2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 81)

Hon. S. Hawkins

Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act (Bill 82)

Hon. S. Hawkins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Transit services in rural areas

B. Bennett

Small business in Burnaby Heights

R. Lee

Small business and community involvement

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Increase in fees for seniors' care

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Whittred

Expenses of Fraser health authority CEO and number of care beds

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Barkerville Historic Town

J. Wilson

Hon. G. Abbott

Rain damage in Fraser Valley and government response

R. Hawes

Hon. R. Coleman

Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Second Reading of Bills

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74)

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)

Committee of the Whole House

Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Murray

Reporting of Bills

Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53)

Third Reading of Bills

Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53)

Second Reading of Bills

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60) (continued)

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)

Third Reading of Bills

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)

Second Reading of Bills

Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)

Hon. T. Nebbeling

J. Kwan

[ Page 7437 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Brenzinger: Today I'd like the House to help make welcome two visitors we

have here from New Hampshire. I met them in the hall this morning. It's their

first time here at the Leg. Can everyone please welcome our visitors.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today is a number of ministry

staff and their spouses. They're here in Victoria to be recognized for their

many years of service to the public, and I'd like to introduce them. Starting

from Kelowna, Wray McDonnell and Creighton Smith; from Kamloops, Ted Moore; from

Victoria, Gayle Pennie; from Vernon, Alma Schier; and from Abbotsford, Linda

Hokanson, John Robinson, Mark Sweeney, Rick Van Kleeck, Madeline Waring and

Robert Puls. Robert Puls has completed 35 years of service to the ministry. I'd

like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today my constituency assistant

who's visiting us, Shellee Nash. Would the House please make her welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25

public servants seated in the west gallery, who are participating in a full-day

parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop offered by the Legislative

Assembly provides a first-hand opportunity for the public service to gain a

greater understanding of the relationship between the work of the ministries and

how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

Hon. S.

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

intituled Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.

Hon. S.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce the Health Professions Amendment Act (No.

2), 2003. The amendments proposed in this bill will facilitate the transfer of

the existing pharmacist regulatory framework from the Pharmacy Operations and

Drug Scheduling Act to the Health Professions Act.

This bill

is a companion piece to a bill I will introduce shortly, which is the Pharmacy

Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, which will re-enact as a stand-alone statute

the existing provisions for licensing, operations, inspections and other matters

with respect to pharmacies that are currently administered by the College of

Pharmacists.

Basically,

this bill will bring the pharmacists under the Health Professions Act in Bill

81, and it dovetails with the designation of other established health

professions. It will enable the pharmacists, then, to be brought under Bill 62,

which received third reading earlier in this sitting.

As the

House is already aware, the Health Professions Act covers 15 professions, from

dental hygienist to traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. With the

amendments passed in Bill 62, the act will be extended to include chiropractors,

dentists, physicians, optometrists, podiatrists and registered nurses. The

legislation that I'm introducing today will, then, complete the process of

moving all of the health professions under the Health Professions Act.

We believe

the Health Professions Act as amended by Bill 62 achieves the right balance

among the interests and needs of health professional colleges; their dedicated,

hard-working members; and the public, who look to those members for high-quality

care. By enabling the designation of pharmacy under the Health Professions Act,

Bill 81 will ensure that the mandate of the College of Pharmacists is equivalent

to that of other health professional colleges, which have direct responsibility

for ensuring quality patient care and safety as well as public confidence in

health care professionals.

[1410]

It also

ensures that the B.C. health care system is more accountable and transparent,

and in the process it will help to strengthen health care delivery in British

Columbia.

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 81

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.

PHARMACY OPERATIONS

AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT

Hon. S

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

intituled Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act.

Hon. S.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce the Pharmacy Operations and Drug

Scheduling Act. There are several key elements to the legislation being

introduced today.

[ Page 7438 ]

As I said

earlier, this new Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act will re-enact as a

stand-alone statute the existing provisions for licensing, operations,

inspections and other matters with respect to pharmacies that are currently

administered by the College of Pharmacists. This change is largely a

re-enactment of the existing legislative provisions. There are minor amendments

that will enhance confidentiality provisions and streamline the administration

of drug schedules that regulate the manner in which drugs are sold. Our

amendments also provide for the establishment of a new, independent PharmaNet

stewardship committee responsible for managing disclosure of patient information

contained on the PharmaNet database. This bill includes amendments that have

been introduced previously as Bill 54, so consequently I would like to advise

the House that Bill 54 will be withdrawn. These amendments will enhance both

patient privacy and transparency in information disclosures and will also

strengthen our ability to do necessary research and information-gathering.

This bill

is a companion piece to Bill 81, which I just introduced, that makes further

amendments to the Health Professions Act. As I said, those amendments will

facilitate the transfer of the existing pharmacists' regulatory framework from

the pharmacists' Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to the Health

Professions Act. Under this bill, Bill 82, the College of Pharmacists will

continue to oversee licensing standards of operation and discipline of pharmacy

managers and pharmacy owners through its bylaw-making powers.

Finally,

the amendments in this bill will consolidate existing provisions dealing with

veterinary drugs, creating a second stand-alone statute that will be transferred

to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The change is a technical

one only. Provisions governing the prescribing and use of veterinary drugs are

the same, and responsibility remains with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries.

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 82

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.

Hon. C.

Clark: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I am delighted to be able to introduce to the House today a new

member of our team. We've been falling behind a little bit on our side of the

House, so I'm pleased to say we're catching up. Holly Robertson Molony is

joining us today in the gallery with her mom, Janis Robertson, a longstanding,

valued member of our team over in the B.C. Liberal caucus. I met the little girl

for the first time today. She's just a perfect, perfect specimen. She's going to

be a great citizen and one day — I'm sure — a very, very valued member,

perhaps, of this chamber. I hope everyone will please make her welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) TRANSIT SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS

Bennett: I rise today to talk about an important priority for the

heartlands: the development of public transportation between our rural

communities. What workers, students, the self-employed and even shoppers take

for granted in the lower mainland and in our regional centres, for people in

rural regions is only a dream. Students, often adults who are retraining, can't

get to their classes. Rural citizens are seen hitchhiking on our winter highways

in the Rockies because there is no public transportation between our

communities.

[1415]

As real

estate values around our resort communities go up, the low-wage workers —

mostly youth — operating these resorts must live further away in less

expensive real estate, which usually means they are scrambling for

transportation.

In the East

Kootenay seniors, disabled and low-income citizens sometimes have no way to get

to their specialist's appointment at the regional hospital in Cranbrook. The

regional hospital is improving dramatically, but patients must be able to access

these improved services from their communities. Recently the regional district

of East Kootenay made their case to the government for cost-shared public

transportation. The 2002 B.C. Transit studies show that public transit can be

feasible in the East Kootenay.

I support

the people of my region in their quest for public transit service, and I look

forward to working with B.C. Transit and the Ministry of Transportation to find

innovative solutions to this challenge. We must remember the unique

transportation needs of rural citizens in B.C.'s heartlands. Our distances are

great; our services, centralized; our incomes, not as high. Our people cannot

access education, health care, social services, work and recreation as easily as

those in the lower mainland and regional centres.

SMALL BUSINESS

IN BURNABY HEIGHTS

R. Lee: I

would like to acknowledge Small Business Week and the tremendous role small

businesses play in our communities. There are few urbanized regions in B.C. that

can boast having a neighbourhood that's almost entirely composed of healthy and

successful small businesses. Fortunately, I have the pleasure of representing a

constituency that's home to a most extraordinary exception to the rule.

Burnaby

Heights neighbourhood on East Hastings Street is home to 600 small businesses,

including close

[ Page 7439 ]

to 60 restaurants and cafés. I'm also pleased to report that the spirit of

the Heights is alive and well, despite the fact that these businesses are going

head-to-head with no less than three major shopping centres in Lougheed,

Brentwood and Metrotown.

I can tell

you that it's the people who make the Heights the success story that it is

today. These are people who care about their businesses, their neighbour's

businesses and their community. They are not just providing us with goods and

services. They are cleaning our sidewalks. They are painting over graffiti. They

are taking a role in anti-crime initiatives to keep their streets and customers

safe.

The Heights

Merchants Association deserves a pat on the back for helping small businesses

bring a sense of old-fashioned community spirit back to Hastings Street. The

same can also be said about the Burnaby Board of Trade, which is helping small

businesses across Burnaby achieve their dreams one day at a time.

As we

celebrate Small Business Week, let's not forget that small businesses constitute

98 percent of all B.C. retailers and that the B.C. retail sector provides us

with more than $3.8 billion in provincial sales tax each year to help us provide

health care, education and other crucial public services.

In closing,

congratulations to small businesses in Burnaby and throughout B.C. Keep up the

good work.

SMALL BUSINESS AND

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

H. Bloy:

As my colleague from Burnaby North has mentioned, today is the beginning of

Small Business Week in British Columbia. Small businesses in British Columbia

account for almost 98 percent of all businesses. After years of decline, the

total number of small businesses operating in British Columbia grew by 3.1

percent in 2002. This has allowed nearly one million British Columbians to be

employed in small business.

In my

riding of Burquitlam small businesses are starting to feel the positive effects

of this government. By bringing in 27 tax relief measures and an increase in the

threshold for corporate taxes from $200,000 to $300,000, businesses in British

Columbia are receiving a clear message that B.C. is the place to do business.

I'm also

proud that many small businesses in my riding are taking an active role in the

community. The retail shops and restaurants along the North Road corridor have

demonstrated an outstanding display of community spirit in recent months. Not

only are they in the process of forming what may be the first business

improvement area jointly between two cities, they are also working together with

myself, the RCMP and other stakeholders to keep their community safe for their

customers.

[1420]

Speaking of

community spirit, I would also like to mention that on October 8, the Society

for Community Development announced the Spirit of Community Awards winners in

2003. These awards are presented to recognize the accomplishments of individuals

in many categories ranging from the environment to cultural harmony.

I would

like to recognize the nominees from Coquitlam and the vital role they play in

their community. In particular, I'd like to mention one person, Gaylene

Harrison, for winning the Tri-City News Neighbour to Neighbour Award.

Gaylene stood out for commitment to our community by going one step further to

lend a helping hand. I would like to congratulate Gaylene Harrison and all the

nominees and winners of the Spirit of Community Awards.

Oral Questions

INCREASE IN FEES FOR SENIORS' CARE

MacPhail: Wherever the Minister of State for Long Term Care goes, she gets a

pretty bad reaction from seniors — even boos. Seniors feel betrayed by a

government and a minister that are picking their pockets to pay for their cuts

to health. Services are declining, and as of October 1 of this year, the

government is forcing seniors on fixed incomes as low as $18,000 per year to pay

much more for less care.

To the

Minister for Long Term Care: can she point to the New Era documents and

show middle- and low-income seniors where it says they will be forced to pay

more for less care?

Hon. K.

Whittred: For ten years the government that was in before us had an

opportunity to plan for the future. It was not a secret that we have an aging

population, and we are making changes. We made that commitment. We made a

commitment to serve patients. We have ensured that the price to those patients

at the lower end of the income scale is, in fact, fair and equitable, and 72

percent of clients in long-term care facilities will see no increase in their

fees.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Let's look at the record of this government and see what has

changed. Let's just look. Here's what's new under this government. A senior

making $28,000 a year is paying $1,500 more a year for care. That same senior

has seen her drug costs go up and her MSP premiums go up. So that's what has

changed.

What else

has changed? The government promised 5,000 new long-term care beds. Instead,

they're closing 3,300 beds: in the Fraser health authority alone, 675 closures

since the Liberals came to power; Vancouver Island health authority, 554

long-term care beds gone; interior health authority, 1,551 closures.

Can the

minister of long-term care explain how closing 3,300 long-term care beds and

charging seniors more fulfils her promise to build an additional 5,000 long-term

care beds?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This government made a commitment that we were going to plan

long-term to pro-

[ Page 7440 ]

vide for the challenges of an aging population. We are in progress with that

plan. We are in progress in terms of delivering more beds. We are in progress in

terms of delivering a broader spectrum of services. We have looked at the co-pay

— which, by the way, is nothing new. That government increased the fees in

1997 by a larger amount than we did. We have looked at those. We have kept the

rates fair for the lower people in not only long-term care but in Pharmacare and

in MSP.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: I really look forward to the day when this minister takes

responsibility for her misleading promise under the new era when she said she

would create 5,000 new long-term care beds. When is she going to come clean and

admit that the promise wasn't delivered? Here she does….

Interjections.

MacPhail: She blames….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

[1425]

MacPhail: Again, the Attorney General sets new standards for that office.

She blames

health authorities. She did it recently when she was confronted by seniors on

the North Shore. So much for her taking accountability. The government's own

planning documents, uncovered by the B.C. Health Coalition, recognized that the

plan is completely inadequate not only for this generation but for the next

generation. So what is the long-term planning she talks about? It says the

documents clearly show that the minister of state's ill-advised plan represents

less than 50 percent of what is required by 2006. With a rapidly aging

population, can the minister…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please. Would the member now

please put her question.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was. Clearly, the government is not

interested in listening.

With a rapidly aging population, can the Minister for

Long Term Care tell British Columbians how they and their parents, and perhaps

even the generation after that, are going to be cared for when B.C. is now on

track to have the lowest number of beds for people aged 75 and over in the

entire country?

Hon. K.

Whittred: In the ten years that member's government was in power, they added

1,000 beds to the system. That is 100 beds per year. They also only looked at

two means of looking after seniors: (1) put them in a residential facility, and

(2) keep them with no care, basically, at all. We have added day care beds; we

have added adult programs; we have added community service programs; we have

added assisted living to the mix. Health authorities are working at being

innovative around a number of programs. We have made a commitment for 2006, and

we realize this is long plan. It is going to present our seniors with options

that will keep them independent and enjoying quality of life.

EXPENSES OF

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY CEO

AND NUMBER OF CARE BEDS

J. Kwan:

Just like the Minister of Human Resources, this minister refuses to

acknowledge reality. Seniors in B.C. are hurting, and she just sends out her

message box. Well, let me ask her this. Today we learned that the CEO of the

Fraser health authority got $15,000 for one month's expenses. Can the minister

explain how she can justify this expense when the Fraser health authority is

closing more than 600 long-term care beds?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I must confess I lost the thread of the member's question there

somewhat, but perhaps if she could restate the allegation she was making about

expenses, that might be helpful to me.

J. Kwan:

I'll repeat the question for the Minister of Health Services. I'll also add

my new question to the Minister for Long Term Care.

For the

Minister of Health Services, my last question was….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please let us hear the question, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last question that I asked was…. Today we learned

that the CEO of the Fraser health authority got $15,000 for one month's

expenses. Can the minister explain how she can cut and justify the expenses for

the Fraser health authority when she's cut 600 long-term care beds?

Hon. C.

Hansen: In fact, not only has the budget for health services in the province

gone up by $1.4 billion since we formed government, but the budget for every

single one of the health authorities in each of the years that we have been

government has gone up. At the same time the administration costs in the health

authorities have gone down by a minimum of 7 percent, and several of the health

authorities have actually exceeded that by a considerable margin.

[1430]

The CEO of

the Fraser health authority, as I understand it, had expenses in one year of

$75,000, which

[ Page 7441 ]

included his moving costs from Halifax to take up this position. We are

fortunate that we were able to attract back to British Columbia one of the top

health administrators in this country, and he is worth every dime of the salary

that we are paying him to provide leadership for an extremely complex

organization that has a budget of $1.4 billion and a population base of 1.5

million people.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

Well, that's comforting for the seniors who are actually losing their homes —

some 3,300 beds being closed. This government promised a new era for seniors,

and they put this minister in charge to deliver it. But since then, seniors are

paying more for drugs; they're paying more for less care. They are losing home

support. There are many of them who are stuck on a long, growing wait-list.

That's quite a legacy for this minister.

Seniors

want to know: when does she plan to leave politics so that someone else can be

put in charge to look out for the interests of seniors in B.C.?

BARKERVILLE HISTORIC TOWN

Wilson: Today I have a question for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal

and Women's Services. A number of my constituents have travelled to the

Legislature to voice their concerns over the proposed changes to the Barkerville

historic site. My constituents feel the government's commitment to maintain the

security of Barkerville's assets still requires a clearer explanation.

For the

benefit of the Cariboo residents and visitors to the site, can the minister

reaffirm that the security of Barkerville's assets will be ensured?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I did have the pleasure of meeting with the member's constituents

just before QP, and I think I had an opportunity to answer a number of their

questions. I'm looking forward to meeting them again. Clearly, the first concern

of the heritage branch is the preservation and protection of both heritage

values and heritage buildings and artifacts.

Clearly,

what we have in Barkerville is a vital heritage site, and we also have a great

tourism generator for the Cariboo and northern British Columbia. The protection

of assets there is obviously a key concern to the ministry.

What we

want to do at Barkerville is build on the successes with non-profit and local

management of heritage sites, which has occurred in other parts of the province.

I'll point to, for example, in the Victoria area the Emily Carr House and

Craigflower Manor, where local management really has brought some new energy,

vision and commitment to the operation of those sites.

Similarly,

we've recently come to the memorandum of understanding with the Friends of Fort

Steele, and again, I think that will be a great model for Barkerville as we move

into the future with that site.

RAIN DAMAGE IN FRASER VALLEY

AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Hawes: The recent devastation from the 100-year rainstorm that happened in

the last week or so was not confined only to the Pemberton-Whistler-Squamish

area, but the residents of the Fraser Valley have also been devastated greatly

by the rainfall. Bridges, roads and highways have been washed out. The mobility

of goods and services and the movement of people have been compromised in the

Fraser Valley and other parts of the lower mainland. Many farmers are facing

huge loss to their crops.

My question

is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor

General tell us what assistance is available to the residents of the Fraser

Valley who have suffered losses, and how do they access that assistance?

Hon. R.

Coleman: When roads are washed out and mobility of goods is compromised, we

find other ways to get those goods into communities, like we did on the weekend

to Pemberton when we airlifted milk and water into the community because they

were short. Of course, today the road is open, so we're actually getting goods

and services into Pemberton.

[1435]

Floods are

a disaster financial assistance event because they're not insurable. Any person

who is affected by the floods has the opportunity to make an application through

the provincial emergency program for disaster financial assistance. The easiest

way to do that is to go to the provincial emergency program website at

www.pep.bc.ca. If not, they could actually go to their MLA's office or any MLA's

office, and that information could be accessed by the MLA's office on the Net,

and an application form could be provided. Those would be sent in, and they're

measured based on, basically, whether the application is allowable or not.

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

AND LOSS OF BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

We're all getting used to the Human Resources minister's message box rhetoric

about the socialist hordes, but today is a chance to see if some brave new soul

will try out a new message box. The minister says his own leaked documents are

wrong. They're wrong about how many people are being kicked off income

assistance the next fiscal year. He refuses to tell the House what the numbers

are. Here's the FOI that blanks out the numbers of people who will lose income

assistance. Could the minister's designated backup…? Is it the Deputy Premier?

Could whoever that is take this opportunity to dispense with the outdated Cold

War rhetoric and fill in the blanks? It's a simple question.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Well, let me tell you firstly that anyone who can't work — whether

it's for physical, emotional or intellectual reasons — will be fully protected

by this government. This government will take care of

[ Page 7442 ]

people. The time limits are for employable people, people who refuse to work

or refuse to be involved in training.

Let me

reiterate what the minister explained to the media at the beginning of the week.

He said he's instructed his staff to report to him in January regarding the

number of clients affected by the time limits in April. He's going to get that

report in January. I can assure this House and the people of this province that

the Ministry of Human Resources staff are working with every expected-to-work

client. That means employable clients working so that they have active

employment plans, fulfilling their responsibilities under those plans.

Let me also

point out that it wasn't that long ago that the opposition was decrying the

review that was taking place for those people with disabilities. They said there

were 19,000 people with disabilities who were going to be removed from the

rolls. They were fearmongering, and people were frightened.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us extend the courtesy of hearing

the answer.

Are you

finished, Mr. Minister?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker.

The

opposition was saying there were going to be 19,000 people, as a result of that

review, being thrown off disability. As a result of that review of those 19,000

clients, in fact, only 400 were affected — taken off — and 67,000 more were

put on it. The net result was that there was a shift from what the opposition

was saying — of some 25,600. There were 6,600 more people receiving benefits

after the process than there were before.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I'd like to seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave

granted.

Hon. C.

Clark: This is really a reintroduction of Holly Molony, if I can. I've been

advised by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville that "specimen" is an inappropriate way to

refer to a brand-new arrival. I'd like to perhaps amend my introduction of Holly

by referring to her instead as a baby, a child, a bundle of joy, a treasure, a

gift, a bambino, an enfant, a little one, a gift from God and, certainly, a

blessing for her parents.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I ask leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave

granted.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: During question period I noticed we have in the gallery Mr. John

Haibeck. Mr. Haibeck is the chief executive officer of Whistler Rail Tours. This

is a company with partners such as cruise ship operators, major railway

operators in British Columbia, airlines, hotel operators and resort operators.

The goal is to bring rail traffic back to B.C., starting in Vancouver,

destination Whistler and beyond — right up to Prince Rupert. Mr. Haibeck is in

Victoria today meeting with a number of members to discuss the plans of this

company. I ask the House to make him very welcome.

Penner: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1440]

Penner: I've just been made aware that during question period we were joined

by a young man from Chilliwack by the name of David Burnie. I've know him for

several years, and I'm advised that today is his first day working for the B.C.

Liberal caucus. Would the House please make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 74.

Second Reading of Bills

MOTOR DEALER AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. K.

Falcon: I am pleased to now move second reading. As part of government's

commitment to reduce the regulatory burden by one-third in our first three

years, the province has embarked on changing the way business is regulated both

legislatively and administratively. These changes include the modernization of

the motor dealer legislation.

At present

in British Columbia, motor dealer regulation occurs through the Motor Dealer

Act, which establishes the rules and regulations with respect to operations.

Government, through the registrar of motor dealers and an investigations staff,

administers the licensing and enforcement provisions. The new Motor Dealer

Amendment Act will allow for the creation of a delegated administrative

authority, an organization outside of the traditional government structure, to

be responsible for administrating motor dealer rules and regulation.

The Motor

Dealer Amendment Act, 2003, will firstly provide authority to delegate

administration of the motor dealer rules and regulations to a self-managing

body. Secondly, it will continue the motor dealer customer compensation fund but

allow for regulatory powers regarding administration of that fund to be

administered by the delegated administrative authority. Thirdly, it will

increase penalties substantially to reflect the current value of vehicle

transactions. Finally, it will add new regulation-making powers for

[ Page 7443 ]

the licensing of the industry to allow for enhanced industry professionalism

and consumer confidence.

Delegating

regulatory authority will enable government to save significant administrative

costs. Government will be able to focus its resources on policy while the

delegated administrative authority focuses its resources on the delegated

powers. The powers of the delegated administrative authority will include

registration and licensing of industry members; inspection, investigation and

prosecution of violators of regulations; refusal, revocation or suspension of

registrants; handling registrant inquiries, resolving consumer complaints and

administering the motor dealer customer compensation fund; and, finally,

developing effective consumer relations, education and training programs.

[1445]

This means

that prospective dealers that wish to be in the field will now approach the

delegated administrative authority, not government, for licence applications and

renewals. The delegated administrative authority will be the Motor Dealer

Council of British Columbia, which is established under the Society Act as a

not-for-profit, self-funded organization. It will have a board of directors with

representation from industry and consumers, and it will conduct and manage its

own financial and operational affairs.

Board

members to this new society will include Shell Harvey — Mr. Harvey was a

former assistant deputy minister who, during the 1990s, played a vital role in

the expansion and diversification of the B.C. post-secondary education system,

including the creation of three new universities — Neil Kalawsky, the national

chairman of the General Motors dealer communications team and a member of the

board of directors of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association; George

Morfitt, who is a former two-term auditor general of British Columbia; Anne

Salomon, a founding and current member of the Motor Dealer Standards

Association; and Bob Stewart, who is formerly the chief constable of the

Vancouver police department and a current board member and director of the

Justice Institute Foundation.

It will be

fully financed from the fees collected from the motor dealer industry members,

and the provincial government, through the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise, will continue to have responsibility for all policy and legislation

governing motor dealers, including any changes to the Motor Dealer Act.

Accountability for standards remains with the minister, while the delivery of

the delegated functions will be the responsibility of the delegated

administrative authority.

Any and all

changes to legislation will still require approval by the Legislative Assembly.

Changes to regulation will continue to require approval of cabinet. The Minister

of Competition, Science and Enterprise will monitor the performance of the

authority to ensure that performance standards are maintained through

transparent accountability mechanisms such as business plans, annual reports and

three- to five-year post-implementation evaluations.

This new

act will maintain high levels of consumer protection while stimulating a

competitive market environment for the motor dealer industry. The direction is

entirely consistent with what has already taken place in provinces like Ontario

and Alberta.

Motion approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 74,

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 73.

Committee of the Whole House

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 73; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

Sections

1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the piece of legislation, Bill 73, that was introduced 48

hours ago. The government had second reading yesterday, and today we are at

committee stage. I say that, just for the record, for the people who may think

this government is doing things in a way that allows for consideration and

consultation around legislation they've introduced.

I hope that

belief may be dispelled now, seeing that just merely 48 hours after the first

time anyone had a chance to see this, besides the minister and the government

caucus, we're now going to pass this piece of legislation completely. That, by

the way, Mr. Chair, has had an effect on how I am able to do my job in holding

the government to account.

Could the

minister please explain

section 21?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The amendment of

section 5 of the Assessment Authority Act, which is

section 21 here, removes the requirement that B.C. Assessment request the

approval of the minister when it wishes to obtain or dispose of land. Because

B.C. Assessment is an independent corporation and seldom obtains or sells land

— I understand they own only two pieces of land — this is an unnecessary

regulatory requirement.

MacPhail: What makes the B.C. Assessment Authority different from anyone

else, except for the size of their portfolio?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I said in my answer, B.C. Assessment is an independent corporation

and seldom obtains or sells land.

[ Page 7444 ]

MacPhail: I don't understand the term "independent."

Hon. S.

Hagen: They're independent because when they get the levy, they use the

proceeds of the levy if they're going to buy something. It doesn't come from the government.

MacPhail: Are they not a Crown corporation? Honestly, I've never heard the

term "independent corporation" before.

Hon. S.

Hagen: They're independent, in that although they're a Crown corporation,

they pay taxes and operate like a corporation.

MacPhail: I understand a commercial-based Crown corporation or a

taxpayer-subsidized Crown corporation, but what precedent does this set for

other…? I gather that by independent, this minister means that they don't

incur any taxpayer-supported debt and that they're self-funding, which makes

them a commercial Crown corporation. What precedent does this set for commercial

Crown corporations?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It doesn't set a precedent.

Sections 21

to 25 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: We have amendments to the Community Charter, and of course, we

haven't passed…. It's interesting. This legislation — again, it's 48 hours

old — will amend legislation that hasn't even been passed yet. It's still a

bill. I would also note for the public's information that there have been two

bills tabled around Community Charter. So here we are, amending legislation that

hasn't even been passed in this House. I'm surprised at that. But what Community

Charter bill that hasn't been passed yet are we amending?

[1455]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I want to apologize. I neglected to introduce two of my staff that

are here: Julie Williams, who is the manager of legislation and policy, and

Catherine MacDonald, who is manager of legal services division, B.C. Assessment.

The purpose

of this change is that it's a change that's necessary in preparation for

legislation that is before the House.

MacPhail: Yeah. What legislation? was my question.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's a consequential amendment necessary for the Community Charter

legislation.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, I'm trying to figure out how the government does

these things. It's bewildering. We have a piece of legislation before the House

that is the current Community Charter bill, which replaced a previous Community

Charter bill, that I take it has been withdrawn. Why are we doing this when, in

fact, we could just amend the Community Charter that hasn't been passed yet?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that was an option, but the preference of the drafting

people in Ministry of Attorney General was the way that we're taking it.

MacPhail: The reason I'm very curious about this is that this doesn't sound

like just a small amendment and that maybe in the context of the legislation,

which we haven't passed yet, this might be appropriate for debate in that

context. With the greatest of respect, what is it that would drive a government

of politicians to allow — and I say this in a completely non-pejorative way

— or that some legislation officials would disallow, this amendment to be

debated in the context of legislation that may have not yet been passed?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There's no policy issue here. This is a consequential amendment

necessary for the Community Charter.

MacPhail: Well, I have no idea whether that's true or not. That's actually

why we debate at committee stage — and we still do that in this British

parliamentary system here — clause by clause, so that we can have a discussion

and a debate in context of new legislation.

I must say

I am very disappointed that the government is proceeding in this fashion. I

think it takes away from our ability to properly assess the full meaning of a

not-yet-passed piece of legislation called the Community Charter.

Section 26

approved.

Sections 27

to 51 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: We have some amendments to the Local Government Act, and let me

just read this into the record, if I may.

Section 52 says: "Sections 620,

629 (5), 632 (5) and (6), 756.2 (3), 990 (1) and 1011 (5) (

b) and (6) (

b) are

amended by striking out 'authenticated' and substituting 'revised'."

I'll read

that into the record because I then go to

section 83 of this piece of

legislation, where it says: "Amendment to this Act."

Section 83 amends

section 52. I'll read it into the record.

Section 52 is the one we're discussing

right now. Here it says: "Section 52 of this Act is amended by striking out

'620, 629 (5), 632 (5) and (6),'." Help.

[1500]

Hon. S.

Hagen: This is a consequential amendment, and we don't know when the

Community Charter will repeal the Local Government Act.

MacPhail: Thank you for your indulgence on this, Mr. Chair, because it

really is…. I have to look at 83 in the context of 52. What's with

section 83

of this bill?

Hon. S.

Hagen:

Section 83 refers to

section 52 of this act, which is amended. It

amends the Local Gov-

[ Page 7445 ]

ernment Act. It further amends to strike out sections 620, 629(5), 632(5) and

632(6), which will be replaced when the Community Charter is in force.

MacPhail:

Section 52 changes words within certain sections of the Local

Government Act, and then 82 removes those changed sections. Why? What's the

distinction here? What's going on? Is there a way that you could explain it so

that not only I understand it but maybe those who are watching understand it?

Hon. S.

Hagen:

Section 83 is in place if the Community Charter is in place.

Section

52 is, if it is not. It provides for both contingencies.

MacPhail: This is my last question. I'm looking at the commencement. Both

sections 52 and 83 come into force by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Has the minister got in mind some plan for

staged implementation around this?

Here's why

I have focused on this particular issue. It is because the Local Government Act

is tied to the Community Charter, which we haven't even passed yet, and we're

now amending the Local Government Act in a curious and somewhat strange way. We

haven't even passed the Community Charter. There's a thread here that, if it

exists and if there's a line from A to B in all of this, I can't figure out.

Hon. S.

Hagen: This is standard procedure in drafting. We have two contingencies

here depending on which act is in place. That's all that this is about.

Sections 52

to 87 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:05 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 73,

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 53.

Committee of the Whole House

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 53; R. Stewart in the chair.

[1510]

The

committee met at 3:12 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: In

section 1 are

definitions. I'm interested in the definition of

"qualified monitor." This is new. It's not in the old act, but here's

what the new act says: "…perform required professional services for

pesticide users and will reduce the monitoring required of government." I

think that's actually included in the…. Oh, sorry. No. The actual definition

says: "…means a person who has the prescribed qualifications." What

is a qualified monitor? What's in the mind of the minister when she prescribes

this person?

Hon. J.

Murray: A qualified monitor will be a person who has the qualifications to

monitor the application of pesticides. That definition will be set out in the

regulation.

MacPhail: Yes. I'm sorry. I knew I got this from the bill, but this is the

explanatory note. This is the government's own explanatory note of what a

qualified monitor is. It's a person "…who will perform required

professional services for pesticide users and will reduce the monitoring

required of government."

curiosity is on the last point there: "…will reduce the monitoring

required of government." Is this qualified monitor a public servant?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, they are not a public servant.

MacPhail: Who hires them?

Hon. J.

Murray: The proponent using or applying the pesticides hires them.

MacPhail: So we have a person hired by the company to monitor the company?

[1515]

Hon.

J. Murray: It's similar to a company hiring an auditor or a professional

accountant to audit their books. Yes, this will be a company hired by the

proponent.

MacPhail: Well, actually, it's not similar to that — is it? — because

the auditor comes from outside the company. I gather this is going to be a

company employee monitoring his or her own company.

Hon. J.

Murray: Not necessarily. Not if we order it to be an outside monitor.

MacPhail: What are the plans for making sure there are no conflicts of

interest?

Hon. J.

Murray: These people will have qualifications. They will most likely belong

to professional bodies that have codes of practice and codes of ethics. We have

a pesticide administrator in the government that will be assuring that there

isn't conflict of interest. These are

[ Page 7446 ]

people that have professional credentials, and part of a professional's job

is to ensure that they remove themselves from situations of conflict of

interest.

MacPhail: When the minister says these are professional people…. This kind

of profession exists now. Is that right? Where? Where are they in the province?

What do they do in the province?

Hon. J.

Murray: It depends on the function in a particular pesticide application

situation. Foresters, in some cases, have the qualifications. In other cases it

might be people who have been certified by the province and certified that they

do have the training around pesticide applications.

MacPhail: Could the minister describe under what situation monitors will be

required?

Hon. J.

Murray: Three activities. One is ensuring that integrated pest management

processes are being applied. The second is doing pre-treatment assessment of

environmentally sensitive areas. The third is that in situations of high concern

to the public, there will be a third-party monitor required.

[1520]

Manhas: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Manhas: I'd like to take a moment to introduce a couple of guests who have

just arrived here in Victoria. They're up in the visitors gallery. First, Mr.

Bud Ryckman and his son John Ryckman. Both of them have been working very hard

in developing recreational property in British Columbia. Bud Ryckman was

involved in developing Whistler when it was first developed years and years ago

with Mr. Franz Wilhelmsen.

Also here

is Eugene Siklos, who is here from Ontario visiting. He is looking at business

opportunities and investing in recreational property and potential future ski

resorts in British Columbia. All three of them are very interested in the Indian

River valley corridor north of Coquitlam. Would the House please make them very,

very welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: Just to clarify, what's a third-party monitor?

Hon. J.

Murray: A person who is not an employee of the proponent.

MacPhail: When and how do monitors, whether they be employees of the

proponent or third party, report to the ministry?

Hon. J.

Murray: That will be laid out in the regulation, and there will be a

requirement to report to the ministry.

MacPhail: Actually, I must say that my curiosity around this has been raised

by the explanatory note. It says that this person or this new group of people,

which didn't exist previous to now…. Part of the reason why they're there is

to reduce the monitoring required of government. I'm curious as to the link

between these people — outside people now — and government. I've asked about

conditions of conflict of interest, and the minister said they'd be part of

professional groups. Who's working for government on these matters? The minister

herself has had a budget cut of 47 percent by next year — 47 percent.

It's

typical of this government to want to reduce the work of government. Fair

enough. They live with the consequences of that. But we are talking about pest

management here, and the title is integrated pest management. So who inside

government is overseeing all of this?

Hon. J.

Murray: We retained staff in Victoria and in some of the regions who will be

responsible and accountable for this program. I would like to draw the parallel

to how the ministry manages with respect to contaminated sites currently.

There are a

number of functions in terms of identifying the scope of potential contamination

and reporting on risks and parameters of a contaminated site that are done by

individuals who are professionals, who are third-party consultants, who are on a

roster and who do much of that kind of work in the contaminated sites field.

Those reports are then made available to the client and to government, so it's

not that there is no precedent for this kind of arrangement. In fact, this does

what I think conceptually is the right thing to do, which is that it places some

of the costs and the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the environment on

the proponent rather than on the government and the taxpayer.

[1525]

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 6 is "Permit for use of pesticides," and it says

that the applicant for a permit must meet prescribed criteria. "A person

must not use or authorize the use of a prescribed pesticide or class of

pesticides or a pesticide for a prescribed use unless the person (

a) holds the

permit that is, under the regulations, required for that purpose, and (

b) It then

goes on to say that there will be prescribed criteria established. What are the

prescribed criteria?

Hon. J.

Murray: A permit will be required based on four categories of criteria. One

is for specified pesti-

[ Page 7447 ]

cides of high concern to the public. Second, it's for use of pesticides for

predator control; third, use of pesticides for which no ministry standards have

been set; and fourth, the aerial application of pesticides over residential

areas.

MacPhail: In this same clause, "Permit for use of pesticides,"

6(3)(

d) says: "

(3) The administrator may issue a permit to an applicant if

satisfied that…(

d) the pesticide use authorized by the permit will not cause

an unreasonable adverse effect." What are the parameters of determining the

unreasonable adverse effect?

Hon. J.

Murray: This is the same wording that's in the previous act. This is not a

new concept.

MacPhail: Fair enough, but I still wouldn't mind having the question

answered. How does the current system work? How does it work in terms of any

changes that are contemplated under this legislation? Is it based on a

pesticide? Is it based on location? How does one determine it?

Hon. J.

Murray: In terms of what's considered an unreasonable adverse effect, that

would be looking at issues such as damage to vegetation, damage to water bodies,

fish habitat. In order to prevent that, the administrator would look at factors

such as the active ingredient, the receiving environment, the volume of

pesticide contemplated and the time of year or the weather.

MacPhail: Will all of that remain the same when the act is changed?

Hon. J.

Murray: Where a permit is issued for a prescribed pesticide, yes, that stays

the same. Not all pesticides will be prescribed as requiring a permit.

MacPhail: Currently, in the minister's department, who makes this decision?

Hon. J.

Murray: The decisions are made by the administrator of the act, with advice

from the province's Pesticide Control Committee.

MacPhail: Who is the administrator of the act? Is that a public servant? Can

we have a title? Will that remain the same?

Hon. J.

Murray: That is a very good reminder by the member opposite that I have the

pleasure of introducing my staff this afternoon. To my far left is Eric

Partridge, the director of environmental management. Christine Houghton, to my

left, is the manager of public safety and prevention initiatives and the

administrator of this integrated pest management legislation. To my right is

Robert Adams, pesticide licence officer.

[1530]

MacPhail: The act does define adverse effects. We do have that in the act.

What we're trying to determine now is what an unreasonable adverse effect is. Is

any pesticide that's applied close to a water source considered to have an

unreasonable adverse effect?

Hon. J.

Murray: For most if not all pesticide use, there will be a pesticide-free

zone that's a buffer zone beside a water body. The distance of that zone will

depend on the circumstance — the active ingredient, the concentration of that

active ingredient in the product.

MacPhail: Could the minister explain why there's not one mention, as far as

I could determine, of water anywhere in this legislation?

Hon. J.

Murray: References to water used to be in the act because permits were

issued based on the act. There will be a regulation that specifies the various

kinds of water bodies and the distances that need to be kept from those, so it

will be specified in the regulation.

MacPhail: I would have thought that the government would want to be pretty

transparent around matters of water, given the high sensitivity all British

Columbians have about quality of water, and what we're talking about here is

pesticide control.

Under the

old act, which was called the Pesticide Control Act, there were several very

specific sections dealing with actions involving water and pesticides — very

specific. There were specific statutory requirements in the legislation. Under

the old act that this is now replacing,

section 7(2) read: "A person must

not do any of the following: (

a) dispose of a pesticide other than under the

regulations or the Waste Management Act; (

b) wash or submerge in a body of water

equipment or a container used to prepare, mix or apply a pesticide."

[1535]

Now

that we're going to a results-based management system, where the monitors won't

even be part of government — may be part of the proponent that's being

monitored — there's no mention whatsoever of water in the legislation. So the

public now, I guess, has to go to a set of regulations to find out how at-risk

they are. I will put on record once again that there are many studies that show

results-based management is a risky and unproven tool. Now we're applying that

risky, unproven tool to water, and we're not even doing it in a transparent way.

We're going to have to look to regulations. The act has removed all reference to

water.

What

regulation will it be that lists the specific requirements that will ensure that

pesticide users aren't contaminating bodies of water? Can the minister point to

the act where she has the right to make that regulation?

Hon. J.

Murray: The regulation that will specify how pesticides are applied with

respect to water is in

section 38(2)(i), with further details in the

administrator's regulation

section 39(g).

MacPhail: Well, I guess we're going to have to take the minister's word for

that, because it doesn't talk

[ Page 7448 ]

at all about the use of water. It talks about the pesticides. This is from

the point of view of the pesticide, how the pesticide has to be stored or

contained. Neither permits a description about quality of water in relationship

to pesticides.

Let me ask

this question, then. Tell me how all of this relates to the Drinking Water

Protection Act, and let me tell the minister my concerns that she can alleviate,

if possible. There was an interesting

article — and I'm sure she's read it as

well — about pesticides in the Globe and Mail earlier this month, and

if not, I'd be happy to provide a copy to her.

It was by

Johanne Gelinas, who is the environmental auditor at the federal level. It's

called "Pesticides: A grave oversight." She starts off the

article by

saying: "Across the country, Canadians are passionately debating whether or

not to ban pesticides that keep lawns weed-free." That's where she starts

her article. But she then talks about how many pesticides were registered for

legal use decades ago, when health and environmental standards were lower.

[1540]

At the

conclusion of her

article — well, not the conclusion, but the final point she

makes — she says: "The problems don't lie only with the Pest Management

Regulatory Agency. Health Canada has done little to understand the health

impacts of pesticides. Canadians are operating in the dark about the long-term

environmental effects on water quality…." She links the two, of course,

and actually our kids link the two too. It's a pretty straight line of concern:

water quality and pesticides. That's why, when I was doing my research, I was

looking to see how this legislation handles that link. So is it to the Drinking

Water Protection Act that we turn?

Hon. J.

Murray: There are a number of comments and questions there, so I'll attempt

to go over several of them. How is this going to be transparent? Well, the

transparency will occur because we will be consulting widely as we develop this

regulation, and that includes industry, landscapers, forest companies, ENGOs,

UBCM, Ministry of Health provincially, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of

Forests, Ministry of Health federally, Environment Canada.

This will

be a consultative process. It is not our intention to change the standards. It

is our intention to actually improve the process by introducing integrated pest

management as the process. That's for the protection of water quality but also

to improve the process by removing what I believe is an unnecessary requirement

for permitting in routine cases. My intent is that there's a lot less time that

staff and companies are spending writing permits in the office and that the

focus is actually on integrated pest management.

Municipalities

will still have the ability to develop bylaws that address the cosmetic use of

pesticides in their community. I have read the

article the member refers to, and

the thrust of that

article is that Health Canada is simply not doing its job in

updating its roster of pesticides. I agree with the member. There are many, many

pesticides that are now being used in other countries like the United States

that are considered to be lower impact than the ones that are currently licensed

by Health Canada, but they haven't gone through the approval process in our

country. I have had debates and discussions about that with other ministers in

the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and we've requested the

ministry of environment federally to pressure Health Canada to update their

roster of pesticides.

With

respect to drinking water quality, I agree that's a concern for all of us. The

integrated pest management process will require the user of pesticides to ensure

that they go through a process which includes ensuring that the pests are

properly understood and inventoried, looking at how they could be prevented from

being present or expanding, and looking at how they could be treated by

non-chemical means. Those are all part of the process, and I believe that over

time we will see a lower use of chemical pesticides than we have in the past.

With

respect to the Drinking Water Protection Act, we also do have the provisions if

there are concerns about the quality of drinking water. The Minister of Health,

through the regional drinking water officers, can cause the development of a

plan to address that concern and to take it forward to cabinet.

Section 6 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section is entitled "Use of pesticides in accordance

with a pesticide use notice." It basically requires that a pest management

plan be prepared prior to application. A person must also give notice of that to

the administrator. The administrator then confirms receipt of the notice and

dictates the terms of use required of the applicant.

Now, in

section 7(2)…. In the past the administrator's office actually looked at the

pest management plan. That's no longer the case here, so what replaces that

process? I assumed it was at that step the government found out whether or not a

valid pest management plan had been completed.

Hon. J.

Murray: We'll be setting standards for the development of plans. We will be

doing some auditing, and these plans will be public documents that will be

available for the public as well as our ministry to review.

[1545]

MacPhail: So the government will actually see the plan?

Hon. J.

Murray: When requested, yes.

MacPhail: Okay, that's what I thought. I thought the government never

actually saw the plan. The provision exists for the inspectors to demand the

pest management plan, but I expect that in most cases, the government won't ever

see the pest management plan.

[ Page 7449 ]

I certainly look forward to seeing — if the minister stands up and says,

"Yes, the government will see it," — how she is going to do that in

the context of the 47 percent cut to her budget.

There's no

process for reviewing the integrated pest management plan, so how does one

determine that the plan is appropriate and safe? You see, this is the downfall

of risk management. It's that it's in the breach that matters come to the

attention, and it's pretty risky to have a breach of pest management when it's

dealing with our water, for instance.

Hon. J.

Murray: I just want to correct a statement that the member opposite has made

twice now about budget reductions in my ministry. It's not 47 percent but 24

percent over a three-year period.

In answer

to the member's question, these plans will be developed with input from

community members, because people in the communities are, of course, interested

in and concerned at times about pesticide use in the area around their

community. We've got confidence that the proponents developing these plans will

use the services of professionals. There will be standards that they will be

reflecting in their plans. The community members will be aware of what is

planned. If there are concerns expressed, the ministry does have the authority

to request to see the plan.

MacPhail: Well, I apologize for my view of the budget cuts. I thought that

by next year, '04-05, 100 million bucks was cut out of the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection. I did my calculation, and that's 47 percent. That's

where I got the 47 percent — 100 million bucks cut.

All right.

Again, it's a "trust me." The minister is taking a "trust us,

trust the companies to do the right thing…." Well, is there going to be

any regulation around professionals creating the plans? They did bring in

amendments to the Forest Practices Code that foresters and biologists had to be

the ones creating plans, so what's the corollary here?

Hon. J.

Murray: The regulation will specify the qualifications that are required for

the person signing off on the plan, but government will not be prescribing the

person or persons and their qualifications that would do the work to create the

plan. We'll have to have the assurance of a qualified person through the

sign-off on the plan.

MacPhail: Okay. I must say, Mr. Chair, I am concerned about this in our

discussions, particularly as it relates to water quality.

We're

relying on a system of audit. Is that what the minister said? Is it a system of

audit to figure out whether a pest management plan was completed or not? Is that

what's going to be done?

[1550]

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it will be a system of audits to ensure the plans are living up

to the standards that are being set out, but the ministry will also have staff

that audit on the ground. That's one of the benefits of not having staff tied up

in offices reviewing and writing permits. We will have an ability to have

members of our staff on the ground, because no matter how good a plan is, if

it's not being carried out according to the plan, we might not get the results

that are expected in the plan. It is an audit system.

MacPhail: Yeah, there won't be staff tied up in the office filling out

permits because there won't be any staff. The budget of this ministry in '01-02

was $214.266 million. Starting in April of this year, it will be $113.071

million. That's a 47 percent cut. Environmental stewardship has fallen from $83

million in '01-02 to $36 million starting April 1 of next year.

Environmental

stewardship is water protection, so we're going to have staff doing audits.

These are my questions: who will do them, and how many audits will be done,

let's say, for every 100 permits?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd like to offer the member opposite a brief briefing on our

budget. I do understand why there's confusion and why that 47 percent figure

comes up. My ministry's budget, at the outset, had a fund for Britannia mine

cleanup. That's no longer a responsibility of my ministry. Crown land cleanup is

now in SRM.

Secondly,

with respect to the stewardship budget, there has been a change in the

consolidated revenue fund allocations for that part of my ministry because of

the new policy that fees are dedicated to my ministry. So it's not a 40 percent

budget cut. I can understand how the figures might present it that way. I would

be happy to sit down with the member and go over what the actual budget

reduction is.

In answer

to the other part of the question, the ministry will have seven expert staff in

the regions. Those will be the people that are auditing the plans and the

carrying out of the plans on the ground.

MacPhail: Is that an increase or a decrease?

Hon. J.

Murray: It's a reduction from ten.

MacPhail: Okay. I'm going to take a real crack at that and say that's a 30

percent reduction. I don't think we'll fight about that in terms of people who

are actually doing the work of checking up on whether there's proper pesticide

management.

Will the

ministry be able to take complaints from members of the public regarding the

existence of pest management plans?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, the ministry is always interested in hearing from the public.

MacPhail: Are there high-risk situations where a pest management plan is

mandatorily required?

Hon. J.

Murray: Integrated pest management plans will be required for all uses,

whether routine or higher

[ Page 7450 ]

risk. For the higher-risk or higher-concern pesticides, a permit will be

required as well.

[1555]

MacPhail:

Section 7(7) says that a person may request to inspect a pest

management plan. I just want to make sure. Yes, it's basically saying that the

plan has to be there and, if requested, has to be produced. Is that the

section

under which the public or an ordinary person — me, for instance — would be

able to request a pest management plan?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct.

MacPhail: What's the fee for that?

Hon. J.

Murray: That fee hasn't been set. It will be in the regulation.

MacPhail: Are these public documents? In other words, when received, they

can be distributed publicly? Let me leave it there.

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, they will be. They will be available to the public.

MacPhail: I understand that the public can request them, but is there a

confidentiality agreement? What I'm saying is that they're then in the public

domain and can be distributed.

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct.

Sections 7

and 8 approved.

On

section

Hon. J.

Murray: I move the amendment to

section 9 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the proposed

section 9 (3) (

a) and

substituting the following: (

a) refuse to issue a licence, certificate

or permit,

(a.1) on application by the holder, amend a licence, certificate or permit, or

refuse to make the amendment,

(a.2) on the administrator's own initiative, amend a licence,

certificate or permit,.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 9

as amended approved.

Sections 10

to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move the amendment to

section 14 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 14, in the proposed

section 14 (1) (

c) by deleting ",

renewing".]

Amendment

approved.

section

14 as amended.

MacPhail: This is the first

section under

part 4, "Appeals to the

Environmental Appeal Board."

Section 14 deals with how one appeals to the

Environmental Appeal Board. I must say that I was confused by this section. As

far as I understand it, members of the public can appeal a permit right to the

Environmental Appeal Board, but they can't appeal a pest management plan. I

assume that's due to the fact that the plan must no longer be reviewed by the

ministry.

We did have

a situation where all pest management plans were subject to permits. Therefore,

every plan could be appealed, because permits were allowed to be appealed. Now

that we have the two-track system, where we have the risk-based system and where

the plans have to be done but not produced, they won't be reviewed by the

ministry and may or may not be audited. There's a prohibition now of any right

of appeal to perhaps half of the pest management plans. That's how I understand

it.

Subsection

(3) of

section 14 states that a person may appeal a decision under this act to

the appeal board. How does that exclude pest management plans? Wouldn't that

include pest management plans?

Hon. J.

Murray: There is no decision made by the ministry with respect to pest

management plans, unless they are in those prescribed categories.

[1600]

MacPhail: Yes, but this says a person may appeal a decision under this, so I

assume that…. It's an interesting question. If risk-based, performance-based

standards mean that it's only after the fact that the government gets involved,

why does that preclude the public from getting involved before that? The pest

management plan exists. Maybe a person has a great deal of difficulty with that

pest management plan, and it does say that "a person" may appeal a

decision. Isn't the government making a de facto decision through their

risk-based management that they're allowing those pest management plans to

proceed? You can't have it both ways. You can't say: "Oh, we're not going

to issue permits, and by the way, we're also not approving the pest management

plan, which is the only way you would be able to deny an appeal."

Hon. J.

Murray: The public is not precluded from being involved, because the public

may be involved during the development of the integrated pest management plan,

should they so choose. The plans will be required to measure up to standards

that are designed to protect water and the environment. There will not be a

decision by the ministry with respect to a plan that is using routine

pesticides, and so the plans will not be appealable.

MacPhail: Well, I think that's very troubling, and I must say I'm raising

this issue on behalf of many first nations who have contacted us about this

concern. The ministry has decided to abandon the permitting system because of

its onerous nature, according to them. Then

[ Page 7451 ]

they also deem that no decision has been made; therefore there's no right of

appeal. Well, then you're virtually guaranteeing that a person who may be

negatively affected by a pest management plan has no right to make that case

until damage is done. I think that makes a mockery of a risk-based management

system — an absolute mockery.

It is

entirely feasible and probable that there will be people wanting to inspect pest

management plans and who will disagree and want to appeal that pest management

plan. How do they do that?

Hon. J.

Murray: The public will have a right to participate during the consultation,

and the members of the public can make that case to the proponent during the

consultation. There will be specified standards for consultation so that the

requirements to consult may be different for larger projects or proponents with

larger pesticide use than for a small amount of pesticide use, but in either

case the public will have the right to participate and make their case fully to

the proponent. Part of the job of proponents is to partner with the communities

around them and have plans that the community is aware of and that address the

community's concerns.

MacPhail: Well, that works very well when there's a dispute resolution

mechanism, but there isn't any dispute resolution mechanism in the particular

case that the minister describes. You have the proponent. That's the company;

that's the group that needs to have the pest management in place. Probably they

will make an economic case. There's a group that may disagree with that. Gee, if

I were a proponent and the group disagreed with my plan, and I wanted to proceed

anyway, I sure as heck would do so, based on the fact that the person

complaining doesn't have any avenue of appeal. Who actually does have the right

to appeal to the appeal board?

[1605]

I must say

this is deeply concerning, if this government's risk-based standards system

means you have to wait for a problem to occur before there's any action.

Hon. J.

Murray: Any person has the right to appeal a decision, and the plan is not a

decision.

MacPhail: I'm sure that will give great comfort to people. It's almost

Kafka-esque. We've got a plan, but the government hasn't made a decision, so you

have no right to appeal, even though that plan may negatively interfere with

your quality of life. I mean, just because the government's turning a blind eye

to many plans until either an audit occurs or damage is done doesn't mean the

rest of the public is abandoning their responsibility to environmental health

and safety. This is deeply disturbing, Mr. Chair.

Section 14

as amended approved.

Sections 15

and 16 approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 17 deals with inspections, and I think I just heard…. I

did ask the minister how many people would be doing audits, and she answered

that seven people would be doing audits,

whereas there used to be ten. Does she

deem an auditor to be the same as an inspector?

Hon. J.

Murray: Audits will be done of plans. Inspections will be done of operations

in the field. The audits and inspections will be carried out by the same staff

members.

MacPhail: Does the minister anticipate more audits being done?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, there will be more audits, because there are no audits at

present. We don't audit plans; we approve them.

MacPhail: Is the figure of ten inspectors from 2001? Is that how many

inspectors were in place in 2001?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, ten is the number of inspectors we had in 2001.

MacPhail: Okay. So we now have seven, and these inspectors are also going to

be doing audits. I find that troubling.

Under the

old act, an inspector was free to enter premises occupied solely as a private

residence. That has changed and been deleted. Why?

Hon. J.

Murray: We received advice from the Attorney General's office that that

power was considered to be an infringement of personal rights. So in that case,

the officer will now need to get a warrant.

MacPhail: The reason why I raised this question is that there could be a

private residence bordering a water source, so in those particular circumstances

the inspector will have to get a warrant. What does that entail in terms of time

lines?

Hon. J.

Murray: The inspector will need to obtain a warrant from a judge. I can't

tell you the turnaround time, because this is new. We haven't done this in the

past.

[1610]

MacPhail: Okay. The act says that an inspector can carry out his job at any

reasonable time if the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that…. Then

there's a series of circumstances. What constitutes reasonable grounds?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's a legally defined term. There is case law around what that

term means, and it's across various legislation.

[ Page 7452 ]

MacPhail: I like to use these opportunities as working with the public. Can

the minister explain what the legal opinion is on that?

Hon. J.

Murray: There's no word definition of "reasonable grounds." It's

defined through court cases, and it's defined differently in different

situations and in different cases.

MacPhail: I just want to say that the other part of the act that is new and

that needs to be monitored is

section 39.

That

finishes my questions on this particular act. I must say it is one that — I

wasn't going to before — I will now be monitoring very carefully, particularly

because of the whole issue of the lack of right of appeal, which will be

disturbing to many, and also the silence, the dead silence, on any aspects of

water quality and pesticide management and water protection. Those are the two

areas I'll be monitoring very carefully.

Sections 17

to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move the amendment to

section 39 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 39, in the proposed paragraph (

k) by deleting "multiple

use dwellings;" and substituting "multiple residence

buildings;".]

Amendment

approved.

Section

39 as amended approved.

Sections

40 to 47 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:14 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1615]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 53,

Integrated Pest Management Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. J.

Murray: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill 53,

Integrated Pest Management Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call a five-minute recess.

The House

recessed from 4:16 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 60.

Second Reading of Bills

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to close debate. We've heard from the member for

Vancouver-Hastings in her response to this piece of legislation, and I want to

just set the record straight on a couple of things she mentioned.

The

previous administration, I think in 1999, did do a rewrite of the Business

Corporations Act. It's fair to say that that government chose not to enact that

legislation, probably because the legislation wasn't going to do what it was

that needed to be done with this legislation. I remember the comments at the

time. There were items embedded in that legislation that would have made British

Columbia, rather than a better place for people to invest and build businesses

and create jobs, probably one of the worst places in North America to do that.

There were

all sorts of provisions in the act that would make it more difficult to open a

business here, more difficult around residency requirements, more restrictive in

a whole bunch of ways. I think the final decision of the government at that time

was not to proceed with the legislation. It certainly was passed through this

House, but it was never proclaimed. I believe it was 1999. By 2001, when we took

office, it was clear that the job that had been done previously was not an

effort that would get us where we needed to go. I could quote from others out

there who had stronger terms, who spoke of that piece of legislation in much

stronger terms than I just have, but suffice it to say that that legislation was

not going to do the job that either this government would like to see done or

even the government that was in place previously wanted to achieve.

What we

committed to do was upgrade this legislation. It has not been amended in any

substantive way since 1973, so we now have 30-year-old legislation. It's fair to

say that the world in the financial sector, in the business sector, has changed

dramatically since then as the world has opened up, as British Columbia has

become ever more an open trading economy, as we compete ever more tightly with

other jurisdictions — surrounding jurisdictions as well. We certainly saw a

sustained decline in the number of businesses here in Brit-

[ Page 7453 ]

ish Columbia as a number of them moved, particularly to Alberta. It wasn't

just the business legislation, the Company Act, that was driving them out of the

province. There were all sorts of things: taxation, just a hostile business

climate, some of the rhetoric that came from the government. It was not

something that was encouraging people to come to British Columbia and invest.

We have

done a number of things across the spectrum on taxation, on legislation and on

deregulation to try and make British Columbia a more hospitable place for

investment. The Business Corporations Act is a key component of that. At the

time I introduced the first legislation last year, it was very clear. I said

this was going to be a several-stage process. It was very complex legislation.

It had a lot of impacts. We wanted lots of public consultation. We wanted to

hear from people who practised corporate law. We wanted to hear from people in

the business community. We wanted to hear from other advocates with regard to

this legislation and how it might work or not work.

We also

said we wanted to be leading-edge in the type of legislation that was in place

around corporate governance; to be flexible; to be innovative; to be creative so

that we would see people looking to British Columbia as a leading jurisdiction

in this type of legislation; and to be able to create here in B.C. corporate

structures that worked well for industries that are just starting to develop,

that worked well for different varieties and different corporate structures and

that would allow people to compete internationally.

[1625]

Certainly,

I think this legislation does that. It has been quite positively received by

people who deal in the corporate law sector, people in the business sector and

others. I must say, I think I've received two letters opposed to the

legislation. They were exactly the same letter — it was a form letter — and

it was signed by two lawyers in the same law firm. They each sent it separately.

That is the extent of the opposition to the legislation that I have received and

that I've actually seen and read, etc.

The

commitment I made at the time I introduced the first piece of legislation was

that before we proclaimed this act and actually put it into force, which we're

going to do next spring, there would be a couple of iterations. Certainly, we've

done that. This legislation here today is part of that. There will be several

other steps as we move through this fall session and then into the spring. My

hope is that early next year, hopefully by the new fiscal year — although

somewhere around then — we would be able to proclaim this legislation and

bring it into force.

There is an

education process going on with the Legal Education Society of British Columbia.

I spoke to that group some time ago, trying to bring people up to speed on what

is a very large piece of legislation with, in some cases, significant new and

innovative ideas. Our hope is that it will become a tool that attracts interest

across North America and around the world and will attract investors here to

British Columbia who are looking to invest and create new jobs.

It's

interesting to note just how outdated the legislation is that had been in place

prior to this and the message that it sent to people looking to invest. There

are many lawyers here in British Columbia who are licensed to practise in the

Yukon, and the reason they've managed to arrange to be licensed in the Yukon is

that the legislation around corporate governance in the Yukon was much better

than the legislation we had here in British Columbia. People looking to invest

or start a business in B.C. would actually incorporate in the Yukon in order to

have something that was workable. That just gives you a sense of how out of date

we were.

With these

changes, I think we're going to see some significant improvement. It is one

component of a whole range of initiatives that government has taken to try and

improve the investment climate in the province. I mentioned the taxation issues.

I mentioned some of the deregulation initiatives. There's more legislation to

come as we review the financial institutions, as we review a whole range of

financial legislation in the province.

I want to

just counter a little bit what the member for Vancouver-Hastings said in her

comments in second reading a couple of days ago, when she talked about some of

the negative things that have happened to B.C.'s economy in the last couple of

years. Despite the challenges that we and other jurisdictions have faced in the

last couple of years, with the war on terrorism, the meltdown in the tech

sector, the financial problems with the stock market now in Canada, the rapid

appreciation of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, SARS, BSE,

floods, fires — all of those things — it's encouraging to see some of the

indicators changing and to see some of the real baseline data that you get as a

response from the economy that British Columbia is actually doing reasonably

well.

Since

December of 2001 British Columbia has created about 107,000 new jobs. For the

first time in the history of the province there are over two million people

working in British Columbia. One of the things that happens when you start to

create those kinds of jobs…. I think we're number two or three in the country

and certainly well ahead of the national average — more than twice the

national average — for job growth. One of the things that happens when you see

that is that people in British Columbia decide to get back into the workforce.

We've certainly seen that with our EI rolls and our Human Resources rolls.

People are coming off those and looking for work. That tends to drive the

numbers up of those seeking employment in the workforce as well. If you look at

the number of jobs that have been created in the province in the last couple of

years, we've done extremely well as a province.

Exports in

B.C. continue to climb — 2.1 percent in the first part of 2003. Housing starts

in B.C. are up 28.5 percent year to date compared with last year. That's almost

double — not quite double, obviously — the national average increase of

about 16.9 percent. Building permits are up 13.3 percent from last year, well

ahead of the national gain. Residential permits are up 17.2 percent in B.C.,

more than triple the national in-

[ Page 7454 ]

crease of 5.6 percent. All of those numbers are very positive.

[1630]

We've been

hearing lots about the oil and gas sector and how well that's doing in response

to some of the initiatives that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the

Ministry of Finance put in place after discussions with the Premier, where he

directed us to put in place a regime that was going to make us the most

competitive jurisdiction in North America.

We've done

that, and the response has been immediate — some $418 million in a single land

sale for the month of August, which we found out about in September. Residential

construction is up 26.7 percent in the second quarter this year compared to the

same time last year. That's more than twice the national increase of 10 percent.

Private

sector investment intentions. We used to be dead last, year after year, in this

measurement. This year we're third from the top — it's not first, but we're

third; it's a long way from tenth — at 7.6 percent increase in capital

investment intentions in B.C. That's almost double the national average of 4

percent. Contrary to comments that member made in her statements about the

number of businesses going down in B.C., we've actually seen a 10 percent

increase in business incorporations in the first six months of 2003. That's the

highest they've been in six or seven years, so those numbers are very positive.

One of the

measures that I take a great deal of interest in, aside from the job numbers, is

family income — after-tax family income — because, as I mentioned, tax

initiatives have been a key component of our attempt to move the economy along.

I think it's important to note that after-tax family income in British Columbia

jumped 4.7 percent to $57,581. That's the third-strongest increase in Canada and

the largest increase in after-tax income for B.C. families in over two decades

— the largest after-tax income, take-home pay income in over two decades. The

average income tax paid by a British Columbia family decreased by 13.5 percent

as a result of some of the changes that we brought into place. That's the

largest decrease in over 20 years.

Individual

British Columbians are benefiting from that. The statistics that we're seeing

coming from Statistics Canada and other measures — independent measures —

are showing some good response to some of these changes, and in some areas we're

leading the country or very close to leading the country.

There are a

whole series of other issues around home sales, housing starts, mineral

exploration, cargo traffic and containers at the ports, new vehicle sales,

residential sales and retail sales. All of those items have been exhibiting

positive trends for some time now. Despite all of those challenges that we have

faced, the numbers, I think, are starting to prove that we're having an impact

on that.

I am very

excited about the key component that this legislation will play in making sure

that British Columbia is even more competitive starting next year. I move second

reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for committee stage debate at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 60,

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 59.

Committee of the Whole House

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 59; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:35 p.m.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed

section 2 and

substituting the following:2 Sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22, 37, 39 to

41, 43 to 45, 47, 56.1, 57 to 62, 70, 72, 75 to 79, 79.2, 79.3, 80 and 82 are

amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations" wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of

Finance".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 2

as amended approved.

Sections 3

to 9 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 10 of the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003,

actually adds a new

section to the act,

section 56.4. It's

section 56.4 that I

want to discuss: "Debt services fees." As I read it, this allows for

the Minister of Finance to set debt service fees to be paid by government bodies

to the ministry for service provided by the ministry in relation to debt owed by

the government body. So the version of this in the current act on the Web

defines a government body as a government corporation, hospital district, a

school board, a board of school trustees, a francophone education authority, a

university, a college, BCIT, and any other local or provincial authority

designated by regulation.

[1640]

When I put

those two together, I had this question. As all of these government agencies of

one form or

[ Page 7455 ]

another…. In most cases they're solely reliant on the provincial government

for their funding, including their debt funding. Why is the minister now finding

it appropriate to change the way these public agencies get debt, pay for debt,

owe the government for debt that they incur in the provision of public services?

What's behind this?

Hon. G.

Collins: The Treasury has and the Ministry of Finance has for a long time,

as the member knows, borrowed money on behalf of agencies, helped them with

loans, etc. There has always been a process of charging those operational costs,

those charges, back to those people who are drawing upon it. In fact, that's how

this funds itself. It is self-funding, based on those fees.

Previously,

it was done as a matter of policy. We wanted to put it in legislation so that

it's clarified. It also allows us to be flexible in the types of charges we

make, depending on the risk and also depending on the amount of energy and

effort in response to the complexity of the various transactions. This gives us

the legislative ability to do that and to do it in a way that's flexible.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, but I was not aware of that. Is the minister saying

this merely confirms in legislation the present practice and no different?

Hon. G.

Collins: I am advised the answer is yes, although this does give us a bit

more flexibility to respond, as I said, according to the type of risk and the

type of complexity that are there in the transaction. Some could be more

complex, and the fee should be greater. Some might be very simple, and the fee

should be lower.

MacPhail: And am I correct when I defined…? Actually, I had to go to the

current act, which is fair enough, that defines a government body. There's no

change to the definition of government body? I read into the record what

government body is.

Hon. G.

Collins: That's correct.

However, if

the member goes ahead to

section 19 of the bill that's before us today, to

section 19(2), which is an amendment to

section 88(2) of the act, and then to

section 19(2)(b), this allows — without limiting

section 19(1) — that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make the following regulations, "deeming

an organization to be a government body for the purposes of Parts 8, 9 and 9.1

of this Act." So there is the ability to include, if it were necessary,

other sort of public entities as part of the government entity for the purposes

of this act.

[1645]

MacPhail: Yes, I noted that, and I noted…. Well, it's

section 10. Is it

under part…? Sorry. Does it apply, then, to this? Is this part of

part 8,

part

9, or 9.1 —

section 10? I can't tell from the….

Hon. G.

Collins:

Section 19(2)(b), which is actually

section 88(2) of the act, would

be to deem an organization to be a government body for the purposes of parts 8,

9 and 9.1 of the act, and that is what deals with the ability to grant loans and

provide that kind of service for those entities.

Sections 10

to 15 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to Bill 59,

section 16, which I believe is in

the hands of the Table.

[SECTION 16 (d), is amended in the proposed paragraph (

g) by adding

"(1)" after "section 56.5".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 16

as amended approved.

Section 17

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add

section 17.1.

[SECTION 17.1, by adding the following section:17.1

Section

83 is amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations" wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of

Provincial Revenue".]

Sections

17.1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add

section 19.1.

[SECTION 19.1, by adding the following

section under the

heading Consequential Amendments and Transitional:

Home Owner Grant Act

19.1

Section 12 of the Home Owner Grant Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 194, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) (

b) by striking out "Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations" and substituting "Minister of Provincial

Revenue", and

(

b) by striking out "Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing"

wherever it appears and substituting "Minister of Provincial

Revenue".]

Sections

19.1 and 20 approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment in my name on the order paper to add

section

20.1.

[SECTION 20.1, by adding the following section:

Indian Self Government Enabling Act

20.1 Sections 5 (3), 31, 32, and 33 (1) of the Indian Self

Government Enabling Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 219, are amended by striking out

"Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting

"Minister of Provincial Revenue".]

Section

20.1 approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: Perhaps I can just do these amendments all together. I move the

amendments in

[ Page 7456 ]

my name on the order paper to add sections 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4.

[SECTION 20.2, by adding the following section:

Insurance Premium Tax Act

20.2 Sections 12 (3), 34 (3) and 40 (1) of the Insurance

Premium Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232, are amended by striking out

"Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations" and substituting

"Ministry of Provincial Revenue".

SECTION 20.3, by adding the following section:

Pension Agreement Act

20.3

Section 4 of the Pension Agreement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 351, is amended by striking out "Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations," and substituting "Minister of Finance".

SECTION 20.4, by adding the following section:

Taxation (Rural Area) Act

20.4

Section 51 of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, R.S.B.C.

1996, c. 448, is amended by striking out "Ministry of Finance and

Corporate Relations" and substituting "Ministry of Provincial

Revenue".]

Sections

20.2 to 23 inclusive approved.

schedule A.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move an amendment to

schedule A standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SCHEDULE A, by deleting the proposed

Schedule A and

substituting the following:

Schedule A

Act being amended

Section or other

provision

Assessment Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 20

32 (2)

(2) Assessment Authority

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 21

20 (3) and

(5) British Columbia

Buildings Corporation Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 33

3 (2)

7 (3)

9 (9)

11 (1)

12 (2), (3) in both places and

(4) 13 (1) in both places

14 (2) (

a) in both places and

(2) (i) 15 (2) 16

(2) British Columbia

Transit Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 38

23 (3)

28 (1), (7) and (11)

29 (2)

(2) Build BC Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 40

12 (4) (e)

18 (1) (a), (3), (7) (

b) and (11)

19 (1)

23 (1) in both places, (5) and (9)

25 (2) (

c) and (3) (

b) College and Institute

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 52

31 (1)

34 (1)

(2) Columbia Basin Trust

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 53

3 (2)

14 (1) in both places

26 (1) and (4)

28 (1) (

b) Community Care Facility

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 60

10 (3) (

c) and

(4) Community Financial

Services Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 61

3 (2), (3), (4), and

(5) in both places

5 (4)

14 (1) (

a) and (b)

15 (1)

19 (3) (a) (ii)

21 (3)

26 (3)

(7) Company Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 62

233 (5) and

(6) Company Clauses Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 63

Constitution Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 66

(1) Continuing Care Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 70

8 (2) (

d) Cooperative Association

Act

S.B.C. 1999, c. 28

Court Order Enforcement

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 78

(3) Crown Proceeding Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 89

13 (4)

14 (1), (2) and (4)

15 (1) and

(2) Electronic Transactions

Act

S.B.C. 2001, c. 10

14 (1) and

(2) Escheat Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 120

(2) Expropriation Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125

1 in paragraph (

f) of

the definition of “approving authority”

Farm Income Insurance

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 130

2 (

a) and (

f) Financial Information

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 140

2 (5)

(1) Financial Institutions

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 141

271 (5) (b), and (6) in

both places

289 (3) (q)

[ Page 7457 ]

Fish Inspection Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 148

(4) Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165

Schedule 2

Gas Safety Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 169

(2) Geothermal Resources

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 171

12 (4) (

c) Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority Act

S.B.C. 1998, c. 30

39 (1) and (3) (a)

40 (6)

47 (3)

50 (1), (2) and (2) (

a) Greenbelt Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 176

(1) Health Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 179

59 (2)

74 (4) (

b) Home Owner Grant Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 194

12 (4)

14 (2) and (3)

17 (1) (b), (3) (b), (4) (a), (7) (a) (

i) and (9)

18 (2) (

c) Homeowner Protection

Act

S.B.C. 1998, c. 31

6 (1), (3) in both

places, and (8)

25 (3) and

(4) Hospital District Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 202

2 (4)

3 (1) (j) (iv)

25 (3)

35 (2) (a), (2) (a) (ii) and (4)

39 (3)

41 (6) in both places

Hydro and Power

Authority Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 212

3 (2)

21 (10), (16), (20), (21) (

a) and (

b) and (22)

22 in both places

23 (2) and (3)

24 (2) (a)

25 (g)

(1) Hydro and Power

Authority Privatization Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 213

18 (2) and (3)

19 (1), (2) in both places, and

(3) Independent School Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 216

12 (1)

(1) Indian Self Government

Enabling Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 219

(2) Industry Training and

Apprenticeship Act

S.B.C. 1997, c. 50

9 (1), (3) in both

places, and (10)

10 (1) and (2)

(3) Innovation and Science

Council Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 415

16 (1) and (3) in both

places

Institute of Technology

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 225

14 (2) (a)

22 (6) and (7) in both places

(1) Insurance Corporation

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 228

18 (2)

20 (3) and (7)

21 (2)

23 (1) (b)

25 (1) and (2)

38 in both places

Interpretation Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238

29 in the definition of

“Provincial Treasurer”

or “Treasurer” in both places

Islands Trust Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 239

47 (2) (a)

48 (1)

49 (3)

49.7 (1), (3) (a), (4) and (5)

49.8 (2) (b)

53 (2) (k) (iv)

Land Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 245

35 (3)

36 (1) and (2)

46 (2)

48 (1) (a)

59 (1) (

c) and

(7) Land Title Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250

295 (1)

296 (5) in both places, (6) and

(7) 298 (3) and (4)

302 (1) in both places

305 (3)

(9) Legislative Assembly

Allowances and Pension Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 257

12 (2)

16 (2) and (5)

31 (1) in both places

Legislative Assembly

Management Committee

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258

6.1

Library Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 264

22 (2) (

a) Liquor Control and

Licensing Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 267

(3) Liquor Distribution Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 268

31 (2) and (3) (

a) Livestock Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 270

10 (1)

[ Page 7458 ]

Local Government Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323

9 (2) (c)

23 (1) and (4)

756 (3) (a), (6), (7), (8) and (9) (c)

756.2 (4) in both places

770 (3)

806 (2) (

c) and (3)

806.1

(1) Local Services Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 276

6 (1)

(2) Medical and Health Care

Services Special Account Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 284

(2) Ministry of Health Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 301

Motor Dealer Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 316

(4) Motor Vehicle Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318

20 (2)

40 (2)

77 (1)

114 (1), (2) and

(3) Motor Vehicle (All

Terrain) Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 319

(3) Municipal Finance

Authority Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 325

16 (4)

(4) Natural Products

Marketing (BC) Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 330

8 (11) (b)

22 (4) (

c) Oil and Gas Commission

Act

S.B.C. 1998, c. 39

13 (1), (4) and (6)

15 (1) (b)

16 (1) and

(2) Open Learning Agency

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 341

(1) Pacific North Coast

Native Cooperative Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 343

Petroleum and Natural

Gas Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 361

3 (3)

94 (1) (c)

106 (2) and (4) in both places

Police Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367

11 (3)

38 (3)

42 (2)

(3) Provincial Court Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379

43 (2) and

(3) Public Guardian and

Trustee Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, 383

9 (4) (c)

12 (4) in both places, (5), (6) and (7)

14 (b)

15 (as consolidated in the Supplement)

24 (2) (

d) and (3)

(2) Public Sector Pension

Plans Act

S.B.C. 1999, c. 44

6 (2)

9 (2) (d) (ii) and (v)

17 (2)

18 (4)

20 (2) (e) (ii) and (v)

27 (1)

28 (1), (2) (

a) and

(5) Schedule A 5 (2) (h) (iv)

Public Service Benefit

Plan Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 386

5 in both places

6 (1)

9 in paragraph (

a) of the definition of “employer”

(3) Queen’s Printer Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 394

9 (1) and (2)

(2) Real Estate Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 397

32 (1) and

(2) Scholarship Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 411

1 (1), (3), (4), and

(5) 2 (1) and

(2) Securities Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418

15 (4)

18 (1) and (2)

20 (1), (2) in both places and (3)

22 (3) (

b) Society Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 433

73 (1) and

(2) Form 6

South Moresby

Implementation Account Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 435

Sustainable Environment

Fund Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 445

4 (

d) and (e)

(2) Taxation (Rural Area)

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 448

10 (1) (a)

14 (2) in both places

Tourism British

Columbia Act

S.B.C. 1997, c. 13

9 (1), (4) and (6)

12 (b)

13 (1) and (3)

14 (1) and

(2) Trade Development

Corporation Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 456

3 (4)

7 (b)

(3) Travel Agents Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 459

16 (5), (6) and

(7) University Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468

29 (1)

58 (1)

[ Page 7459 ]

University Foundations

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 471

(2) Vancouver Charter

S.B.C. 1953, c. 55

421B

(2.1) Vancouver Island

Natural Gas Pipeline Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 474

(1) Wildlife Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488

(1) Workers Compensation

Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492

67 (1) and (2)

94 (1.3)]

Amendment

approved.

Schedule A

as amended approved.

On

schedule

Hon. G.

Collins: I move an amendment to

schedule B standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SCHEDULE B,

(

a) by deleting the following:

Ferry

Corporation Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 137

18 (2)

(b)

19 (2) (

b) Income

Tax Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215

64 (5)

(c) (iv)

64 (6) (a)

(1) Insurance

Premium Tax Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232

12 (3)

34 (3)

(1) Taxation

(Rural Area) Act

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 448

and

(

b) by deleting "Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232" and

substituting "Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323".]

Amendment

approved.

Schedule B

as amended approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

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

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:48 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 59,

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 59,

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, we're making stellar progress today.

I will call

second reading of Bill 76.

[1650]

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY CHARTER

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I am pleased to speak to Bill 76, the Community Charter

Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act,

2003, in a fairly short period of time. The reason is that Bill 76 is a very

unique bill.

Traditionally,

when bills are introduced in the House, at the end of the bill there is a

section with the consequential amendments and transitional provisions. However,

because Bill 14 was such a fundamental shift in how the relationship between

local government and the provincial government will be in the future based on

the Community Charter, and because of the number of amendments that were

required to reflect that shift in what that relationship will be in the future,

we decided to do it in a separate bill instead of adding it to Bill 14, which we

introduced during the spring session. By doing that, we also allowed ourselves

some time to look at every aspect of the changes and to make sure that we had it

all right.

When we

introduced the first bill, Bill 67, reflecting these necessary amendments and

transitional provisions — again, that was in the spring session — we

realized we could clean it up a bit and refine Bill 67. As a consequence, last

week I introduced Bill 76, which is the replacement for Bill 67.

It is

necessary to introduce this bill to ensure that the transition or the

streamlining of the transition to the empowerment of local government from the

traditional provincial power would be done in such a way that local governments

have, through the use of the bill, a clear explanation of how, when and where

they can make the changes necessary to local government with local bylaws. We

clearly felt the need to have that type of document in place so local

governments are not just having to second-guess what all the changes mean and

have a kind of direction through this bill.

As I said

during the discussions on Bill 14…. We had lengthy discussions. Many of the

sections that are in Bill 14 were explained during that process. All that

[ Page 7460 ]

we have explained is now incorporated in Bill 76. I think that if the members

opposite have questions, it will come out in committee form, but that is the

best way for me to explain what Bill 76 represents. It is a technical document.

It has technical changes more than anything else. It makes changes in different

bills throughout provincial acts that require the recognition of the Community

Charter, rather than the Local Government Act, being the leading document. I

think the document speaks for itself.

J. Kwan:

Here we are again debating another bill with Community Charter in its name.

It's not the bill that we were supposed to be debating, the government's

intended legislation, Bill 67, which was introduced just a few months ago in the

spring session. As you know, Bill 67 was so riddled with errors that the

government had to pull it from the order paper and bring in an entirely new

bill: Bill 76. That is the bill that we will be debating this session, as the

minister outlined.

Before we

get to the specifics of this bill, it is important to point out that Bill 76,

the replacement for the former bill, Bill 67, is but one more twist on the

Community Charter's long and tortuous journey. The Community Charter, as you

will know, started as a pet project of the Premier and was promised to be

complete after the government's first 90 days in office.

[1655]

One year

later, in May 2002, a draft Community Charter was produced. You know what? It

was greeted with pointed criticism from almost every corner. As a result of

those negative reviews, the May 2002 draft charter had to be ripped apart and

entirely rewritten. The result of that process we debated this past spring.

Almost two years after the Community Charter was promised, this government

introduced Bill 14. To the surprise of those who have been waiting two years,

Bill 14 turned out to be in many areas a repackaging of amendments to the Local

Government Act by the previous government over several years.

The stated

purpose of the charter was that it was to be a response to municipal politicians

seeking the ability to enact local legislation without constantly requiring

approval from Victoria. What is, in fact, new about the charter is that it paves

the way for the province to abandon services, leaving it up to increasingly

cash-strapped local governments to decide if they want to fill the void.

Unveiled in

the new era of relentless and reckless downloading, communities are seeing fewer

provincial services and government functions in their locales. The end result of

the charter will no doubt be a massive downloading onto municipalities, totally

contrary to the government's new-era promise to "outlaw provincial

off-loading of costs onto municipal government."

The charter

establishes local empowerment to such a degree that local councils will be able

to make local decisions that are beyond the provincial government's

jurisdiction. That is, of course, except in the case of fish farms. It is always

fascinating to see what exceptions this government is willing to make, to see

what election promises it is willing to just throw out the window when it turns

to the promises of inconsistencies…. You know what, Mr. Speaker? It turns out

the promises for supporting the financial backers….

When we

originally debated Bill 14 this spring, the opposition raised the issue of

provincial interests — that it was important for government to balance the

notion of community control and decision-making with a broader understanding of

the public good. We expressed concern that the Community Charter could

unintentionally undermine progressive and innovative measures in communities,

such as a local government deciding to ban needle exchange programs or methadone

clinics.

We also

raised the possibility that without a provincial check, the charter could create

a developer's paradise, permitting local governments to pass legislation that is

suitable for its own exclusive interests but damaging to the surrounding

communities or the province as a whole. Yet these are not the issues that this

government has stepped in to overrule the Community Charter on. On the contrary,

as we saw on Tuesday, this government has instead gone to great lengths to help

their friends and financial backers in the aquaculture industry, going so far as

to bring in Bill 48 that prevents local councils from blocking fish farms in

their area.

Local

governments have made it very clear that they do not support Bill 48 and the

special deal it gives to fish farms. A resolution was passed at the recent UBCM

convention — unanimously, I might add — against this erosion of local

autonomy. Apparently, as my colleague pointed out just yesterday, the Minister

of State for Community Charter didn't get the memo about fish farms. I guess he

wasn't at the meeting with Stolt Sea Farm where three of his fellow cabinet

ministers were told to cut the aquaculture industry some slack.

Unfortunately,

the minister was not here for debate on Bill 48. I have no doubt he was in his

riding showing support to his constituents, who are dealing with the terrible

flooding situation, and we understand his need to be in his constituency. But it

is unfortunate. At least I will assume it was just an unhappy coincidence that

this government chose to call the debate on Bill 48 during the minister's

unavoidable absence. The minister must know that Bill 48 amounts to a broken

promise to local governments across this province. He must know that Bill 48,

the….

[1700]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, order, please. I must remind the member that we are

debating second reading of Bill 76, not Bill 48. Please stay to the principle of

Bill 76.

J. Kwan:

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that advice.

You know,

Bill 48 deals with matters that relate to this bill as we're talking about the

Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments

[ Page 7461 ]

and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Bill 76 deals with the local governments'

authority to make their own decisions. We were talking about how in this

Legislature, as recently as yesterday, this government brought in legislation

that is contrary to the entire intent and thrust of Bill 76. That is how it

relates.

Mr.

Speaker: I understand, hon. member. Please try to relate it to Bill 76.

J. Kwan:

That is how it relates, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I'm trying to explain

to the House how that relates to the whole notion this government had built of

the Community Charter. That is to say that they will recognize local governments

as an independent authority of government, that they would not intervene with

local government decisions, that they would not off-load local government

decisions and off-load costs onto local government.

What does

this government do? Before the ink is even dry on this, yet another amendment on

Bill 76 of this Community Charter — which is a pet project of the Premier's,

which he has said over and over and over again, ad nauseam at UBCM, to UBCM

delegates, the local governments, that they would have the authority to make

their own decisions….

Then,

before the ink is even dry, this Legislature, as recently as yesterday, passes

legislation that takes away local government authority on decisions. That's how

these bills relate. You cannot talk about one bill in isolation from another,

when you look at the policies of the government's decisions.

The thrust

of this bill is about local government autonomy. Where is that autonomy when it

comes to fish farms? There is none. You know why? Because this government will

protect their friends at all costs. That's what they have shown, and that's what

they will do. Bill 48 challenges, in the