly to

section 1, the

definitions section. Perhaps

the minister could assist me in terms of getting some information.

I noticed

with interest discussions with respect to properties that may — in fact, I

expect will be…. There's reference made to subdividable properties, which

means there are some properties that will be subdivided at some point and

presumably sold or somehow disposed of. I know the properties, as they relate to

B.C. Rail or what was once B.C. Rail, are certainly considerable. I know this is

kind of a general question, and perhaps it's not specific enough, but what is

the nature and extent of BCR properties outside of those lands designated as

rail corridor? Perhaps the minister could comment on that, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: There are hundreds of these properties. Some of them are vacant, and

some of them are occupied by commercial tenants.

Nettleton: Are these properties outside of the rail corridor all to be

disposed of in some fashion following the finalization of this agreement?

Hon. J.

Reid: The answer to the question is yes. These properties could go to

communities; they could go to first nations; they could go to the tenants that

are occupying them. In some cases, they could be returned to the Crown, if there

isn't any active interest in them at this point in time.

Nettleton: That's very interesting, and I expect there would be a great deal

of interest in terms of getting some sense as to where those properties are, the

extent of those properties, the nature of those properties and also some time

line for disposal. I wonder if perhaps the minister could assist not only myself

but others in terms of when information might be made available with respect to

the properties that will at some point be available for disposal, for sale —

some sense of the time line, how the process works in terms of having some sort

of information with respect to the

[ Page 8366 ]

disposal of those properties — all of which would be very helpful.

[1445]

Hon. J.

Reid: We anticipate that within the next six months, we'll have a fully

engaged process in place. Right now we have had preliminary discussions with

first nations, communities, tenants who have expressed interest in certain

parcels of property. Those decisions won't be made until there's a fuller

understanding of what the interests are. We can expect six months to get that

process in place, and then I would anticipate up to 24 months before we see the

completion of that.

Nettleton: I'm wondering if the minister has any sense as to the value of

the properties that will be disposed of at some point in the future — some

estimate as to the values — and also some sense beyond that as to where it is

the moneys derived from the proceeds of those sales would be directed.

Hon. J.

Reid: We have an estimate on those properties as being $100 million. Those

properties will be held in BCRC. That's the Crown corporation which, as we move

forward, holds the land, holds the railbed, etc. So those proceeds will go

there. That is the Crown corporation. Any decision on those proceeds, the

expenditure of those proceeds, has not been made to date and would have to be

made at some time in the future.

Nettleton: One final question for me, at least, on

section 1. Within the

context of municipal taxation and taxes flowing to municipalities as a result of

this transaction — assuming, then, that BCR lands are subdivided and sold

outside of the rail corridor — will this have any impact on municipalities and

CN with respect to municipal taxation? Or does this have no bearing on that at

all?

Hon. J.

Reid: The answer to that question is that those properties are outside the

estimate of the municipal taxation — the revenues that they're going to

receive.

MacPhail: What is the value of the lease, and what are its terms?

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Chair, we left off this morning…. The member had put a question

forward with regard to the proceeds of the B.C. Rail agreement. I just wanted to

be able to make sure that I had fully answered that question, had that

opportunity, put that on the record, because I do believe this is very exciting

news for the communities across the north and across this province.

[1450]

There is

going to be a $135 million northern development initiative, and that includes

$25 million operating endowment; $60 million divided equally to four regions,

$15 million each to Prince George, the Peace, the northwest, the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, including Lillooet; and $50 million for a general trust to

support cross-regional investments. In addition to that, there's going to be

another $15 million for first nations for their benefit as well.

I just

wanted to make sure, because of a discussion this morning of what was in

contract and what wasn't in contract…. That is certainly being published by

the government as the commitment moving forward on the proceeds. I just wanted

to make sure that question had been answered. I'm quite happy now to take the

member's following question.

MacPhail: Well, let's just finish up on that, then. Those commitments are

not part of any deal with CN, though. Is that correct?

Hon. J.

Reid: Those commitments are because of a deal with CN.

MacPhail: Does that mean that the $4 million to the airport that the

government has been promising forever wouldn't have gone ahead without the CN

deal? That promise has been there from this government to the airport of Prince

George for a long time. Is that what it is? It's a zero sum? The only thing the

north gets now is money out of this deal, and anything else they've been

promised by their backbench MLAs is a no go? How is that a gain for the north?

What percentage of the CN proceeds goes into the communities?

Hon. J.

Reid: I did leave out some of the expenditures that the province is making.

The member does talk about $4 million to Prince George Airport — a wonderful

opportunity to make that into an international airport. That had not been agreed

upon previously. The member might or might not know that there are a lot of

airports across this province looking for funds for growth, for opportunities.

This was a wonderful opportunity.

This is

about transportation. As well, there's $17.2 million from the province going to

Prince Rupert to support the container development initiative there. These are

transportation improvements that will have far-reaching and long-lasting effects

upon the economy of the north, producing all sorts of synergies that the people

in this House representing their constituencies can realize, can recognize.

In fact,

the member for North Island, I believe, gave a very good example of somebody

with some vision, somebody with confidence in the future of B.C., somebody

looking for opportunities instead of somebody looking to be negative. The

dollars that will flow into the province — the $1.5 billion — are going

against the debt, and the government gets to make the decision on those

remaining proceeds. Some of them have already been committed, as I said, and

some have yet to be committed.

MacPhail: Actually, what the member for North Island said was that maybe it

will help if there's a cruise ship terminal — well, he didn't even make that

clear — between Prince Rupert and his community.

[ Page 8367 ]

The link was completely manufactured. It had nothing to do with B.C. Rail,

had nothing to do with CN and was pretty much wishful thinking. But, hey, good

on him. Any audition to get into cabinet is good, I guess.

What

percentage of the proceeds is going into the communities as the minister has

just listed?

Hon. J.

Reid: I believe this is straightforward: $1 billion in proceeds. The

government gets to make the decision on those proceeds. The government has

decided $500 million — perhaps $502 million — goes to pay down the debt.

Then the government gets to make the decision on the remaining dollars. The

government has made a number of commitments with regard to those proceeds, with

more commitments to come in the days and months ahead.

MacPhail: I know why the minister never wants to answer these questions.

It's because they're embarrassing for her. The announcements they made related

to spending in the north, which have nothing to do with the CN deal and aren't

guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination, are less than 17 percent of the

proceeds of the sale of B.C. Rail.

[1455]

Let's be

clear. When the minister said this morning…. When I asked what sort of

guarantee there is for the airport to be developed, she said: "Because the

government said it would do it." Well, we got a flood of e-mails — from

Prince George, it turns out. I'm not sure why. They said: "Ask her about

her commitment not to sell B.C. Rail." That commitment about investing

money in the north and four bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee — not

at the Prince George Airport. So let's just see….

Let's just

talk about the port authority now at Prince Rupert. The government has committed

$17 million. What's the total cost of developing the port at Prince Rupert?

Hon. J.

Reid: While I thoroughly believe in the development of Prince Rupert as a

gateway port and the opportunities for containerization, I do not have all the

material available to me. I did prepare to come here and talk about the

legislation today, and I'm quite happy at some time in the future…. If this

member is not familiar with those opportunities, never received a briefing from

the port authority in Prince Rupert, which would be a shame at this point in

time…. If the member does not understand what's at stake and all the work

that's gone into developing that proposal and the different steps engaged in

that, we are happy to provide that information.

I do

believe that today we are looking at specific legislation that enables the

completion of an agreement between B.C. Rail and CN. It talks about the port

subdivision. It talks about consolidating the land values to protect the

railway, the corridor, the rights-of-way and lines in government's hands. So if

the member doesn't have that information and would like it, I'm quite happy to

set up that briefing for her.

MacPhail: Well, in fact, that's why we're here. Or is that not why we're

here? For the minister to answer questions about the deal that her government

packaged up in a nice, expensive presentation, and now she doesn't want to

answer questions.

It was her

government that linked all of this together, not anyone else. It was her Premier

that went over there and spent more than 50,000 bucks on a presentation that

said: "Here's why this deal is so good." And now the minister doesn't

want to answer questions? Now that we've extended the session for tens of

thousands of bucks, she doesn't want to answer questions? What? Is all the glory

over from the silly little second reading statements made on non-information

from the back bench?

Here's the

reason why I'm asking: because the minister justifies the sale of B.C. Rail. And

by the way, it was the minister that changed the title to British Columbia

Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. There's nothing that exists that

they're amending to that, so it was she who added the word

"revitalization." I'm trying to figure out where the revitalization

is.

One of the

great examples she gave was the Prince Rupert port. Well, it turns out that the

Prince Rupert port expansion will be in direct competition with the Roberts Bank

container expansion project. I received a letter from the Vancouver Port

Authority, which runs the Roberts Bank container expansion project, just last

week, saying how hard they were working to expand.

So I

investigated to see who they were in competition with. They're looking for

Canadian exports, so it's a zero-sum game. This revitalization scheme related to

Prince Rupert is a zero-sum game. What will go through Prince Rupert now won't

go through Delta Port. So the government again is claiming all sorts of benefits

from a deal that simply aren't there. The benefits aren't there. No wonder the

minister doesn't want to answer the questions.

[1500]

Mr. Chair,

part of this is about the revitalization agreement, which is contained in

section 1. That's all I'm trying to find out about: how's the revitalization

going to occur? Well, we're not going to get any answers about how it's going to

occur through the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Let me just put on the record,

Mr. Chair, that 17 million bucks for the Prince Rupert port ain't going to be

even a third…. Oh, it'll be a third of the money.

I guess the

minister's just counting on that money flowing from the federal government, but

the federal government is also being asked to invest in Roberts Bank. If the

federal government does flow money to Prince Rupert, it will be at the expense

of Roberts Banks, and there won't be one iota of increased economic activity as

a result of this CN deal — not one. It's a zero-sum game. That's why it makes

a mockery of the title "revitalization agreement."

My question

was on the lease. Can the minister tell what the value of the lease is, over

what term?

Hon. J.

Reid: It is so telling, this member's pessimism about this province. Her

absolute refusal to be-

[ Page 8368 ]

lieve in the potential of British Columbia and her refusal to believe there

can be growth in this province…. She fulfilled this when they were in

government.

We believe

there are opportunities for growth. We are searching them out. We are looking

for them. We believe there's growth for Roberts Bank. We believe there's

potential for Prince Rupert. We believe there are grain shipments and

containerization. We believe there is opportunity.

That member

doesn't want the revitalization of British Columbia. That member is totally

against growth in British Columbia. That member is not interested in seeing this

province grow, expand and do well economically for her own political interests.

We are interested, and we care about this province.

With this

agreement we are able to take a railway that was shrinking, Mr. Chair. We shrunk

it on purpose to contain the leakage of the costs. We contained it so that it

could function strictly as a freight railway business. But we weren't able to

invest in it, so the revitalization is a company that believes it will put a

billion dollars on the table in British Columbia to make sure it grows that

business. They want to invest in it, and they believe in its potential. We

weren't able to do that as taxpayers. That's the revitalization of the railway

that this member refuses to accept and acknowledge and that everyone out there

sees the potential of.

The

opportunities for the other proceeds, in looking at other initiatives —

whether it be an airport, whether it be the port, whether it be…

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, members.

Hon. J.

Reid: …the $135 million to the northern communities, where they get to

make their own decisions and are able to invest in their communities…. She's

belittling the amount of $135 million. I am absolutely frustrated and concerned

that she would not think this is a benefit to communities, because the

communities understand it's a benefit.

To answer

the last part of her question with regard to the value of the lease, the value

of the lease at this point in time — and I listed earlier this morning the

different influences on that value — is $150 million. The term is 60 years

with a 30-year renewal.

MacPhail: Perhaps if the member for Prince George–Mount Robson had

actually campaigned on what the Minister of Transportation just said, maybe we

wouldn't be having this debate now. But she campaigned on saying they weren't

going to do what they're just doing right now.

[1505]

Let's

be clear. This government doesn't have one piece of new financial information

that they didn't have during the election. During the election they said:

"We're not going to sell B.C. Rail." The member for Prince

George–Mount Robson got elected on that basis, so it ain't me being cynical.

It's the voters out there being cynical, wanting to know why the government

flip-flopped on their promise, and all they get in Prince George is a measly 27

million bucks.

Interjections.

MacPhail: A measly 27 million bucks — exactly.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: In the 1990s…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

MacPhail: …Prince George had invested in it almost a quarter of a billion

dollars — a quarter of a billion dollars — and this government wants credit

for investing 27 million bucks.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

MacPhail: It's the cynicism created around this government misleading the

voters during the last election, and this minister feels frustrated that she has

to answer questions.

We have a

$150 million lease for 60 years, and it's CN's option to extend it for another

30. Is that correct?

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes.

MacPhail: How much will the lease payments increase if CN exercises that

option?

Hon. J.

Reid: The $150 million would be for the 90-year period. At the end of 60

years there is an opportunity for them not to continue on with the agreement,

but the $150 million would include the 90 years, if they so choose.

MacPhail: Okay, so we have a 90-year lease where CN pays $150 million for

that. Let's say they take the full 90-year lease. You'd have to calculate the

net present value of the lease, but at a minimum it's less than a couple of

million bucks per year — probably closer to a million bucks a year on average

— CN is paying to lease all of the tracks of British Columbia Rail all

throughout British Columbia.

If CN

exercises its use of those tracks during that 90-year period, who else gets to

use it?

Hon. J.

Reid: Through the RFP process, we are requiring CN to allow access for the

tourism trains, and that's part of the contract as we move ahead. There is

nothing that would prevent CN allowing others usage of the tracks under

circumstances they would arrange.

MacPhail: But it's CN that gets to determine that use, not taxpayers. Is

that correct?

[ Page 8369 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: It is CN that has the operating rights. That's what we wanted — to

have an entity to take on the operation of the B.C. Railway, to invest in the

B.C. Railway, to grow the business of the railway transportation sector in

British Columbia. That indeed is the outcome that we have wanted all along, in

response to the member's earlier statement. That is how we are revitalizing the

rail transportation sector in British Columbia.

[1510]

MacPhail: So CN has exclusive rights to the use of the rail property and

rail lines for 90 years at an average of less than $2 million a year, yet the

Premier still insists: "Oh no. British Columbia owns the right-of-way and

owns the railbed." Well, for all intents and purposes, it's got zero value

attached to it for British Columbians. CN has the lease. It's up to them to

extend it or not. They have a veto on use of the track, and they get the profits

from the use of that. So I don't know why the Premier still insists that there's

anything in this for British Columbians.

I was

corrected. I was very taken aback when I was told that the 7 percent reduction

that CN is guaranteeing in fees charged, on average, only applies to interline.

Now, of course, the documents do say that — interline shipments. But what the

documents don't say is that 60 percent of B.C. Rail's business isn't interline

shipping. It's intraline shipping, and that has no price guarantee attached to

it whatsoever. Am I correct?

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Chair, I believe there were two questions in there. One, in

talking about the value of the lease, it's important for a reasonable person to

understand that those tracks, without trains running on them, don't have much of

a value to the province. What's important, what's valuable are the operations on

those tracks, and that indeed is what this agreement is all about.

It's also

important to realize that those tracks and those lines have to be returned to

the province in the state they originally are used today. That is going to

require, on today's financial terms, a $40-million-a-year investment. So the

member, if she wants to use that math of multiplying those kinds of figures as

the years go ahead — as she's dividing the lease figures into the years —

certainly realizes that there is a lot more investment and a lot more value. The

value to British Columbia is also in the growth of this business, and that is a

huge asset and value.

The other

question was with regard to the shippers and their prices. First of all, it's

important to note that the existing contracts are all honoured, and for the

shipments that travel within B.C., their competition is mainly with the trucking

industry. That puts them in a different situation. Their concerns were a

different type of concern than the concerns of the shippers who take their goods

and actually connect with other railway networks outside of B.C.

MacPhail: Clearly, the minister thinks she can just use this as an

opportunity to use her spin without answering my question, so I'll just assert

it as the truth, because she didn't challenge it. When all these Liberal

backbenchers stand up and say, "The interline shipping has an average

reduction in price of 7 percent," that only refers to 40 percent of B.C.

Rail's business. Fully 60 percent of B.C. Rail's business has no guarantee of

reduction of shipping costs whatsoever.

The

minister keeps on saying that the competition, now that CN has a freight rail

monopoly in this province, will be with intermodal services. Does CN run any

intermodal freight services in this province?

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes.

[1515]

MacPhail: Yes. In fact, CN runs quite a substantial intermodal freight

service in this province, and yet the minister is somehow saying: "Oh no.

There will be lots of competition." Yeah. So we give CN a monopoly of

freight rail traffic in this province, and then we expect that the way that the

monopoly won't be exercised as a disadvantage to shippers is because they'll be

competing with intermodal freight services. Turns out that the biggest

intermodal freight service in the province is owned by CN. Gee, how's that going

to produce a nice competitive situation? I didn't hear anybody in the Liberal

caucus talking about that.

Let's just

look at the definition of railbed assets, which is in

section 1. Railbed assets

are defined in

section 1. I gather that the reason why railbed assets are there

is because this is what the Premier rests all of his hat on that he's not

breaking a promise he made during the election. This is what the government

retains ownership of.

Looking at

subsection (c), it states: "…all works of infrastructure under the

control or ownership of the BC Rail Partnership, a subsidiary of the company or

the revitalization rail operator that support the safety, security and operating

integrity of the railway track, including, without limitation, cuttings,

embankments, drainage works, bridges, tunnels, culverts, retaining walls, works

of stabilization, signals and detection devices and at-grade road crossings and

signals."

Given that

definition, who actually is responsible for the safety and operating integrity

of the track?

Hon. J.

Reid: The revitalization rail operator would be.

MacPhail: So even though all those things are defined as railbed assets —

and this is what the Premier uses to say B.C. still has some say in this — all

of that for 90 years will be under the control of CN. Is that part of the

contract that we can't see — the requirements there? Is that part of the…?

What is it called now? I can't even remember the name of the agreement this

morning — the agreement that's going off to the competition bureau.

Hon. J.

Reid: The maintenance of the track and, as the member read out, what goes

along with it are part

[ Page 8370 ]

of the revitalization agreement, not the transaction agreement. It's the

track, it is the land, and it's the right-of-way that are part of the

revitalization agreement. The safety standards are all part of federal

regulations and certainly are monitored.

MacPhail: CN is responsible for the upkeep of the rail lines, but the

province owns them. What is the province responsible for in any of this?

Hon. J.

Reid: The revitalization railway operator will be responsible for all the

operations and all that is affected by those operations. When we get to

section

6(51), we talk about some liabilities that the government will still have with

regard to such things as environmental…. I'm not sure if the member would like

to talk about that as we get to that part of the bill.

[1520]

MacPhail: Let's just be clear on this definition of railbed assets. The

minister's using language…. I find it quite Liberalspeak for her to say the

revitalization operator. It's CN, who now owns it. Why doesn't she just say

that?

CN will be

responsible for maintaining the railbed assets from beginning to end for 90

years. This government won't be investing one red cent in maintaining those. And

90 years from now, who will know whether the tracks will be returned in the

condition in which this government sold them off?

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 2 adds 5.1, the port subdivision. The port subdivision is

a 23-mile

section of rail commencing near Cloverdale, B.C., and it ends at the

Westshore Terminals at Roberts Bank coal terminal. Since 1970 the three major

railway companies have held running rights on the port subdivision. Those are

Burlington Northern, Canadian National — no, we're not allowed to call it

Canadian National anymore; it has to be called CN — and the CPR. These

running-rights agreements are for a 21-year term running from April 1, 1970, to

April 1, 1991, with the right to renew for succeeding terms of 21 years. These

terms of agreement were originally entered into between the railways and the

British Columbia Harbours Board. They were then transferred from the Harbours

Board to the railway when the railway acquired what is called the port

subdivision in '83.

Pursuant to

the running-rights agreements, CP Rail, CN and Burlington Northern have the

right to handle their own traffic on this subdivision. Specifically, the user

railways stack their own trains over the port subdivision, including switching

and other ancillary movements required by their coal train or container train

operations. Since April 1 of 1970 the railway has been responsible for managing

and operating the port subdivision.

Article 6.3

of the port subdivision agreement between B.C. Rail and CP Rail provides, in

part, that agreements are for terms of 21 years with the right of renewal. The

unique character of the port subdivision agreement is reflected in the following

abstract from the

preamble to the agreement. I'm going to read it into the

record:

government of the province of British Columbia that Roberts Bank, British

Columbia, be developed as a national port serving the whole of Canada.

"Whereas BCR and CP Rail agree on the principle that all

parties involved in the development of Roberts Bank, British Columbia, as a

national port shall be treated on a fair and equal basis, and that said

principle shall apply to all railway companies that may serve Roberts Bank and

related facilities now or in the future"

My questions flow from those "whereases," Mr. Chair, and

the original agreement.

B.C. Rail

currently employs 30 employees on the port subdivision. These are crews doing

the track maintenance, the signal repair crews, the rail traffic controllers and

the train supervisors at Roberts Bank terminal. There are 30 workers. Each

railway company using the port subdivision pays their portion of the expenses

depending on the number of trains. For instance, if CP ran 75 percent of the

trains, they would pay 75 percent of the cost of the operation, the upkeep, the

train control, etc. It is a cost-plus agreement between B.C. Rail and other

railways. B.C. Rail owns, maintains and sometimes provides running crews on this

section of track. All the costs are passed on to the private railway operators

as they move their shipment to the port.

How much

money does the port subdivision make for B.C. Rail on an annual basis, and where

does that now flow?

[1525]

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Reid: Those proceeds do flow into B.C. Rail's books, bottom line, but they

aren't accounted for separately. They aren't separated out by the company. It's

just part of the larger overall operation.

MacPhail: So what's the future of the port subdivision?

Hon. J.

Reid: We do have an RFP issued right now for an operator for the port

subdivision. It's important to note that before the RFP went out, we did meet

with all the stakeholders who are involved in those operations — the people in

the port, the people operating trains, etc. What we want to see here, once

again, is a railway operator who is able to invest so as Delta Port expands,

there is more investment put into that line. One of the main criteria of the RFP

is that all users have equal access.

MacPhail: Well, it's a way of having equal access but still allowing for

prices that aren't competitive. Will CN be allowed to bid on this sale?

[ Page 8371 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: The existing contracts will be honoured with regard to price going

forward, and we are not prohibiting anybody from showing or expressing interest

in this proposal.

MacPhail: Well, then I assume that the sale of the port subdivision will

also have to go to the federal competition bureau.

Hon. J.

Reid: We are getting that information with regard to the competition bureau

and the port subdivision.

[1530]

I did want

to respond to a comment made earlier by the member with regard to intermodal and

intermodal operations. She said that CN does have intermodal trains that operate

in B.C. Intermodal trains carry truck trailers or containers, so the trucking

industry is still there. Just because a train can carry trucks doesn't remove

the trucking industry that exists. That competition still exists, and I think

the distinction is important to make — that an intermodal train has

containers, truck containers or trucks, that actually travel on that train.

I will have

the answer to the member's last question momentarily.

MacPhail: Could the minister please explain 5.1(2), which says: "A BCR

collective agreement does not bind, and

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code

does not apply to, the Port Subdivision Subsidiary"?

Hon. J.

Reid: This particular

section ensures that B.C. Rail Ltd. employees remain

with B.C. Rail Ltd. in order to make a distinction between the port subdivision.

So while we have the….

And in

response to an earlier question, the member was talking about why we don't just

say CN is the revitalization rail operator. Obviously, we're looking for another

operator on the port subdivision, and that's why I make the distinction.

We do

believe it's important that the employees stay with B.C. Rail Ltd. That

distinction is made so we can have a railway agreement, a separate process from

that, because the railway operates quite separately, operates in a different

format that is important to maintain and that we will be maintaining. So that's

where we're making the distinction.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to predict that CN is going to buy the port

subdivision as well. Call me crazy. I know the minister said I was crazy when I

predicted that CN was going to win the B.C. Rail bid. Day after day she stood up

in this House and said: "No, no, that's not the case." Well, I predict

it is.

So the

employees of port subdivision are now going to work for CN. Is that correct?

What happens to their collective agreement? Let's be clear. B.C. Rail Ltd. is

now CN. CN bought it lock, stock and barrel. What is the invocation of

section

35 of the Labour Relations Code? What happens to these employees?

Hon. J.

Reid: The current unionized employees — their certification, collective

agreements — will remain with B.C. Rail Ltd., and that goes to the operator,

which is CN.

MacPhail: What is the exemption from

section 35 of the Labour Relations

Code?

[1535]

Hon. J.

Reid: While we are accessing some specific information, I want to go back to

another question that was asked earlier with regard to the port subdivision and

the competition bureau. Because of the size of this transaction, we don't

believe it's automatically going to be reviewed by the competition bureau.

They'll make that decision based partly on if there are shippers' concerns or

not. This is a very different structure of deal, where access is going to be

required on an ongoing basis and where the existing contracts are going to

apply. Whether or not the competition bureau sees fit to review the port

subdivision is not known at this time.

MacPhail: Sorry — did the minister say she was going to get back to me on

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code? Yes.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section basically says that CN has no responsibility to

provide rail service after a certain period of time. Much was made that this new

partnership agreement would provide passenger rail service and freight rail

service throughout the B.C. Rail line. However, this

section would allow CN to

abandon rail lines, just as was set out in a leaked CN Rail scenario document.

Let me ask

this. There is a guarantee only for five years that CN won't abandon rail lines.

After that, they can abandon rail lines as long as they go through the Canadian

Transportation Act process. How can the government possibly guarantee passenger

service if CN abandons rail service and maintenance south of Williams Lake, as

has been part of their plan?

Hon. J.

Reid: First of all, that is not part of their plan, but I think the member

is misreading this section. This

section is saying that the Crown corporation,

the holder of the rail line, the holder of the right-of-way, does not have to

provide the railway operations. I think that's a very important distinction to

make here.

MacPhail: Well, I thought CN bought B.C. Rail Partnership. It did. It bought

B.C. Rail Partnership completely. It says here: "…the company, any

subsidiary, BC Rail Partnership or any person under the control of the company,

any subsidiary or BC Rail Partnership may, but need not, provide rail service

over all or any part of the lines of railway referred to in subsection

(1)."

[ Page 8372 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: Once CN completes the deal and purchases the partnership units, there

is no longer that partnership. Everything referred to here refers to government,

refers to the government ownership. This does not refer to the revitalization

railway operator. This all refers to the government.

[1540]

MacPhail: Well, how? Any subsidiary, the company…. Where does it possibly

say it's government? We already know — CN announced — that it only has a

service guarantee of five years. Is the minister somehow saying that this

legislation protects against CN abandoning rail lines?

Hon. J.

Reid: If we'd spent a little bit more time on

definitions, this might be

apparent. It's important in understanding this legislation that any reference to

the company or its subsidiaries.… All of that refers back to government. The

only time it refers to CN or the potential port subdivision operator is when the

wording "revitalization rail operator" is used.

discussing the other general question with regard to continued service on these

lines, it has certainly been CN's intent to be able to grow that service. There

are the provisions that there could be no application for abandonment of service

for at least five years. Any application at that point would have to go through

the CTA process, which usually takes several years and which investigates what

has been done to keep that line in service. It's quite an exhaustive process. It

also looks at opportunities for short-line.

Ultimately,

at the end of the day, what's very important to the people of British Columbia

is that the railway — the line, the track and the right-of-way — always

stays in the public's hands and always has to be maintained to a condition as it

is today. Upon any concern over the usage of any track in the future, it will

always ultimately be government's decision as to what happens on that track if

CN decides, through that exhaustive process, it no longer can operate on any

section of track.

MacPhail: Cutting through all that, after five years CN can abandon a rail

line as long as they follow the Canada Transportation Act process. They can

abandon a rail line or a spur. In the RFP that CN is required to deliver on for

passenger service, what guarantees that they will keep the track open south of

Williams Lake? How is the RFP working in that area?

Hon. J.

Reid: Contained in the RFP for the tourism rail services is a term of ten

years, so that would be embedded in contract with any passenger service or

tourism service that would contract with CN.

MacPhail: Where is the passenger service travel going to be? On what line?

Hon. J.

Reid: The RFP is for the complete expanded network, so it's all the BCR line

right now as well as the CN line in British Columbia. The RFP was issued jointly

from B.C. Rail and CN to include all of those lines.

MacPhail: So CN has to provide, through contract, passenger rail service on

all of its lines? Or does it get to choose on which?

Hon. J.

Reid: It opens it up for proposals. Whoever has an interest…. Whether it's

going to Prince Rupert, whether it's going to Jasper or whether it's going to

Whistler and Vancouver and up to Prince George, whoever has a proposal will put

that proposal in. It's up to the proponents to suggest where those trains would

run and CN to enter into a commercial agreement with them for that minimum of

ten years.

MacPhail: What is the RFP for? What's the minimum passenger service that

will now be required through this RFP that the government is touting as a

restoration of passenger service? What's the minimum?

[1545]

Hon. J.

Reid: We have required CN to provide access for those services. It all

depends on the proposals that come forward and who wants to use what lines to

what extent. That is going to be the foundation of the tourism passenger

services in the future. Until those proposals come in and are analyzed…. We

know there has been interest. We know there has been adamant interest for over a

year now. That interest continues, and people have publicly expressed interest.

As to the extent of what lines they are going to put in a proposal for, I don't

have that information.

MacPhail: Is there any requirement that says you have to guarantee 12-month

passenger service?

Hon. J.

Reid: Access is required to the lines for those passenger tourism trains, so

again it's dependent on the proposals that come forward — whether somebody

sees it as seasonal or whether somebody wants to run a service that is

year-round. Those businesses will make those decisions and will put the

proposals in to CN. CN has to provide access on a commercial basis.

MacPhail: In other words, there's no guarantee of 12-month passenger rail

service, and the tourism service is going to be decided by CN Rail — another

claim that's been blown way out of proportion by this government.

Section 3

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 20 of the British Columbia Railway Act has been repealed,

so there's no approval by cabinet of lease or sale of lines. The minister just

said that if CN abandons lines, the government owns them and will decide the

future of those lines. Who

[ Page 8373 ]

decides it now? I predict lines will be abandoned, so by repealing this….

Who's in charge now?

Hon. J.

Reid: Future decisions on the line. The line is going to be held in the B.C.

Railway Company, and the shareholder of that company is the government, so

future decisions on those lines still come back to government.

MacPhail: Not according to legislation. The government has removed cabinet

approval for lease or sale of lines. It seems a weird thing to do when the

Premier's travelling the entire province saying the taxpayers still own the

railbed and the right-of-way. Does it mean that when CN abandons a line, it will

just be abandoned? There are no future plans for lease or sale?

Hon. J.

Reid: Rather than cabinet being able to make those decisions as it is now,

in the future if that instance occurred, it would have to be through

legislation. This provides the greater guarantee that while we have the ability

to lease the line, we are keeping the line — the roadbed, the right-of-way —

in perpetuity.

MacPhail: So every lease or sale of the lines — the actual sale and the

actual lease — will come to this Legislature to be approved. If you're doing

it then, why not now?

Hon. J.

Reid: We are here in the Legislature debating a bill that enables us to take

on a lease. In the future, the way this act is structured guarantees ownership

in a vehicle that is so secure that it is not cabinet's decision to sell lines,

and we're saying the lines will not be sold. That's what is ensured in this

piece of legislation. It provides an extra hurdle, so if some day some future

government has to make a decision, they will have to come back to the

Legislature. It is not a decision of cabinet at that point. That's greater

guarantee to the people of British Columbia.

[1550]

MacPhail: What are we debating right now? Are we debating a lease agreement

and a sale agreement? If so, where is it?

We're not

debating that now. This government isn't putting that up for debate. These

members don't even know what they're debating. Where is it that we are debating

the terms of the lease or the terms of the sale? Show me in the legislation.

Hon. J.

Reid: This legislation enables a lease — in fact, more than one lease. As

I've already said, there's the main line of B.C. Rail, and there's also the port

subdivision. This enables both of those leases to take place.

MacPhail: So we're not debating the sale or the lease. We're debating

enabling legislation about a lease, a contract, a sale, which is completely

secret.

How dare

the minister stand up and say: "We're debating the lease and the

contract." She won't release the details. In fact, everybody who votes in

favour of this is putting up their hand and going, "Aye aye, Captain,"

when less than a handful of them actually know the details of the contract. This

is all being done behind closed doors and breaking an election promise.

Sections 4

and 5 approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 6 adds new sections to the British Columbia Railway Act,

sections 45 through 53. The entire

section would allow CN to be part owner of

B.C. Rail property and exempts CN property from certain municipal bylaws and

regulations. In fact, the language is fairly strong in

section 6,

section 45(8).

If I could just read this, subsection (8) says: "Despite any provision to

the contrary in a security agreement or other agreement or record, a transfer of

a railway property to the company effected under subsection (4) does not

constitute a breach or contravention of…."

What's the

purpose of this? Why is the government exempting itself from any other

provisions to the contrary that might be in contracts elsewhere?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm going to answer this question on the land transfer and then the

question the member posed earlier with regard to

section 35. The purpose of this

section is to consolidate the land. The land right now is under different titles

under the subsidiaries of B.C. Rail. There is a requirement, a need, to

consolidate it all under the B.C. Railway Company, which will then have the

title for that right-of-way so that we can protect the title of that

right-of-way. The transfer is really an intracompany transfer so all the terms

and conditions that apply will continue to apply to that land going forward.

This is a consolidation of the land under one title and the need to streamline

that because of the large number of properties involved here — I believe over

2,500 properties.

[1555]

To answer

the question the member posed earlier around

section 35 of the Labour Code,

section 35 says that if a business is transferred, the collective agreement

follows. What we have done here is that the collective agreement does not follow

the port subdivision, but the employees will stay with B.C. Rail Ltd. and stay

under the existing collective agreement. So those employees, because they stay

with B.C. Rail Ltd., are still protected by their existing collective agreement.

The port subdivision, as I said earlier, is separated off so that we can

negotiate a second agreement with a railway operator.

MacPhail: Back to the question on

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code.

What collective agreement does apply to the former employees of the B.C. port

subdivision? Is it their current collective agreement, or is that ripped up and

made null and void, and they have to assume the collective agreement of what?

[ Page 8374 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: It is a current collective agreement because they go with B.C. Rail

Ltd., and that collective agreement goes with the operations.

MacPhail: Well, I hope somebody out there understands that. I'm confused.

B.C. port subdivision has a separate collective agreement. B.C. Rail Ltd. has a

separate collective agreement. They're shaking their heads, no. If there's one

collective agreement, and they're staying under that same collective agreement,

why exempt them from

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code?

Hon. J.

Reid: Right now it's all part of B.C. Rail Ltd., and it's all together. We

want to make sure that those employees are looked after. Those employees will

stay with their existing collective agreement that they will be taken into B.C.

Rail Ltd. We will be separating off the port subdivision to be a separate

entity. Right now it's together. It's going to be a separate entity, so we can

enter into a separate lease agreement with a new operator for the port

subdivision.

MacPhail: Okay. So then the new person who gets that contract isn't burdened

by a collective agreement. Is that the purpose of it?

Hon. J.

Reid: Just as CN, who's been the successful proponent for the main BCR line,

has its collective agreements, the new port subdivision operator would have

their collective agreements.

MacPhail: Back to

section 6, Mr. Chair. In subsection (10) it states….

This is a

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

"

(10) On and after any transfer referred to in subsection (4), all uses to which the

transferred railway property was being or could be put immediately before the

transfer, all modifications that had, before the transfer, been made to the

railway property and all things and other improvements of any type that were,

immediately before the transfer, located on, in, under or over the railway

property, are deemed to be wholly consistent with the local government

requirements that would otherwise apply to the railway property, including,

without limitation, all local government zoning bylaws."

Reading that, on the face of it, it sounds like another Bill 75, the

Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Reid: This

section basically grandfathers the existing use. If CN wanted to

do anything different in the future as a private corporation, they would have to

apply for zoning applications, as anybody else would. This just grandfathers the

existing use that's there today.

MacPhail: So there's no forward-looking at this. CN, in the future, has to

apply to city governments for zoning bylaw changes as would anyone else?

[1600]

Hon. J.

Reid: The answer is yes.

MacPhail: Under

section 48 of

section 6, which basically is the section….

Section 6 is what gives life to CN buying this company. Therefore, the

opposition will be voting by division against this section, Mr. Chair.

Section 48

says there will be no government liability after transfer. Let me just make

sure. Yes, that's the title. It's pretty succinct: "No government liability

after transfer." If the government owns the railbed and the right-of-way,

why is it opting out of any liability? Who is liable, then?

Hon. J.

Reid: As BCRC will be a passive landowner of the railway rights-of-way, we

won't have control over the railway operations. This provision insulates BCRC

against any claims made on the railway operator by third parties. It also

ensures that BCRC will not have to be made responsible for maintenance of the

railbed assets, which is the sole responsibility of the railway operator.

MacPhail: Yeah, but what if CN doesn't do it? The government still,

according to the Premier, owns this. Why is the government opting out of

liability for an asset that it owns?

Hon. J.

Reid: The operator is responsible for the maintenance. It's responsible for

the upkeep. It's responsible for the operations. Why would the taxpayer want to

take on liability for their operations? That wouldn't make any sense. This makes

sure that the operator that is managing the railway operations is liable, as it

should be, for the results of its operations.

MacPhail: Call me crazy, but if a taxpayer says the owner….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Oh, another wonderful contribution from a member of cabinet.

If the

taxpayer owns the asset, as the Premier says every day, why wouldn't the

taxpayers want the government to have liability in case of abandonment by the

operator? It's quite easily considered, easily contemplated that the contractor

might not fulfil its contract. In fact, those very issues are facing this

government right now in highway maintenance.

If this

government is trying to claim that it still owns the asset, what allows it —

other than through its heavy hand of legislation — to opt out completely from

liability? What if CN abandons its responsibility? Is the person harmed or

injured completely abandoned then as well, even though the government owns the

asset?

Hon. J.

Reid: I believe there are two different issues that the member is talking

about. One is about liabilities for a company that is going to be running the

operation. Again, I have no idea why the member would want the taxpayer to be

liable for what might ensue from the operations of that company. That company

should be liable.

[ Page 8375 ]

The second

part of the question, I believe, and the answer.… If there is eventually an

abandonment of track, that comes back to the province, and the province then

would have the liability over that

section of track once again.

[1605]

MacPhail: Where does it say that?

Hon. J.

Reid: If a piece of railway property that's been leased, through an

abandonment process many years into the future, came back to the government, it

would then no longer be part of the revitalization agreement. That enables the

government to once again have the liability on it.

MacPhail: Where in the legislation does it confirm what the minister just

purported?

Hon. J.

Reid: The revitalization agreement is a lease agreement that is for the

lands as so defined. That's set out in the legislation, obviously. Once a

property is no longer part of that lease through an eventual abandonment — as

I say, many years in the future, if there were an abandonment — then that is

no longer part of the lease and would no longer be covered under this exemption.

It is a straightforward process. The member doesn't want to accept that, but it

is actually a logical progression. The act allows for the lease properties to be

covered under this exemption from liability. If they were no longer part of the

lease properties, then the government gets back and has full authority over

those properties.

MacPhail: It's not a matter that I don't want to accept it. I just don't

have any evidence in front of me. I guess it's in the revitalization agreement,

which we don't have before us. There's nothing in the legislation that in any

way confirms what the minister just said. Don't accuse me — Mr. Chair, through

you — to say that I don't accept or don't want to accept it. I have no idea

whether to accept it or not — just the same way that the minister said she

wasn't going to sell B.C. Rail during the last election. We're now being asked

to take her word for it on process.

Let's look

section 50 of this. It says: "No liability…." This is exactly the

title. God, the person who wrote this legislation was being very frank. "No

liability for failure to terminate or enforce revitalization agreement."

The minister just said, "Oh, don't worry. It's all right there in the

revitalization agreement," and that there would be no problem with how

things are enforced.

Section 50 says that either the government or CN can cancel

the agreement at any time, and there's no penalty for anybody refusing to uphold

the agreement.

[1610]

If I were a

taxpayer and CN lines ran close to my business or close to my kids' school, and

if there was going to be a spill or a fire, I'd sure want some guarantee that

someone was going to be liable for what happened there — or a derailment that

caused property damage. I'd sure want to make sure there was somebody that had

liability there.

We don't

know, in the lease agreement…. We don't know from the revitalization agreement

what the liability is of CN. We know the government isn't going to be liable for

the assets it owns. The minister says: "Oh, why would the taxpayers be

interested in that?" Well, we'll see. We'll see whether the taxpayers will

be interested if CN abandons its responsibility.

Believe you

me, it ain't a golden boy corporate customer. It doesn't have an exemplary

record in this area. If it abandons its responsibility, government ain't liable.

Someone is killed; property damage is done; pollution occurs. This minister

doesn't see anything wrong with it. Then, why should she? They've also said that

if CN abandons the agreement, there isn't any penalty. Why?

Hon. J.

Reid: In speaking to this section, the clarification that's required here is

that government fully intends to enforce the agreement. Government has the

ability to decide how to do that, in enforcing that. What this does is not allow

a third party to come in and say: "We don't like the way government is

enforcing this agreement." It protects government from that. Unfortunately,

that seems to be a reality in today's world — that we have to look at these

possibilities and make sure they are included in legislation. It is a matter of

government enforcing and being able to deal with the revitalization agreement,

as it says here: "…may take such actions as they consider appropriate to

terminate or enforce a revitalization agreement." This is a very important

section here — that government has ensured that it is able to enforce this

agreement.

MacPhail: What are the enforcement mechanisms?

Hon. J.

Reid: Whatever is appropriate for the circumstances. Government will have to

look at whatever is in breach and have to make a decision on what needs to be

enforced. This gives government the power to even terminate this revitalization

agreement if those enforcement measures are not complied with. This is a very,

very important part of this legislation.

MacPhail: Well, sorry, I'm reading it differently. I'm asking the minister:

what are the enforcement mechanisms available? I read it differently from the

minister. It says right here: "…the revitalization agreement or any other

agreement, no legal proceeding, whether for damages or compensation of any kind

or otherwise, lies or may be commenced or maintained against the government, or

any employee, agent, minister or ministry of the government, or the company, or

any director, officer, employee or agent of the company, in respect of the

failure or refusal."

The

minister says I'm getting it wrong. Great. Tell me: what are the enforcement

mechanisms the government has available to it if CN doesn't live up to its

agreement?

[ Page 8376 ]

Hon. J.

Reid: In this subsection (2) we're looking at here —

section 6,

section

50(2) — it is talking about anyone who might disagree with the enforcement

measures government takes. Certainly, the realm of opportunities that would be

available to government, again, in enforcing that agreement would be wide and

varied. This is not limiting, in any way, government's ability to enforce the

revitalization agreement any way they see fit.

[1615]

What this

does is that a third party isn't able to come and say: "We don't like the

way you have enforced that, and we're going to take action against you in that

means." It does not limit government's ability to enforce. In fact, it

strengthens it by saying we can terminate, if necessary. I believe that's

exceptionally strong, and it just does not allow the

interpretation of other

people with regard to government's enforcement to be a legal action.

MacPhail: What are the enforcement mechanisms contained in the

revitalization agreement that the minister is touting with such confidence?

Hon. J.

Reid: Under standard commercial contract, all those enforcement mechanisms

would be "this agreement would be subject to…." Again, this allows

government to take those enforcement measures necessary. It doesn't restrict

government from any enforcement measures. That's as strong as this can possibly

be. I can't see how the member would want anything stronger than that. I believe

this is the ultimate enforcement.

MacPhail: The minister keeps asserting like she can't understand. I have no

idea what the enforcement mechanisms are. Is there a financial penalty on CN

Rail if it abandons operation?

Hon. J.

Reid: The member is asking for specific examples, specific enforcement

measures, specific issues. What we have done here is incorporated a principle of

enforcement in the strongest way possible — the absolute strongest way

possible — to say that the government could take action, including

termination, to enforce. Whatever action is appropriate for those circumstances,

government can consider. This is a principled approach. It allows government the

ability to pursue actions — whatever is necessary. If the member has any

suggestions of how to make this any stronger, I would like to hear them, because

I do believe this is the ultimate strength.

MacPhail: I'd like to see the contract that backs up the words the minister

is saying — that there are enforcement mechanisms there. That's what the

public would like to see, because it ain't here in the legislation.

Under

section 53, "Waiver of approvals," it says: " Subject to

section

52 (1), the company may…." What company is that referring to? Is that

B.C. Rail Company?

Hon. J.

Reid: That is B.C. Railway Company. That is, of course, the Crown

corporation.

MacPhail: Why is this allowing that further sales be allowed to take place

without having to seek any approvals?

[1620]

Hon. J.

Reid: This

section allows more than one lease, so we have the main line of

B.C. Rail; we have the port subdivision. If, as I say, many years in the future

the government received a rail line back again and wanted to have a lease

agreement with another operator, this allows us to do that.

MacPhail: Yes, I know. But it's removing all of the approval processes that

the minister has to go through. Why?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm not sure what was not clear about the answer I gave — that there

are multiple leases right now. We're looking at two of them. It's to say there

could be another lease in the future. This presents that. If the member wants to

re-ask the question, I'll try and get further clarification.

MacPhail: No, Mr. Chair. I'll tell you something. This is just becoming a

wasted exercise in trying to find out answers. I asked a very specific question

about why the minister is exempting herself from future approval processes for

future leases, and I can't get an answer. I can't get an answer to the fact that

so much of this detail is reflected in a contract that we can't see. We're being

asked to take the guarantee of the minister's word when we see what that means

with her government, the Premier. I'll tell you, Mr. Chair. This is an exercise

in futility to actually find out what's going on with this sale.

[1625]

Section

6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Hogg

Hawkins

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

van Dongen

Roddick

Wilson

Hagen

Murray

Coleman

Penner

Harris

Brenzinger

Bell

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

[ Page 8377 ]

NAYS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

Section

7 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:30 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Personal Statement

Hon. C.

Clark: I rise to make a personal statement. Today I received advice from the

conflict commissioner in response to my earlier request. He advised that out of

an abundance of caution, I should absent myself from any consideration of this

bill. I have done that, and I have previously absented myself from cabinet

discussions on this matter.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 89,

British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I call committee stage on Bill 92.

Committee of the Whole House

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 92; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:34 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

On

section

[1635]

Harris:

Section 3 starts to deal with third-party billing. My question to

you is around organizations like WCB and ICBC that presently use these clinics.

How are they impacted by this section?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This legislation only affects medical services that are, under the

Canada Health Act, required to be paid for out of our public health system. The

Canada Health Act actually explicitly exempts the provincial workers

compensation boards across Canada. If we look at work that is done now and paid

for directly by Workers Compensation Board, ICBC and other government bodies

like that, they are specifically exempted.

There is

also a list of federal acts. Just to mention a few, there's the Aeronautics Act,

the Civilian War Pensions Act and the Government Employees Compensation Act. It

includes things like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, for example, and the

National Defence Act. In the Canada Health Act there is provision for them to be

explicitly exempted. This bill will not affect the delivery of any of those

services.

Harris: In this

section it refers to "in relation to a benefit." I

think there's been a lot of confusion among doctors on what this

section means.

Right now it seems there are a lot of things they're allowed to charge for and

it's not deemed to be medically necessary. Can the minister clarify in this

section what will be prohibited — if it's in any way related to the benefits

that are covered by MSP? How does it impact those benefits today?

I'd

like to get some specific examples of what those would look like.

Hon. C.

Hansen: This is an area that we've had some very good discussions with the

B.C. Medical Association around. What we are trying to get at with this

particular amendment is procedures that are charged for — for example, for a

procedure that is covered under the Canada Health Act and therefore must be paid

for by the public health care system. There have been examples that have been

brought forward to us where individuals, patients, have been charged for things

like tray fees or consultation fees that were in relation to the actual

procedure but still are not permitted by Health Canada in their

interpretation

of the Canada Health Act.

A specific

example of something that would not be considered in relation to a procedure

would be something like a fibreglass cast. If you have a broken limb and you go

into a hospital and they need to put a cast on, what is covered under our health

system and paid for by our health budget would be your normal plaster cast that

would get put on. If you as a patient or the family of a patient were to choose

to have the more expensive fibreglass cast, it would still be permissible for

the physician or the facility to charge extra for that additional service over

and above what is medically required.

There is

provision in the legislation that says the Medical Services Commission can

specifically exempt certain procedures. It could also be done by regulation if

necessary. We're going to be working with the B.C. Medical Association and with

physicians around the province to make sure we give them the certainty they need

around what is or is not covered under this particular section. The term

"in relation to" is not meant to include those various extra services

that are considered

[ Page 8378 ]

by Health Canada to be appropriate under the Canada Health Act today.

Essentially, we're not changing any of those provisions, but if the need to be

explicit is there, we have the power to do that either through the Medical

Services Commission or by regulation.

[1640]

W. Cobb:

I would like to go back to the WCB or ICBC exemption for a minute, if I could.

Basically, what you're telling me, then, is that if I get hurt at work or in a

car accident and need a knee operation, I could get bumped to the head of the

line because of whatever reason — because of ICBC or WCB — to go to a

private clinic.

If I got

hurt playing basketball and I couldn't work — but I need to work because I'm

not covered by WCB or whatever — I could not go and pay somebody to give me my

knee operation and not have to wait. Say it's a six-month waiting period. I

don't know what the waiting period is, but say it's a six-month waiting period.

Therefore, I couldn't as an individual go and pay for that coverage myself. That

doctor would be in jeopardy if he gave me that operation, yet they can go to the

head of the line with WCB or ICBC. If that's the case, whom do we have to go to

on this to try and get it settled?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's not a case of whether somebody gets to go to the head of the

line or not. What it is saying is if somebody is injured on the job and they are

covered by the Workers Compensation Board, then the Workers Compensation Board

is authorized to pay for that procedure directly.

For the

example that you cited with an individual injured while not on the job —

playing basketball, let's say — that individual would have two choices. He can

get his surgery through the public system in which case it is covered by the

Canada Health Act, and we have to abide by Health Canada's

interpretation of

that.

The only

other way is if he was to go to a de-enrolled physician. Any physicians who are

part of our Medical Services Plan of B.C. are covered by this legislation, and

they must be in compliance with Health Canada's

interpretation of the Canada

Health Act in how they provide those services. If he was to go to a de-enrolled

physician, of which there are very few in British Columbia, he could actually

wind up getting service totally outside of the public system, and that would be

appropriate under this legislation.

W. Cobb:

That's under the Canada Health Act, then. ICBC or WCB can pay for it, but I

can't pay for it myself.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The only way you could pay for it directly is if it was through a

de-enrolled physician who was not part of the Medical Services Plan structure in

this province. I just want to emphasize that this is not…. The fact that a

person can or cannot access that care is not as a result of provincial

legislation. That is as a result of the Canada Health Act and Health Canada's

interpretation of that as it currently stands.

We as a

province are obligated to follow up on patient complaints. We are obligated to

ensure there is compliance with the Canada Health Act, even though it's not our

statute. We, in essence, become the policemen for this. We don't write the

Canada Health Act. It's not our statute. But we have the obligation as a

province, as does every province in Canada, to ensure that the practices in

place in this province are in compliance, and we have an obligation to follow up

on complaints that come to us from individual patients.

W. Cobb:

Who would fall under that de-categorized…? Who could I go to, to get my knee

operated on? Who would fall under that category, then, if it isn't a GP or a

hospital?

[1645]

Hon. C.

Hansen: It proved to be an interesting question because we don't actually

keep track of who is not enrolled as a physician in the province. We keep track

of all the physicians who are enrolled in the Medical Services Plan. That is

listed on our website. We actually print a listing every year of all the

physicians who are enrolled in the Medical Services Plan and what their billings

are to the plan. That's something that comes out every year. While we print and

publish the names of those who are enrolled, we do not track those who are not

enrolled, but I'm informed that there's a very small number of physicians

currently in this province who are not enrolled in MSP.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would like to move an amendment to

section 5 that stands on the

order paper in my name.

[SECTION 5,

(

a) in the proposed

section 18 (1) by deleting "be a

benefit" and substituting "be a benefit under this Act or the Hospital

Insurance Act" ,

(

b) in the proposed

section 18 (1) (

a) by deleting "or"

(

c) in the proposed

section 18 (1) (

b) by deleting "charge."

and substituting "charge, or" ,

(

d) by adding the following paragraph:(

c) the amount that

would be payable under the Hospital Insurance Act, for the service if rendered

by an enrolled medical practitioner. ,

(

e) in the proposed

section 18 (2) by deleting paragraph (

d) and substituting the following:(

d) a medical facility or diagnostic

facility if

(

i) a regional health board as designated under

section 4 of the

Health Authorities Act, or

(ii) the Provincial Health Services Authority

has contracted to have the service rendered. , and

(

f) by deleting the proposed

section 18.1 (1) and substituting

the following:

(1) Unless a service is rendered by a medical practitioner

who is not enrolled, a person must not charge another person for, or in relation

to, the service if that service

[ Page 8379 ]

(

a) would be a benefit under this Act, or a benefit under the Hospital

Insurance Act, if rendered to a beneficiary at

(

i) an approved diagnostic facility,

(ii) a hospital, or

(iii) a diagnostic facility under an agreement with a regional

health board, the Nis g a Nation or the Provincial Health Services

Authority, and

(

b) is rendered to a beneficiary at a diagnostic facility that

is not approved under

section 33.]

Amendment

approved.

section

5 as amended.

Brice: I think my question most appropriately falls under

section 5,

although it is somewhat of a continuation of the discussion we had under

section

4. I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to be having some discussion

with the medical profession, because I think there is need for clarity.

I would ask

the minister whether or not procedures are in and of themselves exempt or not

exempt. Or could it possibly depend upon what state the patient is in? To give

you two examples, a couple of them brought to my attention in the last couple of

days are patients that had been slated to have either hernia or bladder repair,

neither of which would be construed as life-threatening. They had thought they

were going to be able to do this under a private clinic but now find that

apparently it's not going to be possible.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Given the

interpretation that Health Canada has of the Canada Health

Act, which we are bound to follow, it is the service or the procedure that is

either covered or not covered, as opposed to the particular circumstance of an

individual patient or their degree of acuity leading to the need for that

particular service.

Brice: Thank you for that clarification, minister. Another series of

procedures seem to have fallen within the practice of eye surgery. I would be

interested in getting clarification as to what the situation is with procedures

that occur incidental to cataract surgery and just where the line is about what

can and cannot be covered.

[1650]

Hon. C.

Hansen: There are services, as I was talking about earlier, that are

considered enhanced services. I used the example of the fibreglass cast. In

addition to that, there would also be, as the member noted, issues around lenses

that ophthalmologists can utilize in a patient. Those would still be outside of

this. If somebody is going to have a specialty lens implanted, which is an

enhanced service, at the time of a cataract procedure, there is nothing in this

legislation that will prevent this.

This would

be a good example of one area where we will be explicit in the exemptions that

are brought through to make it very clear to ophthalmologists in the province

that it is still totally appropriate, as it was in the past, for them to provide

for additional enhanced services such as the specialty lenses. They may charge

their patient directly for that, because that would not be considered a

violation of the Canada Health Act.

Brice: I thank the minister for that response. I think that will give a

certain degree of comfort not only to those who perform those procedures but

also to those who have received the benefit of them.

One final

question that I have in this area has to do with diagnostics and just what

exactly this now limits — I would say, particularly, the MRIs. I think there's

a fair amount of discussion and perhaps even confusion out there as to what

impact this might have on that service.

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, diagnostic services are pulled into the Medicare

Protection Act explicitly,

whereas before they were not explicit. That was as a

result of a very direct request from Health Canada. They expected us to make

sure that was covered in order for us to maintain our compliance with the Canada

Health Act, so that is included.

The other

thing I want to point out is that one of the amendments we have just brought in

to this particular

section gives radiologists the same kind of opportunity to

de-enrol as other specialists have as well. The amendment we have brought in

makes it clear that radiologists and other specialists involved in diagnostic

services are able to de-enrol. Once this legislation is brought into force, what

it will mean is that an enrolled specialist, an enrolled physician cannot

extra-bill for any of these charges. We wanted to make sure that those

specialists involved in diagnostic services have the same provisions for

enrolment and de-enrolment as other specialists would have.

Penner: I've got a question, as well, on

section 5 of the bill. Just to

follow up on a question the member for Saanich South asked a little bit earlier,

I'm seeking some clarification around the impact this legislation will have on

people currently providing cataract surgery in what are commonly referred to as

private clinics. Will this amendment contained in this legislation essentially

restrict or outlaw the provision of private cataract surgery in the province?

[1655]

Hon. C.

Hansen: There's nothing in this bill that changes whether cataract surgery

is or is not covered under the Canada Health Act. All this bill says — which

is the same after this bill is in force as it was previously — is that

cataract surgery is considered a medically necessary procedure by Health Canada,

and we therefore have to ensure that it is reflected in practices in British

Columbia. So if a practitioner is enrolled in the Medical Services Plan, all

this says is that they cannot extra-bill over and above what MSP would provide

for.

[ Page 8380 ]

There is

certainly the opportunity for the public system to contract with some of these

private clinics for the provision of cataract surgery. We saw an example of that

over the last number of years with the service that was being provided in North

Vancouver, where the health authority had contracted out for cataract services

to a private clinic. But if the physicians involved are enrolled in MSP, then

Health Canada expects us to ensure that there is not extra billing that is being

charged to the patient.

Penner: I thank the minister for that answer. I think this may be my last

question, then, on this topic.

In the

Fraser Valley — actually, located in Abbotsford — there is a cataract eye

centre. My understanding of their practice is that the physicians will bill the

Medical Services Plan for their service in terms of providing cataract eye

surgery. Then the clinic itself turns around and sends a separate invoice to the

private patient who has elected, rather than wait six to nine months on a

waiting list for the public system to deliver the cataract surgery, to avail

themselves of this service at the clinic in Abbotsford.

Will this

legislation impede or prohibit the practice of the clinic sending a separate

invoice directly to the patient, where the physician that comes in to perform

the service is billing separately to the Medical Services Plan?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I want to make it clear that this bill does nothing to change

whether a procedure is or is not covered under the Canada Health Act. All this

bill does is ensure that we have the ability to follow up on patient complaints,

because we as provinces have the obligation to ensure compliance. Now, whether a

clinic is or is not compliant with the Canada Health Act does not change as a

result of this legislation.

In the case

of the example the member used, if the bill that is sent to the patient directly

for the patient to pay…. If that is in relation to an enhanced service such as

the specialty lens that we were talking about earlier, then it is appropriate.

If they are sending a bill to the patient for fees in relation to the actual

cataract surgery, then it is not appropriate. It was not appropriate last month

and will not be appropriate once this bill is brought into force.

Hawes: I have two questions for the minister, Mr. Chair. The first one

surrounds the contracting-out. I'm just looking for clarity here now. If the

health authority decides to contract with an outside clinic to provide services,

I'm assuming that the bill for the extra cost over and above the physician cost

would go to the health authority, and that would be in compliance.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member is correct.

Hawes: The last question I had surrounds the calls I have been getting, and

I know other members have been getting, from those who provide specialty

services in private clinics and from some of the diagnostic providers. The MRI

clinics claim that this is probably going to stop private surgeries, for example

— which will exacerbate the problems we already have with lineups because, of

course, the people who were going to the private clinics are now going to be

back into the public system — and that diagnostic clinics are going to go

broke all over the place.

There's a

lot of doom and gloom being spread out there. I'm hoping the minister can, for

the benefit of those who are calling us, perhaps cast some light on what their

future would be under this bill.

[1700]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Just to reiterate, I think we are doing nothing in this bill that

changes whether a procedure is or is not appropriate under the Canada Health

Act. The initiatives around diagnostic care were explicitly requested of us by

Health Canada, by the federal Minister of Health, and I assume other provinces

are being asked to make similar provisions if they do not already have it. I

know that other provinces already have that provision in place. But there is

nothing that changes whether a procedure is or is not permissible.

The only

way this could have an impact on wait-lists is if there are currently physicians

who are providing procedures that are contrary to the Canada Health Act, and

that's up to Health Canada. There are obviously many in this province who feel

there should be more flexibility around the

interpretation of the Canada Health

Act, and that is clearly an issue they should take up with the federal

government and with federal politicians.

Our role is

not the Canada Health Act. Our role, our responsibility as a province, is simply

to ensure that we have the tools to follow up on patient complaints and to

satisfy Health Canada that we are doing our due diligence to ensure that there

is compliance with the Canada Health Act.

For those

individuals who feel there should be more flexibility, they should be taking

that message to the federal government, because our obligation is just simply

around the follow-up and the due diligence that is required of us by Health

Canada.

Section 5

as amended approved.

section 6.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move the amendment to this

section that is on the order paper in

my name.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the proposed

section 19 (1) and substituting

the following:

(1) Before a beneficiary is rendered a service described

in subsection (1.1), the person who intends to charge another person for, or in

relation to, the service must advise the beneficiary, in a manner the

beneficiary can understand, of the following:

(

a) that the person intends

to collect the amount from the other person;

(

b) how much the person who intends to charge will charge for,

or in relation to, the service;

[ Page 8381 ]

(

c) how much, if anything, the person who intends to charge reasonably

expects that the commission will reimburse the other person for the rendering of

the service.

(1.1) A service for the purposes of subsection (1) means a

service that

(

a) would be a benefit if rendered by a practitioner, or

(

b) would be a benefit under this Act, or a benefit under the

Hospital Insurance Act, if rendered by a practitioner to a beneficiary at

(

i) an approved diagnostic facility,

(ii) a hospital, or

(iii) a diagnostic facility under an agreement with a regional

health board, the Nis g a Nation or the Provincial Health Services

Authority.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 6

as amended approved.

Sections 7

to 9 inclusive approved.

section

Harris: This

section deals a lot with audits. What does it take to generate

an audit? What is it that would have to happen to bring this process into being?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The way an audit would get triggered would be by a specific

patient-driven complaint. Where a patient feels there may have been a violation

of the Canada Health Act in the care they had received, they would then come to

us. We would be obligated, under our responsibilities to Health Canada, to

follow up on that particular complaint. We also have to report those complaints

to Health Canada, and we have to satisfy Health Canada that we have done our due

diligence around that.

The other

source of follow-up would be when Health Canada themselves would come to us and

ask us to follow up on a particular alleged violation or something they feel may

have been a violation. Those are really the two avenues by which we would

establish this audit procedure.

[1705]

Trumper: Following on the same lines of an audit, a question that was asked

of me by someone who has a very great interest in this particular issue…. His

question to me was: why can they do it in Alberta and not here? My thoughts on

it, in having discussed it with someone else, are that in Alberta they are under

the same rules, but they don't have as many complaints as we may have. Is that a

rational explanation?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The Alberta legislation is not less rigorous than our Medicare

Protection Act as we are proposing to amend it with this bill that's before us

now.

Brice: On the business of the commission appointing inspectors, I would be

interested in hearing from the minister what he would anticipate would fall

under the expression "patterns of practice." I mean, billing seems

kind of obvious, given the kind of thrust of the bill. But what would the

inspectors be looking for under patterns of practice?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The first thing I want to point out to the member is that this is

expanding very slightly the scope of what the auditors would look at, because

the existing wording that's in the Medicare Protection Act today is the first

part of this. We are deleting the

section but then restating it as well.

[1710]

What

currently is there is: "The commission may appoint inspectors to audit

claims for payment by practitioners and the patterns of practice or billing

followed by practitioners under this Act." What we do with the amendment