H0325pm 04

H0325pm 04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 13, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5613 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 5613 Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16) Hon. R. Neufeld Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24) Hon. R.

Thorpe Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5614 Marijuana grow operations legislation R. Nijjar Proteomics research facility S. Brice Marijuana grow operations D. Hayer Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5615 Eligibility review for disability benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell Sale of fast ferries R. Stewart Hon. J.

Reid International languages in high school curriculum P. Wong Hon. C. Clark Independent power production proposals J. Les Hon. R. Neufeld Homelessness J. Nuraney Hon. G.

Abbott Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 5618 Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, annual report, April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 5618 P. Nettleton J.

MacPhail Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 5618 Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26) Hon. G. Collins Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5619 Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid J. Bray

Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 5638 Museum Act (Bill 2) Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17)

5613 TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Weisbeck: I n t h e g a l l e r y v i s i t i n g f r o m K e l o w n a on behalf of the Myra Canyon society are two mem- bers: Carl Marcotte and Mr. Ken Campbell. Would the House please make them welcome. B. Belsey: I have the pleasure of introducing the Prince Rupert anchor for CHTK TV and The Mix, Devon Keller, who's down here joining us for a couple of days. Would the House please join me in making her welcome. R.

Visser: Joining us today is the new mayor of Gold River, Dave Lewis, a consulting forester and one of the great young political minds in this province. He's going to lead that community on to great and good things in the future. Would the House please make Mayor Lewis welcome. [1405] S. Brice: In the House today there are 30 children from Glanford Elementary School along with their teacher, Barbara MacAulay. I would ask the House to make them welcome. P. Sahota: Joining us in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Ms.

Noreen Boudreau, who is the executive director of Janus Family Programs in Vancouver and the president of the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. Would the House please make her wel- come. B. Lekstrom: This afternoon, joining us in the gal- lery are three hard-working young ladies who do a fabulous job for all of the government caucus. Would the House please join me in welcoming Caitlin Quinn, Laura O'Connor and Lisa Johnson, who is also celebrat- ing her birthday today. Happy birthday, Lisa, and wel- come. P.

Bell: I see in the gallery today we have a very good personal friend of mine and my campaign man- ager, a wonderful gentleman from the beautiful com- munity of Prince George. Would the House please make Mr. Jim Blake very welcome. Hon. S. Bond: Not to be outdone by my colleague from Prince George North, I too have a constituent and friend in the gallery today who works with the Prince George airport. He's here, as you can imagine, to speak to the Minister of Transportation. Please join me in welcoming Stieg Hoeg. B.

Belsey: O n b e h a l f o f m y c o l l e a g u e f r o m t h e Skeena riding, I would like to introduce His Worship Jack Talstra, the mayor of Terrace, who's joining us today. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COALBED GAS ACT Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coal- bed Gas Act. Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 16 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to introduce Bill 16, the Coalbed Gas Act.

The Coalbed Gas Act removes uncertainty over the ownership of coalbed gas and creates economic opportunities in British Columbia's heartlands. The Coalbed Gas Act is an integral component of this government's heartland economic strategy and fulfils our throne speech commitment to open up coal- bed gas resources in British Columbia. Coalbed gas is an important and untapped source of natural gas that offers tremendous potential for our province. Energy demand is rising, and new opportu- nities like coalbed gas have the potential to diversify British Columbia's energy supply.

British Columbia has been endowed with a wealth of energy and mineral resources. These resources have the potential to help revitalize our economy and usher in a new era of pros- perity that all British Columbians can enjoy. In the past, investment in coalbed gas was hampered by legal uncertainty around ownership of coalbed gas rights. This act removes that uncertainty and establishes, in legislation, the longstanding policy that coalbed gas is and always has been owned by the natural gas owner. Coalbed gas potential in the province is estimated to be equal to 90 trillion cubic feet.

This legislation will help unleash the potential of our vast coalbed gas re- sources by creating the stability and certainty that in- dustry needs for investment. The creation of the Coal- bed Gas Act sends a clear message that government is taking action to open up new economic opportunities across the province and that we are working with in- dustry to make this province a more competitive and attractive place to invest. The act I'm introducing today demonstrates our commitment to create a thriving pri- vate sector economy that supports high-paying jobs for British Columbians.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1410] Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

5614 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 H o n . R . T h o r p e p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Secu- rities Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 24 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce the Secu- rities Amendment Act, 2003. The primary purpose of this bill is to make amendments to improve the in- vestment environment in British Columbia.

The amendments decrease a number of requirements, sup- port efficient capital markets and increase investor pro- tection. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS LEGISLATION R. Nijjar: It is estimated there are 7,000 to 10,000 marijuana grow operations in the city of Vancouver and over 20,000 in the lower mainland. I've been work- ing in my community since the election to deal with this issue. Community groups and police often feel at a loss. They're very frustrated. Growbusters in my neighbourhood has six officers working on this issue, but they will never catch up. When police do arrest criminals, they're reluctant to lay charges because of the amount of paperwork for what seems to be a lack of appropriate sentencing.

I've heard marijuana grow operators say that the penalties are merely the cost of doing business. I've looked into the possibility of a bill requiring the registration of hydroponic equipment, at the relation- ship between B.C. Hydro and our police forces, and I've looked into encouraging sentences that reflect the public's values. Repeatedly, police have said they need help with more severe penalties and the appropriate sentencing from the judicial system, and I agree.

In Ontario legislation, the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act is designed to take the profit out of unlawful activity, disrupt and disable corrupt organizations and prevent people from being victimized.

The legislation allows the province to (1) ask civil courts to freeze, seize and forfeit assets that are the proceeds of unlawful activity or that are likely to be used as instruments in the commission of unlaw- ful activity; (2) take to court two or more people who conspire to harm the public; and (3) enable direct vic- tims of unlawful activity to claim compensation against the forfeited proceeds. Now, there are those who will say we already have proceeds-of-crime legislation. The Ontario legislation would strengthen our ability to confiscate the proceeds or the apparent proceeds of crime.

This legislation would give our judicial system more teeth, with more power not just to compensate victims but to cripple criminals by attacking what is most important to them — their assets. I encourage everyone to support this direction. PROTEOMICS RESEARCH FACILITY S. Brice: Recently, along with the Minister of Man- agement Services and the member for Oak Bay– Gordon Head, I attended an event at the Vancouver Island Tech Park in Saanich South. We welcomed the relocation of the Genome B.C. proteomic research pro- ject.

The move resulted from an agreement between MDS Metro Laboratory Services, Genome B.C. and the University of Victoria. This agreement is a great example of our govern- ment's efforts to stimulate new partnerships between academic, business and biotech communities. Pro- teomics research is an exciting new field that extends from genetics research and focuses on proteins. The ability to unravel and analyze proteins gives valuable insight into the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of disease.

The move to the Vancouver Island Tech Park brings the UVic facility close to MDS Metro Lab and advances proteomic research in collaboration with the private sector. The UVic research facility provides protein chemistry services, and MDS Metro provides a full range of lab services to help treat, diagnose and moni- tor patients. Two groups will share a pool of skilled and tal- ented researchers and technicians and sophisticated instruments in over 20,000 square feet of lab space.

The move will also give increased opportunities for stu- dents and bring biotech research into the marketplace. [1415] The third partner, Genome B.C., is a committed investor in the project and in helping to develop re- search infrastructure in the province. These new part- ners are joining a technology community of other terrific, cutting-edge companies, all happily working together in the most progressive and environmentally designed building in the province. The project brings new promise for treatment of disease and ensures that B.C. is a leader in high-tech development and re- search.

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS D. Hayer: Marijuana grow ops are expanding at an alarming rate in the riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They have invaded Fleetwood, Fraser Heights, Port Kells, Tynehead, Cloverdale and many other communities

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5615 across the lower mainland. Some areas reportedly have more than half a dozen grow ops in a single block. These are family-oriented neighbourhoods. Resi- dents are frightened, and they're frustrated. They tell me they fear for their children's safety and feel threat- ened by the potential for drive-by shootings, home invasions targeting the wrong homes, and fires. Resi- dents are also frustrated by the light penalties handed down to the grow operators.

They tell me there seems to be an apparent lack of seriousness in our courts to the risk these grow ops represent to our neighbour- hoods. Time and time again, the police arrest these operators only to see them right back on the street and back in the business in someone else's neighbourhood. Grow ops are organized crime. They are invading my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and many other com- munities that were once considered safe places to raise our children in. We must clamp down hard on mari- juana grow ops, and we must ensure that our courts take a hard line and punish these criminals appropri- ately.

W e ne e d t o m ak e o u r v o i c e s he ard i n O t t awa a nd encourage the federal government to change the Criminal Code. The communities must also come to- gether with local government representatives, the RCMP and B.C. Hydro to share information and ex- plore ways to stamp out grow ops. I look forward to participating in the Premier's dia- logue on crime to share my constituents' concerns about grow ops, identify ways to act to take our neighbourhoods back from these criminals and restore justice to our judicial system. Oral Questions ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS J.

MacPhail: Yesterday the opposition revealed that the Minister of Human Resources had made an error in informing people with disabilities about the appeal period. Today we learn that because of our raising the issue, he has corrected his error and the appeal process will now conform with his own regulations. Let's see whether we can make some progress today on some other fronts. The Minister of Human Resources said yesterday that the disability review process was not about cost- cutting. Then in the next breath he said that the previ- ous system was growing at a rate that was not sustain- able.

To the minister: which is it? Is it about cost- cutting, or isn't it? His own documents say that the plan is to kick 9,100 people off disability benefits. It's a straightforward question. It's not a hard question. What is it? Is it about cost-cutting? Is it about kicking people off benefits or not? Hon. M. Coell: The government wants to provide income assistance to those people who are most in need. We've done a review of the previous DB-2 clien- tele, and we want to make sure we're targeting our funds to those most in need. I think you'll find that over the coming years, the caseload continues to rise.

I've said this before. The caseload for people with disabilities will continue to rise, but it will rise at a slower rate than it had been in the past. In the past it had been rising at about 11 per- cent per year since the changes were made. The aver- age in Canada was about 2 to 3 percent, and we'd like to see it rise at those levels. I hope that helps the member. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, it isn't about percentages.

It's about people in need, as the minister says, and people with disabilities getting what is due to them in terms of government support. Again, if this province doesn't want to be reasonable in that area, then I guess we fall to tenth place in that area as well. Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources ac- cused advocates for disabled British Columbians of fearmongering. He said that they've chosen to misin- form…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: The minister said that they have cho- sen to misinform and spread fear among the very peo- ple they have been advocating for.

The issues that have been raised in this House are from the advocates of people with disabilities. [1420] The minister should be ashamed of himself, as should his government. From day one it's been his own incompetent handling, as we showed yesterday, of this review. It's caused fear, anxiety and enormous suffer- ing for thousands of British Columbians. Can the minister tell this House what advocates for the disabled are supposed to do when they have peo- ple with disabilities coming to them, who he's kicked off benefits, and are now panicked by the complicated and bureaucratic appeal process?

What are they sup- posed to do? Hon. M. Coell: I think I said "the member and her friends," and she can take that for what it's worth. T h e g o v e r n m e n t w a n t s t o m a k e s u r e t h a t p e o p l e who need assistance get assistance in British Columbia. We're spending approximately $450 million on con- tinuous assistance for people in need, and we're pleased to do that. We're pleased to make sure that people who have needs have those needs met in British Columbia.

But we also have a responsibility to make sure that the people receiving the funds from govern- ment are reviewed periodically, and a review every five years is something that we put in legislation and that we intend to do. In the previous government there

5616 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 was no review, no medical review of any files. What we want to do is make sure that funds collected by the taxpayer are going to those who are most in need. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question. J. MacPhail: Yes. The opposition is raising concerns of every single person with a disability in this province who can't get representation from their own MLAs, and that's who this minister is accusing of fearmonger- ing. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J.

MacPhail: Not once has one of them stood up to defend people with disabilities. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question, please. J. MacPhail: Disabled British Columbians have reason to be frightened. In the few days that the minis- ter is allowing for appeal — even now, according to his own rules — disabled British Columbians, some of whom have trouble reading and writing, are supposed to navigate their way through a maze of bureaucratic hoops and provide extensive documentation counter- ing the ministry's case.

It can take days to get an ap- pointment with the social worker to get back the 23- page form to begin the appeal process. It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get an appointment with the doc- tor to provide an opinion on the appeal. It can take weeks to get an appointment, especially in rural areas, to get a legal advocate to help prepare a case. Many will just give up. Will the minister at the very least show some humanity, admit that his appeal process is a bureaucratic maze with no reasonable time lines and extend the appeal time lines for disabled British Co- lumbians who he has kicked off benefits? Hon. M.

Coell: I think it's important for the mem- ber to know that over 7,500 new applications have been received since September. That's 7,500 people who be- lieve that the new criteria fit their needs, have taken the time to pick up an application, have gone to see a doc- tor and a health care professional… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. M. Coell: …and have put their applications in. I think it's important, too, to know that 3,200 more people are receiving disability assistance than when the previous government was in.

We've increased from $200 to $400 the amount that people can earn on dis- ability assistance. We are spending $24 million… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer, please. Hon. M. Coell: …on employment programs for people with disabilities. SALE OF FAST FERRIES R. Stewart: Three years ago the Premier of the day admitted that building them was a mistake, and yes- terday we found out how much they are worth. Yes- terday British Columbians were shocked when the NDP's legacy, the three fast cat ferries, sold for a com- bined total of just $20 million, less than 5 percent of what they cost to build.

Some British Columbians are asking today whether government was thorough enough in its attempt to mitigate the loss caused by the NDP's fiasco. To the Minister of Transportation: could these fast ferries have been sold sooner and for more money? Interjections. [1425] Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let's have some order so we may hear the answer from the Minister of Trans- portation. Hon. J. Reid: Over the last 20 months we have been very diligent in our examination of the three ferries. We looked at all possible uses. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: O r d e r , p l e a s e . O r d e r . I f y o u w i s h t o make comments, please address the Chair. The Minis- ter of Transportation has the floor. Hon. J. Reid: We looked at the route the ferries were built for and why they were losing as much money as they were, operating on that route — that they carried the wrong mix of traffic for the route. We looked at using them on different routes. We looked at replacing the engines with conventional engines, which would have cost about $30 million a vessel in addition.

We looked at the lack of loading and unloading facilities, to use them on different routes. We examined everything that people brought forward to this office.

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5617 It became apparent that there wasn't another use we could put them to that wouldn't require a huge investment and ongoing loss of taxpayer dollars. We realized, as independent reports indicated, that a sale was the best route to go with these ferries, and we pur- sued a sale of the ferries. The previous government had had an offer of $88 million on the ferries. They decided not to pursue that because of the timing of the election. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Please continue. Hon. J.

Reid: After the election we pursued that option, that opportunity. Changes occurred in the world marketplace. That option and opportunity was no longer there. For the last two years we looked at every other opportunity, and yesterday the true value of those ferries was realized. It's a very sad end to an experiment of the previous government. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question period will continue when the Leader of the Opposition comes to order. INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES IN HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM P. Wong: My question is to the Minister of Educa- tion.

Proposed changes to high school graduation re- quirements would reduce the number of international language courses offering provincial exams. My con- stituents are concerned that these changes could reduce the emphasis that international languages currently have in the high school curriculum. To the Minister of Education: why are these changes being proposed, and what impact would they have on high school language training? Hon. C. Clark: How come I don't get any questions about the fast ferries? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Hon. C.

Clark: In answer to the member's question, one of the ideas that surfaced during the course of our review of grad requirements in British Columbia was the suggestion that perhaps we would cut back on the number of exams. Since we've been on our consultation about that, I've heard quite a bit of concern, particu- larly from members in the Chinese community and the Punjabi-speaking community. I have heard lots of rep- resentations from this member and from the member for Burnaby North in particular.

Their concerns are that it will undermine the value, or at least the public per- ception of the value, of having a second language and that it might damage children's chances of applying to university, because they need those courses. I take those representations very seriously. We've wrapped up our consultations, and we'll be coming forward with a decision very, very soon. [1430] INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCTION PROPOSALS J. Les: My question today is for the Minister of En- ergy and Mines. Last fall the minister tabled a new energy plan for the future in British Columbia.

A key provision of that plan was the ability of the independ- ent power producers to competitively supply new elec- trical supply for the future of our province. B.C. Hydro has since requested proposals for new electrical genera- tion, but certain self-interested groups, mostly associ- ated with the previous failed and discredited govern- ment, have maintained that B.C. Hydro's new direction is determined to fail. What I would like to hear today from the minister is this…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Please continue. J.

Les: I would love to hear from the minister what the response has been to those proposal calls both from the IPP community and from the financial community in British Columbia. Hon. R. Neufeld: There has been great response to the calls that B.C. Hydro made in May for customer- based energy in the province. They called for about 800 gigawatt-hours. They received proposals for 6,800 gigawatt-hours. In the fall, in October, they called for clean energy, another 800 gigawatts of power, and received about eight times what they wanted in proposals. The IPP community has stepped up to the plate.

They say they're willing and ready to be able to do it for the province. In fact, VanCity Credit Union in Van- couver has proposals on its desk and has approved financing for one of the projects in British Columbia. It's more good news for the province. HOMELESSNESS J. Nuraney: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. While in Vancouver earlier this month the Prime Minister of Canada announced a $400 million initiative for home- lessness across the country. We in Vancouver and in the lower mainland have a dire need to tackle this problem.

I think, in my opinion, it is a real blemish on our society. Can the minister…?

5618 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the question. J. Nuraney: This reminds me of my old car. After I switch it off, it still continues to putter. Can the minister… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Nuraney: …tell us how we are going to benefit from this? When can we expect the implementation of this initiative? Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: We'll wait for order, to hear the an- swer. Interjections. Hon. G. Abbott: Whenever you're done. J.

MacPhail: I won't be done for quite awhile — until you stop making people homeless…. Interjections. Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of homelessness does remain a very important provincial and national issue; there is no question about that. As the member noted, the Prime Minister and the federal minister responsible — Claudette Bradshaw, the Minister of Labour — when they were in British Columbia recently, did announce an extension of the SCPI program of about $400 million, as the member noted, nationally.

We are still awaiting some detail from the federal government with respect to that, but we do expect that British Columbia will receive somewhere between $16 million and $17 million annu- ally for three years as part of the renewed SCPI program. [1435] We are certainly looking forward to working with Minister Bradshaw, with whom both the Minister of Human Resources and I have an excellent relationship. We're looking forward to working with her. We have partnered in the past through the Ministry of Human Resources and through Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — B.C.

Housing — to partner with projects with the federal government and with local governments to address the issue of homelessness. We certainly are looking forward, in the weeks and months ahead, to seeing other projects roll out. Cer- tainly, we were delighted to have the sale of the Woodwards Building at a discounted rate to the city of Vancouver. That's important.

Certainly, we're looking forward to announcing other projects in conjunction with the city, other local governments and non-profits to address the very serious problem of homelessness that we have in this province and in this country. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. S. Bond: I am presenting today the annual report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002. Petitions P. Nettleton: I wish to submit a petition signed by 677 citizens of British Columbia intent on stopping the further privatization of B.C. Hydro. J.

MacPhail: I rise to present a petition from Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House concerning cuts to child care. Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House is committed to providing quality accessible child care at affordable rates. Cedar Cottage…. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Thank you. J. MacPhail: There are rules for one side of the House and not the other, eh? This petition… Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please pre- sent your petition. J. MacPhail: …is to decry the cuts in child care. Mr. Speaker: No more remarks are in order. Thank you very much. J.

MacPhail: I guess we have different rules for everybody, then. Mr. Speaker: The Chair resents that last remark, and I would ask the member to withdraw it, please. J. MacPhail: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 26. Second Reading of Bills SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2003 Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first

section of the bill represents 1/6 of the voted expenses as presented

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5619 in the Estimates to provide for the general programs of government. Fifty percent of financing transaction re- quirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the Esti- mates have been provided for in the interim supply bill. This will allow time later for more complete debate on those items. The third

section requests the disbursements re- lated to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities which appear in

schedule F of the Estimates. As there's no impact on the deficit borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill. I move second reading of Bill 26. Motion approved. [1440] Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 26 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 26, Supply Act (No. 1), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after to- day. Hon. G.

Collins: I now call committee stage debate of Bill 18. Committee of the Whole House COASTAL FERRY ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:45 p.m. On

section 1. J. MacPhail: I want to talk first about the definition of "core ferry services." There's a definition for core ferry services later on in the legislation. I assume core ferry services…. By definition, it says it's about trans- portation services that ferry operators are required to provide under contract. The minister separates out, when she talks about it, core routes and core services and says both will be protected under the new legisla- tion. Does the definition of core ferry services include core routes? How does the minister distinguish be- tween core routes and core services? Hon. J. Reid: There are two

definitions. One is "core ferry services," which does indeed refer to services. The next definition is "designated ferry routes," which would be the core ferry routes. J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that the only services the ferries operate are the transportation routes, that there are no other services provided that are core services? Hon. J. Reid: I was wondering if the member could clarify the question. I'm not sure if she's talking about ancillary services — in addition to — or if she's talking about the routes and whether additional routes are possible.

If she could clarify the question, that would help with the answer. J. MacPhail: I'm sure everybody thinks of the Ferry Services as just the service of moving a ferry from point A to point B. My understanding is that there are other services that the ferry corporation provides, ancillary services in terms of contributions to communities and also rescue services — requirements under the law to provide services to communities that are ferry- dependent — or services related to medical evacuation, those kinds of things. Hon. J.

Reid: All those services would be covered in the contract between the corporation and the gov- ernment. J. MacPhail: How do they get guaranteed? Is it that we have to read the contract in order to understand that those get guaranteed? My understanding is that the contract won't be made public until…. Will it ever be made public? Hon. J. Reid: This contract will be made public after it's signed. The contract is for 60 years. The ser- vices the member was referring to — medical emer- gency, evacuation — would be part of the 60-year con- tract. [1450] J. Bray: Just a couple of quick questions on defini- tions.

With respect to designated ferry routes, I'm wondering if the minister could just advise us whether or not it limits the ability for additional opportunities for entrepreneurs and other people to provide ferry services on the coast and to designate new routes or to determine other opportunities with respect to ferry routes under this definition. Hon. J. Reid: We certainly would like to see addi- tional routes that could be offered, that could be oper- ated, so this certainly doesn't restrict the offering of additional routes. In fact, as we get further into the legislation….

One of the roles of the commissioner is to foster competition, so we believe that principle is built into this legislation. J. Bray: The other question I have under

section 1, then, is under the definition of "ferry operator." Is it then, with respect to this legislation, that there may be other individuals down the road who may be involved in ferry operations outside of the coastal ferry services contract provider — that this doesn't limit the ability of other individuals to become involved in the provision

5620 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 of ferry services either under that contract or inde- pendent of that contract? Hon. J. Reid: Certainly, to encourage ongoing competition with regard to delivery of transportation services, subcontractors can be used, just as they are now, to deliver those core services. That's certainly an option. This doesn't limit in any way the ability for other ferry operators to enter into a business plan and fulfil that business plan.

We know right now in Nanaimo there's a foot passenger ferry underway that's totally separate from what government does, totally separate from what exists in this legislation. In no way does this legislation impact people who want to offer ferry service in the future. J. MacPhail: Well, further to the questions just asked by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, what is the business plan where the minister has made predic- tions, forecasts, for fare increases? What does the busi- ness plan entail in terms of competition that will still say that ferry increases are limited to the amount that she has announced? Hon.

J. Reid: I would suggest, if the member does- n't mind too much, reserving that for when we discuss

section 39, because that's when we're going to be talk- ing about the price cap and the fare increases. There's a much larger topic there, so if that works well, then I think it would be better in the larger context of that discussion. [1455] J. MacPhail: Yes, that's fine. I'll do that. Thank you. Just to be clear, then, the company that purchased the three fast cat ferries yesterday can operate all three vessels within the waters now served by B.C. Ferries. Hon. J. Reid: The waters that B.C. Ferries operates in are certainly not B.C. Ferries' waters, and so anyone can operate in those waters.

What we're looking at here is the situation around terminals and the property and the access to those terminals, again making sure that people on the coast know that their core services are protected, are ongoing, and that rates are going to be predictable and certain for them. It doesn't preclude, again, any entrepreneur from looking at new opportu- nities within the waters of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: What I actually meant was: was there any part of the bid yesterday that required the vessels to be used outside the waters now used by B.C. Ferries? Hon. J. Reid: No.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the Ferry Corporation for a briefing on this legislation, but as a result of the briefing I need some guidance as well, just in terms of what sections to discuss it under. As part of the legislation, the Ferry Corporation is set up as an entity under

section 2 but then is converted to an entity under the Company Act. Could the minister just quickly point me to that section? Oh no, I'm sorry. It's not in the legislation about converting to the operation under the Company Act. Or if it is, point me to the sec- tion, please. Hon. J. Reid: It's division 2,

section

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. J. MacPhail: This is a

section that establishes the capital — the ability for the corporation to raise its capital exclusively, as I understand it. Could the minis- ter explain the intent of this section, please? Hon. J. Reid: This

section is simply a technical pro- vision to allow for the ability of the authority to have money to cover the voting share.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. MacPhail: This

section makes the first directors of the authority the same as the existing directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and of course, the existing di- rectors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation are OIC appoint- ees, government appointees, cabinet appointees. How long will this board be in place? Hon. J. Reid: One year. [1500] J. MacPhail: There was great fanfare about this government. In fact, this has been the government of the day's position when they started announcing the changes they were going to make to the B.C.

Ferry Corporation — that it was going to be an independent authority and that it was going to be free of political meddling. Well, this board will be in place until the last year of this government's mandate, so how would the public notice the change? Hon. J. Reid: This board would be in place until April 1, 2004. What's important here is that the board that's been in place has been there going through the core review of B.C. Ferries.

It has been instrumental in understanding this direction in choosing a new CEO for British Columbia Ferry Services and certainly is integral to the orderly transition to a new system. That's the purpose of the year. J. MacPhail: Yes, but my understanding is that the new corporation is in place days from now — April 1. The new corporation will be in place. All the work of

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5621 changing it over has been done. We're passing legisla- tion. It doesn't seem that anybody else maybe has any difficulty with this. What's the need of exactly the same politically appointed board for a brand-new structure that's independent? Hon. J. Reid: While the new entity will be in place April 1, there's still a considerable amount of work to be done to complete that transition. I think it should be fairly obvious that this is quite a significant undertak- ing.

For example, in looking at the board of the new authority, while there is representation from regional districts, there is still work to be done in working out that process with community consultation to get to how those board members will be brought forward. W e d o e x p e c t t hat t hi s b o ard wi l l b e ab l e t o b e i n t he best place to achieve the work that needs to be done, and I certainly believe they're going to be very busy over this next year in order to achieve that. J. MacPhail: How much are the directors being paid under this year? Hon. J.

Reid: They will be getting paid the same as they are currently getting paid, but to be absolutely clear for the record, if I could bring that answer back very shortly…. I don't want to misquote a figure, and we don't have the exact figure. We will get the answer, and I shall bring it back into the debate in just a few minutes. It will be the same as they're currently getting, and we'll establish that exact amount in a few mo- ments. J. MacPhail: I'd appreciate the chair's compensation as part of that as well, please.

I guess that will be an annual figure for the next year, the next 12 months. [1505] Was an interim board with new members consid- ered as an alternative at all to continuing the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? I note that the government likes to talk about this model being the same as or similar to or modelled after the Vancouver Airport Authority. It started with brand-new directors. Now, there was no airport authority in place before, but there were still exactly the same transition issues. I'm just curious as to whether this government even considered a brand-new board. Hon. J.

Reid: In fact, as we looked at the airport authority model, we learned some things from the air- port. We certainly had discussions with them, as well, as to what worked and what didn't work. One of the strong messages was how important continuity was. Once again, there is a tremendous amount of work that the board has been involved in, in developing this model and in being able to execute it and turn it over to others. While we did consider the different models and the different options available, we believed the advice we were receiving about continuity and the importance of transition.

The amount of knowledge the people on the board have amassed in working extremely hard through a very complex process, we feel, is very valu- able to carry on through this next year. J. MacPhail: The term of the office of the first direc- tors of the authority expires March 31, 2004, so I as- sume they won't be eligible for the board of April 1, 2004. Hon. J. Reid: There is nothing with regard to the appointment of the current directors. There's nothing to exclude them, but there's certainly nothing to in- clude them. There's no provision made for those people to carry on into a future board.

To answer the previous question with regard to the current levels of remuneration for the B.C. Ferries board members, the chair receives an annual honorar- ium of $30,000, the board members receive $15,000 annually, plus there's $750 per day to attend meetings. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure whether the corporation is on a fiscal that ends in March or a fiscal that ends in December. Perhaps we could actually have the real compensation for the directors — what they actually got. Hon. J. Reid: Just for clarification, are you asking for how many meetings they attended so, therefore, how much money was allotted to them?

I obviously don't have that information with me at the moment. Maybe the member can clarify. In looking forward to the next year, is that the context of the question? J. MacPhail: Is the minister going to get that infor- mation for me? Sorry, I just missed it — whether she was or not. Hon. J. Reid: It will take some time to pull that in- formation together. If I don't have it during this discus- sion, we'll submit it to the member's office and provide her with that information. J. MacPhail: That's fine, because we still have esti- mates to go through.

We can discuss these matters around estimates, but I do need it before that. I am interested to understand, then, why the stutter step of saying that we've got the interim board when it's very possible that the interim board could become the new board of the independent authority. It is possible. I just asked the minister whether they were precluded, and she said no, they're not precluded. There's nothing to prevent this government from making the interim board the permanent board, as I understand it. [1510] Hon. J.

Reid: The regional districts will have in- volvement in choosing members to represent coastal communities so that there is, again, this process that is to be developed with consultation with those commu- nities to make sure there is that representation. How the current board could end up in that position…. I can't figure how that could happen.

5622 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 J. MacPhail: No, that's a good point. The board members that are, then, separate and apart from that…. In fact, I understand that…. Well, we'll get to that in

section 5, I guess — about the board members other than the coastal community appointees.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. The Chair: Minister, we have an amendment on sec- tion 5. Do you want to pass that amendment and finish? Hon. J. Reid: Y e s , M r . C h a i r . I m o v e t h e a m e n d - ment to

section 5 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 5, in the proposed

section 5 (4) by deleting "and 6 (2)," and substituting "and 6 (3),".] On the amendment. J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the amendment, please? Hon. J. Reid: It's a typographic error. In the pro- posed

section 5(4) we're proposing to delete "and 6 (2)" and substitute "and 6 (3)." Amendment approved. On

section 5 as amended. J. MacPhail:

Section 5 talks about the directors that will be in place as of April 1, 2004, and 5(1) says: "Di- rectors of the Authority, other than its first directors who are in their first term of office with the Authority, must be qualified individuals and must be appointed in accordance with this Division." I need two separate explanations. What does the phrase "other than its first directors who are in their first term of office with the authority" mean? Hon. J. Reid: It's just simply to say the current di- rectors as such for the first year, and thereafter, the directors will have to be the qualified directors. J.

MacPhail: So the phrase "other than its first direc- tors who are in their first term of office" refers back to clause 4 and no one else? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. J. MacPhail: Could the minister then define…? The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to determine qualification for the directors after April 1, 2004, as I understand it. That's 5(2). How is the government, the cabinet, going to determine qualification? Hon. J. Reid: That

section refers to the 13 regional districts being broken down into four appointment areas. It has nothing to do with who will get appointed from those areas. J. MacPhail: Sorry — 5(1) means the qualification is that they come from the right geographic area? I'm looking at 5(1). It says: "…must be qualified individuals and must be appointed in accordance with this Divi- sion." I assume "must be appointed in accordance with this Division" means coming from the different dis- tricts, but I'm asking what "must be qualified individu- als" means. Hon. J. Reid: I'd like to refer the member to the

definitions section. In the

definitions

section is the definition of qualified individuals. [1515] J. MacPhail: Okay. So those are the only limita- tions. I assume, then, that…. Well, let me ask this. Are those the only limitations on qualification? Hon. J. Reid: In addition, under

section 9, the member would note that there are sections of the Company Act that would apply to the authority and its directors, and that would be in the Company Act. People who are excluded would be bankrupts, people under the age of 18, etc. J. MacPhail: Well, that's good to know. My questions around qualification relate to my previous line of ques- tioning about what prevents the board from just rolling over then.

I note further on here in the same section, sec- tion 5(3), it says that nine individuals have to be ap- pointed by various geographic groupings of coastal com- munities, but the qualifications also say that it can't be the elected people from those various geographic areas. So clearly the geographic clusters are going to have to ap- point someone, other than the elected officials, from them- selves. Why couldn't they just appoint someone or be asked to appoint someone that's currently on the board? There's no residential requirement.

I don't note that there's any requirement that you live in a particular community or anything. Hon. J. Reid: This process in involving the coastal communities. We trust that the coastal communities will know how to best send forth their representatives, so we're putting as few restrictions as possible in order to get a good-quality board. While the member is speculating that in theory, some very bizarre circum- stance could happen, the likelihood of that happening is, again, hard to estimate.

What's important here is that the coastal communities in the different groupings will put forward their nominees, and I trust those coastal communities will put forward people that they believe will represent them. J. MacPhail: I'm not speculating. I'm just asking for information about how it won't be a possibility. I can only imagine that if a coastal community wishes to keep a particular service going or whatever, there may be various alliances or allegiances developed. That's all. I'm just trying to see how independent this new au- thority actually is.

There is a way of defining true in- dependence, and this legislation doesn't do that.

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5623 [1520] Let's go to 5(3), then. It talks about the appointees, the nine individuals who will be appointed. The first group of the nine…. Oh, I'm sorry. Does the board of directors that consists of nine individuals…? Let me just see here. That doesn't include the CEO, as I under- stand it, of the new authority Hon. J. Reid: The CEO could be, but if so, it would come out of one of the two at-large members. J. MacPhail: Okay, so let's go through 3(a).

Four of the nine are to be appointed from the nominees pro- vided under 6(1)(a), and 6(1)(a), as I understand it, de- fines an appointment area. This is the work that the minister will be doing over the course of the next year. How will that work be done to determine appointment areas, and with whom will she be consulting? Hon. J. Reid: The process will be that the board of the authority will do the consultation with the commu- nities and will bring forward their recommendation. J. MacPhail: Why are there four appointment ar- eas? I assume area literally means area, a geographic area. Does it? Hon. J.

Reid: I'm going to read into the record the regional districts and the areas that we've defined. We have the northern and central coast area, and in that would be the Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district, Kitimat-Stikine regional district and the Central Coast regional district. There is the northern central Vancou- ver Island area: Mount Waddington regional district, Comox-Strathcona regional district and Nanaimo re- gional district.

There's the southern mainland area: Powell River regional district, Sunshine Coast regional district, Squamish-Lillooet regional district and greater Vancouver regional district. Then there's southern Vancouver Island area: Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, Cowichan Valley regional district and the capi- tal regional district. That is what we have defined and how we have grouped them. J. MacPhail: So the government has taken current regional districts and clustered them into four group- ings. Was the UBCM consulted on this? Hon. J.

Reid: There has been some dialogue with UBCM , but I wouldn't say that there's been specific dialogue on this specific appointment process. J. MacPhail: What happens if the community con- sultation suggests a model different than that? I've been trying to find out, with my limited resources available, where this model came from.

I'm not in any way suggesting that it isn't going to work — I have no idea whether it's going to work — but it's not embed- ded in anything that has a history to it, and it cer- tainly hasn't come from the Coastal Council, for in- stance. [1525] The minister has just acknowledged that it hasn't come from the UBCM, so what if it doesn't work? What if the groupings aren't appropriate?

I have some ex- perience, and some of the staff of the minister there have experience as well, in setting up something called the GVTA , the Greater Vancouver Transportation Au- thority, and there were certainly huge amounts of toing and froing amongst areas to be established for ap- pointment. What if this doesn't work? Is there an op- portunity for change? Hon. J. Reid: There is flexibility because this will be determined by regulation, so there is flexibility in how these appointment areas work. But it is the coastal communities we heard from that said they do want to be part of the authority.

They do want representation. It is in response, indeed, to representation from coastal communities that this is part of the act. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm just focusing on the four clus- ter areas and understanding geographic pride and sometimes competition. I'm trying to focus on what opportunities there are for input into that. I note that the…. Oh well, I'll get to that in a mo- ment. I want to talk about the two consecutive terms and term limits. The next one is to be appointed. Sec- tion 5(3)(b): the trade union representing the employ- ees of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation will get one appointment.

Does the Ferry Corporation have only one trade union? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. J. MacPhail: And one local? Hon. J. Reid: Several locals but one union. J. MacPhail: What consultation was done with the union about this particular clause? Hon. J. Reid: We have one representative on the board of B.C. Ferries now representing the union, and we indicated to them early on that they were important to the process moving forward and so made a com- mitment, again, to make sure they were included. J. MacPhail: Yeah, but sorry. I know that appointee very well, but he's not from the union.

He was way, way, way back, but his most recent life of the last 20 years was different. I'm just wondering if it was up to that appointee, then, to consult with the union about this. Hon. J. Reid: With regard to this, it is the union who gets to decide, in the future, who to nominate. As long as they go by the qualifications that have been included in the definition, it is the union that does get to decide who their nominees will be. J. MacPhail: My question was about whether they were consulted on getting an appointment to the board

5624 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 at all and the limitations to the qualifications. The un- ion gets to have an appointment — and I haven't heard that the union objects to this at all — but the definition of "qualified individual" says it can't be a member of the union under any circumstances. Then there are further limitations on preventing conflicts of interest. [1530] I'm just wondering whether the union was con- sulted, because there are other boards that allow union representation and allow that there be exclusion from board of director meetings when personnel matters are conducted.

Hon. J. Reid: The decision was made that there would be representation from labour management. There wasn't a broad consultation process with any of these designations, because what we have done is list the qualifications and then allow those groups to put forward their nominees. We believe, again, that we are reacting to a genuine desire for parts of the province to be represented in this. As the member has said, we haven't heard negatively from the union that they have a concern about this. J. MacPhail: T h e d i r e c t o r t h a t w i l l b e a p p o i n t e d under this

section will ultimately be chosen by the government from a list of nominees put forward by the union. The union has to put forward a list of at least three and not more than five nominees. Then the gov- ernment chooses amongst that. Is that how I read the legislation? Hon. J. Reid: I think I need to clarify a very im- portant point here. It is not government that will pick the members of the authority as we move forward; it is the members of the authority in working through the processes. It is not government that picks those future members of the authority. J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, then let's go through this.

Is it kind of like a pyramid thing or a reverse pyramid? Who do you start with to start the process, then? There is a selection process required for the appointee from the trade union. They have to submit three to five nominees. Who is it that selects that? Does that nomi- nee get to participate in the selection? Hon. J. Reid: It's standard practice in boards to have a subcommittee of the board as a selection com- mittee, which then works with the people who have been put forward as nominees, looks at the criteria and selects the future members of the board of the author- ity. J.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm talking about the board that will be brand-new starting April 1, 2004. How do you get it going? Just walk me through how it works. I'll ask my question then, so you can also answer this. Sec- tion 5(3)(

d) says: "2 are to be appointed from qualified individuals." I need clarification on that. Just walk me through. How is this new board going to be produced come April 1, 2004? [1535] Hon. J. Reid: The current board of the authority would select, within their members, a subcommittee. That subcommittee will work with what has already been determined through the process over this next year of the divisions with the regional districts. That subcommittee will call for nominees to come forward. The names will come forward to the sub- committee. That subcommittee then will have a skills profile to work with.

Their objective is to get a well- b a l a n c e d b o a r d , s o t h e y w i l l w o r k t h r o u g h t h a t a s , again, is current practice in boards. They will then make those selections, with two ex- ceptions. There are two members of the board that the provincial government gets to appoint. Other than that, they will work through the nominees, the skills profile, a well-balanced board. Then there are the two mem- bers at large that the board also gets to appoint; it doesn't require nominees in order to do that. J. MacPhail: It will be the interim board that will be making the appointments.

I guess you've got start somewhere. It still does mean that the OIC appoint- ments of this government will be making the determi- nation of the independent board. Having said that, is the government then, come April…? The determination for the board that will take office April 1, 2004, will be a completely hands-off process of the government, except for those two L-G- in-C appointments. Hon. J. Reid: Yes, that's correct. Just to remind the member, while the current board makes the appoint- ments, they have to make them from the nominees that other people have provided. J.

MacPhail: So the board won't be working with the Premier's appointments office. Hon. J. Reid: No. J. MacPhail:

Section 5(4) says that the length of a term is three years and that there is a term limitation of six years, as I read that — a maximum of six years. That means that every six years, at a minimum…. Maybe my math is wrong on this. At a minimum, every six years there will be a brand-new board and no continuity. Hon. J. Reid: I n s e c t i o n 6( 3) t he m e m b e r wi l l no t e that there are staggering provisions so that, indeed, as these appointments are made, they're made for differ- ent lengths of time. As the board goes through the processes, there is, again, what we believe to be very important — continuity. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that.

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5625

Section 5(5) says: "A director of the Authority is removed as, and ceases to be, a director of the Author- ity on the passing of a resolution to that effect by the remaining directors." What's the history of that clause? Hon. J. Reid: In the event of a conflict of interest or incapacity, this gives the board the ability to act. J. MacPhail: By history, I meant: is this out of the Company Act? Are there other jurisdictions that use this as a model for removal of board appointments? Hon. J.

Reid: W e h a v e d r a w n t h i s f r o m t h e C o m - pany Act, the Utilities Commission Act and the Hydro and Power Authority Act. I can't say how common this is, but there is history. [1540] J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could describe what the passing of a resolution means. Is it by simple majority, or is it by two-thirds or three-quarters? Hon. J. Reid: It would be simple majority.

Section 5 as amended approved. On

section 6. J. MacPhail: I don't know whether my question has been resolved by the amendment the minister just passed under

section 5. But as I read

section 6(2)…. It says that the way the process gets started is under 6(2). Maybe this is where my confusion came in about how the whole thing gets started, because it says here: "On or before the expiry of the term of the first directors of the Authority, the Lieutenant Governor in Council" — government, cabinet — "is, subject to

section 12, to appoint 2 qualified individuals as directors, and must promptly notify the directors of the Authority of those appointments." That's just to start the process of the government-appointed di- rectors. They're not the first ones to be appointed. Then everything flows from there. Hon. J. Reid: The member is correct in that. This is just the mechanism that government will use to ap- point its two directors, but those directors do not have an influence on the decision-making or the selection process. Sections 6 and 7 approved. On

section 8. J. MacPhail:

Section 8 deals with conflict. As I see it, it's conflict by directors, conflict rules that apply to the directors of the authority. Where has this language come from? Hon. J. Reid: Once again, we drew from the Com- pany Act, the Utilities Commission Act and the Hydro and Power Authority Act. J. MacPhail: Has that language in those acts ever been tested? Hon. J. Reid: I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that. J. MacPhail: I do. It has, under the term of my gov- ernment. It was quite scandalous, as a matter of fact. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Sorry.

It's absolutely not true that my whole government was ridden with scandal — abso- lutely not true. Perhaps the Minister of Human Re- sources will live to regret that comment with his own conduct to people with disabilities. Interjection. The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. J. MacPhail: Where does the language "beneficial interest" come from? What is the legal

interpretation of beneficial interest? Hon. J. Reid: We will get that information for the member, and we will get the right staff person to pro- vide the right information. J. MacPhail: It's just a term that I'm not familiar with. Clearly, the qualification of "beneficial" must have legal meaning. Perhaps just while the legal people are listening…. How much interest, in what, can a di- rector have and still be a director? That is the nature of my question. But I will wait for that answer. Will there be standards of conduct for board mem- bers? Hon. J. Reid: Yes, there will. The board will deal with that. J.

MacPhail: Under the previous government there were broad, general standards of conduct for all board members. Does the current board have standards of conduct under this government? [1545] Hon. J. Reid: The board will have to draw up their bylaws. Those bylaws would be based on best practices in the corporate world and certainly be incorporating the different measures that the member is discussing. Interjection. Hon. J. Reid: If we just take a moment, I will be able to answer the member's previous questions in just a moment. The beneficial interest that the member was ques- tioning….

There can be two types of owners. There can be a registered owner, and there can be a beneficial owner. They're not necessarily the same. This beneficial

5626 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 interest captures both, so even a person who isn't a registered owner but is receiving a benefit would be captured by this. J. MacPhail: And the registered owner is captured as well. Thank you for the distinction, but where is the reg- istered owner captured? Is that in the first line, where it says: "Subject to subsection (5), every director of the Authority who, in any way, directly or indirectly…"? Hon. J. Reid: Correct. J. MacPhail: Okay. Perhaps the minister could ex- plain 8(5) that talks about…. Well, perhaps she could just explain it. Hon. J. Reid: This

section is to capture the occasion where a person would have potential conflict if they were heavily invested in a mutual fund that was domi- nated by transportation interests. So it is to, again, look at that eventuality or that possibility and try and cap- ture it here. J. MacPhail: So will part of the process of determin- ing qualified individuals be for them to submit their financial holdings? Hon. J. Reid: They would have to declare if there was a conflict.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. MacPhail:

Section 9 is application of the Company Act. I assume this is application of the Company Act to directors, because I think later on there's a

section that talks about…. I was asking about the conversion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and I was pointed to

section 19. [1550] The minister can explain what these sections from the Company Act mean. I thought we passed a new business corporation act at some point. Is it that it's not proclaimed yet, and that's why we're using the term "Company Act"? Hon. J. Reid: We're just taking a moment to get that answer. In the meantime, I will respond to another part of the question, and that's in

section 9, the reference sec- tions of the Company Act apply to the authority direc- tors, persons disqualified, register of directors, powers and functions, duties, validity of acts of directors, reso- lution of directors in writing. Those are the references. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I can wait for the answer about the name of the act. The only reason I raise it…. I mean, it's fine if we have to make an amendment to the Business Corpora- tions Act, but I thought there were different sections too. I mean, we changed the sections under the act as well, with the new Business Corporations Act. Hon. J.

Reid: The Business Corporations Act is not yet proclaimed, so the Company Act prevails. J. MacPhail: Are these sections from the old Com- pany Act? The sections that are referred to in this Company Act, in this legislation, will have to be amended consequentially, I suppose, when the Busi- ness Corporations Act is proclaimed. But are these sec- tions replicated in the Business Corporations Act? Hon. J. Reid: The answer is yes. When the act is proclaimed, there will be consequential amendments. J.

MacPhail: I can do this research, but I assume, then, that the intent of this clause will remain the same even with the new Business Corporations Act. Hon. J. Reid: Yes. Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved. On

section 13. J. MacPhail:

Section 13 is the role of directors. What's the model used to establish the role of the direc- tors? Hon. J. Reid: This is modelled on a standard corpo- rate model, and it's driven by the mandate of the au- thority. [1555] J. MacPhail: I might be confused here, but 13(1)…. The reason why I asked that question was, of course, because we do have Crown corporations where the CEO is the chair. In fact, in the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the CEO is the chair.

Section 13(1) refers to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but isn't it the B.C. Ferry Authority that we're talking about? Am I confused? Hon. J. Reid: This

section is referring to prior to conversion. It's still the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Upon conversion, it becomes B.C. Ferry Services. J. MacPhail:

Section 13 refers to prior to the conver- sion to the authority, which occurs April 1? If it does, then the government is in violation of this, because the CEO is the chair. Hon. J. Reid: There's a technicality here. The act is proclaimed prior to conversion, so the references to B.C. Ferry Corporation…. It's a technical, legal proce- dure, because upon conversion, all of this then would apply to B.C. Ferry Services. J. MacPhail: Okay. Look, I don't understand it, but my questions are on the record. I assume that greater minds than mine are straightening all of this out —

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5627 except that 13(1) is pretty key because this government has a history of saying CEOs are chairs. I understand I made a mistake in this particular situation, because I think the CEO is Mr. Doug Allen, so that's not the case here. But it is the case at Hydro, and it's the case at ICBC. The two largest corporations have the CEO as the chair. I take it that the legal officers of the govern- ment have this all straightened out.

Section 13(6) says: "The directors must make public the location of the Authority's head office." Is there a possibility that the authority's head office will not be Fleet House? Hon. J. Reid: The necessity here is that the records of the authority need to be available, so it's important for people to know where the authority's head office is. That's why it's included. The intent of the board for this next year is that, while within transition, the head of- fice will be remaining in Victoria. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I missed that part. The head office will remain in Victoria? I didn't hear the last part. Hon. J.

Reid: The intent of the current board in the transition is that the head office this next year would remain in Victoria. J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, Fleet House has a long history to it. I certainly hope that history continues. [1600] You know what would help me greatly? The corpo- ration did provide me with this, and I just don't have it in my binder here. It was a diagram of how the author- ity relates, etc., because this next section…. I'm won- dering whether they have an extra copy of that. It was like a chart. That might help me. My apologies.

The corporation did provide me with that, and I just don't have it here. The next question here is on…. Oh, sorry. Are we on

section 14 yet? Okay. [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. J. Reid: We will get the chart and provide it to the member.

Section 13 approved. On

section 14. J. MacPhail:

Section 14 is remuneration for direc- tors. Now, does this

section apply to the directors that will be in place…? What directors does it apply to? Hon. J. Reid: This applies to the authority directors. J. MacPhail: Okay, so perhaps the minister could explain 14(2)(b).

It says: "if, on any day for which the director" — w h i c h I a s s u m e i s o f t h e a u t h o r i t y — "is not receiving remuneration from British Columbia Ferry Corporation, the director performs directorial services for the Authority, the director is entitled to remuneration for that day equivalent to the daily re- m u n e r a t i o n t h a t m a y b e p a i d t o a d i r e c t o r o f B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation for performing a similar service." Hon. J. Reid: For the first year the directors are the same on the authority and B.C. Ferry Services, so this avoids them getting paid twice.

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. J. MacPhail: Will annual general meetings be con- ducted? I notice this says that the authority must hold an annual general meeting within six months after the end of each of its fiscal years. Is that the same require- ment as under the Company Act? Hon. J. Reid: We're not sure whether it's four or six. We're getting that information right now to answer the member's question precisely. J. MacPhail: T h i s q u e s t i o n m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e t o

section 19, but I'll ask it, and if it's appropriate to sec- tion 19, the minister can just answer it under 19. I note here that the annual general meeting must be open to the public; subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the directors, the public can address the meeting; and directors must place the annual report before the annual general meeting. These are provisions that are also available under the Company Act, soon to be the Business Corporations Act. [1605] If this corporation is being privatized, why do we need this legislation? Why can't we just do it under the…?

I understand why we need it for transition, but why do we need this legislation if the corporation is really a private model under the Company Act? Hon. J. Reid: This legislation is largely about trans- parency, about people being able to understand the conversion. The member would note that the majority of this legislation, by far, relates to the creation of the authority and the authority holding the share. Cer- tainly, very little of it relates to B.C. Ferry Services, because the member is correct: it will be governed un- der the Company Act. J. MacPhail: Okay.

I appreciate this chart the minis- ter has sent over. Of course, the new business structure doesn't have the B.C. Ferry Corporation in it. My ques- tions still apply about where it will be that…. Let me ask this. I assume there will be a CEO of the authority? Hon. J. Reid: There won't be a CEO of the author- ity. It's just the board. J. MacPhail: Who will be the head guy operating it — or person or woman? Where will that person reside on this chart, and what will her title be?

5628 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: The operation of the ferries takes place under B.C. Ferry Services, and the authority is the governing entity over B.C. Ferry Services. That author- ity has the board structured with coastal representa- tion, etc. The CEO comes in under the B.C. Ferry Ser- vices and on the operational side. J. MacPhail: I know we've passed

section 13, and I don't plan to revisit the vote on it, but 13(1), where it says: "The directors may appoint one of their number as chair but in no event may the chief executive officer of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation be the chair of the directors of the authority…." Let me ask this question: can the CEO of B.C. Ferry Services be the chair of the B.C. Ferry Authority? Hon. J. Reid: The answer is no. J. MacPhail: How would I know that from this leg- islation? Hon. J. Reid: Everything that applies to B.C. Ferry Corporation continues after the conversion into B.C. Ferry Services. J. MacPhail: Fair enough. Do we know that from

section 19? I'm just looking for it. Sorry. Hon. J. Reid: W e h a v e v e r y p u b l i c l y s t a t e d t h a t the new corporation will be B.C. Ferry Services Inc.

Section 19 refers to the conversion. We stated publicly that the name of the new company will be B.C. Ferry Services Inc.

Section 19, indeed, talks about that con- version. [1610] J. MacPhail: I just think that for public transpar- ency, it would be nice somewhere in the legislation to have the words "B.C. Ferry Services." I can't find it anywhere. I know I'm not the test for people who can understand these things, but a lot of the documentation in this legislation, and the reason why it exists here, is to explain the conversion. I'm getting confused by the fact that the first 18 clauses refer to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and limits on the directors there and the relationship of that to the authority, when indeed in the new model, starting on

section 19, the new business structure is the rela- tionship between the Ferry Authority, B.C. Ferry Ser- vices and the regulator. It's just a suggestion that per- h a p s t h a t l i n k c o u l d b e m a d e i n l e g i s l a t i o n . I t ' s n o t necessarily the name that I'm interested in. When the previous government established the Greater Van- couver Transportation Authority, that transportation authority changed its name or named itself differ- ently, but at least the legislation was transparent on that front.

Section 18 approved. On

section 19. J. MacPhail:

Section 19 is the conversion section, conversion division, where the B.C. Ferry Corporation will no longer exist, and the new structure is created under the Company Act. This

section also says that on conversion the Ferry Corporation Act is repealed, and without limitation the corporation ceases to be an agent of the government, and the Minister of Finance ceases to be the fiscal agent for the corporation. My first questions are on whether the business structure and the financial arrangements regarding the coastal ferry services con- tract have been approved by the auditor general. Hon. J. Reid: The auditor general has been exten- sively consulted and worked with and has been pro- vided briefings and briefing materials on the B.C. Fer- ries restructuring as it has developed.

Based on these consultations, the auditor general has confirmed that he supports the proposed accounting. The auditor gen- eral's final review will be when he releases his opinion on the

summary financial statements of the province in 2004. J. MacPhail: How would I know that the auditor general supports this? How would the public know it? Hon. J. Reid: I am telling the member that this con- sultation has occurred, that the auditor general has confirmed his support of the proposed accounting. I suppose if the member wants further confirmation, she's free to talk to the auditor general. [1615] J. MacPhail: Yes, I will do that. Here are the ques- tions that either the minister can answer, or the auditor general can.

There is a history around auditors general allowing relationships between government and vari- ous government-provided services to be severed or not. That relationship is determined by the financial link between the commercial, privatized corporation and the government. The coastal ferry services contract is a $105 million, 60-year continuous link between government and the new corporation. Proportionately, that is a much stronger link than existed between the government of the day and Skeena Cellulose, for instance.

Skeena Cel- lulose, as I understand it, was issued an opinion by the auditor general that it was not a separate enough link from the government to be declared a separate and privatized entity. These kinds of things are very important, because it would only be the auditor general's opinion confirming the separation of government and corporation that would allow the corporation's debt to be off-book. Hon. J. Reid: The criteria that we've been looking at and discussing with the auditor general are based around the issue of control. In this particular set of cir- cumstances, the authority and B.C.

Ferry Services are separate from government. The issue of control and the criteria around control are defined in accounting prac- tices and in the accounting profession.

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5629 With regard to the contract, the contract is a fee-for- service, and that's not seen as an issue of control. As well, while we have a 60-year lease, it's a five-year commitment within those 60 years. J. MacPhail: Yes, but a fee-for-service can also be determined to be rent. It's a relationship where a ser- vice is provided, and the government pays the corpora- tion for that service.

I mean, I'm fine if the auditor general has signed off on this, but I'd sure like to know how it distinguishes from other decisions that the auditor general has made in relationship to the Ferry Corporation. The minister herself has been floating how there were previous deals examined, so she must be familiar with where the auditor general has declared certain financial arrange- ments — where construction is going to be off book, but there's going to be a leaseback or a contract for those services — to not be sufficient separation to allow for that debt to be off-book.

The rulings that the auditor general made around Skeena Cellulose Inc…. This government made a big deal about having to write down that debt, etc. — a huge deal. I'm just wondering how this particular situation has been distinguished from those past decisions by auditors general. How would I find that out? [1620] Hon. J. Reid: We certainly have done a lot of analy- sis of this. We can provide the member with the criteria that we have used for the analysis and how we have come to that conclusion. I certainly understand the member's concerns. Those were certainly government's concerns as well.

We have worked through this process quite diligently. I think one of the factors is that the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation was taken on by government a number of years ago. Its debt is considerably lessened, moving forward into the new model. J. MacPhail: No, I'm not worried about the cur- rent debt. This is about future debt that will be in- curred by the corporation. In fact, I think the whole reason why this model is being set up is to make sure that future debt incurred in building ferries will be off-book. It's not about anything in the past. It's about the future. I'm not quite clear.

Was the minister offering me the criteria of the auditor general? That's great. I would like that, if I may, before the estimates, so we can ex- plore that at the time. I also make note that unless I missed something, and I'm not absent from this House very often, the House Leader hasn't appointed and allowed for the convening of the Public Accounts Committee. He promised he would. The previous Public Accounts Committee asked for that to be done urgently. It still hasn't happened, and we're a third of the way through this session. I'm quite curious as to why that is.

Perhaps the minister could urge the House Leader to convene the selection committee so that the Public Accounts Committee can be appointed. Until that is done, none of these questions can be asked. Certainly, it's a blight on the record of the government in terms of the work of this Legislature. Under

section 19,

section 19(4) allows for the crea- tion of subsidiaries. It also says it will "…establish a subsidiary for its maintenance and refit operations." I assume that's the work that's currently done by Deas dock. Perhaps the minister could confirm that. Does it incorporate any other work done elsewhere, physically, by the corporation? Hon. J. Reid: Yes, this is in reference to Deas dock. The only other subsidiary is CFI, which will get col- lapsed. This

section does allow for the creation of other subsidiaries in the future for good business reasons. J. MacPhail: Do successor rights apply? Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'd better make that clear. Do successor rights under the Labour Relations Code apply to the creation of this subsidiary? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. J. MacPhail: In the briefing, the corporation staff talked to us about pension and benefits, etc. Can the minister, for the record, explain what work is being done to ensure a proper succession of transfer? Hon. J. Reid: I would ask that we deal with that when we get to the

section under employees, which is just a few sections long. I'm sure there will be other questions with regard to employees.

Section 19 approved. On

section 20. Hon. J. Reid: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 20 that is in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 20, (

a) by deleting the proposed subsection (3), and (

b) by renumbering the proposed subsection (4) as subsection (3).] On the amendment. [1625] J. MacPhail: Is this adding or changing what has to be provided in the terms of service plans? Perhaps the minister could explain the amendment. It's just the amendment to

section 69 that I'm interested in. Hon. J. Reid: I'm not quite sure of the member's question. There are the three amendments:

section 20,

section 30 and

section 69. If she's referring to

section 69, do you want that explanation when we get to

section 69, then? J. MacPhail: Oh, sorry.

5630 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: We're on

section 20 now. The ques- tion I have is: did she want an explanation around the amendment to

section 20 at this moment? J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. All my amendments are on the same page, but I see there are three separate amendments. My apologies. Yes, that's fine. Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved. Sections 21 and 22 approved. On

section 23. J. MacPhail:

Section 23 talks about the transfer of employees to the maintenance subsidiary.

Section 22, just for the record, talked about transfer of all other employees. Perhaps the minister could explain, in the context of

section 23, what the provisions are now for working with the union about transfer of employees in relation to wages, working conditions and benefits. Hon. J. Reid: With the agreement of the pension trustees, all new employees will continue to be covered in the public service pension plan at a minimum to April 30, 2004. All existing employees will remain un- der the public service pension plan as well. With re- gard to all the other benefits, all the other benefits con- tinue. [1630] J. MacPhail: So the terms of the collective agree- ment apply beyond the benefits as well? Hon. J. Reid: Yes, successorship applies.

J. MacPhail: What's the expiry of the collective agreements? Hon. J. Reid: October 31, 2003. J. MacPhail: That's an interesting date, because of course, the new authority board — the new board, not the interim board — will not be in place. So how does bargaining take place? Hon. J. Reid: The bargaining is conducted between B.C. Ferry Services and its employees in every normal way. It's not done with the authority. J. MacPhail: Yes, but it's the authority that has to ratify the contract. Anyway, it'll just make for an inter- esting round…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Sorry?

The board of directors doesn't have to ratify the contract? Well, who does? Hon. J. Reid: It's the board of the new company, B.C. Ferry Services. J. MacPhail: Oh, I see. So there will be…. Well, let's back up a step, then. The board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Services is different than the board of directors of the authority. Am I right? Is that what the minister was saying? Hon. J. Reid: They are two separate legal entities. They could have the same members. They potentially could have different members on those two boards. The board that has to ratify will be the B.C. Ferry Ser- vices. J.

MacPhail: Sorry, could the minister point out to me…? Is it under the Company Act, then, that the board of the B.C. Ferry Services is established? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. J. MacPhail: And the government will have no in- put into that board whatsoever, then? Hon. J. Reid: It will be determined by the authority, not the government. J. MacPhail: Okay, we're looking at this in terms of ratification of collective agreements; that's why I'm discussing this. The collective agreement expires while the interim B.C. Ferry Authority board is in place and the new Ferry Authority board isn't in place. So the B.C.

Ferry Services operating company will have its own board of directors established by the Company Act, and they will be the ones determining ratification of the collective agreement. Hon. J. Reid: The answer to the question is yes. However, the board of the B.C. Ferry Services will ini- tially be the same as the board of the authority. [1635] J. MacPhail: Sorry, I apologize for being so thick here. Could the minister refer me to a model elsewhere that I could look at where there's that relationship? B.C. Ferry Services is the holding company; it's not the sub- sidiary.

I was trying to think about whether this was the same as the relationship between the GVTA and TransLink board of authority, and then there's several operating companies beneath that have their own boards of directors — except that B.C. Ferry Services is the holding company from which subsidiaries flow. Am I correct? Hon. J. Reid: I want to clarify the role of the author- ity and B.C. Ferry Services and any subsidiary. The authority is there to provide the overall governance, and it holds the voting share. It provides the govern- ance. We then have the B.C. Ferry Services. This is not a holding company.

This operating company, in the

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5631 model…. If we look at the airport model, they're one and the same. Here we've separated them so that they're not one and the same. There is that distance; there is that independence. There is that differentiation between. Any subsidiary — for example, Deas dock mainte- nance — would then have its own board of directors. That board of directors would be determined by B.C. Ferry Services. J. MacPhail: Again, this goes back to my point. B.C.

Ferry Services isn't mentioned anywhere in the act — not that I can find — unless the government has combed through and can point to me where B.C. Ferry Services is listed. B.C. Ferry Corporation is listed, but there is no conversion other than the ferry corporation to the authority. When I was asking for other mod- els…. Even the Vancouver Airport Authority model isn't this. [1640] The board of directors for the B.C. Ferry Services will be determined…. Come April 1, it's going to be the same board as the B.C. Ferry Authority.

Isn't that kind of like a magic line, like the dotted line between the two is irrelevant? If they're both the same board, if there's no legislative protection for the B.C. Ferry Ser- vices board of directors, why separate them? It cer- tainly isn't separated in reality. Hon. J. Reid: I did want to respond to the question about B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and where that appears. It was in my second reading address, in talking about B.C. Ferry Services.

As I mentioned earlier — for the purposes of legislation, because this gets proclaimed technically before the conversion — all the wording here legally has to refer to B.C. Ferries Corp, which then gets rolled into B.C. Ferry Services. I apologize that I hadn't made that point earlier, but it was in my second reading address. There are differences between the authority and the B.C. Ferry Services, and there's a difference in the roles. During the transition they are the same members, but there's no need for them to be the same members in the future.

The roles are such that the authority has the role and the members of the board of the authority have the role to act as shareholder and governance in that as- pect. The members of the board of the B.C. Ferry Services act as operating and looking over the operations of B.C. Ferry Services. Certainly, there is a difference in that approach, that role and those responsibilities. So while during the transition the boards are one and the same, there is no need in the future for that to be the case. J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister, then, could ex- plain. If in the future they're not one and the same, how does B.C.

Ferry Services operating company board of directors get appointed? Hon. J. Reid: Under the Company Act, by the au- thority who is the shareholder. J. MacPhail: So for all intents and purposes, for this round of negotiations in late 2003 it will be the B.C. Ferry Authority that will be ratifying the collective agreement, because it's the same as the B.C. Ferry Ser- vices operating company board of directors. Yet I as- sume that board of directors is the same board that will be changed come April 1, 2004. Has the minister con- templated that in determining collective bargaining — the expiry of it?

It does seem to me that it's almost as if negotiations will take place…. The reason why this is important is because I think the wage bill is fully a third of operating costs or maybe even more — no, about a third of operating costs. It's a huge bill. Is it not possible, then, that the collective agreement could be renegotiated without the approval of the new board or without the acquiescence of the new board which will be appointed three months later? Hon. J. Reid: I am somewhat puzzled over what the issue is. Let me be clear, because there are legalities involved.

There is a separation between the board of the authority and the board of B.C. Ferry Services after transition, after the changes here. Yet they are the same p e o p l e , s o w e h a v e t o b e c a r e f u l t o s a y t h a t i t i s t h e board of B.C. Ferry Services that will be responsible for the contract. Indeed, yes, they are the same people, but there is a legality there — so just to clarify that. [1645] Yes, there's ongoing business. Yes, there will be a la- bour agreement that has to be reached. Yes, subsequent to that, there will be changes in the board.

Yes, those are the practicalities as we move forward. I'm not sure what is disturbing to the member about these realities. J. MacPhail: Well, I asked the minister at the very beginning why the necessity for a year of an interim board. That was to provide consistency. There was a lot of business to be done. But we have a situation here where fully one-third of the operating costs of the au- thority, which is theoretically independent, will be predetermined by the interim board.

It could either tie the hands of the future board or be unduly harsh on the employees, which wouldn't be the wish of the per- m ane nt b o ard . I t d o e s s e e m t o b e a b i t we i rd t hat t he interim board will be responsible for determining fully one-third of the operating costs. I may have that figure underestimated, by the way. I thought it was around a couple of hundred million dollars or maybe $280 million — the wage bill and benefits — out of about a $600 million operating cost. That's what I remember, but I could be wrong.

That huge chunk of operating costs would be em- bedded for quite a period of time and then handed over to the independent authority. That's all I'm saying. If one wants to give true independence to the author- ity, perhaps that should have been considered in the timing of the transition. Hon. J. Reid: There is a transition period. That tran- sition period does include labour negotiation. Labour

5632 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 negotiation is just that: negotiation. Moving forward, there will be more labour negotiations in the future un- der different boards of directors. Again, it's a reality; it's a business practice. I have confidence that they're going to be able to conduct themselves with their employees in a manner that's going to work. Obviously, it has to work. The employees are very valuable for the ongoing success of this new entity. Again, the answer is yes. These will be the directors, and the new corporation will have to nego- tiate that contract.

We have to learn how to live together and move on — yes. J. MacPhail: Is the new permanent authority board appointed April 1, 2004, legally required to assume the contract negotiated by the interim board? Hon. J. Reid: Yes. Sections 23 and 24 approved. On

section 25. [1650] J. MacPhail:

Section 25 is entitled "Essential service designation and other Labour Relations C

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0325pm 04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0325pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	72abd9475a10c87ce55ed1d9f7bc776307893943

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