Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 9 -- Monday, June 12, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 9

[ Page 16421 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. S. Hammell: June 11 to 17 has been proclaimed Public Service Week

in British Columbia and in Canada. It's an opportunity for all of us to

recognize and celebrate the hard work and dedication of our employees. To mark

this occasion, it is my pleasure today to introduce Valerie Mitchell, the new

commissioner of the Public Service Employees Relations Commission. Val, who has

a master's degree in public administration, joined the B.C. public service in

1975. It will be my great pleasure later this year to present her with a 25-year

pin. Val has served as Deputy Minister of Education, Women's Equality, and

Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, and she is also currently

Deputy Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration. Would the House please make

her welcome.

L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today. First, we have Lynne

Dyson. Lynne is the director of child and family services for the Developmental

Disabilities Association. She is joined by Karen Larson, the assistant director

for preschool day care. I would ask the House to please make them very, very

welcome.

[1410]

V. Anderson: I'd like, on behalf of myself and the member for Alberni,

to advise the House that tomorrow at a quarter to two -- 1:45 -- the players and

the 1947 Hayes logging truck will be out in front of the Legislature for them to

learn about the historical McLean Mill. If they want to see it earlier, they can

go to the museum between 12 and one. I'd be delighted if the House would welcome

them as they come here.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have two groups to welcome. Visiting the House

today is Kelly Mann, the president and CEO of B.C. Games Society. B.C. Games is

responsible for coordinating with the host communities the events that showcase

the athletes of the province: the Northern B.C. Winter Games, the Summer Games,

the Winter Games, the Disability Games and the Seniors Games. The Summer Games

this year will open right here in Victoria on July 27, and I know we're all

looking forward to them. Would the House please make Kelly Mann welcome.

Also visiting in the gallery are two of my ministerial assistant's relatives:

Anna Russell from Vancouver and Samuel Russell from a great place -- that small

dusty village, Glasgow, Scotland. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: In the gallery today are 56 grades 5 and 6 students from

Mulgrave School. With them is their teacher, Ms. Neil, and several parents.

Would the House join me in making them welcome.

K. Krueger: Visiting the House for the first time today is a friend of

one of our highly prized interns, Jennifer Erickson. He's a young man named Mr.

Joshua Weiss, a Kamloops resident and UBC theatre student. I think most of us

who know and love this chamber would agree that if the young man wants to see

some theatre, he has come to the right place. I ask that the House make him

welcome.

G. Hogg: Visiting the Legislature today are 75 grades 6 and 7 students

from H.T. Thrift Elementary School in South Surrey, along with their principal,

Graham Mulligan; teacher, Lewis McKim; and legendary student, Whitney Buhlin.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

L. Boone: You know, hon. Speaker, I've never been one to spread a

rumour, and I really don't like to do that. But I did hear a rumour going around

the corridors of this building that it's your birthday today. I think that for a

man of 32, you look incredibly good, but you have gained a few grey hairs since

taking over this chair. I'm sure that everybody in this House would join me in

wishing our Speaker a very happy birthday.

R. Thorpe: If one's birthday is today, your horoscope states:

"You are optimistic and like to assume that life will serve you well."

Well, hon. Speaker, besides yourself there is someone else in this House

today who is celebrating a birthday. That individual has served British

Columbians and his constituents well for 15 years. So with pleasure, I extend

very best wishes to the member for Peace River South for a very happy sixtieth

birthday. May good health and happiness be yours.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. I can safely say it's been a great

day so far.

Introduction of Bills

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

[1415]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased to introduce the Definition of Spouse

Amendment Act, 2000. This bill amends a number of British Columbia statutes to

extend the rights and obligations of common-law couples to same-sex couples. In

particular, the bill amends the definition of spouse in those statutes that

already apply to common-law relationships, so that same-sex relationships are

also included, and builds on earlier legislative enactments that were brought

forward to achieve the same objective.

For example, amendments to several statutes will permit same-sex spouses to

own shares in professional corporations, where previously they were unable to do

so. These changes affect land surveyors, chiropractors, health professionals,

notaries and others. Similar changes enhance the rights of same-sex spouses

regarding the transfer of licences under the Range Act.

[ Page 16422 ]

The bill also amends statutes with conflict-of-interest provisions to ensure

that they apply equally to common-law and same-sex relationships. The amendments

represent an initial step in extending the conflict-of-interest prohibitions to

same-sex couples as they now apply to common-law couples.

Finally, the bill amends the wording of statutes that already refer to all

three types of spouse to ensure that a consistent definition is used throughout

British Columbia legislation.

I am pleased to introduce this bill, which continues this government's policy

of updating British Columbia's laws to provide for equality without regard to

sexual orientation. I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21 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.

Oral Questions

DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE

L. Reid: Last Monday the Minister for Children and Families told us

that today we would have an answer on the Draayers case. In fact, she assured us

over five times and in fact pleaded with us to be patient. Then the Premier told

us we would have a decision today. Would the minister tell us today why she has

promised that a decision would be available, and as of 2 o'clock, we have heard

nothing?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I appreciate the question from the hon. member,

and of course it's a totally legitimate question. My response is that the

director is finalizing his report. I understand it will be released this

afternoon, and I understand that he is likely to also make a media statement

this afternoon, after he has released it to . . . . Let me be clear

about this: he is releasing it to the children's commissioner later this

afternoon. That, I understand, will be done, and then he will be making a press

statement after that.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East with a supplemental

question.

L. Reid: The minister gave us her assurance that these little girls

would know today where they are going to live. The girls probably woke up today

thinking, "Today's the day" -- that they'd finally waited long enough.

Will this minister assure us today that by the close of business, those two

little girls will know where they will live?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I would have to say that I cannot give that

response, other than . . . . I can say this: it is my understanding

that the girls will have had a discussion from representatives of the ministry

about the director's report. That will tell them what the next steps will be, as

I understand it, as I have been informed. So by this afternoon that will be

clearer to them and hopefully to us as well.

C. Clark: A week ago the minister stood up in this House, and she was

able to tell us when those girls were going to know when they were going to go

home. A week ago she could stand up and make the promise that today those girls

would know when they were going to go home or where they were going to go --

today. So if it was good enough a week ago for the minister to stand up and tell

this House that, why can't she stand up today and keep her commitment and tell

us if those little girls are going to know what their future holds for them

tomorrow?

[1420]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the point that I

made just two seconds ago, and that is that the report will be sent to the

commissioner this afternoon. As members know, that is the process -- to the

commissioner this afternoon. A statement will be made, and the girls are going

to be having a conversation with representatives from the ministry this

afternoon about that report.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a

supplemental question.

C. Clark: This minister stood up in the House a week ago, and she has

stood up repeatedly and promised that she would have an answer for those girls

today. She said she would let those girls know what was happening with their

future today. And if that report comes out and it has no answer for those little

girls' future, what good is it? This minister stood up, and she said she would

let those girls know what was happening with their future today. So why can't

she stand up and keep her promise to those little girls and tell them what's

going to be happening when this minister's report comes out this afternoon?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The last time I looked, today isn't over yet.

It's regrettable that it's not here for now, because I'd have been happy to have

responded with it and about it in this chamber at this time. But that's not to

be the case. That is unfortunate, but this is the situation. It will be out this

afternoon, and that's still part of today when last I looked.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH

COMPLAINTS BACKLOG

K. Krueger: Last year in estimates the then Labour minister admitted

that the employment standards branch was taking up to 13 weeks just to open a

new file for new complaints -- not to start working on it but just to get it

open -- 13 weeks. And he said that was a worst-case scenario at the time.

We now have a document from the Labour ministry showing that one year later,

the wait time is getting much worse. It has now increased to 30 weeks in the

Vancouver area -- 30 weeks just to open the file. Can the Labour minister

explain why the backlog of employment standards complaints is increasing

throughout the province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope that my critic opposite is joining to say

that this is unacceptable, as do I find it unacceptable. But we will be able to

discuss this in estimates, because this year the budget for the employment

standards branch was raised by $1 million in order to deal with the backlog.

There will be a report out during estimates for the member opposite about how

the backlog is decreasing.

We've also . . . . The previous Minister of Labour had a campaign

across the province to inform employers and employees of their rights to know

under the employment

[ Page 16423 ]

standards legislation advising people of what action is available to both

employers and employees. But this budget brought in in the year 2000 has

increased the budget, and that's specifically to deal with the backlog in

employment standards complaints.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a

supplemental question.

K. Krueger: You bet, hon. Speaker. The opposition agrees that this is

totally unacceptable. Thirteen weeks was unacceptable last year; 30 weeks as an

NDP accomplishment for this year is totally unacceptable as well. And we wonder

why workers aren't a priority with this government and why they weren't a

priority prior to this budget.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: Let me provide the minister with an example of the kind of

frustration that employees are facing all over B.C., including the areas of the

many members opposite that are heckling. This is a serious matter. The backlog

to begin investigating employment standards complaints in Nanaimo is 27 weeks;

the backlog in Prince George is 27 weeks; the backlog in Victoria is 23 weeks.

So can the Labour minister tell us what on earth workers are supposed to do for

seven to eight months while they're waiting to get a return phone call from the

employment standards branch?

[1425]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Speaker, I actually thought the first

question meant that we weren't going to engage in silly partisan politics; but

clearly we're wrong. It is unbelievable that this particular member, the member

for Kamloops-North Thompson, would stand up here under the guise of supporting

the rights of workers when he is clearly on record, as are the rest of the

members opposite, for not caring a whit about workers' rights. In fact, they

would do away with employment standards. They would prefer to have no waiting

period, because they would prefer to not have any rights or protections for

workers under that. That's how they'd get rid of the waiting period, hon.

Speaker.

And further to that, even if they did have some diluted form of employment

standards -- on which they campaign regularly and often with the business

community in their giveaways to the business community -- they would not have

any enforcement of it either. On this side of the House, we've invested more

money in employment standards. We've made administrative changes so that there's

quicker and easier processing of the claims. Employment standards have also been

greatly strengthened under this government -- one more reason to keep the new

government in office.

COST OF USING CFI MARKETING ARM

TO SELL FAST FERRIES

M. de Jong: Well, having obviously solved all of the problems over at

the Labour ministry, let's have a look at the other aspect of the minister's

responsibilities. Let's go back to fast ferries, shall we? From day one, when

this whole ferry fiasco began, the NDP touted the business development arm of

Catamaran Ferries International as the agency that was going to sell fast

ferries all over the world. Well, now we hear that Oksana Exell and her

marketing experts are out looking for work while the government hires its own

outside consultants to sell the ferries.

So the first question to the minister is: will she confirm that the

government, the NDP, spent $3 million -- wasted $3 million -- on the failed

marketing arm of CFI?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know the exact figure, but I'm not going to

deny the exact figure that the hon. member says. But I'll make sure that it gets

accurate.

But let me just say that the wind-down of Catamaran Ferries International was

announced when the Minister of Finance and I announced putting the Ferry

Corporation in a solvent position and also announced the sale of the fast

ferries.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oksana Exell represented the marketing strategy for

the technology of fast ferries, of the Pacificats. Given the decision by this

government to not build any more fast ferries, it made sense to wind down CFI.

We have since chosen a marketing company with worldwide experience not only in

building fast ferries but in selling them -- a perfect combination.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: I'm sure the minister and the government would like to

turn the page on this unseemly

chapter in their history as government.

But you know, the glossy brochures are quite something, and they were all

produced by CFI. It's really not surprising, when you look at them, why there

weren't any sales, because they're full of misinformation. The brochures state

that the light-load speed was 44 knots -- it didn't quite get there -- and that

wake and wash were going to be less than expected. Well, the opposite was true.

And on one of the smaller design models, the capacity for the vehicle -- wait

for it, Mr. Speaker -- was listed as 10,000 passengers. Now, what would that do

for . . .

An Hon. Member: Wait lines.

M. de Jong: . . . wait lines at the various ferry

terminals?

Look, I actually thought about going to the Ministry of consumer and

corporate affairs to ask about false advertising, but let's go to the minister

and ask her to explain and confirm that it's no wonder that CFI's marketing arm

didn't sell any ferries. Just like the entire project, they weren't telling the

truth. They couldn't even get their sales brochures correct.

HELICOPTER TOURISM

LICENCE APPLICATIONS

T. Nebbeling: Six years ago, Mr. Speaker, Blackcomb Helicopters, a

small helicopter operation in the Sea to Sky corridor, applied for a licence to

enter onto BCAL lands to bring sightseers and hikers into remote areas in this

province. Well, during those six years Blackcomb Helicopters has seen nothing

but requests for studies, moratoriums and policy

[ Page 16424 ]

reviews, but no licence. So my question is to the minister responsible for

BCAL. The question is this: how many more studies are going to be necessary

before this small helicopter operator is going to get a licence that will

finally grant him access to Crown land?

[1430]

Hon. C. Evans: I don't know the answer to that particular application.

I'll take it on notice and get back to you.

The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has a new

question.

T. Nebbeling: Yes. This is a different company. This is a company that

has been in operation for 25 years in the Sea to Sky corridor also providing

helicopter service for tourists. With the introduction of the new back-country

policies, the ministry decided that this company had to cease and desist, lay

off all their employees -- regardless of the millions of dollars of investment

they had in helicopters -- until such time that an application could be

considered for doing exactly what this company has done for 25 years. Can the

minister responsible for BCAL explain to me how, first of all, an operation of

25 years is basically told to cease and desist and then has to wait two years

before they even get the response for further consideration?

Hon. C. Evans: I find it somewhat amazing. I went to estimates, and I

brought the CEO of BCAL. We went through applications one by one. Hon. Speaker,

it may not surprise you to know that this hon. gentleman never stood up and

asked those questions when we had the staff in the room, when we could have got

him a specific answer. I actually don't think the hon. member cares about the

answer to that specific question, or he'd have gone to estimates and asked.

I am incredibly proud of BCAL's actions in the last 60 days. For the first

time, the Ministry of Environment and the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation are

working from the same page. We signed an agreement that there will be helicopter

skiing and helicopter tourism where the Ministry of Environment says there is no

damage to grizzly bears, mountain goats or mountain caribou. That's responsible

action. If the hon. member even cared, he'd have gone to the meeting, where he

could have asked the question and got the answer.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I guess I should wait for the opposition to chill out

after a stressful weekend or something.

In this House, I want to call second reading on Bill 20. In the small

chamber, I want to call Committee of Supply. We are debating the estimates of

the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

[1435]

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading of Bill 20, the Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2000 to allow for the introduction of motor-assisted cycles. As

you know, June is Bike Month. Last week people celebrated Bike to Work Week. For

a few days of the year, anyway, people who normally take their cars to work

experience for themselves the joy of biking to work. It meant an easier pace and

less frustration for hundreds of commuters who so often must navigate streets

and roads clogged with larger passenger vehicles.

We believe that encouraging people to use motor-assisted cycles will add to

the pleasure that people experience while riding ordinary bicycles. It

encourages more people to get fit by offering them a reprieve from the fatigue

of pedalling. It also provides a potential benefit to B.C.'s cycling retail

industry. What this legislation provides for is the elimination of registration

requirements for motor-assisted cycles. We hope that will encourage more people

to take advantage of a new mode of transportation. That, in turn, promotes

growth for bicycle retailers. The amendment also makes it easier for people to

take advantage of an increasingly popular mode of transportation while

maintaining strict safety standards.

While I would like to say that we're the first jurisdiction to introduce

motor-assisted cycles as being classified as a bicycle rather than a motorcycle,

unfortunately, I can't claim this. It will please the opposition to know that

the bastion of Alberta already allows motor-assisted cycles to be on the road as

bicycles, as do the states of Washington and California. The legislation

provides for regulation which will restrict the type of motor and the power of

the motor in order for a bicycle to be classified as a motor-assisted cycle and

therefore be exempt from the licensing registration of it being a motor vehicle.

This is good news for people, particularly older people, who want to ride a

bicycle but, unfortunately, due to the geography or the terrain of a certain

area, can't make the commute to work. This will allow, on the basis of human

power, for a motor to kick in on a bicycle and allow that person then to revert

to human power. The cycle has to have pedals on it so that there won't be any

question about what is a bicycle, etc. Pretty much everything has been covered

off. It's wonderful news in this month of Bike Month, and last week was

Environment Week. The combination really is good news. It's a step forward for

people in British Columbia, and I look forward to all members of the House

taking this issue up in support.

D. Jarvis: In response to the minister, I hope she wasn't making that

face at me. In any event, we are not too concerned with this bill and the way

it's been presented. We all enjoy biking; I bike as much as I can. However, I

don't seem to be propelled forward; I usually sit on it in my basement,

pedalling my bike; it's the same type of vehicle, having a pedal and a crank.

And if I do hit anyone, I won't be affected by the $250 CRC, the crash charge

that the minister's ICBC has.

However, there are a couple of small concerns that aren't really of too much

importance -- I hope not, anyway -- and that is to deal with the fact that this

bill pertains to cycles that can be motorized. One that was brought to my

attention by one of my colleagues was the fact that it was . . . .

Would it be the motors . . . ? Are there any restrictions as to the

size of the motors? Will it be a two-stroke motor? If it is a two-stroke

[ Page 16425 ]

motor, then we're looking forward to seeing a situation where they have, you

know, talked about environmentally unfriendly vehicles, because they discharge a

lot of smoke and all the rest of it, and we'd be like another one of the Third

World countries.

Other than that, I assume that it does not apply to motorized scooters. There

was another question brought up which I think this does not include, and that is

with regards to the present problem that's coming up in the future with

motorized skateboards. If you weren't aware of it, that is the latest rage right

now. That is ostensibly some type of a cycle.

[1440]

The last thing I had to question of the minister was the fact that the

requirements of licensing under this . . . . No one under 16 can

operate one of these vehicles. Would they go under the same requirements as the

rest of the Motor Vehicle Act, as it applies to new drivers of new vehicles? In

other words, would they have that famous N drivers program apply to any person

who did not have a driver's licence at this stage -- what's that, 16 or over?

So having said that, unless the minister can confirm that my concerns

wouldn't be any problem, then we are more in favour of accepting this bill as

presented.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I want to say that I rise to speak in support of this

bill with a very personal interest in it as well, since this was something that

I have been trying to get before this Legislature for several years now. I want

to just talk a little bit. I will address in my comments some of the hon.

member's questions.

As the minister has said, this is simply removing a barrier that has existed

in the Motor Vehicle Act for people who choose to ride their bicycles and may

wish to strap on one of those velcro battery packs that are freely available,

certainly across the line in the United States. They are even available in some

of the bike stores in Victoria and the lower mainland. But as is often the case,

there are unintended barriers to buying these packages. Theoretically, until

this House passes the bill, it would be illegal to put one of those on your

bicycle without then going and getting a licence, and taillights, insurance,

etc.

I want to tell hon. members just how I came to be a great fan of this small

but, I think, very significant change. I want to mention someone by name, who

called me, I guess, about three or four years ago. His name is Brian Dietrich.

He works as a staff person for B.C. Hydro. He knew about my environment bent,

and he said -- my name, of course, which I can't repeat in this House right now

-- "surely, with all of the legislation that we pass in this province, we

can find a way to fix this."

Hon. Speaker, I thought it would be a matter of a month or two when I could

find a way through a policy or a regulation change to remove this barrier to a

motor-assisted cycle. Well, here it is four years later. I think several cabinet

ministers who have had responsibility for ICBC have been badgered by me many,

many times. I am very pleased to see that it's here in front of us.

The thing is, however -- and the hon. minister has mentioned -- that we are

acting ahead of other provinces. But I do want to say that the technology around

transportation, the alternative to the private automobile, is changing so

quickly that I have no doubt that by the time we actually consult on the

regulations that will go with this piece of legislation, there will be several

more small technology kits on the market, and we will have to decide just how

far we want to extend the regulation that goes with this legislation. I can

assure the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour that there is no intent in

this piece of legislation to allow two-stroke engines or to go into the whole

internal combustion kind of moped or anything else.

[1445]

One of the goals, one of the benefits, of this piece of legislation is to

clean up the air, avoid the use of fossil fuels and provide a viable, alternate

transportation form not only for recreational purposes but for the growing

number of people who actually would commute to work -- except that, perhaps from

either a physical perspective or a fitness perspective or an age perspective,

they just feel that they can't quite handle the bicycle on their own.

I include myself in that category. Just this weekend I was very pleased to

open another

section of the north-south bike route in my own community of

Burnaby. It happens to be the one that connects my house, and I could ride it up

to my community office. However, there is a rather steep hill. I just have sort

of a 10-year-old, 10-speed bicycle, and I find that I can't quite handle that.

But with this piece of legislation, attaching that small Velcro battery pack on

that bicycle would actually make it viable for me to commute to my constituency

office, which I would be very, very happy to do.

Some of the other benefits that this small innovative change would bring

about -- and the hon. minister mentioned this . . . . It does

provide additional, albeit small, economic opportunity in the various cities and

towns of our province. I know that when people found out that I was working on

this small amendment, I was contacted by a number of bike shops which said:

"Look, you know, we'd bring these kits in here if in fact we could sell

them to our customers in good conscience, without them having to go and buy

$1,200 or $1,500 worth of insurance." Everyone realizes that that just

doesn't really make sense.

So I think that there are many opportunities here. This is only one of the

first kinds of innovation changes that we need to make to the Motor Vehicle Act.

I know Transport Canada is working very hard on how they're going to accommodate

the new technologies, whether hybrid-fuel vehicles or Ballard fuel cell

vehicles. The fact is that with the growing awareness of greenhouse gases and

climate change, we need -- especially in urban areas -- to reduce traffic

congestion and to find much more environmentally friendly ways to move people.

The step we are discussing this afternoon, today, in this Legislature is one

small step, but it is an indication of a direction that we need to go to make

sure that we remove the barriers to doing that.

With that, I hope that hon. members in the House will support this small

amendment. I know that when we get through this bill and it receives royal

assent -- which I dearly hope it will -- I have a file this thick in my office.

I'm going to be able to contact people, and there are going to be a lot of

people who are going to be very happy about this small but very practical change

that government can make to accommodate environmentally friendly transportation.

Thank you. I'm pleased to support this bill.

D. Symons: I rise to speak on second reading of this particular bill

as well. I just have a few questions, more than

[ Page 16426 ]

comments, relating to the bill. I hear some terms used, and I would gather

that there is a distinction between "motor" and "engine."

The previous speaker indicated that we were dealing with battery packs. I assume

that when you say "motor," then, that means it is electric power only.

So I will be looking and probably asking these questions throughout the

committee stage of the bill.

My concern also, however, is liability. I have concerns now with bicyclists

and also with this particular one that's going to have motorized cycles on the

roadway. In the event that somebody sideswipes your car or scratches along it,

the expense can be considerable to have a car painted nowadays. Where is the

liability going to come from and how are we going to manage to cover that?

I'm sure that if you go into ICBC and just say, "Somebody went along the

side of my car," they'll say, "Have you any witnesses? Have you a

licence plate number, some way we can identify the person who damaged your

car?" And there is some way of then following through on that claim.

Indeed, in this case that may not be the case.

So I think these are issues that will have to be addressed. They're going to

come up sometime in the future if not when we discuss the bill. When the bill

becomes law, certainly it's going to come up in the public domain as the

consequences of these particular circumstances may occur. So it's something I

just want us to be aware of, to consider. Maybe you'll have some answers for us

during the committee stage.

[1450]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can't possible allow legislation affecting

bicycles to pass without offering a few supportive comments. The minister

responsible for ICBC referenced in introducing the bill that last week was Bike

to Work Week. It was also a very proud week for us in Greater Victoria, because

we were declared the bicycle capital of Canada -- by official provincial

proclamation, no less -- based on the fact that 5 percent of all residents in

Greater Victoria cycle to and from work, more than 2.5 times our nearest

competitor, which is that other capital city back east known as Ottawa.

I've just heard today that the numbers of people who participated in Bike to

Work Week in Victoria was higher than it has ever been in the past, and that, in

this community at least, there is a huge commitment to alternative

transportation -- in particular, bicycle transportation -- that has started to

materialize in recent years and is building. And that rate of usage of bicycle

commuters in Victoria almost matches -- not quite, but close -- the number of

people who use public transit, so it's a very significant alternative form of

transportation.

The whole mission of Bike to Work Week is to try to broaden that circle and

try to encourage more people, more individuals, to use bicycles as an

alternative -- either to commute to work or for recreational opportunities --

and by doing that enhance a cleaner environment and cleaner air, encourage

people to become healthier through the exercise and get more people to enjoy the

experience of cycling to and from work and cycling for recreation.

What this legislation does is enable that circle to broaden further. I must

say, when I first heard about the legislation, I was a little concerned. It

refers to motor-assisted bicycles, and one worries, under those circumstances:

"What is this going to mean? Are these going to be large, noisy or

intrusive motors that assist these cycles?" I've been reassured that in

fact they are not. They're quiet; they're small. But they can make the

difference for people who are elderly, for people who may have a disability, for

people who are frail for one reason or another. It can make the difference

between being able to bicycle and not being able to bicycle.

It seems to me that if we can -- in an environmentally friendly,

non-intrusive way -- broaden the opportunities for cycling to a whole new

category of users, then that is a very positive step indeed, and I expect that

one of the results here in Greater Victoria is that we will see those numbers

rise beyond the extraordinary level of cycling that already occurs.

Beyond that, cycling is becoming more and more an alternative right across

the province. So if I could speak a little less parochially . . . .

There has been huge effort in recent years by government to invest in cycling as

an alternative. There is a cycling network program, which now provides matching

grants to municipalities. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which

used to be seen as an anti-cycling ministry, is now seen as a pro-cycling

ministry. In fact, I even saw the minister wearing a Bike to Work T-shirt last

week, he was so pro-cycling.

An Hon. Member: He didn't actually bike, but he was wearing a shirt.

Hon. A. Petter: No, I think he actually got on his bicycle too --

perhaps just to justify getting the T-shirt, but nonetheless, he actually got on

his bicycle as well. He, I think, epitomizes a change in the whole mentality of

transportation in this province within the provincial government and beyond.

Those grants have gone a long way to add bicycle infrastructure and bicycle

lanes on roadways throughout the province. In addition, the Transportation

Financing Authority has committed $5 million to the Trans Canada Trail

development right across southern British Columbia -- a magnificent project from

sea to sea, right across Canada, that unites this country. That investment will

assist in the development of that trail.

Recently advisory committees have been set up by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to give advice on how to integrate bicycle

infrastructure into highway design. Just a few years ago, I had to fight, along

with other local MLAs, to convince Transportation and Highways to have a bicycle

lane in the McKenzie interchange and along the Trans Canada Trail. Now not only

are they willing to do that, but they have an advisory committee made up of

cyclists to assist them in doing that.

Last week a new brochure on bicycle safety was put out, sponsored in part by

the provincial government. Through the B.C. 2000 program, a number of projects

to enhance bicycle infrastructure have been supported.

[1455]

So this legislation is a small but significant part of a much larger

development not only in greater Victoria, where I have the pleasure of pursuing

my own bicycle interests, but right across the province. I hope it will send a

signal that bicycling is an alternative for people of all ages and all walks of

life and even people who may suffer from disabilities and others, for whom these

motor-assisted cycles can provide the opportunity to enjoy the experience that

so many are starting to enjoy more and more each day.

[ Page 16427 ]

For that reason, I am delighted to say that I will be supporting this

legislation, and I encourage all other members to do so as well.

Hon. G. Wilson: I had originally not intended to speak to Bill 20,

although I certainly am very supportive and pleased with it. Listening to the

debate, I think there is one aspect of this bill that we need to reflect on. It

deals with more than just the provision of motor-assisted cycling for those who

may need some assistance in moving their bicycle because of whatever, as the

Attorney General has just mentioned. It speaks more to what I think we, as

British Columbians and Canadians, need to start to focus on in a broader

context. Often a small and somewhat insignificant bill such as this may go by

unnoticed. Some might even smile and think it's humorous that it should in fact

enjoy a bill all of its own, when issues far more fundamental and perhaps far

more important are covered in miscellaneous bills.

What is interesting about this particular bill is that it sends a signal, I

think, with respect to the commitment that this government is making to try

wherever possible, to remove the obstacles toward a general shift in local --

and I stress local -- transportation.

One of the things in this ministry, the Ministry of Employment and

Investment, that we are facing -- and it's something that I think is interesting

-- is the extent to which, on the global marketplace now, this notion of the

amount of carbon emissions into the atmosphere is becoming a more fundamental

part of, or component, with respect to trade and trade agreements. The single

greatest contributor, more so in the developing world than in our own country,

is local transportation, particularly the use of two-stroke engines.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour asked the question as to whether or

not we were dealing with two-stroke engines here. In fact, we're not -- quite

the contrary. We're moving to small, environmentally friendly, unobtrusive,

often electric engines, which are electrically charged through the actual

pedalling of the bike itself. Although the bill isn't clear on that, that in

effect is what we're doing. Much as people will remember, who remember the old

generators bicycles had that ran the little electric lights so that as you ran

it, it would generate enough to be able to run the electric light, so you could

see if you were pedalling in the dark.

The interesting thing about this is that when we start to look at trade

agreements now, the whole notion of carbon balance is becoming a very important

consideration. It is interesting when we look at the shift, or the attempted

shift, to get people out of their cars in the lower mainland and into transit.

If we look at the amount of money that we are starting to put into the

renovation of facilities such as the first crossing of the Lions Gate Bridge and

the controversy that surrounds local neighbourhoods around whether we should

have three or four lanes in Stanley Park and whether we should have cycle lanes

and so on . . . . All that seems to get lost in the discussion at

the local level where in fact we are now starting, through the measuring of our

atmosphere, to recognize that it is becoming a much, much more important

indicator of whether or not we are a net contributor to carbon emission.

Just to show you how important this is, we start to look at new and expanding

technologies beyond the technology that allows for motor-assisted bicycles, and

that is in the development of fuel cell technology in particular. I had the

occasion the other evening to have dinner with the individual, Mr. Tsang, who is

the senior administrator of Hong Kong. He talked about the issues they had

associated with air pollution in that small community. Anybody who has ever been

to Singapore -- or if you've been to Thailand or Indonesia generally -- will

know that in the urban areas, one of the single greatest difficulties is

breathing the air. The reason is because of the high use of diesel, two-stroke

engines and automobile and gasoline engines.

[1500]

In British Columbia we tend to find that less a problem, because we don't see

it. But that doesn't mean that we're not becoming contributors. It is

interesting that when we start to talk about our trade agreements, more and more

of the discussion that is taking place at the international level now is: what

is Canada doing on the national level and what are we doing on the provincial

level to try to mitigate net increases in carbon emission? What we do find is

that Canada is in fact becoming a world leader with respect to initiatives, and

most of that is actually coming out of the province of British Columbia.

Just to put it into perspective, again, I don't want to overstate the

importance of this particular bill in finding a solution, but I think it does

speak to an issue that all British Columbians are going to have to address in

future years, regardless of who may form government and be governing. The fact

is that the government of the day in the next five to ten years is going to have

to make a decision around what we are going to do in the net balance, in terms

of credit and debit on the carbon side. Our forests are deemed to be carbon

sinks and therefore give us huge credits because they are able to absorb carbon

from the atmosphere, as opposed to the industrial heartland which in fact is a

net carbon contributor. It is therefore going to become, on the national level,

far more attractive for them to suggest that we in British Columbia take the

lead and in taking the lead, not only that we look to reduce our emissions

through initiatives such as we see in this bill here, in Bill 20, but that we

also, in trying to take those initiatives, take the lead on the broader scale

with respect to the carbon sink initiative.

That has its benefits, but it also has it costs. The costs associated

obviously will impact on smaller rural communities. It is interesting that while

this is in itself a bill that largely, I think, can go by -- and it can go by

with little fanfare -- it points the way to a shift away from the use of private

automobiles, a shift away from two-stroke engines and the movement toward

voluntary . . . . I stress the word because so far in British

Columbia, it is a voluntary shift toward local transportation that has less

environmental impact.

We know that in some jurisdictions those actions are no longer voluntary, but

in fact those actions have been legislated. It provides us a tremendous

opportunity for people who want to get into the business side of motorized

bicycles or other kinds of shifting in terms of local transportation. It

provides a huge business opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of

those new markets. I can tell you that in an economy such as Hong Kong, where we

have a large number of people who in fact travel on bicycles as on other modes

of transportation which create, through the automotive industry, the difficulty

in the air pollution, this kind of a bill is something, obviously, that they

look to for leadership, because they do understand that it does move people

toward that shift.

In looking at Bill 20 . . . . The reason that I want to put this

on the table is because it's an issue that we haven't spent

[ Page 16428 ]

much time talking about in this Legislative Assembly. There probably are not

likely to be opportunities in the next few weeks to be able to do so. But I

caution -- and I put out a very strong caution to those of us who are now in a

position to provide leadership with respect to a direction -- that we in British

Columbia have to take seriously the notion of clean air, the need to move away

from a high dependency on carbon-based fuels. We need to take the initiatives

that are necessary to get us out of a single-driver automotive commuter pattern,

which tells us that we are going to be able to continue to take our vehicles

into the city as a mode of transportation to work or to what other activities we

may be doing. We have to take that seriously.

Today I notice the debate that is now starting to rage around the issue of

the levy on single automobiles, the idea that TransLink is trying to move people

into commuter transit. This is just such an initiative, slightly more benign.

It's far less expensive to the automotive driver, but nevertheless important,

because it does provide an opportunity for more people, who might generally say,

"Well, I can't get on a bicycle because I physically can't get to and from

where I have to be because of terrain, because of geography, because of

distance," or whatever the cases may be. It now allows them that

opportunity.

[1505]

It does seem almost cute, in a way, that people say: "Well, this notion

of using the bicycle to get to work is something that is only held by those who

are the most green of green." But it is an issue that is going to come to

the fore. If you look at the ambient air quality of the lower mainland, I would

suggest that those members who represent constituents from the Fraser Valley,

particularly the upper Fraser Valley, will be quick to tell you that our ambient

air quality in the lower mainland is declining -- and declining very, very

quickly. That is going to have an impact on the lives and the health of British

Columbians in terms of their inability to breathe clean air and their inability

to, in the long term, raise their children in an atmosphere and a climate that

is going to provide them some security.

So this is an issue. It is a serious issue on the international scale, where

the notion of carbon balance is becoming a key indicator with respect to

international trade agreements, with industry as well as with local

transportation.

It's an issue, secondly, with respect to local transportation and the notion

that we are now going to have to start to plan to allow for a different type of

local transportation to prevail. It means that we can reduce enormous costs

associated with large highway projects. I mentioned the First Narrows bridge and

the difficulties we have now with trying to accommodate everybody who wants to

drive to work as a single driver in their own automobile.

Thirdly, it does provide an initiative, albeit very small in scope, under

Bill 20. It certainly does provide an initiative for British Columbians to

demonstrate that where there are obstacles, where there is red tape, where there

are problems associated with moving in this direction, the government is

prepared to move, and to move fairly quickly, with respect to the elimination of

those problems.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill 20. As I say, it's an

initiative that may over time be seen to have far greater importance than

perhaps we might see today, particularly in light of the fact that . . . .

I think most in this House would recognize that it's a bill that will be

initially only used by a few. But who knows? In the long term it may in fact

become a mode of transportation that will assist many.

J. Cashore: I'm very pleased to rise in support of Bill 20 and this

initiative. It may seem like a very small step in a large screen of issues that

need to be considered in seeking to achieve a green economy and an environment

that is increasingly healthy -- and healthy for future generations. Therefore in

considering Bill 20, I want to focus on two aspects. One is how this initiative

may relate to that portion of our population which is aging and also how it may

relate to people who have the physical ability to ride a bicycle but sometimes

-- due to what may in itself be a problem caused by air pollution -- may be

suffering from respiratory problems which would have an effect on one's ability

to manoeuvre a bicycle on some of the steeper hills.

[1510]

I want to talk about a man I know in Coquitlam by the name of Tim Pollock,

who recently turned 75. In a few days Tim will be taking his place along with a

few hundred cyclists, and they will be cycling from Seattle, Washington, to

Washington, D.C., to raise the concerns that are brought forward by the American

Lung Association.

Indeed, as the other members have stated, this is a wide-ranging issue that

doesn't only deal with what we might think of as green, but also deals with what

we would think of as health. We discover that green initiatives are health

initiatives. As the previous speaker has pointed out, often at times when we

have the problems that occur in locations such as Los Angeles and the lower

Fraser Valley, we will have air inversions, where the pollutants are kept in

areas where human beings have to breathe that polluted air. We know the cost to

our health system of the increase in respiratory illnesses that show up at

emergency wards in hospitals, and the additional cost to the taxpayer.

Tim Pollock, as he embarks on this cycling tour at the age of 75 . . . .

Lest anyone think that he might be having a bit of a break at night, he has to

pitch his own tent, cook his own meal and then carry on the next day. Also,

prior to even entering into this initiative, each of the participants is

challenged to raise over $10,000 to raise the interest of all people with regard

to heart and lung problems.

The thought of a 75-year-old man cycling over the Stevens Pass and onward

across the Great Plains and through some of the other hilly areas en route with

regard to this adventure is inspiring for someone such as myself who is ten

years younger. I think of just a few months ago when I needed to get to my

office, which is about five kilometres away. I live up on a hill. It wasn't

difficult riding my bike to my office and then wheeling it inside the office and

leaving it up against the wall, because it was downhill most of the way. But I

can tell you that when I rode the bike home that Saturday afternoon, when I got

home I was sweating, and I was beat. It made me think about my conditioning.

But in the context of Bill 20, it also reminds me that for people who might

think, "Well, I don't want to go through that again; that's too difficult

an experience," here's an opportunity for access that prior to that would

not have been available. A person will be out there getting the exercise, which

is in itself good for health, by pedalling in the flat areas. I know that the

Attorney General a few moments ago was

[ Page 16429 ]

mentioning such things as the Galloping Goose Trail here in Victoria and the

Trans Canada Trail. Yet I think that for many British Columbians, the people in

Victoria have it rather good, because so many of those cycling trails are on

relatively flat ground.

But the thought that people who may be suffering from respiratory illnesses

and those who may be just experiencing the aches and pains that come with aging

are able to get this kind of assistance and still have access to and participate

in a healthy lifestyle and have the independence of knowing that they can get

around without that causing them a really serious problem, I think, in a small

way adds to what we are trying to achieve in the green initiative.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Environment for the work that she has

been undertaking, for quite some time now, in enabling government to have a

screen of the various ways in which the green economy and initiatives that are

green might be brought to bear. It's quite remarkable to see that the list is

indeed a long list. This is one small part of it, but it's a part of it that

makes sense. It means that we can take this initiative and recognize that we'll

be seeing more people being able to access the kinds of facilities that are

being made available in trails -- the Trans Canada Trail -- so that more and

more people will be able to make use of this kind of opportunity.

[1515]

The initiative, on a grand scale, is not a huge initiative. But when we look

at the part that it plays and not only what it helps to achieve but also what it

symbolizes -- and the fact that through this initiative more people can find

access to participating in that which is a green initiative -- that, I think, is

part of helping to move that drive towards a greener economy and a greener

environment in the right direction. So I'm very pleased to take my place in this

debate and to encourage all members of the House to enthusiastically support it.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Deputy Premier to close

debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's been a good debate. It's interesting --

the amount of support on this side of the House. It's the commitment that people

have towards the whole issue of alternate modes of transportation, particularly

cycling, and how this bill supports that. So I'm delighted that so many people

joined in to support this legislation.

There have been some questions raised by the opposition around the

application of the amendment through regulation. Let me just give a general

reassurance to the members opposite that a motor-assisted cycle is to be treated

as a bicycle. In terms of the power pack, it is to carry on as if a person were

pedalling and nothing beyond that. That's the general principle under which the

regulations will be drafted. I'm sure there would be an opportunity, if asked

for by the opposition, to have input into those regulations. Or maybe they'll be

joining the group in their capacity as bicycle riders themselves. I look forward

to that, and I hope that the answers to the opposition's questions can be given

in further detail in committee stage. I would now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act 2000, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 15.

TOBACCO DAMAGES AND HEALTH CARE

COSTS RECOVERY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; T. Stevenson in

the chair.

section 1.

C. Hansen: I don't have a lot of questions to ask, but I will ask them

in the context of

section 1. If the minister has any suggestions as to where any

of these questions should be better directed to another section, I'd certainly

take that advice.

When we were in the estimates debate, we had a discussion about the legal

fees that were involved in this particular case. I want to go back to the

questions that were made in committee stage last year, when amendments to what

was then the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act were brought in.

I specifically asked the Attorney General in the area of legal fees: "I

would like the Attorney General to undertake to advise us on what the cost of

the legal fees are to date in the preparation of this particular court

case." The then-Attorney General responded by saying: "I'd be happy to

take a look at that issue, as well, and speak to the hon. member."

[1520]

Certainly I didn't have any feedback from that. I know that the minister,

when we were in estimates, was talking about solicitor-client privilege. My

understanding of solicitor-client privilege, in this case, is that in fact the

minister is the client, and the only issue surrounding solicitor-client

privilege in this particular case is his own desire to not have these facts come

to light at this stage. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to respond to that by saying what I

said later in the estimates -- I think when the member was away. I would be more

than happy to release the figures once the case is concluded.

C. Hansen: No, I was not away; I was very much present at that point.

In fact, I think that was in response to questions that I had put to the

minister.

But in this case the concern is that we may be racking up a very significant

legal bill on this process. The whole pursuit of this legislation, in my

opinion, is all about revenue to government. This particular legislation will

not have the effect of even one person in British Columbia ceasing smoking; nor

will it have the effect of stopping anybody from smoking. It's all about revenue

to government. The issue that is of concern is that if we're going to wind up

with a court case that's going to drag on for years and years, the public will

not have any ability to find out what this case is costing the taxpayers of

British Columbia. How many dollars are being diverted away from health care in

pursuit of this? Then we have to question what the upside of it is at the end,

in terms of any realistic possibility of revenue to government that's going to

cover the court case, never mind wind up with more money into the provincial

coffers as a result of it. So I'm wondering if the minister can explain why, in

his opinion, is that a number he's not prepared to make public until the end of

the process.

[ Page 16430 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. First, in terms of

not being prepared to release the number at this time, that has a bearing in

terms of the case and how the tobacco companies perceive the movement of the

case and the type of resources that government is prepared to devote to it. So

we really don't want to, in a sense, give away part of our strategy. The second

point that I'd also like to make is that, again . . . . I repeat, as

I said, that we'll commit to releasing the cost of the case when the case is

concluded.

But I also think it's important to note . . . . The member makes

a point about court case costs escalating. So are the health care costs to

British Columbians from smoking and the use of tobacco-related products. Over

the long term, that is a number that is enormous compared to the costs of

litigation. Following what's happening in other jurisdictions, I think that ours

is the model to take, including this legislation, and is now being used by

Newfoundland and other provinces. I think it's pretty clear that other provinces

are moving in the same direction as we are. I would like to see the case move as

quickly as possible, but certainly this is the way we're going, and it's the way

that other provinces are going as well.

C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister: given that every year this

chamber is presented with a wholesale rewrite of this bill in order to get

around the constitutional issues that this government is faced with, can the

minister tell us whether or not we are going to face yet more amendments to this

legislation next year in order to facilitate the government's court case?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the changes to this bill as opposed to

the previous bill, there is some tightening up of language, which I think is a

good thing. But it in no way jeopardizes the sections of the legislation. The

key issue is that the one

section that the court found to be unconstitutional --

that of extraterritoriality -- was removed from the bill, and all the other

points upon which the court ruled we were well within our rights remain in the

bill. So it is our expectation that the bill is sound, and we'll proceed on that

basis.

[1525]

C. Hansen: I'd just like to point out that we had similar kinds of

assurances in years gone by. So there is certainly, as we pointed out in second

reading debate -- as I noted, and as did my colleague from Richmond-Steveston --

a great deal of cynicism about this particular legislation. But with that, I

have no further questions.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 17.

PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; T. Stevenson in

the chair.

[1530]

section 1.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister could help me. We have sections 1 through

19, and then there are schedules A, B, C and D. I would propose that we could

just ask a few questions that would cover sections 1 through 19, then pass that

and then pass each schedule. If that's to her liking, I'll continue that way.

Hon. J. Sawicki: That's fine, hon. Chair, if that's how the hon.

member would like to proceed.

M. Coell: As I said during second reading, the opposition is very

supportive of this bill. I would have only a few questions to ask. I wonder if

the minister can assure me that the park boundaries have not been altered

relative to the LRMP process -- the recommendations that came through that

process to government -- and whether there have been any additions or

subtractions from that process.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I can confirm for the member that that is the case.

The boundaries have been codified, and they're the ones that are here before

you.

M. Coell:

Section 3(2) states: "The Lieutenant Governor in

Council may, by order, add to, cancel in its entirety or delete any portion of

an ecological reserve established under subsection (1)."

I am just wondering why there would be a need to cancel or delete any portion

-- we seem to be adding parks to the system and adding ecological reserves --

and what the necessity of cancelling or deleting a portion would be.

Hon. J. Sawicki: That's exactly the intent of this act: to ensure that

once the boundaries are legislated, they are secure, and that areas could only

be deleted if it came back to this Legislature.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification. The other areas, under

"Offences and penalties" -- and it's my understanding that the

penalties that were in the Park Act are now being . . . . Now we're

able to use them for ecological reserves. Is that correct?

[1535]

Hon. J. Sawicki: That's correct, hon. Speaker. Under the former

reserve act, there was no way to mete out penalties for transgressions within

ecological reserves. There was a stopgap measure achieved through

order-in-council, but with the legislation that's before us now, that would put

in place the same kinds of provisions for regulation under the Ecological

Reserve Act, as is currently and has always occurred under the Park Act.

M. Coell: I'm not aware of how often those are used in the parks

system. That may be something we can cover in

[ Page 16431 ]

estimates. But I am just wondering what the reasoning is for adding it in, it

seems logical. Were there a number of areas of concern or problem areas that

came up, in order to put this in?

Hon. J. Sawicki: I don't actually have the specific number of times it

would be . . . . It has been utilized, for example, in parks. But I

think we all recognize that there are instances, perhaps, of trespass or of

deliberate damage. While Parks staff would always try to deal with that through

civil means and cooperative ways, one needs to feel secure that the values that

we are trying to protect within these protected areas can actually be enforced.

And so with the ecological reserves, this was just an opportunity to put in

the provision that we need in legislation to handle those situations where some

deliberate damage may be occurring within ecological reserves. I am assured that

the number of times that we've had to resort to this has been few, but I think

we would all recognize that we need that provision for the odd time that it may

be appropriate to use.

M. Coell: I realize the minister has a number of amendments. If she

would wish to move those at this point, that would be fine with me.

The Chair: The amendments, minister, are on the schedule, so we'll go

through that

section first, please.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

On

schedule B.

Hon. J. Sawicki: On here, I would move the amendment to

schedule B

that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SCHEDULE B, by adding the following ecological reserve:

90.5 Ram Creek Ecological Reserve, established by Order in Council

2721/71.]

On the amendment.

M. Coell: Going through the amendments, if the minister would just

briefly outline the reasons for them, then I won't need to question her on each

one.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I'd be pleased to do that. The amendment is that

schedule B be amended by adding the following ecological reserve: Ram Creek

Ecological Reserve, established by order-in-council 2721/71. Quite simply, this

one was just forgotten in the drafting of the bill. It was just a mistake pure

and simple, so we're adding it now at this opportunity.

Amendment approved.

Schedule B as amended approved.

On

schedule C.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I move the amendments to

schedule C that are in the

possession of the Clerk.

[SCHEDULE C, by adding the following park:

24.5 BEAVER CREEK PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore

or land covered by water situated in Kootenay District and contained within

the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown

Land Registry as Plan 23 Tube 1802; except thereout: (1) the Columbia River

Driveway, shown on Nelson Land Title Plan 5179, covered by Mineral Tenure Big

Time #3, Tenure Number 370369; (2) the most southerly road which divides Lot

1, of Lot 205A, Nelson Land Title Plan 5179 as shown on said plan covered by

Mineral Tenure Big Time #3, Tenure Number 370369; and (3) the foreshore area

fronting Lot 1, of Lot 205 and 205A, Nelson Land Title Plan 5179 covered by

Mineral Tenure Big Time #3, Tenure Number 370369.

The whole containing approximately 67 hectares (50 hectares upland and 17

hectares foreshore).

SCHEDULE C, by adding the following park:

27.5 BIJOUX FALLS PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore

or land covered by water, described as:

Lot 11775, Cariboo Land District.

The whole containing approximately 41 hectares.

SCHEDULE C, by deleting the description of Surge Narrows Park and substituting

the following:

369 SURGE NARROWS PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land together with all that foreshore

or land covered by water situated in Sayward District and lying within the

following described boundaries: Commencing at the southwest corner of District

Lot 1039, being a point on the natural boundary of the channel lying north of

Goepel Island; thence southerly on a bearing of 180° a distance of 100 metres

from said natural boundary; thence southeasterly on a bearing of 122° a

distance of 1.2 kilometres; thence southwesterly on a bearing of 220° a

distance of 1 kilometre; thence northwesterly on a bearing of 305° a distance

of 350 metres; thence northeasterly a distance of approximately 250 metres to

the most easterly point on the natural boundary of Sturt Island; thence

northerly, westerly and southerly along the natural boundary of said Sturt

Island to the most southerly point thereof; thence southerly on a bearing of

168° to a point due East of the northeast corner of District Lot 259; thence

due West to said northeast corner; thence westerly along the northerly

boundary of said District Lot 259 to a point being 300 metres easterly of the

northwest corner thereof; thence northwesterly in a straight line to a point

on the easterly boundary of District Lot 268, said point being 400 metres

northerly of the southeast corner thereof; thence northerly along the easterly

boundaries of District Lots 268 and 271 to the northeast corner of said

District Lot 271; thence due North to a point lying due West of the most

southerly southwest corner of District Lot 915; thence due East to said most

southerly southwest corner; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of

said District Lot 915 to the southeast corner thereof; thence due East to a

point on the westerly boundary of said District Lot 1039; thence southerly

along said westerly boundary to the southwest corner thereof, being the point

of commencement; except thereout District Lots 421 and 423.

The whole containing approximately 480 hectares.]

Hon. J. Sawicki: This would amend by adding the following parks: first,

Beaver Creek Park. The addition of this park at this time . . . .

Staff didn't feel that they could complete the work on the boundaries in time

for this legislation, but they have been able to do that. Therefore this is now

being added to this package.

The second amendment under

schedule C . . . . Do you want to deal

with them individually -- each park?

M. Coell: No, no need for that.

[ Page 16432 ]

Hon. J. Sawicki: All right.

Schedule C is also proposed to be amended

by adding the following park, Bijoux Falls Park, to the schedule. I'm very

pleased to say that we have been able to complete the decisions around Bijoux

Falls and the facilities at that small park. Having done that just in time, we

are able now to add that Class A park to

schedule C in this instance.

[1540]

Thirdly,

schedule C would be amended by deleting the description of Surge

Narrows Park and substituting a different description for Surge Narrows Park.

Again, this was a wrong legal description that was used. It was a simple error,

and we are correcting it through this amendment.

Amendments approved.

Schedule C as amended approved.

Schedule D approved.

M. Coell: Through the Chair, just before you call the question, I'd

like to thank the minister's staff for the briefings that were given on this

bill. I found them to be very good, and they were very helpful to me. So thank

you.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, reported complete with

amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. J. Sawicki: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 11.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; T. Stevenson in

the chair.

[1545]

The committee recessed from 3:46 to 3:52 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The Chair: I want to let the members know that we have a number of

visitors this afternoon. One group is from the Hoffman Estates Secondary School

in Exeter, Ontario. There are approximately 40 students and five adults here to

visit the Legislature. Would members please make them welcome.

I call the committee to order on Bill 11.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

G. Abbott: I have a few questions on

section 15, which amends

section

169 of the Forest Act. That section, unamended, reads: "Until January 1,

2001 the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, may specify an area of

Crown land as a designated area if the Lieutenant Governor in Council believes

it is in the public interest to do so." Of course, this bill amends that by

striking out January 1, 2001, and substituting January 1, 2006. I'll begin by

inviting the Minister of Forests to outline what public purposes generally are

served by this specification of a designated area.

Hon. J. Doyle:

Part 13 provides the means for the government to

designate an area so it can be temporarily set aside from development while a

land use decision in the area is made. It also allows the government to protect

the area surrounding the designated area by reducing the annual allowable cut of

licensees that are affected by the designation, so that the harvest is not

shifted from the designated area to the surrounding area. For the member's

information,

part 13 has been used three times by government. This is the third

time since 1992, when this legislation was brought into being.

G. Abbott: The minister anticipated one of the questions I had, which

was how often it had been used -- which is three times. Could the minister

enumerate, for the information of the House, the three occasions on which it has

been used?

The Chair: Also, members, we have another large group: 64 visitors,

all of them grade 6, from the Covington Elementary School in Kent, Washington.

They are also here to visit the parliament buildings and the Legislature. Would

all members please make them welcome.

[1555]

Hon. J. Doyle: The member asked how many times it has been used and

just where it was used: first, in 1993 to designate the Brooks-Klaskish area in

the west coast study area; again in 1994 to designate the Clayoquot Sound

designated area No. 2; and again, more recently, in October 1999 to designate

the Duu Guusd area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

The Chair: Also, members, I'll inform you that there are approximately

45 visitors, mostly seniors, from the United States and Canada with the

Elderhostel. They are accompanied by Mr. Blackhall. They are also here to visit

the parliament buildings and our Legislature. Would all members please make them

welcome.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that response. I'm assuming,

therefore, from the minister's response that the designated areas of the '93 and

'94 processes would have evolved to a point now where they would not, in effect,

be caught, so to speak, by this amendment to January 1, 2006. It would only be

the Husby Forest Products or Duu Guusd area that would be affected by this

change. Is that correct?

[ Page 16433 ]

Hon. J. Doyle: The member is right. The 1993 use of

part 13 . . .

. That is not needed anymore. The land has been dealt with, and the only

area is the Queen Charlottes, as he mentioned.

G. Abbott:

Section 169 uses the expression: " . . . if

the Lieutenant Governor in Council believes it is in the public interest to do

so." Are there any constraints or limitations around cabinet's ability to

make that judgment about whether a particular designation is in the public

interest? In short, how is public interest defined here?

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm sure the member agrees with me. The fact that it

has only been used now for the third time in the roughly eight years that it's

been in place . . . . Government -- cabinet -- looks at it very,

very carefully, and only when there is no other alternate way seen to sort out a

land use issue in a certain area of the province is it used. Hopefully the fact

that it's only been used three times . . . . Government has been

very careful that we don't use this too often.

G. Abbott: I was looking for perhaps a little bit more specific answer

with respect to the issue of designating an area, but perhaps the answer I

received kind of answered it anyway. The point is that it is up to cabinet to

decide what's in the public interest, and it's a judgment that cabinet makes.

The minister argues that it's only been made on three occasions. That's a fair

observation, certainly. Is that correct, though, that for the purposes of this

section of the act, cabinet makes a judgment, effectively, with respect to

whether something should be a designated area or not? There is not another body

of law or statute that constrains cabinet with respect to that. Is that correct?

[1600]

Hon. J. Doyle: The member's assumptions are correct.

G. Abbott: I want to thank the minister's staff for their excellent

briefing on this bill. Certainly one of the reasons why we can move fairly

readily through the bill today is that we were, I think, well briefed with

respect to the impact of the changes that are proposed in this bill.

I just want to ask one more question with respect to this issue. This moves

us on . . . . Actually, would you like to move

section 15, and then

I'll ask about 16? Perhaps that's the best thing.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

G. Abbott: The minister's staff laid out for us, as effectively as can

be done, what the impact of this

section will be on a designated area and on a

licensee whose cutting rights are affected by the designation of a designated

area. I do want to ask, though . . . . Let's use the example of

Husby Forest Products, because it's the only licensee that's affected at this

point in time by the specifying of a designated area. What will be the impact --

if we can use that real-world example -- of the passage of the proposed

amendments contained in

section 16 on Husby Forest Products and on that

designated area?

Hon. J. Doyle: The only impact of the passing of this legislation,

presuming the House goes that way . . . . Right now it runs out

January 1 of next year, so it'll give it five more years of life. That's the

only impact, in this case, on the one company or one area that the member

mentions.

G. Abbott: Again, perhaps I was looking for more detail than that in

my question. My understanding from the briefing we had was that the changes

contained in

section 16 will permit, for example, the chief forester to go back

and change the annual allowable cut in an area, where this power was not

available to the chief forester to go back and change the annual allowable cut

in an area where this power was not available to the chief forester previously.

Is that correct? I wanted to essentially get a

summary of what real-world

changes would be visited on, for example, Husby Forest Products as a consequence

of the passage of

section 16. In what ways will their position be altered, if

indeed it is altered at all?

Hon. J. Doyle: This will have no effect on Husby in this case that

we're discussing because there have already been adjustments made in the AAC in

that area.

G. Abbott: We can move on to move sections 16 through 40.

Sections 16 through 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

G. Abbott: I'm just seeking clarification with respect to this

section. The description of the bill suggests that the change here is that debts

due under

section 118 will now go into the environmental remediation subaccount

of the forest stand management fund special account,

whereas previously, I

guess, those debts due under

section 118 . . . . It wasn't clear, I

guess, where those debts would go when they were repaid.

[1605]

Is it correct, as the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act sets out,

that if a senior official carries out remediation work -- presumably because the

licensee declines to do it for whatever reason -- the debt of that under

section

118 . . . . When the licensee is persuaded or compelled to satisfy

that debt, then the money goes into the remediation account. Correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct. That is what will happen if this

amendment goes through.

G. Abbott: Under

section 118, if a senior official had to undertake

such remediation work, would he or she draw on the environmental remediation

subaccount in order to do that work, or would the funds be drawn from elsewhere?

Hon. J. Doyle: The moneys would come from the fund.

G. Abbott: The change in the real-world operation of the Ministry of

Forests and the operation of this particular account is that up until the

passage of this bill, a senior official, if they were obliged to undertake some

remediation work, would still be drawing in either case from the same source --

the remediation fund. Or does that change? Does that stay the same all the way?

Hon. J. Doyle: If I could just read out for the member from

section 41 .

. . .

Section 118 currently allows penalties to

[ Page 16434 ]

be imposed when a Forest Act or Range Act agreement holder has contravened

the code and has failed to remedy or repair any damage to the land caused by the

contravention. This includes a penalty that may be levied to recover the costs

of remediation work when a licensee fails to comply with the remediation order.

The amendment that we're speaking about today to

section 118, to be brought into

force shortly, will replace this penalty provision with one that allows the

government to collect the cost of carrying out the remediation work as a debt

due to the government. However,

section 11.2 only allows penalty money to be

paid into the subaccount. It does not authorize debts to be paid into the

subaccount.

G. Abbott: I want to get this right. I appreciate that there's detail

here that's not entirely exciting. Just so we're all clear what happens,

previously if there was a debt under

section 118, where did the funds go at that

point of time before the passage of this bill? Where would a repaid debt go to

-- into general revenue or elsewhere?

[1610]

Hon. J. Doyle: To clear this up, currently it's listed as being a

penalty. With the changes to the legislation, it will be listed as a debt due to

the government, and the amendment will allow the money collected as a debt under

section 118 to be paid into the environmental remediation subaccount rather than

to the revenue fund. This ensures that all moneys assessed under

section 118 are

still paid into the subaccount.

G. Abbott: That was the answer to the question that I was looking for.

If the Chair wishes, you may wish to move sections 41 through 58.

Sections 41 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Doyle: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I call committee stage on Bill 2.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; T. Stevenson in

the chair.

section 13 (continued).

R. Thorpe:

Section 13 lays out performance plans for ministries and

government organizations. It talks about a number of issues here. When we, the

official opposition, were reading it, we were concerned about performance plans

and having those audited. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me his

intention. Does he expect, once performance plans and performance measures are

put in place, that those should be audited?

[1615]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would point out to the member that the use of the

term audit here, as the member has used it in auditing performance plans, goes

considerably beyond what the general public thinks of when they hear the term

audit, which is an accounting of finances -- income, revenues, balance sheets

and reporting on how well your plans in those areas met the results. Of course,

it is obvious that all government operations are audited on an annual basis.

With respect to the specific performance measures, which are both financial

and in many cases non-financial and are included in performance plans, what the

act provides for is that subsequent year's plans have to report on what has

happened in the past. So this is not a one-time . . . . The

expectation here is that the performance plans cover the ministry, that the plan

must be made public, that it must address fiscal years and two years out, and

that there are then annual reports that speak to the specific parts of the

performance plan. That's the sort of mechanism for follow-up that we have

incorporated in here. We think it is the appropriate one.

Having said that, there are always a variety of other organizations and

officers that have the ability to go beyond the specific financial information

of a performance plan -- not least of which is, of course, the auditor general,

who has the ability to look at a wide range of government programs and offer his

opinion on how well those programs are working.

R. Thorpe: I gather from that answer . . . . Perhaps we

can move along here quite quickly this afternoon, if we could have direct

answers to direct questions. So let me just ask a direct question here. Is it

the intent of this act and of this minister to ensure that performance measures

are audited and reported on each and every year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We will be debating

section 16 in the not too distant

future. I would point out to the member that

section 16 calls for annual reports

for ministries and other government organizations. It says that these annual

reports must "compare actual results for the preceding fiscal year with the

expected results identified in the performance plan under

section 13." They

lay out the performance plan; they report on it. That's the mechanism that is

incorporated in this act.

R. Thorpe: I'm glad to see that the minister thinks it's now

important, and therefore I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the

order paper with respect to

section 13. It's simply stated, hon. Chair. It would

become subsection 5. That stands in my name, and I move that motion.

[SECTION 13, by adding a sub-section (5) as follows:

(5) Performance Plans and Performance Measures must be audited each year

and these audited results must be included and form part of the Annual Report

of the ministry or government organization.]

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 13 approved.

[ Page 16435 ]

section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have some questions about

section

Section 14, the opening sentence of it says, "Subject to

section 19 (5)

[exception if disclosure would be harmful], within one month after commitments

have been made such that statements of cost under

section 8 [major capital

project information to be presented with the estimates] are required with the

next main estimates . . . . " The minister responsible for the

project "must make public major capital project plan stating." etc.,

etc., and it goes on. The reason I just raise that is because there's three

sections that come together for this one.

Section 14 refers to

section 19(5), as I mentioned.

Section 19(5) is the FOI

provision that says unless something is required to be disclosed under the

Freedom of Information Act, it need not be disclosed, and if something is

prohibited from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, then it

shall not be disclosed.

Basically what it's saying is the Freedom of Information Act applies to all

disclosures relative to this legislation -- or rather with the capital projects

plan. However -- and I know it's just a drafting provision, and we're not

supposed to read that little

part inside the brackets -- that first sentence of

section 14 has in brackets: "exception if disclosure would be

harmful." That characterizes

section 19(5) differently than what

section

19(5) actually does. I want to know if the minister can just give me some

assurances on how that

section is going to be viewed.

[1620]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the member has accurately described the

intent of the "subject to" phrase in

section 14, and that is to ensure

that release of plans for major capital projects adhere to the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that is what they do.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

R. Thorpe: I'm wondering if the minister could, in layman's language,

explain exactly what is the intent here, and when it will start.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This

section comes into effect for the 2001-2002

budget, as does the requirement to table a strategic plan in the form that this

act contemplates. It comes into effect in the next fiscal year, which means that

the ability to compare strategic plan to results will follow the 2001-2002

fiscal year.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

R. Thorpe: With respect to

section 16 and the filing of annual

reports, etc., the minister's well aware that many of the ministries and

organizations are well behind

schedule on filing annual reports. How and when

are they getting up to speed on all the backdated reports that haven't been

filed? What is your internal deadline for completing that? How are you going to

comply with this, given the record of the government to date?

[1625]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Given that I surely remember tabling a stale-dated

plan or two in my time as minister, I recognize the concern about actually

making this work. I would only say this: we have had considerable success in

animating the production of performance plans.

An Hon. Member: Animating them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Prodding them. Let me phrase that again, for the

benefit of the member opposite: we have had considerable success this year in

ensuring that we have performance plans for all ministries and all Crown

corporations tabled in a timely way in the House. This act does set a new

standard. I expect that all ministries and Crown corporations will recognize and

adhere to this new standard.

G. Farrell-Collins: I remember a multitude of annual reports coming in

a multitude of years after they were due. The whole point of annual reports and

measuring accountability and performance is to report, to measure, to hopefully

learn from the mistakes that were made, to have other ministers learn from the

successes that were accomplished and, hopefully over the years, to improve the

performance of government. That's the whole point.

So when I see ministers stand up in this House as recently as a couple of

weeks ago, for example and have an annual report from 1997 -- from the Ministry

of Attorney General, three years, almost four years, late . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's pretty shocking. Perhaps the Minister of

Finance, in his zeal for transparency and accountability, might have some idea

of exactly how many annual reports are still outstanding for the various

ministries of government.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that information with me in the chamber.

What we are setting is, as the member opposite says, a new standard. We believe

that this is entirely possible. For the information of those watching the debate

here, what it requires is that when the year ends -- on March 31, for ministries

-- they are required by the end of June, three months after the end of that

year, to table an annual report in the Legislature. The only exceptions are for

Crown corporations, which may have a different fiscal year end -- most commonly

the end of the calendar year. They have four months from that year end, which

would bring it to April 30, to table their annual report.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've looked, and it seems to me that there are a

number of pieces of legislation currently in existence that require ministries

to table annual reports. Can the minister tell me if that's correct -- if that

exists in legislation right now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there are annual reports required in a variety of

pieces of legislation. Few of them, staff advise, have any reference to a

deadline for actually producing the report.

G. Farrell-Collins: One would think when it says annual report that it

would be introduced annually, as opposed to at

[ Page 16436 ]

the end of a mandate or whenever you feel like getting around to it or

whenever it's printed or whenever the ministers change offices. I would have

thought that the whole intent of an annual report was to report annually.

Whether it actually puts a deadline in there . . . . Does the

minister not think that ministers could infer from the use of the word annual

that those reports should be introduced and tabled and made public annually?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I do. This act says they will.

G. Farrell-Collins: The act says they will. I'll wait and see what

actually happens, because certainly that isn't the case. I recall the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin, who was the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, being

called into this House by, at that time, the member for Delta South. He raised

the fact that the annual report for B.C. Hydro, which is required under statute

to be tabled by a specified date, was some six or seven months delayed. That was

during question period. About an hour after question period, the minister

hustled back into the House with this crumpled mass of paper that was

paper-clipped together -- it looked like it had been in the back of the trunk of

his car for seven or eight months -- and tabled it in the Legislature. And that

minister was required by statute to introduce that annual report by a specified

date.

[1630]

I guess I don't take much comfort from the minister telling me that this act

is now going to make it happen, because the government has been anything but

accountable or anything but interested in promoting accountability over the

years. That has happened time after time after time. In fact, it's almost a

standing joke in the Legislature that every time a minister of the Crown stands

up to introduce an annual report for members of the opposition to guess what

year it's for. It could be two years old; it could be three years old; it could

be a year old.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says not him.

I'll go back and check. I take his word for it, but I'm certainly going to go

back and check.

Will the Minister of Finance undertake, on behalf of those of us who've been

dealing with this issue for a number of years, to speed the process of

section

16 through this House to collect an inventory -- as the champion of

accountability -- of the status of annual reports for Crown corporations and

ministries of the Crown, up to and including today, and forward that information

to the opposition?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the spirit of transparency and accountability, I'd

be pleased to.

G. Farrell-Collins: And in the spirit of gratitude, can the minister

tell me what day we would get that? Is it going to be a week from now, nine

weeks from now or a year from now?

Do you have any idea -- ballpark? Maybe the minister can give himself a fixed

time to provide us with that information.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two weeks today.

G. Farrell-Collins: I look forward to seeing it, and I also look

forward to the rush of annual reports that will hit this table within the next

two weeks as the ministers scramble to comply.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

R. Thorpe: We're going to look forward to the news we get on June 26

with the backlog. I've already written that date down -- June 26, 4:30 p.m.

With respect to non-compliance, I guess this is supposed to be the teeth that

make it force the ministers to stand in this House and to make a statement if

they do not adhere to the compliance. Is that the intent here, to almost

embarrass people into meeting their June 30 deadline?

Hon. P. Ramsey: When the member and I were discussing generally

accepted accounting principles, I explained that the principle we've

incorporated here was to say in legislation: "Here's the benchmark, and if

there's a variation from it, we must report on it." That is the same sort

of approach that's taken here.

This act says there are a number of documents that have to be made public.

We've talked about performance plans, annual reports, strategic plans. If they

are not made public within the required time or don't include the required

information or don't present it in the required manner, the responsible minister

-- that is, obviously, a minister of a line ministry or responsible for a Crown

-- must make public a written statement giving the reasons for that

non-compliance. This captures both small and large difficulties.

We haven't gone into, for example, great details about what reasons there

might be for a delay in, for example, a performance plan. We have talked about

-- for example, in the time line for tabling a budget -- very specific reasons

why a delay in budget date might be acceptable. We have not done so here. What

we have done is require a public statement by the responsible minister, setting

out the reasons for failing to meet a deadline.

[1635]

I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so I move that

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in

the chair.

[ Page 16437 ]

Law Clerk:

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 2000

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act

Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2000

Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000

Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 2000

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000

[1640]

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 2.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; T. Stevenson in

the chair.

section 17 (continued).

R. Thorpe: The official opposition believes that there have to be more

teeth in accountability. We believe that there has to be more accountability by

members of government to make sure that they do comply. We believe that actions

speak louder than words. All too often governments hide behind words and put

that out in front of lack of action.

In that regard, we believe that ministers responsible who can't comply and

who continue not to be able to comply with the intent and the spirit of

providing this House and the people of British Columbia with information on a

timely basis have to be held accountable and that if they can't do that, they

should be disqualified from serving as a minister. It should be a significant

penalty, and it should be up to five years.

Therefore I would wish to move an amendment standing in my name on the order

paper. I'd just like to read that amendment. It would be subsection 17(2):

[SECTION 17, by adding a sub-section (2) and renumbering the

section

accordingly:

(17) A Minister who makes two consecutive non-compliance statements as a

Minister of the Crown, immediately shall be removed from the office of the

Minister and be disqualified from being appointed a minister for a period of

five years.]

Hon. Chair, we've put forward a number of amendments over the past few days on

this. This is about transparency and it's about accountability. So this is an

opportunity. This is an opportunity for this government to show British

Columbians that it's serious about compliance and it's serious about dealing

with ministers who do not comply. We look forward to their overwhelming support

of this well-founded amendment. Thank you.

[1645]

The Chair: Having examined the member's amendment, the Chair must rule

the amendment out of order, as it affects the constitution, a prerogative

reserved for a member of the government, pursuant to standing order 76.

R. Thorpe: H on. Chair, I guess if those are the rules of the game .

. . . I don't know; probably it goes back a long, long time. Perhaps it's

not up to speed, and perhaps there can be some amendments in the standing

orders. I notice there are some amendments there on how we're going to operate

the House.

But you know, I saw with interest how fast the minister jumped to his feet

with respect to this motion, and therefore I had hoped that he was going to

endorse this. Hon. Chair, what you're saying to me, then, is that as a member of

the opposition, I cannot move this. However, if the minister, knowing that it's

a good idea, would like to move our amendment in his name, he would be able to

do that, and then we could vote on it. Would that be correct, hon. Chair?

The Chair: No, that wouldn't be correct, member. It wouldn't matter.

At the moment it's your motion, and it is out of order.

R. Thorpe: Excuse me, hon. Chair -- and I don't want to belabour this

too long. The minister could make a motion with the same intent as this if the

minister wanted to hold ministers to account for this act -- or not?

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps, then, in light of that, the minister can

tell us what sort of accountability measures there will be for members and

ministers of the Crown who fail to comply with this legislation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I've explained that I believe the

accountability mechanisms under the act are requiring . . . to abide

by it. If there are failures of date or of content in plans or documents that

are required to be made public under this act,

section 17 requires that the

responsible minister make public a written statement giving the reasons for the

non-compliance.

I do not expect there'll be a great number of these, but I do believe that

there are circumstances in which non-compliance will occur. We talked earlier in

this chamber about the difficulty of having a fixed date for tabling of budgets,

given the possibilities of elections or other things intervening.

[1650]

G. Farrell-Collins: So if a minister fails to introduce a report or

some provision under this legislation, he or she is required to, as the

section

says, issue a statement saying why.

What happens after that? What's the accountability measure that comes after

that, once you've said, "I didn't finish my homework because . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 16438 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: " . . . the dog ate it," as

the minister's colleague said? You put that in the statement, etc. Then what

happens? Where do we go beyond that to ensure that it doesn't keep happening?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What happens is that the minister is required to

adhere to the provisions of the act.

The other thing I would say is that I don't consider this . . . .

I don't think it's a matter of "the dog ate it." I think there are

real reasons why bureaucracies or ministries or corporations could fail to meet

one of the requirements for disclosure of a document, everything from an

emergency that occurs . . . . There are a variety of things that

could happen. These are serious matters, and failure to meet the requirement of

section 17 would be a serious matter and I think should be treated as such, by

requiring a written statement of the reasons why non-compliance has occurred.

The Chair: Members, just to inform you that in the Legislature this

afternoon we have a number of grade 6 students from Covington Elementary School

in Kent, Washington, in the United States. They're here for a tour of the

Legislature. I hope all members will make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to welcome them too. I hope all of

their homework is done.

We'll now deal with the minister and his colleagues -- whether or not they've

got their homework completed. I want to ask this question. I want to pursue this

a little bit if I can, because those aren't necessarily the reasons why annual

reports currently aren't tabled in a timely fashion. Usually the reason annual

reports aren't tabled is because the estimates of the minister responsible are

upcoming. Once the estimates are completed, usually within a day or two the

annual reports, in the past, have been introduced into the Legislature -- once

the debate is complete, which I think is designed to strictly and deliberately

avoid accountability and avoid the debate that may surround the annual report.

As I said earlier, the Premier, from his previous role as Attorney General,

still has a number of outstanding annual reports. The latest one that was tabled

in this House dated from 1997. So he's long overdue on his homework. Perhaps the

minister can tell us why he thinks anything is going to be any different with

this legislation than it has been in the past. What is going to change so

dramatically that's going to stop ministers from just tabling them whenever they

want, attaching a little statement saying, "It was incomplete; I received

it at this point in time," and therefore introduce it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we could debate back and forth in this way for

some time without conclusion. Let me only say this: in second reading the member

opposite said that adherence to the principles of transparency and

accountability had to be demonstrated in actions as well as words. In my second

reading response I said that I agree. I laid out a number of areas in which this

government has sought to adhere to the principles of this act even before its

consideration and debate in this chamber.

[1655]

Having said that, the member is correct: we'll have to see the fruits of this

as it comes into effect. That will take until the deadline next year. I expect

we will see different behaviour next year. The member opposite is skeptical;

we'll have to wait and see.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

R. Thorpe: Just a very quick question. Under 18(2), as soon as that

document's tabled with the Clerk, does the public then have access to that, or

does this House have to be sitting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The public has access to it. The House does not have

to be sitting. If you refer back to

section 1, it says there are two

requirements here: laying the document before the Legislative Assembly and

making the document available to the general public in a reasonable manner,

which may include electronic means. Subsection (2) simply talks about what

happens to laying it before the assembly when we're not sitting.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

G. Farrell-Collins:

Section 20 is, in my mind, a very unusual section.

I must say I was a bit taken aback when I read it, because essentially it

provides all these requirements for government agencies, under law, to be forced

to report information to the minister. I was a little bit astounded by that,

because I thought that when the ministers asked for information, they got it,

and that if they didn't get it, there was another remedy, which was to ask

someone else who can do the job better than the person that was asked the first

time. Perhaps the minister can tell me why he felt there was a need for

section

20, which is very strongly worded, to say the least.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can only advise the member that, contrary to what

may be common public perception, what ministers want may not always be what

ministers get.

More seriously, though, what we're doing here is moving from a budgeting

structure and accountability structure which focuses on direct ministries to one

that has a much broader sweep and includes all Crown corporations and agencies.

Those acts, or regulations regarding them, have a variety of provisions, I

understand, as far as who they provide information to.

What this

section does is say clearly that the ministers responsible for

performance plans, for major capital projects and for annual reports have, under

this act, the authority to require documents and other information from

agencies. It does it right across the board. It does it to ensure that the

ministers responsible have the authority to get the information that they need

to carry out their responsibilities under this act.

G. Farrell-Collins: It just seems astounding to me that the government

would have to go to these lengths to make that clear. It would seem to me that

if a minister responsible felt that he or she wasn't getting the information

that was there that they had asked for, there would be a very simple remedy --

that is, to find someone who would get it for the minister.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

[ Page 16439 ]

On first glance I must say I'm surprised that there are people working in the

public sector that would be so confused as to think that that wasn't the case.

And if that's the case, then I expect we have a much bigger problem than ever I

thought. But I'm interested to see it.

I'm particularly interested in this

section for another reason, and that is

the accountability measures if one does not comply. Previously we talked about

what happens when a minister does not provide the public with the information

that they're entitled to under the statute. But in this case, when the minister

is not provided with the information that he or she is entitled to under this

statute, the penalties are pretty significant -- not necessarily the penalties,

but the wording. The forceable nature of this section, in order to extract that

information, is quite significant. There's even a section, a compliance

subsection (6), that states: "A person must not hinder or obstruct the

person conducting an examination under subsection (4)." The government can

send in an auditor to look at the books, etc., if they don't feel they're

getting the information that's forthcoming. Each and every employee must take

each and every step to provide the information to that auditor or the person or

individual doing the review or conducting that examination.

[1700]

There's also an ability here for the minister to state a date by which that

information must be put in place. And it seems to me that there's no parallel

for the information that's required to be made by a minister. For example, let's

say -- although I'm sure the minister will assure me that it won't happen --

that the annual report for the office of the Premier, which would be due at some

point in the fiscal year . . . . Given the track record of the

Premier when he was Attorney General, perhaps some one or two months, one or two

years, or three or four years lapsed prior to the Premier providing that

information. What avenue is there for anyone to go to the Premier and say:

"Mr. Premier, your annual report is late; it's very late"?

Where is the requirement, in the same wording, that forces the Premier,

whether he's the Attorney General or the Premier, to deliver that information on

time -- and if he doesn't deliver it on time, to have someone go in and get that

information and make it available to the public? There's nothing there for the

Premier, but there's sure an awful lot there for these organizations. I'm just

intrigued by the contrast in those provisions.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Welcome to the chair, hon. Chair.

I want to say a couple things. First of all, I wouldn't want this assembly or

people watching these debates or reading of them to be under the impression that

in the great majority of times, there's any difficulty in obtaining requested

information from Crown corporations or agencies. That is simply not the case.

Cooperation is the rule.

But in drafting legislation, you want to also deal with what might become an

exception. I would submit that if the provisions like these were not included in

Bill 2, the hon. Opposition House Leader would be on his feet demanding to know

what we would do if we were refused information necessary for an annual report

or performance plan from an agency. So in drafting this act, we did try to take

care of both the rules and the exceptions and to make sure that ministers of the

Crown had the ability in law to obtain the information that they required from

agencies and government organizations.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister could give us a brief description of

what the government is attempting to achieve by

section 21 of this bill.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My apologies to the member. I was talking to staff; I

didn't hear that question clearly. Could you please repeat it?

R. Thorpe: That's not a problem. I understand that we're trying to

keep up to speed here, so no problem. I would just like the minister to explain

to us what his intent, what his government's intent, is with

section 21 of this

bill.

[1705]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent of this

section is to ensure that the

public is informed of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Enns

panel in their final report of the budget process review, which it submitted to

the Speaker of the Legislature last fall. It is a requirement for ongoing

monitoring from now until the year 2009, in which year the minister must -- not

may -- appoint a panel to review the budget process, scope of budget and

information provided in the budget plan.

In other words, having done the work in 1999 -- as I've said in a variety of

forum, both in this chamber and outside -- it changes in some fundamental ways

the way we do budgeting and reporting in British Columbia. We think it's

important that the public be informed of progress made in implementing that

report and that at the end of ten years another panel be struck to do another

comprehensive, thorough review such as was done last fall.

R. Thorpe: I was hopeful that was the intent of this section. We've

heard many times and from many Finance ministers, with respect to the fine work

that the Enns panel did, that the government wholeheartedly endorsed the

recommendations of the Enns panel. Taking that into consideration and the

comments that the minister just made, could the minister explain to me what

21(2)(

b) is all about?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent is that once a minister of the Crown has

said, "This is a recommendation of the panel that we are not implementing .

. . . " Once that has been done, you don't need to redo it and redo

it. The example I would use is the decision I stated very explicitly not to

include the schools, universities, colleges and health sector in the

summary

entity.

R. Thorpe: Well, if the government endorsed all the recommendations of

the Enns report, but now . . . . And it did declare earlier that it

wasn't going to include such. What other recommendations in that report do you

need this loophole for the minister to say: "We're not doing it"? What

other examples are you not going to comply with?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In debate in committee, I think we identified a number

of small differences from what the Enns report recommended. I'll mention only

two. One is that we did not incorporate a fixed budget date. He recommended, if

memory serves, the third Tuesday in March, which the mem-

[ Page 16440 ]

bers opposite felt was not a workable date. They had their proposal for how

to fix that; the government had its proposal for how to fix that. That would be

reported on as a way in which we did not implement what the Enns report indeed

recommended.

[1710]

There are a number of other small ones. I'm trying to search my memory for

ones of considerable significance. We've had a debate here about whether the act

should incorporate general accounting principles or whether we should do the

approach we have chosen of using that as a benchmark and then reporting

government's explicit decision to have different accounting policies. So there

are a number of areas where the Enns report has been changed slightly in the

presentation of this bill.

I'll mention only one other. The Enns panel said very clearly that he felt

that this legislation should incorporate a whole revision of how estimates were

dealt with by committees of the House. We chose not to incorporate that in this

bill. We chose instead to engage the opposition in discussions, led by our House

Leaders, as to how we might best revise the business of this House, including

the estimates process.

So there are a number of areas where the bill does not incorporate every bit

of the Enns report. I think we've been quite clear about what those are in this

debate, and these reports by the minister and by the auditor general will make

those variances explicit as well.

R. Thorpe: Well, it leads one to a conclusion. As my hon. colleague

from Vancouver-Little Mountain has said many, many times and I think the

minister has acknowledged, the trust and confidence of the opposition members

and British Columbians in this government to do what it says it's going to do

are certainly at an all-time low.

Just to compound my concern and the opposition's concerns, why in subsection

(3) are you trying to muzzle the auditor general for implementations in the Enns

report not taking place? Why do you want to muzzle the auditor general?

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the benefit of those watching, I might just read

the section, because it does anything but muzzle the auditor general. It says:

The obligations of the Auditor General under subsection (1) -- which are to

report by September 30 on the implementation of the recommendations made by the

Enns panel -- "in relation to a recommendation in the Final Report end

when, in the opinion of the Auditor General, (

a) the recommendation has been

implemented" -- in other words, you don't need to keep saying that they did

it, they did it, they did it -- "or (

b) a report of minister . . . .

We've just talked about that, where the minister says: "We're not going to

do that. We're not going to incorporate in legislation, for example, government

operations in estimates through legislative committees." Once that's done,

the auditor general does not need to make further comment on that, because it

has been an explicit decision of government not to.

This is far from muzzling. It says that the auditor general doesn't have to

keep doing that. Those things have been decided. He has every ability, and I

think the appropriate ability, to look far and wide within the report and within

this legislation to make sure that we have implemented the recommendations of

the panel.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think there's a bit of ambiguity. Let me put it

this way: I think there are two opinions on how one reads what subsection

(3) actually does. Let me try to make clear what I see as the two versions of this;

it's really an

interpretation of what's there.

I believe this is what the minister thinks, and he can tell me if I'm correct

in my estimation of what it is he thinks . . . . I don't want to put

words in his mouth, but I want to lay out the two positions. I'll just read the

section first. It says: "The obligations of the Auditor General under

subsection (1)" -- that's the reports of the minister or the auditor

genera