2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 24

[ Page 17151 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

G. Campbell: It was a year ago today that the former member for Delta South passed away. I know many members in this House have commented on that to me today, and I hope that everyone will keep him in their prayers tonight on what may be the last sitting of this session.

Hon. D. Miller: Two introductions: first, Brian Sullivan, who is the director of external affairs for BP Amoco, one of the many energy companies that are making significant investments into British Columbia in terms of expanding our economy; second, my executive assistant from Prince Rupert, Sue Staehli, a very capable woman who works for me in my Prince Rupert office. I would ask the House to make both of them very welcome.

M. Coell: I'd like to welcome to the House today two residents of my riding of Saanich North and the Islands. They are MP Gary Lunn from Saanich-Gulf Islands and the mayor of North Saanich, Linda Michaluk. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sitting in the gallery is a member of my staff, Christine Pascus. We'll be losing Christine, unfortunately, in the very near future, as I understand that she will soon be moving to join her new husband Michael, who was recently transferred to Guam. Would the House please make Christine welcome and join me in wishing her all the best for her future.

[1410]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House today Gregory Kidd, who is the son of my executive assistant. Gregory is one of 30 boys and girls between the ages of seven and 13 from Prince George who have made a 1,200-mile round trip to Sidney to compete in the provincial roller hockey championships. They represent the Prince George Reapers hockey club. I'd ask the House to join me in wishing them every success in their competition.

T. Nebbeling: Today in the House we have a delegation from Squamish. This team is here to meet with a number of ministers to discuss the economic viability of Squamish, because of some problems that we are facing in Elaho. I would like to introduce the members; there's a number of them here. The team is led by the mayor of Squamish, Corinne Lonsdale, who is well known to members. The president of the Squamish chamber of commerce, Mr. Shabbir Dhalla, is here, as well as the senator of senators of the chamber of commerce in Squamish, Mr. Bill Manson. Two members of the IWA, Mr.

Rob Otto and Rob Halliday, are present, and then there is the director of the Soo Coalition for Sustainable Forests, Ron Sanders, together with two members from Interfor, Jim Belsheim and Keith Rush. I ask the House to make them all very welcome.

V. Roddick: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today the Children's International Summer Village. There are nine young people from Sweden and nine from Canada who do an exchange, plus two leaders, Stephanie and Julian. I would ask the House if they would make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: There are two special guests in the visitors' gallery today from the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, deputy minister's office. They are the very capable Heather Neufeld, who is the executive coordinator for Deputy Minister Hal Gerein, and Pam Shatzko, who is the senior executive assistant. Would the House please give a very warm welcome to these hard-working staff of my ministry.

Hon. G. Wilson: I notice on the floor of the Legislature today a former Speaker and a former MLA who is now the Member of Parliament for the riding I represent provincially. Mr. John Reynolds is with us, and I know that he's an organizer for the Canadian Reform Alliance Party -- or the Conservative Reform Alliance Party now. I'm not sure if he's here to recruit the members opposite, hon. Speaker, but perhaps he should start with the member for Richmond Centre.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to welcome my friend Lonnie McLaren and her friend Bernice Gonzalez. These young women have come all the way from Cadboro Bay to visit us today. They're 11 years old, and they just graduated from grade 6. After question period, they'll be visiting the museum. Then they'll be teenagers for awhile, and then they're going to come and be the next generation of politicians in this room. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I notice sitting up in the gallery my executive assistant Keith Simmonds, who is going to be a father in a few months. He's very happy about that, and we're all happy for him as well. Would the House please give Keith Simmonds a warm welcome.

L. Reid: I want to acknowledge someone in the gallery today who has been of tremendous assistance to me over the past five months. Her name is Rheta Steer, and she acts as the nanny to my little daughter Olivia. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

[1415]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is someone who is very important to me in my constituency, and that is my executive assistant Gwen Ranger. I am her third MLA, she having started off with Stu Leggatt and then Mark Rose and then my colleague sitting to the right of me. She was one of the first . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just wait, just wait, just wait. The member from Vancouver should realize that I was talking about my colleague here -- right? Three and a half as opposed to four . . . . [Laughter.]

Anyway, she was one of the first constituency assistants in the province when the position was created back in the seventies, and she is one of the longest-serving in the province for any political party. I would ask the House to make Gwen Ranger most welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today I have a dear friend from Burns Lake, Mr. Ron Piper, who I got to know shortly after I got elected, inasmuch as he carries around in his head more information about aboriginal people than anybody I've ever met. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

[ Page 17152 ]

M. de Jong: A friend and resident from Abbotsford, Darren Stollings, is here. I hope members will make him welcome. It's always great to see him.

Introduction of Bills

BIOLOGISTS' ACT 2000

M. Coell presented a bill intituled Biologists' Act 2000.

M. Coell: I move that a bill intituled Biologists' Act 2000, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

M. Coell: I put forward this bill as an exposure bill, and I think it's safe to say that it won't be debated in this session of the House. We put this forward so that consultation can begin on a bill that I believe is needed in this province.

The Biologists' Act will establish a management framework for the practice of professional biology in British Columbia that will ensure that information and advice on species population, habitats and ecosystems are provided by qualified individuals who are accountable to their peers and to the public of B.C.

With the introduction of this act, we on this side are showing our support for this necessary and worthwhile endeavour and hoping to begin the consultation process with those affected -- which will lead to the adoption of a biologists act in the future -- that will work in the private and public sectors alike.

I would move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M211 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.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT 2000

S. Orcherton presented a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act 2000.

S. Orcherton: I move that a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act 2000, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced now and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

S. Orcherton: The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons across Canada have a long history of interfering with the public's right to choose medical doctors who incorporate complementary medicine into their practices. Complementary medicines are medical therapies free from side effects of drugs and surgery, such as environmental medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, botanicals, ortho-molecular medicine, vitamins -- by the use of vitamins and minerals -- and chelation therapy.

This bill allows medical practitioners to use their own judgment, in the interests of the patient, to diagnose and treat patients using complementary medicine. It protects medical practitioners who practise complementary medicine from harassment by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Alberta and Ontario have adopted similar legislation. In 1995 a study showed that 56 percent of general practitioners indeed believe in alternative medicine and believe in the ideas and methods extending therefrom.

[1420]

Hon. Speaker, interest groups in British Columbia, notably the Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine, both the Vancouver Island group and the lower mainland group, support this initiative, along with the Association of Complementary Physicians of British Columbia, who've done a substantial amount of research on this topic and proposed many of the amendments adopted in this bill. I'd like to thank Deborah Cooper, an intern working in our caucus, who assisted in the preparation and particular thanks go to Judy Kubrak and Mr. Hugh Pearson, who pushed this initiative forward.

It's time for doctors and society at large to recognize that complementary medical therapies are an important component of health care. This bill moves our health care system into the twenty-first century by recognizing that complementary and medical treatments are appropriate and are indeed supported by the public.

With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TOM GUNTON'S REPORT

C. Clark: You know, all this discussion yesterday of the government's plan to assign code names to all its senior people got me thinking about the original international man of mystery in this government: Tom Gunton, the man that they drove from the fourth-floor bunker. Since then, though, he's been toiling away in his basement lab working on a secret assignment for the government, an assignment so secret that not even the minister who was paying him knew that he was working for him.

So we advised the minister that he was working for him. We told the minister he had this man working in deep cover for him, and the minister said he'd look into the project, he'd find out what it was and he'd tell us what was in the report. Well, that report was due on July 1. The minister said he'd deliver it to the House on July 1. It's past the date. Where is it?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The report was due July 1, and it was submitted -- unfortunately, in my view -- in draft form. It was reviewed by -- at least it was presented to -- the deputies on the 4th, the first business day. It's my intention to make sure it's made public next week, when it's in publishable form.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on a supplemental question.

[ Page 17153 ]

C. Clark: What's the delay, hon. Speaker? You know, you'd think that Mr. Gunton would be able to prepare something for public release on his own. Look at all the experience in editing that Mr. Gunton has. Look at the experience he's shown with the budget. You'd think that this minister would have a little more confidence in Mr. Gunton's ability to be able to deliver something on time, when we're paying $100,000 for it.

Will this minister admit that the real delay in providing this project to the House is that he wants the House to rise so that no one will see it before then, because the real reason that they paid Mr. Gunton $100,000 is because it was a severance payment for a man who'd become much too embarrassing for this government to have around?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I take my commitment seriously. I said that we expected that report to be in my deputy's hands by July 1. I wanted to table it in the House this week. It isn't in a publishable form right now. It will be out next week. The last time I checked, that makes it a public document, and all the members of the opposition can look at it, as well as the rest of the people of British Columbia.

KOOTENAY-BOUNDARY

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

G. Abbott: During Forests estimates the minister promised to undertake a full socioeconomic analysis before introducing the Kootenay-Boundary higher-level plan. Now the government's going ahead and imposing the plan without the benefit of any study of potential job losses. Here's what the minister apparently didn't want to know: according to the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, 1,300 forest workers will lose their jobs if this plan is implemented.

Will the Minister of Forests explain to these forest workers and these forest communities why he's imposing a forest management plan that will result in more job losses?

[1425]

Hon. J. Doyle: Back in March, I think it was, I met with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association in Victoria. I gave them a good hearing. At the same time I told them that we had to proceed with land use planning. We did release the higher-level plan this week. It is out for 60 days for consultation by all sectors in the East and West Kootenays. So that is up to them now to get input back to us. At that time, government will make a final decision.

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

G. Abbott: The Minister of Forests made a commitment in Kelowna to the ILMA. He made a commitment to this House in Forests estimates that there would be a social and economic analysis before this plan proceeded. Clearly that commitment was worth just about the same as every other commitment we've ever heard from this government: nothing.

This plan will kill 1,300 jobs. The ILMA, the employers' association, is rightly angered and dismayed by this betrayal. I want to quote briefly from their very recent press release on this: "It is clear once again that the government has no vision for the social and economic future of the Kootenay-Boundary region. It is also clear that the current government does not know or understand the potential impacts of their forest management policy decisions for the area."

Will the Minister of Forests tell us why he's determined to impose this plan, while turning his back on the communities and the forest workers that rely on the forests for their livelihoods?

Hon. J. Doyle: This, from the party that voted against the Forest Practices Code . . . . This is the government that's worked for land use planning. The Forest Practices Code showed that we can have markets in the world as we work toward certification.

Hon. member, I said that it is out for 60 days for input. You're welcome to give input too on this report. So I look forward to the input, and I look forward to spending time, when the House recesses, in the Kootenays, in the Nelson forest district, getting personal input and written input.

R. Neufeld: My question is also to the Minister of Forests. I want to remind that Minister of Forests that it was that government that promised they would never take any money out of Forest Renewal, and it was that government that tried to take $400 million or $500 million out of Forest Renewal. This Kootenay-Boundary plan is going to cost 1,300 family-supporting jobs in the region. On top of that . . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Just listen up. The member from Prince George, if she would just listen up . . . . Local employers say that this plan is going to take $57 million out of the local economy and cost the government $14 million in revenue. Will the Minister of Forests tell us why he is imposing a plan that's going to (

a) cost 1,300 jobs in the Kootenay region, and (

b) remove $57 million out of the local economy?

Hon. J. Doyle: As far as investments in the province, in Fort St. John -- I think it was a week ago -- $200 million was announced in new investments in this province -- $200 million.

I will say the same as I said to the other questioner: the plan is out there for 60 days for input. Everyone is welcome to make input before we make a final decision, the three code ministers.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River North has a supplemental question.

R. Neufeld: Well, you can talk about Peace River North all you want, Mr. Minister. We're talking about the region that you represent; we're talking about the Kootenays. The 1,300 jobs and $57 million in payroll -- that's the question that you should be responding to.

Mr. Speaker, here's what the people of Kootenay-Boundary say: "We have been let down on a massive scale by this NDP government." How can the Minister of Forests expect us to believe anything he says when the people in his own region, in the Kootenay region, believe that they have been let down by this NDP government?

[1430]

Hon. J. Doyle: I remember well when this person became a Liberal about four years ago, just after . . . .

[ Page 17154 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. J. Doyle: I meant to say "pretend Liberals." At that time we just had restructured the industry in Golden -- 700 jobs. What did that member say in Revelstoke, 90 miles west of Golden? A Liberal government would not have restructured the community of Golden and Malakwa: that's what he said about jobs in the Kootenays.

PROVINCIAL TOBACCO TAXATION

F. Randall: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I was interested to see in the Vancouver Sun last week that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation thinks B.C. should cut its tobacco taxes by 75 percent. Given that the B.C. Liberal caucus has recently hired the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Robert Pauliszyn to be in charge of their finance policy research, can the Minister of Finance comment on this apparent new policy coming from the Liberals and what effect it would have on provincial income?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess I shared the member's dismay when I looked at who the Liberal opposition was getting its advice from on taxation and tobacco use. Listen, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says: "Reduce tobacco taxes by 75 percent." That would mean, hon. Speaker, a reduction in provincial revenues of around $330 million.

But more importantly, it would mean further addiction of children in our province. We have kept our tobacco taxes high, and tobacco consumption has gone down. Regrettably, I think they ought to get their advice on the impact of cutting tobacco taxes from, let's say, Philip Morris U.S., since there is no question that increasing taxes will cause a decrease in smoking. This point is perhaps best illustrated by the present situation in Canada, and British Columbia is leading the way.

We have radical notions being filtered into this party every day; this is another one. I ask them to join with us in keeping tobacco taxes up and smoking down.

COST OF FOREST LANDSCAPE

UNIT PLANNING STUDY

R. Coleman: When a minister spews drivel like that in this House, you know that they're a government in trouble, hon. Speaker.

At the beginning of May, during Forests estimates, the minister promised to provide a copy of the cost study with respect to landscape unit planning, a whole new set of regulations that has potential of horrendous costs to the forest industry. The minister said he would make it available in two to three weeks. Well, it's two months. Where is it?

Hon. J. Doyle: The item that the member mentions was mentioned -- he's right -- in question period. The cost of landscape unit planning is still under discussion between the COFI and the Ministry of Forests.

The Speaker: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has a supplemental question.

R. Coleman: During estimates the minister said that the cost of this landscape unit plan will be no more than 10 cents per cubic metre to industry and that any other costs would be borne by government. Will the Forests minister admit today that he's delaying the release of this report because once again he's wrong? The fact is that this plan puts the taxpayers of British Columbia on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

Hon. J. Doyle: I think it was last November when the deputy minister, on behalf of the then minister, sent a letter to the industry, where at that time they suggested that the ministry, government, would get involved with the industry if the price of enforcing this or implementing this was above, I think it was, 10 cents per cubic metre. Those discussions continue with the industry today.

AOX EMISSIONS FROM PULP MILLS

G. Plant: I have another question for the Minister of Forests. There's an important issue for pulp mills in British Columbia; the issue is AOX emissions. It's an issue on which the minister's cabinet colleagues appear to be divided because on the one hand, the Environment minister has recently confirmed her expectation that all B.C. pulp mills will be zero-AOX-compliant by the year 2002.

On the other hand, the Minister of Employment and Investment has said just as enthusiastically that, in his view, the AOX regulations should not apply to Skeena Cellulose, and maybe chasing zero is something we ought not to be looking out for. So my question is for the Minister of Forests, who is responsible for the industry.

[1435]

An Hon. Member: How about saving some jobs? You're talking about jobs. You told us . . . .

The Speaker: Order, member.

G. Plant: As the minister responsible for the industry, will the Minister of Forests show some leadership and sort out this feud and disagreement among his cabinet colleagues?

Hon. J. Sawicki: Through the leadership of this government when it was first elected in 1991, we took some very strong leadership and sent a message that AOX must be reduced in terms of protecting the environment. We have made tremendous progress. And I congratulate industry for the progress they've made in reducing their emissions to the point that many of the shellfish areas that were closed because of pulp mill pollution are now opened; that's good news. I want to finally say, hon. Speaker, that my ministry continues to work with the pulp mills to encourage them to reduce all forms of pollution . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Sawicki: Heckled by your own caucus here.

I'll repeat, hon. Speaker: I wanted to finalize by saying that my ministry continues to work cooperatively with industry to encourage and to reduce all of their emissions and all of their effluents, in order to protect the environment and protect the viability of the mills in the communities and the jobs in this province.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

[ Page 17155 ]

Petitions

Hon. C. Evans: It's a pleasure to present a petition from the Arrow Lakes school district parents, asking the government to remove the school board trustees.

Tabling Documents

Hon. H. Lali: I have the honour to submit the annual report of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for the year ending March 31, 2000, in accordance with the Build B.C. Act.

Hon. G. Wilson: I have the honour to table the annual report of the B.C. Utilities Commission, 1999.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have the honour to table a number of reports: the annual report of the British Columbia Securities Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000; the annual report of the public service pension plan for the year ended March 31, 1999; the report on business pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act,

part 2, during the fiscal year ended March 31, '99; the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1999; and finally, the unclaimed money deposits report '99-2000, for the year ended March 31, 2000.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table the '98-99 annual report of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have the honour today to present two reports. One is the annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia for the year ending March 31, 2000, and the other is the annual report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship commission for the year ending March 31, 2000.

Hon. C. Evans: I have the pleasure to present two reports. The first is the annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for the year '99-2000, and I thank the directors for their good work. The second is the annual report of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation for '98-99.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the 1999 annual report of the chief electoral officer to the Legislative Assembly.

G. Clark: I apologize. I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Clark: I'd like to introduce to the gallery and ask the House to welcome Len Werden, his daughter Shannon Werden and their friend Chelsea McDonald. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1440]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I want to call committee stage debate on the Secure Care Act, Bill 25. In this chamber, I want to begin by calling third reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

Point of Order

G. Farrell-Collins: There's going to be a recorded division almost immediately on the bill. So rather than call the Chair, perhaps we could do that first and then start the committee in the other room.

The Speaker: Thank you member, I appreciate that. Perhaps members could remain in their seats. There will be a division.

[1445]

BALANCED BUDGET ACT

Third reading of Bill 28 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Doyle

McGregor

Sawicki

Kwan

Lali

Hammell

Pullinger

Bowbrick

Brewin

Boone

Orcherton

Calendino

Zirnhelt

Randall

Robertson

Sihota

Cashore

Conroy

Smallwood

Miller

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Petter

Lovick

Priddy

Ramsey

G. Wilson

Farnworth

Waddell

Stevenson

Gillespie

Streifel

Walsh

Kasper

G. Clark

Goodacre

NAYS -- 34

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

McKinnon

Dalton

Bill 28, Balanced Budget Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now call third reading on Bill 18.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Bill 18, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 17156 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to call committee on Bill 24.

[1450]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2000

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Hon. A. Petter: I move, with leave, the amendment to

section 4.1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 4.1, by adding the following:

Dentists Act

4.1 The Dentists Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 94, is amended by adding the following section:

Power to make regulations

87 Without limiting any other power the Lieutenant Governor in Council may have to make regulations under this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting retention of records including, without limitation, regulations respecting the following:

(

a) the records or classes of records that must be retained by persons to whom this Act applies, including, without limitation, by the persons who are qualified and permitted under this Act to practise dentistry in British Columbia;

(

b) the basis on which and the circumstances in which the records that must be retained by a person referred to in paragraph (

a) may be retained by another person;

(

c) the manner in which, the locations at which and the persons by which any or all of those retained records may or must be retained, and the circumstances and manner in which any or all of those retained records may or must be moved to any other location or person;

(

d) the period for which any or all of the retained records must be retained;

(

e) access to the retained records including, without limitation, the hours during which, the persons to which and the manner and circumstances in which access to or extracts or copies of any or all of the retained records must be provided;

(

f) the fees, if any, that may be charged by any person having custody of any or all of the retained records for the provision by that person of access to or extracts or copies of any or all of the retained records;

(

g) establishing offences and prescribing penalties for any breach of any of the regulations made under this section;

(

h) any other matter the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate in relation to records that must be retained under the regulations made under this section.]

Leave granted.

On the amendment.

G. Plant: I simply want to indicate that this is, I think, a good step forward in terms of dealing with a particular issue that arises in the context of the Limitation Act as it affects the province's dentists. I know that there are always concerns in the community at large about the Limitation Act. No doubt there are other groups in the community that will, and do, have issues that they'll want to bring forward.

I am glad that this particular issue has been brought forward so that some progress can be made in ensuring that the dentists of British Columbia are not subject to an unreasonably extensive or lengthy ultimate limitation period. I wanted to express my gratitude to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for helping me to understand this issue in order that we could respond to the government's initiative on this matter.

Hon. A. Petter: I just think perhaps I should offer a few words as well on this and, indeed, the next three amendments that I'll be moving, because they all relate to the same matter which the member has referred to. And that is the desire to try to fix a limitation period with respect to dentists that is more reasonable and consistent with recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of B.C. There is further work to be done in respect of other professions, and certainly government is committed to moving forward on that as well.

One of the issues with respect to dental records in the limitation period has been the concern that reducing the limitation period from the current 30 years might jeopardize access to dental records. It's the government's view that the limitation period is one issue and dental records are another issue, and that the vulnerability to liability should not be determined by the need to maintain access to dental records.

What these amendments do is that they separate the two issues. The amendment before us right now is consequential to the reduction in the limitation period to a more reasonable period of ten years, in that it provides a power to, by regulation, establish a repository for dental records beyond the ten-year limitation period.

It's government's intention to do that in consultation with dentists, with the RCMP and certainly with the office of the information and privacy commissioner so that we can deal with the need to maintain dental records for the purposes of police investigation and coroner services, but not have that issue jeopardize or impede the affixing of a more reasonable limitation period.

So that is what these amendments are about, and I'm very gratified to hear that the opposition is supportive of this direction. As I say, there are other professions that also have limitation periods that are worthy of review, and the government's intention is to proceed with such review and move forward on these issues in an orderly way.

Amendment approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 18.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 18.1, by adding the following:

Limitation Act

18.1

Section 8 (1) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, is amended by striking out "or" at the end of paragraph (

b) and by adding the following:

(b.1) against a person who is qualified and permitted under the Dentists Act to practise dentistry in British Columbia, based on professional negligence or malpractice, after the expiration of 10 years from the date on which the right to do so arose, or.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 17157 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 68.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 68.1, by adding the following:

Transitional

68.1

Section 8 (1) (b.1) of the Limitation Act, as enacted by this Act, does not apply to bar an action commenced before the coming into force of that section.]

Amendment approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move, with leave, the amendment to

section 69.1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 69 (1),

(

a) by adding "18.1," after "13,", and

(

b) by deleting "and 68" and substituting ", 68 and 68.1".]

Leave granted.

Amendment approved.

Section 69(1) as amended approved.

Title approved.

[1455]

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000 reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: By leave, I move that the order for report on Bill 3, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, be set aside and the bill recommitted in respect of

section 102.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 3.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to

section 102 in the possession of the table and, I believe, of the opposition.

[SECTION 102,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "55, 57 to 77," and substituting "55, 57 to 77,", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "Sections 27 and 30" and substituting "Sections 27, 30 and 56".]

On the amendment.

I. Chong: I appreciate the amendment that the minister has provided and put forward. So often I think that when the government bring forward bills, they don't consult with members on this side of the House, and with the members of the public in particular. It's particularly important, when we're looking at finance bills -- because all taxpayers, all British Columbians, are affected in this way -- that we have the opportunity to bring these issues forward to this government to ensure that we don't miss opportunities to ensure that those sections will be implemented in the proper way, in the proper fashion.

This has happened time and time again on a number of bills. In particular, particular sections of this act have been of concern. We have received comments from the public at large. It's important that when those issues are brought forward, we don't allow commencements to occur where it would unduly harm the economy of this province -- something that this side of the House is particularly concerned about.

I know members on this side of the House have been vigorously opposing those kinds of amendments or changes to our finance bills, to those financial transactions that in the past have made those detrimental economic effects occur, only to find out that we lose small businesses and that our economy suffers even more drastically than it has in the past.

[1500]

At this time, this amendment certainly has to proceed. We will be supporting it on that basis. I want to thank members on this side of the House who have been particularly sensitive to some of the sections of this act. And for the minister and his staff to have listened and to provide this amendment at this time . . . . But again, I say to the Minister of Finance -- particularly the Minister of Finance -- that finance bills that affect our economy need the fullest and utmost scrutiny wherever possible if we are to ensure that we bring our economy back to number one from last place, which has occurred since 1991.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think that just for the record I'll put on the record what the import of the amendment before the House is.

Section 102 regards the commencement date for various provisions of Bill 3, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000. Under the unamended version of

section 102,

section 56, which changes treatment of sales tax being charged to out-of-province owners who bring boats and recreational vehicles and other tangible personal property into B.C., would change as of April 1.

Members opposite and members of the government caucus and members of the public have raised concerns about this measure with my office. I would point out to the House that the provision of

section 56 -- to close what was seen as a loophole in that -- was actually a measure proposed by businesses in British Columbia. What we have here is a situation in which one set of businesses in the province is saying that the changes to

section 56 that have been proposed in Bill 3

[ Page 17158 ]

will assist their businesses, and another set of business people in the province saying that imposing those changes that are contained in

section 56 will hurt their businesses.

If we had allowed the act to go through without amendment, that tax would automatically be changed as of April 1. Instead, we are introducing this amendment to delay or postpone implementation of that section, to give myself and the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture a chance to consult broadly with all sectors of the business community concerned about this particular provision of the provincial sales tax. I think this provides us an opportunity to consult again to make sure that we've got it right as we move forward in this province to encourage small businesses and make sure that they are thriving. I'm very pleased to have this amendment before the House today.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make a few brief comments. I think the minister, in the first part of his comments, explained what this amendment does. I just would refer people to the Hansard at the time of the debate on this bill in

section 56, at which point in time we had a fairly vigorous debate about the merits of it -- whether it would work or not. Members of the B.C. Liberal opposition voted against that

section for the reasons that were highlighted at that time.

I'm glad to see this. It's essentially hoisting that

section for a period of time, perhaps forever, depending on what this task force or review determines. But I think one can go back and look at the debate at the time it took place and get a good sense of what the difficulties are that are faced by the government in trying to implement this type of tax policy. And one could get a good understanding of what the potential impact could be on the economy. I'm glad this is being hoisted. It probably shouldn't have got this far in the first place. It's not a new issue; it's been out there for some time.

I want to pass on a good deal of credit to those individuals out there in British Columbia who saw this as something that would damage their community or their tourism industry or their businesses and have been vocal enough about it to get the attention of the government. I'm glad that it's going forward today.

[1505]

Amendment approved.

Section 102 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report Bill 3 complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call third reading of Bill 2.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, minister?

Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Bill Pr401, second reading.

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(second reading)

D. Streifel: I move the bill now be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, as I explained on introduction of the bill, these are some changes to the Mission Foundation Act that I guess the folks in Mission have been pursuing for some time. They finally have it on the floor of the House, and I'm hoping the chambers will accommodate the wishes of the citizens of Mission.

The changes are primarily housekeeping. It redefines the catchment area of the proceeds that will be spent for charitable purposes in the Mission area. It defines the boundaries primarily within the catchment of school district 75, as opposed to a description that was in the bill prior. There are a few other minor changes, and as I say, I'm looking forward to the House supporting this initiative.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr401, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 through 6 approved.

Title approved.

D. Streifel: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 17159 ]

Bill Pr401, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now wish to call Bill Pr403.

WESTMOUNT CAREER MANAGEMENT LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2000

(second reading)

P. Calendino: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Just to explain to the members of the House, this bill is to reactivate or reinstate into the registrar of companies the company that was mentioned in the bill. What happened was that the company was incorporated in 1985. The advice that was given to the sole shareholder was not proper legal advice; therefore there were no reports filed to the registrar of companies. The sole registered owner was not aware that they had to file reports, because they had moved and didn't receive any notification. The company has carried on, and at this time they cannot carry on business unless it is reactivated. So I hope that the House will support this bill.

[1510]

Motion approved.

Bill Pr403, Westmount Career Management Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

WESTMOUNT CAREER MANAGEMENT LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr403; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

P. Calendino: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr403, Westmount Career Management Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now call Committee of Supply. We are going to be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and responsible for B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 38: ministry operations, $29,752,000 (continued).

D. Symons: Just continuing where we were before the break, asking questions relating to the fast ferry program of this government . . . .

When it was decided to use only one cat on route 2, the corporation had said at that time that it would save, I think, $5 million per year in operation maintenance costs. Since then I think they've said: "Well, if we don't operate the three of them, we could save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $11 million." There's another $7 million or so that would be saved by not operating a third ferry on route 30, back and forth from Tsawwassen to Duke Point, to take care of the trucks, the commercial vehicles that would be excluded from the Horseshoe Bay terminal.

So we have that one aspect, that you can save money by not operating the fast cats. Some wag suggested to me that if you build more of them and don't operate them, you can get yourself into the black rather than the red by continuing to save $5 million a year on those ferries. But I don't think those finances would quite hold up.

Since the cats were put onto that operation, one week on and one week off, I'm just wondering . . . . In answer to a question we gave in the House a few months back, the minister indicated that the reason they did that was that on the week they were off, these ferries were basically being serviced. I find the other ferries seem to operate seven days a week for eight to 11 months on a regular schedule, then go in for a refit or for maintenance at that time. Is there something unique to our Pacificats that requires them to end up going in for weekly maintenance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: While the Pacificats are tied up . . . . It's not a maintenance program that's carried out; it's a servicing program to make sure that they're just literally shipshape.

D. Symons: For the other ships in the fleet, those servicing jobs are performed by a night crew that comes in and performs that, so the ship is shipshape and ready to go the next morning. It's interesting. In one case, it's an overnight job; in the other case, you're saying the service job is a week-long job.

I think we can move on here. Let's take a look at the ISM certification and whether it has been done. Who's responsible and pays for the ISM certification and also Transport Canada certification? Is it CFI or B.C. Ferries that would pay those costs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation pays for it.

D. Symons: So the certification actually takes place, then, after the vessel has been commissioned and turned over to the corporation. Thank you for that clarification.

I wonder if we can move on to another topic. Fisheries and Oceans are basically interested in environmental assessment. I've got an interdepartmental fax that says in one part of it . . . . If I could just quickly find that. It's dated in the past, mind you, which sometimes bothers the Chair. On August 12, 1999, there was a fax from one of the departments in Fisheries and Oceans to another, going back to issues they had sent to B.C. Ferries, referencing

section 37: " . . . requesting com-

[ Page 17160 ]

prehensive impact assessment report, identifying the potential and adverse impact to fish and fish habitat from the operation of the new Pacificat ferry."

The report, it says, was finally received on July 27. But the last phrase of the letter is the one that I'm concerned about, and I want to know if there's been any change in this attitude. The last sentence says: "They have not been overly cooperative to date. But I don't want to get into a legal battle either." Those were the writer's comments. This was back then; times have changed, possibly. I'm wondering if you're a little more cooperative with other agencies that have relationships to the operation of these fast cats.

[1520]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's hard to respond to something that's a very large document in one sentence that perhaps is in or out of context. So without responding to the actual phrase, but to the general proposition, the corporation cooperates fully with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but there's often a tension between agencies. But the cooperation does exist.

D. Symons: Also, a letter to Fisheries and Oceans from B.C. Ferries is dated July 7, 1999, I believe, and there's a comment here: "We are still trying to gain more experience so that we can answer your questions completely. That is proving to cause too much delay. The vessel is not going to be in full-time operation. This gives us more time to consider your full assessment, to fully assess the reality." On the one hand, they're saying that they don't have time there.

I've lost the other reference here. But what I find is that there is another letter, which I am at a loss to find, where the wording is that . . . . Seven days before that particular letter was written, we have a letter that says: "We have studied the issue, and the report is complete." In one case they're telling the corporation that they don't have the report. Unfortunately, those two things aren't appearing here; that's because I'm in the wrong set of papers. So I'll just take a backtrack here for a moment, if you don't mind. I'm sorry about that.

Yes, this particular letter is to the water quality unit, habitat enhancement branch -- part of the British Columbia government -- from B.C. Ferries on July 23. It says: "We have anticipated the wake-and-wash issue with some considerable care. Appendix A, entitled 'Motor Vessel Pacificat: Wake Wash Trials Data' is the complete report on wake and wash." So just keep that in mind; this is a letter of July 23, and they talk about the complete report on wake and wash.

Yet we go to a letter directed on July 30 to the regional director of Transport Canada, Captain Nash, and this letter says: "With regard to the study of wake and wash, we have not yet completed our internal research." This letter is seven days after the other letter to your own government, where you say it's a complete report on wake and wash. Then you're telling Transport Canada: "We have not yet completed it." I'm wondering why the inconsistency.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I do apologize. It's a little bit hard to follow the sequence of this, but let me just explain to the member what actually did happen. As the member may recall, there were two wake-and-wash reports done. The initial one that perhaps the first letter refers to . . . . The second letter predates the second major wake-and-wash report by just a couple of weeks, so that could be the explanation.

D. Symons: I've got it further on in my notes, but I think I'll look at it now and go from memory on my notes to it. Then there is a third wake wash study. There was a study. I believe Sandwell Inc. started a study in November of last year; however, it was reannounced in February of this year, And I believe it's in the $200,000 range, by Sandwell. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on whether that wake wash study has come in yet and indeed if you can tell us in which fiscal year that particular study will be accounted for.

[J. Cashore in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two wake wash studies. The major one is the Sandwell one that started in September. We are awaiting, within a very short period of time, the final report.

[1525]

D. Symons: Then the B.C. Ferries . . . . I'm reading from the Vancouver Sun of February 11 of this year. You say it started in September; that will be a year ago. It says, "B.C. Ferries has commissioned a second environmental impact study of the fast ferries' wake, this time at 20 times the price of the first report. The $281,000 study will determine whether the ships can operate on their current routes," etc. The one you referred to, is that this one? Or was that the previous one, when you said the September one? I understood that the Sandwell one had actually started, because I phoned Sandwell and asked.

They said that they had started this thing in November. So I'm not quite sure how many studies are being done and what the costs of all these various studies might add up to.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was commissioned in September, so it's the same one.

D. Symons: So Sandwell maybe meant they had begun it in November, I suppose. Thank you. Is that a fixed-price contract?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might go on now to the issue of how many claims have been made to B.C. Ferries relating to damage claimed to have been caused by the fast ferries, how many of these have been settled and what the total settlement cost may be to date. And possibly while I'm at it, how many claims are still outstanding?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll take that on notice.

D. Symons: Thank you. I'm not surprised that you wouldn't have that material available right at the moment.

I want to move on now, if we can, to the decision to sell our fast ferries. It was announced, I believe, on March 13 of this year that this decision had been made. I'm just curious. The document that we have called "Evaluation: Pacificat Deployment Options" -- it says "Confidential" here. It was given in May 2000. I don't believe, if I remember correctly, that the Ferry board had this report before May. It seems that the decision to sell was made before a report on deployment options came out that might have impinged upon that deci

[ Page 17161 ]

sion to sell the ferries. I'm wondering if you might sort of explain why the decision to sell was made prior to having this deployment options document presented to the Ferry board.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The decision to sell the Pacificats was a cabinet decision, and cabinet was privy to all of the information in that report.

[1530]

D. Symons: Yes. As I remember, the decision to enter into the fast ferry program was also a cabinet decision and maybe taken hastily, because they didn't have all the relevant and accurate data. I'm just wondering whether this has been done again on the selling of them.

I did send a letter on March 27 to the CEO of B.C. Ferries, in which I basically asked . . . . I'll quote from my letter. "I would assume that B.C. Ferries has done a cost-benefit analysis on sell or refit-and-keep options." I'm just curious. I didn't get a response to that. The closest thing to it was this deployment one.

But that certainly did not look at the option of either putting in, let's say, two turbines for diesels and therefore achieving your speed, covering that problem with the fast cats and probably engine breakdowns as well, and on the other hand looking at the possibility of using two of the current diesels and using the ferry in what I'll call a regular ferry configuration -- simply taking your 19 knots and crossing in the regular time, thereby at least using what we have and putting it to some practical use, because our docks were made to fit it. It seems that nowhere in this deployment options was that taken a look at.

So did the cabinet do that? Was there a study looking at those particular options of do we sell them, or do we find some way to make them work in a way that B.C. Ferries could use them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the document that the member does refer to talks about use of the ferries at conventional speeds. The issue of refit with turbine engines was examined by the corporation, and cabinet did consider that.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if, when Treasury Board and cabinet approved the package deal for the removal of the $1.1 billion . . . . The subsidy, the write-down of the ferries, putting the ferries up for sale and the wind-down at CFI -- when was that all presented to Treasury Board and cabinet?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I presented it to Treasury Board. I was appointed as minister February 29, and the announcement was made March 13, so it was sometime in between then. If the member needs to know the exact date, I can certainly find out.

D. Symons: The point I'm getting up to is the point also, I think, that came out a moment ago when I asked about the deployment options one. Apparently the decision to sell the ferries was made before the B.C. Ferries board had full information, I think. And that wasn't then a board decision; as you said, it was a cabinet decision. So I'm wondering when the B.C. Ferries board approved that package of plans for the fiscal year and the future plans for B.C. Ferries. Was it before or after the cabinet made the decision?

Hon. J. MacPhail: March 30.

D. Symons: Thank you. I'm wondering also . . . . I seem to be confirming in many cases, I think, that these decisions are made exclusive of the board that's put there to discuss and consider such situations and bring recommendations to cabinet. It seems to be working the other way around.

Were there any further reports, other than the deployment one done, that were presented to cabinet or to the board relating to the sale or deployment of the fast ferries?

[1535]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the full Treasury Board submission on all matters.

D. Symons: Would those documents be available for perusal?

Interjection.

D. Symons: The minister is saying it's privileged information. But I gather that after it has been acted upon -- and in this case, it has been -- those documents might be made available.

Was there a cost-benefit analysis done on using the fast cats at conventional speeds? Was it done as a cost-benefit analysis and using the two engines at lower RPMs? You mentioned earlier that this was something considered. But was it done on a cost-benefit basis?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

I. Chong: I just have one or two very quick questions, having just received the financial annual report for the year '99-2000. I do note that in the capital plan that was mentioned in this report there has been, I guess, a re-evaluation done on a number of the older vessels. I know that in the past it was expected that ferries had a life span of 40 years. I'm wondering whether, in that evaluation of the older vessels, the life span has been reviewed to extend beyond the 40 years and therefore represents a change in the valuations that are reported in the financial statements -- and for the amortization rates to change. Can the minister advise on that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason why the corporation would change the life of the vessel would be for amortization. The hulls of the vessel are pretty much fully amortized now.

I. Chong: But I guess I was trying to determine whether . . . . If the hulls have been fully amortized now, and yet the expected life is going to be another ten or 15 years, then sometimes in accounting policy it's stated. Also, the book value is adjusted to ensure that the amortization period extends the extra ten or 15 years, if that occurs. I couldn't see within the documents if that has happened and, if it has, how many vessels that might pertain to.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there's no vessel that would suggest a ten-to-15-year extension of life span -- maybe around five. And secondly, these are older vessels that were given to the corporation. The government bought them, and they were transferred at zero value. These are much older ships.

[ Page 17162 ]

I. Chong: Those satisfy the questions I have on the financial statements.

On a different note, I did receive a call from a constituent this past spring, concerned about the video machines that are on the ferries. In fact, she contacted me, and I requested that she contact the Ferry Corporation. She very promptly, I might add, received a letter back. I do appreciate the staff -- Mr. Geoff Dickson, the assistant VP of the marketing and business development

section -- writing back and explaining the policy on video games.

[1540]

This particular constituent was concerned about the nature of the games that were on these ships, which she felt were rather graphically violent. And she was wondering who was watching these kinds of materials being brought on board. At that time, the letter that was written in response to this constituent said that B.C. Ferries is re-examining its video game standard.

I'm just wondering if the minister, through the president, can advise what kind of time frame we're looking at on those video game standard changes and revisions and, if there are going to be substantive changes or a policy change, whether my office might be contacted and informed of that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting and broader question than just the ferries. There are no standards; there are no classification centres -- I think there's been some of video games. I think the member may have noted that there has been some discussion of this in the media in other areas, just video games generally.

Certainly, as the parent of an 11-year-old boy, I would applaud any review quickly. So the Ferry Corporation itself is doing an internal review and applying a more rigorous standard of vigilance around the issue that the member's constituent raises. There are and will be changes in the games.

I. Chong: I hope that when those changes occur, the minister can keep members on this side of the House advised as well. Sometimes these issues come up in our constituency offices throughout the year, and we may not place as much importance on them, perhaps, as we should.

I do have to again applaud the corporation. Having received the letter from this constituent, they did remove one of the games called Silent Scope, which obviously really had concerns for this constituent. Zero tolerance to gun games is where I think many people are headed. So I thank the minister for that.

Very briefly, another area, which I know has been canvassed, is in the area of reservations. I want to bring this to the attention of the minister. I realize that there's not much that can be done. I see the president and staff here, as well, and hope that they can look into it.

A particular constituent contacted me who had made a reservation and used the automatic system. She received a confirmation number, I think, a PIN number or whatever they call it. When she arrived at the terminal the next day or the following week -- I can't recall now -- she said she gave that number and said she had a reservation. Nowhere in the system were the terminal operators able to confirm that. Subsequently, she was denied the reservation. The ships were not full, so she got on board anyway. But her concern to me was that she had given her MasterCard or her Visa number and had already been charged for the extra $15. It just wasn't worth it to formally complain and launch an appeal.

My only concern and objective in raising it is to let the corporation know that sometimes there are some glitches in automated systems. There are also no opportunities to dial back in and perhaps cancel that reservation or to find out why that occurs. It's just too much bother for some constituents to ask for a credit voucher on a $15 transaction, which may take a day or a week to resolve. So I just bring that to the attention . . . . I hope that staff are aware of that and maybe can look into other ways of streamlining it and making it work better for the passengers who ride on the B.C. ferries. With that, hon. Chair, I thank the minister for her cooperation.

R. Thorpe: The first question I'd just like to ask is: is the capital plan of $131,267,100 the approved plan, and is that what the corporation is working with this fiscal year?

[1545]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I couldn't hear the member, whether he said $131 million or $121 million.

R. Thorpe: I said $131 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. It was $121 million, which included a $4 million carryover from the previous year, which the corporation has subsequently determined they don't need. So the capital plan for the year 2000-01 is $117 million.

R. Thorpe: Okay. So that $117 million . . . . This is off the January 20 report, the $117 million here. The $4 million of interest is down here; that's not included. These items underneath it -- $826,500 and $13 million -- are maintenance costs and not capitalized costs. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I see where the member is getting confused by the $131 million. Those last two figures, $826,000 and $13.3 million, are operating costs.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the capital plan, then, could the minister advise -- because the government certainly was put under a microscope for the management of its capital expenditures, controls and programs at B.C. Ferries -- what controls are in place now to ensure that the capital plan of $117 million is not exceeded?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a range of increased reporting mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms. But the three major ones are that there's greater and more rigorous reporting at the board level, the board of directors -- I'd be happy to get that policy for the member -- and there's an internal project management committee headed by the CFO and monthly reporting to Treasury Board.

R. Thorpe: So Treasury Board is getting monthly reporting from Ferries without exception. How often is cabinet? Is cabinet advised every month also of this new capital system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Not necessarily, no.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the capital plan and based on our taxpayers' previous experiences, are these fixed-price capital contracts going forward?

[ Page 17163 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the capital plan includes a huge array of different kinds of projects. So I can't say across the board that they're all fixed-price. Certainly the vast majority of them go to tender and are fixed-price.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure this will just be a very brief answer from the minister. For those contracts that aren't fixed-price, I'm sure the minister and senior management of B.C. Ferries have in place systems to monitor non-fixed-price contracts in case they do get out of control.

[1550]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation is operating under new systems and a new budget reporting system as well. All of them are designed to immediately pick up variances from budget.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the five-year capital plan, I'm going to refer to the year 2002. At what point in time in the year 2001 are decisions going to have to be made to activate projects in the range of the $73 million that's identified here? When do buttons have to be pushed in the fiscal year 2000-01 to impact on those decisions of 2002?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Each year the corporation has to come to Treasury Board for that year's approval of the five-year capital plan, so it's part of the budget-planning process for the year 2001-02. I'm informed that the corporation will be in advanced stages of preparation for that to take to Treasury Board for approval in the middle fall of this year.

R. Thorpe: Before the capital plan is finalized, will the corporate strategic plan be done in advance this time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporate strategic plan is a 15-year plan. It will be completed in February of next year. So the answer to the member's question is no, not for this coming submission. However, this coming submission on the five-year capital plan is almost universally dealing with the refurbishment of existing assets, so it will be unaffected by the 15-year plan.

R. Thorpe: With respect to -- and I know the minister doesn't like to hear it, but she's admitted it many times -- the fast ferry fiasco . . . . We now hear that there are new controls in place where flags can go up for management to jump on issues as they come. Inside the corporation have additional resources been allocated in this fiscal year for internal audit controls and procedures to monitor and support these systems?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the corporation has realigned resources to exactly what the member wishes. So it is occurring, but it's with reallocation of resources internally. He may note that the first year of the capital plan actually provides for new systems, which were much needed.

R. Thorpe: So what the corporation has done, then, is taken whatever financial resources they had and reallocated them into internal audit or whatever the support mechanism is. Maybe the minister can advise me what it's called. How much is that internal audit or control

section . . . ? How much of their resource has been increased in this year? I realize the total Ferry Corporation is perhaps staying at the same, but by how much has internal control and audit been bumped up?

[1555]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The changes that were made internal to the corporation were managing the resources internally in a much different fashion. It wasn't necessarily that there weren't enough resources; it was that there was no consolidated reporting mechanism in effect, no direct reporting mechanism to the CFO. All of that has changed. The business management group has been consolidated from across the corporation into a single entity, one unit, under the direction of the CFO and with rigorous attention to budget management.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to make assumptions, but the minister said budget management, and I would assume that means both operating budget management and capital budget management. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise how much additional financial resources have been allocated to outside auditors and outside consultants for this fiscal year we're discussing, vis-à-vis the previous fiscal year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The external auditor is a fixed-price contract, so the cost is the same this year as last year. The cost for external consultants is pretty much the same for last year as this year. The focus for the use of external contractors has changed. Though last year they were very much focused on internal changes to the corporation, this year they're focused on things such as the tariff review.

R. Thorpe: Actually, I am aware that the auditor's is a fixed-price contract for the audit. My question was: how much additional moneys have been allocated or budgeted this year for special work that's not covered by the outside auditors?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The budget line is about $75,000.

R. Thorpe: Are any of those funds designated for the outside audit firm or whoever they may contract for any forensic audits?

[1600]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise what safeguards are taking place and have taken place within the consolidated B.C. Ferry Corporation to ensure that individuals who are on the payroll as employees are not also doing work as part of or as independent consultants to the Ferry Corporation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a management rule that the practice is unacceptable, and it is enforced in that way.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is a management practice, a well-noted management practice, that that is unacceptable. If the member has specific incidents, we'd be happy to investigate them.

[ Page 17164 ]

R. Thorpe: Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that it's an unacceptable practice; it is in most organizations. I'm wondering, then: can the minister confirm if any employees have had to be let go or disciplined for such actions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The management rule has recently been rigorously enforced as opposed to in the past, so the answer to your question is no.

R. Thorpe: I want to finish up -- and I hope I don't shock the minister too much here -- by expressing my thanks to the senior management of B.C. Ferries. Whenever I've had questions of them, whether verbal or written, they've been very prompt at getting that information back to me. I appreciate that very much, and I'd like to thank them.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

D. Symons: The next

section I'd like to look at is relating to the cats. I'll let the minister know that we're getting very near the end; she'll be pleased to know. This is dealing with the request for proposals for the Pacificat adviser/sales consultant. I'm wondering if you might be able to tell us how many firms were sent out this invitation to put in a tender. Can you give me an idea of the number of firms that did and then how many responded on the receipt confirmation form you have at the back?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Twenty-two received packages; 12 responded.

D. Symons: Of the 12 that responded, how many actually put in a proposal? The response is just that you wanted a package to go to them. Did they want a package? How many actually put proposals in?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Twenty-two received packages; 12 submitted proposals.

D. Symons: My first question, then, was: how many had received the document that asked if they wanted to . . . ? The first document is the request for proposal. Then on the back of that document there is a response form, a receipt confirmation form, and on there is a question where it says: "We will be submitting a proposal" or "We will not be submitting." I'm curious, then. You said, 22 responded?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah.

D. Symons: Okay. But there will be some that will not be submitting a proposal. So how many in total were sent out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Twenty-two were sent out; 12 submitted proposals.

[1605]

D. Symons: In the document that was sent out for them to make proposals on, in the middle of the page it talks about the corporation's preferences with respect to the sales/disposition of the vessel. In order, they are (1) unconditional sale at an attractive price, and I certainly cannot argue with that one; (2) sale with vendor financing; and (3) leasing the vessels to operator or operators. Then you further follow that up with (4) no assumption of onerous or unacceptable legal or financial risks by B.C. Ferry Corporation, as determined by B.C. Ferry Corporation in its sole discretion.

I'm somewhat concerned about 2 and 3 and the risks which may be taken by the Ferry Corporation if you get into a sale with vendor financing. Vendor financing, I assume, is the government, which would be financing the sale of this and would be paid back. But with some possible purchasers in some countries that have a worse record than others, once those ships are out of our waters, no matter what arrangement you may have either with a lease or a sale, you could have serious problems.

If it's on a sale with vendor financing, once they have the ship, you may find yourself tied up in legal arguments in some third country where you're dealing with trying to get your finance payments, or the same with the lease payments, while they're running the ship down to the point where once you manage to get the ship back, it's not worth anything at all.

I have concerns that with sale with vendor financing or leasing vessels to operators, you can get yourself in a situation where you might find that the risks will outweigh the advantages of moving the ships offshore so that they'd be out of sight of the B.C. taxpayer.

Further down here in these conditions it says: "Conclusion of sales in a timely and expeditious manner." In that expeditious part, please be careful of the sale with vendor financing or the leasing of vessels. How are you going to handle the real traps that can be in that sort of arrangement and the risk you may be taking?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the member for his advice; I think it's appropriate advice. That's exactly the reason why there was such a rigorous, time-consuming process for selecting our advisers for sale, who have a wealth of expertise in this area -- just as the member suggests is required.

D. Symons: I shall be watching that carefully, of course, as I think many people will. I certainly suspect that you'll be watching even more carefully.

In this agreement you have with the firm that did win the request for proposals, PricewaterhouseCoopers, you put out a news release. Apparently at that time there had not been a signed contract with them. You had an understanding, I believe, but not a final signed contact. Has that contract now been signed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are some very minute final details to work out, none of which has precluded the company from working for weeks.

D. Symons: So the minister is saying that they're already on the job, but the final details will be worked out. Are you able to give us some of the details, or to what extent can you give us the details of that particular contract? Particularly, along with that, how much money will Pricewaterhouse receive either as a retainer during the time they're doing it or as a commission on the sale at the end of each or all of the ferries? How much money has Pricewaterhouse received to date in relationship to this particular contract?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The contract is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we are prohibited . . . . It's not a matter of we have a choice. We must not release information that harms the competitive nature of a

[ Page 17165 ]

commercial contract. However, I can inform you that all the details will be released at the sale. Usually the range of compensation is between 1 and 3 percent, and this contract is well within that.

[1610]

D. Symons: That does give some information, and I thank the minister for that.

I suppose a clause in a contract that says that none of the conditions of this will be made public . . . . Certainly you said they will, after the sale has taken place. But the government signed that contract; they could have asked for a contract with different wording in it if that was there. It's

an act that says this?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Freedom of Information Act.

D. Symons: Freedom of Information Act. I see. I still can't see that you can't write the contract in a way so that freedom of information wouldn't apply -- so that it would just be an open contract like many contracts are that are signed by the government in dealing with highways and other issues where we know when the bid goes out and comes in what the contract is for. I'm not quite sure how freedom of information applies in this case, but maybe you can explain that in a moment.

I did ask if Pricewaterhouse had done any work up to the current time and received any payment, and if they have, what they may have done up to the current time. Have they received any sort of payment so far? I'm not asking the figure. If they have, what work has been done at this stage?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, they haven't. But you know what? The hon. members of the opposition have not taken up my offer to meet with PricewaterhouseCoopers. I made that offer within days, so I hope that the member is going to do that. Feel free to get as much information as you can. PricewaterhouseCoopers has made that offer, and it still stands.

D. Symons: I appreciate the offer, and I will take the person up on it after we're not tied up in the Legislature here. I am wondering, also, if you might be able to tell me whether any of the B.C. Ferries consultants or past consultants are also involved in this particular project, and if so, who they are.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no past B.C. Ferries consultants on the Pricewaterhouse team, but if the member would like to ask for a specific detail about any input of a particular person, I'd be happy to respond to that.

D. Symons: We did have a sales team for the last three or four years working for CFI, I believe. I was asking, basically, if there are people -- maybe some of those, or other people -- that have been working with sales in the past that are now moving over and assisting Pricewaterhouse in their sales attempts.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The people who were involved in the sales of the technology through CFI are providing background information to the PwC team as well as contacts.

D. Symons: I was concerned. I believe we spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million over the years working on a sales project for CFI products. They must have gained some expertise and some knowledge. You're saying that in one way or another, that's being used. Is CFI currently involved . . . ? I guess the question is really: who is Pricewaterhouse hired by and reporting to? Is it CFI, B.C. Ferries, Treasury Board or all of the above?

Hon. J. MacPhail: B.C. Ferry Corporation.

D. Symons: Was that RFP for the sale of the ferries created in-house? Or was there an outside agency that helped perform the request for proposal that was eventually the contract signed with Pricewaterhouse?

[1615]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation worked with staff of the Ministry of Finance.

D. Symons: Finally, were there any outside individuals used to assess the quality of the various proposals, or was that simply done in-house as well? Or did you bring in people who were involved either in ship brokerage or in other aspects related to the sale of vessels?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Ministry of Finance staff were involved in all aspects of the RFP.

D. Symons: So then you're saying that there were no people with expertise in ship brokerage involved in evaluating the proposals that came in.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, that was the group that was actually making the proposals to do the work.

D. Symons: A final question, and then we'll turn back to Labour itself. There was a web site, ships-for-sale.com. Apparently they had put the fast ferries on their web site, and apparently there's no charge for this. I'm wondering: the owner of that has written to the minister on two occasions offering their web site services to sell the fast ferries. Has the minister responded to those letters?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll make sure that PwC is aware of your concern. They're responsible for that.

D. Symons: I would like to thank the staff of B.C. Ferries for their answers and assistance to the minister. I would also like to thank the minister. I know this is a tough time for both of us in this situation, my asking and your responding, and I appreciate the candour with which you've responded to the questions and taken my persistence on some issues.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you to the critic and also to all of the members of the Liberal opposition for a good debate -- and thank you to the staff.

K. Krueger: I think the minister may need a little time to change personnel. I have some questions with regard to pension benefits standards.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't honestly know whether I've got any staff coming, so let's go.

K. Krueger: The minister's executive assistant is arranging the staff. There is a matter I'd like to touch on in the

[ Page 17166 ]

interim. When we were dealing with WCB estimates the other day, there's a question I didn't ask because I didn't have any hard documentation on the allegations. But there are allegations from time to time that the WCB actually punishes people for having the temerity to bring their cases before the MLA's office.

[1620]

Subsequent to our discussions of WCB the other day, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove brought documentation to me, which had come to his attention through his constituency assistant, of a Mr. Gerry Wall, a WCB claimant who has been going through all the necessary steps at WCB, is eager to retrain, to rehabilitate himself and get into something new that he's capable of doing. This gentleman was eager to have the assistance of the MLA's office, because he was anxious about an approaching deadline for a program that he wished to enter and believed that he could enter.

When the constituency assistant spoke with the WCB, with an employee named Denise Hall, she was shocked that Denise Hall said that because Mr. Gerry Wall had come into the office of his MLA, in her mind, in Denise Hall's mind, it showed a lack of motivation to work with WCB, and that she, Denise Hall, had the authority to cancel any and all payments on these grounds.

We think it is shocking and totally unacceptable that any government employee or Crown agency or Crown corporation employee would speak to a claimant or a member of the public that way and actually deem themselves to have the authority, let alone the ability, to punish somebody for going to the MLA's office. I want to ensure that the minister agrees with that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to investigate the specifics of the allegations. If the member could inform me in writing -- it's just easier -- or brief my staff, I'd be happy to investigate it.

K. Krueger: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove will certainly provide those details to the minister. But I would like the minister's agreement on the record that nobody should ever be threatened by government or any agency or Crown for having brought a matter to the attention of their MLA -- or punished.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I agree. I have no idea whether that's what happened in this situation or not, but I agree with the premise.

K. Krueger: The pension people have not yet appeared, but I wanted to ask the minister the status of the pension suspension legislation from last session. How many people have actually had their pension suspended through the provisions of that legislation since last session?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take the question on notice. I'll be happy to get the information for the member.

K. Krueger: The operating engineers have been cutting back the pensions of their pensioners. Of course, we have a member in the house -- the member for Burnaby-Edmonds -- who was on staff with the operating engineers. He confirmed to me last night that he draws two pensions from the operating engineers and that they, in their investment portfolios, hold substantial real estate holdings, one of which he purchased for them for $2.2 million. The operating engineers recently turned down an offer of $33 million for that property. That is fresh information from last evening.

I would ask the minister, also, to have her pension benefit standards people look into this situation. I know she's hearing from operating engineers pensioners, as I am, and it seems manifestly unjust that when they're sitting on those types of potential returns, they're cutting pensioners back. I'd like the minister's commitment to look into that issue as well.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

K. Krueger: That concludes Labour estimates, and I thank the minister for her responses to us throughout.

Vote 38 approved.

Vote 1: legislation, $38,082,000 -- approved.

Vote 2: auditor general, $6,645,000 -- approved.

Vote 3: office of the child, youth and family advocate, $1,324,000 -- approved.

[1625]

Vote 5: Elections B.C., $9,976,000 -- approved.

Vote 4: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $312,000 -- approved.

Vote 6: information and privacy commissioner, $2,280,000 -- approved.

Vote 7: ombudsman, $4,610,000 -- approved.

Vote 8: police complaint commissioner, $1,127,000 -- approved.

Vote 51: commissions on collection of public funds and allowance for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 53: environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,014,000 -- approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:27 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee reported resolutions.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on May 1, 4, 9, 16, 18, 31, and June 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 26, 28, 29 and July 4 and 6 now be received, taken as read and agreed to.

[ Page 17167 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $22,082,097,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2000, and

section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2000, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

Motion approved.

[1630]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,555,970,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2000, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

Motion approved.

Motions without Notice

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to move certain motions, albeit not in the same mellifluous tones as my colleague the Minister of Finance.

First, Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Special Committee of Selection, the committee is also empowered to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House; to determine the membership of any select standing or special committee of the House; to deposit a copy of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: By leave I move that reports of the auditor general of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: If they thought the other ones were difficult, listen to this.

By leave I move that a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a child, youth and family advocate pursuant to

section 3 of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act and that the special committee so appointed shall have the powers of a select standing committee and is also empowered (

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly. The said special committee is to be composed of members determined by the Special Committee of Selection.

[1635]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have a rather lengthy motion.

By leave I move that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the prebudget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

1. Conduct broad public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means. The committee shall ensure that, within practical limits, all British Columbians wishing to make representations before the committee be heard.

2. Make public by no later than December 31 a report on the results of those consultations.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered (

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said committee is to be composed of Mr. Zirnhelt, the convener; Messrs. Cashore, Conroy, Goodacre and Janssen; Ms. Gillespie; Messrs. Farrell-Collins and de Jong; and Ms. Chong.

Leave granted.

[ Page 17168 ]

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2000-2001

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2000-2001.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2000-01 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

The Speaker: Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is distributed.

[1640]

Hon. members, I call you to order. In accordance with established practice, the final supply bill may advance through all stages this day.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 2000-2001

(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This supply bill is the final supply bill for the 2000-01 fiscal year, the first having been passed on March 30, 2000, the second having been passed June 29, when the Legislative Assembly previously authorized appropriations for the year. This bill requests supply of $22,082,097,000 for voting expenditures. They're outlined in

section 1 and

schedule 1 of the bill. The bill also requests supply of $1,555,970,000 for voted capital and loans investment and other financing transactions as outlined in

section 2 and

schedule 2 of the bill.

The

preamble to this bill includes a reference to the $300 million forecast allowance included in this year's budget. This reference complies with the disclosure requirements contained in

section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of government for the 2000-01 fiscal year.

I move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Supply Act, 2000-2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 2000-2001

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

On the

preamble.

G. Farrell-Collins: In regard to comments earlier by the minister in second reading, the $300 million buffer in government revenues, just so I'm clear . . . . This is in the context of earlier today, as well, on the Balanced Budget Act. There is, within the $1.278 billion forecast deficit, already a $300 million buffer. So the balanced-budget bill would kick in after a $500 million reduction, and this is already $300 million there. That's correct -- right?

[1645]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct. What we are doing for the first time in a final supply bill is putting the forecast allowance in the

preamble. While other budgets tabled in this Legislature in recent times have included a forecast allowance, that has not been presented in this form.

The Enns committee recommended that budget documents disclose what your prudence factor is. So, hon. Chair, what this bill says is that the most likely deficit for the coming year, the current fiscal year, is $978 million. To be prudent, we have cushioned that by saying revenues might be $300 million lower than we think is likely. That is what a prudence cushion is, as you do budgets. We're revealing it explicitly in this legislation and providing it for debate in the Legislature, where the member can think it's too high, too low or about right.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Supply Act, 2000-2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's routine, members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that the House have a recess until 5:15 in order to accommodate Committee A,

[ Page 17169 ]

which is still carrying on with its business in the Douglas Fir Committee Room. So if that's agreeable -- I believe it is -- I would move that the House recess until 5:15.

The Speaker: On agreement, the House will recess until 5:15.

The House recessed from 4:48 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

SECURE CARE ACT

Bill 25, Secure Care Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Lovick: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Secure Care Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I move that Ms. Val Roddick, MLA, be substituted for Mr. John Weisbeck, MLA, as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Speaker: Is leave granted, members?

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

[1725]

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, His Honour is about to enter the chamber. I would ask members to please remain seated.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000

Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000

Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000

Secure Care Act

Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act

Balanced Budget Act

Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2000

Westmount Career Management Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2000

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2000-2001

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

Hon. G. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Mr. Speaker and hon. members, may I wish each one of you and your families and, indeed, all British Columbians a most cheery summer -- and no rain dances, please. Hon. members, my gratitude to each one of you for your service to your constituents and to our province.

Also, before leaving I invite you and all British Columbians to our celebration of Confederation Day, the day we joined Canada -- or some say Canada joined us -- on July 19, 1871. This is going to be at Government House from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, July 15. Come one, come all; you're most welcome. Mrs. Gardom and I would indeed be delighted to see you.

[1730]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, we have travelled some distance together. The journey, I think, has not always been smooth, but I think it has, for the most part, been cordial. I think all parties in this chamber have carried out their duties with the appropriate zeal and dedication.

I want, on behalf of the government -- and, if I may, you, Mr. Speaker -- to wish all members of this chamber a happy respite from our legislative duties, safe journeys and a pleasant time in months to come.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, that various gestures of understanding and sympathy are now being exchanged.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

[ Page 17170 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

SECURE CARE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 25; R. Kasper in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

section 1.

L. Reid: I have a number of comments I wish to make at the opening of this discussion this afternoon. The first one is about the phrasing in the explanatory note. When I read, "The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the involuntary secure care of young persons at high risk of serious harm or injury because of self-destructive behaviour . . . . " That is a phrase that has alarmed the community who are helping and attempting to assist street-involved youth. They don't see that as a self-destructive behaviour. They see that as sexual exploitation of children.

They see the wording of this as indeed putting the blame, if you will, on the child. They're suggesting that your wording is that sexual exploitation is a behaviour of a child. They're not accepting that.

[1455]

They don't believe that the tone and tenor of this bill is the least bit respectful of the fact that these young children have been sexually exploited and that in fact children do not consent to sex and that in fact they have been involved in prostitution. They would have wished that the wording of this bill could have in fact been more respectful of the children's role in this endeavour.

In that we are on

section 1, I'm going to reference under the definition

section that a "police officer" means a person who, under (b), "is a member of the military police of the Canadian Armed Forces." Can the minister give an example of when that circumstance may arise?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: My understanding is that it's a fairly pro forma definition and that when one defines under the Police Act, that's included, so it's an across-the-board kind of definition.

L. Reid: If the minister could respond to my question on the police officer definition " . . . is a member of the military police of the Canadian Armed Forces . . . . " Can she give me an example of when that circumstance might arise?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The situation would occur when a particular situation happened on a military base, because a civil authority and the municipal police or the RCMP have no authority on a military base. If such a situation happened on a military base, then it would be the military police who would take care of that.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Reid: I would make the same comment that I made in my opening remarks on the explanatory note. The individuals in question believe that the behaviours of sexual exploitation belong to the purchaser, not to the child. They see the tone of this act as being alarming in its level of disrespect. And certainly, hon. Chair, I concur. I think there are ways that this could have been phrased to be far more respectful of the children who find themselves in such dire circumstances.

Under

section 2(2): "For the purpose of this Act, an emotional or behavioural condition may be demonstrated by, among other things . . . . " So now prostitution and sexual exploitation is to be considered a behavioral condition. Can the minister perhaps tell us why that's an appropriate comment?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: First of all, there is absolutely no intent to display any sense of disrespect to the young people who get themselves caught in these situations. And further, as the bill was being drafted, as information was being drafted, consultation was done with other bills and across this whole country.

So first of all, in terms of the use of "emotional" or "behavioral," that's common phrasing that is used in other such legislation. The other piece of this -- dealing with sexual exploitation -- is meant to in fact clarify this differently than other legislation. In another province, for instance, strictly speaking, prostitution is what is identified. Sexual exploitation is meant to be broader than that. It's meant to be children, young people, who are caught up in that, and this is a way of offering them an opportunity to come out of it and do it differently.

But sexual exploitation is also meant to include pornography and some of the involvement that young people, through no fault of their own, get drawn into -- some of that kind of activity which we all deplore and appreciate that they got caught up in inadvertently.

[1500]

L. Reid: I would ask that the minister put on the record the other bills where in fact sexual exploitation is considered a behavioral condition. I can tell you that the term, the phrasing, is most offensive to the young people who have come to see me about this bill. They do not accept for one moment that that's a respectful comment on who they are as young people.

Perhaps the minister and her officials can wrap their minds around some type of friendly amendment today where they would allow that

section to be rephrased. If the intent is to be a support, be of assistance, to the young people in this province, for us to suggest that their behavioral condition is sexual exploitation, that somehow the behavioral condition belongs to them . . . . I'm putting it squarely in the ballpark of the purchaser of that service. They are in fact sexually exploiting children; that is not a behaviour that belongs to the child.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Here, let me try it this way. What we're trying to get at here is to reach and to respond to the broadest number and kind of conditions that harm children. That's what this is meant to be about. I gather that a fair amount of thinking went into the wording of this, and this was the best that we could come up with at the time.

There is, I gather, as well, to add to that . . . . In terms of review of other legislation, it appears that some used the word "disorder," and that was determined to be a really inappropriate kind of phrasing.

Whereas an emotional or behavioral condition that is demonstrated by the child . . . .

This is about harms to children, and this is about responding and intervening when harms are happening to

[ Page 17171 ]

children -- not that the children are responsible for them, but that harms are happening to these children by others. The others will be dealt with in another act. The others, though they're perpetrators, are not part of this bill; they're part of some other legislation. So this is about trying to make sure that we have a broad definition of the condition that young people can find themselves in and that we can then respond to.

L. Reid: Well, I'm going to try this for the minister and see if she and her officials can wrap their minds around this.

Section 2(2) states: "For the purpose of this Act, these conditions may be demonstrated by, among other things, (

a) severe substance misuse or addiction, or (

b) the sexual exploitation of the child."

What the young people in this province are taking objection to is the notion that the behavioral condition belongs to them. So if there are ways that this minister can see to the rightful conclusion today that, for the purposes of this act, "these conditions" may be demonstrated by . . . to replace "an emotional or behavioural condition," I would certainly leave that for her consideration.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I wonder if the member would repeat the statement again. Or if she has it written down, she could send it over to us while we give it some thought.

L. Reid:

Section 2(2) reads: "For the purpose of this Act, these conditions may be demonstrated by, among other things . . . " (

a) and then (b), as they read.

So I'm deleting "an emotional or behavioural condition" and substituting "these conditions."

If it pleases the committee, my colleague has some questions unrelated to this aspect of this section, and we could allow him to proceed while we have this discussion.

[1505]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I appreciate the point, but in fact I'm happy to respond right now and to say we'd be happy to include those alterations that the member would like to have, and I thank her for the suggestion. We will be happy to incorporate those into this section.

G. Plant: I wanted to ask a question, which is fairly general, but I probably should have tried to go first as we started this. But since we're talking about the purpose clause, that's a pretty general context and may be as good a place as any to ask it.

It seems to me that on its face, Bill 25 clearly raises Charter issues. I'm hoping that the government has identified that possibility and that it has sought and obtained advice that says that while the issues may exist, there is no basis for concern. This bill will withstand any Charter challenge. So my question to the minister is: has she sought or obtained that advice, and if she has, will she make it public?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for the question. Yes indeed, we have checked legal opinion through the legal services branch of the Attorney General ministry, and we have also reviewed other legislation. The act is indeed modelled on other legislation which restricts freedom of individuals and incorporates checks and balances available in other legislation -- that's also part of that.

[1510]

The due process part of the provisions in the act address Charter rights and protect the child from breaches of these rights. The legal services folks from the Attorney General ministry have been with us all the way along in terms of the development of this legislation and have reassured us. And I think that in some other moments when I have talked about this bill -- second reading, for instance -- I have read in some of the rights and some of the checks and balances that are in place when this act passes.

G. Plant: Just to get more directly, again, to the question. Having done all of that work, I want to be sure I get the minister's clearest assurance that from her perspective, from her ministry's perspective, relying on that advice, she is satisfied that this bill does not violate the Charter.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Yes; I can say yes.

L. Reid: I would move the following amendment under

section 2(2) -- to delete the wording "an emotional or behavioral condition" and insert "these conditions."

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

L. Reid: Under

section 3(1)(

d) the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage will be considered. I want to know how this will be determined. How are we going to measure success from having made that statement?

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

section 3(1)(

d) about the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage and how that will happen. We have and expect to have, first of all, culturally appropriate staffing, access to language, placement close to the child's community when it comes time for a placement. Then after, care would be set up in a similar fashion. I would refer the member to

section 17, where it also talks about the rights of the child, as we do our best to do in the other aspects of the ministry, work with young people and children.

L. Reid: Again,

section 3(1)(e) -- the child's views. There is certainly a flavour through this bill that if the child is found to be disruptive or is not interested in participating in the

[ Page 17172 ]

process, they simply will be removed from the hearing or the meeting, etc. -- all through this bill. So how will we be assured that a child's views will be taken into consideration?

[1515]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Basically the child is entitled to legal representation at the hearing, and there are other safeguards around all that too. The advocate will be informed whenever a hearing is set up, so the advocate's office has an opportunity to be there. Every plan of care is to go to the children's commissioner for further review, if that's necessary -- well, it would be necessary; it's there. They have that possibility. And conversations that the child wishes to have with lawyers, with family -- any of those specified groups, and again, it's identified in the act . . . . Their privacy is guaranteed and assured in all of those sections. I refer the member to

section 9, which is a

section covering the situation in which a child might not be able to attend and how that's all covered off.

They've done a pretty fair job, I think, of trying to cover those eventualities and to bring into play those agencies that already exist and have concerns around children and young people and how they are treated -- that they may be treated with the utmost respect in the difficult situation they are in and that, if you like, society is in, when we want to assist them in one of these last efforts, when things have not gone well for them up to now.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I need to understand . . . . What I'm hearing is that the child's views will be heard during the hearing process, in that the legal representation is only attached to the hearing process. Who's going to hear the child's views? That could amount to an additional 89 days of confinement. Who's listening to the child during that process?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'd like to reassure the member -- as the member refers to

section 17, which we will come to soon enough -- that all those rights that are listed there apply for however long the child is under a certificate for secure care. Obviously, whenever there is a situation when the secure care discussion comes up again, then all that process is there. But at any time, the advocate, for instance, is always and can always be involved and can ask for a private conversation with the child. That's always available at any time. So

section 17 applies anytime throughout the stretch of the secure care period.

L. Reid: The young people who have come to me have real concerns. Certainly the first 72 hours are critical, and indeed they may or may not have access to legal counsel during that period. And who is the decision point? In my reading of the bill, it's the director of secure care that will make that determination but may, indeed, make that determination in a telephone call. There may be no opportunity for the child to actually seek that person's counsel and believe that the child has been heard. Who is there, early on in the process, to hear the child?

[1520]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: There are two situations, and I know the member is aware of this. The 72-hour piece of this is in an emergency situation, when it is imperative that quick intervention happens. In this case, it may be that the child's lawyer is not there at that moment. Within 72 hours, however, the director of secure care must be informed and a hearing must begin. Therefore the lawyer is there, and the advocate has an opportunity to be there; then the process unfolds. But that has to do with an emergency, where it is imperative that quick intervention happens within that.

In the non-emergency situation, there is time, for the young person is known to the social workers in the community and is known to . . . . The family is aware, and there is time to speak to the board and bring all the pieces to the board's attention that it needs. And then the board would decide, under those very stiff criteria which I've read into the record several times and will do again -- very stiff criteria for the board to make a decision -- about whether that child should be taken into care.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's information, but the question was specific to who in fact, in the first 72 hours . . . . And admittedly, I got the part where the minister indicated that the hearing would be in place and that the director would resolve to move quickly in an emergency situation. I understand that piece. But my interest is to learn who in fact will be speaking to the child, because it's not the director. From my reading of this bill, the director will be conferring a decision but may or may not speak directly to the child. So if the minister could assure me who in fact speaks to the child, I'd be pleased to receive that information.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I think the response would be that the director or the director's designate would be the one who would be on the site or at the situation to respond to it and to be sure that the right thing has happened.

L. Reid: Not to put words in the minister's mouth, but am I hearing that either of those two individuals would then be the person responsible for speaking directly to the child?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Yes.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Reid: I want to have a free-ranging discussion at this juncture, because it will make sense, so that we don't have to canvass this issue at every aspect of this bill. And the comment I want to put on the table is the reference to the issuance of a secure care certificate. My comment is around the notion that family court judges already have some experience in this area.

The concern I have is around the basic mechanics. I know there will be instances yet before us where these young people are standing in front of a family court judge who, prior to this bill, had no ability to secure service or to issue a secure care certificate, if you will. The situation's not going to change after this bill. You're still going to have individuals standing in front of family court judges.

What is the minister's intention? Is it at that point that the family court judge holds that child, retains that child, sends out for the director of secure care -- somehow transfers that child from the family court room to a secure care hearing

[ Page 17173 ]

room? What are the mechanics of how that works? That's an issue that's come before me many, many times in the last number of days. It seems to me that if these children are elusive, in some instances, if they find themselves in that courtroom, it would make sense to allow the process that this government is putting on the table as being a viable option to in fact be engaged. Is that the minister's intention?

[1525]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: With apologies for the delay, it's an interesting question. But first of all, the act is pretty clear about who may issue a certificate of secure care for the child. At this stage it's very clear in that, and no family court judge can do that. The family court judge could refer a case to the director of secur