British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 29, 2002

H0529pm-08

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 8, Number 8 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3681 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3681 Transportation Investment Act (Bill 57) Hon. J. Reid Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 59) Hon. G.

Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3682 Whalley Chiefs baseball club E. Brenzinger Airspace Action on Smoking and Health organization J. Kwan Energy production in B.C. B. Penner Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3683 Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. C.

Hansen Role of Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care J. Kwan Hon. K. Whittred Agriculture and livestock industries in B.C. W. Cobb Hon. J. van Dongen Impact of air travellers security fee on small and rural communities W. McMahon Hon. R.

Thorpe Speaker's Ruling ............................................................................................................... ........................................................ 3686 Recommittal of Bills ........................................................................................................... ...................................................... 3686 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Hon. G.

Plant Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3686 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) (continued) Hon. G.

Plant Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3687 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3687 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3687 B.C.

Rail, annual report, 2000 Forest Practices Board, report, 2001 Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2001

Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3687 G. Trumper I. Chong Hon. S. Santori W. McMahon R. Hawes H. Long J. Kwan Personal Statement............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 3687 B.

Lekstrom Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3688 Hon. L.

Stephens Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3688 Legislative Assembly Management Committee, annual report, 2001-02 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3688 Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402) R.

Sultan Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3688 Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3688 Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3688 Carrier Lumber Ltd.

Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3688 Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3689 Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) J. Kwan Hon. S.

Hagen Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3695 Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3695 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Bruce Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3706 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3706 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 3706 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) (Motion 34) J.

MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3710 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) S. Orr Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan J.

MacPhail Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3724 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3724 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 3725 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (Motion 35) J.

Kwan J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell

3681 WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. [1405] Introductions by Members B. Locke: I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e i n t h e House today two special women. Bev McGee, a great supporter of mine, and my mom, Hilda Burns, are in the gallery. Would the House please make them wel- come. Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, after 22 years of serving us in the legislative dining room, Betty Turko will be retiring on Friday, May 31. Just think of that. Betty has been working since March of 1980.

Think of all the exceptional people she's met. [Laughter.] Think of all the stories that she has to tell, and think of all the memories that she'll take with her. An Hon. Member: But won't tell. An Hon. Member: I hope. Hon. G. Campbell: Betty has said to me that she believes her employment in the legislative dining room is, in fact, a confidential cone of silence, so no one has to worry. I do think this: we will all have memories of Betty's exceptional service to each and every one of us and to our colleagues who came before us.

On behalf of the entire Legislature, I would just like to say thank you to Betty for over 20 years of exceptional service to us all. P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce a group of 18 people from Surrey-based Fraser Valley Taiwanese Association. They are involved in many small busi- nesses, including real estate, metal fabrication, insur- ance and finance, arts and printing, electronics and health. This group is led by president Fei-Lin Kung, former president Ching-Taun Kuo, Mr. Shun-Chin Lee, Linda Su, Chi-Chen Wang, Michael Chen, Richard Tseng, Jackie Tseng and Chi-Cheng Chung.

My hon. colleague Dave Hayer will introduce the other delegate members. Will the House please make them most welcome. W. Cobb: It is my pleasure to introduce my daugh- ter Toni and her boyfriend, John. They're down here holidaying from the Cariboo, and I ask the House to make them welcome. Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like to welcome to the House today Paul Smith of Labatt Breweries and Jeff Gaulin of Molson Breweries. While you think they may be com- petitors, they do come together under the association known as the Western Brewers Association, and the association is represented by Daniel Fontaine. G.

Trumper: In the precincts today we have stu- dents from grades 5 to 7 from Hot Springs Cove school with their teacher, Mr. Bown. Hot Springs Cove is about a 1½-hour boat ride from Tofino. It's a small abo- riginal village. This is probably, for many of those stu- dents, the first time that they have been to Victoria. I would ask you to please make them welcome. J. Kwan: Visiting the gallery today is Heather Mackenzie. She's the president of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the achievement of a tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians.

Would the House please make her welcome. R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic Elementary School in Mission with their teacher Ms. Heron and a number of adults that are along helping. Could the House please make them welcome. [1410] D. Hayer: I would like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington in welcoming members of the Fraser Valley Taiwanese Association. There are over 18 members from my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead visiting Victoria. They supported me last time at elec- tion time, including Dr.

Leo Wang, who is the vice- president of the association; Sandy Chen, who is a di- rector of the association; Mei-Huei Chen Chung; Tonny Lin; Yi-Chen Lin; June Wang; Shu-Hsieng Weh; Hsiu- Chen Lai; and Ling Na Chen. T. Christensen: I'm told we're joined in the House today by a pillar of my community. I haven't seen him up there yet, but I'm sure he's there. This gentleman is a strong volunteer in my community, a businessman. He's a former mayor. He's a former MLA from 1986 to 1996, during which time he served Her Majesty in a number of portfolios as a minister of the Crown.

I would ask that the House please give a hearty welcome to Mr. Lyall Hanson. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to intro- duce two constituents of mine who are here to watch question period and the proceedings of the House. They are Lyse Burgess and Andrew Weaver. Would the House please make them both very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT Hon. J. Reid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transporta- tion Investment Act. Hon. J. Reid: I move that Bill 57, intituled Trans- portation Investment Act, be read a first time now.

3682 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 Motion approved. Hon. J. Reid: British Columbia's economic vitality is in many ways dependent on our transportation sys- tem. In order for British Columbia to continue meeting our transportation needs, we need to make substantial additional investments in our highway infrastructure. We must also look for the most efficient, cost-effective way to develop that infrastructure. This will ensure that the available transportation dollars fund as wide a range of projects as possible.

The Transportation Investment Act will authorize the Ministry of Transportation to enter into concession agreements with private sector investors. It will allow those concession operators to construct, improve, oper- ate and maintain highways. Private sector investors will be required to meet provincial highway standards for safety, design, construction and maintenance. This act provides the necessary legislative flexibility for the ministry to explore and develop opportunities for public-private partnerships.

It also allows British Columbians to access improved infrastructure far sooner than would be otherwise possible. For the trav- elling public it means providing roads that are consis- tent in quality and standards. For commercial users it means more reliable means of moving goods. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech outlined our gov- ernment's commitment to explore more private sector investment in our economy. We are fulfilling that commitment. I'm introducing the Transportation In- vestment Act for first reading to allow for public con- sultation this summer before it is debated in the House in the fall.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 57 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. ELECTION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. [1415] Hon. G. Plant: Mr.

Speaker, Bill 59, Election Stat- utes Amendment Act, 2002, is introduced now to facili- tate public discussion over the summer. It will be de- bated in the fall. This bill keeps three new-era promises for electoral reform. It keeps the new-era promise to repeal the law that restricts third-party advertising during election campaigns. It also keeps the new-era promise to outlaw donations from charities to political parties. Charitable organizations, defined by the com- mon-law test for a charity, will be prohibited from making political contributions to elections or recall campaigns.

Charitable organizations will not be pro- hibited from contributing to initiative campaigns. Lastly, Bill 59 also keeps the new-era promise to eliminate loopholes on disclosures of financial contri- butions to political parties to include donations of la- bour, as is required in municipal elections. This bill will ensure the disclosure of any donation of labour during an election or recall campaign where the individual donating his or her services and time is being compen- sated by an employer. The amendment does not apply to unpaid volunteers or to donations of professional services made by self-employed people.

These amendments are part of this government's ongoing commitment to electoral reform in British Columbia. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) WHALLEY CHIEFS BASEBALL CLUB E. Brenzinger: I would like to share with the House another great community sports story. We have heard plenty of hockey updates over the last few weeks, but I would like to turn your attention to the great North American summer tradition of baseball. The Whalley Chiefs baseball club have their home in my constitu- ency. They play in the B.C. Premier League and have a record of 25 wins and 14 losses for the year. Now, most baseball fans will have heard of the great pitcher and Canadian, Fergie Jenkins.

Those who follow the game may also recognize names like Larry Walker, Ryan Dempster or Jeff Zimmerman, all natives of our great province. Aaron Mayette, who plays with the Texas Rangers, and Kevin Nicholson of the St. Louis Cardinals were once proud Whalley Chiefs. Their hard work, talent and dedication to the sport they love have turned their dreams into a career. Other Chiefs who have been drafted by professional teams include Cole Armstrong, Jordan Kissock and Kevin Johnston. Baseball is alive and doing well in B.C.

This year we expect another Whalley Chief will be selected quite high in the upcoming major league draft: Adam Loewen. He is a hard-throwing, left-hand pitcher. Re- cently Adam, along with Jeff Francis, another young pitcher from North Delta, were featured in a USA To- day column, further recognizing baseball's growing interest in B.C.'s talented youngsters. In fact, according to the Major League Scouting Bureau, Surrey has more

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3683 players drafted by big-league clubs than any other city in Canada. Like many community groups, the Whalley Chiefs are trying to improve their facilities. They would like to have their ballpark upgraded so that the field matches the calibre of players they produce. Fortunately, one of the Chiefs' greatest assets is hard-working volunteers who work to make this dream a reality.

It is my hope that we can find a way to help the Whalley Chiefs cre- ate a ballpark in Whalley that can allow the organiza- tion the ability to focus on the pride of the team: the players. Whalley and all of Surrey are very proud of the Chiefs and the tradition of excellence that they have established. AIRSPACE ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH ORGANIZATION J.

Kwan: I rise today to speak to the matter of clean air and to highlight the work of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the achievement of a tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians, including those who work in the hospitality industry. This organization is not alone in advancing the public understanding of the science on tobacco smoke and health. Health authorities around the world are unanimous in telling us that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, even at the bar or the lounges.

The science is also clear that the ventilation of a designated smoking room is, at best, a cosmetic solu- tion intended to take away some of the smell of smoke. Most of the toxic chemicals in smoke, such as carcino- genic gases, cannot be filtered and are the ones that you can't see, taste or smell. The bottom line is that ventilation is not intended to make the air in a desig- nated smoking room safe. [1420] Every year Airspace takes the time to publicly ac- knowledge those who assist the tobacco industry in its war against humanity.

In the fine tradition of parlia- ment, I'll be leaving with the Clerks, to be shared and viewed by members of the House, the often-ducked, rarely coveted Airspace Bedfellows Award. I quote from the document: "The Airspace Bedfellows Award for distinguished and exemplary service to the multi- national tobacco industry at the expense of worker, child and public health in the province of British Co- lumbia has been awarded to the Minister of Labour this year." ENERGY PRODUCTION IN B.C. B.

Penner: I would also like to speak about protect- ing air quality and comment on a rapidly growing source of electric energy which doesn't produce emis- sions. Members will know that last week the Washington State regulatory agency looking into the Sumas Energy 2 power plant proposal reversed their earlier unani- mous opposition to the project and recommended the project be approved by Governor Gary Locke. The 1,000 tonnes per year of pollutants emitted by SE2 would exacerbate already significant air-quality prob- lems in the Fraser Valley on both sides of the Washing- ton State–British Columbia border.

Fine particulate matter — that's PM 10 — concen- trations currently exceed Canadian 24-hour criteria on certain days, as do maximum hourly ozone concentra- tions. In the eastern Fraser Valley levels of fine particu- late have been temporarily recorded at levels more than 70 percent higher than what is considered safe. We are not alone in our concerns. A recent report released two weeks ago in California concluded that dirty air causes or contributes to the deaths of 9,300 Californians every year, more than the number of deaths in that state attributed to traffic accidents, homi- cide and AIDS combined.

Contrary to some reports, SE2 is not proposed to be a cogeneration facility. Rather, the natural gas burned at the plant will be for one purpose. The natural gas burned will be used to power the plant. Cogeneration, however, entails multiple uses for the energy con- sumed. This is the case at the newly operational Island co- generation plant near Campbell River. By replacing older boilers at the Elk Falls pulp and paper mill, which were used to process steam, about 240 mega- watts of electricity are now produced with almost no net increase in most criteria pollutants.

Clearly, cogene- ration is preferable from an energy efficiency and hu- man health perspective. I've spoken in the past about the power of small hydro projects, which divert small amounts of water to generate significant amounts of electricity. This private industry is now growing in British Columbia. There is also potential for wind energy. It is no longer experimental. Washington State has 178 mega- watts of installed wind-generation capacity, with an- other 800 megawatts planned or proposed. California has 1,671 megawatts of installed wind capacity.

Even Texas, not normally thought of as a green state, has 1,096 megawatts of wind energy. In Canada, Alberta has about 55 megawatts of wind en- ergy. B.C. is behind in this area, but some time next year we may see the first wind towers being constructed on Vancouver Island as part of B.C. Hydro's wind demon- stration project. Wind energy may not be the answer for all of our growing electricity needs, but along with cogeneration, small hydro and other alternatives, wind energy should be part of our energy portfolio. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS J.

MacPhail: British Columbians are in a high state of anxiety about their health care system. Many feel

3684 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 like it's high noon. The Minister of Health Services said just moments ago that he would have a statement after question period. I'm afraid that British Columbians h a v e l e a r n e d t o b e v e r y w a r y w h e n t h i s g o v e r n m e n t says it has a plan to resolve this dispute. Everything it's done so far has done nothing but inflame and prolong the dispute. Every day more and more patients are not getting the care they need and the care they deserve.

I ask the Minister of Health Services: what assur- ances can the minister provide British Columbians that whatever he's planning will not just unify the doctors in their job action, inflame the situation and result in even more chaos and confusion for patients? Hon. C. Hansen: It is individual British Columbi- ans that have been paying a very big price due to the fact that some physicians in the province have decided to deny them access to health care.

I have certainly had communication from a lot of doctors who actually have taken the time to recognize that there's $392 million in new money on the table, that there is a fair proposal there, that they will be well compensated, and that it will address the issues around recruitment and compensation. [1425] We as a government are not going to stand by when we see people who are writhing in pain on the floors of their homes waiting for back surgery or when we see patients in Kelowna who are being denied ac- cess to urgent care because their doctors won't care for them.

We have made it clear today that we are pre- pared to take action. If the BCMA is not prepared to bring this to a conclusion quickly and restore patient care in this province, we will take the action necessary to ensure that those patients can once again count on health care in this province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: I'm disappointed, Mr. Speaker, be- cause I was looking for something new. This is what the Minister of Health Services has been saying for weeks, despite repeated offers of assistance from the opposition to assist in settling this dispute.

There are those that are very close to this govern- ment who have said that this government has screwed up this dispute from the beginning. We wouldn't be here today if the government had lived up to its bind- ing arbitration process that it agreed to and gave its full support to. Now it's a game of chicken, and British Columbians are having to pay the price of seeing who will blink first.

To the Minister of Health Services: instead of using ultimatums, wouldn't it be smarter to first try to dem- onstrate some goodwill, admit that it was wrong to rip up the binding arbitration process and establish a new binding arbitration process for all future disputes that's fair to both sides? Hon. C. Hansen: As this member knows very well, the binding arbitration process that she is refer- ring to was put in place by her government. There were four items in the terms of reference.

I will even give credit to the previous government — to the fact that they did not agree to an open-ended binding ar- bitration process. There were conditions. The arbitra- tor had to consider the financial circumstances of the province and had to consider the administrative and management needs of the health authorities. The arbi- trator did not do an adequate job of that, and we had grounds to appeal that arbitration. That member knows that.

I would like this member to stand up in this House and tell this House which programs she would like to see cut in the provincial government in order to come up with the extra $300 million to $400 million a year it would have cost had we gone through with the full ramifications of the McEachern arbitration award. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: I'm actually surprised by the admis- sion of the Minister of Health Services. Now he admits that he could have chosen a court appeal process that would have been fair. Instead, he decided to rip up a contract.

That's what he did. No wonder doctors are saying that this government has messed up this dis- pute and that they have lost confidence in this minister. They're demanding that he and his colleague the Min- ister of Health Planning be fired. Even B.C.'s top heart doctor, a senior Liberal fund- raiser, has called on the Premier to fire these ministers. But you know what?

I don't know whether I would go that far, but I would ask the minister this: if his ultima- tum, which he continues to do to inflame the situation, backfires and if, as a result, B.C.'s health care system descends into further chaos, will the minister do the right thing and step aside from this dispute and ask the Premier to hand it to someone who hasn't earned the pathological enmity of the doctors and lost the trust of patients and who may actually have a chance at getting this dispute resolved? Hon. C.

Hansen: I want to recognize that there are thousands of doctors in this province who want to get on with putting patient care first. We want to get on with putting patient care first. [1430] We have tried and tried in every way possible to get the BCMA to come back to the negotiating table so that these issues can be resolved. They asked for bind- ing arbitration. We offered them binding arbitration. They asked for things to be negotiated.

We said: "Yes, let's negotiate it." There is a point at which we have to provide the strong leadership necessary to put pa- tients first in this province, restore care for patients throughout British Columbia, and we are prepared to do that.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3685 ROLE OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR INTERMEDIATE, LONG TERM AND HOME CARE J. Kwan: It's not only patients and doctors who have lost trust in this government's ability to manage the health care system. The opposition has learned that one of the Premier's own cabinet ministers is requesting and asking questions around the health care cuts. The opposition has seen an e-mail which was sent last week on behalf of the Minister for Long Term Care to public servants from one of her own senior ministry offi- cials.

In that e-mail, the minister instructs the bureaucracy to provide her with answers to some very serious ques- tions about cuts to health care. Apparently, she couldn't get answers from her own cabinet colleagues. To the minister of state: why did she not express these very serious questions and concerns, which the opposition shares, before and not after she turned seniors' lives up- side down? Will she table in the House today the ques- tions she posed to the public servants? Hon. K.

Whittred: Well, what a surprise that a minis- ter is taking the responsibility to ask questions about the very people that fall within the jurisdiction of that minis- ter. This government was committed to embarking on a long-range plan that would provide for the benefit of pa- tients in this province, and that is what we are endeavour- ing to do. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The minister should be asking those ques- tions at the cabinet table, not of her senior officials within the ministry.

In that e-mail, the minister's official says that the min- ister of state has asked for answers to a number of serious questions before she attends a conference of private long- term care providers. The e-mail asks why the North Shore health region is facing more cuts to care for seniors and mental health than any other region. "Are health authori- ties ensuring alternatives are in place" before eliminating programs that currently provide quality care for those who need it the most? The minister did not bother to ask these questions before the cuts were implemented. Now we have to ask them on her behalf.

Perhaps the Minister of Health Ser- vices could answer these questions for her own minister and cabinet colleague. Hon. K. Whittred: The question that the member op- posite has read is an illustration of exactly what my job is. My job is to attend to the long-term care issues… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. K. Whittred: …around seniors in this province. For me to ask a question about the dispersal of those ser- vices in a health region, I think, is part of my job. AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK INDUSTRIES IN B.C. W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Agricul- ture, Food and Fisheries.

Livestock production has played a major role in the economy of my riding for over 100 years. However, ranchers today are competing on an international scale that they never dreamed of, could never have imagined, a generation ago. Can the minister tell us how British Co- lumbia's livestock industry is performing in this highly competitive business? Hon. J. van Dongen: It is correct. The livestock indus- try has done very well this past year. Returns in the indus- try are up 14.5 percent.

I think a lot of the credit goes to the men and women who work on our ranches for their innovation, their dedi- cation and their competitiveness. They are throughout rural British Columbia. They've done a great job. They generate a lot of jobs in those communities as part of their service industry. Two concerns, both revolving around the U.S. farm bill. They're concerned about increased subsidies and the country-of-origin labelling provisions in that new farm bill. We look forward to working with them on that, and I look forward to seeing the member's constituents at the annual meeting on June 7 in Dawson Creek.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplementary question. [1435] W. Cobb: I hope I can be there. Agriculture is often overlooked as a segment of our B.C. economy. Can the minister tell me and my constitu- ents what the future outlook may be for this important sector? Hon. J. van Dongen: I guess if I were a rating agency, I would characterize it as steady and positive. B.C. agricul- ture has some major strengths, and one of those is our diversity of many different commodities. When some sectors are down, others are up or going along in a strong fashion.

We also have a very stable industry that grows a certain amount every year. It has a very good record of growth, and certainly we're optimistic about that growth continuing. Agriculture operates in all parts of British Columbia. Even in the GVRD we have a major agricultural industry. They had an open house on the weekend, which I thought was very good. Farmers and ranchers are looking to an active and meaningful relationship with our government to help create the conditions for ongoing growth in this sector.

3686 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 IMPACT OF AIR TRAVELLERS SECURITY FEE ON SMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I understand that the minister was recently in Halifax at a provincial- territorial conference on tourism. I have heard from a number of my constituents about the reduction in air- line services, particularly to those communities that rely on air travel to connect to other centres.

Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what was discussed at this conference and if there was any discussion about small communities and airline services? Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there were extensive discus- sions last week at the tourism ministers conference on air travel to rural and small communities across Can- ada. I had meetings with Robert Milton, the chief ex- ecutive officer of Air Canada. I'm having follow-up meetings in the coming weeks with Air Canada offi- cials.

Our government, as have other governments across C a n a d a , h a s a s k e d A i r C a n a d a t o m a k e s u r e t h e y l e t our communities know what's happening well in ad- vance, that they consult with communities and that they understand the importance of air travel to small and rural communities, especially to communities that depend on tourism. We are working on this issue. We will continue to work on this issue. Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River– Revelstoke has a supplementary question. W.

McMahon: A number of people in my constitu- ency are very concerned about the federal govern- ment's recently imposed air travellers security charge. While this extra fee is intended to support increased security measures in airports, some tell me that very little actual security improvements are taking place and that the fee is a hardship for smaller communities. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us if anything is being done to address concerns about this fee? Hon. R.

Thorpe: Again, this was a very topical is- sue at our tourism ministers conference last week in Halifax, and all tourism ministers across Canada have made it our number one priority in the coming months. Following my meeting in Halifax, I travelled to Ottawa where I had the opportunity to meet with Minister Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada. Mr. Mar- tin has committed to a review of the air security tax. That review will be completed this fall. Mr.

Martin has also asked British Columbia to par- ticipate in that review, and we will be participating in that review to ensure that the air security tax provides the security but that our rural and small communities and our tourism industry throughout British Columbia is not disadvantaged. British Columbia is going to work with Canada to find the solution for British Co- lumbians. [End of question period.] Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on May 28 the hon.

Leader of the Opposition rose, as she stated it, "to seek advice" from the Chair about events that oc- curred in the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. The decisions made by that com- mittee are not subject to review by the Chair, and matters arising in committee are invariably settled in committee unless they come forward as part of a re- port to the House. It is reasonable to assume a report will be coming to the House from the committee, and when adoption of the report is moved, the member may raise such ques- tions as she deems appropriate.

Recommittal of Bills MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 [1440] Hon. G. Plant: By leave, I move that the proceed- ings relating to third reading of Bill 54, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, be declared null and void and that the said bill be re- committed forthwith with respect to

section 73. Leave granted. Motion approved. Committee of the Whole House MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:42 p.m. On

section 73. Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment to

section 73 that is in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 73, by deleting the proposed

section 73 (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Sections 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14, 30 to 36, 39 to 42, 46 to 57, 59, 65 and 70 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.] Amendment approved.

Section 73 as amended approved.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3687 Title approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:43 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete with amendment. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. G. Plant: By leave now, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a third time and passed. Tabling Documents Hon. J.

Reid: I have the honour to present the an- nual report for B.C. Rail for the year 2000. Hon. M. de Jong: Two reports: the 2001 report from the Forest Practices Board and the 2001 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission. Petitions G. Trumper: I would like to table a petition. The petition is signed by 154 of my constituents request- ing from the Ministry of Human Resources the ex- tension of a preschool study qualifying low-income families to the end of the fiscal year, June 2002. I. Chong: I rise to table a petition from FAIR, fami- lies against imposed reconfiguration.

They are opposed to middle school reconfiguration by school district 61. It is signed by 3,183 individuals. Hon. S. Santori: I rise to table a petition from 4,100 citizens of the West Kootenays with respect to the clo- sure of the Kiro Manor long-term care facility. [1445] W. McMahon: I rise to present a petition. This peti- tion has approximately 3,100 signatures asking gov- ernment to consult with the community of Revelstoke to keep Moberly Manor open. R.

Hawes: I rise to present a petition signed by 10,500 of my constituents requesting that acute care, c r i t i c a l c a r e a n d m a t e r n i t y r e m a i n o p e n i n M i s s i o n Memorial Hospital. H. Long: I rise to table a petition that I received from the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association and Sunshine Coast Water First. Collectively, they've received 5,082 signatures. The petition urges the gov- ernment to prohibit all industrial activity within their community watershed and to transfer control of the community watershed to the community. J. Kwan: I rise to table two petitions.

The first con- tains the names of 191 residents from the constituen- cies of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Nelson-Creston, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Penticton–Okanagan Valley and Cariboo North. The petitioners call on the gov- ernment to put an end to its mean-spirited attack on youth, seniors, the poor, the sick and the disabled and to respect legally binding contracts. Further, they call on the government to remind the MLAs that it's their role to listen to, consult with and represent the needs of their communities and not simply to impose the government's agenda.

The second petition is signed by 17 residents of my constituency. They express their deep concern about the cuts the government is imposing on schools, hospitals, social services and the public ser- v i c e . T h e y n o t e t h a t i t i s t h e m o s t v u l n e r a b l e i n o u r province, and especially our children, that these cuts hit the hardest. They call on the government to restore funding to these vital public services and commit it- self to putting the needs of people and communities ahead of tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr.

Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that petitions are to be put forward without political comment. Further petitions? Personal Statement B. Lekstrom: I rise to make a personal statement in relation to a point of order brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. B. Lekstrom: The point of order raised on the af- ternoon of May 2, 2002, implied that I received a $6,000 stipend for the work I was doing as chair of the government caucus committee on the offshore oil and gas task force. The Leader of the Opposition was in- correct.

At no time did I receive any stipend for the work I did on behalf of and as chair of the committee on this task force. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allow- ing me the opportunity to clarify this matter.

3688 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 Petitions Hon. L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition from the Rainbow old age pensioners organization and 400 members of my Langley constituency in regard to health services at Langley Memorial Hospital. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present herewith the Legislative Assembly Management Committee an- nual report for the period April 2001 through March 2002, pursuant to

section 5(9) of the Legislative Assem- bly Management Committee Act. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr402. Second Reading of Bills SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY ACT Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver– Capilano. [Applause.] [1450] R. Sultan: I'm honoured. I move that the bill be now read a second time. The Sea to Sky University Act is a private bill estab- lishing a new university in British Columbia. SSU will be a private, non-secular, non-profit liberal arts institu- tion with enrolment of initially 400 and ultimately 1,200 students.

It will offer British Columbians ex- panded academic choice and a high-calibre interna- tionally oriented curriculum subject to rigorous quality standards. Motion approved. R. Sultan: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith. Leave granted. Bill Pr402, Sea to Sky University Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. Committee of the Whole House SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:51 p.m. Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved. Title approved. R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:51 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? R. Sultan: By leave, now. Leave granted. Bill Pr402, Sea to Sky University Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 58.

Committee of the Whole House CARRIER LUMBER LTD. FOREST LICENCE COMPENSATION ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 58; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:53 p.m. Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:53 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 58, Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Com- pensation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [1455] Hon. G. Collins: I call committee debate on Bill 38.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3689 Committee of the Whole House ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 38; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:57 p.m. On

section 1. J. Kwan: Related to

section 1 but actually the entire bill itself, I'd like to ask the minister some questions around the consultation process that took place with this bill. During estimates debate on March 7, I asked the minister about the changes to the Environmental As- sessment Act and with whom he would be consulting on these changes.

When the question was asked of the minister on the major reform of the environmental as- sessment process — who would be consulted and who has been consulted — the minister responded as fol- lows, and I quote from Hansard: "There is a committee in place which has had two meetings so far to discuss these changes. The committee is made up of five envi- ronmentalists representing environmental organiza- tions, one from labour, one from the UBCM and four from business.

There is also a first nations group in place being consulted." The question was then asked of the minister: "Does the minister have the names of these groups?" The min- ister responded by saying: "Yes, I do." Then several weeks later the environmental as- sessment office sent me some more specific information around the consultation procedure. I was given a list of the people who currently sit on the environmental as- sessment advisory committee, with the following statements.

The EA advisory committee provides ad- vice and feedback to the EAO, the environmental as- sessment office, on implementation of the environ- mental assessment process and the development of policy regulatory initiatives. This group assisted in the development of the act and continues to act as a stand- ing advisory committee to the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office. The statement was accompanied by a list of the people on the committee. I won't go through the list again.

Could the minister please outline the exact consul- tation procedure he or the environmental assessment office had with the advisory committee and this list of individuals? How many times did the committee meet? What was the result of that process? Was the commit- tee supportive? Did the minister accept submissions from members of the environmental assessment advi- sory committee? If so, who? [1500] Hon. S. Hagen: The consultation process which took place involved two conference calls, one meeting that I held with environmental groups and a follow-up meeting between my staff and environmental groups.

As you know, the briefings on the basic elements of the bill have been held with members of the EA advisory committee composed of 12 representatives of various stakeholder groups: local government, labour, industry and environmental. As the member also knows, it's not normal practice to circulate a bill to the public prior to the introduction in the Legislature. When the current act was being de- veloped in the mid-nineties, the public had access to an earlier bill that had been introduced in the House but was then withdrawn.

Considerable consultation has since taken place with the development of the regula- tions. J. Kwan: After second reading debate, where I ex- pressed concerns of the West Coast Environmental Law Association that no consultation had been done, there seems to have been a discrepancy around the consultation. Since that time, members of my staff have been in contact with Karen Campbell of West Coast Environmental Law. As the minister is aware, she's also a member of the environmental assessment advi- sory committee, one of the people supposedly con- sulted on this issue. Here's what she had to say.

The minister can correct the House if he disagrees with the chain of events. According to the minister in estimates debate and the material provided by the environmental assessment office, the advisory group "assisted in the development of the act," while I've learned that the committee never once met as a whole group to discuss the changes. Ap- parently, the members of committee representing the environmental groups, like West Coast Environmental Law and the B.C. Environmental Network, attended a 27-minute-long briefing on the changes and were able to participate in two conference calls.

They were advised on what changes there would be. There was no opportunity for discussion, no oppor- tunity to provide submissions and no opportunity to offer suggestions about changes to the new act. This is beginning to sound like a real stretch of the definition of consultation. There was no opportunity for partici- pation to develop the bill, like there was with the origi- nal one. This really fits in with Bill 38's drive to remove all legislated public consultation requirements. However, the subgroup of the committee did ap- parently get one message across.

They were deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. The one group that is supposed to be consulted on environ- mental assessment is deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. I fear that this sets a very bad prece- dent for any consultation under the new act. Perhaps the minister could let me know if my ac- count of the events is accurate so far. Hon. S. Hagen: Under the new process, the ap- proach to public notification, access to information and consultation will be very similar to that in place now but with an increased emphasis on providing the in- formation electronically.

Public meetings and public

3690 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 comment periods will continue to be normal features of project reviews. I'm also advised by staff that after their first meet- ing with the environmental group, there were some changes made to the draft legislation. [1505] J. Kwan: The chain of events: did that actually oc- cur? The people the minister was supposed to consult with say otherwise.

I'd like to bring the House's attention to a letter from the deputy minister of the environmental assess- ment office that she wrote to the members of the advi- sory committee, dated May 9, 2002 — the very day the bill was introduced. Wouldn't it be surprising after all that consultation? Here's what the letter said. I'll just quote parts of it: "Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation on the provisions of the new bill. Environmental community representatives on the committee recently raised this concern in a meeting with the hon.

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, and I know that he appreciates this feedback. "I can say that certain key changes have been made to provisions in the bill as a result of the feedback received from the committee members during our recent briefing sessions. "As I mentioned during our last conference call, the environmental assessment office is committed to consulting the committee on both the regulations and the operating procedures which will be required for the new legislation." It is signed by Dr. Sheila Wynn, deputy minister.

By the deputy's own admission, there has been in- sufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation. There you have it, right from the deputy minister herself. Let me just quote again: "Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation on the provisions of the bill." Could the minister explain ex- actly what consultation occurred and why there was not sufficient time for consultation, since this govern- ment has been in power for over one year, and the min- ister talked about consulting on March 7, over two months ago?

Also, the letter says: "I can say that certain key c hang e s h av e b e e n m ad e t o p ro v i s i o ns o f t he b i l l as a result of the feedback received from committee mem- bers…." Perhaps the minister could let the House know what those key changes were, since Karen Campbell says she couldn't imagine the bill being any worse than it is right now. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm very pleased the member read that letter out from my deputy minister, because of course it confirms exactly what I said just prior to that, so I appreciate that very much. It substantiates what I said.

As I mentioned before, there were two conference telephone calls of all stakeholder groups. There was a meeting that I held with the environmental sector, fol- lowed up by a meeting with my staff, the members of the EA advisory committee composed of 12 representa- tives of various stakeholder groups, local government, labour, industry and environmental. I'm confident that there has been sufficient consultation on this bill. I think it's a great bill. It also fulfils several new-era commitments that our party made during the election campaign.

I'd just like to list some of those commitments: a thriving private sector economy, enhanced competitive business cli- mate, sustainable resource development, a scientific and principled approach to environmental manage- ment, balanced decision-making, eliminating federal- provincial overlaps, open and accountable govern- ment, and reducing red tape and regulatory burden. J. Kwan: If the minister's answer to my questions is a demonstration of the consultation process, then I un- derstand what happened there.

The fact of the matter is that the minister has no intention of listening to the people, no intention of actually answering the ques- tion. My question to him was: if consultation in fact took place — the deputy minister says in her letter that consultation did take place and that changes were made to the bill — what were those changes? The minister just bypassed all of those questions and went on some rhetoric about the new-era com- mitment, which had nothing to do with the Environ- mental Assessment Act consultation process. Let me just advise the minister, then, of this infor- mation.

Karen Campbell's position has since been backed by other members of the environmental as- sessment advisory committee, including Lloyd Man- chester, Pat Moss and Alan Young. Here's a letter sent to the opposition caucus from Pat Moss: "Yes, you're right that the advisory committee was only informed about the changes but not consulted. We had a conference call with the EA office, where we were told the basic direction the new legislation would take, and then a meeting was arranged with the minister and the four environmental members of the environmental assessment advisory committee.

"On both these occasions we were 'informed' rather than consulted and had no sense that our opinions were given any consideration. We all expressed the view that this was a huge backward step for environmental assessment in B.C. and a complete gutting of the current Environmental Assessment Act. "Two of us have been on the committee for over eight years and helped develop the original legislation, so we are particularly angry about the dismantling of the process." Pat Moss, chair, environmental assessment caucus, B.C.

Environmental Network and member of the environ- mental assessment advisory committee. [1510] Here's another letter, from Alan Young: "I'm on the environmental assessment advisory committee and share [Karen Campbell's] views on the process. We were given briefs through the conference calls, once the bill had been formed. It would be incorrect to say that we have been consulted and a gross exaggeration to say that we had helped to form the changes that this bill represents. It is worthy to note that the representative from the mining industry shared a number of our concerns."

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3691 Alan Young, executive director, Environmental Mining Council of B.C. I have to wonder: if a significant percentage of the advisory committee is against the changes and the lack of consultation, how can the minister stand up and defend the contents of this bill? If every single envi- ronmental representative is against the changes and the way they have occurred, how can the minister claim this approach is balanced, and how can the minister even just pretend that consultation actually took place? Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the patience of the member opposite.

I thought the meeting that I had was a very good meeting. We had a full and frank discus- sion as a group around the table in my office. I have lots of these meetings with various groups. I remember this one specifically because of the quality of the people attending that meeting. I mentioned the changes that came out of the confer- ence call meetings. One of the changes, which was a very major change, was that we did away with the power of the minister to waive projects out of the process. The second change was to ensure that we could regulate public consultation requirements.

We would actually h a v e i t i n r e g u l a t i o n t o m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e r e w a s f u l l public consultation. I just want to talk a bit about the benefits of this act to the people of British Columbia. I think this has pro- found meaning to the environmentalists as well.

It preserves the features of the current process which work, such as process management by the envi- ronmental assessment office, but with clearer account- abilities; reviewability of projects established primarily by regulation, with an option to designate projects to be reviewable where this is in the public interest; envi- ronmental assessment certification of projects based on balanced ministerial decision-making; assessment of the same broad range of effects — environmental, eco- nomic, social, heritage and health, with a strong focus on environmental protection; flexibility to custom- designed review procedures for individual projects; procedural simplification and greater ability to focus on technical issues; ability to maintain current levels of public involvement — very, very important; more cost- effective — ability to review the same number of pro- jects for less cost; more timely — reduced overall re- view duration; greater procedural choice for propo- nents; and finally, enhanced federal-provincial review cooperation — very, very important now that we're trying to attract investment back to the province of British Columbia — s o t h a t w e c a n m a k e t h e p r o c e - dures move in tandem between the province and the federal government instead of one after the other.

Section 1 approved on division. Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved. On

section 10. J. Kwan: Since the Liberal government has decided to invoke closure on all of the bills on the order paper and shut down essential dialogue, we're extremely limited in our ability to go through this legislation as thoroughly as it deserves. There are over 40 sections in this bill that I have identified as needing substantial review and debate.

However, with this government's arrogant decision that debate is not needed nor wanted in this House, it will likely pass by all the backbench MLAs toeing the line. [1515] We can see just from the minister's comment just now on the questions around consultation that not only did he not address the issue around consultation…. The minister says, "Well, I feel satisfied with the con- sultation," notwithstanding that all the people whom he's supposed to have consulted with do not feel satis- fied with the consultation. They wrote to the minister and said: "You know what, minister? We were not con- sulted.

We were simply informed, and the changes took place…. We're not satisfied with it. We feel that it actually harms the environment in terms of what this act is pushing through." Well, that doesn't matter, because that's good enough for the minister. He feels satisfied. He talks about the rhetoric in the New Era document.

Part 3 of Bill 38 outlines the new environmental assessment process, one that sets this province back at least 20 years and completely guts the legislative re- quirement for consultation with first nations and other stakeholders. The project committee stage is gone. Pub- lic advisory committees are gone, and the environ- mental assessment boards are gone. The provisions in the current legislation are the backbone of public consultation and participation in the process. Without them, communities, first nations and concerned citizens will lose their guaranteed con- sultation.

Removing the legislative provisions for the envi- ronmental assessment board is a major blow to the independency of the process and the opportunity for experts on specific matters in specific regions to be di- rectly involved. The really disappointing change, however, is the removal of the project committee stage, which was legislated to include representatives from the govern- ment of Canada, the government of B.C., affected mu- nicipalities and any first nations whose traditional ter- ritory is involved. Bill 38 will remove this much-valued guaranteed involvement in the process.

Furthermore, the elimination of public advisory committees will do certain harm to the ability of the public to be involved. The whole process will be lost under

part 3. By removing the project committee stage and moving towards this "flexible" approach, this legis- lation removes the public's guarantees for public notice and participation. Furthermore, it grants far too much power and discretion to the minister and the executive director. This is supposed to be an open and account-

3692 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 able process steered by the public, not subject to politi- cal interference. Concerned citizens will no longer have the opportunity to actively participate in the direction an assessment proceeds. Instead, the minister or the deputy minister can arbitrarily make crucial decisions that should be left to stakeholders and those with local expertise. What guarantees does the public have now on con- sultation under this act? The Chair: Before the minister responds, please, I just want to confirm that

section 3 was passed.

Section 3 approved. On

section 10 (continued). Hon. S. Hagen: I really do appreciate that question, because it's important. I'd like to answer the question to the fullest extent that I can. The environmental assessment office will set con- sultation requirements for each review, including the role and responsibilities of the proponent. Once set, they will be binding. There will also be an ability to modify those re- quirements if circumstances change. This is very simi- lar to the approach under the current act.

While the intent is to establish consultation guidelines in the en- vironmental assessment office's operating procedures, there will also be a power to make regulations with respect to consultation requirements. One of the attributes of this new act is that it is an open and transparent process. Public notification, ac- cess to information and consultation are fundamental elements of good environmental assessment and will continue to be an important part of this new process. Requirements for public consultation will be set early in the project review, and once set, they will be bind- ing.

Public meetings and public comment periods will continue to be a feature of project reviews. The project information centre, currently called the project registry, will facilitate open and transparent reviews by ensuring public access to information about project review. Over the next three years access to in- formation will be provided primarily by electronic means. There will also be power to make regulations with respect to consultation requirements. I'm confi- dent that the process as laid out is a good, open and transparent process. [1520] There was a question asked with regard to first nations interests.

This is very important to me. It's very important to this government. It's a key issue. The en- vironmental assessment office will have to ensure that any fiduciary and constitutional obligations towards first nations are met, their concerns are identified and adequate efforts are made to address them. First na- tions will be provided with information on projects during the preapplication period and will have oppor- tunities to identify how their interests may be poten- tially affected. First nations may be invited to sit on technical working groups where issues of concern to them are under discussion. J.

Kwan: The minister's answer is telling. On the one hand, he says: "There is consultation. Don't worry; be happy. All is the same." In reality, everything is dif- ferent and is stipulated in this act. The public are asking those questions as well. In fact, just this morning a letter arrived from Francine Roulston of the Stó:l ō nation. She said that she had been in contact with the environmental assessment office just this morning, but their answers from the environmental assessment office left her unsure and concerned.

Let me just quote parts of the letter that she sent to the opposition: "I'm sorry I'm not that confident, and neither are the Stó:lō people. We agree that the new act may violate the legal requirements set out in the Adams court case. Yes, the new Environmental Assessment Act would be illegal. Who will decide if the first nations will need to be consulted? What about ground-breaking court cases — Taku River, Haida? Will the decisions be able to be overturned? The treaty negotiations issue — isn't the above question asking just that? We need to be a visible noise in the environmental process.

The Stó:lō nation refuses to take a step backwards. Anything that we as a nation or individually we will do." Then it goes on to talk about how they'll proceed and make sure that they'll review the bill and also partici- pate in the process to make sure that their voice is heard. On the sections that strip the public of its right to consultation, there are major concerns around aborigi- nal rights. First nations groups in this province have grave concerns and are gearing up for court battles against this legislation.

It is worthy of note that they already have quite an arsenal of court decisions ready to fight this bill in the courts and with the treaty nego- tiations. This bill will do nothing to get B.C. back on track, to get B.C. in business, as it exists now. On behalf of the first nations groups like the Stó:l ō nation, the Hupacasath nation, the Lil'wat nation and others, they want to urge the government to reinstate legislated requirements for consultation before it is too late. The new act directly undercuts the court's affirma- tion of the role of first nations by removing them from the process altogether.

Removing consultation with aboriginal rights and interests from the environmental assessment process means that aboriginal governments may have no option but to go to the courts or resort to public protest to ensure that their views are consid- ered. The government's deliberate removal of a coop- erative mechanism in this new act may result in greater uncertainty and more delay for project proponents in the long run. Let's look at some of the court decisions. The list obviously starts with Delgamuukw and the Haida cases, which establish the requirement of consultation regardless of title.

Then there is the Taku case. In Taku River Tlingit first nation et al v. Ringstad et al, 2002 BCCA 59, the B.C. Supreme Court held that the gov- ernment had failed to consult adequately with this

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3693 northern first nation and forced the government to reconstitute the project committee to consider whether or not the sustainability of the Taku River Tlingit would be affected by the mine development. Also, there is the Adams case, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated that federal and provincial governments cannot create legislation with discretion- ary powers that could infringe aboriginal rights with- out providing guidelines.

Here's a quote from para- graph 54 of the case: [1525] "If a statute confers an administrative discretion which may carry significant consequences for the exercise of an aboriginal right, the statute or its delegate regulations must outline specific criteria for the granting or refusal of that discretion which seek to accommodate the existence of aboriginal rights.

In the absence of such specific guidance, the statute will fail to provide representatives of the Crown with sufficient directives to fulfil their fiduciary duties, and the statute will be found to represent an infringement of aboriginal rights under the Sparrow test." It seems highly unlikely that the courts would uphold a statute that provides for broad provincial discretion over major projects with no guidance for protecting and accommodating aboriginal rights. Of course, there is the Labrador Inuit case that I described during second reading stage.

It states: "…the process of environmental assessment is not a frill en- grafted on the development process; nor should it be regarded as an administrative hurdle to be gotten over in the march towards economic development. It is, rather, an integral part of economic development." It is clear that Bill 38 will contribute to increased uncertainty in treaty negotiations and will strip many communities and individuals of the right to participate. Using the words of a member of the government's own environmental advisory committee, I can't imagine this bill being any worse.

Can the minister please advise this House: has he sought legal opinions on this matter, on the potential violation of the rights of aboriginal people for consulta- tion? Hon. S. Hagen: Y e s , I ' m a d v i s e d t h a t w e h a v e i n - deed consulted with several lawyers. I think the key issue here is that the environmental assessment office will have to ensure that any fiduciary and constitu- tional obligations toward first nations are met. The government is intent on that. We're focused on that.

I have been meeting with first nations groups through- out the province since June 5 of last year, and we've established some very, very good working relation- ships with those groups not just on the coast but throughout the interior of the province. J. Kwan: Y o u k n o w , I h a v e n o d o u b t i n m y m i n d that the environmental community organizations, some of whom are here today watching this debate, and the aboriginal community and organizations, some of whom are also here today, have every good inten- tion to want to consult with the government.

The prob- lem here is this: the government is not reciprocating that good intention to the organizations from the envi- ronmental community and from the first nations com- munity. The minister keeps on getting up to say: "Don't worry; be happy. Everything is just fine." Then why would we get a letter just this morning from the Stó:l ō nation saying that they are co ncerned? Do people just dream this up, or is the minister making this up as we go along? That is the discrepancy that is before us to- day. What he says is one thing.

The reality, when you check with the people who he said he was talking with, who he had been talking with, who he truly consulted with, is that they say otherwise, and they say it on re- cord in writing to the minister. It is now being regis- tered in this House. This bill, Bill 38, is absolutely outrageous. It can cause undue harm for British Columbia in a variety of ways. Environmentally it could set British Columbia back some 20 years on environmental protection. The original act was done in true consultation with all con- cerned. They were at the table. That was consultation; this is not.

Taking away, in legislative language, the requirement to ensure that first nations people are at the table for consultation is a complete violation of the court decision. What the government is setting up is huge uncertainty in the area around aboriginal rights that will not bring certainty to British Columbia and that will not help in the economic recovery of British Columbia. [1530] The minister needs to go back and review how he is harming British Columbia on all these fronts. The op- position will not be supporting

part 3, "Environmental Assessment Process," in all its sections, because every

section strips away the authority of the people who used to have a role to play around the environmental assessment process. This strips away the ability to en- sure there is no political interference with the environ- mental assessment process. It allows for the govern- ment to put its dirty fingers into the cookie jar and to smear the entire process. All that does is do harm to British Columbia in the long term.

It's not even helping the proponents in the long term, because all it does, potentially, is have long- lasting negative impacts that will cost the proponents in the long term, cost British Columbians in the long term and, of course, delay the progress that is much needed in British Columbia. Hon. S. Hagen: In listening to the member opposite and having her suggest that what we're doing here could cause more harm to British Columbia and more harm to our economy, I have to say it would be impos- sible for anything to damage the economy of B.C. more than the government that was in power from '91 to 2001.

It wouldn't be possible for anything… Interjection. The Chair: Member, order. Order, please.

3694 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 Hon. S. Hagen: …we did to damage the economy more than those people did in their government in the ten years. I w a n t t o m a k e a n o t h e r c o u p l e o f p o i n t s h e r e . M y staff tell me they have just completed a two-full-day meeting with a first nations working group, which was very productive with full and open consultation. I want to repeat that the consultation process will indeed be in the regulations, so we will actually regulate what the consultation process will be.

This act now brings Brit- ish Columbia into the same position that all of the other provinces across Canada are in, which is that they operate their environmental assessment acts with- out committees. I can't help but note that the two members who w e r e i n t h e p r e v i o u s g o v e r n m e n t t h a t d i d s o m u c h damage to the province economically were part of the government that appointed a special environmental adviser to the SkyTrain expansion, the largest project ever undertaken in the province, without consultation groups. Interjection. The Chair: Order, member. Hon. S. Hagen: N o w , M r .

C h a i r , I j u s t w a n t t o point out…. Interjection. The Chair: Order, member. Listen to the minister, please. Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to enlighten the two members opposite on why we need a new act. We need a new act because we are committed as a government to high-quality environmental assessment of major projects, and we'll achieve it with this new bill. The bill replaces the cur- rent one-size-fits-all approach with much greater pro- cedural flexibility, something that the members oppo- site would not understand, I'm sure.

The current act is too inflexible, cumbersome and prescriptive. The process has sometimes been ineffec- tive and inefficient, with uncertain overall review dura- tions. That's the sort of thing, under the old govern- ment, that drove investment out of the province. We need legislation that will enhance the ability to harmo- nize better with the federal review process. I'm sure they would agree that it is important to enhance our ability to harmonize this process with the federal proc- ess. Otherwise, it delays things and drives investment capital out of the province.

The bill allows broad discretion to customize re- view procedures and to adapt to strategic government priorities in order to improve the province's investment climate without compromising the environment. That's the balance the two members opposite don't under- stand. They don't understand the balance that we need to achieve between the environment and the economy so that we can improve our economy without negative damage to the environment.

I just want to reiterate that the changes in this act are consistent with the practices of other Canadian jurisdictions. [1535-1540] Sections 10 to 19 inclusive approved on the follow- ing division: YEAS — 60 Falcon Coell L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Cheema J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Lekstrom Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Sections 20 to 50 inclusive approved. On

section 51. J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister this question on

section

Section 51 states: "The act does not apply to any activity, construction, operation, modification, dismantling or abandonment that, immediately before this subsection comes into force…." Could the minister please advise what this means? Does it mean that the current projects would go through the new process? Or would they go through the old process? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is that they will come under the new act. [1545] J. Kwan: The application of it to come under the new act, I think, will jeopardize the environment and

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3695 the process that needs to be followed for these projects. These projects have already been in the process, and for it to revert to being under a different process all of a sudden, midstream, is wrong. Of course, perhaps I know what the rationale from government is on this. The new process is a less strin- gent process on assessing environmental protection. That's the government's intention: to take away envi- ronmental protection at every turn, even projects that are already into the process for environmental assessment. The opposition would not support this

section of the bill. It is wrong to do such a thing, and we will not be supporting this

section of bill —

section

Section 51 approved on division. Sections 52 to 59 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I move the committee rise, report resolution without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:47 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Report and third reading of Bill 38 approved on the following division: [1550-1555] YEAS — 57 Falcon Coell L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Cheema J.

Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Lekstrom Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Bill 38, Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor. J.

MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. J. MacPhail: In the gallery today there are various people from environmental organizations here to ob- serve the proceedings, probably with sadness. Peter Ronald, Suzanne Connell and Laura Carlton are in the gallery from the Georgia Strait Alliance. Also here to- d ay i s T o m H ac k ne y wi t h t he S i e rr a C l u b o f B . C . and the Georgia Strait Crossing Concerned Citizens Coali- tion.

Also, another concerned citizen in the House to- day is Ryan Durand, who is an environmental plan- ning technician, and his father David Durand, who is a community representative on the project committee from Christina Lake. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 49. Committee of the Whole House WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 49; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:58 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. G. Bruce: I have with me my deputy minister, Lee Doney, and my senior policy analyst, WCB, Mi- chael Tanner. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, because of the extreme time constraints, we're allowed from four to 5:30 on this matter. Because of the government invoking closure, I'll be examining only sections 8 through 11 of Bill 49. I'm not sure what people think is so funny about that. Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved. On

section 8.

3696 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 J. MacPhail: This is repealing

section 22(1) of the Workers Compensation Act and replacing it. It changes the compensation for an injured or ill worker from 75 percent of the worker's average earnings paid during the lifetime of the worker to 90 percent of the worker's average net earnings. It also removes the phrase "pay- able during the lifetime of the worker." [1600] My question flowing from this is: will workers who are currently receiving compensation for a permanent total disability continue to receive compensation dur- ing their lifetime? Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. J.

MacPhail: If one were to compare the compensa- tion that an injured worker with a permanent total dis- ability received before the passage of this legislation versus after the passage of this legislation, on average, what's the difference in the compensation for an in- jured worker? Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear. You're looking for the comparison between a person who would be on WCB benefits now with a disability that goes past age 65 into retirement, as opposed to when the new legislation comes in and that benefit ends at 65. The difference would be somewhat dependent upon the type of injury.

I'm just trying to give you an average comparison here — make sure I've got this correctly. In the general sense, if a wage earner was making $40,000 a year, they would receive $534 and change a week under the new program. Under the old, or exist- ing, system they would have received $575. That's somebody with a $40,000 income. It would obviously vary depending on the nature of the injury. The more severe an injury, the differ- ence…. If it was somebody on a $30,000 income, they would receive $9.50 less per week. J.

MacPhail: What is the consequence for those two workers with a permanent total disability as a result of the removal of the phrase "payable during the lifetime of the worker" from the legislation? Hon. G. Bruce: What that means is that under the new system, the monthly benefit they would have been receiving ends at age 65. At that point they'll be given an annuity of 5 percent of what their benefit had been, awarded to them during their age as they were grow- ing to age 65 — I guess is the best way of putting it — and they're able to match that annuity. At age 65 their monthly benefit ends,

whereas in the instance of right now that would have continued on. J. MacPhail: What's the reduction for each of these workers' examples after the age of 65? Interjection. [1605] J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't know whether I'm not speaking into my mike, or maybe the minister was overwhelmed with that award he re- ceived earlier. I'll try to speak more closely into the mike. What is the amount of the reduction that a worker would receive after the age of 65 under the old rules compared to the new rules with those two examples the minister quoted? Hon. G.

Bruce: To the member: I can't give you an average. First of all, when someone reaches age 65…. How long are they going to live thereafter, if you're taking a 75-year-old or an 80-year-old or what have you? Let me give you an example, if I can. It would come in respect to a person who lost an eye. I'll just kind of run it through, if this works for you. This particular individual is able to go back to work after ten weeks. Under the current system, they would be getting a yearly award of $4,300 with the full CPI, which would come out…. They would receive, on a functional loss to age 65, $89,936.

Under the new system, with the yearly award of $4,006, they get a retirement benefit payable at age 65. That's the 5 percent annuity. That would be $58,458 in total. Compared to Alberta, that would be $15,000, and in Ontario that would be $13,920. J. MacPhail: We're dealing with British Columbia here, and the minister is taking away benefits from working people. That's a surprise to a lot of working people. I'm not sure that it will mean any comfort for working people who have been injured on the job that the minister is in a race to the bottom with Alberta and Ontario for working people.

They're in the race to match the benefits for the richest in the country with Alberta. Those who make the most amount of money will pay the least amount of taxes, the same way they do in Alberta and Ontario. The price to be paid for that now is that injured workers will be receiving less money. Maybe next year injured workers can expect to re- ceive the same amount that they'd receive in Alberta and Ontario. Gee, that's really good news. Under this system, the example that the minister just gave us, the injured worker is, on the average ex- ample, $40,000 worse off in his lifetime.

From $58,000 he would have received…. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. When I say "he," I mean "she" as well. I understand that there are both genders in the working world. He would have received $40,000 less — $58,000 versus $89,000. I'm sorry; it's $31,000. My apologies. B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members B. Penner: In the gallery is a group of 24 students from Greendale Elementary School in Chilliwack.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3697 They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Minato. I think this is an annual event for her and for her school. It's my pleasure again to have had an opportunity this year to meet with the class and the students. I had a few moments to receive a few questions before the bells rang to bring us back here. They are accompanied by a number of adults — at least five, I think. I wish them well, and I hope the House will please make them welcome. Debate Continued Hon. G. Bruce: First of all, let's be clear.

Anybody receiving a WCB benefit today will continue to receive that same benefit tomorrow, when this legislation is passed. However, I want to be clear to the hon. member that we're not doing this because it's fun. We're doing this because of two things with respect to the review and the reworking of WCB in the service delivery side of things: to make it more effective and to be there for the people who are in need of it. Also important is the fact that the system is under financial duress. It's virtu- ally at risk. We have a $287 million deficit, and one can't just carry along on that deficit.

We'll have a $900 million deficit by the year 2005. [1610] The member knows all too well that the workers compensation system has to be changed. Their gov- ernment, in fact, undertook a study — the former ad- ministration, the NDP government, with this member opposite — and some $7 million was spent on that study. It was very clear that changes have to be made, and we're bringing forward those changes. I am not hiding anything in respect to saying that benefits will be less for people that find themselves in need of the WCB injury program after the June 30 date.

They will be, but more importantly, which I have to m a k e s u r e a s m i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e , i s t h a t t h e b e n e f i t system is there in place for workers in the future and for people already on the system. If I were not to make sig- nificant changes, that system would be greatly at risk. Even with the changes we're making, we will still have amongst…if not the best WCB benefit program in Canada. J. MacPhail: This government chose to take a whole bunch of studies and select out of each study or review all of the benefits to change WCB that would assist the employers and harm the workers.

That's what this leg- islation is about, completely. There is nothing in this legislation that benefits injured workers, and frankly, Mr. Chair, today we will be having legislation rammed through — everybody will be sitting silent here, ramming it through — that says a worker injured before June 30 is more important than a worker injured after June 30. That's exactly what we're doing here, because the government wants to assist the WCB out of a deficit that the minister keeps saying will be $900 million in three years. The fluctuation of deficits and surpluses in the WCB changes each and every year.

Once again, this government didn't choose to reduce costs of WCB by preventing accidents, injuries or deaths. They chose to say: "If you're injured, you're going to have less." Mr. Chair, I'm proposing an amendment to

section 8,

section 22. [Section 22(1) is amended by adding the text highlighted by the underline: Subject to sections 34 and 35, if a permanent total disability results from a worker's injury, the Board must pay the worker compensation that is a periodic payment that equals 90 percent of the worker's average net earnings and must be payable during the lifetime of the worker.] I table it for you. Actually, Mr. Chair, the amendment is the entire set of pages, so I have a copy here for the minister. Or can I refer to this, and then I'll table yours? Yes. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, that copy is for the minister.

On the amendment. J. MacPhail: What this legislation does — let's be clear — is say that this government is eliminating life- time pensions for people who are injured on the job. That's the new-era version of assisting working people in this province. Every single time this minister rises to table legislation that affects working people — not their self-employed friends, not their real estate agents or their lawyers; ordinary working people who are in- jured or become ill while working — working people are worse off in this province. [1615] What this amendment does — it's rather lengthy — is amend

section 22(1) by adding text. It's a long amendment, but the thrust of this amendment is this. It is saying that lifetime pensions are deserved. There is no justification for removing that from injured or ill workers in this province. Eliminating lifetime pensions and replacing them with the post-retirement benefit is perhaps the most offensive change made in Bill 49. It is a direct attack on disabled workers. There's no other way of describing it. While this government gives tax breaks to the rich- est in the province, they take money out of the pockets of people who are injured on the job.

Workers who are injured or become ill as a result of a workplace accident or disease do not have the opportunity to pay into a pension fund and then reap the benefits of the pension from their employer. That's gone. That's what this leg- islation has done. And we're ramming this through, probably so we can ram something down the doctors' throats. The legislation doesn't allow for these workers to pay into an employer pension fund. They don't make contributions to CPP. Receiving a lifetime pension for a workplace accident ensures that they are financially provided for in their old age. That's what this does.

It makes them whole. It makes them whole as if they had continued to work and had not been injured or become ill. Taking away the lifetime pension off-loads the em- ployer's economic responsibility for workplace injuries

3698 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002 and diseases onto the public income assistance and health care system. That's a direct subsidy to employ- ers. Make no mistake about it. The minister will rise up and say: "Oh no. No, it isn't." But it is. This government that claims that no subsidies will be given to employers just received a giant one today. What this amendment does is take the government at its word that there shouldn't be employer subsidies — that the taxpayers shouldn't have to be responsible for the lifetime assistance of a person injured or who became ill on the job.

That's all it does. It's a lengthy amendment, but that's all it does. It says lifetime pen- sions are an appropriate payment by an employer when a worker is injured at work or has a disease as the result of his or her work. That's all it does. If this government is true to its commitment to re- move employer subsidies and not play cutesy, then every single Liberal member will rise and support this amendment. [1620-1625] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 2 MacPhail Kwan NAYS — 56 Falcon Coell Halsey-Brandt Cheema J.

Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Masi Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Lekstrom Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter On

section 8 (continued). J. MacPhail: I'll wait a minute, Mr. Chair, and I would appreciate it if the members could clear quickly. We have limited time. We've dealt with the system of removing the pen- sions, axing the lifetime pensions for working people. There's another change under this

section in the com- pensation for injured or ill workers. Under the current system disabled workers receive 75 percent of their gross income in compensation benefits. Under Bill 49, this legislation being brought in, workers will receive only 90 percent of their net income in benefits. This is 10 percent less than their net income. In addition, disabled workers, particularly those in a non-union workplace, also lose the contributions that would be made on his or her behalf if at work: vacation entitlements, a pension plan and medical and life in- surance.

To say that workers receive more on compen- sation than at work is false. It is a myth, but it is one spread by this government. Can the minister tell the House why workers dis- abled by a workplace accident or disease should re- ceive less money in workers compensation benefits than they regularly earn when they're at work? Hon. G. Bruce: I'll just canvass a few of those points. The member had wondered about the aspect of people receiving less, and that's what we're still talking about here, in the 90 percent of net versus th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0529pm-08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0529pm 08
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	42e0cfd3899644054e82be1f9fb848296677d1ef

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).