2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 15

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Oral Questions

U.S. decision on Canadian softwood lumber

exports

J. MacPhail

Drug-resistant HIV strain

L. Mayencourt

Government support for forestry-dependent

communities

J. MacPhail

Drought conditions in East Kootenays

B. Bennett

Proceedings in

Section B

Crown Corporations Governance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14)

Second reading

Hon. G. Plant

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act (Bill 4). Hon. G. Collins

Committee stage

Third reading

Budget Transparency and

Accountability Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 5).

Hon. G. Collins

Committee stage

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2001 (Bill 11). Hon. G. Plant

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Hon. G. Plant

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. S. Hawkins

Hon. G. Collins

Proceedings in

Section A

Committee of Supply

Ministry of Forests estimates. Hon. M. de

Jong

Vote 30: Ministry operations

R. Sultan

R. Stewart

R. Harris

P. Wong

R. Visser

J. Nuraney

Vote 31: Fire suppression

Vote 54: Forest Practices

Board

Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

Hon. M. Coell

Vote 35: Ministry operations

Hon. M.

Coell

I. Chong

Ministry of Management Services

estimates. Hon. S. Santori

Vote 36: Ministry operations

Hon. S.

Santori

I. Chong

Vote 37: Public Service

Employee Relations Commission

Vote 38: Product sales and

services

[ Page 437 ]

MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

[1405]

Hon. S.

Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome two very special people

from my constituency. As we all know, volunteers in our communities play an

integral

part in the success of our communities and the many programs that we're

able to offer through the work of volunteers. It gives me great pleasure today

to introduce two people to the House, very special friends: Mr. and Mrs. Bob

Moffat, here from Trail. Bob has been involved with the Trail Little League

program for a number of years and also with the Trail Smokeaters hockey club. I

would ask that the House make them feel welcome.

Also, I

would like to acknowledge Dave and Carolyn Reynolds and their two children,

Gillian and Jocelyn, who are in the House today, from the beautiful city of

Rossland. Dave has lived in Trail and Rossland his entire life and has been an

engineer at Cominco for more than ten years. Would the House please make them

welcome as well.

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery is an articling student with the

Ministry of Attorney General, named Jamie Van Wart, who is going to spend some

time with the Clerk this afternoon. I warned him that that could be a highly

dangerously intoxicating experience, but I certainly hope the House will make

him welcome.

Hawes: Visiting us today in the precincts are two of my constituents, Capt.

Ed Monteiro and his wife Wendy. They're holidaying here with two friends, Brenda

Correa from the United Kingdom and Clover Digby from Toronto. Could the House

please make them welcome.

Chong: Hon. Speaker, I see seated in the gallery today a constituent and a

very good friend — also, in fact, a very good friend of the Minister of Human

Resources. He is not a stranger to the world of politics. He is also a former

president of the Union Club of British Columbia. I ask the House to please

welcome Mr. Ed Kisling.

Hon. J.

Murray: It's my pleasure to introduce two special constituents from New

Westminster who are in the gallery. They are Bruce Clark and Melissa Holland.

Those of you who aren't familiar with Bruce Clark may have heard of his sister.

She's about to make him an uncle. She's our Minister of Education and the member

for Port Moody–Westwood. Would the House please make them both welcome.

I also have

the pleasure of introducing two very dear friends from Vancouver and New

Westminster. Both are excellent and innovative teachers and are in the gallery

today: Aleeta Grant and Candace Bergstrom. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to recognize the Victoria all-star

midget AA baseball team on their winning of the provincial championships in

Courtenay this past weekend. Would the House please join me in congratulating

these young men and their coaches.

Nettleton: Please join me in welcoming John Major, a business person who's

here from the great city of Prince George. Welcome, John — and great to have

you here.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm grateful to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for his

announcement. In the interest of full disclosure, I should make it clear that

his son's team beat my son's team during the course of that tournament, and it

was a great match. I won't say whether the better team won, but Victoria

certainly did win.

Oral Questions

U.S. DECISION ON CANADIAN

SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, B.C. coastal mills produce high-end specialty

products such as western red cedar, green Douglas fir, coastal hemlock and also

remanufactured component parts of the value-added products. We know that

value-added products have an exclusion, but the rest do not. These products

aren't a threat to the U.S. industry. The U.S. industry fears losing its market

share to spruce, pine and fir products.

[1410]

Both

industry and workers support an exclusion and would ask for an exclusion from

the softwood countervail duty for these high-end products. Can the Minister of

Forests tell us how he's joining with the coastal industry and the workers to

stand up and support coastal producers who are seeking an exclusion of these

specialty products from the punishing duty?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am pleased to hear the member refer to this draconian tariff as

punishing, because it is indeed that. On Friday last, by virtue of its decision,

the commerce department confirmed once and for all that the American industry

coalition is quite simply afraid to trade. They are apparently afraid to compete

with British Columbia and Canada. To get to the specific question, however…. I

want all members of the House to know this, because I think it is instructive as

to how the Americans have dealt with this matter.

On Thursday

prior to the long weekend the commerce department indicated that it would

entertain applications for an exemption at a company level. But with respect to

the preliminary determination, they set

[ Page 438 ]

the cutoff for the receipt of those exemption applications on the following

Tuesday, knowing full well that British Columbia, where the bulk of the wood

exports from Canada are derived, was in the midst of a long weekend. It is an

indication of the self-serving manner in which the American commerce department

and the industry have proceeded throughout. We have been helping the industry,

particularly those on the west coast who were able to get an application form

in, to process them through and pass them on to the officials both in Ottawa and

in Washington. There is a subsequent deadline for later this month that pertains

to the final determination. If we get that far, we'll be cooperating in every

way we can to process through those applications as well.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplemental question.

MacPhail: The Minister of Forests is on record — and no one disputes his

comments — that the softwood lumber decision will result in job losses in

British Columbia. In fact, he's quoting as saying: "There are going to be

casualties. There are going to be job losses." I think that the public, the

forest-dependant communities and the industry itself would wish the specifics of

the next steps in terms of the government supporting the request for exclusion.

Can he

please outline for us specifically how he's trying to minimize the job losses or

at least how he's moving forward in the next days to secure the exclusion of the

specialty products? For instance, has he phoned Mr. Pettigrew, the minister

responsible for this issue at the national level? Has he worked with the feds in

demanding that the feds vigorously pursue an exclusion? Or is it his position

that he should always wait for Mr. Pettigrew to contact him?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I would have thought that in the face of a challenge that I presume

all members of this House understand, including this member, we could set

politics aside and, as we have in this House in the past in differing

circumstances, speak with one unified voice defending the interests of B.C.

forest-dependent communities.

[1415]

I can

advise the House that within moments of learning of the decision, I provided

instructions to our consul in Washington to file the necessary documentation to

proceed with the challenge through the domestic processes, through the World

Trade Organization and through the NAFTA bilateral processes. The Premier this

day is in Idaho communicating in explicit terms to the Governors who are

attending that conference how seriously we take this and how offended British

Columbians are that we would be dealt with in a way that we can only

characterize as unfair. We are speaking and have in the past, in the weeks

leading up to this decision, spoken with officials, with Mr. Pettigrew. We'll be

speaking with him again. The stakeholder groups have been consulted. A meeting

held a week and a half ago was attended by virtually every single representative

agency of the softwood and lumber business in British Columbia, including the

IWA — unprecedented, I am told, in the last number of years. This is an

unwarranted, unjust and unfair decision, and this government will not rest until

it has been undone.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further question.

MacPhail: Pursuing information about a very complex matter that spans the

provincial and federal governments is not playing politics. My question was: had

this government initiated contact with the federal government, who will take a

lead on this file? Indeed, it sounds like it is definitely Ottawa having to

contact British Columbia on this matter. Fair enough. But as the Minister of

Forests knows, the American decision, however unfair, was probably in the making

for quite a time. In fact, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services programs actually did accompany the then Minister of Forests to

Washington.

You're

right. It was a non-partisan approach. But everyone knew this was coming. Can

the Minister of Forests now tell this House what contingency plans his

government has made, in anticipation of the decision, to help forest communities

deal with the crisis?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't know what difficulty the member is having in understanding

the fact that weeks ago this government — the Premier, in fact, in his first

meeting with the Prime Minister — raised this specific issue. Two weeks ago I

went to Ottawa to meet with Minister Pettigrew to highlight to him that this

government expects this file to be at the top of the trade file. I went to

Washington and highlighted to the officials at the embassy and at the legal

level that this was our top priority in British Columbia. So the question now is

whether or not this member wants to work with the government in sending a

message to the Americans that this is unacceptable.

There are

two groups going to be hurt here, and we all know who they are. People who rely

upon our forest economy and forest-dependent communities in British Columbia are

going to be hurt in the short term unless we take steps to have this decision

set aside or are able to engage Americans and determine whether they are serious

about finding a long-term solution to this recurrent trade issue. The other

group that's going to be hurt, which we don't hear quite as much about in

British Columbia, are Americans who want to buy a home. About 1.5 million of

them have just been put out of the home-purchasing market. We are going to work

with consumer organizations in the United States, we are going to work with

forest-dependent communities here in British Columbia, and we are going to set

this decision aside.

DRUG-RESISTANT HIV STRAIN

Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. This past

week I had the opportunity

[ Page 439 ]

to speak with some researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

and to follow up on a news report about a superbug, a change in the HIV virus

that is highly resistant to current treatments that we have developed. While

there is only a handful of cases at this point, I am very concerned, because

back in 1980 we started with a handful of cases and we ended up with about 3,200

people dying of that illness since that time. Can the minister tell me what he

is doing to try and address this problem?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The news of this new superbug is, I think, distressing to everybody

that's watched the tragedy of HIV/AIDS over the last number of years. I am not

surprised that this particular discovery was made by researchers in British

Columbia, because we have some of the best researchers working out of the Centre

for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. That is a

program that has been supported by the provincial government. It will continue

to be supported by the provincial government, and hopefully, we can start to

find ways to treat this new superbug that will benefit not only British

Columbians but others around the world.

Mr.

Speaker: With a supplemental, the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[1420]

Mayencourt: A lot of the drug treatment strategies that have been developed

at the Centre for Excellence have been quite encouraging, and they've certainly

helped our community quite a bit. But it seems to those researchers that one of

the key elements of successfully combatting this disease is through an education

program. I wonder if the minister could speak to what he's doing in the area of

educating people about the transmission of HIV/AIDS and particularly this

strain.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, there have been some news stories in recent weeks about diminishing concern about HIV/AIDS transmission in British

Columbia. I think one of the real tragedies is that it is a 100 percent

preventable disease and that education programs are essential. I think,

certainly, the ministry has been supporting those programs and will continue to

be supporting education programs throughout British Columbia. Also, later this

month I will be meeting with the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society and also with

AIDS Vancouver to look at how the ministry can work cooperatively with them to

ensure that those education programs continue and are strengthened.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

FORESTRY-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES

MacPhail: Back to the issue of the softwood lumber agreement and its

follow-up and the damage it's going to do to our economy…. I know that the

most important aspect of supporting the industry to pursue an exclusion —

specifics around that matter — is working with the federal government. There

are some immediate actions that the provincial government can do, but it also

requires the provincial government actually supporting communities.

The

Minister of Forests didn't answer the last question about plans on supporting

communities. I notice that the minister responsible for community transition

programs is absent. So to the Minister of Finance: the ministry is feeling great

pressure to cut programs, to make sure that your deficit doesn't balloon. You're

looking at deep cuts to Forest Renewal B.C., and you've already started cutting

other community transition programs. Forest-dependent communities are facing

this crisis now and need immediate help. Can the Minister of Finance promise

that he will not cut any community transition programs that will help — in the

short, medium or long term — communities facing this crisis?

Hon. G.

Collins: We take this issue very seriously. I know that the Premier and the

Minister of Forests have been working on this for some time. Rest assured that

the members of this government and this caucus will be taking into consideration

to a great extent those communities that are heavily reliant upon this one

industry and making sure that government is there to offer some assistance when

they're impacted by these kinds of major decisions which are beyond our control.

Certainly, I expect that if and when those issues occur, and in preparation for

them as well, the ministers responsible will make their needs known to other

members of cabinet and government as a whole.

DROUGHT CONDITIONS IN

EAST KOOTENAYS

Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

In the East Kootenay we have a crisis in addition to the crisis before us in

forestry. We have a crisis in the lack of water and the lack of rain that we've

had there in the last two years. We have drought conditions in the East

Kootenay. The ranchers and farmers that try to do business there have a hard

enough time making a go of it even when there is lots of rain. Over the past two

years our region has essentially become almost like a desert — similar to

what's happening in Alberta, which you may have seen on the television news.

Our

ranchers raise mostly cattle. They raise forage for their cattle. Without rain,

they're basically out of business. My question to the minister is: what is our

government prepared to do to help those folks in the East Kootenay with these

drought conditions?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I want to assure the member that I am familiar with the drought

situation in the Kootenays. I've met with some of the ranchers involved there.

Just to mention some of the issues that are hurting us there: a lack of

irrigation and water in some cases; in other cases we've got deer and elk grazing

on the limited forage supplies that we have. I've asked

[ Page 440 ]

staff to gather all information and to explore all options, and we will work

with the ranchers in that area to try and deal with this difficult situation.

[End

of question period.]

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call, in the big House, second reading of Bill 14, the Crown

Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. In Committee A, I call

Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the

estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

CROWN CORPORATIONS GOVERNANCE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Plant: I move that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

The

government intends to chart a new course with its Crown corporations to ensure

that they operate under modern governance principles. In order to move in this

new direction, it is essential that we have the necessary infrastructure in

place. Bill 14 makes two legislative changes towards this goal. First, it

revises sections 2(2) and 2(3) of the Insurance Corporation Act. Second, it

repeals

section 7(

a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act. It should be noted

that these amendments ensure consistency with other Crown corporation

legislation.

Currently,

sections 2(2) and 2(3) of the Insurance Corporation Act — that's the act for

ICBC — stipulate that the corporation consists of the minister and not less

than two other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for a

term of three years. As a matter of policy, this government has determined that

generally it will not appoint ministers to Crown corporation boards,

particularly where there is a direct ministerial reporting relationship.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

addition, it has been suggested that in many cases defining the term of an

appointment in legislation could place the government in binding employment

conditions — conditions that are unnecessary given the nature of

order-in-council appointments. Accordingly, Bill 14 revises

section 2 to remove

the requirement that the corporation include the minister, as well as the

three-year appointment stipulation. Appointments to the corporation after these

provisions have been brought into force will not be subject to a three-year

express limitation.

Currently,

section 7(

a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act stipulates that directors —

that is, directors of B.C. Hydro — may not, either directly or indirectly,

have any association whatsoever with a company that generates or supplies power.

That provision may have been realistic when it was first enacted; it is no

longer a realistic reflection of the world of business.

[1430]

Hon.

Speaker, this

section creates an excessive and unworkable limitation with

respect to the composition of the board of B.C. Hydro, with the ultimate result

that no single person owning a mutual fund that holds shares in any part of this

sector of the economy could sit on the board. Accordingly, Bill 14 repeals this

section from the Hydro and Power Authority Act.

That

concludes my comments with respect to Bill 14. I look forward to the comments of

other members.

MacPhail: It will come as no surprise to the government that I oppose this

legislation for this reason: it does seem so early in a mandate of a government

to use as a reason for repealing a 37-year prohibition against the ownership of

shares that could possibly put a director in conflict with his or her

responsibilities toward the ultimate shareholder, the taxpayer. It does seem a

little bit early to repeal that by virtue of the stated reason that it makes it

so hard to attract good-quality directors to sit on the B.C. Hydro board.

Let's be

clear what

section 1 of this legislation does. It takes

away what I think is a 37-year prohibition — it could be shorter, but it's a

decades-long prohibition — against directors of B.C. Hydro holding shares or

responsibilities in an energy company that would put them in conflict

with their roles as directors of the publicly owned Crown corporation, B.C.

Hydro, which has one shareholder. That's the taxpayer, the British Columbians

— a shareholder made up of the four million British Columbians. Why is it

hard, so early in a mandate, for this government to recruit directors that can

do the job; that can represent the taxpayers; that can represent British

Columbians, who should take pride in their publicly owned hydro utility? Why is

it so hard for them to recruit people who have only the interests of B.C. Hydro

at heart, who aren't encumbered by responsibilities or the potential for

conflict with their lives elsewhere?

Why is it

that the government needs to remove the prohibition to now allow a British

Columbian to be a director of B.C. Hydro and also own shares or be a director in

a private energy concern? It's very early in their mandate. Theoretically, there

should be thousands of people lining up to offer their public service to sit on

the B.C. Hydro board. In fact, I believe the government has said that it's going

to put an independent commission in place to recruit directors for agencies,

boards and commissions. Why is it that this prohibition against a potential

conflict for a B.C. Hydro director needs to be removed before that independent

commission has completed its work?

[1435]

Well, one

might look to the history of the relationship between this government and people

who are responsible for private energy companies, people who may have a goal of

really lessening the role of B.C. Hydro in British Columbia society and who may

want

[ Page 441 ]

to look at B.C. Hydro being broken up and the advantages of a natural

resource monopoly being given away to the private sector. Perhaps it could be

that the people who have contributed to the Liberals in the past — contributed

hugely — have interests where they do want the role of B.C. Hydro to be

changed, where they do want B.C. Hydro to be deregulate, that they do want B.C.

Hydro to take second place to independent power producers or that they just want

the same spoils that were offered — given away — to them when the natural

gas arm of B.C. Hydro was privatized. Maybe they're looking for those same

advantages. We do know that of the top 15 donors to the B.C. Liberal Party from

1996 to '99, B.C. Gas and Centra Gas were amongst that group. They were

amongst the top 15 donors — over $75,000 in contribution — to the B.C.

Liberals.

We know

that B.C. Gas has a major influence in this government now. Pretty much every

single one of its directors or vice-presidents will play a major role in

deciding the future of British Columbia. The new chair of B.C. Hydro, although

he has recently disposed of his shares, as far as we know, in B.C. Gas — he

has said so publicly — was a director of B.C. Gas. Gordon Barefoot is a B.C.

Gas executive, and he did the fiscal review panel for this government. Thomas

Buell, who sits on the B.C. Gas board, is a major fundraiser for the Liberals.

The B.C. Gas board of directors includes two former provincial deputy finance

ministers. I've already mentioned Larry Bell and David Emerson, who sits on —

I think chairs — this government's Progress Board.

In fact,

it's probably safe to say that we know that these open cabinet meetings that we

see on television don't make decisions. It's probably safe to say that the

cabinet decisions are really made in the B.C. Gas boardroom. Now we have a

situation where anyone whose primary or major interest is in B.C. Gas or Centra

Gas can also now be in charge of B.C. Hydro. One merely needs to ask: isn't it a

little bit early to say that you can't recruit good people to the B.C. Hydro

board of directors, that you need to give it away to people who also hold shares

in other private energy interests? Is it that there are many, such as the Thomas

Buells of the world, waiting to line up to be recruited to sit on the B.C. Hydro

board and change the direction of B.C. Hydro so that it is no longer working in

the interests of British Columbians but is working in the interests of the large

corporations who donate to the Liberal Party?

We're

seeing a disturbing trend here — that those who donate to the Liberal Party

get their way quickly and easily with this government. I would suggest that this

Bill 14 is another example of that.

I note that

there are many other situations where the Liberal government has said that it

wants to move quickly with deregulation, particularly in the area of the forest

sector. We see that the companies who are the biggest polluters in the province

donated to the Liberals, and so they will probably get their way very quickly

with this government as well.

I expect

that those that operate in the interests of the corporate backers of the Liberal

Party feel very good about Bill 14 today, knowing that the minute this bill is

passed, this government, despite their claims to have a non-partisan, open and

accountable group of people managing our Crown corporations…. Despite that

promise, there will be people who have donated large sums of money to the

Liberal government rubbing their hands with glee, knowing that their telephone

call to be appointed to the board of B.C. Hydro is coming very shortly.

[1440]

We can only

assume that's going to happen within days now, because they have Mr. Larry Bell,

the chair of B.C. Hydro, who has said that he needs this legislation here to

recruit good people. That means the only people he can recruit are

people who hold shares in energy companies. The link is irrefutable by Mr. Larry

Bell. He didn't say: "Well, it's only one of the factors. Really, we may

not have to use it, and really, I would prefer not to have to use it." Mr.

Larry Bell didn't say that. He said: "It's the only way that we can recruit

good directors."

Well, I

will be watching with interest to see what the future holds for B.C. Hydro under

this government. The record during the election was not clear, not clear at all.

The now Minister of Finance said one thing, the now Premier said another thing,

and we were left in a state of confusion and, I would say, anxiety. I would say

that British Columbians were left in a state of anxiety about the future of B.C.

Hydro.

We know

what happened when the natural gas arm of B.C. Hydro was privatized. We saw what

that did to the disposable income of British Columbians. The price of natural

gas had to be borne by British Columbians; the market price had to be borne by

British Columbians. There was no made-in-B.C. price. British Columbians are

worried today that the future plans of this government, which will now be

supported by directors of B.C. Hydro who have interests other than the interests

of B.C. Hydro at heart…. We'll see what happens to the price of hydro, to

hydro energy rates, under this government. I sincerely hope that British

Columbians can say to this government: "Don't put all of your pals in place

at B.C. Hydro; don't do that."

B.C. Hydro,

working on behalf of British Columbians, is the underpinning of a British

Columbia advantage. We know the B.C. advantage is much about the hydro rates

that industry and commercial entities get. That is a B.C. advantage. In fact,

during the election it became clear that…. Companies said that the B.C.

advantage of low hydro rates makes it better to be here in B.C. than in Alberta,

where the deregulated, privatized hydro energy sources led to skyrocketing rates

for commercial and industrial enterprises, let alone the ordinary residential

consumer.

Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of British Columbians, I say to the government: don't put all

the pals that donated to your election in place. Have some balance. Have some

good sense that B.C. Hydro, as a Crown corporation monopoly, works in the interest

of industry, commercial enterprise and consumers, and

[ Page 442 ]

keep it that way. Don't turn it over as spoils to your pals that donated and

want B.C. Hydro divided up and given away to them.

Mr.

Speaker: Attorney General, speaking on second reading, closing debate.

[1445]

Hon. G.

Plant: I listened with interest to the comments of the member opposite. I

don't think that she was opposing in principle any part of the legislation. I

noticed that she did have some concerns about people she identified as

appointees. I can assure her, and I want to assure all members of the House,

that with this legislation in place, we as a government are going to be able to

move forward in a new way to ensure that for the first time in many years in

British Columbia we're going to have a board of the B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority that is composed of people who have the public interest at heart, who

care about the business and responsibilities of B.C. Hydro and who are willing

to work consistently within the policy framework that we as government will

establish to ensure that we have the best hydro authority of any hydro authority

going.

Mr.

Speaker, I think this bill is a small but necessary step to move forward to

ensure that we can build a B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that will be the envy

of the world. With that in mind, I move second reading.

Motion

approved on division.

Hon. G.

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

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

Bill 14,

Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 4, the Balanced

Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

BALANCED BUDGET AND

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:47 p.m.

[1450]

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to let the House be aware that we scheduled this bill

for this afternoon. I've advised the Leader of the Opposition of it, as well,

just so she's aware that we are discussing it. I don't want members to feel that

we're moving through it without providing notice to the Leader of the

Opposition.

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 6 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 6 (2),

(

a) by deleting "section 5 (1) and" and substituting

"section 5 (1),", and

(

b) by adding "with the public" after "under

section

6 (1),".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 6

as amended approved

Sections 7

to 11 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

[1455]

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

4, Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, reported complete with

amendment.

Mr.

Speaker: When shall we consider the bill as reported?

Hon. G.

Collins: With leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill 4,

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, read a third time and

passed.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm being heckled by my colleague the

Attorney General, who's anticipating his 20 percent pay cut. I'm hoping we never

get to that point.

I call

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Amendment Act, 2001.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 443 ]

The

committee met at 2:57 p.m.

Sections 1

to 31 inclusive approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 32 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 32, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by deleting

"Sections 18, 19 and 29" and substituting "Sections 5, 19, 20

and 30", and

(

b) in subsection (2) by deleting "Section 21" and

substituting "Section 22".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 32

as amended approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:59 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1500]

Bill 5,

Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete

with amendment.

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill

5, Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 11.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:08 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: I don't have the legislation with me. The book isn't up to date

here, so I'm going to have to seek some information from the minister

responsible, for the record. Otherwise, I would read it into the record. But for

the record, it's about the content of the legislation that's actually being

repealed.

Section 1

repeals "the

definitions of 'child care grant,' 'funding assistance

program,' and 'funding assistance program grant' and substitutes the

following." What was the intent of changing the definition of child care

grant from the law that was passed earlier this year?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The intent of the changes was to repeal the universal aspect of

the previous Child Care BC Act. By removing the sections "funding

assistance program" and "funding assistance program grant," it

allowed the present government the flexibility to still provide child care

grants but not to the universal program, as was in the original bill.

MacPhail: Who wins and who loses?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Hon. member, I think the families and the children in British

Columbia all win in this. Certainly, what we're proposing is that we are going

to be consulting with parents and with child care providers to come up with a

plan that's sustainable. It's our view that the previous bill, the Child Care BC

Act, was not sustainable. Therefore, we've taken steps to make sure that the

programs that we implement for children and families will be sustainable in the

future.

[1510]

MacPhail: Well, there are winners and losers. Actually, I think that perhaps

it's safe to say that there are just losers in this situation. I need some

detail on that. The Child Care BC Act that is being repealed now…. It's being

done in a way where the child care grant definition is being changed so that the

program is no longer universal. This means substantial loss to families in

British Columbia. It's my information that the current family who has one child

in before- and after-school care saves on average about $1,100 per year per

child by virtue of the fact that the maximum fee is $7 for a half day of child

care and $14 for a full day of child care. Is that correct?

Hon. L.

Stephens: What we are going to be doing is cancelling that particular

portion of the child care plan that the member is talking about. Those kinds of

decisions will be made in the future as to what kind of funding will or will not

be available to families. We've said quite clearly in our New Era

document and throughout the election campaign that we will be targeting funds to

families that need them the most. That is what we intend to do.

MacPhail: My question was very specific, because I hope the member isn't

somehow indicating that the current circumstance in which parents find

themselves is at threat. My understanding is that the Minister of Finance

continued the funding for programs of before- and after-school child care now

and that it is future programs that are cut. So what I'm asking the minister to

confirm is that for a family — whether that be a single-parent family, a

dual-parent family or a blended family — if that family has a child

[ Page 444 ]

in before- and after-school care, they save about $1,100 per year.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's correct. That's the way the funding applies. Those programs

will remain in place — the before- and after-school care — until the

contracts expire on June 30, 2002. By that time we will have the new child care

program in place.

MacPhail: Is it the minister's indication to the House, then, that the

before- and after-school care program that's in place now may be changed?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The whole child care program is undergoing review. We have made

these changes to the act to allow us to do that. We are going to be looking at

various ways to provide a sustainable child care program in British Columbia, so

all aspects of the current program are under review, just as all other programs

of government are under our core services review.

MacPhail: So the minister is telling families today that they may not be

guaranteed $7 per half day or $14 per day for before- and after-school care

after March 31, 2002?

Hon. L.

Stephens: As applies to all of the programs that we have been talking about

across government, there's a core services review that is in place. The child

care program is no different than any of the others. We are committed to a

sustainable child care program in the province. We are committed to making it as

easy as possible for parents to access quality, safe, affordable child care. We

are certainly committed to strengthening our child care providers in the

province.

This is

future policy that we're going to be developing in concert with parents and with

child care providers. As we develop that program, there will be more information

forthcoming, and I would be happy to share it with the member opposite. Really,

what we want to develop is a flexible program that will help parents and child

care providers — those that are most in need.

[1515]

MacPhail: Families of low income have child care subsidies available to them

now. By virtue of the government changing the definition to eliminate the

universality of the child care program, who — what kind of family, what kind

of child — was ineligible prior to the Child Care BC Act who now becomes eligible

under the minister's change?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The subsidy program that was in place continues to be in place. We

don't see that changing in any way. What we are doing is looking at the child

care program in terms of the former Child Care BC Act and looking at how we can

implement a child care program over and above the subsidy program that will meet

the needs of the families of British Columbia.

MacPhail: Does the definition change in

section 1? Let's be clear; all of

this was studied at length in '99-2000. Huge consultation was done. Tens of

thousands — or thousands, anyway; I think it was about 11,000 — of people

made submissions to the government of the day about child care, and there were

consultations all around the province. So for the government to somehow now

suggest that that work wasn't done and needs to be done again, or redone, they

must have in mind a reason why.

We had a

situation…. Clearly, the change to universality is not on, so that's gone;

that's out the window. Families who could count on universal child care and more

money in their pockets because they don't have to pay for day care or child care

— their hopes are dashed. We have a situation in that prior to this act, the

way families got child care subsidies was mainly through the Ministry of Human

Resources. Sometimes through employment training programs — again, the

Ministry of Human Resources — they got a child care subsidy. Are we reverting

to those days, or does the minister have something else in mind? Why is she

needing to do another consultation when it's already all been done? Is there a

middle ground, or are we reverting to the days where low-income families get

child care subsidies only?

Hon. L.

Stephens: To answer the member's first question,

section 1 of the amendment

here simply removes the name of the program, the funding assistance program, and

clarifies what "child care grant" means, which is (a), (b), (c), (

d) and (e). This amendment sets out quite clearly what child care grant means and

just removes the name of the program — the funding assistance program. Now,

the government can still provide grants, but the name "funding assistance

program" does not need to be in the act and will not be.

The

universal program was stopped before it was implemented. The before- and

after-school parents still benefit until June 30, 2002. Further, the commitment

to the families in British Columbia — all families, not just those that are

receiving the subsidy assistance — is very strong for this government. We are

developing that plan using some of the information that was compiled in the last

two or three years, I believe. Not all of that information is wasted. We're

certainly going to be looking at that, taking another look at it and talking

with the groups and individuals who participated in that review to help in

formulating the new plan for British Columbia.

MacPhail: These are definition changes, but they fundamentally alter the

Child Care B.C. program, so they're key. What is the nature of the consultation

that is required that hasn't already been done? What extra information is the

minister seeking that hasn't already been done in the massive, massive

consultation that was done within the last 18 months?

[ Page 445 ]

[1520]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The information that was gathered in the last 18 months to two

years was extensive, and we will be going back and looking at all of the

information that was compiled there — the fundamental difference being that

most of the individuals, certainly many of the individuals, wanted to see a

significant change in how child care was done in British Columbia. What we've

said is that we agree with them and that we need to look at what some of those

models may be.

The former

administration — your administration, hon. member — chose one plan. We have

said quite clearly that that's not something that we believe is sustainable, and

so we're going to be going back and talking to these individuals and groups and

parents to determine what their suggestions will be in the future. They have

told me that they want to work with this government for the best interests of

all the children and child care providers and parents in the province.

MacPhail: Before introducing these changes, whom did the minister consult

with from the child care community?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There was the Provincial Child Care Council. Who else? The

advocacy forum and a couple of other advocacy groups. Parents for Child Care

and some individuals were also consulted before the amendments were brought in.

MacPhail: Did the minister indicate to the people with whom she consulted

that this was an option that she was going to bring forward to end the universal

child care program?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I think the people who were paying attention during the election

in the province knew that in fact we did not support universal child care. As a

matter of fact, during the last session of the House we voted against

section 4,

which set up the universal program. It wasn't something that people were not

aware of, and certainly the individuals in the child care sector that I spoke to

were well aware that this government was not going to proceed with the universal

child care.

MacPhail: When the minister then met to discuss the potential for this

amendment to erase — eradicate — universal child care, what was the

response? Does she have anything that she can table about the record of response

to that initiative?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I think it's fair to say that many of the individuals and some of

the groups were disappointed that the universal child care program was not going

to move forward. However, they knew, as I said, leading up to the election that

this was not going to happen. Each and every one of them, I have to say, member,

has committed to working with me and this government to develop a new child care

program. Without exception, the child care organizations in the province have

committed to do that.

MacPhail: Would the minister indicate the organizations that are in support

of the initiative to end universal child care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The Child Care Council, which, as you know, has a broad

representation of parents and private and non-profit providers from a wide range

of models; multi-service and single child care organizations all around the

province, not just in the lower mainland but certainly in the interior and the

northern parts of the province, representing that wide a group…. That

organization has committed to assisting. The advocacy groups have also committed

to assisting.

The one

thing that was loud and clear was that child care is extremely important, and we

couldn't agree more. What the providers support is making child care spaces more

available and certainly to have the kind of fiscal supports they need to expand

and to provide the safe, affordable child care that we all want to see happen in

B.C.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, this is going to be a very interesting week. I'm going

to try to keep my rhetoric to a limit, and I hope the ministers that work with

me can keep their rhetoric to a limit and just answer my questions.

What groups

supported the minister's position to delete the universal child care program?

[1525]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The government had committed, as I said earlier, to not moving

forward with the universal child care system. All of the groups out there and

all of the individuals were perfectly aware of that, as was the province, when

we were going through our election campaign. Prior to the introduction of this

bill in the House, I've had a number of conversations with the groups that I

mentioned previously. Each and every one of them is committed to working with

this government to find a new child care plan.

MacPhail: I failed miserably to eliminate the rhetoric. Of course if someone

is having the guillotine swung over their head and the choice is to either have

their head cut off or work cooperatively in their demise and elsewhere, they'd

probably choose the latter. I would actually put it that the reason why the

minister cannot list the people who are in support of her move to eliminate

universal child care is because there is no one. There is no group in support of

the minister's move. No child care group is in support of the minister's move.

But I rest assured that if I'm wrong, she'll stand up and tell me and name the

people who are in support of her initiative.

The

elimination of the "funding assistance program" definition refers to

programs listed under sections 3 and 4, which are repealed. I think I will

address those questions now. It is mixed, because then we go to eliminating

sections 3 and 4 as well. So what

[ Page 446 ]

we have is the definition of funding assistance program eliminated because

that refers to a program that's now being repealed under sections 3 and

Section 3 sets out the maximum fees that a child care provider may require. This

is where I was referring to the $14 per day for a full day of care. The fees

were also in a written agreement that said $7 per day for before- and

after-school care where school is in attendance.

When this

act is passed — within moments, at the speed with which we move in this

chamber — what happens to a parent's child care fees? What's the time line of

guarantee, if any?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The program that is currently in place, which was the first phase

— and that was the before- and after-school care at $7 or $14 per day —

will continue until June 30, 2002. That program will not change. The funding is

there, and that will continue until June 2002. The remaining rollout of the

child care plan will not go forward.

MacPhail: Are there child care facilities that have applications before the

minister for qualification under the funding assistance program as defined in

the current

section 1 of the Child Care BC Act?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, there are some applications that are currently in the

ministry. If the member wishes, I can provide the details to her at a later

time.

MacPhail: When this legislation is passed this week, what happens to those

applications?

Hon. L.

Stephens: For people who had applied to the ministry when the funding

assistance program was in place, with the understanding that they qualified,

those applications will be processed and we will be living up to the commitments

of that first phase of the before- and after-school child care. Those processes

and applications that are in the works will be finalized.

[1530]

MacPhail: So the minister guarantees that current contracts in place for

before- and after-school child care under the old legislation are guaranteed

till June 30, 2002, and current applications before the minister now will also

be honoured. Is there a notice that has gone out to child care facilities saying

that no more applications will be received?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, that is what has happened. In terms of applications that we

have, if in fact the criteria are met, there are still some investigations that

need to take place as far as whether or not the applications that have come

forward are valid. Those applications that may come in from now on will not be

accepted.

MacPhail: Could the minister provide me with a copy of the notice sent to

child care facilities where the program is terminated under sections for before

and after school?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, I would be happy to do that, member.

MacPhail: Has the minister set in place a system for…? When June 30, 2002,

comes about, do the child care facilities…? Have they been told that their

funding will be cut off at that point? Or is the continuation of their funding

determined on the basis of the consultation the minister is making?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The letters that were sent out were informing the individual child

care providers that there will be a change in the child care program, that their

contracts will continue to June 30, 2002, and that there will be a new child

care program developed in the meantime. Prior to the end of June 2002, they will

be informed as to what the new child care program will look like. At that time

they will be free to make whatever decisions they wish to make.

MacPhail: What I'm trying to get here is some comfort for parents and also

the child care providers — some comfort for planning. This government has made

a huge deal about the tax cuts that families will get, I think, in January 2002.

That tax cut is supposed to bring nirvana to families in this province, in that

they can plan to stimulate the economy so that there'll be economic growth of

3.8 percent come January 2002. By the same token, families have to plan for

their child care costs in that same year. And I know that families plan by

saying: "Here's my monthly allocation of bills, and here's my monthly

income."

So what is

the minister going to do? Can the minister give a time line to families that

will prepare them for either skyrocketing child care costs in 2002 or else no

increase in child care costs? What reassurance can the minister give to families

who have to plan around child care, which we all know is a huge family

expenditure?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The member is quite right: it is a huge family expenditure. It

certainly is a concern for families, and we recognize that. One of the areas

that we're going to be moving on very quickly is the consultation process.

Families and the child care providers are very apprehensive as to what is going

to happen, and that is perfectly understandable. We recognize that. So we're

going to be working and acting very quickly.

We have met

with some of the groups to talk about what a new child care program will look

like. We want to have it done just as soon as possible. There is the budgeting

process that needs to be gone through, and we're very hopeful that we will have

for public consumption, for child care providers and parents, a decision and a

plan either late this year or certainly early in the year 2002 for families to

be able to do just that — to do their planning around their child care needs.

[ Page 447 ]

[1535]

MacPhail: The next tax cut kicks in January 2002. Can the minister commit

that she will inform families about their dramatic increase in child care costs

at the same time or guarantee that their child care costs will not increase so

that that family can actually set aside the tax cut — that their saving starts

January 2002 to pay for the skyrocketing child care costs?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I think it's premature for the member to suggest that there will

be any kind of skyrocketing child care costs. I think that's rather

inflammatory, and it certainly isn't going to help the families of British

Columbia deal with a very serious issue for them.

Now, I've

said repeatedly that we are going to be consulting with parents and child care

providers, and we are going to be developing a plan that meets the needs of the

families in British Columbia, taking into consideration the kind of financial

situation the province finds itself in. I would suggest that the members of the

former government would know the kinds of fiscal constraints that we have in the

province at this time. However, having said that, we are going to work very

closely and very hard with the individuals in child care to make sure that we

can develop and deliver a sustainable child care program for British Columbia.

MacPhail: Well, the reason why I suggest that perhaps parents should expect

skyrocketing child care costs is because the minister herself has said that the

program isn't sustainable and isn't affordable. I don't know whether that's a

signal to families that says: "Don't worry; we're going to pay you

anyway." So I would just assume, as a parent planning his or her child care

costs, that they would assume that their child care costs are going to go up.

Can the minister make a commitment that a family will receive that information

by January 1, 2002, so that they can decide what to do with their tax cut —

set it aside to pay for child care costs?

Hon. L.

Stephens: That is certainly a time line that I would like to have put in

place. I agree with the member that the quicker we can inform parents and child

care providers, the better it's going to be. That is, as I've said, the time

that I am shooting for, and I'm hopeful that I will have the program in place

and announced prior to that. I'm not going to give a hard-and-fast time line,

but that is the preferred time.

MacPhail: The minister has repealed the definition of "funding

assistance program grant," which provides to child care institutions that

are licensed under the Community Care Facility Act. Can the minister tell me why

that was eliminated?

Hon. L.

Stephens: We don't need that definition. We can still provide the grant

through the child care definition. We didn't need the former.

MacPhail: Does the minister have any plans for providing grants to

stay-at-home parents for child care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Not at this time. We haven't discussed anything like that. What

we're looking at is a publicly funded child care system, one that supports the

needs and targets the needs for parents and child care providers in the

province.

MacPhail: Again, we're all breaking new ground here with the situation that

we find ourselves in. I speak against this entire amendment, the amendments to

the Child Care BC Act. There is nothing that I am in support of. So do you want

me to vote against each

section or …?

Hon. G.

Plant: If you could ask all your questions now.

The

Chair: Then we could do sections 1 through 5.

MacPhail: Okay. So that's what we'll do. Very good.

Hon. G.

Plant: Then make your point by voting against one of the sections.

The

Chair: Then we have to go through each section, if that's the case.

[1540]

MacPhail: Perhaps what would be good is if we could vote on sections 1

through 5 at the same time, and I could vote against sections 1 through 5.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, obviously, I'm in the Chair's hands. I want to make sure that

the member has the opportunity to raise all of her questions tonight. I

understand that her objections are not simply objections to detail but include

questions of principle. I'm informed by the Clerk that it would be possible to

have a vote on sections 1 to 5 compendiously, and I have no objection to that.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I think that's probably the Attorney General predicting

that there won't be members of his government caucus voting against an

individual section, so that we could do sections 1 through 5. I don't know;

maybe we should see, though. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the assistance.

I have a

question to the minister on

section

Section 4 is being repealed, and it

provided funding for up to 21,000 spaces for children enrolled during the school

year. Can the minister tell me how many places have been taken up by the program

funding to date?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Approximately 17,000.

MacPhail: The applications still before the minister would add how many, if

they're all completed? I understand that the approval process has

[ Page 448 ]

to be completed and all the checks done. But for how many spaces are there

now applications before the minister?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I don't have the exact numbers of the child care organizations or

the spaces they would represent. Again, I can get that information for the

member.

MacPhail: With the repeal of

section 4 the minister has closed off

applications for 7,000 spaces for kindergarten and school-aged children and

4,680 spaces for toddlers under the age of three years. Have you sent out a

notice saying that that has been killed?

Hon. L.

Stephens: In terms of the 4,680 spaces for children under 36 months, the

infants and toddlers, that program was not in place. There was no need to send

out notices to any of the organizations that would be providing those extra

spaces, because the program simply had not been rolled out yet.

MacPhail: I take it that the minister is also saying that it's true of the

program that's being killed: effective September 3, 2002, the 17,000 spaces

for school-aged children enrolled; July 2, 2003, the number of spaces that were

(

a) and (

b) together; and September 1, 2003, the 16,560 spaces for children aged

30 months and up who have not yet entered grade 1.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's correct.

Section 4 outlines the rollout for the program.

Those areas the member just mentioned have not been rolled out; therefore, they

will not be moving forward.

MacPhail: What is the budget that the minister has for the provision of this

B.C. child care program up to June 30, 2002? A corollary question to that is: if

the government has committed to multi-year budgeting, what's the preparation?

Has the minister received her multi-year budget for the B.C. child care program?

[1545]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The funding for this year — and that includes the before- and

after-school plan that runs until June 30 — was $45.18 million. The

three-year rolling budgets have not been developed yet, as I'm sure the member

knows. That is going to be happening over the next few months. When we get to

that point where we are developing those three-year budgets, I'm sure the member

would like to ask that question then — in the next budget.

MacPhail:

Section 12 is being amended by repealing the regulation that

establishes the nature and maximum amount of additional fees that a child care

provider may charge parents under the funding assistance program. With the

repeal of that ability to make regulation, are child care facilities now able to

make additional charges without approval from the government?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The current contracts are still in place, and those contracts call

for the parent fee to be fixed. To answer the member's question, no, that's not

possible.

MacPhail: The contracts specify, with each child care facility, the nature

and ability to charge extra fees. The contract specifies that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: They can charge ancillary fees. The contracts do say that.

MacPhail: So the contracts prevail even though the power to make regulation

to control that is deleted? The contracts prevail over the legislation?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The contracts do prevail; they are legal documents. The kinds of

fees that are able to be charged are very limited and are primarily limited to

transportation and field trips.

MacPhail: The transitional phase of sections 14 to 17 is to provide for

smooth implementation of this program. The program will be in place until June

30, 2002, before the government probably kills it. Why is it that there's not a

need for transitional programs or transitional regulations until June 30, 2002?

Hon. L.

Stephens: With the passage of this bill, we don't need the transitional

sections any longer. Sections 14 through 17 simply look for the continuity of

the child care grants and the written agreements, and because those are not

moving forward, we don't need the transitional sections any longer.

MacPhail: Will there be staff layoffs as a result of this bill passing?

Hon. L.

Stephens: No, we don't anticipate any staff layoffs at all.

MacPhail: Is that a guarantee?

[1550]

Hon. L.

Stephens: As the member well knows, the government is currently undergoing

some changes in terms of government structure, in terms of deregulation and

red-tape process review and also the core services review. Those are processes

that are ongoing. As they progress and as these events unfold, we will be

looking at all kinds of options, and there may or may not be staff layoffs.

We're certainly not anticipating any. The desire would be to find job

opportunities and spaces for individuals within the government structure.

MacPhail: Why is it that the minister needs to do a separate consultation on

this issue when there's a core services review? Is it duplication? If the

minister stands up and says it isn't duplication, could she please say how the

two will be meshed.

[ Page 449 ]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The core services review is an exercise that government is

undergoing to look at all of its programs, practices, policies, procedures and

legislation and to ask some fundamental questions about whether or not

government should be doing what those programs and policies do or whether they

can be done in a different way or by someone else.

The child

care program is one that I believe is certainly required, and we are going to be

proceeding on that basis. We will be developing a comprehensive sustainable

child care program for the province, one that serves families in the north and

in the lower mainland. We are proceeding on the basis that as soon as possible,

we will have a child care plan in place that works for all the families in B.C.

MacPhail: The minister said that there would be a separate consultation for

the child care program from the core services review. Let me just outline for

the minister what the core services review is supposed to do. It's supposed to

ask what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it and how we will

measure our progress. Then there are specific questions within that broad

framework: public interest test, affordability test, effectiveness in role of

government test, efficiency test, accountability test. What is it that the

minister, in her consultation, will be asking that's over and above the core

services review?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The core services review is examining the existing programs of

government and ways to improve the service to people. The consultations that

we're going to be having with the parents and child care providers will assist

us with the future planning of child care in the province.

[1555]

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved on the following division:

YEAS — 70

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 1

MacPhail

[1600]

On

section

MacPhail: Is it the Attorney General that's doing this? Sorry, I don't know

who to look at.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Okay. Perhaps the Attorney General could explain the intent of the

section for the record.

Hon. G.

Plant:

Section 6 amends

section 14(2) of the Child, Youth and Family

Advocacy Act to eliminate the clause which limits the appointment of an acting

child, youth and family advocate to 20 sitting days of the Legislature. A

provision is added allowing the Legislature to appoint, reappoint or extend an

acting advocate to a term not exceeding 12 months, renewable once. The amendment

applies to an individual acting as advocate before or after the amendment is

made. I understand there is an individual who has been appointed as an acting

advocate. In the event that the provision is enacted, the term of office of that

individual will continue beyond what would ordinarily be the 20-sitting-day

limit applicable to acting advocates.

MacPhail: For maybe a more free-ranging discussion on this, I'll attempt it.

I don't know whether it's possible or not. I was actually the minister

responsible for this legislation when it was first passed in the Legislature,

and it was lauded at the time for being groundbreaking legislation. It was

before many people — including, I think, the Attorney General — were here. It was in

the first term of the NDP government.

We had done

so. As the minister responsible I — I shouldn't say I had done; I was the

minister who sponsored the bill — put in place an independent officer of the

Legislature called the child, youth and family advocate. There had been

wide-ranging consultation on that, and virtually everybody supported the

concept, including the then Liberal members of the opposition. We could

go back and examine the Hansard , although I remember it clearly because

it was a very difficult portfolio and this was one area where there was, I

believe, unanimous approval of the child, youth and family advocate.

[1605]

The reason

for that was that all governments face very difficult challenges in terms of

supporting children who are responsibilities of the state and supporting

families who require the assistance of the state. I think this now-government,

then-opposition

[ Page 450 ]

has raised many, many issues around children and families in this province

and their support, or lack thereof, by the government. There have even been some

accusations — or allegations, I should say, to be more charitable — that the

state could have done a better job in supporting children and families. We as a

chamber always discussed what was in the best interests of the child. When the rhetoric was set aside and when the partisan politics were

taken out of it, every single member in this chamber — whether they be on that

side or this side, whenever — said that it's the best interests of the child

that must prevail.

The child,

youth and family advocate was put in place to ensure the best interests of the

child in the context of support from the state. The child, youth and family

advocate was to be an independent officer of the Legislature so that he or she

could ensure the best interests of the child regardless of the actions of the

government of the day.

I have to

tell you, it was a very tough debate that we had internal to our government of

the day about whether to proceed with the advocate, and I'm sure the current

government will have those same kinds of debate. How do we possibly monitor our

own actions? How do we ensure openness and accountability in a way that's

transparent and protects the best interests of the public? How do we do that?

Well, our

government came to the conclusion that, particularly when you're dealing with the

best interests of the child, it makes sense to have an independent officer of

the Legislature. There should be no fooling around with that — none. It was

such an important issue. So while we had wide-ranging, often varying opinions

within our government caucus, we supported unanimously, as did the then Liberal

opposition, the appointment of the child, youth and family advocate.

The first

advocate selected by the all-party legislative committee, which I think is

outlined…. The method by which that was appointed is listed in

section 3(1) of the

Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. While I didn't sit on that committee, I

know there are members in the chamber today, now in the government, who did sit

on that committee. It was a very, very inclusive process. Dozens of applications

came forward, and then a woman named Joyce Preston was chosen as the first

child, youth and family advocate.

Ms. Preston

did her job admirably. She took the state to task when necessary. Her reports

were very controversial. The then Liberal opposition relied on her reports to

hold the government accountable. Ms. Preston is recognized — was recognized, I

should say; she's now retired —nationally and internationally as an advocate

with a solid, solid mandate to hold the state accountable.

It was

always preferable, on behalf of children and families in this province — and

youth; Ms. Preston was a passionate and compassionate advocate on behalf of

youth, a group that often got forgotten by so many…. It was always preferable

for the Ministry for Children and Families to work with the advocate, but at the

end of the day it wasn't required. The advocate had her own resources and her

own legislation and her own independence to hold the government accountable.

[1610]

When Ms.

Preston's term ended and she retired with great accolades from all, there was

certainly a plan. I could be wrong on this, but I think a committee was

appointed to find her successor as per the legislation, as per

section 3(1) of

the act. That, of course, is what's being changed. Sorry, that's not true.

Section 3(1) is not being changed, but the effect of 3(1) is being modified

today, and that's what we're dealing with here.

It may come

as a surprise, particularly to the Attorney General, but I am only going to ask

questions here; I am not going to prejudge. But it is important, because of the

history of this appointment, that he be very clear — or I'm asking him to be

very clear — about the intent of the government, given the history that I have

just outlined.

It is key

to have an advocate for children and families in this province, because while

many of us may try to make this a partisan issue, it is a very difficult

exercise of state authority to look after children who cannot rely on their own

families. It is a very difficult exercise of power to assist families who do not

have the skills or the resources to each and every day look after their children

in the children's best interest.

All of that

can change. One child can be supported by the state so that he or she survives

and grows and is nurtured. But our children can often slip through the cracks in

a way that is literally fatal to the child. It is important that every single

government be held accountable for every single child who slips through the

cracks and whose life is inalterably worse off, whether the child is injured or

harmed or dies.

I only wish

this government the best — that fewer and fewer children slip through the

cracks. But I also know how difficult it is. That's why it's so important to

have an independent advocate who is not beholden to the ministry responsible for

children and families but is beholden only to the children and the families. I

would ask that the Attorney General stand up and reassure children, youth and

families in this province that he will continue an independent advocate for

children, youth and families who is answerable to the Legislature, who is not

accountable to the government but reports to the children, youth and families as

an independent officer of the Legislature.

Having said

that, I've heard the Attorney General speculate that the role may be called

something different. I can't remember whether it was that I heard the Attorney

General speculate that roles may be amalgamated. If he could reiterate that

speculation in the context of assuring that children and youth and the families

who need help to raise our children and youth will have an independent advocate....

Hon. G.

Plant: I find myself in agreement with most of what the member says about

the challenge that governments face in the area of protecting kids at risk,

children who are in the care or custody of government,

[ Page 451 ]

and the importance of ensuring that there are in place appropriate

institutions to protect children, youth and families.

[1615]

I was not a

member of the assembly, as the member noted, when the Child, Youth and Family

Advocacy Act was enacted. I will say this small thing, if you will, about the

history of oversight of the institutions that we're talking about. As the member

knows, after the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act was enacted, there was

public controversy and a great deal of concern about the question of whether or

not the government was in fact appropriately discharging its responsibilities.

Those questions led to a commission of inquiry headed by Provincial Court judge

Gove. Among the recommendations of Judge Gove that were acted upon was the

recommendation, as I recall anyway, that a children's commission be constituted.

Children's Commission Act was passed. I think it was supported by all sides of

the Legislature. I know there was an issue at the time about the reporting or

accountability structure for the Children's Commission. But the principle of

oversight was supported by the opposition caucus that existed during the last

parliament.

So a new

government comes into office. One of the things I think we are obliged to do as

a government is ensure that the services that government provides and the

responsibilities that are undertaken, both by government and by other

institutions, with respect to the oversight of those services are the best they

can possibly be. It is legitimate to look at questions of, for example, overlap

in terms of responsibilities to make sure that we don't have more institutions

in place than we need as a society to protect these vital interests.

It has been

suggested to me — and I am not here to argue the point — by some who know

this area better that at the moment there may be more institutions overseeing

the work of child protection workers, the responsibilities of government and the

position of children, youth and families at risk than are actually needed or can

reasonably be said to be an appropriately efficient use of limited government

resources. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do think it's a

reasonable question to ask when a new political party takes over government

after a government has been in office for a decade.

So this

part of what government does is in fact being looked at. In order for that

review to be conducted in a way that ensures we don't find ourselves having

committed to a course of action that we later realize ought not to have been

undertaken, it was considered important, and I believe it to be important, to

introduce this minor transitional amendment to the Child, Youth and Family

Advocacy Act. It ensures that the existing appointed acting advocate can continue

to serve in her capacity — a capacity which she must have some familiarity

with, because I'm told that she served as the deputy to Joyce Preston — for

the period of time which we as government need to conduct a review to make sure

the services we provide and the institutions we have in place are doing the job

we ask of them.

[1620]

That is the

slightly larger context, if you will, for these amendments. Let me assure the

member opposite that I share her belief that there is urgent and continuing need

for mechanisms that protect the public interest and the best interests of

children who are kids at risk, children in need of protection or children who

are already in the custody of government.

I also

believe in the principle of independence, which is recognized in the office of

the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. I think it's important that in doing

the kind of oversight work that the member was talking about, the people who are

doing that oversight be independent from the work they're supervising. So

whatever comes of the review, I can assure the member that the principle of

independence will be respected in the oversight mechanisms that government

chooses to continue with.

It may be

that the result of this review will be to leave the existing institutions in

place exactly as they are. One of the things about a review is that you do it

because you don't already know the answer to the question that has been

identified as important. We don't already know the answer to this question. But

I do believe it's a legitimate question. I believe it's legitimate to examine

whether or not there is, if I may put it this way, too much oversight. Oversight

then tends to become a burden which does not result in an improvement of the

service delivered, but rather becomes a hindrance to the delivery of the service

that we're talking about.

I think

it's important to look at the child, youth and family advocacy position in

conjunction with the other institutions and oversight mechanisms that exist, and

we'll do that expeditiously. We'll do that fairly, and at the end of it I am

convinced that we will be able to ensure that the right institutions are in

place to achieve the public policy objectives that the member herself identified

in her remarks.

MacPhail: I offer my assistance in that review. I have no idea what the plan

is for the nature of the review, but I would appreciate having a discussion with

whoever is conducting the review, because I have experience to offer but also

some cautions as well.

appreciate the Attorney General's comments about independence, because I think

that's key to this — the fact that perhaps others may say that the children's

commissioner and the child, youth and family advocate can be amalgamated. The

children's commissioner performs an excellent, excellent function as well, but

it does report to the Attorney General.

As we move

forward, perhaps there is a way that supports the community better, supports

children and youth and families better by changing positions or amalgamating

positions, but the underlying premise in my view must be independent reporting

from the government.

With that,

I would just like to ask a couple of questions for clarification, if I may, to

fully understand

[ Page 452 ]

this. The acting advocate who is now currently in office can be appointed for

one 12-month date and then a subsequent 12-month appointment for a total of a

24-month appointment from now?

Hon. G.

Plant: First of all, I will make sure that the member's offer to assist or

provide comments to the review that I spoke about is conveyed to those doing the

work.

Secondly,

with respect to the specific question, the operation of the provisions is that

the term of the existing appointed acting advocate could be extended, or rather

will be extended, for a term not exceeding 12 months, renewable once. So there

is the possibility that the position of acting advocate could continue for 24

months. I consider that possibility to be undesirable.

[1625]

MacPhail: Does the acting advocate have duties in any way different than the

advocate that would have been chosen by an all-party legislative committee?

Hon. G.

Plant: No.

MacPhail: Does the acting advocate have to then meet all of the

responsibilities of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, including making

reports to the Legislature in a timely way?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Could the Attorney General please indicate the other sections that

are also captured by photo radar? Is it sections 20 and 21, as well as

section 7

of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act?

Hon. G.

Plant: We're getting there. So far as I know, it's

section 7, sections 20,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25 — I'll say something about that in a minute — 26 and

Section 25 is a repeal of a

section of the supplement to the Motor Vehicle Act,

and as the member knows, supplements are provisions that were not brought into

force. I'm not sure if that was a photo radar provision or not.

MacPhail: I certainly don't mind dealing with these as a package again, just

for consideration. My questions will only be for the Attorney General's — I'm trying to remember the announcement that was made at the time —

or the Minister of Public Safety's plan to continue

the reduction in speed-related accidents and deaths that needs to come into full

force with the abandonment of photo radar.

The

Chair: Attorney General, I just want to confirm those numbers before we

start. Is it

section 7 and then sections 20 through 27 — is that correct —

that we're dealing with?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think so. Why don't we deal with the member's general question in

the context of

section 7? And then we'll move along accordingly. I can deal with

the member's question about photo radar.

As the

member knows, the decision was taken to cancel the program. I think it was

effective on the date of the promulgation of an order-in-council which repealed

the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act regulation. I think that was

June 28. At the time the decision was made to cancel the program, we knew that

there were some transitional costs involved in terms of things like the

obligation to continue to pay salaries of police officers who were seconded to

the program pending their redeployment or reassignment to various provincial or

municipal police force detachments.

[1630]

The plan,

in terms of the future, is to look at how we as a government can participate in

the project of improving traffic safety. I know it's the view of the Solicitor

General that — if I can put it colloquially — in-your-face traffic

enforcement is more effective than photo radar vans sitting on the side of the

road taking photographs. I think the minister responsible has begun discussions

with police forces and probably with municipal governments to see what can be

done. That probably is about the state of things. I haven't spoken about this

with the Solicitor General in the last couple of weeks, but I can tell you that

we as a government are committed to traffic safety enforcement. If the member

has ideas along the way for initiatives that could help us as a government to

make our streets safer, I'd welcome them, as I know the Solicitor General would

also.

MacPhail: I'm going to have to ask a series of general questions, all

related to traffic safety. The police forces in the province need to have

funding for what they call base enforcement of traffic safety, separate and

apart from photo radar, separate and apart from CounterAttack programs that are

funded by ICBC. I don't know whether it's the Solicitor General or the Attorney

General who has responsibility for this, but I assume it's the Attorney General

who has responsibility for police forces in this province.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No. Okay. It's awkward, then, asking these questions. Is there a

committee in place, a consultation in place, an advisory mechanism by which the

government consults and takes the advice of police forces on traffic safety and

traffic enforcement?

Hon. G.

Plant: The responsibility for policing belongs to the Solicitor General as a

result of the reorganization of government. I am somewhat limited in my ability

to deal with general questions, although the question the member did ask would

be, I think, a

[ Page 453 ]

perfectly legitimate question in the context of the estimates debate for the

Minister of Public Safety.

The B.C.

Association of Chiefs of Police has a committee responsible for traffic safety.

I'm told that they meet twice a year and that representatives of government

attend. I think, as a result of the reorganization of government, the

representatives of government that would participate in that committee would be

representatives of the Public Safety ministry, which is where the police

services division went. The minister himself may have other initiatives underway

that I don't know about, but I do know that that initiative is considered by the

police chiefs themselves to be a valuable tool for communicating their concerns

around traffic safety issues to the provincial government.

MacPhail: Is there some reason the Minister of Public Safety isn't

available? Is it just by virtue of him being in the buildings but not available,

in which case we can move on to other sections and stand these down?

Hon. G.

Plant: I don't know whether or not he's still at the committee meeting that

I was supposed to be at. The questions the member's asking…. I certainly don't

want to interfere with the legitimate exploration of the issues raised by the

amendments, but questions about the government's general approach to traffic

safety enforcement are quite good estimates questions. They could be pursued by

the member in the context of the estimates debate, or if the member wants, she

could put them on record here and I'll certainly speak to the Solicitor General

and attempt to get answers in writing.

[1635]

MacPhail: Unfortunately, the estimates are going by so quickly that I'm

missing virtually all of them except ones that I served notice that I want

to…. So I'd be happy to serve notice to the House Leader that if he could hold

the estimates of the Minister of Public Safety, I'd be glad to do that.

I also know

that the change in law about traffic enforcement often becomes the record of the

land and is used elsewhere, so I want to be very careful that all of the issues

are explored around the changes as they relate to photo radar. I'm really at a

loss to know how to proceed on this, Mr. Chair. The complexities of the intent

of sections 20 and 21, for instance….

Hon. G.

Plant: Perchance, if the member wants to move forward to

section 20, we

could stand down sections 8 through 19. We'd have to pass

section 7, then stand

down sections 8 through 19, and then move to

section

Section 7

approved.

section

MacPhail: The explanatory note says that it removes references to provisions

respecting speed-monitoring devices under

section 20, and then

section 21

repeals the provision that made the owner liable for a speeding offence if photo

radar actually was the method by which he or she was ticketed. So I take it that

section 20 put in place the offence and

section 21 put in place who was liable.

Both of those are removed now. Do these two sections deal with anything other

than photo radar? Are there any other implications for this in sections 20 and

21, other than photo radar no longer being in position?

The

Chair: I just wanted to inform that sections 8 to 19 have been stood down.

Hon. G.

Plant: Thank you.

The member

asked a question: is there any implication beyond photo radar contained in the

amendments that are proposed in sections 20 and 21 of the bill? The answer is

no, and let me make that clearer, in this sense. What is left in these

provisions will continue to permit the red-light camera program, which we have

not altered.

MacPhail: Photo radar is the euphemism for speed-monitoring device. So as I

understand it, the only changes to the Motor Vehicle Act are the deletions of

speed-monitoring devices as a way to get people.

Hon. G.

Plant: That's correct.

MacPhail: The Attorney General and I were having a discussion about the

general principles around traffic safety enforcement and the deletion of a

speed-monitoring device from the tools of the police. Maybe we could direct a

question to the Solicitor General about whether he has advisory committees in

place and a working relationship with the police to ensure that traffic safety

not only continues to be enforced but also improves the lives of British

Columbians through reduced accidents and deaths. I'd be happy to have this

discussion with the Solicitor General in his estimates if he guarantees that

they don't go by with me missing them.

[1640]

Hon. R.

Coleman: There's a couple of facts. First of all, we made the commitment to

get rid of photo radar within 90 days of an election, and we followed through on

that commitment. We followed through on that commitment for a number of reasons.

One is that we didn't feel — and neither did a lot of the people involved in

the program and people I had actually spoken to on the front lines — that the

program was applied for the reasons it was supposed to be applied, and that was

the reduction of speed. It was more a revenue generator as far as where they

would place the cameras rather than the reduction of speed in the province.

I am a big

fan of visible policing. I believe that visibility and the immediate impact of

somebody being stopped for speeding have much more impact than mailing a ticket

to them. I've sat down with the various

[ Page 454 ]

police agencies — the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP —

relative to the removal of photo radar. We are actually talking and working on a

traffic safety strategy for the province, and we'll continue to do so.

MacPhail: For general reassurance from the Solicitor General, the amendments

that we're dealing with here affect only speed-monitoring devices, throughout the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I meant beyond sections 20 and 21, just for the record.

Hon. G.

Plant: Then the answer continues to be yes, it's only photo radar.

MacPhail: Photo radar has been eliminated for how long?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The photo radar program was eliminated. It was eliminated as a

commitment by us. So it's as long as we're government.

MacPhail: Sorry, the minister misunderstood my question. When was it

eliminated? What was the exact date?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I don't have the exact date in front of me, but it was an open

cabinet meeting in the month of June, and it was effective immediately: June

MacPhail: If the program was eliminated June 28, has the minister received

any monthly statistics? That's about seven weeks ago. Have there been any

statistics released on speed-related offences in that time, since the

elimination of photo radar?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I don't have those details available to me right at my fingertips,

but I'm sure I can undertake to get them to the member.

MacPhail: One of the reasons I ask is that I assume that would be a

statistic that's analyzed to make sure that traffic safety remains paramount for

the government. I would be interested in knowing. I appreciate that the minister

will be giving this later but would appreciate knowing how he expects to analyze

the statistics. Is it on a monthly basis? There will be a seasonal aspect to the

analysis, and I assume there will be a regional analysis to the statistics as

well. I hope all of that information will be made public.

I have

another question of a general nature on the elimination of photo radar. ICBC had

responsibility for, or was the funder of, other traffic safety programs as well

as photo radar enforcement. Does ICBC continue to be part of the body which the

Solicitor General seeks advice from in his new program for traffic safety

enforcement?

[1645]

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, to define a program as a new program when traffic

safety has always been a paramount concern is unfair. ICBC has participated as a

corporation in different traffic safety initiatives. It would be up to that

corporation as to what their future involvement will be, through the core review

and also through whatever priorities it sets for a corporation. I'm not in a

position to basically speculate on what they will or will not do in the future.

My ministry will focus on traffic safety with the police agencies of the

province to come up with the ability for us to work together to improve traffic

safety long-term. That's something we've already started discussing with various

police agencies, and we'll continue to do so.

MacPhail: I'm having difficulty communicating my point of view. Believe you

me, this is not from an adversarial point of view. All I want to know is….

Regardless of what their role is in the future, ICBC now plays a role. They're

the ones that are directly affected by speeding violations, often in the form of

accidents and fatalities. They are key; they actually pay the piper for the

offence. My only point was: is it the Solicitor General's goal to continue? If

it's not a new program, then is ICBC involved now in working with the Solicitor

General on making sure that all of the positive effects of speed enforcement

remain?

Hon. R.

Coleman: ICBC is involved on a program-by-program basis with the local

police. They have continued to do that. On the recent long weekend they were

involved in a safe driving program with local police. It was a relationship

between them and police agencies, not the ministry. It wasn't funded through the

ministry.

The fact of

the matter is that this ministry is going to look at all aspects of traffic

safety, including traffic accidents. The level of accidents that take place as a

result of speeding versus the percentage of accidents that take place as a

result of other activities is disproportional. I believe it's about 19 percent

relative to speed. That's why we maintain the intersection program relative to

where high accident areas are taking place. We're going to work on those

priorities.

For some

time there hasn't been in this province somebody, a ministry, that is actually

concentrating on aspects of policing, waking up in the morning and saying:

"How can we improve policing?" That's certainly a mandate of this

ministry. Over the next few months I intend to work with all the agencies in the

province to try and improve all aspects of public safety.

MacPhail: I know that the Liberal Party was very clear on what would happen

to photo radar during the election. I assume that was based on wide

consultation, taking that position in the New Era document. Did the

Solicitor General consult or seek advice after the

[ Page 455 ]

election, after assuming office, on the future of photo radar, and if so,

from whom?

Hon. R.

Coleman: My office took on the task of completing what was a commitment to

the people of British Columbia in the campaign. It wasn't a consultative

process. It was a process to meet a commitment that we'd already decided and

committed to do.

Sections 20

to 27 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Could I please have an explanation of the intent of

section 8? It

says it's self-explanatory, but I've got the act here, and the whole act is

repealed. The elimination of this act achieves what, affects whom?

[1650]

Hon. G.

Plant: I notice that the mystery of explanatory notes is that they are just

as mysterious after the election as they were before the election.

Sections 8,

9 and 10 are really part of a package.

Section 8 repeals the Housing

Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act. The objective is to remove barriers and

conditions regulating the sale, change in use and other transactions involving

seniors housing and care facilities that were partially funded through grants

under the act. The objective is to increase flexibility and autonomy for

non-profit housing societies.

Now the

act authorizes the provision of grants to non-profit societies to assist in the

construction of affordable seniors housing. No grants have been made under the

act since 1986. In fact, the grants made pursuant to this legislation were made,

I think, between 1955 and 1986. There was an amendment to the act made in about

1999, and the amendment required the societies who had received these grants to

make payments to the government if there was a sale or a change in the use of

the property. Our observation was that that amendment created unintended

barriers for non-profit housing societies who wished to redevelop or remortgage

their properties for repairs.

The repeal of the act will remove all of these

obligations and these restrictions on societies that received grants under the

act, including the restrictions on the use and disposition of the property and

the obligations to compensate the government on disposition. What this does is

accommodate non-profit societies who received grants under this old act and want

autonomy over the management of their portfolios. From our perspective, it

addresses the government's priority to cut red tape and the regulatory burden.

The

government of which the member was a member…. The amendments that her

government introduced in 1999 came about as a result of some litigation. At the

time I think members of my party were mindful of a principle, if you will,

around protecting the interests that government could be said to have in the

facilities constructed by these societies over the years when they had received

a grant. But the truth is that the amendments that were passed in 1999 were just

terribly restrictive. They meant, for example, that if a non-profit society that

had constructed a seniors facility wanted to add a couple of spaces to its

parking garage, they would have to go to the bank to borrow enough money to pay

the government a third of the value of the entire property. Our view is that

those provisions, rather than assisting this important sector of society, were

frustrating and restricting them.

The goal we

have in mind here is to remove this fetter and to ensure that this portion of

the not-for-profit sector that has provided and continues to provide affordable

seniors housing will be allowed to flourish by essentially empowering the

directors of these societies to make their own decisions about how to redevelop

their facilities. At the same time, of course, they will be limited in their

ability to do so because they will have to continue to be using their assets for

non-profit purposes for the construction of affordable seniors housing. So I

think that's an overview of what this is all about.

[1655]

MacPhail: Well, it will come, I'm sure, as a surprise to the Attorney

General that I absolutely agree with what he just articulated about the

consequences of an amendment that my then-government made in July 1999. It was

an amendment that did not serve a useful purpose in achieving what the public

service had told us needed to be done. I totally agree, referring to the

amendment to the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act made on July 13,

1999. So I support the government in removing what some may say was an

unintended consequence or others may say was bad advice — not bad advice, but

advice we received from the internal workings of government that may have made

sense for the internal workings of the bureaucracy but not for the people who

were out there being affected by it. I stand here and make that admission now.

What I do

want to have the Attorney General reassure the public on, though, is…. I

thought I heard him say that the last grant was made in 1986. What happens to

organizations, non-profit societies, that were subject to the rules of this act?

What are the consequences for those organizations, those societies, now that

this act is completely repealed? By what laws are they governed now?

Hon. G.

Plant: If I understand the member's question correctly, the restrictions

that the act as amended in 1999 placed on financing, if you will, will no longer

be there. The societies themselves will continue to be subject to the rules that

relate to societies that ensure that they'll have to continue to do the business

that they say in their constitution and bylaws they are doing. And of course

they'll be subject to whatever local land use laws they're subject to in the

jurisdictions where these facilities have been

[ Page 456 ]

constructed. But I'm not sure if I've understood the member's question.

MacPhail: I wasn't referring just to the amendment. My understanding is that

section 8 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that we're discussing now

repeals the entire act, so it's gone. It repeals that nasty little amendment as

well, and I appreciate and support that. I gather the second half of the

Attorney General's comments, then, prevails: that it's the Society Act that

governs organizations that remain. If the last grant was made in '86, have all

of those organizations disappeared and moved on, or what?

Hon. G.

Plant: No, I think the organizations, by and large, continue to exist. It is

in fact those organizations that were subject to the restrictions imposed by the

1999 amendment. So these are organizations that may have been around for half a

century, almost, and set up shop, if you will, as not-for-profit organizations

to construct housing projects. They received their grant from the government,

built their project, and it's sitting there. The societies that were established

originally as the vehicle for building those projects generally continue to

exist, and after this act is repealed, they will not be subject to whatever the

act may have said about those projects.

Sections 8

to 10 inclusive approved.

section

[1700]

MacPhail: This

section repeals the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001.

For the purposes of shorthand and the public who may be interested in this, this

was the act that brought in pay equity for women in this province and prevented

discrimination in wages based on…. It prevented discrimination between

employees…by employing an employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that

is less than the rate of pay at which an employee of the other sex is employed

by that employer for work of equal value. The positive aspect of this piece of

legislation is that it brought about equal pay for work of equal value for all

working people in British Columbia, and now that, by virtue of

section 11 of

this Liberal government's Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, is gone. That is

gone completely.

I feel

badly about that. I know that we can engage in discussions about how this act

was brought about without any consultation and that really more time is needed

to examine the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. I simply reject that,

Mr. Chair. Let's be clear. Women, men, the business community, working

people and communities had a full consultation on the value of pay-equity laws

and the value of putting prohibitions against discrimination and protecting the

right of equal pay for work of equal value in the Human Rights Code. That

consultation took place throughout the summer of 1999 by the then Minister of

Women's Equality and carried on throughout the year 2000, until the act was

passed in legislation in the spring of 2001. It was not a hurried piece of

legislation. It was thoughtful and had been discussed amongst many for many,

many months all around the province.

Now we see

all of that work repealed, undone and thrown out. Yes, the Attorney General is

replacing it with the consultation by a very well respected woman. I certainly

hope this government is not paying lip service to that consultation. It will be

interesting to find out the difference between the consultation that the

Attorney General is now invoking and what already took place over the course of

the last couple of years. I will be watching that with interest. I really

question the need for doing another consultation, no matter how well-respected

the person who is doing the consultation is, because the work is already done.

Over the

course of the last ten years the wages of women in this province have risen,

particularly in the public service. Particularly, they've been raised in relation to the wages of men in the public service. The reason

for that was that the employer of the day made a specific goal that it would

do everything possible, within its power of being the employer, to eliminate

wage discrimination in the public sector. We took a lot of heat for that. We

took a lot of heat for that in our wage bills, because our wage bills increased.

In the health care sector the wage bills increased because women in the health

care sector, the community care sector, weren't paid fairly. So the government

of the day put a lot of effort into bringing those wages up.

In the

public service, pay equity was a goal starting under the Social Credit

government of the early 1990s. They didn't put it in place until, I think, 1990.

But that work under the Social Credit government, which was started for pay

equity in the public service, was continued throughout the 1990s. That made

perfect sense — an employer taking action to eliminate discrimination on the

basis of sex in the way that people are paid.

[1705]

The

continuation to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex was carried on into

the community and social services sector, and women's wages were raised

throughout the 1990s. It had great consequence. The work of the government as an

employer had great consequence not only for women but for the families either

that they supported or to whom they contributed a decent wage. A two-parent

family, a two-income-earner, a three-income-earner family, young women entering

the workforce — all had a greater shot at being treated fairly and being paid

equitably for the value that they contributed, the same way as a young man

entering the workforce had.

That

changed the economy of the communities in which those women worked, because the

money wasn't put into their pockets to take down to Dominion Securities to

invest offshore. It was taken to the local McDonald's, to the local shoe store,

to the local furniture store, to the local apartment landlord to rent a

[ Page 457 ]

better apartment. All that money was recirculated into the economy. And that

made perfect sense; that was great news for boosting the economy. That's why it

made sense to pay women the wage they deserved, based on what they were

contributing to the productivity of the economy.

We weren't

breaking new ground. When the Social Credit government started it, they weren't

breaking new ground, although they could be given credit for breaking ground

closer to what other jurisdictions were doing. The NDP government of the day

just continued that work; it was already taking place at the federal

level in Quebec and in Ontario and in Manitoba. Those governments, all of

different political stripes, had recognized that wage discrimination didn't make

any sense for the economy.

What was

happening was that the gains made on behalf of paying people equitably,

regardless of their sex, were being made mainly in the public sector. The

private sector was not keeping pace. No matter how many discussions

occurred, no matter how many efforts government asked the private sector to make

to eliminate wage discrimination, the gap still remained. The consultation

continued between the government of the day and the public — all those

affected in the public — about how we could achieve fairness for, mainly women,

in the workforce, although men who were being treated in a discriminatory

fashion were assisted by this bill and were included in the effects of the

amendment of earlier this spring as well.

There were

certainly many who advocated a much stronger piece of legislation than what was

actually introduced and passed. There were those who wanted the time lines for

achieving pay equity in British Columbia to be shortened. There were those who

didn't want to put any limits on employers about what contribution they had to

make in terms of payroll toward eliminating wage discrimination. There were

those who did not want to take into account at all the necessity for businesses

to be prepared and to plan for the elimination of wage discrimination.

Basically,

there were those who said to the government of the day: "Bring in a fiat;

order the elimination of wage discrimination by fiat immediately." Those

demands were rejected. They were replaced with what I would call a modest but

consistent and almost plodding piece of legislation that would lead to pay

equity for women and men in British Columbia regardless of where they worked.

[1710]

It took

into account all sorts of impediments that businesses told us they just couldn't

overcome. Smaller businesses said: "We're just not able to achieve pay

equity." That was taken into account. Smaller businesses would not be

adversely affected by this. Businesses who needed time to put in place the

elimination of wage discrimination — their concerns were taken into account in

the legislation. The concerns of businesses about a huge amount of red tape and

needless bureaucracy were taken into account, and the bill very much was about

almost an honour system for businesses to eliminate wage discrimination.

It also

said that we'd only ask businesses to do what they can do from an affordability

aspect, an ability to pay, so there were very modest ceilings put in place about

what businesses would have to contribute to eliminate wage discrimination. All

this was in the interest of the economy. Yes, there was a social justice aspect

to the pay equity legislation, but there was also the underpinning that this

initiative was good for the economy.

We talk

about how we put money into working people's pockets. I know that the government

in power now prides itself on putting money into working people's pockets. They

do it through tax cuts. They say that's the be-all and end-all. Nirvana will be

achieved by cutting taxes for working people. Well, there are other ways of

putting money into working people's pockets, and this was one. The pay equity

legislation achieved exactly the same principle and the same outcome that this

government now advocates through tax cuts — exactly the same. You distribute

income in a way that recognizes productivity and value contributed to the

economy.

This

government says that if you cut taxes, the economy is stimulated. The economy is

stimulated because the money saved through not paying taxes circulates, and the

economy grows. But this bill does exactly the same thing. A woman contributing

to the productivity of the economy gets paid what the value of that contribution

is, and that money goes into her pocket and stimulates the economy and

circulates in the economy. The principle is exactly the same. And the outcome

— well, actually, I hope the outcome is exactly the same. I hope the outcome

for tax reductions is exactly the same as what's achieved through ending wage

discrimination.

Paying

people a fair wage, based on their productivity and their value that they

contribute to the economy, is good for the economy. Any wage paid to a person

that doesn't recognize the value he or she is contributing to productivity is

discrimination. This government chose to actually make that argument about tax

cuts: that it was bad, that it hurt people for people to pay taxes. Well, it's

all about disposable income; that's what it's about. So I cannot, for the life

of me, understand why it is that this government somehow sees ending wage

discrimination, putting more money into working families' pockets, as bad for the

economy, especially given the modest nature of the Human Rights Code amendment

that was passed in the spring of this year.

[1715]

I will be

voting against the repeal of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act that brings

about equal pay for work of equal value, based on that it's bad for the economy.

Delaying equal pay for work of equal value any longer is bad for the economy. It

does seem a little bit specious and a little bit insincere if the government

rises from its benches today and says: "Well, why didn't you bring it in

sooner? Why did you just do this at the end of your mandate?"

The fact of

the matter is that work had progressed on bringing about pay equity for years

where we had

[ Page 458 ]

the greatest strength: as the employer. We waited through many months of

discussion for it to come about across the province, and it didn't. For anybody

on the government benches to now rise and say: "Well, if you were really

sincere, you would have brought it in sooner…." To poke history in the

eye by then repealing the legislation is really to poke women in this province

in the eye, but it may be a dangerous trend. So far we've had child care

programs taken away from women, namely, the caregivers of the family, which tend

to be — a little less so these days — women.

Now we've

had the guarantee of pay equity. I could be the designated speaker on this one

if I wanted.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No. Not in committee? Oh, gosh. Anyway, I will be voting against

this section.

[1720]

Section 11

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 68

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van

Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 1

MacPhail

[1725]

Hon. G.

Plant: I wonder if we could stand down

section 12 by agreement and move to

section 13, which is the beginning of some provisions dealing with the Medical

Practitioners Act.

Mr.

Speaker: Is that an agreement? Aye.

section

MacPhail: Perhaps the Minister of Health Planning can explain. I gather

we're dealing with the amendments from 13 to 19. Again we have notes here saying

that everything is self-explanatory, so perhaps we could have the minister put

on the record the intent of the amendments.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: This

section of the bill repeals a number of provisions that unduly

constrain the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. to fulfil their

statutory roles and responsibility. The intent of this amendment is to strike

the right balance between protecting a practitioner who offers alternative

therapies and allowing the College of Physicians and Surgeons to exercise their

regulatory role in protecting the public. We believe that these amendments

strike the right balance between protecting the practitioner's option to deliver

those alternative therapies and the scrutiny and protections a health consumer

would expect the college to ensure.

MacPhail: So what role does complementary medicine play in our health care

system after this legislation is passed and these various sections of the

Medical Practitioners Act are repealed?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The proposed amendments don't deny patients in any way, shape or

form the right to continue access to non-traditional or alternative treatment

options. They don't halt the practice of complementary medicine. What they do is

ensure that complementary medicine can be provided by practitioners without

threat of disciplinary action by the college. However, the amendments do allow

the college to take action if a therapy poses a health or safety risk to a

patient.

When the

proponents of complementary medicine practice were lobbying government, they

wanted the same kinds of changes or protections that Alberta and Ontario put in

their legislation, and the language that's used in

section 19 does just that.

MacPhail: After this legislation is passed — because I predict it will be

passed; I don't know why, but I do predict that it will be passed — is it the

minister's view that the legislation is merely equal to Alberta, or is it less

than Alberta, in terms of protection of the right of medical practitioners to

practise complementary medicine?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: My understanding is that the legislation is parallel to Alberta's. I want to say that this government's top priority is to protect patients. We

want to make sure that they have access to safe and effective medical treatment.

We also want to ensure that the practice o