British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 27, 2003

H0527pm-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6985 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 6986 Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 67) Hon. T. Nebbeling Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) Hon. G.

Collins Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60) Hon. G. Collins Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6987 2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C. B. Suffredine Management of Coquihalla Highway J. MacPhail Economic development in Surrey-Tynehead area D.

Hayer Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6988 Alcan power production in Kitimat J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Hon. R. Neufeld Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray Government action on mad cow disease P. Nettleton Hon. J. van Dongen B.C. economy and enterprise zones T. Bhullar Hon. R. Thorpe Softwood lumber negotiations and World Trade Organization ruling P. Bell Hon. M. de Jong Management of Coquihalla Highway J. Kwan Hon. J.

Reid Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6991 H. Bloy R.

Harris Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 6991 A Review of Performance Agreements between the Ministry of Health Services and the Health Authorities, auditor general report No. 1, 2003-04 Statement of 2002-03 Borrowings, Schedules A, B, C and D Motions without Notice......................................................................................................... .................................................. 6991 Appointment of Patty Sahota to Finance and Government Services Committee Hon.

G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6991 Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64) Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail P. Nettleton Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66) Hon. G. Plant P. Nettleton Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) Hon. G. Collins Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61) Hon. G. Collins J.

MacPhail Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7002 Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7002 Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7002 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Hon.

M. de Jong J.

MacPhail Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7015 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7015 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 7015 Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J.

Kwan K. Krueger Hon. K. Whittred B. Lekstrom Hon. C. Hansen V. Anderson R. Lee J. Nuraney

6985 TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members J. MacPhail: I'm pleased — along, I'm sure, with other Members of the Legislative Assembly — to wel- come people from Kitimat: Gaetan Pozsgay, Ray Brady and Ruth Brady, all of the Save the Northwest coali- tion. They are also joined by Rick Belmont, president of the Kitimat CAW; Gord Lechner, recording secretary of the Kitimat CAW; and Ross Slezak, vice-president of the Kitimat CAW. They're down here to meet with many of us, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome. R.

Harris: I also would like to take this opportunity to welcome some guests from Kitimat, who have come a long way today: Mayor Rick Wozney and his wife, Christine; councillors Bob Corless, Linda Campbell, Trafford Hall and Monika Lange. The CAO is Trafford Hall.

Also, from the Save the Northwest committee, we have Tony Deni, Allan Hewitson, Reg Stowell, Tom Goyert, Cindy Goyert and Carl Whicher. [1405] Over the next two days, this group of people will be meeting with a number of ministers and ministries in this precinct to try to find a strategy so that we can work together again to find not just how we can achieve a rebuild and an expansion of the Alcan facility in Kitimat but how we can attract additional invest- ment into the northwest and get that area really rolling again. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to introduce Capt.

Balbir Singh Bath. He's a member of the official opposi- tion party in the Punjab Legislative Assembly in India. Presently he's the MLA for Shri Hargobindpur Sahib in my family home's constituency. He served as a captain in the Indian army for six years. He's visiting Canada to meet with his family and to attend his niece's wed- ding. He's accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Kalhon of Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. K. Stewart: Joining us today is Janice Elkerton, a councillor from Pitt Meadows.

Janice is here today in her position as chair of the Municipal Insurance Association and is here to talk to members on insurance liability is- sues. Will the House please make her welcome. B. Penner: It's my honour and privilege today to introduce a friend and colleague from Washington State. Jeff Morris has been a representative since 1996. In that period of time he's been elected four times. Think of the perpetual campaigns he's been involved in. He currently chairs Washington State's legislative committee on tele- communications, technology and energy.

He's a past president of the Pacific Northwest Eco- nomic Region, and he has been instrumental in Wash- ington State in sponsoring a resolution supporting Brit- ish Columbia's 2010 Olympic bid proposal. In fact, once that resolution was endorsed in Washington State, other states throughout the Pacific Northwest also en- dorsed the resolution, modeled largely on the Wash- ington State model. We're very grateful for Washington State's support and for the leadership shown by Jeff Morris of Washington State. Would the House please make him welcome. B.

Bennett: I'd like to introduce Rod Niedermayer and Scott Niedermayer today. They can't be here this afternoon because they're both busy in New Jersey this evening. I know that a lot of British Columbians were disappointed when the Vancouver Canucks were beaten out of the playoffs and then the Ottawa team, so we have no Canadian representation there. But one thing is for sure: we will have the Stanley Cup coming back to the great city of Cranbrook this year, because either Scott Niedermayer or Rod Niedermayer will win the cup.

Best of luck to both of them, and thanks to their parents for spending all the time that they did when those kids were growing up, teaching them how to skate and be good athletes and good people. J. Bray: Joining us in the House today are 23 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's Catholic Elementary School in Victoria. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Kathleen O'Neill, and two parents, Monica Chiu and Melanie Umali. These students have been here for a couple of hours, and I can assure members that I endured a question period during lunch that was quite intense.

Our future is bright with these young people, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome. D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 44 grade 5 and grade 4 students visiting from Dogwood Elementary School from my riding of Surrey- Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Ms. Reena Chohan and Ms. Lynda Eccleston and Mr. Bruce MacPherson, as well as five parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accom- pany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome. K.

Krueger: Although I can't see him, I understand there's a young man from Smithers in the gallery. His n a m e i s M u r r a y H u x t a b l e . H e m a r r i e d t h e y o u n g e r cousin of my legislative assistant, and her name is Christine Puhallo. If the sergeant-at-arms let him get away with it, he'll be wearing a Stetson. They turn up at the sides like that so we can fit three of them in a pickup truck. His family are big supporters of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — he and his wife and his parents. It's a pleasure to have them here. I ask the House to make him welcome. [1410] L.

Mayencourt: In the gallery we have a couple of guests from Simon Fraser University. Mr. Ernie Love is

6986 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 the dean of SFU school of business, and joining him is Marg Vandenberg, who is the associate director of spe- cial projects. Marg is a frequent visitor to Victoria, and she always makes the most of her time here always makes the most of her time here, making sure she gets to be in front of a variety of people to make sure that she does her good work for Simon Fraser.

We've just had a meeting with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise on the Telus new ventures project which our government has supported for the last three years, and I know that we had a breakfast for MLAs with the SFU group as well. They'll also be having a meeting with the Minister of Ad- vanced Education. Would the House please make these good friends of ours very, very welcome. Hon. M. de Jong: It's been a good day for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that my parents, Ann and Jack de Jong, are here in the precincts.

They are squiring across beautiful British Columbia Betsy and Piet van Hal, who are visiting from Schyndel in the Netherlands. Please, everyone, make them wel- come. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COMMUNITY CHARTER TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003 Hon. T. Nebbeling presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that the bill be placed…. Sorry, that's the wrong slip. Hon.

Speaker, I move that the bill be read for the first time now. Oh, you said it already. Sorry about that. I'm still confused about Schyndel. I'm pleased to present the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Recently we hon- oured the longstanding request of local governments and introduced a community charter. The charter pro- vides the foundation for a new relationship between local and provincial governments based on mutual respect and public accountability. Typically, transi- tional provisions and consequential amendments are at the end of a bill.

However, today we're introducing these provisions and amendments separately in legisla- tion due to the volume, particularly with regard to the Local Government Act. The vast majority of today's provisions are minor technical updates which are part of the legislative process. We are carrying through the intent of the community charter, and this act is part of the transition phase. I move that the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House. Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the first question is introduction and first reading of Bill 67. Motion approved. Hon. T. Nebbeling: Once again I move that the Community Charter Transitional Provisions… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order please, so that I may hear. Hon. T. Nebbeling: …Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House. Bill 67 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.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. [1415] Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Fi- nancial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, which amends the Financial Administration Act. The bill serves two main purposes.

No. 1, it updates the debt management provisions of the Financial Administra- tion Act to bring it in line with the current financial market practices and provide the flexibility to accom- modate future changes. No. 2, it clarifies the Minister of Finance's authority to borrow for the government and government bodies and manage the provincial debt. Since enactment of the Financial Administration Act in 1981, the financial markets have undergone significant change, which in turn has impacted how issuers bor- row and manage their debt.

As part of the govern- ment's commitment to restoring sound fiscal manage- ment, it's important that we adapt the Financial Ad- ministration Act to better reflect changing business practices and support effective debt management. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure the transparency and accountability of government for debt management.

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6987 I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G.

Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003, which will amend the Business Corporations Act. The Business Corporations Act was passed by the Legis- lative Assembly in the fall of 2002, but has yet to be brought into force. The act will replace the existing Company Act as the comprehensive code for the organization and governance of companies in the province. It's a significant and substantial piece of legislation and contains many cutting-edge features intended to enhance British Columbia's business environment. The amendments in this bill are primarily technical in nature.

They correct errors, clarify language and address issues identified both by the public and during development of the corporate registry's automated filing systems. As well, the act contains consequential amendments to over 100 statutes that reference the current Company Act to reflect the new language and the new corporate registry processes of the Business Corporations Act. Together these amendments repre- sent an important step on the road to implementing the new Business Corporations Act. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25 B) 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BENEFITS TO B.C. B. Suffredine: Today I have more good news. Some people say they don't want the Olympics. They want proof that heartland residents will benefit. Well, I have proof. I received an e-mail from the Creston tourist infor- mation operator that in a single day recently, they had two unique visitor groups. First came a couple from Switzerland on their honeymoon.

While in Salzburg they heard of Vancouver's bid, saw pictures of how beautiful British Columbia was and decided to come here instead for a month-long honeymoon. Next came a couple from Italy, where the 2006 Winter Games are to be held. The gentleman works with the Paralympic Games and was here looking at training facili- ties and training opportunities in the Kootenays. He was excited about the Kootenays, its spectacular beauty and how accommodating the people are here. It's only May of 2003, and the benefits have already begun in the Kootenays.

Money spent by tourists and others we've not heard about yet will create profits and jobs for tourism operators and small businesses. That will boost our economy and provide more resources for government that can be invested in health care, education and other services. We in heartland commu- nities in the Kootenays can benefit from higher tourist revenues until 2010 and beyond if we take this oppor- tunity to promote the Olympics. The best news is that tourists want to see ski hills, golf courses, lakes and mountains. Those are found in the heartlands, not the heart of Vancouver.

We have an opportunity of Olympic magnitude. Let's use the Olympic bid to showcase our communities and our province to the world. Julius Caesar would say: " Carpe diem." I agree. Let's seize our time to shine. MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY J. MacPhail: I rise today to speak about the gov- ernment's plans to sell off the revenue stream from the Coquihalla, though "selling off" might more accurately be put as "borrowing against the revenue stream to mitigate the effect of failed economic policies." I attended a town hall meeting in Kamloops last week, as did the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

The meeting was packed with citizens from all walks of life, from every age group. In my years of elected politics, I have never seen a community so united in opposition to a government initiative in the way that communities up and down the Coquihalla corridor have united in a matter of weeks. [1420] These communities accepted the toll when it was brought in 17 years ago in good faith, believing that, as promised, it would be eliminated when the capital costs of the highway were paid for.

That promise of elimination has been amended slightly by the government to now read "55 more years." It's not surprising that the residents are feeling betrayed. It's not surprising that there's anger. But this is a unity of opposition that actually transcends partisan affiliation, as I'm sure all MLAs from the interior and the Okanagan are finding. Chambers of commerce, mayors, city and town councils and just plain ordinary folks are dismayed by these actions. The government is very proud of the fact that it has renamed the interior and the Okanagan as the heart-

6988 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 lands. Apparently, however, that's not the only name change being contemplated in British Columbia. I don't mean to be cheeky, but residents of Kamloops have told me that if this sellout goes through, they'll be peti- tioning the government to rename the Coquihalla the Krueger-bahn. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SURREY-TYNEHEAD AREA D. Hayer: We have accomplished a great deal this last legislative session and in the first half of our gov- ernment's mandate.

We are making some difficult choices, but I feel they are decisions that will help turn this province around and benefit all British Columbi- ans in the long term. A s we w rap u p t hi s s e s s i o n, I wo u l d l i k e t o t o u c h on the some of the government's achievements that are having a positive impact on Surrey-Tynehead constitu- ents. Barnston Island constituents are extremely pleased by the decision not to have a levy on ferry tolls. Construction will soon begin in Port Kells on the new crossing of the Fraser River.

Progress is being made on the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road after significant input from many constituents. We are also looking at twinning of the Port Mann, new overpasses and crossings in many key interchanges in my riding, as well as four-laning 176th Street and Highway 10. In partnership with the federal government, over $200 million is being invested into transportation up- grades in Surrey alone, and $30 million more to fund the border crossing initiative. Another $6 million is being invested into Surrey's infrastructure — meters that will improve water conservation.

We have committed $716,000 to the Surrey Public Library to ensure that our local libraries remain an ef- fective community resource; $20,000 for SHARP, Sur- rey's salmon enhancement program; a $650,000 grant to the B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre, and much more. Yes, it has been a busy session, but it will also be a busy summer. One of the first events is the South Fra- ser child development centre walk-run fundraiser on Sunday, June 8, in Bear Creek Park. Another big event will be my annual community barbecue picnic on Au- gust 10 in Fleetwood Park.

We had thousands attend last year, and I look forward to another successful event where constituents can meet and chat with me about their ideas for making our community a better place to live. I will also continue having my monthly coffee mornings with my constituents on the first Sat- urday of every month. Oral Questions ALCAN POWER PRODUCTION IN KITIMAT J. MacPhail: Three days after the election of the Liberal government, Alcan smelting operations in Kitimat were reduced by 40 percent and the surplus power put on the open market. Some were not sur- prised.

They point to statements made early on by company officials that they are "in the power business, not the aluminum business." For 50 years the government of British Columbia has held Alcan to its original commitment of cheap power for economic development in the community. It's a publicly held resource used in a sustainable way for the benefit to the immediate community, as well as the province as a whole. Surplus power might occa- sionally be exported from the community, but the pri- ority was always clear.

Residents of Kitimat here in the gallery today and the thousands back home they represent want to hear from the Minister of Competition, Science and Enter- prise that despite whatever backroom discussions took place before the election, despite whatever secret hand- shakes are taking place, this minister will not allow Alcan to abandon its contract with the people of Kiti- mat and of British Columbia. Will he rise today to commit that power generated by Nechako water will be used for the community? [1425] Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, I might remind this House that it was that member there and her govern- ment that signed the last agreements with respect to Alcan and the use of power and those outstanding is- sues. Secondly, let me say that we take our role very, very importantly. We see that the northwest has tre- mendous economic opportunity. We see that we have a base there that we can grow and have a vision of pros- perity.

I very much look forward to meeting with the dele- gates, some today and some tomorrow, so that we can work together and forge economic opportunity and job creation throughout the entire northwest part of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, it's not a moment too soon. This problem has been going on since three days after that minister's election. The community is now in a state of devastation.

Clearly, that's just more evidence that the heartlands strategy is nothing more than a devious political strategy, devoid of any real care for the well- being, or this minister would have been meeting with the community well over a year ago. But even assuming that that minister is sincere in his defence of the indefensible, there's more to the story.

The Minister of Energy and Mines has made much of this government's initiative to encourage the development of small, independent power producers through a new power pricing structure, a pricing struc- ture that actually sees prices of approximately $35 per megawatt-hour. Currently, the facility operated by Alcan produces power with public resource at $5 per megawatt-hour. Can the Minister of Energy tell this House whether the power that Alcan wants to put on the transmission

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6989 company's lines to sell to British Columbians will be given the old price or the new price? If Alcan will be getting the open-market price, will he also tell this House why the enormous profit, based on some of the cheapest power available on this continent, will go into the pockets of European investors and none to the people of British Columbia who own that resource? Hon. R. Neufeld: W e a s a g o v e r n m e n t h a v e c o m - mitted, in our new energy plan, to involve independent power producers in developing new power projects in British Columbia.

This is good news for British Colum- bia, because it will allow us to maintain our rates as low as we possibly can, going well into the future. On the member's question about Alcan's power, it remains to be seen what takes place. As I understand, and as the Minister of Competition, Science and Enter- prise has just explained, he has met and I have met with that community a number of times in the past number of years in regard to economic development and continuing economic development in the Kitimat area producing aluminum in the province. We want to continue that.

We will move forward with working with that community and with Alcan as best as we possibly can, s o we c a n ac t u al l y hav e p ro d u c t i o n and jo b s c a rr y o n in the Pacific Northwest — much better than what was done by that member when she was in government. BOLIDEN MINE OPERATIONS IN STRATHCONA PARK J. Kwan: Earlier this month the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection told this House that this gov- ernment did not receive any formal proposals by Bo- liden mines for activity in Strathcona Park.

Yet on April 9 of this year the Minister of Energy and Mines re- sponded to citizens inquiring about the safety of Strathcona Park by acknowledging a proposal from Boliden. He said, for example, that the proposal would save Boliden mines $500,000 in fuel costs. Here's the letter that backs it up. Where did he get that number? He got it from this PowerPoint presentation from Boliden's proposal. This is a proposal to conduct hydroelectric generation ac- tivities in a class A park.

You could expect the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — the very same person who, as a Socred minister in 1987, was promot- ing mining and logging in Strathcona Park…. Surely the term "protection" was included in this minister's title to actually mean something. [1430] Can the minister responsible for parks tell us today if she is being deliberately kept out of the loop on the pro- posal to siphon off water from these pristine high-alpine lakes? Perhaps she has simply decided to ignore this threat to the park. Or is she deliberately hiding govern- ment's involvement with the proposal from this House?

Hon. J. Murray: There have been presentations by Boliden. We welcome presentations in this government from businesses, individuals and organizations in any particular activity that they would propose to govern- ment. There has been no formal proposal or application to this government, and until there is such, there is not an application or formal proposal for this government to consider. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The Friends of Strathcona Park, who met with the minister yesterday, left the meeting shaking their heads.

Today those who care about the park and are listening to this question period must be shaking their heads now. I'm told that the minister told the Friends of Strath- cona Park at their meeting yesterday that if somebody has another idea of what to do with provincial parks, the minister felt she has an obligation to entertain that application.

The minister herself said, when questioned in this House, that this project would not be considered "until the proposal is received." The Friends of Strathcona Park and British Colum- bians concerned about the status of parks throughout t h i s p r o v i n c e d o n ' t w a n t t o h e a r f r o m a m i n i s t e r w h o won't take action until she receives a proposal for al- ternate use of their precious park. A park is a park. They want to hear the minister say today that she will protect the parks that we've cared enough.… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order. Order, please.

Will the member now please put her question. J. Kwan: They want to hear the minister say that she will protect the parks, that we've cared enough to write legislation on them and that no one should bother writing any proposals for them. Will the minister commit to this House today that no proposal for alternate use of this park or any other park will be entertained? Will she tell the Liberal Party big-business campaign donors that the parks are not for sale in British Columbia? Hon. J.

Murray: As I previously said, Boliden has made presentations to a number of different groups, including some ministries in government, but there has been no formal application. I want to reiterate that the park system in British Columbia is one of the jewels in our crown. It's in- credibly important to British Columbians. It's the core of our tourism industry. We have made a new-era commitment that we will not have logging or mining in parks. We are protecting our parks.

This ministry has been working in a number of ways to finance the very park system that that member's government failed to fund so that we have a $40 million backlog in parks as we speak.

6990 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MAD COW DISEASE P. Nettleton: BSE, better known as mad cow dis- ease, is now a very serious concern to ranchers and consumers in British Columbia, since it has been dis- closed that mad cow–contaminated feed may have been fed to cows here in this province. I know there's more than one rancher, in fact, here in this House. One of the three farms placed under quarantine is in Prince George. Is the minister in touch with the federal inves- tigators, specifically the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?

A further concern, even with the federal ban on feeding cows food containing cattle carcasses, is that small farms do not have the facilities to sufficiently separate bovine chicken food from non-bovine feed. In light of this, would the minister consider pursuing a complete ban on cattle carcasses and remains being processed into any and all feeds here in British Colum- bia? [1435] Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question, which is of serious concern to consumers and ranchers alike. We are in daily contact, through staff and myself, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the federal minister.

I think it's important to note that this investigation is still an investigation about one cow, so while the investigation widens, it's still only about one cow. The quarantine of the three farms in B.C. is a precautionary measure. It is important to note that pigs and chickens, on a scientific basis, cannot pass on BSE. The current regulations that we have, which have been developed by the CFIA over the last ten years or more, are based on the best possible evidence and science.

If they need to be amended on the basis of experience, we will cer- tainly support that, and we will continue to work with the CFIA in a support role to protect our food supply. B.C. ECONOMY AND ENTERPRISE ZONES T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Com- petition, Science and Enterprise. Has he given any thought or contemplated creating enterprise zones in the interior of British Columbia, given what's hap- pened with the softwood crisis? Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government has been com- mitted to making British Columbia one of the very best investment climates in North America.

That's why we've made sure we've had a competitive tax code; that's why we're cutting red tape by one-third; that's why we're balancing the labour laws. We are making British Columbia competitive. In fact, exports are up, oil and gas is up, mineral exports are up. The economy is starting to grow in British Columbia. With respect to enterprise zones, I would very much like to receive from the member his ideas on that, because in this House we should all work together to make sure that the economy grows for the benefit of all British Columbians. I look forward to receiving his ideas.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS AND WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RULING P. Bell: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Today, I understand that the WTO ruled that the United States erred in applying the stiff tariffs to Cana- dian softwood lumber. Certainly, this reaffirms B.C.'s position in this trade dispute. Can the Minister of For- ests tell us how this ruling will impact the negotiations on softwood lumber moving forward? Hon. M. de Jong: We did get a WTO ruling today. It's what we expected. It's a reaffirmation of earlier rulings, and it's a win for Canada.

In fact, what the WTO has said is that the U.S. is conducting itself not in compliance, contrary to its international treaty obliga- tions. That's an important ruling, and that's good news for British Columbia and Canada. What we really have to take from this is the realiza- tion that this doesn't solve anything overnight. What it does do in my estimation, however, is dramatically improve our negotiating position with the Americans. In the days ahead, what I am…. Interjections. Hon.

M. de Jong: What I am saying, what the Pre- mier is saying, what I hope all members of this House are saying to the Americans is: "Your position is eroded. Let's roll up our sleeves, let's get back to the table, and let's negotiate a durable, long-lasting solu- tion to a trade dispute that is inflicting pain on both sides of the border." Let's get B.C.'s number one indus- try moving again. MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY J. Kwan: In the last few weeks there has been a wave of opinion pieces and letters to the editors in the interior papers from the Liberal MLAs, justifying the sale of the Coquihalla.

Clearly, these letters are not working. The people, the businesses and the municipal leaders in the nearby communities are furious, and these letters are just confirming that their MLAs are not listening. This government has kicked it up a notch with a wave of taxpayer-funded ads in newspapers throughout the interior. Could the Minister of Transportation tell this House how much the government is spending on propaganda advertising to convince British Columbi- ans that paying tolls for the next 55 years is actually good for them? [1440] Hon. J. Reid: We inherited a transportation system that was broken.

We inherited need all over this prov- ince for investment into transportation. We have been

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6991 asked for information, and that is what we're providing to people. There's a myth out there saying that this highway is paid for. In fact, it has not been paid for, and it is a long way from being paid for. In fact, there is about $2.5 billion that has been in- vested in this highway. The tolls have been $550 mil- lion. It's important to respond to people, to their ques- tions for information, with good, solid information back to them. [End of question period.] Petitions H. Bloy: I rise today to present a petition from the B.C.

Bottle Depot Association of 17,000 signatures re- garding the full refund of domestic beer containers. R. Harris: I'd like to present a petition to the House signed by 3,131 residents of Kitimat. This petition is asking the provincial government to insist that Alcan honour its contractual commitment to use the water power from Kemano for the purpose that was in- tended, and that's the production of aluminum. Tabling Documents Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's report No. 1, 2003-04, A Review of Performance Agreements between the Ministry of Health Services and the Health Authorities. Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Admini- stration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, on amounts borrowed by government for making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding report on loans to govern- ment bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements.

These reports provide an overview of the prov- ince's borrowing activity in fiscal 2002-03. The reports indicate the gross new borrowing by the government for purposes of lending to government bodies and ex- cludes borrowing for government purposes. The 2002 budget forecast total for new borrowing is $7.043 bil- lion for fiscal 2002-03, and the unaudited actual gross borrowings for fiscal 2002-03 totalled $3.615 billion. That includes a net decrease in short-term borrowing of $227 million as well.

The lower borrowing requirements are due to lower-than-expected government financial require- ments, lower borrowing requirements due to the im- provement in the deficit, lower working capital and financing transaction requirements, lower capital spending and forecast allowance not being required. Motions without Notice Hon. G. Collins: By leave, I move that Ms. Sahota be added to a list of members comprising the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Ser- vices for the present session. Leave granted. APPOINTMENT OF PATTY SAHOTA TO FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE Motion approved.

Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members we'll be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. In this House I call second reading on Bill 64. [1445] Second Reading of Bills TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: I move the bill be now read a second time. This bill addresses a number of transportation- related priorities and deals with seven existing acts.

The purpose of the bill is to eliminate 228 obsolete or redundant regulations, facilitate planning for a variety of transportation improvements and encourage eco- nomic development in the tourism and commercial transportation sectors. Consistent with our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape by one-third within three years and to revitalize our economy, this bill amends the Railway Act to remove 162 unnecessary or outdated regulatory requirements and eliminate red tape. The Railway Act was largely written and enacted in the early 1900s, when railways were regulated as monopolies.

Over time many provisions of the act have fallen into disuse, and railways are no longer subject to provisions that are either out of date or constitute an unwarranted degree of regulation in today's highly competitive commercial transportation environment. The majority of provisions to be repealed deal with economic regulatory requirements, including the regu- lation of railway, telegraph and telephone tolls and tariffs; the prescription of structure for tolls and tariffs; and the requirement to provide traffic information to the minister.

The provisions proposed for repeal are no longer used for regulatory purposes, so their repeal will not impact the operations of railways under pro- vincial jurisdiction. Repealing the Riverbank Protection Act will elimi- nate an additional 66 obsolete requirements. Repealing this act is an excellent example of what our govern- ment's deregulation initiative is meant to do: eliminate redundant legislation that has been superseded by more current statutes. The dike production rights are

6992 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 still protected under the Dike Maintenance Act and the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act, and the Ministry of Wa- ter, Land and Air Protection is now responsible for the management of dike repair. A third change is to exempt snowmobile trails from

section 4 of the Highway Act. Without that exemption they could be considered public highways. This change is in keeping with our government's heartlands strat- e g y . P r o v i n c i a l a g e n c i e s m a y w i s h t o i n v e s t i n t h e s e snowmobile trails because of the potential local tour- ism benefits they could generate. If a trail were deemed a highway, various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act would apply. This is not practical or desirable from either a law enforcement or a recreational perspective.

That would be counterproductive to the work done by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the B.C. Snowmobile Federation to develop a back- country snowmobile tourism industry. Similar snow- mobile networks have already been established in Quebec and Ontario. We applaud this initiative as a way to increase the tourism potential of the province. A previous exemption to

section 4 was provided to the Trans Canada Trail to allow the government at the time to invest in the trail without creating a public highway. This amendment will exempt all previously created snowmobile trails. We're also proposing amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to facilitate the addition of the proposed Richmond-Airport- Vancouver rapid transit project into the authority's existing strategic transportation plan. This is an ena- bling amendment.

It allows the GTVA — or TransLink, as it's commonly known — and the GVRD to deal with a resolution to provide funding for the RAV project in a more timely manner than would be possible under existing legislation. We have done this to accommodate both TransLink and the GVRD. The RAV project is a major opportunity for the region, one which we have worked hard to facilitate and have committed to sup- port financially. While this amendment shortens the process for consideration, it does not affect the ability of either TransLink or the GVRD to accept or reject the proposal.

The shorter time frame is necessary to confirm TransLink's financial commitment to the RAV line. Both the TransLink and GVRD boards must approve the project in order for it to proceed. [1450] That commitment is required if the project is to obtain funding commitments from the federal govern- ment. If the federal government joins us, it will bring more than $1 billion for transportation into the region from outside TransLink's normal sources.

Finally, the bill proposes changes to the Transporta- tion Investment Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act and the Weed Control Act to facili- tate a new long-term services and operations agree- ment for the Coquihalla Highway. Specifically, the amendments will provide for a future partner to as- sume responsibility for weed control along the high- way right-of-way, toll collection and the provision of frequent traveller passes. In exchange, the partner will assume all obligations associated with operating, main- taining and rehabilitating the highway.

The amendment to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act takes the form of repealing

part 3 of that act.

Part 3 provides a regulation-making power respecting tolls for the Coquihalla Highway. This au- thority is to be repealed, as a requisite authority is now provided in the Transportation Investment Act. The amendment to the Transportation Investment Act involves adding a provision which expressly pro- vides that a person may dispute a toll if the person is entitled, under a program or contract with the conces- sionaire, to travel for free or for a reduced toll amount.

The amendment to the Weed Control Act ensures that while the highway right-of-way will remain publicly owned, a partner undertaking operations and mainte- nance is responsible for weed control along that right- of-way. J. MacPhail: I w a n t t o a d d r e s s o n e p a r t o f t h e Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. It's not something that got much attention with the flurry of bills being loaded onto this Legislature. I listened in- tently to the minister to see whether she would actually address the significance of her actions in this legisla- tion, and of course she didn't.

These are the amendments to the Greater Vancou- ver Transportation Authority Act. She just glossed over those. Well, I absolutely know that if any other gov- ernment tried to introduce that amendment, and this group were in opposition, they'd have this Legislature going for weeks — not hours, for weeks — in protest, because the amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act are going to have many effects. They're heavy-handed. They're one-sided, and they're interfering in a community body, a community decision-making body. Here's what's going to happen.

There will be a definition added because of this act, and the definition will now define the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project, and this legislation will entrench that plan into all future planning for the Greater Van- couver Transportation Authority Act. Moreover, the TransLink board will be empowered, by resolution of the board, to amend the strategic transportation plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project to the plan.

The comprehensive consulta- tion requirements of the statute that previously existed are waived — gone bye-bye, outlawed — when it comes to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid tran- sit project. That's because the project is exempted from sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Greater Vancouver Trans- portation Authority Act. Now, if any other government did this to this gov- ernment, oh, they'd be up in arms. If a senior level of government interfered in this government's business, oh my gosh, wouldn't the Liberal government just be outraged?

Despite the second introduction of commu- nity charter transition legislation and amendments, despite this government's claim that they're going to let

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6993 local governments have autonomy, despite this gov- ernment's claim that they're going to be out of the business of downloading onto local governments, here we have a piece of legislation that interferes at all lev- els. This government is forcing the Richmond-Airport- Vancouver rapid transit project on not only TransLink but on the community in the greater Vancouver re- gional district. [1455] Let me be very clear.

I haven't had time to know whether the RAV line is the best priority in tight fiscal economic times — disturbingly tight fiscal economic times, given this government's economic record — and neither had the people in the greater Vancouver re- gional district. There's confusion and disagreement about how to proceed — but not this government. This government doesn't care. They're going to say: "Pro- ceed, TransLink, with RAV, and don't worry about community consultation."

Section 14(2) of the Greater Vancouver Transporta- tion Authority Act currently requires that the strategic transportation plan define the relationship between major actions and plans of TransLink and balance it with the growth strategy of the region and air quality objectives and economic development of the region.

Section 14(2)(

c) says the strategic transportation plan must include a long-range capital and financial plan. Here we have a situation where a billion-dollar project — some say a $2 billion project — is going to be rammed through with no requirement by anybody to see whether it makes sense that that is where the money's spent, no requirement to see whether that project actually contributes in a positive way to the growth strategy of the region and no idea about whether the pursuit of the RAV line would actually improve air quality objectives and economic develop- ment of the region.

This government has outlawed examination of those factors when it comes to this project. None of these steps or requirements need now apply and, in fact, are outlawed when it comes to the Richmond- Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project, since the RAV line will simply — plop — be inserted into the existing plan. That existing plan has taken years of community consultation to produce. It was a thoughtful, open, inclusive, detailed community consultation to develop the existing TransLink plan. There was much toing and froing; there was much giving and taking. The city of Burnaby had strongly held views.

The city of Coquit- lam had strongly held views — the city of Richmond, the city of Vancouver, North Vancouver, just to name a few who were part of the development of that plan. They reached agreement. The TransLink board and the GVTA reached agreement, and then that plan was ap- proved by the greater Vancouver regional district. What does this Liberal provincial government do? It says: "Oh, you know that plan you guys have? Plop. Here's the RAV line going to be put right in the middle of it. Don't worry. Don't bother redoing your plan. Don't bother consulting. Don't bother trying to balance.

Just plop it right in the middle and get on with it. By the way, we're going to set a deadline." [1500] And this government claims to be open and inclu- sive and to not download? They're doing this in the context of not knowing where the money's going to come from. This provincial government hasn't commit- ted to the RAV line. The federal government hasn't committed to the RAV line.

TransLink has, contingent upon other funding, but they're taking away funding from the completion of the Millennium Line out to Co- quitlam, which has completely upset the cities of Co- quitlam and Port Moody, because the Millennium Line was part of a strategic plan agreed to by everybody on TransLink. This government has ground to a stop that plan, which had lots of community consultation — ground to a stop the completion of that plan that every- body had agreed to — and is now shifting funding to the RAV line or forcing the shifting of the funding.

They're using the same RAV line, or forcing the shift- ing of the funding. They're using the same RAV line. I guess this now- government has come right on board with the Bom- bardier technology they claimed was such a backroom deal before. I guess they've embraced it now. Isn't it funny what a difference two years make? No commu- nity planning, no community consultation, using the same technology — all of which they objected to so vociferously when the community was going through that decision-making process in the 1990s. Shame on this government.

Shame on the Premier, who stood so strongly against all of that community planning when it was happening for transportation. But here we have this government ramming through a project.

Section 14(3) of the Greater Vancouver Transporta- tion Authority Act currently requires that the author- ity, TransLink, prepare all its capital and service plans and policies and carry out all activities and services in a manner consistent with the strategic transportation plan. It seems they haven't been doing that with all of their RAV planning so far, since the RAV hasn't been part of the strategic transportation plan until now. That's why the government wants to force this RAV line into the plan — just insert it. It doesn't matter what effect it has or not. Before the strategic transportation plan could be amended in the past, prior to this government intro- ducing this legislation,

section 15 of the current act required a plan for consultation with the public, mu- nicipalities, organizations, the greater Vancouver re- gional district, government and trade unions, as well as anyone else likely to be affected by the amendment to the strategic transportation plan. Oh. Public consulta- tion — open and inclusive consultation before anything changes. Well, that's outlawed now by this minister. Forget it. This government's not interested in that kind of planning. TransLink was required to consider those comments before taking action. That's all gone now.

Bill 64, the bill that we're debating right now, deems that requirement for openness and transparency and everybody's opinion being heard to have been met

6994 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 with regard to the RAV. Poof. Again, the transporta- tion fairy comes down and says: "Poof!" That consulta- tion is deemed to have occurred. God, the power of this minister. It is unbelievable. She can just say: "Oh my God. All that requirement to actually do thoughtful strategic planning is gone." There hasn't been any ac- tual consultation of any sort on an amendment to the strategic transportation plan in reality — none. But does that make any difference to this government? No.

If the board of TransLink passes a resolution to amend the strategic transportation plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line, the amendment must be submitted to the greater Vancouver regional district for ratification. The greater Vancouver regional district board must respond to that request by a resolu- tion made on or before May 30. That's all in this legisla- tion. Wow. What happened to the Community Char- ter wanting to give independence to local govern- ments? Oh. The greater Vancouver regional district's autonomy will be in part two of the Community Char- t e r .

S o , w h i l e t h i s g o v e r n m e n t m a y b e b r e a k i n g t h e spirit of what they claimed with the Community Char- ter, they're not actually breaking the law yet, because they haven't introduced that part of that law. I guess that's why this government feels comfortable ramming through this dictatorial deadline on the greater Van- couver regional district. I guess that's why they feel comfortable saying: "May 30 — that's all the time you've got, GVRD." [1505] Seems to me like a pretty heavy-handed approach taken by the province.

If the greater Vancouver re- gional district board fails to respond to the request on or before May 30, the GVRD board is automatically deemed to have approved the request anyway, so long as the request was received by May 27. This kind of legislated dictatorship on a lower level of government by a senior level of government is unprecedented and a heavy-handed action never before taken by a provin- cial government. This minister says: "Oh, don't worry about this amendment. It's just consequential." Of course, none of the lower mainland MLAs are standing up.

The member who represents Coquitlam and Port Moody should be standing up in outrage be- cause it's her community that's going to be lost out of this, her community that actually has the strategic transportation plan dictating that the next expenditure on public transportation will go to Coquitlam and Port Moody. They've lost out. There's no money for them — none, not a cent. But where's that person standing up to speak? Silence. Dead silence. Now, just to be clear, this doesn't require the GVRD to necessarily approve the request — not necessarily.

They can respond to the request before May 30, and I'm hopeful that the GVRD will take the option to deny the request to ratify the amendment. I'm hoping that they will actually see their way clear to push back on this government and not allow the heavy-handed, auto- matic ratification to go through. I expect that's what the GVRD will do, because they know the consequences of allowing an automatic ratification. They know the con- sequences of that to their bottom line, so I am hopeful that while this provincial government is irresponsible, the GVRD will actually act responsibly.

I have every indication that they will do so. The amendment to the strategic transportation plan will take effect once all of the following has occurred: the amendment is ratified by the GVRD board, the province provides notice to TransLink that the gov- ernment has received a commitment from the govern- ment of Canada for funding for the RAV in an amount and on terms satisfactory to the government, and TransLink enters into an agreement with the province and the airport authority in which all three parties agree on the terms for construction of the RAV. Gee, that's a lot of work to do.

I wonder why the minister is so anxious to have this amendment pass. What is she possibly interfering for? What is the hurry? What is the hurry that over $1 billion — some are esti- mating $2 billion, of which a pittance is going to be provided by the private sector…. What's the hurry to spend so much money without consultation and with- out examining the effect on the transportation plan that took years to produce? Did she not have confidence that the parties were going to do those things? In fact, they were going to do all of those things that are re- quired.

They were going to do it without the heavy hand of this government. [1510] But no, this province, who's getting quite used to using the tyranny of its majority, feeling quite…. I don't know. There's an adrenalin rush they get by the tyranny of their actions. We see it in the Coquihalla. W e s e e i t a s t h i s m i n i s t e r g e t s u p a n d m a k e s i t u p a s she's going along about what the real…. She says now there's $2 billion in debt around the Coquihalla. I won- der whether they just found that information out. Did they?

They certainly didn't make that information clear when they were talking to the community leaders. They d idn't m ake that clear at all. That ty ranny of the majority is saying to the community in the Coquihalla area: "Tough beans what you think. Sorry. We didn't want to mention it to you that we were going to im- pose 55 years of tolls on you." We have the same situation here for the lower mainland. Tactics by the province that are heavy- handed: they are attempting to corner the regional transit authority into accepting an expensive public- private partnership.

In its haste to get the Olympics, the province is rushing in to build an expensive rapid transit line at the expense of proper public consultation and — who knows? — maybe even at the expense of proper public transit in the lower mainland. I don't know. I have no idea, because the consultation hasn't been done on that yet. It will be quite exceptional if the tyranny of the ma- jority of this Liberal government is used to attempt to pass the RAV rapid transit line by fiat. I will indicate to the House that in committee stage the opposition will be voting against that amendment. J.

Nuraney: I seek leave to make an introduction.

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6995 Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today, I am told, the best students from the Maywood Community School who have jo ined us this afterno on. I would re- quest the House to please make them welcome. Debate Continued P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 64. My comments today will be in reference to amendments to the Railway Act. B.C. Rail was founded in 1912 as a private enter- prise. In 1918 it was acquired by the government, and for a reason. The government acquired B.C.

Rail at the time for the express purpose of opening up the north- ern resource regions. With Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, the government is doing the opposite. The B.C. Liberals are closing down the northern regions — m a k e n o m i s t a k e . I n s o d o i n g , t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n t r u l y represents the end of an era. That era in this province was one when it did not matter where you lived. Governments did their best with the resources they had to treat all British Colum- bians, regardless of their address, roughly the same. Now we're entering into this B.C.

Liberal new era in which it does matter where you live, an era in which there will be two classes of British Columbians: the first class in the lower mainland and greater Victoria; the second class, those that reside outside the lower mainland and Victoria in regions such as the one I rep- resent, the so-called heartlands. Make every region a heart, and they'll be happy. Yes, I have heard the sound bites from the minister. I have heard the minister's proposal to sell B.C. Rail. The minister states, in fact, that this proposal will make B.C. Rail more competitive and will better serve British Columbia.

On the one hand, we have the minister — all smiles — saying that sunny days are on the horizon, that a phantom private sector saviour will suddenly appear. The B.C. Liberal government has, in fact, for the third time completely reversed its position on the es- sential Crown asset known as B.C. Rail. In this House on April 4, 1995, and again on March 23, 1995, the Pre- mier, then Leader of the Opposition, stated his position quite clearly — so we thought. He said: "Let's sell B.C. Rail. " He repeated that on several occasions. How did this scheme play in the north at the time?

What did the good people in 100 Mile House and Prince George think of this scheme? They hated it; they fought it. They won; the Premier lost. [1515] I recall the Premier telling us after the 1996 election that a prime reason the B.C. Liberals lost the election was because of the promise to sell B.C. Rail. So for the 2001 election, that was the promise. B.C. Rail would remain in public hands. That was a relief to northern- ers. How fragile and fickle memory can be, even when that memory is the Premier's. Now we're back for the third time, in the third reversal. The north can now expect to be auctioned off again.

Anyway, hidden in an omnibus bill — deliberately so, and let's not pretend otherwise — we have some- thing I find quite peculiar. We have the Transportation minister, again all smiles, promising economic health for the northern heartland. Hidden in the changes to the statutes is the real reason for the request for pro- posals for B.C. Rail. It's in the fine print. Now, if we were to put this request for proposals in layman's terms, what would it look like? Here is what it would look like with Bill 64. A private operator is wanted to assume responsibility and control of B.C. Rail.

That private operator can have it all but must pretend public ownership of the railbed is important, just to make the government feel good. Furthermore, the pri- vate operator must provide worse service at a higher cost with slashed jobs and reduced public accountability. Let's go through the legislation to flesh out these points. How about we start at what I believe to be a requirement of worse service? The legislation ends a requirement that a train must be run at practical, regu- lar hours. This would provide less reliability for ship- pers. After all, when looking at the north, B.C.

Rail received more than 60 percent of its total revenue from forestry for the year 2002. The legislation also ends a requirement that train schedules must be set by public notice, and it ends a requirement for stations to post information about trains that will be late. B.C. Rail has 1,441 route-miles in four regions: the coast, the Cariboo, Prince George, and the Rocky Mountain and Peace River area. The gov- ernment is saying here that there's just no point or need for a private rail operator to ensure that the services it provides will be constant and consistent.

Taking this legislation at face value, it appears the government is not, in fact, interested in setting up B.C. Rail with a private operator to provide better and enhanced ser- vice. That is not the case. But, hey, with worse service you would expect costs to go down, especially the cost to shippers. After all, the 2002 core services review called for scaling back B.C. Rail to an industrial freight line only. You would think that with this focus, much effort would be dedi- cated to making sure that freight service was the best it could be. But again, that is not the case with Bill 64.

I am saying that despite the reassurances of the minister, we will see higher costs for shippers with a private operator under Bill 64. This bill pretty much ends all requirements regard- ing the setting of tolls, not only for passengers and freight traffic but to ensure that tolls do not unjustly discriminate between localities. No more. Instead we get higher costs. In particular, this legislation would appear to hint that the north would pay additional costs to subsidize, possibly, more lucrative routes elsewhere on the line.

If that wasn't enough, the legislation appears to end ministerial approval for toll rates — no government

6996 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 oversight for the toll rates that are set. Again, what a deal. It's not like a shipper has many alternatives to get their product to market. Worse service, higher costs, and nothing you can do about it too. That's because Bill 64 would reduce public accountability for whatever form B.C. Rail will take by the end of this year. [1520] For example, the legislation ends a requirement of ministerial approval for a railway company to change its location. Does that mean B.C. Rail could be head- quartered in Montreal or El Paso?

How would that benefit industry in this province? The legislation ends ministerial approval for the location of new stations on a railway as well, I will just mention. But that's only a minor quibble compared to the next one when it comes to government accountability for B.C. Rail. The legislation appears to end any re- quirement for railway companies to produce financial and other information to the minister. Beyond an an- nual report, British Columbians will have little window into the operation, the service, the future of rail in this province. There will no longer be ministerial oversight of B.C. Rail.

The railway is supposed to be for British Columbia, but British Columbia will be out of the pic- ture officially. What about the safety of a private opera- tion? Not much talk about that around here. Further, the legislation ends a requirement that employees of railway companies be paid wages similar to or current with similar industries. I see this as a government giv- ing the new operator the leeway for the job cuts that will surely come. This one's got the government scurry- ing as we speak, in fact, with reference to 1,200-plus jobs currently at risk.

Here, once again, the government is selling off a vital Crown asset at the expense of the needs of north- ern communities. Let's be honest with ourselves when we hear the sound bites, the government spin. There is no guarantee that competitive, affordable rail service as we know it will continue with the private sector opera- tor. The disruption is already apparent. How can the government, before a suitor has supposedly even been found, promise more competitive rates, promise a bet- ter integrated system and promise things like economic development for rail-dependent communities? How do they know this?

I would like to know. I have pointed out what I see from this legislation. It's sad, and it's a sad day. It's sad to talk about B.C. Rail in the past tense. B.C. Rail has played an integral role in opening up the northern part of this province, and B.C. Liberals have played an integral role in shut- ting down the north. Think about this. It is truly an awesome responsibility to be the Premier of this prov- ince. He has invested in his office the power to build a province and the power to break it. These are choices, and there are voices urging the Premier to rethink this and to rethink his options. Mr.

Speaker: For second reading of Bill 64, the Minister of Transportation closes debate. Hon. J. Reid: I wanted to call the motion. Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Motion approved. Hon. J. Reid: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 66. MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second time. In addition to minor housekeeping items, Bill 66 includes a number of amendments that are deregula- tory in nature. In keeping with our new-era commit- ment and with making British Columbia a national leader in regulatory reform, many amendments in Bill 66 reflect our continuing review and upgrading of regulation.

This ongoing review is a key aspect of our deregulation framework and our commitments, and it builds on our progress to date. [1525] Bill 66 repeals two antiquated acts, the Barbers Act and the Cosmetologists Act. These two acts regulate many aspects of these trades, and they es- tablish mandatory associations for their members. Anyone who wants to work as a barber or a cosme- tologist in British Columbia must join an association and pay annual dues.

As a result of the core services review undertaken by government in this ministry, it was found that these acts duplicated other laws already in place and that they imposed unnecessary regulation and an annual fee on working people just to work in their occupation. The amendments in Bill 66 bring barbers and cosmetologists in line with how most other trades are treated in British Colum- bia. Housekeeping amendments are required to the Commercial Transport Act to incorporate by reference recent additions to the Motor Vehicle Act.

These provi- sions permit ICBC to refuse to issue licences, permits or plates for motor vehicles or trailers that have not been presented for inspection or for irreparable — not re- pairable, that is — and salvage vehicles. The amend- ments also incorporate into the Commercial Transport Act vehicle impoundment and street racing provisions that were made last year. The amendments to the Commercial Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Act will streamline the require- ments applicable to light utility trailers, including home-built trailers, under 1,401 kilograms. Trailers

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6997 licensed under 1,401 kilograms will no longer, by law, require a vehicle identification number. Trailers li- censed under 1,401 kilograms will be classed as non- commercial, and requirements typical for larger com- mercial trailers will not apply to light utility trailers. These amendments will simplify registration and li- censing processes for owners of trailers and adopt a common weight threshold for the application of re- quirements applicable to trailers.

The amendments in this bill to the Correction Act permit the transfer of responsibility for inspections of correctional centres from the investigation, inspection and standards office to the corrections branch of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This transfer will allow a more efficient and effective man- agement of correctional centres. The investigation, in- spections and standards office will continue to conduct investigations of complaints and critical incidents.

The Election Act is being amended to remove the disqualification from voting of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of two or more years. The reason for removing this disqualification is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a similar provision in the federal election legislation is unconstitutional, and the rationale behind the Supreme Court of Canada's decision is, in our view, equally applicable to the Elec- tion Act of British Columbia. Elections B.C. currently provides an opportunity for prisoners serving shorter sentences to vote.

The amendments to the Election Act will ensure that the Election Act respects the constitutional requirements imposed as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision interpreting

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Amendments to the Estate Administration Act in- creased cost-recovery for the public guardian and trus- tee services by allowing the public guardian and trus- tee to have discretion to decline to administer estates in some circumstances and to clarify the authority of the public guardian and trustee to charge for certain ser- vices. Consequential amendments to the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and the Trustee Act are also required.

Bill 66 amends the Expropriation Act to empower the chair of the Expropriation Compensation Board to desig- nate any member of the board to hear any matter and make any decision, order or determination that could be made by the board, the chair or the vice-chair, except the power to make a designation under this section. These amendments also serve to give the board authority to make rules subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting pre- hearing conferences, mediation and other dispute reso- lution processes.

These amendments to the Expropria- tion Act are part of government's continuing commit- ment to administrative justice reform. The amendment to the Family Relations Act will provide express statutory authority for the court to order blood or tissue testing where parentage is denied in an application for child support. Rule 15 of the provincial family court rules allows a judge to order the alleged parents and the child to have blood or tissue samples taken for testing where parentage is denied in a child support case.

Rule 15 has been challenged on the basis that there is no statutory authority underlying the rule. [1530] Accordingly, an amendment is being made to the Family Relations Act to ensure that the statutory au- thority that is required is in place. A consequential amendment is being made to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to bring that act in line with the changes made in the Family Relations Act. That will allow the court to order paternity testing in contested child support cases where one of the parties lives out- side British Columbia.

The amendment to the Forest Act in Bill 66 is to correct a typographical error. This bill provides an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that, in turn, provides clarification regarding a previous amendment to that act. The previous amendment provided the in- formation and privacy commissioner with the author- ity to delegate the examination of information pro- tected by the law enforcement exception of the FOI Act, but permitted the Attorney General or the head of a police force to request that the commissioner not dele- gate examination of this information.

The amendment now before the House would allow the assistant Attor- ney General, criminal justice branch, to also request that the commissioner not delegate examination of this type of information. Additional changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amend

schedule 2 of the act to remove public bodies that are no longer active from the list of public bodies covered by and subject to that act. The amendment also adds the Workers Com- pensation Appeal Tribunal to the

schedule of public bodies covered by the act. One other change removes provisions of the act that have been deemed obsolete. Bill 66 amends the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act by repealing obsolete provisions related to the crash responsibility charge that was cancelled in September 2000. The CRC applied to all non-fleet vehicles that were found to be at fault in accidents that caused prop- erty damage. The vehicle owner or driver nominated by the owner was responsible for the first $250 of prop- erty damage caused by his or her vehicle, depending on the driver's percentage of liability.

The CRC was replaced with a program that uses more selective crite- ria to target a small number of higher-risk drivers with chronic claims histories through additional premiums attached to their driver's licence. The Liquor Control and Licensing Act is being amended to reference an additional

section of the Criminal Code. The effect of this change will be to permit liquor service in the gaming areas of horse- racing facilities. The amendment will bring the liquor licensing policies for horse-racing facilities, including teletheatres, in line with the policies that exist for casi- nos and bingo halls. The amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act will remove the requirement for registrants to list the

6998 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 names of every single public servant and other gov- ernment official that they have lobbied or intend to lobby. This amendment will address the legitimate concern brought to government's attention by the users of the registry about onerous registration requirements, and it will not impact the effectiveness of the registry. What the public wants and needs to know is which ministries, which cabinet ministers and which MLAs are being lobbied. That information will still be re- quired.

The amendment will be brought into force by regulation to ensure that the registry software is up- dated and operating correctly. Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for the duration of drivers' licences to be extended through regulation as opposed to having a fixed expiry date in legislation. This will allow ICBC and govern- ment to provide flexible and convenient service to cus- tomers throughout the province. The amendment to the Museum Act in Bill 66 is to correct a typographical error.

The purpose of the amendments to the Offence Act is to clarify the process to be followed in prosecuting a violation ticket matter. The amendments distinguish between the front of the violation ticket and the in- structions contained on the reverse side, as well as clar- ify the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court to hear these prosecutions. This bill amends the Patients Property Act to im- plement minor changes in the act flowing from the core services review of the public guardian and trustee.

While preserving safeguards for vulnerable adults, the amendments will reduce the reporting requirements for committees and streamline the services provided by the public guardian and trustee when private commit- tees are appointed. The amendments to the Supreme Court Act link the masters' salary and benefits package, including pen- sion benefits, to those of Provincial Court judges.

This amendment is in recognition of a longstanding recom- mendation that masters have the same qualifications as Provincial Court judges and should be employed on the same terms and at the same rate of pay. [1535] I look forward to the comments of members in the debate that follows. Of course, as this is a miscellane- ous statutes amendment act, it may well be the case that some members may wish to focus their remarks during committee stage debate on the particular provi- sions that are of interest to them. P. Nettleton: Briefly, then, some comments with respect to Bill 66 in second reading.

I'm pleased to say today, at second reading, with respect to the Miscella- neous Statutes Amendment Act, that I'm certainly on safe ground when I say there's a lot in this legislation. The minister had to talk rather quickly to get through the information that he did get through, and as he points out, there will be opportunity in commit- tee to focus on particular areas of interest.

But I would like to take a brief run-through, if I may, that will show that in my view, in this one piece of legislation there are many changes that government is making in a hurry to many things ― changes, for instance, to bar- bers, fingernail technicians; changes to cemeteries, semi-trailers; changes to the Election Act in terms of who is permitted to vote, along with DNA tests for paternity disputes; changes to freedom of information and protection of privacy; to liquor, to lobbyists, to museums, to public guardians, to judicial remunera- tion. This identifies only some of the changes in this bill.

I think a reasonable person would assume that even a handful of these changes should or could require in- troduction in separate legislation which would allow, then, for adequate time for debate in this House and consideration by those affected in the general public. That is not, alas, what is happening here. What is occurring is that the government has intro- duced a catch-all, omnibus style of bill to tie up what they perceive as a bunch of loose ends.

They may refer t o i t a s h o u s e k e e p i n g , a s j u s t s o m e t i d y i n g u p , b u t a closer look at some of the proposed changes clearly shows that in fact there's a lot more going on here in this bill. There are significant changes here, buried, which will greatly impact real people in the real world ― a world that we sometimes lose touch with, I'm afraid. I suppose I could go through each

section in terms of the effects and changes on ordinary British Columbians, but I will confine my brief comments to two areas: the barbers and cosmetology changes. I met recently with the Northern B.C. School of Hairdressing located in Prince George, and I had a great time, actually, meeting the students and instruc- tors and discussing their concerns. Of course, I want to note that their concerns are not addressed by this legis- lation but in fact, in my view, are run over roughshod instead. In fact, this bill, Bill 66, would completely repeal both the Cosmetologists Act and the Barbers Act.

While there may be areas within these statutes that require some attention and revision, in my view, their com- plete elimination is unnecessary and detrimental. Hy- giene and public health factor in under the heading "Detrimental Consequences of Bill 66." Barbers and cosmetologists in their day-to-day work frequently use chemicals for hair treatment, for example, which, if misused, because of the relaxing of controls, can have serious implications and conse- quences. Likewise, lack of knowledge about proper sterilization techniques could contribute to the spread of infectious diseases.

Not to take this lightly, but we've all received a bad hair cut at one time or another in our lives, and we know what an experience that can be. How much worse would that be when one's health is endangered in what would otherwise be a simple, safeguarded pro- cedure, duly regulated? In repealing these statutes, the government is leaving itself wide open to this sort of thing happening. It is a public safety matter and a matter of con- sumer protection as well. These statutes that the gov-

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6999 ernment intends to repeal with this legislation ― what purpose do they serve? They set the standard for these industries. They assisted it in the selection of curricu- lum so that those who perform these services do so in a professional and safe manner. Let me also add another important role of these professional organizations. They provide legitimate recourse for public complaints. If these statutes are repealed, where will a dissatisfied client turn?

In short, you are on your own, and if something bad happens, then too bad. [1540] In this, Bill 66 will muddy the waters between reputable and disreputable operators in this service- oriented trade. I see nothing but a backward step in these proposals. It seems again to be a case of un- necessary government tampering with something that works. It seems again to be a case study of the hidden, secretive agenda of this government to somehow make an ideological change that in both the short and long run is harmful to the average Brit- ish Columbian. When is this kind of nonsense going to stop?

If the people whom it affects the most say no, shouldn't gov- ernment be listening? Apparently, government is closed to such input. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 66, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading on Bill 58. INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second time. Bill 58 amends the legislation creating and govern- ing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to bring the corporation under the regulatory jurisdiction of the British Columbia Utilities Commission. The changes that we're introducing are intended to accom- plish two main goals: one, to enable the British Colum- bia Utilities Commission to set ICBC's basic automobile insurance premiums and to supervise ICBC's service levels; two, to enhance competition in the optional in- surance market.

As background, it's important to know that ICBC is in three different lines of businesses. First, it provides basic mandatory insurance coverage to every vehicle and driver licensed in British Columbia. Second, it provides most of the optional automobile insurance in British Columbia in competition with private insurers. Third, it provides other functions related to vehicles and drivers such as administration of the licensing re- gime.

Basic automobile insurance includes $200,000 third- party liability coverage, $1 million uninsured motorist protection, hit-and-run protection and personal injury accident coverage. Every vehicle and every driver li- censed in British Columbia must carry basic coverage, and only the Insurance Cooperation of British Colum- bia provides it. Optional insurance, however, includes additional liability and underinsured motorist coverage beyond the minimum provided as part of that which is in- cluded in basic insurance, as well as collision and com- prehensive coverage for the vehicle.

It's up to the con- sumer how much, if any, of these optional coverages to purchase and what insurer they wish to purchase them from. As well, this bill replaces the authority of cabinet through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set ICBC's premiums. Instead, the bill provides authority for the BCUC to regulate ICBC's basic insurance busi- ness as a monopoly. The Utilities Commission has a long history of regulating public utilities which are monopolies in other fields such as natural gas and elec- tricity.

This change will make use of the expertise the commission has in monopoly regulation to ensure that the Insurance Corporation's basic insurance business is as efficient and its performance as high quality as pos- sible. ICBC premiums will be set in an open and trans- parent manner, ensuring that ICBC remains financially sound and continues its recent progress in becoming more efficient. The Utilities Commission will also have jurisdic- tion over the level of service provided by ICBC.

That's a common feature of monopoly regulation to ensure that the monopoly does not react to pressure placed on its revenues by reducing the level or qual- ity of the service which they provide. The commis- sion will be able to regulate ICBC's practices and procedures but not to intervene in individual claim disputes or change the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage.

Competition in the optional automobile insurance market has been limited in the past because of several natural advantages that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has in that market, which are both financial and operational in nature. As a result, while private insurers are able to provide optional insurance in B.C., they currently have a very small percentage of the market.

Consumers suffer from the lack of choice in the market and because the benefits of competition, in terms of downward pressure on premiums and up- ward pressure on quality services, are not fully real- ized. [1545] This bill addresses this issue by making several changes that will equalize the opportunities afforded to private insurers and ICBC. ICBC has financial advan- tages, as a result of its tax-exempt status and lack of a

7000 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 requirement to earn a revenue return for its investors, which will be eliminated under the bill. The corpora- tion will not be required to pay tax, but it will be re- quired to earn a profit from its optional insurance business equal to that earned before tax by private in- surers, placing them in an equal and competitive posi- tion. Another financial advantage arises because mini- mum capital requirements are currently imposed on private insurers by the financial institutions regulators but not on ICBC.

ICBC's optional insurance business will be required to meet the same capital adequacy test as their competitors after a reasonable phase-in period. So long as ICBC meets the profit and capital targets for its optional insurance business, the Utilities Commis- sion will not regulate optional premiums. There are other items that I will be raising in com- mittee stage of the bill to focus attention to those issues. I move second reading of the bill. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to the mo- tion passed in this House yesterday, the time for debate on this bill has elapsed, so I will call the question.

The question is second reading of Bill 58, Insurance Corpo- ration Amendment Act, 2003. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 58, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 61. COMMUNITY SERVICES LABOUR RELATIONS ACT Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the Community Ser- vices Labour Relations Act be read a second time now. I'm pleased to stand before the House to begin sec- ond reading of the Community Services Labour Rela- tions Act. This legislation creates a new social services labour relations structure that is streamlined and re- flects service delivery structures. This legislation both recognizes and simplifies the Community Social Services Employers Association's role as a social services bargaining agent.

In the past the employers association bargained on behalf of agen- cies, which voluntarily assigned their bargaining rights to the Community Social Services Employers Associa- tion. This legislation establishes the Community Social Services Employers Association as the sole accredited bargaining agent for its member agencies, consistent with the practice in the health sector as well as the edu- cation sector. The legislation will create three bargaining units for the sector: community living, aboriginal services and general services.

The cabinet will have the ability to consolidate the bargaining units into one if it is deemed in the future to be more appropriate. The legislation requires unions in the sector to be part of an association of unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. This model, as well, is patterned on the model used in the health care sector, where unions come together as bargaining associations. The unions will be expected to create and agree to articles of association. In the event that they're unable to do so, the Labour Relations Board will step in to help them complete that task.

The legislation provides the Minister of Skills De- velopment and Labour with discretionary power to require a vote to determine a single union for social services. This discretionary power would be a tool to promote labour stability. It would be exercised to im- prove service delivery or flexibility, cost effectiveness or if it was in the public interest. Government also believes that the role of volun- teers in the social services sector is vital and must be preserved. The presence of volunteers involves the community in planning, development and delivering services to improve the lives of British Columbians.

That role will be protected. The collective agreement in the social services sector will not be allowed to prevent an agency from using a volunteer. However, under this legislation the positions held by unionized employees are protected as long as the use of an unpaid volunteer cannot result in the layoff of an employee. Finally, the Community Services Labour Relations Act will provide legal clarification for the purposes of collective bargaining of the status of employees, con- tractors, subcontractors, family home providers, em- ployers and the government. I move second reading. J.

MacPhail: This legislation, Bill 61, is entitled the Community Services Labour Relations Act. It is inter- esting to note that we have very little time to debate this bill, given that the government has decided to ram this legislation through at the last minute. So I am go- ing to make my comments brief. Nevertheless, I do w a n t t o b e o n r e c o r d a b o u t w h a t e x a c t l y i s g o i n g o n here. [1550] In the 1980s, when some of the current Liberal min- isters were Social Credit ministers, they privatized and contracted out many community services that were then part of the public service.

Now the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services have close to $900 million of taxpayer money going to con- tracted agencies between the two ministries. All of those services used to be in the public service. Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s those services stayed as contracted agencies but were publicly funded. The relationship between those contracted agencies and the government is entwined in such a way that the

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7001 government cannot exist without those agencies be- cause the agencies actually do the direct delivery of services for children and families and women's groups and day care, and those agencies cannot exist without the government because the vast majority of their funding comes from government. It is these very or- ganizations that are now part of the reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Given the chaos that exists in the reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, I wonder what the rush is in passing this piece of legisla- tion. Bill 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act,

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0527pm-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0527pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4825b330c6ece18b88e09dfbc867cea98787fcfc

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