2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Hon. R. Coleman

Forest Work Security Interest Act (Bill M205)

B. Suffredine

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Tourism in Port Renfrew area

B. Kerr

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

G. Trumper

International Children's Conference on the Environment

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Alternative payment models for physicians

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

J. MacPhail

Public input into review of Forest Practices Code

D. MacKay

Hon. M. de Jong

Trade mission to India

R. Nijjar

Hon. R. Thorpe

Marine diesel fuel tax

A. Hamilton

Hon. J. Reid

Ministerial Statements

Amendment of government agreement with Working Opportunity Fund

Hon. R. Thorpe

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

T. Christensen

D. Chutter

Reporting of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Third Reading of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2002 (Bill 50)

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

B. Locke

B. Penner

R. Masi

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50)

Second Reading of Bills

Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44)

Hon. K. Whittred

J. MacPhail

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

Recommittal of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Reporting of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Third Reading of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act,

2002 (Bill 51)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act,

2002 (Bill 51)

[ Page 3439 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Nuraney: I am very happy to have two guests here today, Shaheen Tejani and

Kristen Collinson. These are two young business people who are helping young

venture capitalists seeking venture capital, people who are looking after seed

money for the new ventures. Shaheen Tejani and Kristen Collinson — I ask the

House to make them welcome.

Krueger: The young man who has served brilliantly as the sessional assistant

for the government caucus Whip's office and the Deputy Speaker throughout this

session, Mr. T.J. Parhar, is in the gallery. I'd like to acknowledge his hard work

and ask the House to make him welcome.

[1405]

Trumper: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Irene Feris this afternoon.

She's from my constituency, and she's also the coordinator for our emergency

preparedness in the valley. We all try to figure out how we're going to get to

her house when there's an emergency. She has the most amazing program in place

at her house for an emergency program.

She has

also gone to other places in North America when there have been disasters, and

she also at times does work for me. I would ask you to please welcome Irene

Feris.

Hon. L.

Reid: My executive assistant, Rhonda Dashevsky, has two aunts in the gallery

today: Harriet Wolfe, visiting from Vancouver, and Edie Adler from Seattle. I'd

ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

It's a pleasure today to introduce two people in the House of whom I can truly

say that if it weren't for them, I wouldn't be here. They are my parents,

Marshall Bray, QC, and Evelyn Bray, sitting up there. I'd ask the House to

please make them very welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: Today we have a number of guests in the House who are here celebrating

Simon Fraser University Day in Victoria. Simon Fraser University, as you know,

has been recognized recently in the Maclean's guide to Canadian

universities as one of the finest comprehensive universities in the country.

Much of that is due to the excellent educational leadership provided, I am sure,

by some of the people in the gallery with us today.

I am very

pleased, and I know you will want to welcome Chris Arnet; Brian Lewis; the

president of Simon Fraser University, Michael Stevenson; John Waterhouse; David

Mitchell; Wilf Hurd; Warren Gill; Marilyn Pankratz; Ernie Love; and Marg

Vandenberg. Please make them welcome to the precinct today.

Chong: Today I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a class from

Lambrick Park Secondary School in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. There are

about 20-plus students. They're accompanied, I think, by a number of adults and

their teacher, Mr. Stu Barber. Would the House please make them all very

welcome.

H. Long:

I realize that we have to recognize rank first in the House and also rank last.

Today in the House I have someone who ranks first in my life. That's my

daughter, Brenda.

Manhas: I see some of our hard-working caucus staff have slipped into the

chamber, so I'd like to introduce Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas , Frank Costa and Muneesh Sharma into

the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Thorpe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that Bill 28 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I am pleased to introduce Bill 28, Employee Investment Amendment

Act, 2002. Bill 28 enables competition in the labour-sponsored funds sector and

promotes fairness for participants in the venture capital industry in British

Columbia. This bill supports the public policy objective of providing choice for

businesses seeking capital financing and choice for investors in

labour-sponsored funds. It enables the allocation of tax credits among

labour-sponsored funds registered in the province of British Columbia.

[1410]

One element

of our review of business subsidies was to look at issues of fairness with

respect to venture capital tax credits. This bill addresses that issue and will

help ensure fairness across the venture capital sector. It also supports the

government's deregulation initiative with a net reduction of three regulatory

requirements.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28

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

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

[ Page 3440 ]

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

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

intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002,

which gives police new powers to deal with drivers who race. Racing is defined

to make the act effective.

Every year

in this province more than 400 people are killed and thousands more are injured

in vehicle crashes, many of which are preventable. One of our jobs as government

is to make sure that the people who enforce the law to make our roads safe have

the right combination of enforcement tools to deal with drivers who put their

lives and lives of others at risk by racing.

Right now,

when police stop a driver for racing, they can issue a violation ticket and seek

a roadside driving prohibition from the superintendent of motor vehicles. This

bill gives police the additional authority to impound vehicles involved in

racing for 48 hours on a first incident. Drivers who are caught racing again

within a two-year period can have their vehicle impounded for 30 days.

Adding

these new powers for impounding vehicles allows the police to deal effectively

with the situation immediately. It will also send a strong message to drivers

and to their friends that there are serious consequences for racing. Their

vehicle or even someone else's vehicle can be taken away from them.

To impound

a vehicle, the police will be required to (1) intend to lay a charge for a

serious offence either under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code,

(2) submit a report to the superintendent of motor vehicles which may result in the

superintendent issuing a driving prohibition and (3) complete a notice of

impoundment.

Specific

provisions in the bill allow vehicle owners, if they are not driving themselves

at the time, business operators and family to gain an early release of an

impounded vehicle. For 30-day impoundments people can seek a review from the

superintendent's office.

Law

enforcement agencies and families that have lost children have asked us to act.

We've listened. The bill is an effective tool for police and sends the message

that illegal and dangerous driving will not be tolerated.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 52

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

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

FOREST WORK

SECURITY INTEREST ACT

Suffredine presented a bill intituled Forest Work Security Interest Act.

Suffredine: I move that a bill intituled Forest Work Security Interest

Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Suffredine: This act is designed to modernize the law of woodworkers' liens

and tugboat workers' liens, bringing both types of claims under a single act and

making the procedure to claim a lien more workable.

Occasionally

forest workers are not paid for their work. A lien on the logs has always been

available to them, but the existing statute is decades old and outdated.

Formerly, lien claims had to be filed at the court registry in the county court

nearest where the claim arose. Under the new act, claims are filed in the

personal property security registry in the same way as chattel mortgages,

conditional sales agreements and all other security of moveable property.

This bill

gives a tugboat operator or contract logger a claim of lien similar to a

mechanic's lien for the repair of a vehicle. In addition, this bill provides a

procedure for enforcement. The liens will be enforceable by individuals and by

companies.

The bill

provides an important step in establishing a more workable procedure and process

in the forestry sector. It will also simplify the current legislation, replacing

two current acts with one, and advance our commitment to reduce the number of

regulations.

This bill

is essentially the same legislation drafted by the Law Reform Commission and

recommended to the former government in 1994.

[1415]

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill M205

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) TOURISM IN PORT RENFREW AREA

B. Kerr:

I am proud to be a part of a government that has dedicated itself to British

Columbia's economic revitalization. We're committed to making British Columbia

number one again.

Here in the

capital region tourism is increasing significantly, and this is more good news.

While we continue to lure visitors from around the world to visit our

[ Page 3441 ]

great province, each one of us should also take the opportunity to uncover

new corners of our own back yard.

British

Columbia has always been recognized for its scenic beauty. It seems that every

day there's a new place waiting to be discovered. I'd like to tell the House

today about one such place, a special part of my constituency that offers an

adventure for any British Columbian who wishes to explore their own province.

The people

of the tiny community of Port Renfrew invite you to visit and experience where

they live. Port Renfrew is located 1½ hours from Victoria on Highway 14, which,

although challenging at times, offers scenery which can be both spectacular and

breathtaking. Along the way you may catch a glimpse of some of the area's

natural vitality — from black bears frolicking with their cubs to a single

bald eagle hovering high above the landscape. In just a few kilometres one

quickly leaves behind the stresses of life.

Or take the

road less travelled. Grab a picnic and a pack, and head out on a hike through

one of the provincial parks. There are hikes for any type of outdoor enthusiast

from a casual wander through the woods to a summit-grinding trek. As the day

winds down, curl up on the beach and watch the sun set over the ocean.

Storm

watchers beware. The west coast is famous for its great storms, and history can

speak of its cruel, unpredictable ways. Experience the freedom, the strength,

the unimaginable power of the seas in this tiny, wildly landscaped town of Port

Renfrew.

Once a

logging and fishing community, Port Renfrew is a town rich with history. It has

endured the rages of the seas and its share of economic hardships. Yet the

resilient residents of this quaint community are working hard towards the

well-being and economic growth of the community.

This summer

you'll all invited to join the residents of Port Renfrew at the second annual

Circle Route Cavalcade. During this annual event, the adventurous motorist

leaves Victoria to drive to Port Renfrew through to Lake Cowichan and back to

the Island Highway. I urge all of you to attend this event and put this motoring

adventure at the top of your summer travel plans.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Trumper: May and June are the months recognizing ALS, or amyotrophic lateral

sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The disease was first identified

in 1869 by neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. Today, though many great strides

have been taken in understanding the disease, there is yet no cure.

I am sure

that in this assembly there are those of you who have had a member of their

family or a friend suffer from this appalling disease. One of the most

courageous people that I have known — a close friend, Carrie — struggled

with ALS while at the same time counselling individuals with terminal diseases.

It is a

neuro-degenerative disease that attacks nerve cells in the brain and the spinal

cord. When the motor neurons, which reach into the muscles, die, controlled

muscle movement is lost. Patients in the late stages of the disease become

totally paralyzed, but for most of them, their minds remain unaffected. They

become prisoners in their own bodies. It is an appalling situation for them and

their families.

The

majority of people that contract the disease are usually between the ages of 40

and 70, although people in their twenties and thirties have also had it. While

men contract the disease more often than women, factors such as race, ethnicity

and socioeconomic boundaries play no

part in determining who will come down with

this disease.

There are

some familiar faces that have suffered from ALS. Amongst these are film actor

David Niven, actor Michael Zaslow and Stephen Hawking from the United Kingdom,

who we see sometimes on television.

Another

well-known British Columbian, Sue Rodriguez, brought national attention to the

brutality of ALS. Her personal story touched many of us across Canada.

It is

devastating to victims and their families. Continuing research will hopefully

reveal the true causes of the disease and find a cure.

[1420]

When you

see a billboard advertising for ALS and you see someone with a cornflower in

their lapel, please remember and give. ALS could affect someone close to you

very soon.

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S CONFERENCE

ON THE ENVIRONMENT

J. Bray:

Today I wish to speak about an exciting event to be held here in Victoria, May

21 to 25. It is the International Children's Conference on the Environment.

The

International Children's Conference on the Environment is held every two years

for children between the ages of ten and 12. It is inspired by the recognition

that children need to be active participants in environmental issues. It is also

a follow-up to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development, the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. At the summit an

international plan for sustainable development was agreed upon. The plan

encouraged national governments to pay more attention to the concerns and

opinions of young people and children on the environment.

The main

aims of the international children's conferences are to increase children's

understanding of environmental issues through the sharing of experiences and

opinions on the environment, to improve the environment by sharing best

practices and encouraging new initiatives, to provide opportunities for children

to create new relationships and remove artificial ethnic barriers as well as to

form friendships lasting well beyond the conference and to provide opportunities

for children to collectively voice their concerns on the environment. To inspire

children to think globally and act locally, the May 21-25 conference here in

Victoria is

[ Page 3442 ]

being organized by a board of directors and a planning committee consisting

of representatives from all levels of government and industry in cooperation

with the United Nations environment program.

It will be

a four-day event and will bring together over 800 children aged ten to 12 from

over 115 countries. This will be a truly wonderful experience for all the

children involved and will be a terrific venue to showcase both Victoria and

British Columbia to the world. It is also an opportunity for all of us as

politicians, parents and adults to remember our duty to listen to the views of

our young people.

These

children are gathering in Victoria for a dialogue on the environment. It is the

dialogue that is the key. Perhaps, in our adult world of pressures and politics,

we can learn something from these 800 children and remember that our children

will inherit the results of our environmental stewardship.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT MODELS

FOR PHYSICIANS

J. Kwan:

The doctors and the government are poles apart in their ongoing dispute, and

patients are caught in the middle. British Columbians want government to find a

long-term solution so that every time the government and the doctors have a

fight, patients don't pay with their health.

Many

experts agree that a huge part of the problem is the outdated fee-for-service

billing model that we've been operating under for more than 40 years. To fix the

problem, the province needs to establish alternative payment models, like

salaries, that take away doctors' power to unilaterally withdraw their services.

To the Minister of Health Services: does the minister agree that as part of a

long-term solution to this problem, the government needs to take a proposal to

the table that will establish a new relationship with doctors based on alternate

forms of payment and compensation?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the member raises a very interesting question. Certainly,

physicians in British Columbia are really in two groups when it comes to that

issue. There are those who feel so strongly about fee-for-service that they

would not want to practise medicine under any other model. Increasingly, there

are doctors across Canada who want to go to some kind of alternative payment

model. In British Columbia today we have about 20 percent of our doctors on

alternative payments.

There are

currently almost 100 applications for alternative payments that we are unable to

process. These are doctors who would like to move from fee-for-service to

alternative payments. We can't process those until this current dispute is

resolved. We're anxious to get on with the negotiation to make sure that these

issues can be resolved, first of all, so that the needs of patients can be met

and their care is not compromised any more than it already has been and,

secondly, so that we can start dealing with some of these other issues, such as

the outstanding applications from physicians looking for alternative payments.

[1425]

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Patients are suffering because doctors and the government can't agree on how to

divide up the limited resources based on the outdated fee-for-service model.

Already we have seen instances where people have been denied treatment after

suffering injuries from motor vehicle accidents.

Every year

B.C. graduates approximately 60 new GPs, and each one is handed a billing

number. This allows them to bill the taxpayer for service, but in return there's

no obligation on their part to maintain service levels. Will the minister agree

that providing these new graduates with the opportunity to sign up for alternate

pay models, like salaries, should be a key component at the negotiating table so

that doctors can't take away the services at a whim?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We certainly would like to promote that choice and that option for

medical students graduating from our medical schools. That choice is there, but

what we have done in the negotiations is that we have put $392 million of new

money on the table for physician remuneration. That works out, if you divide it

among the 7,800 doctors in the province, to an average of $50,000 per doctor in

this province.

A portion

of that is allocated for fee-for-service increases, a portion of that is

allocated for on-call payments, and a portion of it is already designated for

increases for the salaried physicians in the province. Also, there is money that

has been earmarked to provide for new doctors who wish to go onto alternative

payments in this year, next year or the year after.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the government and the doctors agree that $392

million is enough to solve this dispute, but the doctors can't agree amongst

themselves or with the government on how to divide it up. I think the minister

has just outlined the view of how to divide up the pot, but the doctors don't

agree with that.

Frankly,

sooner or later, with continued population growth and an aging population, the

health care system is going to be under increasing stress. The question, I

think, we have to deal with is: how should limited resources be reallocated?

Should they go back into a system that lets a small group of doctors hold the

population ransom? Or should the new resources be dedicated to alternative forms

of payment that provide patients with both stability and security in our health

care system?

I think

there are many doctors who aren't happy with the fee-for-service model and want

a different form. So is the government willing to reach out, even in

[ Page 3443 ]

the context of this set of negotiations, and say to those doctors: "We

can change the way we operate"? You, physician, can live up to your

professional obligation to care for British Columbians, to be paid fairly, and

in return you must ensure that British Columbians get the treatment they need

regardless of the views of the BCMA. Is the government willing to perhaps put

that on the table at the negotiations?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Well, let me quickly outline for the member what has already been

agreed to in the memorandum of understanding that was signed on March 26. It was

agreed that $392 million was enough to deal with all of the compensation issues

for physicians in the province. That was reiterated by the president of the BCMA

as recently as May 7 in a radio interview, where she said that $392 million was

adequate to deal with all of the compensation issues.

In that, we

have agreed that there is an additional $185 million for fee-for-service, we

have agreed that there is an additional $80 million for on-call payments, and we

have agreed that there is an additional $127 million to deal with the

alternative payments increases that the member talks about to deal with those

doctors who wish to go on alternative payments, to deal with the rural

agreement, to deal with all of those other miscellaneous issues that must be

covered.

What is

clear is that we have put a significant amount of money on the table. It's a

20.6 percent increase in the budget for physician compensation in British

Columbia from last year to this year, and we think that it's time for the BCMA

to get back to the negotiating table to represent their members and to stop

compromising the care of patients in British Columbia.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I am well aware that that's the government's position, and I'm

also well aware that the doctors have perhaps changed their position since

negotiations have recommenced. But I think what's missing here is an ability to

tackle the single most important problem we face, and that's that doctors are

under no legal obligation to provide services to patients.

[1430]

Believe you

me, I'm the first to admit that that is a very difficult problem to resolve, and

there are huge obstacles in the way. But I think we can agree that change needs

to occur, and it needs to occur soon.

Again to

the minister: I believe that many, many British Columbians would support moving

to an alternate system, with vigour and alacrity in that system, to salaried

doctors. Can he at least agree that alternate models of payment could be and

must be a key component of negotiation with doctors, which also requires them to

then live up to their professional obligations to continue to provide service?

The fee-for-service model doesn't allow that. A new relationship based on the

alternate method of payment would allow for that.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, we have been trying to build on exactly that. Just as a

case in point, of the various places in the province where physicians are

withdrawing services from their patients and denying access to care…. Where it

is not taking place is in those facilities where there are alternative payments

and salaried doctors in place.

The point

we've been trying to make is that we do not believe that it's a

one-size-fits-all model. If there are those doctors who believe that

fee-for-service is the be-all and end-all, fine. We're going to set up a model

for them. But we also want to facilitate the many, many doctors who would like

to go on some kind of alternative payments or salaried model.

PUBLIC INPUT INTO REVIEW OF

FOREST PRACTICES CODE

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Forests. The overhaul of the

Forest Practices Code is a key undertaking of this government. However, there

are reports today in the media claiming that some groups have not been given the

opportunity to provide input into this process. I'd like to ask the Minister of

Forests to tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that all British Columbians

are able to provide feedback on this important issue.

Hon. M.

de Jong: We want all interested British Columbians to be involved in helping

the government develop a truly results-based Forest Practices Code. We want the

benefit of their opinions and advice prior to drafting and tabling legislation,

hopefully, later this year in the fall.

To that

end, we've developed a process which I think will ensure that everyone with an

opinion on the government's discussion paper and what a results-based Forest

Practices Code should look like will have the opportunity to present that

opinion.

We have Dr.

George Hoberg from the UBC forestry faculty coordinating the consultation

effort. People can submit their written documents and proposals. They can access

the website: www.resultsbasedcode.ca.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is catchy. The Premier is right.

In just two

weeks, Mr. Speaker, we've had over 9,300 accesses to that website.

Most

importantly, people can appear before an MLA committee that is travelling the

province to over 14 communities. The member for North Island is chairing that

committee. It's in Smithers today.

Finally,

I'm very pleased to say that today the committee is hearing from the Bulkley

Valley Communities Coalition, the historical association, small-scale salvagers,

labour organizations, Northwest Natural Resources Network, the Bulkley Valley

Cattlemen's Association, mayors, deputy mayors, woodlot associations, the Sierra

Club and the LMRP lakes monitoring

[ Page 3444 ]

committee. If you want to be heard on this one, you're going to have lots of

opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine can find a supplementary

for that.

MacKay: Again to the Minister of Forests. Protecting the environment is of

utmost concern to all British Columbians. Can the Minister of Forests confirm

that the results-based code will maintain B.C.'s high environmental standards?

[1435]

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's about protecting forests. It's about having the highest

standards of environmental sustainability. It's about saying to workers and

families who earn their living in forestry here in B.C. that we don't think of

them as the enemy, and we actually want a Forest Practices Code that will give

them an opportunity to use their inventiveness and use their ingenuity to

achieve those highest levels of sustainability. It's about being able to say, as

British Columbians, to the whole world that we harvest forests, we protect

forests, and we do it better than anyone else in the whole world.

TRADE MISSION TO INDIA

Nijjar: Recently the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise took

part in a Team Canada trade mission to India. I understand the purpose of the

trip was to look for new business opportunities for British Columbians. Will the

minister tell us what he accomplished during this trip?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I was pleased to be the only other minister travelling with Minister

Pettigrew from Canada on this mission. India, as some members would know, is the

fourth-largest economy in the world, based on their purchasing power, and it's

one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. The Indian economy is going

through a deregulation. It's opening up, and there's going to be increased trade

opportunities and investment opportunities. We're working together with the

Council of Forest Industries, B.C. Wood and other industry sectors to develop a

strategic plan to look at long-term trade opportunities with India for British

Columbia businesses, families and communities.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplementary question.

Nijjar: If the softwood lumber dispute with the United States has taught us

anything, it's that we must look for new emerging markets for our B.C. products.

Will the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what he's doing

to follow up on the progress he has made in India?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Initially, we've identified four sectors for potential for British

Columbia firms and employees: forest products, science and technology,

environmental remediation and agriculture products. We are currently conducting

our post-visit review and building strategic plans with each industrial sector,

including the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. Wood Products, agriproducers

and high-tech sectors here in British Columbia.

MARINE DIESEL FUEL TAX

Hamilton: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Communities

across Vancouver Island depend on the coastal marine industry to keep their

economies thriving. The federal government recently introduced Bill C-47, which

will effectively legislate an inequity on west coast ferry operators by imposing

a tax on fuel that their Great Lakes counterparts are exempt from. Can the

Minister of Transportation tell my constituents what she is doing to convince

the federal government of the hardship this new tax will impose on B.C.'s marine

operators?

Hon. J.

Reid: Last year the Federal Court of Appeal did rule that this was inequity

across Canada in the way that there was an exemption for the Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence marine operators, and our marine operators have to pay an excise tax on

their marine diesel fuel. The response of the federal government was to

introduce this legislation, Bill C-47, to keep this inequity that's been going

on for the last 15 years. We have been responding very vigorously in opposition

to this. It is not fair to the operators of B.C. There have been many, many

ministers from this government who have been talking with their counterparts and

protesting this and looking for ways of resolution.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

AMENDMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT

WITH WORKING OPPORTUNITY FUND

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I rise to make a ministerial statement related to the Employee

Investment Act.

At the open

cabinet meeting on August 15 of last year, I presented our government's

principles with respect to reviewing and eliminating subsidies to businesses in

British Columbia. As a result of my presentation, I was asked to include within

my review the issue of venture capital tax credits insofar as the issue of

fairness among these programs was concerned.

As my

ministry conducted its review, I became increasingly concerned about the manner

in which some decisions were made by the former government. Specifically, I am

concerned about the process in which the former government amended its agreement

with the Working Opportunity Fund. As we continued with our review, many

questions came to mind. Was political pressure brought to bear? Was due process

followed? Did the actions of the previous government

[ Page 3445 ]

fetter the ability of future governments? Were the taxpayers of British

Columbia knowingly put at risk?

[1440]

addition, I have concerns as to when the amended agreement was signed. Based on

the materials presented to me, a number of further questions arise that I

believe warrant further investigation, particularly around the fact that it

appears a tremendous amount of pressure was brought to bear on this issue in the

weeks and final days up to and possibly after the election day call of April 18.

I also have

further concerns, Mr. Speaker. Based on the materials I have seen and the

briefings I have received, it appears to me that, quite possibly, a member of

the British Columbia public service was directed, either by senior elected

representatives or their appointed political staff, to make sure the amended

agreement was signed — against considerable advice of the public service.

This

information has become known to me in discharging my responsibility as the

minister responsible for reviewing and considering amendments to the Employee

Investment Act and as the minister charged with the responsibility to eliminate

business subsidies by government.

British

Columbians expect their government to act with integrity to ensure that

decisions are made in the public interest to manage against potential risk to

the taxpayer, both for the present and for the future. Based on the materials

presented to me, I can only reach one conclusion: the actions surrounding the

amendment of the agreement do not appear to have served the public interests of

the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe an independent review of this matter is required.

Accordingly, I am advising this House that by letter today I am requesting that

the independent office of the auditor general of British Columbia review this

matter and report back to this House as quickly as possible on his findings

related to this matter.

MacPhail: I'm a bit taken aback by the fact that we have legislation

introduced and then a ministerial statement of which we received no notice. My

only question would be to you, Mr. Speaker, for consideration at a later date:

how do the two relate? The ability for a government with an overwhelming

majority, such as this, to introduce legislation and then also to take a run at

some other issue that the matter deals with specifically under the legislation

— for your consideration in the future….

Mr.

Speaker: The member…

MacPhail: Also, the fact that there's no notice ever given to the opposition

of any of this….

Mr.

Speaker: …reserves her right for a response. Your right for a response is

reserved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued debate in committee stage on Bill 21.

Committee of the Whole House

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:45 p.m.

section

13 (continued) .

MacPhail: I think, Mr. Chair, we left it that I raised an issue about

protecting the environmental values under

section 13. The minister said — I'm

paraphrasing now, but if I get it wrong, I'm happy for him to correct me —

that the ultimate decision-making authority on the proper order of priority of

values to take into consideration rests with the commission. Perhaps the

minister could just cite for me in what part of the act the commission must

determine the ranking of values.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd refer the member opposite to

section 6, where it says

"Purposes of the commission." "The following are the purposes of

the commission: (

a) to preserve agricultural land; (

b) to encourage farming on

agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (

c) to

encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to

enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with

agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

MacPhail: Thank you. The question, though, was: under

section 13, if a

particular part of the community thinks a value has not been given its full

weight in consideration by the facilitator, how does that value get weighted by

the commission before a final decision is made?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I assure the hon. member that this provision in

section 13 does not

prevent a facilitator from considering important environmental values when

making a recommendation under this

section to the commission and the local

government, nor does this

section or any other

section prevent the commission

from considering important environmental values when making a decision under the

act. I assure you that the commission will continue to take many values and

considerations into account when making decisions for land in an agricultural

land reserve.

Sections 13

to 16 inclusive approved.

section

[ Page 3446 ]

Christensen: I'm assuming that

section 17 is a holdover from the previous

act. Really, this

section in particular is the one that has the potential to

raise a number of concerns around private property rights, in that it allows the

commission on its own initiative to identify land to be included in the

agricultural land reserve, notwithstanding that the land might be owned by a

private citizen. It's a

section that has certainly been brought to my attention

by some constituents, and they've raised a concern about that possibility.

Perhaps the

minister, firstly, can confirm whether or not this

section is a holdover from

the previous act that really accounted for the establishment of the reserve back

in 1972.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer is yes.

[1450]

Christensen: Thank you. That's particularly helpful.

Perhaps the

minister can give some indication of to what extent this

section is ever used by

the commission to effectively include additional land, perhaps against the

wishes of the owner of that land.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told it's used very, very seldom.

Sections 17

to 19 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Again, this is an area where it's difficult to debate because of

the fact that the regulations are not before us. Let me just quote from

section

20(1): "A person must not use agricultural land for a non-farm use unless

permitted by this act, the regulations or an order of the commission." The

regulation is absent. Could the minister tell me where in the act I can find a

clear definition and examples of what the non-farm uses will be? Were they the

ones the minister read off at the beginning of this debate, or are there others?

Where would we actually find the listing of those?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This

section has not changed from the existing act. The non-farm uses

are listed in the regulations, and they will be listed in the new regulations.

MacPhail: I take it the regulation in this area will not change.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The regulation may change, because there may be added permitted uses

that have been granted by the commission in the past and will be added to the

list.

MacPhail: Yes, that's my point, Mr. Chair. My point is that I'm wondering if

the minister could tell us what changes will be in the regulations so that we

can properly explore this part of the legislation.

Hon. S.

Hagen: No, I can't.

MacPhail: Let me just ask this, then. This government is moving…. Let me

just ask this straight up. Will oil and gas exploration now be a permitted

non-farm use under the regulation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: In answer to the member opposite, under

section 26, there will be

some delegation opportunities. One of those delegations might be to the Oil and

Gas Commission, but those same uses are permitted under policy now.

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister…. These aren't tough

questions. I assume that the planning is well underway for what non-farm use

changes will be permitted. The minister made it clear in his second reading

remarks. Here's what he said: "This bill expands the power to delegate

certain decision-making to other public bodies such as the Oil and Gas

Commission…. This will facilitate streamlining of the process of permitting

oil and gas wells."

We'll talk

further about that under

section 26, but under

section 20, it would seem to me

that the only way the minister can allow the Oil and Gas Commission to start

determining the use of agricultural land would be to allow oil and gas

exploration as a legislated non-farm use of agricultural land. Am I wrong? Am I

missing something here? If the minister is planning on doing that, why can't he

just admit it?

[1455]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Those uses that the member talked about are now allowed under policy.

What we would be doing is using a different method of allowing them to occur.

That would be under delegation agreements, where we will have a mutually

agreed-to agreement and everybody will understand what the rules are, instead of

having it in a more open way or, let's say, a more casual way through policy,

which is the way it is done now.

MacPhail: I think the minister knows full well that there's a big difference

in the legal challenges that can be made to a policy versus legislation.

Is the

minister somehow saying that it's still up in the air about whether a non-farm

use would be oil and gas exploration? Is that still open for debate?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No.

MacPhail: Okay, so you know what? Maybe we'll just try, without actually

saying it explicitly…. I'll say it, and the minister can remain silent —

maybe acquiesce through silence. I expect and predict that the government will

add to the regulations under

section 20(1) that a non-farm use of oil and gas

exploration will now be permitted through regulation.

Sections 20

and 21 approved.

section

[ Page 3447 ]

Chutter: When a ranch business is broken up into a rural subdivision, not

only is the commercial productive potential of the ranch lost, but the wildlife

and plant community values are also put at risk. So often these small land

holdings are heavily grazed, which certainly impacts the wildlife and other

environmental values. This is particularly important in British Columbia because

less than 2 percent of British Columbia is natural grasslands, and in many cases

the rural subdivision activity is being concentrated in these areas.

When a

ranch business is subdivided, the complications and interference of more people,

more dogs, more stray cattle or other livestock, invading weeds, etc., can make

it marginal for the adjacent ranch operations to continue. There's a real and

sincere interest in keeping ranchland holdings intact as ongoing operating

units.

Conservation

covenants and the purchase of development rights are typically willing buyer,

willing seller, non-regulatory processes that require no government funding.

They are something that's being commonly used in places like Alberta and

Montana, and they're often referred to as "keeping working ranches

working." These tools give conservation organizations and ranchers

themselves a chance to protect key sections of grasslands and croplands outside

of any cost to or involvement of government.

In addition

to an offer from a developer on a potential land site, the objective as voiced

by some constituents of mine is to allow offers in a timely manner to a

landowner in the form of a covenant or purchase of development right in order to

maintain the business value and the environmental values.

These

concerns expressed on

section 22(2) will constrain the ability of a property

owner to look at ways of protecting environmentally sensitive lands with

conservation covenants.

The

question I have for the minister is: will this particular

section be an obstacle

to allowing covenants and purchasing development rights to take place and to

take place in a timely manner?

[1500]

Hon. S.

Hagen: First, let me start with the background here. Historically, the

commission has reviewed conservation covenants for agricultural land as they

were referred to them by the land titles office. Rather than have land titles

refer these covenants to the commission, this

section provides for the proponent

to directly send a proposed covenant to the commission. This only occurs in

instances where the covenant prohibits farm use of agricultural lands.

This

section gives the commission the opportunity to ensure that agriculture

considerations are taken into account when a covenant is proposed. The

commission will not stand in the way of covenants as long as the agricultural

considerations have been addressed. In the vast majority of situations,

conservation covenants will simply be reviewed quickly and approved. In some

instances, improvements may be suggested.

MacPhail: Thank you, and thank you to my colleague from Yale-Lillooet. I've

had some of those same concerns.

I'm sure

the minister is well aware of the West Coast Environmental Law Association

concerns in this area as well. Is it his view that his commitment which was just

read meets the test of what the West Coast Environmental Law Association is

asking from the government?

I'll just

quickly reiterate it. I think some of the points have been addressed by the

member for Yale-Lillooet, but I will just try to get a double reassurance, if I

may, from the minister.

The concern

was that perhaps subsection (2) of

section 22 gave the commission a new

statutory power to refuse ecologically responsible covenants. I think the

minister is trying to reassure that that is not the case. How is it that given

the fact that there will be a much larger commission — 19 members operating by

regional panels — this assurance about ecological conservation-based covenants

will, in the minister's words, be, I hope, approved quickly and perhaps even

improved upon? How can we be assured of that, given the basis that

section 22(2)

is written on almost a negative concept rather than a positive concept?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, I did receive the letter from the West Coast Environmental Law

Association.

With regard

section 22, as it is the commission's mandate to preserve agricultural land,

it is only right that the commission also have the power to review conservation

covenants which prohibit agriculture. The commission will continue its current

process, as I think I said, of working with conservation organizations to review

conservation covenants which affect ALR land.

This

provision provides for a simple referral to the commission, not a formal

application. As is now the case, the commission may make suggestions as to how

environmental values and agricultural values can be better balanced. The

commission does not anticipate refusing conservation covenants but rather

ensuring that restrictions to protect environmental values also recognize the

needs of agriculture.

The

provision of the bill speaks only to prohibition of agriculture. I am assured

that the commission does and will continue to agree to restrictions on

agriculture where they are important environmental values.

Sections 22

to 25 inclusive approved.

section

The

Chair: We have two amendments to this section. I'd like to deal with those

amendments separately. The first amendment deals with subsection (1).

[1505]

Hon. S.

Hagen: We did deal with the first amendment this morning. Do we have to deal

with it again?

The

Chair:

Section 26, minister. You have two amendments.

[ Page 3448 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the amendment to

section 26.

[SECTION 26, in the proposed subsection (1) (

b) by

deleting "another person" and substituting "a public

officer".]

First

amendment approved.

The

Chair: The second amendment is to subsection (2).

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the amendment to subsection (2).

[SECTION 26, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting

"prescribed".]

On the

second amendment.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll read the original clause that says "an

agreement under subsection (1) between the commission and an authority may

exempt a prescribed non-farm use in a specified area within the jurisdiction of

the authority…." The amendment deletes the word "prescribed."

Could the minister explain the purpose of the amendment?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The difficulty is with the word "prescribed," as it

requires that the uses exempted under the agreement must be listed in the

regulation. Because it is difficult to anticipate all of those uses, such uses

that the commission and a public body may wish to exempt, this part of the

provision restricts the flexibility and scope of the delegation tool. Rather

than continually adding to the regulation, identifying non-farm use exemptions

is best left to the commission when negotiating an agreement with other public

bodies.

MacPhail: Let me just ask, in the context of this amendment then, the

broader question because it may be related to this amendment. That's why, Mr.

Chair, I need to ask these questions before we vote on the amendment.

Again,

we've sought some advice or had some advice given to us by the West Coast

Environmental Law Association about

section

Section 26 is fairly key in that

it delegates the authority to local governments and other authorities such as

the Oil and Gas Commission to determine non-farm use of agricultural land, as

far as I read the legislation. It's fairly key. It means now that local

governments and even some bodies like the Oil and Gas Commission are going to be

able to determine land use on agricultural land.

Here's what

the West Coast Environmental Law Association had to say:

"Delegation

of commission decision-making authority to agents of the government, public

bodies or local governments inevitability raises the possibility of

conflicts of mandate. The mandates of these authorities are inevitably more

broad than that of the commission'' — he means the agricultural land

commission —"regarding agricultural land."

The minister has read out the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission.

It's found in

section 6.

"Some

of these conflicts can be avoided perhaps through the terms of a delegation

agreement, but there are no provisions in the draft legislation to provide

legislative assurance. There are also no provisions to cancel delegation

agreements if the purposes of the legislation are not being satisfactorily

met."

The concern

is that we used to have the Agricultural Land Commission making decisions around

land use on agricultural land. That authority is now being delegated, as far as

I can tell. But it may be delegated to an authority that has, as another part of

its job, a mandate completely in conflict with proper use of agricultural land.

[1510]

Before we

explore that broader concept, my first question is: by removing the word

"prescribed" so that now it reads "an agreement under subsection

(1) between the commission and an authority may exempt non-farm use in a

specified area within the jurisdiction," does the minister see that as

strengthening the protection of agricultural land, in that there will be fewer

non-farm uses available, or the flip side of that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer to the question is that I don't believe it's going to

change, actually, the way it's happening now. It's just that we're doing it

through the voluntary delegation agreements.

MacPhail: I'm curious as to why we're having this legislation if not much is

going to change. I'm always curious when a government which is so intent on

changing things from the past says: "Oh, don't worry. The legislation

doesn't change anything." And not only should we not worry, but "even

the amendment to our original concept of what we wanted to change isn't going to

change anything."

Perhaps the

minister could say what the intent of this is. Is it to narrow the exemptions?

We have the words "exemption, non-farm use." Is the intention here, by

deleting the word "prescribed," to allow an authority greater

exemptions or fewer exemptions for non-farm use?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Once the agreements are done — they're done on a voluntary basis

— then the authority conducts audits and reports to the commission as required

by the agreement. The other thing is that the agreement can be cancelled by

either party after giving notice. There are checks and balances as to what's

going on with the agreement, and pretty strong steps can be taken if things

aren't being done correctly.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, Mr. Chair, we're into broader discussions under

section 26, but maybe, if I could beg your indulgence, I'll complete this

discussion before we pass the amendment. The votes can be taken at the same time

then. I need to have the discussion before we pass the amendment on 26.

Let's just

take a step back, then. If the minister is just saying that this law is now

confirming voluntary

[ Page 3449 ]

delegation agreements, could he give an example of a voluntary delegation

agreement that exists?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I don't have the agreement with me, but the commission does have an

agreement with the Fraser–Fort George regional district.

MacPhail: Okay. We're going to be really expanding delegation agreements, I

would assume. Maybe we're not; I don't know. What's the minister's view if the

delegation agreement is to an authority that has a conflicting mandate — for

instance, a local government that needs to expand residential housing in order

to meet a burgeoning population?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The agreement would have to be based on a community plan done by the

community, which the commission has supported.

[1515]

MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that there will not be arising…? I

mean, we only have one example of a delegated agreement so far. Or maybe there

are others; I don't know. They're certainly not in areas like in the Okanagan,

where the mandate of a rapidly developing urban area butts right up against some

of the best agricultural land around. I would assume that in those particular

cases there could be tensions.

How does a

delegation agreement resolve those tensions or the conflicts that may arise out

of them? I'm trying to read quickly to find the

section that the minister said

guarantees either party can cancel the delegation agreement. Could he just quote

that

section of the legislation, please?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's not in the legislation. It's part of the delegation agreement.

MacPhail: What's part of the agreement? Is there a template agreement that

will now be entered into that allows for either party to cancel?

Again, I

think people are looking for assurances that are written down, legislated, so

I'm not sure what the minister's referring to.

Hon. S.

Hagen: What I'm referring to is the delegation agreement — okay? I thought

that's what we were talking about. We're talking about the delegation agreement.

The delegation agreement has in it a clause that it can be cancelled by either

party.

MacPhail: Sorry, I'm just part of the great unwashed asking these questions.

The delegation agreement is now legislated. It never was before, as far as I

understand it. Is there a template, like a standard Coles Notes version that you

pull off the Internet, which has that clause in it that will remain?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Fortunately for the people of the province, those old days of

prescriptive ways of dealing with things are gone. The ability to delegate

through delegation agreements was in the old legislation. That's how the

agreement was done with Fraser–Fort George regional district.

Each

agreement will be tailored to the municipality that it's doing the agreement

with. One size does not necessarily fit all, so we're trying to be as flexible

as possible in dealing with the municipalities. At the same time we're

protecting the overall need to preserve farmland in British Columbia.

MacPhail: Okay, let me try it this way: will every delegation agreement that

is signed have a clause in it that allows either party to cancel the delegation

agreement?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Excellent question. The answer is yes.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, thank you very much.

What about

the situation about…? Let me just give you another example of where two bodies

might be in conflict around use under this matter. I notice that the minister

uses an example in second reading debate that there could be a delegation

agreement now with the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1520]

I also note

the member from Surrey had moved an amendment but then withdrew the amendment.

The mining industry, under the mining act, is solely responsible for

reclamation, as far as I can tell. There's no requirement for reclamation….

One of the authorities of the Agricultural Land Commission is not to make sure

that reclamation occurs. Could there be a conflict…? Will there ever be a

delegation agreement that would delegate land use decisions that would be in

conflict, for instance, between agricultural land and reclamation that is now

solely the responsibility of the mining industry under the Mines Act?

Hon. S.

Hagen: That would be written into the delegation agreement. If there was an

area that had to be reclaimed, the Mines Act would have to be fulfilled and the

area would have to be reclaimed.

MacPhail: My understanding is that there are mines within the agricultural

land reserve. Is the minister aware of that, or is that not the case?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm informed that there aren't many, if any, full-scale mines, but

there are gravel extraction areas that take place.

MacPhail: Yes, that is part of the Mines Act as well. That is considered

mining activity.

If there is

a conflict…. Let me just approach it from this perspective. If there is an

exhausted mine that is being reclaimed under the Mines Act, who gets to

determine…? Is that just the responsibility of the authority legislated under

the Mines Act, or does the regional

[ Page 3450 ]

Agricultural Land Commission have any say over how that is reclaimed or used?

Hon. S.

Hagen: If the land in question is in the ALR, then the regional panel would

have a say in that.

MacPhail: I just want to ask one more question on the Oil and Gas Commission

under this particular section,

section 26.

The West

Coast Environmental Law Association and many others have pointed out that one

delegation authority under consideration — we've already discussed this — is

from the Agricultural Land Commission to the Oil and Gas Commission. The mandate

of that commission in facilitating oil and gas development is potentially in

conflict with the purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I actually

had a staff person in our office get out the two conflicting mandates, comparing

section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act with the purposes section,

section 3, of the Oil and Gas Commission Act.

I can read

those into the record, but it's pretty clear that the purposes of the two

commissions, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission,

are in conflict. How is it that the integrity of the agricultural land reserve

is protected, is guaranteed in any delegated authority under an agreement under

section 26, to another commission, the Oil and Gas Commission, whose purposes

are completely different and in conflict?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Under delegation, the authority given the deregulated powers will be

required to report on its decisions and audit the performance of approved

development in the ALR. For example, the Oil and Gas Commission will audit oil

and gas development in the ALR to ensure that soil reclamation is carried out

according to specific standards once the oil and gas extraction is finished.

The

commission retains the authority for use of ALR land under the delegation

agreement.

MacPhail: In other words…. Just for the public, it would probably be

helpful when we're referring to a commission that we refer to the Agricultural

Land Commission versus the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1525]

Is the

minister somehow suggesting that the Oil and Gas Commission won't have delegated

authority to determine actual non-farm land use?

Hon. S.

Hagen: They have the authority under the delegation agreement. The agreement

will also ensure that the reclamation takes place.

MacPhail: Let me just ask this, then. The Agricultural Land Commission has

as its legislated purpose "(

a) to preserve agricultural land; (

b) to

encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities

of interest; (

c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government

and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses

compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies."

Okay, so

that's the Agricultural Land Commission. That purpose, that authority, could be

delegated under

section 26, the

section we're talking about now. The minister

says one of the authorities it could be delegated to is the Oil and Gas

Commission under the Oil and Gas Commission Act.

One purpose

of the Oil and Gas Commission is to provide "…for the sound development

of the oil and gas sector, by fostering a healthy environment, a sound economy

and social well being." Another one is to assist "…owners of oil and

gas resources to participate equitably in the production of shared pools of oil

and gas."

In just

those two — and I just take those out as two — you're delegating the

authority for the preserve of agricultural land to an Oil and Gas Commission

whose authority exists to develop oil and gas fields. Isn't there any room?

Wouldn't that set off a big light saying: "Whoa, just a second here. There

could be conflict of purposes here"?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Not at all. Oil and gas extraction can occur, farmers can earn income

from the surface leases, and the land can be rehabilitated for agriculture. The

two uses are compatible.

MacPhail: Well, I must say, many people would doubt that they're compatible

at all.

The

section. The West Coast Environmental Law has made some suggestions about

incompatibility and about how amendments could be. I'm sure the minister has

received this correspondence. He hasn't proposed to table these amendments, so I

can assume that the government isn't interested in making these amendments, but

let me read them into the record anyway, in case it turns out that there is

conflict.

Here they

are. The West Coast Environmental Law says that in order to narrow the

possibility for conflict, to more narrowly circumscribe the terms under which

the Agricultural Land Commission may delegate its authority, more narrowly limit

the types of powers that the Agricultural Land Commission may delegate to

exclude decisions in which conflicting mandates occur, specifically address the

potential for conflicting mandates by establishing a clear test for the exercise

of the delegated authority that is consistent with

section 6 of the Agricultural

Land Commission Act and provide for the cancellation of delegation agreements

where the purposes of the act are not being satisfactorily met….

I think the

minister has made a commitment to the last test — that every delegation

agreement will include a cancellation clause that either party can cancel.

I'm just

reading those into the record. Those were helpful suggestions on how any

possibility of conflict between the delegated authority and the purpose of this

act could be avoided.

Second

amendment approved.

[ Page 3451 ]

section

26 as amended.

[1530]

MacPhail: I was going to ask a question just before we carry on here on

section 26. Do the regional panels set up have the same powers for ensuring that

there's no conflict as did the former panel? For instance, on the issue of

reclamation, do the regional panels have exactly the same authority under this

act to deal with proper reclamation that the previous provincial panel did?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer is yes.

MacPhail: Just where, for the record, would that be found?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's in

section 11(5).

Section 26

as amended approved.

Sections 27

to 57 inclusive approved.

section

The

Chair: On

section 58, we have an amendment.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I propose amending

section 58.

[SECTION 58, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) (

k) and substituting the following:

(

k) respecting the terms of an agreement entered into under

section 26;.]

Amendment

approved.

section

58 as amended.

MacPhail: This is the

section under the legislation that expands the

delegation of regulation-making on numerous matters that really are integral to

the purpose of the agricultural land reserve. I'm just putting it on the record.

I mean, it's quite a substantial expansion from the previous act in terms of

regulation-making authority, and we don't have the regulations there. We've

already explored that matter.

The

minister has made a commitment to take 90 days to consult with stakeholders

before the regulations are passed. Given the fact that the minister has said he

will consult with stakeholders, I do hope he will consult with people such as

the West Coast Environmental Law Association, who have made some very helpful

suggestions.

There are

organizations in this province who consider the preservation of agricultural

land to be very, very important. They are not farmers and are not in the

business of production of food at all but understand the value of preservation

of agricultural land. I urge the minister to include in the consultation around

regulations the organizations such as the West Coast Environmental Law

Association.

Section 58

as amended approved.

Sections 59

to 63 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section that repeals substantial portions of the

Forest Land Reserve Act. Essentially, the amendments from

section 64 through to

section 80 have the effect of repealing the forest land reserve. I just want to

make some comments here about the repeal of that.

[1535]

The effect

of these changes to sections 64 through 80, which essentially gut the Forest

Land Reserve Act, repeals the fundamental purpose of why the forest land reserve

was created. I'm going to put that on the record. The intent of the reserve was

to provide a more open and accountable process for the conversion of managed

forest land to urban and rural development. That was a trade-off that was

actually agreed upon as a counterbalance to the generous property tax treatment

that such land receives under the Assessment Act.

Privately

held forest land got very, very beneficial tax assessments, so to counterbalance

that, there was

an act created, and it was agreed upon, frankly. It was agreed

upon — there's no question — by community, forest companies and local

governments that the trade-off for that favourable tax treatment was that the

forest companies who were going to convert it from managed forest land to urban

or even, in some cases, rural development would have to live with the tenets of

the Forest Land Reserve Act.

It was a

major issue. I'm surprised that the member who represents the Gulf Islands, for

instance, is not up speaking to this, because this was a key issue in the Gulf

Islands and also on eastern Vancouver Island where forest companies were getting

into the real estate development business. They were selling off large private

forest land holdings. They didn't conduct very much in the way of public

process, and then, with the sale of that private forest land, they increasingly

turned to the use of publicly owned Crown forest land for timber harvesting.

There was a shift in pressure from the private lands to the publicly owned

forest lands with no accountability by the forest companies for that shift. All

the while, the forest companies also benefited from very favourable tax

treatment under the Assessment Act.

This

agreement, this covenant, this legislation that had been agreed upon by all to

hold that shift somehow in check or to provide balance is gone now with the

repeal of the Forest Land Reserve Act. It was a bit surprising that neither the

explanatory notes in this legislation nor the minister's comments at either

first or second reading in any way hinted that that balance now was gone

completely with the repeal. In fact, the minister said the repeal of these

sections of the Forest Land Reserve Act was an important step in facilitating

improved management of both our agricultural and private forest lands.

[ Page 3452 ]

I'm going

to read into the record just how wrong that is and how misleading, frankly, the

explanatory notes of the bill are in terms of what this does. We're repealing

the key purpose of the Forest Land Reserve Act, and that's done by now removing

any reference to having to minimize the impact of urban development and rural

area settlement on the forest land base. That's gone; that protection is gone.

[1540]

Section 66

under the Forest Land Reserve Act: removal of Crown land from the forest land

reserve. However, this could perhaps be a shift that is good because it means

that private forest land may have to be regulated or enforced under the Forest

Act or the B.C. Forest Practices Code, and that may be a good step. However, I

predict that public forest land is going to come under some sort of working

forest legislation that precludes any shift of private forest land into better

public legal enforcement. Let me just say that this issue will, I hope, be

explored under the review of the Forest Practices Code and not be a move away,

to less environmental protection by the removal of Crown land from the forest

land reserve.

Section 72

is the repeal of the tax recapture provisions. Managed forest land, privately

owned forest land, gets a significant break on property taxes. The purpose of

the tax recapture provision was to provide some incentive to keep private forest

land in the reserve as a counterbalance to tax concession benefits. The benefits

remain under the Assessment Act, but the counterbalance is now repealed with

this section.

Sections 67

and 70 are a repeal of consultation with local governments. That

section that's

being repealed required that the government had to consult local governments

concerning applications to remove private land from the reserve. They are

presently required to be consulted over how these decisions impact official

community plans, services and growth issues. This repeal means that local

governments, including the Islands Trust, will no longer have any legislative

certainty that they be consulted. I expect many communities around this province

will see this as a step back.

Section 71

repeals the criteria for removal of land from the forest land reserve. It not

only removes the criteria that one has to consider before removing land from the

forest land reserve, but it also removes the requirement to consider local

government input and the requirement to even give reasons for the removal

decisions. Under the new provision, the Agricultural Land Commission can make

these decisions whenever it considers it to be "in the public

interest." There are those who say that this change removes openness and

accountability in decision-making.

Section 74

is the repeal of the opportunity for public involvement. Again, this is all in

the context of the Forest Land Reserve Act. This

section takes away the

authority of the Agricultural Land Commission to provide notice to the public

and to hold public meetings and hearings in relation to applications before the

commission. Again, this is a loss of openness and accountability.

Those are

all the changes that have occurred as a result of the repeal of these very

important sections to really render the Forest Land Reserve Act emasculated. It

is really hard to get any of that sense, frankly, from reading the

section notes

or from the minister's comments that somehow say that this is improved

management of private forest lands.

Sections 64

to 90 inclusive approved on division.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

The

committee rose at 3:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1545]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21,

Agricultural Land Commission Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. S.

Hagen: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 21,

Agricultural Land Commission Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage on Bill 50.

Committee of the Whole House

ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 50; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:47 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Looking at the act, essentially sections 1 through 13 deal with consequential

amendments related to the Technical University of British Columbia Act. The main

thrust of the changes around the Tech B.C. provision falls under

section 14, so

I'll be asking most of my questions of the minister under

section 14.

Sections

1 to 13 inclusive approved.

section

[ Page 3453 ]

J. Kwan:

Section 14, which is

section 19 of the act, is added with the following. It

allows the minister to appoint a transition administrator for the purpose of

winding up the affairs of the university. It allows for the appointment of the

transition administrator to rescind the appointments of the members of the board

of governors. It enables the transition administrator to become the board of the

university. The transition administrator may also exercise the powers and duties

given to the president. It further allows the minister to direct the transition

administrator to transfer the rights, property, assets, obligations and

liabilities of the university as directed by the minister. That's all under

section 19.1 .

Section

19.2 repeals the Technical University of B.C. Act by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

understand that the minister has made plans to place Tech B.C. under the

leadership of SFU. Could the minister please advise us what plans the minister

has in place to ensure that the SFU Surrey campus will offer the same programs

that were offered through Tech B.C.?

[1550]

Hon. S.

Bond: Simon Fraser University has made a commitment, and has made it very

publicly, that they are going to work very hard to accommodate the students that

are currently students at Tech B.C. They are going to also have the opportunity

to achieve a Simon Fraser University degree.

J. Kwan:

Will SFU be able to change the programming offered at the Surrey campus?

Hon. S.

Bond: Simon Fraser University is working very hard to maintain the integrity

of the programming of Tech B.C. They are also going to look at expanding the

offerings at the Surrey campus. I am confident that the students currently

enrolled will receive a phenomenal education as a result of the partnership with

Simon Fraser University.

J. Kwan:

Can SFU offer courses in disciplines other than technology training at the

Surrey campus?

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, the campus is now a satellite campus of Simon Fraser

University. They will be looking, I'm sure, at the opportunities available for

students. That's a decision of Simon Fraser University. Our goal is to ensure

that the students currently enrolled at Tech B.C. will be taken care of and will

have the ability to complete a degree.

J. Kwan:

The issue for Tech B.C., I think, is not just relative to the students enrolled

there now. It is also, of course, the whole purpose of Tech B.C., its future and

its original intention to provide an alternative marrying business technologies,

instructional technologies and interactive arts in such a way that the research

generated viable real-world projects. The reason I say this is this. It's not

just I who has this sentiment. There are others who share this sentiment as

well.

I received

a copy of a letter that was sent to the Minister of Education from her

constituent. This letter was also sent to all the other MLAs as well. Of all the

many letters I and the opposition have received around Tech B.C., this one

really puts it well from the perspective of why Tech B.C. was so attractive and

from the perspective of why Tech B.C. is so important. Therefore, the issues

around the future of Tech B.C. are not just related to the students enrolled

there now, but also at a later date.

Let me just

read parts of the letter onto the record, and maybe I can get the minister to

comment on the issues that have been raised. The letter starts by saying:

"My

husband" — and it provides the name, but I'm not going to provide the

name, just to protect privacy — "and I moved our family here from

Atlanta this past summer, he to work at Tech B.C. and I to attend as a

doctoral student. Tech B.C.'s closure will affect not only both our careers

but, perhaps more importantly, the future of the technology industry in B.C.

Please read on.

"In

April last year my husband was presenting a talk, 'Computers in Art and

Design Education,' in Glasgow on the teaching and research he was conducting

in interactive technologies at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There he met

representatives of Tech B.C. Intrigued by what he heard about the

university, he flew to Vancouver in May to see what work was being done in

this field of interest. The result was an offer from Tech B.C. and a

decision on our part to return to Canada."

Skipping a little bit further on down:

"From

what we understood, Tech B.C. was created as a new learning model

specifically to marry business technologies, instructional technologies and

interactive arts in such a way that the research generated viable real-world

projects. Had it been otherwise, we would not have come.

[1555]

"Both

my husband and I have strong business backgrounds, and our interest is in

bringing research into reality. [The name of the husband] has ten years of

experience in technology transfer with government and universities and 15

years running his own business. He understands what it takes to make

technology transfer a success.

"When

we arrived at Tech B.C., we met many other Canadians who had moved back from

as far away as Australia and England, as well as colleagues from the U.S.

who had left prestigious institutions such as Stanford to work in this

stimulating and forward-thinking environment. All of us pulled up solid

roots and moved here because we believed that B.C. was serious in its

commitment to technological innovation.

"Coming

to Tech B.C. also meant that I could continue my work and acquire a

doctorate in digital narrative and electronic publishing, my own field of

interest. I had opportunities which I was leaving in Atlanta and which I

needed to replace. I received a masters degree this past spring and

initiated a conference on electronic publishing at my graduating university,

at which I'll be speaking this coming spring. That, plus another

presentation at a major education conference, a book and a course proposal,

as well as other projects I was involved with, meant I needed an academic

home to work from.

[ Page 3454 ]

"I've

had a successful 25-year career in corporate marketing and public relations

and design management. I work across disciplines and am a pragmatic,

business-oriented individual interested in commercial, not only academic,

successes. Tech B.C.'s curriculum meets my requirements, both on the

academic research side and on the business side. With them, not only will I

have an academic home in which I will be able to conduct research, but I

will also be able to turn this research to practical applications in the

digital narrative field. It is the only university in B.C. — indeed, in

Canada — that provides me with the combination of business, technology and

writing curriculums that looks to the future of electronic publishing.

"After

waiting through the period when Tech B.C. did not have approval to accept

new students, I was given the go-ahead in November and proceeded to apply

with the understanding that I was applying for a January term. There is no

other university I can be shuffled off to.

"The

industry I'm in is one at the leading edge of technology. It is only at

schools such as Tech B.C. that learners, students, have the opportunity to

educate themselves not only to enter but also to lead an industry. Tech B.C.

is poised to graduate students who will not only be followers but will

initiate and create new ideas, new types of technology and new

opportunities, both for themselves and for many others."

Then,

skipping down a little bit:

"The

comment I heard from the provincial government that Tech B.C.'s business

plan is not sufficiently aggressive seems to me inconceivable, as the very

reason I'm interested in attending Tech B.C. is precisely that it is

business-oriented. Indeed, the current president seems to be far more

market-driven than academic-driven."

The letter was written prior to the change, so the president that's

referenced, of course, is the former president of Tech B.C.

"Further,

the existing large, status quo universities would benefit greatly from the

funding which would go back into the pot should Tech B.C. be closed. They

cannot duplicate the ten years which has gone into the merging of business

technology and art which is becoming successfully carried out here and at a

lower cost than the government currently claims.

"Good

decisions can only be made based on facts, not on statistics manipulated to

support the status quo, where you toe the line based on inaccurate

information and support poorly conceived ideas. With regard to government

blunders, the most accurate comparison is to the Avro Arrow fiasco of the

Diefenbaker years, a willful destruction of the potential for technological

excellence that has been ten years in the making, is proving to be

successful and will provide for outstanding facilities and opportunities for

the next technological business generation in B.C.

"It

is difficult to believe that when other parts of North America are actively

supporting the establishment of technology centres, B.C. would consider

stopping an initiative that will only bring this province more jobs, more

opportunities, more money for the treasury and a standing in the

technological world that they could bank on for a long time to come. After

all, governments should be concerned with who will be able to pay the kind

of taxes necessary to support it in the future. The fast-growing

high-technology industry should be a very good candidate for their

concern."

[H. Long in the chair.]

"As

constituents of your riding, my husband and I would like to meet with you to

discuss your understanding of the critical role this institution will play

in the future of business and industry in British Columbia.

"Sincerely, [the writer]."

[1600]

I think the writer actually put the issues of Tech B.C. together very

well. It highlighted the reasons why she and her husband and others came to

British Columbia and how they furthered their career development in this

exciting field. It recognized the opportunities that Tech B.C. was envisioned

for and the opportunities then, of course, that flow to all British Columbians

for the future.

Now we have

a situation where the minister advised that she is uncertain whether or not SFU

will be able to change the programming offered at the Surrey campus. That

decision is still yet to be made by SFU. Whether or not SFU will offer courses

in disciplines other than technology training at the Surrey campus, if they do

proceed, it would ultimately change the face of Tech B.C. and the purpose in

which the university was set up.

Maybe the

minister can advise, then: has the minister provided guidelines about the

programs that should be offered at the Surrey campus?

Hon. S.

Bond: No. What the minister did do was try to find a home and an ongoing

program for students who currently are partway through a program in an

institution which was unsustainable. So in fact, what we did was have Simon

Fraser University agree to look at the programming options that are currently at

Tech B.C. and make sure that the students would be able to continue in those

programs.

addition, because of the role of post-secondary education in Surrey, we believe

that Simon Fraser University will capitalize on this opportunity to provide

extended opportunities for students in that area. I should point out that Simon

Fraser University, in terms of faculty, is working very hard to accommodate as

many of the faculty that currently work at Tech B.C. as possible, recognizing

the professionals that are there. They're working very hard at accommodating as

many staff people as possible.

J. Kwan:

Well, the only assurances that the minister has given, based on her answer,

would be for the current students that are now there. There is a big question in

terms of the future and the initial vision, if you will, of Tech B.C. for

students not just for today but for tomorrow as well.

Tech B.C.

is an innovative and dynamic organization that delivers high-quality, high-tech

training to people of B.C. Tech B.C. is the only university hybrid in Canada. At

Tech B.C. learning takes place in the classroom, in the real world and in the

virtual world. It gives students the right mix of theory, hands-on prac-

[ Page 3455 ]

tice and workplace skills in a high-tech environment. Research happens in

interdisciplinary teams, addressing such areas as design management, on-line

learning systems, human-computer interfaces and computer game systems.

Tech B.C.

is an initiative that should be supported and encouraged, yet the government has

chosen to hinder this innovative organization by eliminating the governing board

of the university and making Tech B.C. a satellite campus of SFU. The only

reassurance so far from the minister is that the students that are now enrolled

will be able to complete their program. Again, I go to the point: what about the

future?

Why hasn't

the minister provided guidelines about programs that should be offered at the

Surrey campus to ensure that the vision of Tech B.C. is going to be safeguarded

and protected and so that the technology fields for the future would have an

opportunity to flourish with a separate campus out at the Surrey site?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, I will repeat this one more time. What we have done is ensured

that there will be a presence of a post-secondary institution in Surrey, that

the calibre of programming offered will be offered by the second-best

comprehensive university in the country. I should just point out that as Simon

Fraser University is getting ready for the fall offerings, they have actually

just hired 26 faculty members that will teach in the areas of information

technology and interactive arts to 400 students in two undergraduate programs

and to 30 graduate students.

[1605]

We know

that Simon Fraser University intends to double the number of students attending

the Surrey campus focusing in those areas. The list of faculty members that have

been hired for the Surrey campus is extraordinary. They are from Stanford and a

variety of places already mentioned by the member opposite.

In fact,

Simon Fraser University in Surrey will hold an open house on May 15 to showcase

its programs to potential students and the wider community. They will be able to

see a virtual reality lab and meet students and faculty at the state-of-the-art

campus.

That sounds

to me like SFU intends not only to continue the programming that currently

exists but to look at new and innovative programs. We're excited about the

opportunity for current and future students at that campus.

J. Kwan:

Just following on the line of questioning that I'm putting forward for flow in

this House. If the minister states she's not concerned in terms of potential

redirection of Tech B.C. since it is being taken over by SFU, then why won't the

minister outline that explicitly to SFU? That is, say that SFU needs to ensure

that the technological training at the Surrey campus is being maintained —

yes, it could be expanded on as well, but it cannot diminish or reduce in

substance or size — and that the changing of the programming offered at the

Surrey campus has to be technology-centred and cannot be diverted into other

disciplines. That's so that you actually maintain a centre of excellence, if you

will, in the educational system in the technology area, to ensure that that is

actually in place. Why won't the minister give that directive?

Hon. S.

Bond: When we assessed the proposals for what we would do with the Tech B.C.

situation, the proposal that Simon Fraser presented to us included academic

programming, the costs and the transition plan for students. In fact, the Simon

Fraser campus at Surrey will be contributing to doubling the number of graduates

in computer science and electrical and computer engineering over the next five

years. It's clear that Simon Fraser University will be continuing the excellence

in information technology. They will be expanding opportunities for students in

Surrey.

The

Minister of Advanced Education does not tell universities what they should be

offering. What we did was make an arrangement with Simon Fraser University to

ensure that students currently enrolled in the Tech B.C. program would have the

opportunity to complete a degree, and we ensured an ongoing post-secondary

presence in Surrey.

J. Kwan:

Well, if the minister is as certain as she appears to claim she is around the

future of Tech B.C…. One would have thought, though, not to micromanage SFU in

its management of Tech B.C. but rather to say that it is the expectation of

government that the field of excellence for technology, development and training

be maintained in the centre of Tech B.C….

I know the

minister has stated that there's a commitment that over the next five years the

number of graduates in the computer science field, etc., will be doubled. The

minister is actually looking at the notion of the existing graduates. That's the

only area in which she's prepared to put a directive forward to say that

existing graduates should have the opportunity to graduate with their degree.

I want to

make the point that we need to go beyond that. It's not just the next five years

that we need to think about but rather into the future. The whole reason why

Tech B.C. was established was precisely to create a centre of excellence in

technological training and opportunities in British Columbia. In fact, it is the

only school that offers such a combination in such an exciting field for an

alternate form of economic development in the new-age job opportunities for

British Columbians.

[1610]

If the

minister is not prepared to say to SFU that the programming and preservation of

Tech B.C. should be maintained at the minimum, will the minister please advise

if she has taken any measures to ensure that the funding targeted for Tech B.C.

is put into the SFU Surrey campus and that SFU cannot redirect that funding to

its other campuses or programs?

Hon. S.

Bond: Simon Fraser University, as other universities and post-secondary

institutions in this province, receives an envelope of funding. We have

[ Page 3456 ]

made arrangements for transition costs to assist Simon Fraser University in

taking care of the students that currently exist there. Simon Fraser will

receive a funding envelope to address the number of students that currently

attend Simon Fraser, including the Surrey campus.

J. Kwan:

There is no separate allocation of the funds, then, to ensure that the funding

which was formerly directed at Tech B.C. would remain at that campus. It's just

one general pool that falls within SFU, and it's up to SFU to determine how the

funds will be allocated.

Hon. S.

Bond: Simon Fraser University will receive funding for the Surrey campus, as

it does for all the other facilities, based on the students that attend there.

It will become part of the regular funding package for Simon Fraser University.

We have made arrangements, also, to include transition costs that Simon Fraser

will need to use to take care of the transition of the Tech B.C. students.

We have

been pleased with the progress made by Simon Fraser at Surrey, and we are going

to continue to fund Simon Fraser University for the Surrey campus as we do other

institutions in the province.

Locke: I want to thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for her

interest in Surrey, but clearly she's pretty out of touch.

I just want

to read a quick note from one of the editorials in the local newspaper.

"Surrey

ended up a winner with the provincial decision last week to merge Technical

University of B.C. with Simon Fraser University. How did Surrey win? First

and foremost, there will be a continuing university presence in Surrey.

Almost as important, the presence is not that of a startup institution.

Surrey will now be part of a well-established university with an excellent

reputation.

"The

innovative approach to learning that Tech B.C. has pioneered will not go

away. It will become part of SFU's approach to education.

"Unfortunately,

politics really destroyed Tech B.C.'s chances to make it as a stand-alone

institution. The NDP government couldn't separate the institution from its

Surrey megaproject financed by ICBC, Central City."

That was an editorial in our local paper.

I just

wanted to ask the minister if she can tell us how SFU will be protected, or will

protect itself, in the future so that it will continue in a solid way in Surrey.

[1615]

Hon. S.

Bond: Thank you for the question. It's Simon Fraser University day in

Victoria today, so as a matter of fact we've had the opportunity to meet with

Simon Fraser University today. They see this as an ongoing opportunity for

expansion of opportunities for students in this particular area. I know they are

excited and thinking ahead not just about maintaining and looking at the

programs that are excellent from Tech B.C. but at other opportunities for

students in the province. Access continues to be a challenge for us, and we

think this is a great news story.

I know that

Simon Fraser plans to double the number of students participating in this

program to 800 within the next couple of years. I think it's a great start and

really good progress. Simon Fraser has made an excellent case, and I think the

people of Surrey are very pleased. It will be a great opportunity for students.

Penner: I have a question for the minister, but first, before I get to that,

I'd just like to offer my comments. I did not, unfortunately, have an

opportunity yesterday or when the bill was up for second reading to make my

remarks.

I want to

commend the minister and the government for having the courage to make the right

decision. The previous government embarked on many ambitious programs in B.C.

for political reasons, and we are all left paying the price for those decisions.

It takes courage to do the right thing, and sometimes you take some flak for

doing the right thing. I do want to commend the government for doing what I

think is absolutely in the best interests of the students currently at Tech B.C.

and students throughout the post-secondary education system in British Columbia.

There's no

doubt in my mind that this was a decision that had to be made. I stand here as a

member of the Legislature who was here in 1996 and on, who, during every

estimates process for the Ministry of Advanced Education, would ask questions to

whoever the minister of the day was, and it was a revolving door in that

ministry: "What is the total projected cost for the Technical University of

British Columbia?" I never once got a straight answer.

Not in five

years did I get a straight answer to that very simple question, and that told me

pretty well everything I needed to know. It was going to be another NDP

financial disaster along the lines of fast ferries, the Skeena Cellulose bailout

and other ill-conceived projects that the previous government unfortunately

embarked upon at the expense of future British Columbians and current British

Columbians who are left to pick up the tab.

I know that

it's uncomfortable at times to do the right thing, but in my view it's

absolutely necessary to clean up the mess of the last ten years and get on and

make the right decisions so we have resources for our students who are counting

on the ability to access education in an ongoing fashion and to receive

high-quality education.

My question

to the minister: can she tell the House what type of response she has received

from other post-secondary institutions — I'm thinking particularly of

university colleges in the lower mainland — on this decision to merge Tech

B.C. with SFU?

Hon. S.

Bond: I appreciate the comments. This was a very difficult decision, but it

was centred on one thing. We wanted to find a solution that was best for

students in this province. I can honestly tell you that in discussing the

reaction of students to the decision we

[ Page 3457 ]

made, as recently as at lunchtime today, an overwhelming majority of them

have said: "Yes, with Simon Fraser University, it will work. It's a good

model. We're pleased about that opportunity."

The choice

was simple — an institution that was unsustainable. The numbers were not

growing. We believe that with Simon Fraser University looking at integrating

these programs into a Simon Fraser University degree, this program not only is

going to be maintained but will flourish in Surrey. That is the responsibility

of the minister and this ministry, and that's what we did.

In terms of

looking at the reaction of Kwantlen University College in particular, I can't

begin to tell you how pleased I am about the sense of partnership that's

beginning to develop. While there were relationships there before as they served

the needs of students, actually, Kwantlen University College in particular has

welcomed Simon Fraser University to Surrey and has already begun to have

discussions about how two institutions together can better serve the students in

that particular area. It is a great beginning, a great partnership, and it will

bring benefit to the students not just in this area but in British Columbia as

SFU serves students around this province.

J. Kwan:

It is appalling to hear the members suggesting that the notion of Tech B.C. was

a boondoggle, because that is what the member is trying to suggest. Tech B.C.

was an innovation that was brought about in trying to highlight technology

opportunities and technology training opportunities in British Columbia to the

point, actually, that Surrey council passed a motion in support of Tech B.C.

You know,

the members from Surrey…. I know it is the practice of this government and the

government Liberal MLAs not to stand and advocate on behalf of their

constituents. It is the practice — I've now come to understand that close to a

year after the government was elected — for them not to stand up for their own

community. I've seen it time and time again, and I guess Tech B.C. is no

different.

[1620]

The Surrey

council actually passed a motion in support of Tech B.C., and you know what?

Tech B.C. was something that the previous government had thought about and

innovated. Through that, there were people who came from other countries, who

came to British Columbia because of the existence of Tech B.C.

Hon. Chair,

if you're wondering how the question that I'm asking is related to the

section

that we're dealing with, it is related because what we're talking about is the

dissolving of Tech B.C.

Yes, the

minister says: "Well, we have found someone to take over Tech B.C., and

that is SFU." I don't have a problem with SFU necessarily. I should say

that right off the top; I'm a graduate of SFU. I graduated from Simon Fraser

University, the Burnaby campus. It's a fine institution. Make no mistake about

it. They graduate many individuals out of SFU. It's not about SFU and their

ability to take over an institution.

The

question that I'm asking of the minister centres around whether or not there is

a commitment from this minister to ensure that the innovation that began in Tech

B.C., that started to build in Tech B.C., would actually be maintained and that

as a base minimum level, it would be expanded on.

I expect

that with Tech B.C. under the leadership of SFU, if there is the commitment from

government to ensure that it is expanded upon in terms of the technological

innovations as an institution, SFU will be able to do that. I don't doubt that

for one moment in terms of their capabilities. But Tech B.C. was set up with a

prescribed mandate. The mandate was to ensure that British Columbia becomes the

number one institution in offering technological training in an innovative way.

I want to make sure that that is being preserved through this transition

process.

I also want

to make sure that there is a Surrey campus as well, because the site which was

chosen was not only chosen for the purposes of an institution to allow for

educational opportunities but also to bring economic spinoff opportunities into

Surrey. That's why I suspect Surrey council supports Tech B.C.

I want to

ask the minister this question. So far, what's she been advising the House is

that there is no particular requirement for SFU to maintain the programming

being offered at the Surrey campus. There is no particular requirement for SFU

to not offer courses in disciplines other than technology. There's no

requirement for SFU to ensure that the funding target for Tech B.C. is actually

put into the Surrey SFU campus.

Let me ask

the minister this question: will the board of governors at Tech B.C. continue to

run the Surrey SFU campus?

Hon. S.

Bond: The campus that's located in Surrey will be the Simon Fraser

University campus in Surrey. It will be part of the responsibility of the board

of Simon Fraser University.

I want to

make very clear to the member opposite that looking at a solution for the Tech

B.C. situation was based on what we could do to protect the interests of

students at an institution where the notion wasn't inappropriate; it was the

management. It was the tying of a particular institution to an extraordinarily

expensive piece of real estate which made it financially unsustainable.

In fact,

what we've done is protected the best interests of students. Not only are they

going to continue their innovative programming, you're talking about a

university that operates currently on a tri-semester system that has a

reputation for innovation that exceeds many other institutions across Canada. In

fact, we're giving students an opportunity in Surrey to continue their

innovative programming but to look at other opportunities as well. That's our

responsibility, and that's the job we're going to continue to do as government.

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps on saying that investment in the community is not

sustainable. We see that

[ Page 3458 ]

throughout this government in a whole bunch of different branches. We see the

Attorney General cutting legal aid offices. All 26 offices in legal aid

throughout the province — sorry, not 26; it's actually over 50 legal aid

offices — are being eliminated, I believe. All of those are being cut down

because the government says they're not sustainable. Courthouses are being shut

down because they're not sustainable. Women's centres are being shut down

because they're not sustainable.

The

Chair: I think it's important, member, that you stay to the subject with the

Minister of Advanced Education, please.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

How it is relevant, Mr. Chair, to this issue here is because the minister says

that all of these issues are not sustainable. When we invest in communities, it

is up to the government to decide whether or not we want, as a priority, to

invest in a particular community. Tech B.C. is one of those examples, whether or

not we want to invest in that community in such a way that would actually

sustain the community — and not only sustain the community but assist the

community to flourish economically, culturally, educationally and in every

aspect as well.

This

government has taken the pattern. They believe that all those kinds of

investments are not sustainable. We see communities shut down throughout British

Columbia. Schools are closing; courthouses are closing. We see women's centres

closing. We see education centres closing. What's next? What's next if

government is not there to ensure that we invest in the community?

I believe

in that. I do believe that the community should be invested in and that

government should make that their top priority.

If the

minister says that Tech B.C. is not financially sustainable, can the minister

then advise us how much money she anticipates saving as a result of making Tech

B.C. part of SFU?

Hon. S.

Bond: The Simon Fraser University proposal — now program — will save

$22.4 million over three years while maintaining the current programming,

doubling the number of students to 800 and expanding the choice for students in

Surrey.

R. Masi:

I was not here for the second reading. I would just like to possibly make a

comment on the situation in Surrey relative to Tech B.C.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member.

R. Masi:

In the suggestion that Tech B.C. was a good concept, I must agree that any

endeavour towards an educational objective like that is a positive thing.

However, it has to work right to be viable. Tech B.C. was not working in terms

of an economic thrust, and therefore something had to be done.

I want to

refer back to the whole concept of what is really needed in the Surrey–North

Delta–Langley area. That, of course, is a full university. That is what all

the committees that were formed over the years were aiming for, not a specialty

situation, which is what in fact Tech B.C. turned out to be.

The

ultimate objective of the people — I'm talking about the people that worked

hard to bring a university to the Surrey area — was for a full university. I

think what has happened is that the minister has worked hard to present a very

sound alternative, a better alternative, to a specialty university. What we're

looking at now for the future is a comprehensive university, which I hope will

serve the people better and meet the aims of all those committees that worked

hard to bring a real university to the area. That's very important.

In terms of

the economic advantage, there's no question that Tech U had an opportunity to

bring economic advantage to Surrey but failed in it. That was a failure of

management, and it was an economic failure.

My question

to the minister in terms of where we are right now is: will the minister give

support to the aims and objectives of Simon Fraser at the present time in order

to broaden the capabilities of the Simon Fraser Surrey campus?

[1630]

Hon. S.

Bond: I think the Simon Fraser University campus at Surrey is a win-win

solution. It provides us with the opportunity to ensure that students who are

enrolled at Tech B.C. will have an opportunity to complete the degrees that they

began, working with Simon Fraser University now to do that. I know that the

integrity of the programming and the commitment to that high-quality programming

will be maintained by Simon Fraser University, and yes, I believe that Simon

Fraser University has an exciting future in store for the Surrey campus. I think

it is up to the university to work with the residents of Surrey and with the

students who attend there to look at the needs of that particular area and

create an institution which meets the needs of that area of our province.

J. Kwan:

I have to say it seems to me that from this government's point of view, the only

thing that is sustainable for this government is the big tax cuts given to big

corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. You wouldn't know it

otherwise, because every other investment, being asked by government to invest

in communities…. They say it's not sustainable, and it's economically not

viable.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member.

I think

it's important that we stick to

section 14, please.

J. Kwan:

Oh, thank you for the guidance, Mr. Chair. I thought we were engaging in second

reading debate, because I heard member after member get up

[ Page 3459 ]

and say they didn't have the opportunity to respond to this bill under second

reading debate. We heard that from the member for Delta North; we heard that

from the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Pardon me. I thought we were engaging in

second reading debate. Oh, actually, we're doing third reading debate in this

bill. I see.

Will the

minister please advise: when will SFU officially take over the Tech B.C. campus

in Surrey?

Hon. S.

Bond: This legislation is necessary for us to begin the formal transfer of

assets, etc. Having said that, Simon Fraser University and the staff and the

transition system at Tech B.C. are currently underway. As has been pointed out

today, even in the press release I received just on May 13, as a matter of fact,

the faculty has been hired in terms of the fall opening, and progress is being

made.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer the question. When will SFU officially take over Tech

B.C.?

Hon. S.

Bond: The formal date of that arrangement has not been arranged at this

point in time. We need to get the legislation through the House. The transition

issues are being dealt with as we speak.

Most

importantly, students' needs are being taken care of. There will be continuity

for their programming. They have already had the opportunity to take advantage

of meeting with Simon Fraser University, and as I've said, the overwhelming

number of them are excited and pleased about the Simon Fraser model.

J. Kwan:

The bill is going through the House probably by the end of today. I would

anticipate that the minister would have understood that the bill would go

through some time this session. There's only another week left. Next week is a

skipped week, but the following week, at the end of the month, the bills will

have been passed in this House. Surely the minister must have some inkling in

terms of when the official date would be for SFU to take over Tech B.C. Why

wouldn't she have that date in her mind? Or is she just not prepared to share it

with this House?

Hon. S.

Bond: I'd be happy to share it. As I've suggested, we are working on the

transition issues. The formal date of transfer has not been determined, but the

transition work goes on. Once this legislation is in place and we have the rest

of the transition issues taken care of, I'd be happy to let the member opposite

know when the formal date will be.

J. Kwan:

What other transition issues are outstanding?

[1635]

Hon. S.

Bond: There are a variety of issues including, obviously, first and

foremost, making sure the student programming is up and ready to go. There is

the issue of how we transfer the assets and all of those issues between the two

institutions at this point in time.

Many, many

of those details have been worked out. Simon Fraser is excited and ready to go

in terms of the fall opening. As a matter of fact, they're having their open

house May 15, so plans are well underway. The formal transfer will take place at

a date in the not too distant future.

J. Kwan:

Are those the only outstanding issues?

Hon. S.

Bond: I don't have a comprehensive list of the transition issues, but I'm

sure that the president of SFU and his staff, who are here today, would be happy

to sit down and provide that information. In fact, we're looking at a fairly

monumental shift when we look at transferring of records, making sure that

student information is taken care of and the hiring of faculty. All of those

issues are well underway.

As I've

suggested, there are a number of those issues on the list I've given you. We'd

be happy to sit down with the president and find out if there's a more

comprehensive list that the member opposite would be interested in.

J. Kwan:

I would have thought that the minister would have taken the initiative already

to find out from the president of SFU what transitional issues are still

outstanding and what work needs to be done. If she actually wants to make sure

that the transition is smooth, the targets are going to be met and there is

going to be a curriculum up and running for the students in the fall, and so on

and so forth, given that SFU in fact are here today, I would have thought that

the minister would have already taken that opportunity to meet with them so that

she would know the answers and be able to answer these questions in the House

relative to the issue that we're debating right now, which is, of course, the

transitional aspects of Tech B.C. to SFU.

It stuns

me, I have to say, that the minister has not taken the opportunity to do that

work. One would have thought that a responsible minister would have done that.

One would have thought that a minister would have taken the time to review the

work and ensure the transition is indeed done satisfactorily and would have had

that information. It surprises me greatly.

Hon. Chair,

on this section, given that the government is going to dissolve Tech B.C…. As

I have already stated on record, that is something I do not support. But given

that the government's going to move ahead on that issue and the dissolving of

Tech B.C. falls under

section 15 of the act, I will be voting against

section 15

of the act with division.

I'm not

going to vote against

section 14 of the act, given that the dissolving of Tech

B.C. is going to take place. Someone will need to take it over. It happens to be

SFU. We'll watch and see how progress is made with SFU in this area and,

particularly, watch for the longevity of Tech B.C. in its original innovation

— that is, to ensure that British Columbia does provide an institution for

technological training excellence.

Section 14

approved.

[ Page 3460 ]

[1640]

Section 15

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 58

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Bell

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections 16

and 17 approved.

Title

approved.

[1645]

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:47 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 50,

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Point of Order

MacPhail: I rise on a point of order arising out of the ministerial

statement earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

MacPhail: I've had a chance to look at the remarks of the ministerial

statement, and while reserving my right to respond, I do note in the statement

that the minister said that he is advising this House by letter today. I have

not, nor has my colleague, received a copy of the letter of his advice to the

House nor any of the supporting documentation. I'm requesting, Mr. Speaker, that

you seek the documents he promised to offer to us and that we receive copies. My

colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have not received the copies.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Noted.

[1650]

Hon. G.

Collins: Perhaps I can provide some clarification. It's my understanding

that the member was saying that by letter, he was writing to the auditor

general. The letter will be addressed to the auditor general.

I'm sure

that if it's possible, the minister will make that available to members. But his

intent, I believe, was to say that he would be addressing the issue to the

auditor general by letter today for his consideration. I'll look into it and see

if the minister is able to provide that letter.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. That is the way I recall the statement. The Chair will

try to obtain a copy.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 44.

Second Reading of Bills

HEALTH CARE (CONSENT)

AND CARE FACILITY (ADMISSION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. K.

Whittred: I move that Bill 44 be now r