2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 67)

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59)

Hon. G. Collins

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60)

Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C.

B. Suffredine

Management of Coquihalla Highway

J. MacPhail

Economic development in Surrey-Tynehead area

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Alcan power production in Kitimat

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Thorpe

Hon. R. Neufeld

Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

Government action on mad cow disease

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van Dongen

B.C. economy and enterprise zones

T. Bhullar

Hon. R. Thorpe

Softwood lumber negotiations and World Trade Organization ruling

P. Bell

Hon. M. de Jong

Management of Coquihalla Highway

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

Petitions

H. Bloy

R. Harris

Tabling Documents

A Review of Performance Agreements between the Ministry of Health

Services

and the Health Authorities , auditor general report No. 1, 2003-04

Statement of 2002-03 Borrowings, Schedules A, B, C and D

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Patty Sahota to Finance and Government Services Committee

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64)

Hon. J. Reid

J. MacPhail

P. Nettleton

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

Hon. G. Plant

P. Nettleton

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58)

Hon. G. Collins

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Committee of the Whole House

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

Third Reading of Bills

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

J. Kwan

K. Krueger

Hon. K. Whittred

B. Lekstrom

Hon. C. Hansen

V. Anderson

R. Lee

J. Nuraney

[ Page 6985 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: I'm pleased — along, I'm sure, with other Members of the

Legislative Assembly — to welcome people from Kitimat: Gaetan Pozsgay, Ray

Brady and Ruth Brady, all of the Save the Northwest coalition. They are also

joined by Rick Belmont, president of the Kitimat CAW; Gord Lechner, recording

secretary of the Kitimat CAW; and Ross Slezak, vice-president of the Kitimat

CAW. They're down here to meet with many of us, and I would ask the House to

please make them welcome.

Harris: I also would like to take this opportunity to welcome some guests

from Kitimat, who have come a long way today: Mayor Rick Wozney and his wife,

Christine; councillors Bob Corless, Linda Campbell, Trafford Hall and Monika

Lange. The CAO is Trafford Hall. Also, from the Save the Northwest committee, we

have Tony Deni, Allan Hewitson, Reg Stowell, Tom Goyert, Cindy Goyert and Carl

Whicher.

[1405]

Over the

next two days, this group of people will be meeting with a number of ministers

and ministries in this precinct to try to find a strategy so that we can work

together again to find not just how we can achieve a rebuild and an expansion of

the Alcan facility in Kitimat but how we can attract additional investment into

the northwest and get that area really rolling again. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to introduce Capt. Balbir Singh Bath. He's a member of

the official opposition party in the Punjab Legislative Assembly in India.

Presently he's the MLA for Shri Hargobindpur Sahib in my family home's

constituency. He served as a captain in the Indian army for six years. He's

visiting Canada to meet with his family and to attend his niece's wedding. He's

accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Kalhon of Victoria. Would the House please make them

feel very welcome.

Stewart: Joining us today is Janice Elkerton, a councillor from Pitt

Meadows. Janice is here today in her position as chair of the Municipal

Insurance Association and is here to talk to members on insurance liability

issues. Will the House please make her welcome.

Penner: It's my honour and privilege today to introduce a friend and

colleague from Washington State. Jeff Morris has been a representative since

1996. In that period of time he's been elected four times. Think of the

perpetual campaigns he's been involved in. He currently chairs Washington

State's legislative committee on telecommunications, technology and energy.

He's a past

president of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, and he has been instrumental

in Washington State in sponsoring a resolution supporting British Columbia's

2010 Olympic bid proposal. In fact, once that resolution was endorsed in

Washington State, other states throughout the Pacific Northwest also endorsed

the resolution, modeled largely on the Washington State model. We're very

grateful for Washington State's support and for the leadership shown by Jeff

Morris of Washington State. Would the House please make him welcome.

Bennett: I'd like to introduce Rod Niedermayer and Scott Niedermayer today.

They can't be here this afternoon because they're both busy in New Jersey this

evening. I know that a lot of British Columbians were disappointed when the

Vancouver Canucks were beaten out of the playoffs and then the Ottawa team, so

we have no Canadian representation there. But one thing is for sure: we will

have the Stanley Cup coming back to the great city of Cranbrook this year,

because either Scott Niedermayer or Rod Niedermayer will win the cup. Best of

luck to both of them, and thanks to their parents for spending all the time that

they did when those kids were growing up, teaching them how to skate and be good

athletes and good people.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the House today are 23 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's

Catholic Elementary School in Victoria. They're accompanied by their teacher,

Ms. Kathleen O'Neill, and two parents, Monica Chiu and Melanie Umali. These

students have been here for a couple of hours, and I can assure members that I

endured a question period during lunch that was quite intense. Our future is

bright with these young people, and I ask the House to please make them all very

welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 44 grade 5 and grade 4

students visiting from Dogwood Elementary School from my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Ms. Reena Chohan and Ms. Lynda

Eccleston and Mr. Bruce MacPherson, as well as five parent volunteers who have

taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the

House please make them very welcome.

Krueger: Although I can't see him, I understand there's a young man from

Smithers in the gallery. His name is Murray Huxtable. He married the younger

cousin of my legislative assistant, and her name is Christine Puhallo. If the

sergeant-at-arms let him get away with it, he'll be wearing a Stetson. They turn

up at the sides like that so we can fit three of them in a pickup truck. His

family are big supporters of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — he and

his wife and his parents. It's a pleasure to have them here. I ask the House to

make him welcome.

[1410]

Mayencourt: In the gallery we have a couple of guests from Simon Fraser

University. Mr. Ernie Love is

[ Page 6986 ]

the dean of SFU school of business, and joining him is Marg Vandenberg, who

is the associate director of special projects. Marg is a frequent visitor to

Victoria, and she always makes the most of her time here

always makes the most of her time here, making sure she gets to be in front

of a variety of people to make sure that she does her good work for Simon

Fraser.

We've just

had a meeting with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise on the

Telus new ventures project which our government has supported for the last three

years, and I know that we had a breakfast for MLAs with the SFU group as well.

They'll also be having a meeting with the Minister of Advanced Education. Would

the House please make these good friends of ours very, very welcome.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's been a good day for a couple of reasons, not the least of

which is that my parents, Ann and Jack de Jong, are here in the precincts. They

are squiring across beautiful British Columbia Betsy and Piet van Hal, who are

visiting from Schyndel in the Netherlands. Please, everyone, make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY CHARTER

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

Hon. T.

Nebbeling presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments

and Other Amendments Act, 2003.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move that the bill be placed…. Sorry, that's the wrong slip.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the bill be read for the first time now. Oh, you said it

already. Sorry about that. I'm still confused about Schyndel.

I'm pleased

to present the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential

Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Recently we honoured the longstanding

request of local governments and introduced a community charter. The charter

provides the foundation for a new relationship between local and provincial

governments based on mutual respect and public accountability. Typically,

transitional provisions and consequential amendments are at the end of a bill.

However, today we're introducing these provisions and amendments separately in

legislation due to the volume, particularly with regard to the Local Government

Act. The vast majority of today's provisions are minor technical updates which

are part of the legislative process. We are carrying through the intent of the

community charter, and this act is part of the transition phase.

I move that

the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and

Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the first question is introduction and first reading

of Bill 67.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Once again I move that the Community Charter Transitional

Provisions…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order please, so that I may hear.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: …Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be

placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House.

Bill 67

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[1415]

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Financial Administration Amendment

Act, 2003, which amends the Financial Administration Act. The bill serves two

main purposes. No. 1, it updates the debt management provisions of the Financial

Administration Act to bring it in line with the current financial market

practices and provide the flexibility to accommodate future changes. No. 2, it

clarifies the Minister of Finance's authority to borrow for the government and

government bodies and manage the provincial debt. Since enactment of the

Financial Administration Act in 1981, the financial markets have undergone

significant change, which in turn has impacted how issuers borrow and manage

their debt. As part of the government's commitment to restoring sound fiscal

management, it's important that we adapt the Financial Administration Act to

better reflect changing business practices and support effective debt

management. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure the transparency

and accountability of government for debt management.

[ Page 6987 ]

I move the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 59

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act,

2003, which will amend the Business Corporations Act. The Business Corporations

Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2002, but has yet to

be brought into force. The act will replace the existing Company Act as the

comprehensive code for the organization and governance of companies in the

province. It's a significant and substantial piece of legislation and contains

many cutting-edge features intended to enhance British Columbia's business

environment.

The

amendments in this bill are primarily technical in nature. They correct errors,

clarify language and address issues identified both by the public and during

development of the corporate registry's automated filing systems. As well, the

act contains consequential amendments to over 100 statutes that reference the

current Company Act to reflect the new language and the new corporate registry

processes of the Business Corporations Act. Together these amendments represent

an important step on the road to implementing the new Business Corporations Act.

I move the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 60

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 b )

2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

BENEFITS TO B.C.

Suffredine: Today I have more good news. Some people say they don't want the

Olympics. They want proof that heartland residents will benefit. Well, I have

proof.

I received

an e-mail from the Creston tourist information operator that in a single day

recently, they had two unique visitor groups. First came a couple from

Switzerland on their honeymoon. While in Salzburg they heard of Vancouver's bid,

saw pictures of how beautiful British Columbia was and decided to come here

instead for a month-long honeymoon.

Next came a

couple from Italy, where the 2006 Winter Games are to be held. The gentleman

works with the Paralympic Games and was here looking at training facilities and

training opportunities in the Kootenays. He was excited about the Kootenays, its

spectacular beauty and how accommodating the people are here.

It's only

May of 2003, and the benefits have already begun in the Kootenays. Money spent

by tourists and others we've not heard about yet will create profits and jobs

for tourism operators and small businesses. That will boost our economy and

provide more resources for government that can be invested in health care,

education and other services. We in heartland communities in the Kootenays can

benefit from higher tourist revenues until 2010 and beyond if we take this

opportunity to promote the Olympics.

The best

news is that tourists want to see ski hills, golf courses, lakes and mountains.

Those are found in the heartlands, not the heart of Vancouver. We have an

opportunity of Olympic magnitude. Let's use the Olympic bid to showcase our

communities and our province to the world. Julius Caesar would say: " Carpe

diem ." I agree. Let's seize our time to shine.

MANAGEMENT

OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MacPhail: I rise today to speak about the government's plans to sell off the

revenue stream from the Coquihalla, though "selling off" might more

accurately be put as "borrowing against the revenue stream to mitigate the

effect of failed economic policies."

I attended

a town hall meeting in Kamloops last week, as did the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson. The meeting was packed with citizens from all walks

of life, from every age group. In my years of elected politics, I have never

seen a community so united in opposition to a government initiative in the way

that communities up and down the Coquihalla corridor have united in a matter of

weeks.

[1420]

These

communities accepted the toll when it was brought in 17 years ago in good faith,

believing that, as promised, it would be eliminated when the capital costs of

the highway were paid for. That promise of elimination has been amended slightly

by the government to now read "55 more years." It's not surprising

that the residents are feeling betrayed. It's not surprising that there's anger.

But this is a unity of opposition that actually transcends partisan affiliation,

as I'm sure all MLAs from the interior and the Okanagan are finding. Chambers of

commerce, mayors, city and town councils and just plain ordinary folks are

dismayed by these actions.

The

government is very proud of the fact that it has renamed the interior and the

Okanagan as the heart-

[ Page 6988 ]

lands. Apparently, however, that's not the only name change being

contemplated in British Columbia. I don't mean to be cheeky, but residents of

Kamloops have told me that if this sellout goes through, they'll be petitioning

the government to rename the Coquihalla the Krueger-bahn.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IN SURREY-TYNEHEAD AREA

Hayer: We have accomplished a great deal this last legislative session and

in the first half of our government's mandate. We are making some difficult

choices, but I feel they are decisions that will help turn this province around

and benefit all British Columbians in the long term.

As we wrap

up this session, I would like to touch on the some of the government's

achievements that are having a positive impact on Surrey-Tynehead constituents.

Barnston Island constituents are extremely pleased by the decision not to have a

levy on ferry tolls. Construction will soon begin in Port Kells on the new

crossing of the Fraser River. Progress is being made on the completion of the

South Fraser perimeter road after significant input from many constituents. We

are also looking at twinning of the Port Mann, new overpasses and crossings in

many key interchanges in my riding, as well as four-laning 176th Street and

Highway 10.

partnership with the federal government, over $200 million is being invested

into transportation upgrades in Surrey alone, and $30 million more to fund the

border crossing initiative. Another $6 million is being invested into Surrey's

infrastructure — meters that will improve water conservation.

We have

committed $716,000 to the Surrey Public Library to ensure that our local

libraries remain an effective community resource; $20,000 for SHARP, Surrey's

salmon enhancement program; a $650,000 grant to the B.C. Family Hearing Resource

Centre, and much more.

Yes, it has

been a busy session, but it will also be a busy summer. One of the first events

is the South Fraser child development centre walk-run fundraiser on Sunday, June

8, in Bear Creek Park. Another big event will be my annual community barbecue

picnic on August 10 in Fleetwood Park. We had thousands attend last year, and I

look forward to another successful event where constituents can meet and chat

with me about their ideas for making our community a better place to live. I

will also continue having my monthly coffee mornings with my constituents on the

first Saturday of every month.

Oral Questions

ALCAN POWER PRODUCTION IN KITIMAT

MacPhail: Three days after the election of the Liberal government, Alcan

smelting operations in Kitimat were reduced by 40 percent and the surplus power

put on the open market. Some were not surprised. They point to statements made

early on by company officials that they are "in the power business, not the

aluminum business."

For 50

years the government of British Columbia has held Alcan to its original

commitment of cheap power for economic development in the community. It's a

publicly held resource used in a sustainable way for the benefit to the

immediate community, as well as the province as a whole. Surplus power might

occasionally be exported from the community, but the priority was always clear.

Residents

of Kitimat here in the gallery today and the thousands back home they represent

want to hear from the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise that

despite whatever backroom discussions took place before the election, despite

whatever secret handshakes are taking place, this minister will not allow Alcan

to abandon its contract with the people of Kitimat and of British Columbia.

Will he

rise today to commit that power generated by Nechako water will be used for the

community?

[1425]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, I might remind this House that it was that member

there and her government that signed the last agreements with respect to Alcan

and the use of power and those outstanding issues. Secondly, let me say that we

take our role very, very importantly. We see that the northwest has tremendous

economic opportunity. We see that we have a base there that we can grow and have

a vision of prosperity.

I very much

look forward to meeting with the delegates, some today and some tomorrow, so

that we can work together and forge economic opportunity and job creation

throughout the entire northwest part of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, it's not a moment too soon. This problem has been going on

since three days after that minister's election. The community is now in a state

of devastation. Clearly, that's just more evidence that the heartlands strategy

is nothing more than a devious political strategy, devoid of any real care for

the well-being, or this minister would have been meeting with the community well

over a year ago.

But even

assuming that that minister is sincere in his defence of the indefensible,

there's more to the story. The Minister of Energy and Mines has made much of

this government's initiative to encourage the development of small, independent

power producers through a new power pricing structure, a pricing structure that

actually sees prices of approximately $35 per megawatt-hour. Currently, the

facility operated by Alcan produces power with public resource at $5 per

megawatt-hour.

Can the

Minister of Energy tell this House whether the power that Alcan wants to put on

the transmission

[ Page 6989 ]

company's lines to sell to British Columbians will be given the old price or

the new price? If Alcan will be getting the open-market price, will he also tell

this House why the enormous profit, based on some of the cheapest power

available on this continent, will go into the pockets of European investors and

none to the people of British Columbia who own that resource?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We as a government have committed, in our new energy plan, to

involve independent power producers in developing new power projects in British

Columbia. This is good news for British Columbia, because it will allow us to

maintain our rates as low as we possibly can, going well into the future.

On the

member's question about Alcan's power, it remains to be seen what takes place.

As I understand, and as the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has

just explained, he has met and I have met with that community a number of times

in the past number of years in regard to economic development and continuing

economic development in the Kitimat area producing aluminum in the province. We

want to continue that.

We will

move forward with working with that community and with Alcan as best as we

possibly can, so we can actually have production and jobs carry on in the

Pacific Northwest — much better than what was done by that member when she was

in government.

BOLIDEN MINE OPERATIONS IN

STRATHCONA PARK

J. Kwan:

Earlier this month the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection told this

House that this government did not receive any formal proposals by Boliden mines

for activity in Strathcona Park. Yet on April 9 of this year the Minister of

Energy and Mines responded to citizens inquiring about the safety of Strathcona

Park by acknowledging a proposal from Boliden. He said, for example, that the

proposal would save Boliden mines $500,000 in fuel costs. Here's the letter that

backs it up.

Where did

he get that number? He got it from this PowerPoint presentation from Boliden's

proposal. This is a proposal to conduct hydroelectric generation activities in a

class A park. You could expect the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management

— the very same person who, as a Socred minister in 1987, was promoting mining

and logging in Strathcona Park…. Surely the term "protection" was

included in this minister's title to actually mean something.

[1430]

Can the

minister responsible for parks tell us today if she is being deliberately kept

out of the loop on the proposal to siphon off water from these pristine

high-alpine lakes? Perhaps she has simply decided to ignore this threat to the

park. Or is she deliberately hiding government's involvement with the proposal

from this House?

Hon. J.

Murray: There have been presentations by Boliden. We welcome presentations

in this government from businesses, individuals and organizations in any

particular activity that they would propose to government. There has been no

formal proposal or application to this government, and until there is such,

there is not an application or formal proposal for this government to consider.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The Friends of Strathcona Park, who met with the minister yesterday, left the

meeting shaking their heads. Today those who care about the park and are

listening to this question period must be shaking their heads now.

I'm told

that the minister told the Friends of Strathcona Park at their meeting yesterday

that if somebody has another idea of what to do with provincial parks, the

minister felt she has an obligation to entertain that application. The minister

herself said, when questioned in this House, that this project would not be

considered "until the proposal is received."

The Friends

of Strathcona Park and British Columbians concerned about the status of parks

throughout this province don't want to hear from a minister who won't take

action until she receives a proposal for alternate use of their precious park. A

park is a park. They want to hear the minister say today that she will protect

the parks that we've cared enough.…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order. Order, please.

Will the

member now please put her question.

J. Kwan:

They want to hear the minister say that she will protect the parks, that we've

cared enough to write legislation on them and that no one should bother writing

any proposals for them.

Will the

minister commit to this House today that no proposal for alternate use of this

park or any other park will be entertained? Will she tell the Liberal Party

big-business campaign donors that the parks are not for sale in British

Columbia?

Hon. J.

Murray: As I previously said, Boliden has made presentations to a number of

different groups, including some ministries in government, but there has been no

formal application.

I want to

reiterate that the park system in British Columbia is one of the jewels in our

crown. It's incredibly important to British Columbians. It's the core of our

tourism industry. We have made a new-era commitment that we will not have

logging or mining in parks.

We are

protecting our parks. This ministry has been working in a number of ways to

finance the very park system that that member's government failed to fund so

that we have a $40 million backlog in parks as we speak.

[ Page 6990 ]

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON MAD COW DISEASE

Nettleton: BSE, better known as mad cow disease, is now a very serious

concern to ranchers and consumers in British Columbia, since it has been

disclosed that mad cow–contaminated feed may have been fed to cows here in

this province. I know there's more than one rancher, in fact, here in this

House. One of the three farms placed under quarantine is in Prince George. Is

the minister in touch with the federal investigators, specifically the Canadian

Food Inspection Agency?

A further

concern, even with the federal ban on feeding cows food containing cattle

carcasses, is that small farms do not have the facilities to sufficiently

separate bovine chicken food from non-bovine feed. In light of this, would the

minister consider pursuing a complete ban on cattle carcasses and remains being

processed into any and all feeds here in British Columbia?

[1435]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I thank the member for his question, which is of serious concern

to consumers and ranchers alike. We are in daily contact, through staff and

myself, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the federal minister.

I think

it's important to note that this investigation is still an investigation about

one cow, so while the investigation widens, it's still only about one cow. The

quarantine of the three farms in B.C. is a precautionary measure. It is

important to note that pigs and chickens, on a scientific basis, cannot pass on

BSE. The current regulations that we have, which have been developed by the CFIA

over the last ten years or more, are based on the best possible evidence and

science. If they need to be amended on the basis of experience, we will

certainly support that, and we will continue to work with the CFIA in a support

role to protect our food supply.

B.C. ECONOMY AND ENTERPRISE ZONES

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. Has he given any thought or contemplated creating enterprise zones

in the interior of British Columbia, given what's happened with the softwood

crisis?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Our government has been committed to making British Columbia one of

the very best investment climates in North America. That's why we've made sure

we've had a competitive tax code; that's why we're cutting red tape by

one-third; that's why we're balancing the labour laws. We are making British

Columbia competitive. In fact, exports are up, oil and gas is up, mineral

exports are up. The economy is starting to grow in British Columbia.

With

respect to enterprise zones, I would very much like to receive from the member

his ideas on that, because in this House we should all work together to make

sure that the economy grows for the benefit of all British Columbians. I look

forward to receiving his ideas.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION RULING

P. Bell:

My question is for the Minister of Forests. Today, I understand that the WTO

ruled that the United States erred in applying the stiff tariffs to Canadian

softwood lumber. Certainly, this reaffirms B.C.'s position in this trade

dispute. Can the Minister of Forests tell us how this ruling will impact the

negotiations on softwood lumber moving forward?

Hon. M.

de Jong: We did get a WTO ruling today. It's what we expected. It's a

reaffirmation of earlier rulings, and it's a win for Canada. In fact, what the

WTO has said is that the U.S. is conducting itself not in compliance, contrary

to its international treaty obligations. That's an important ruling, and that's

good news for British Columbia and Canada.

What we

really have to take from this is the realization that this doesn't solve

anything overnight. What it does do in my estimation, however, is dramatically

improve our negotiating position with the Americans. In the days ahead, what I

am….

Interjections.

Hon. M.

de Jong: What I am saying, what the Premier is saying, what I hope all

members of this House are saying to the Americans is: "Your position is

eroded. Let's roll up our sleeves, let's get back to the table, and let's

negotiate a durable, long-lasting solution to a trade dispute that is inflicting

pain on both sides of the border." Let's get B.C.'s number one industry

moving again.

MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

J. Kwan:

In the last few weeks there has been a wave of opinion pieces and letters to the

editors in the interior papers from the Liberal MLAs, justifying the sale of the

Coquihalla. Clearly, these letters are not working. The people, the businesses

and the municipal leaders in the nearby communities are furious, and these

letters are just confirming that their MLAs are not listening. This government

has kicked it up a notch with a wave of taxpayer-funded ads in newspapers

throughout the interior.

Could the

Minister of Transportation tell this House how much the government is spending

on propaganda advertising to convince British Columbians that paying tolls for

the next 55 years is actually good for them?

[1440]

Hon. J.

Reid: We inherited a transportation system that was broken. We inherited

need all over this province for investment into transportation. We have been

[ Page 6991 ]

asked for information, and that is what we're providing to people. There's a

myth out there saying that this highway is paid for. In fact, it has not been

paid for, and it is a long way from being paid for.

In fact,

there is about $2.5 billion that has been invested in this highway. The tolls

have been $550 million. It's important to respond to people, to their questions

for information, with good, solid information back to them.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

H. Bloy:

I rise today to present a petition from the B.C. Bottle Depot Association of

17,000 signatures regarding the full refund of domestic beer containers.

Harris: I'd like to present a petition to the House signed by 3,131

residents of Kitimat. This petition is asking the provincial government to

insist that Alcan honour its contractual commitment to use the water power from

Kemano for the purpose that was intended, and that's the production of aluminum.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's

report No. 1, 2003-04, A Review of Performance Agreements between the

Ministry of Health Services and the Health Authorities.

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to

present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, on amounts borrowed by

government for making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding

report on loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and

amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements.

These

reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal

2002-03. The reports indicate the gross new borrowing by the government for

purposes of lending to government bodies and excludes borrowing for government

purposes. The 2002 budget forecast total for new borrowing is $7.043 billion for

fiscal 2002-03, and the unaudited actual gross borrowings for fiscal 2002-03

totalled $3.615 billion. That includes a net decrease in short-term borrowing of

$227 million as well.

The lower

borrowing requirements are due to lower-than-expected government financial

requirements, lower borrowing requirements due to the improvement in the

deficit, lower working capital and financing transaction requirements, lower

capital spending and forecast allowance not being required.

Motions without Notice

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, I move that Ms. Sahota be added to a list of members

comprising the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for

the present session.

Leave

granted.

APPOINTMENT OF PATTY SAHOTA

TO FINANCE AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information

of members we'll be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health

Services.

In this

House I call second reading on Bill 64.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. J.

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

This bill

addresses a number of transportation-related priorities and deals with seven

existing acts. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate 228 obsolete or redundant

regulations, facilitate planning for a variety of transportation improvements

and encourage economic development in the tourism and commercial transportation

sectors.

Consistent

with our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape by

one-third within three years and to revitalize our economy, this bill amends the

Railway Act to remove 162 unnecessary or outdated regulatory requirements and

eliminate red tape. The Railway Act was largely written and enacted in the early

1900s, when railways were regulated as monopolies. Over time many provisions of

the act have fallen into disuse, and railways are no longer subject to

provisions that are either out of date or constitute an unwarranted degree of

regulation in today's highly competitive commercial transportation environment.

The

majority of provisions to be repealed deal with economic regulatory

requirements, including the regulation of railway, telegraph and telephone tolls

and tariffs; the prescription of structure for tolls and tariffs; and the

requirement to provide traffic information to the minister. The provisions

proposed for repeal are no longer used for regulatory purposes, so their repeal

will not impact the operations of railways under provincial jurisdiction.

Repealing

the Riverbank Protection Act will eliminate an additional 66 obsolete

requirements. Repealing this act is an excellent example of what our

government's deregulation initiative is meant to do: eliminate redundant

legislation that has been superseded by more current statutes. The dike

production rights are

[ Page 6992 ]

still protected under the Dike Maintenance Act and the Drainage, Ditch and

Dike Act, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is now responsible

for the management of dike repair.

A third

change is to exempt snowmobile trails from

section 4 of the Highway Act. Without

that exemption they could be considered public highways. This change is in

keeping with our government's heartlands strategy. Provincial agencies may wish

to invest in these snowmobile trails because of the potential local tourism

benefits they could generate. If a trail were deemed a highway, various

provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act would apply. This is not practical or

desirable from either a law enforcement or a recreational perspective.

That would

be counterproductive to the work done by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management and the B.C. Snowmobile Federation to develop a back-country

snowmobile tourism industry. Similar snowmobile networks have already been

established in Quebec and Ontario. We applaud this initiative as a way to

increase the tourism potential of the province. A previous exemption to

section

4 was provided to the Trans Canada Trail to allow the government at the time to

invest in the trail without creating a public highway. This amendment will

exempt all previously created snowmobile trails.

We're also

proposing amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to

facilitate the addition of the proposed Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit

project into the authority's existing strategic transportation plan. This is an

enabling amendment. It allows the GTVA — or TransLink, as it's commonly known

— and the GVRD to deal with a resolution to provide funding for the RAV

project in a more timely manner than would be possible under existing

legislation. We have done this to accommodate both TransLink and the GVRD. The

RAV project is a major opportunity for the region, one which we have worked hard

to facilitate and have committed to support financially.

While this

amendment shortens the process for consideration, it does not affect the ability

of either TransLink or the GVRD to accept or reject the proposal. The shorter

time frame is necessary to confirm TransLink's financial commitment to the RAV

line. Both the TransLink and GVRD boards must approve the project in order for

it to proceed.

[1450]

That

commitment is required if the project is to obtain funding commitments from the

federal government. If the federal government joins us, it will bring more than

$1 billion for transportation into the region from outside TransLink's normal

sources.

Finally,

the bill proposes changes to the Transportation Investment Act, the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act and the Weed Control Act to facilitate a new

long-term services and operations agreement for the Coquihalla Highway.

Specifically, the amendments will provide for a future partner to assume

responsibility for weed control along the highway right-of-way, toll collection

and the provision of frequent traveller passes. In exchange, the partner will

assume all obligations associated with operating, maintaining and rehabilitating

the highway.

The

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

repealing

part 3 of that act.

Part 3 provides a regulation-making power

respecting tolls for the Coquihalla Highway. This authority is to be repealed,

as a requisite authority is now provided in the Transportation Investment Act.

The

amendment to the Transportation Investment Act involves adding a provision which

expressly provides that a person may dispute a toll if the person is entitled,

under a program or contract with the concessionaire, to travel for free or for a

reduced toll amount. The amendment to the Weed Control Act ensures that while

the highway right-of-way will remain publicly owned, a partner undertaking

operations and maintenance is responsible for weed control along that

right-of-way.

MacPhail: I want to address one part of the Transportation Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003. It's not something that got much attention with the flurry

of bills being loaded onto this Legislature. I listened intently to the minister

to see whether she would actually address the significance of her actions in

this legislation, and of course she didn't.

These are

the amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. She just

glossed over those. Well, I absolutely know that if any other government tried

to introduce that amendment, and this group were in opposition, they'd have this

Legislature going for weeks — not hours, for weeks — in protest, because the

amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act are going to

have many effects. They're heavy-handed. They're one-sided, and they're

interfering in a community body, a community decision-making body.

Here's

what's going to happen. There will be a definition added because of this act,

and the definition will now define the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit

project, and this legislation will entrench that plan into all future planning

for the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. Moreover, the TransLink

board will be empowered, by resolution of the board, to amend the strategic

transportation plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit

project to the plan. The comprehensive consultation requirements of the statute

that previously existed are waived — gone bye-bye, outlawed — when it comes

to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project. That's because the

project is exempted from sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority Act.

Now, if any

other government did this to this government, oh, they'd be up in arms. If a

senior level of government interfered in this government's business, oh my gosh,

wouldn't the Liberal government just be outraged? Despite the second

introduction of community charter transition legislation and amendments, despite

this government's claim that they're going to let

[ Page 6993 ]

local governments have autonomy, despite this government's claim that they're

going to be out of the business of downloading onto local governments, here we

have a piece of legislation that interferes at all levels. This government is

forcing the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project on not only

TransLink but on the community in the greater Vancouver regional district.

[1455]

Let me be

very clear. I haven't had time to know whether the RAV line is the best priority

in tight fiscal economic times — disturbingly tight fiscal economic times,

given this government's economic record — and neither had the people in the

greater Vancouver regional district. There's confusion and disagreement about

how to proceed — but not this government. This government doesn't care.

They're going to say: "Proceed, TransLink, with RAV, and don't worry about

community consultation."

Section

14(2) of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act currently requires

that the strategic transportation plan define the relationship between major

actions and plans of TransLink and balance it with the growth strategy of the

region and air quality objectives and economic development of the region.

Section 14(2)(

c) says the strategic transportation plan must include a

long-range capital and financial plan.

Here we

have a situation where a billion-dollar project — some say a $2 billion

project — is going to be rammed through with no requirement by anybody to see

whether it makes sense that that is where the money's spent, no requirement to

see whether that project actually contributes in a positive way to the growth

strategy of the region and no idea about whether the pursuit of the RAV line

would actually improve air quality objectives and economic development of the

region.

This

government has outlawed examination of those factors when it comes to this

project. None of these steps or requirements need now apply and, in fact, are

outlawed when it comes to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project,

since the RAV line will simply — plop — be inserted into the existing plan.

That

existing plan has taken years of community consultation to produce. It was a

thoughtful, open, inclusive, detailed community consultation to develop the

existing TransLink plan. There was much toing and froing; there was much giving

and taking. The city of Burnaby had strongly held views. The city of Coquitlam

had strongly held views — the city of Richmond, the city of Vancouver, North

Vancouver, just to name a few who were part of the development of that plan.

They reached agreement. The TransLink board and the GVTA reached agreement, and

then that plan was approved by the greater Vancouver regional district.

What does

this Liberal provincial government do? It says: "Oh, you know that plan you

guys have? Plop. Here's the RAV line going to be put right in the middle of it.

Don't worry. Don't bother redoing your plan. Don't bother consulting. Don't

bother trying to balance. Just plop it right in the middle and get on with it.

By the way, we're going to set a deadline."

[1500]

And this

government claims to be open and inclusive and to not download? They're doing

this in the context of not knowing where the money's going to come from. This

provincial government hasn't committed to the RAV line. The federal government

hasn't committed to the RAV line. TransLink has, contingent upon other funding,

but they're taking away funding from the completion of the Millennium Line out

to Coquitlam, which has completely upset the cities of Coquitlam and Port Moody,

because the Millennium Line was part of a strategic plan agreed to by everybody

on TransLink. This government has ground to a stop that plan, which had lots of

community consultation — ground to a stop the completion of that plan that

everybody had agreed to — and is now shifting funding to the RAV line or

forcing the shifting of the funding. They're using the same RAV line, or forcing

the shifting of the funding.

They're

using the same RAV line. I guess this now-government has come right on board

with the Bombardier technology they claimed was such a backroom deal before. I

guess they've embraced it now. Isn't it funny what a difference two years make?

No community planning, no community consultation, using the same technology —

all of which they objected to so vociferously when the community was going

through that decision-making process in the 1990s. Shame on this government.

Shame on the Premier, who stood so strongly against all of that community

planning when it was happening for transportation. But here we have this

government ramming through a project.

Section

14(3) of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act currently requires

that the authority, TransLink, prepare all its capital and service plans and

policies and carry out all activities and services in a manner consistent with

the strategic transportation plan. It seems they haven't been doing that with

all of their RAV planning so far, since the RAV hasn't been part of the

strategic transportation plan until now. That's why the government wants to

force this RAV line into the plan — just insert it. It doesn't matter what

effect it has or not.

Before the

strategic transportation plan could be amended in the past, prior to this

government introducing this legislation,

section 15 of the current act required

a plan for consultation with the public, municipalities, organizations, the

greater Vancouver regional district, government and trade unions, as well as

anyone else likely to be affected by the amendment to the strategic

transportation plan. Oh. Public consultation — open and inclusive consultation

before anything changes. Well, that's outlawed now by this minister. Forget it.

This government's not interested in that kind of planning. TransLink was

required to consider those comments before taking action. That's all gone now.

Bill 64,

the bill that we're debating right now, deems that requirement for openness and

transparency and everybody's opinion being heard to have been met

[ Page 6994 ]

with regard to the RAV. Poof. Again, the transportation fairy comes down and

says: "Poof!" That consultation is deemed to have occurred. God, the

power of this minister. It is unbelievable. She can just say: "Oh my God.

All that requirement to actually do thoughtful strategic planning is gone."

There hasn't been any actual consultation of any sort on an amendment to the

strategic transportation plan in reality — none. But does that make any

difference to this government? No.

If the

board of TransLink passes a resolution to amend the strategic transportation

plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line, the amendment must be

submitted to the greater Vancouver regional district for ratification. The

greater Vancouver regional district board must respond to that request by a

resolution made on or before May 30. That's all in this legislation. Wow. What

happened to the Community Charter wanting to give independence to local

governments? Oh. The greater Vancouver regional district's autonomy will be in

part two of the Community Charter. So, while this government may be breaking the

spirit of what they claimed with the Community Charter, they're not actually

breaking the law yet, because they haven't introduced that part of that law. I

guess that's why this government feels comfortable ramming through this

dictatorial deadline on the greater Vancouver regional district. I guess that's

why they feel comfortable saying: "May 30 — that's all the time you've

got, GVRD."

[1505]

Seems to me

like a pretty heavy-handed approach taken by the province. If the greater

Vancouver regional district board fails to respond to the request on or before

May 30, the GVRD board is automatically deemed to have approved the request

anyway, so long as the request was received by May 27. This kind of legislated

dictatorship on a lower level of government by a senior level of government is

unprecedented and a heavy-handed action never before taken by a provincial

government. This minister says: "Oh, don't worry about this amendment. It's

just consequential."

Of course,

none of the lower mainland MLAs are standing up. The member who represents

Coquitlam and Port Moody should be standing up in outrage because it's her

community that's going to be lost out of this, her community that actually has

the strategic transportation plan dictating that the next expenditure on public

transportation will go to Coquitlam and Port Moody. They've lost out. There's no

money for them — none, not a cent. But where's that person standing up to

speak? Silence. Dead silence.

Now, just

to be clear, this doesn't require the GVRD to necessarily approve the request

— not necessarily. They can respond to the request before May 30, and I'm

hopeful that the GVRD will take the option to deny the request to ratify the

amendment. I'm hoping that they will actually see their way clear to push back

on this government and not allow the heavy-handed, automatic ratification to go

through. I expect that's what the GVRD will do, because they know the

consequences of allowing an automatic ratification. They know the consequences

of that to their bottom line, so I am hopeful that while this provincial

government is irresponsible, the GVRD will actually act responsibly. I have

every indication that they will do so.

The

amendment to the strategic transportation plan will take effect once all of the

following has occurred: the amendment is ratified by the GVRD board, the

province provides notice to TransLink that the government has received a

and on terms satisfactory to the government, and TransLink enters into an

agreement with the province and the airport authority in which all three parties

agree on the terms for construction of the RAV.

Gee, that's

a lot of work to do. I wonder why the minister is so anxious to have this

amendment pass. What is she possibly interfering for? What is the hurry? What is

the hurry that over $1 billion — some are estimating $2 billion, of which a

pittance is going to be provided by the private sector…. What's the hurry to

spend so much money without consultation and without examining the effect on the

transportation plan that took years to produce? Did she not have confidence that

the parties were going to do those things? In fact, they were going to do all of

those things that are required. They were going to do it without the heavy hand

of this government.

[1510]

But no,

this province, who's getting quite used to using the tyranny of its majority,

feeling quite…. I don't know. There's an adrenalin rush they get by the

tyranny of their actions. We see it in the Coquihalla. We see it as this

minister gets up and makes it up as she's going along about what the real….

She says now there's $2 billion in debt around the Coquihalla. I wonder whether

they just found that information out. Did they? They certainly didn't make that

information clear when they were talking to the community leaders. They didn't

make that clear at all. That tyranny of the majority is saying to the community

in the Coquihalla area: "Tough beans what you think. Sorry. We didn't want

to mention it to you that we were going to impose 55 years of tolls on

you."

We have the

same situation here for the lower mainland. Tactics by the province that are

heavy-handed: they are attempting to corner the regional transit authority into

accepting an expensive public-private partnership. In its haste to get the

Olympics, the province is rushing in to build an expensive rapid transit line at

the expense of proper public consultation and — who knows? — maybe even at

the expense of proper public transit in the lower mainland. I don't know. I have

no idea, because the consultation hasn't been done on that yet.

It will be

quite exceptional if the tyranny of the majority of this Liberal government is

used to attempt to pass the RAV rapid transit line by fiat. I will indicate to

the House that in committee stage the opposition will be voting against that

amendment.

Nuraney: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 6995 ]

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Nuraney: We have in the gallery today, I am told, the best students from the

Maywood Community School who have joined us this afternoon. I would request the

House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill

64. My comments today will be in reference to amendments to the Railway Act.

B.C. Rail

was founded in 1912 as a private enterprise. In 1918 it was acquired by the

government, and for a reason. The government acquired B.C. Rail at the time for

the express purpose of opening up the northern resource regions.

With Bill

64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, the government is doing the

opposite. The B.C. Liberals are closing down the northern regions — make no

mistake. In so doing, this legislation truly represents the end of an era.

That era in

this province was one when it did not matter where you lived. Governments did

their best with the resources they had to treat all British Columbians,

regardless of their address, roughly the same. Now we're entering into this B.C.

Liberal new era in which it does matter where you live, an era in which there

will be two classes of British Columbians: the first class in the lower mainland

and greater Victoria; the second class, those that reside outside the lower

mainland and Victoria in regions such as the one I represent, the so-called

heartlands. Make every region a heart, and they'll be happy. Yes, I have heard

the sound bites from the minister. I have heard the minister's proposal to sell

B.C. Rail. The minister states, in fact, that this proposal will make B.C. Rail

more competitive and will better serve British Columbia. On the one hand, we

have the minister — all smiles — saying that sunny days are on the horizon,

that a phantom private sector saviour will suddenly appear.

The B.C.

Liberal government has, in fact, for the third time completely reversed its

position on the essential Crown asset known as B.C. Rail. In this House on April

4, 1995, and again on March 23, 1995, the Premier, then Leader of the

Opposition, stated his position quite clearly — so we thought. He said:

"Let's sell B.C. Rail. " He repeated that on several occasions.

How did

this scheme play in the north at the time? What did the good people in 100 Mile

House and Prince George think of this scheme? They hated it; they fought it.

They won; the Premier lost.

[1515]

I recall

the Premier telling us after the 1996 election that a prime reason the B.C.

Liberals lost the election was because of the promise to sell B.C. Rail. So for

the 2001 election, that was the promise. B.C. Rail would remain in public hands.

That was a relief to northerners.

How fragile

and fickle memory can be, even when that memory is the Premier's. Now we're back

for the third time, in the third reversal. The north can now expect to be

auctioned off again.

Anyway,

hidden in an omnibus bill — deliberately so, and let's not pretend otherwise

— we have something I find quite peculiar. We have the Transportation

minister, again all smiles, promising economic health for the northern

heartland. Hidden in the changes to the statutes is the real reason for the

request for proposals for B.C. Rail. It's in the fine print.

Now, if we

were to put this request for proposals in layman's terms, what would it look

like? Here is what it would look like with Bill 64. A private operator is wanted

to assume responsibility and control of B.C. Rail. That private operator can

have it all but must pretend public ownership of the railbed is important, just

to make the government feel good. Furthermore, the private operator must provide

worse service at a higher cost with slashed jobs and reduced public

accountability.

Let's go

through the legislation to flesh out these points. How about we start at what I

believe to be a requirement of worse service? The legislation ends a requirement

that a train must be run at practical, regular hours. This would provide less

reliability for shippers. After all, when looking at the north, B.C. Rail

received more than 60 percent of its total revenue from forestry for the year

The

legislation also ends a requirement that train schedules must be set by public

notice, and it ends a requirement for stations to post information about trains

that will be late. B.C. Rail has 1,441 route-miles in four regions: the coast,

the Cariboo, Prince George, and the Rocky Mountain and Peace River area. The

government is saying here that there's just no point or need for a private rail

operator to ensure that the services it provides will be constant and

consistent. Taking this legislation at face value, it appears the government is

not, in fact, interested in setting up B.C. Rail with a private operator to

provide better and enhanced service. That is not the case.

But, hey,

with worse service you would expect costs to go down, especially the cost to

shippers. After all, the 2002 core services review called for scaling back B.C.

Rail to an industrial freight line only. You would think that with this focus,

much effort would be dedicated to making sure that freight service was the best

it could be. But again, that is not the case with Bill 64. I am saying that

despite the reassurances of the minister, we will see higher costs for shippers

with a private operator under Bill 64.

This bill

pretty much ends all requirements regarding the setting of tolls, not only for

passengers and freight traffic but to ensure that tolls do not unjustly

discriminate between localities. No more. Instead we get higher costs. In

particular, this legislation would appear to hint that the north would pay

additional costs to subsidize, possibly, more lucrative routes elsewhere on the

line.

If that

wasn't enough, the legislation appears to end ministerial approval for toll

rates — no government

[ Page 6996 ]

oversight for the toll rates that are set. Again, what a deal. It's not like

a shipper has many alternatives to get their product to market. Worse service,

higher costs, and nothing you can do about it too. That's because Bill 64 would

reduce public accountability for whatever form B.C. Rail will take by the end of

this year.

[1520]

For

example, the legislation ends a requirement of ministerial approval for a

railway company to change its location. Does that mean B.C. Rail could be

headquartered in Montreal or El Paso? How would that benefit industry in this

province? The legislation ends ministerial approval for the location of new

stations on a railway as well, I will just mention.

But that's

only a minor quibble compared to the next one when it comes to government

accountability for B.C. Rail. The legislation appears to end any requirement for

railway companies to produce financial and other information to the minister.

Beyond an annual report, British Columbians will have little window into the

operation, the service, the future of rail in this province. There will no

longer be ministerial oversight of B.C. Rail. The railway is supposed to be for

British Columbia, but British Columbia will be out of the picture officially.

What about the safety of a private operation? Not much talk about that around

here. Further, the legislation ends a requirement that employees of railway

companies be paid wages similar to or current with similar industries. I see

this as a government giving the new operator the leeway for the job cuts that

will surely come. This one's got the government scurrying as we speak, in fact,

with reference to 1,200-plus jobs currently at risk.

Here, once

again, the government is selling off a vital Crown asset at the expense of the

needs of northern communities. Let's be honest with ourselves when we hear the

sound bites, the government spin. There is no guarantee that competitive,

affordable rail service as we know it will continue with the private sector

operator. The disruption is already apparent. How can the government, before a

suitor has supposedly even been found, promise more competitive rates, promise a

better integrated system and promise things like economic development for

rail-dependent communities? How do they know this? I would like to know.

I have

pointed out what I see from this legislation. It's sad, and it's a sad day. It's

sad to talk about B.C. Rail in the past tense. B.C. Rail has played an integral

role in opening up the northern part of this province, and B.C. Liberals have

played an integral role in shutting down the north. Think about this. It is

truly an awesome responsibility to be the Premier of this province. He has

invested in his office the power to build a province and the power to break it.

These are choices, and there are voices urging the Premier to rethink this and

to rethink his options.

Mr.

Speaker: For second reading of Bill 64, the Minister of Transportation

closes debate.

Hon. J.

Reid: I wanted to call the motion.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 64, Transportation Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

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

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

Bill 64,

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to

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

House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 66.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

Hon. G.

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

In addition

to minor housekeeping items, Bill 66 includes a number of amendments that are

deregulatory in nature. In keeping with our new-era commitment and with making

British Columbia a national leader in regulatory reform, many amendments in Bill

66 reflect our continuing review and upgrading of regulation. This ongoing

review is a key aspect of our deregulation framework and our commitments, and it

builds on our progress to date.

[1525]

Bill 66

repeals two antiquated acts, the Barbers Act and the Cosmetologists Act. These

two acts regulate many aspects of these trades, and they establish mandatory

associations for their members. Anyone who wants to work as a barber or a

cosmetologist in British Columbia must join an association and pay annual dues.

As a result of the core services review undertaken by government in this

ministry, it was found that these acts duplicated other laws already in place

and that they imposed unnecessary regulation and an annual fee on working people

just to work in their occupation. The amendments in Bill 66 bring barbers and

cosmetologists in line with how most other trades are treated in British

Columbia.

Housekeeping

amendments are required to the Commercial Transport Act to incorporate by

reference recent additions to the Motor Vehicle Act. These provisions permit

ICBC to refuse to issue licences, permits or plates for motor vehicles or

trailers that have not been presented for inspection or for irreparable — not

repairable, that is — and salvage vehicles. The amendments also incorporate

into the Commercial Transport Act vehicle impoundment and street racing

provisions that were made last year.

The

amendments to the Commercial Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Act will

streamline the requirements applicable to light utility trailers, including

home-built trailers, under 1,401 kilograms. Trailers

[ Page 6997 ]

licensed under 1,401 kilograms will no longer, by law, require a vehicle

identification number. Trailers licensed under 1,401 kilograms will be classed

as non-commercial, and requirements typical for larger commercial trailers will

not apply to light utility trailers. These amendments will simplify registration

and licensing processes for owners of trailers and adopt a common weight

threshold for the application of requirements applicable to trailers.

The

amendments in this bill to the Correction Act permit the transfer of

responsibility for inspections of correctional centres from the investigation,

inspection and standards office to the corrections branch of the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General. This transfer will allow a more efficient

and effective management of correctional centres. The investigation, inspections

and standards office will continue to conduct investigations of complaints and

critical incidents.

The

Election Act is being amended to remove the disqualification from voting of

prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of two or more years. The reason for

removing this disqualification is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled

that a similar provision in the federal election legislation is

unconstitutional, and the rationale behind the Supreme Court of Canada's

decision is, in our view, equally applicable to the Election Act of British

Columbia.

Elections

B.C. currently provides an opportunity for prisoners serving shorter sentences

to vote. The amendments to the Election Act will ensure that the Election Act

respects the constitutional requirements imposed as a result of the Supreme

Court of Canada's decision interpreting

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

Amendments

to the Estate Administration Act increased cost-recovery for the public guardian

and trustee services by allowing the public guardian and trustee to have

discretion to decline to administer estates in some circumstances and to clarify

the authority of the public guardian and trustee to charge for certain services.

Consequential amendments to the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Public

Guardian and Trustee Act and the Trustee Act are also required.

Bill 66

amends the Expropriation Act to empower the chair of the Expropriation

Compensation Board to designate any member of the board to hear any matter and

make any decision, order or determination that could be made by the board, the

chair or the vice-chair, except the power to make a designation under this

section.

These

amendments also serve to give the board authority to make rules subject to the

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting pre-hearing

conferences, mediation and other dispute resolution processes. These amendments

to the Expropriation Act are part of government's continuing commitment to

administrative justice reform.

The

amendment to the Family Relations Act will provide express statutory authority

for the court to order blood or tissue testing where parentage is denied in an

application for child support. Rule 15 of the provincial family court rules

allows a judge to order the alleged parents and the child to have blood or

tissue samples taken for testing where parentage is denied in a child support

case. Rule 15 has been challenged on the basis that there is no statutory

authority underlying the rule.

[1530]

Accordingly,

an amendment is being made to the Family Relations Act to ensure that the

statutory authority that is required is in place. A consequential amendment is

being made to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to bring that act in

line with the changes made in the Family Relations Act. That will allow the

court to order paternity testing in contested child support cases where one of

the parties lives outside British Columbia.

The

amendment to the Forest Act in Bill 66 is to correct a typographical error.

This bill

provides an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act that, in turn, provides clarification regarding a previous amendment to that

act. The previous amendment provided the information and privacy commissioner

with the authority to delegate the examination of information protected by the

law enforcement exception of the FOI Act, but permitted the Attorney General or

the head of a police force to request that the commissioner not delegate

examination of this information. The amendment now before the House would allow

the assistant Attorney General, criminal justice branch, to also request that

the commissioner not delegate examination of this type of information.

Additional

changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amend

schedule 2 of the act to remove public bodies that are no longer active from the

list of public bodies covered by and subject to that act. The amendment also

adds the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal to the

schedule of public bodies

covered by the act. One other change removes provisions of the act that have

been deemed obsolete.

Bill 66

amends the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act by repealing obsolete provisions

related to the crash responsibility charge that was cancelled in September 2000.

The CRC applied to all non-fleet vehicles that were found to be at fault in

accidents that caused property damage. The vehicle owner or driver nominated by

the owner was responsible for the first $250 of property damage caused by his or

her vehicle, depending on the driver's percentage of liability. The CRC was

replaced with a program that uses more selective criteria to target a small

number of higher-risk drivers with chronic claims histories through additional

premiums attached to their driver's licence.

The Liquor

Control and Licensing Act is being amended to reference an additional

section of

the Criminal Code. The effect of this change will be to permit liquor service in

the gaming areas of horse-racing facilities. The amendment will bring the liquor

licensing policies for horse-racing facilities, including teletheatres, in line

with the policies that exist for casinos and bingo halls.

The

amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act will remove the requirement for

registrants to list the

[ Page 6998 ]

names of every single public servant and other government official that they

have lobbied or intend to lobby. This amendment will address the legitimate

concern brought to government's attention by the users of the registry about

onerous registration requirements, and it will not impact the effectiveness of

the registry. What the public wants and needs to know is which ministries, which

cabinet ministers and which MLAs are being lobbied. That information will still

be required. The amendment will be brought into force by regulation to ensure

that the registry software is updated and operating correctly.

Amendments

to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for the duration of drivers' licences to be

extended through regulation as opposed to having a fixed expiry date in

legislation. This will allow ICBC and government to provide flexible and

convenient service to customers throughout the province.

The

amendment to the Museum Act in Bill 66 is to correct a typographical error.

The purpose

of the amendments to the Offence Act is to clarify the process to be followed in

prosecuting a violation ticket matter. The amendments distinguish between the

front of the violation ticket and the instructions contained on the reverse

side, as well as clarify the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court to hear these

prosecutions.

This bill

amends the Patients Property Act to implement minor changes in the act flowing

from the core services review of the public guardian and trustee. While

preserving safeguards for vulnerable adults, the amendments will reduce the

reporting requirements for committees and streamline the services provided by

the public guardian and trustee when private committees are appointed.

The

amendments to the Supreme Court Act link the masters' salary and benefits

package, including pension benefits, to those of Provincial Court judges. This

amendment is in recognition of a longstanding recommendation that masters have

the same qualifications as Provincial Court judges and should be employed on the

same terms and at the same rate of pay.

[1535]

I look

forward to the comments of members in the debate that follows. Of course, as

this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, it may well be the case that

some members may wish to focus their remarks during committee stage debate on

the particular provisions that are of interest to them.

Nettleton: Briefly, then, some comments with respect to Bill 66 in second

reading. I'm pleased to say today, at second reading, with respect to the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, that I'm certainly on safe ground when I

say there's a lot in this legislation.

The

minister had to talk rather quickly to get through the information that he did

get through, and as he points out, there will be opportunity in committee to

focus on particular areas of interest. But I would like to take a brief

run-through, if I may, that will show that in my view, in this one piece of

legislation there are many changes that government is making in a hurry to many

things — changes, for instance, to barbers, fingernail technicians; changes to

cemeteries, semi-trailers; changes to the Election Act in terms of who is

permitted to vote, along with DNA tests for paternity disputes; changes to

freedom of information and protection of privacy; to liquor, to lobbyists, to

museums, to public guardians, to judicial remuneration.

This

identifies only some of the changes in this bill. I think a reasonable person

would assume that even a handful of these changes should or could require

introduction in separate legislation which would allow, then, for adequate time

for debate in this House and consideration by those affected in the general

public. That is not, alas, what is happening here.

What is

occurring is that the government has introduced a catch-all, omnibus style of

bill to tie up what they perceive as a bunch of loose ends. They may refer to it

as housekeeping, as just some tidying up, but a closer look at some of the

proposed changes clearly shows that in fact there's a lot more going on here in

this bill.

There are

significant changes here, buried, which will greatly impact real people in the

real world — a world that we sometimes lose touch with, I'm afraid. I suppose

I could go through each

section in terms of the effects and changes on ordinary

British Columbians, but I will confine my brief comments to two areas: the

barbers and cosmetology changes.

I met

recently with the Northern B.C. School of Hairdressing located in Prince George,

and I had a great time, actually, meeting the students and instructors and

discussing their concerns. Of course, I want to note that their concerns are not

addressed by this legislation but in fact, in my view, are run over roughshod

instead.

In fact,

this bill, Bill 66, would completely repeal both the Cosmetologists Act and the

Barbers Act. While there may be areas within these statutes that require some

attention and revision, in my view, their complete elimination is unnecessary

and detrimental. Hygiene and public health factor in under the heading

"Detrimental Consequences of Bill 66."

Barbers and

cosmetologists in their day-to-day work frequently use chemicals for hair

treatment, for example, which, if misused, because of the relaxing of controls,

can have serious implications and consequences. Likewise, lack of knowledge

about proper sterilization techniques could contribute to the spread of

infectious diseases.

Not to take

this lightly, but we've all received a bad hair cut at one time or another in

our lives, and we know what an experience that can be. How much worse would that

be when one's health is endangered in what would otherwise be a simple,

safeguarded procedure, duly regulated? In repealing these statutes, the

government is leaving itself wide open to this sort of thing happening.

It is a

public safety matter and a matter of consumer protection as well. These statutes

that the gov-

[ Page 6999 ]

ernment intends to repeal with this legislation — what purpose do they

serve? They set the standard for these industries. They assisted it in the

selection of curriculum so that those who perform these services do so in a

professional and safe manner.

Let me also

add another important role of these professional organizations. They provide

legitimate recourse for public complaints. If these statutes are repealed, where

will a dissatisfied client turn? In short, you are on your own, and if something

bad happens, then too bad.

[1540]

In this,

Bill 66 will muddy the waters between reputable and disreputable operators in

this service-oriented trade. I see nothing but a backward step in these

proposals. It seems again to be a case of unnecessary government tampering with

something that works. It seems again to be a case study of the hidden, secretive

agenda of this government to somehow make an ideological change that in both the

short and long run is harmful to the average British Columbian.

When is

this kind of nonsense going to stop? If the people whom it affects the most say

no, shouldn't government be listening? Apparently, government is closed to such

input.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 66,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and

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

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 58.

INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

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

Bill 58

amends the legislation creating and governing the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia to bring the corporation under the regulatory jurisdiction of

the British Columbia Utilities Commission. The changes that we're introducing

are intended to accomplish two main goals: one, to enable the British Columbia

Utilities Commission to set ICBC's basic automobile insurance premiums and to

supervise ICBC's service levels; two, to enhance competition in the optional

insurance market.

background, it's important to know that ICBC is in three different lines of

businesses. First, it provides basic mandatory insurance coverage to every

vehicle and driver licensed in British Columbia. Second, it provides most of the

optional automobile insurance in British Columbia in competition with private

insurers. Third, it provides other functions related to vehicles and drivers

such as administration of the licensing regime.

Basic

automobile insurance includes $200,000 third-party liability coverage, $1

million uninsured motorist protection, hit-and-run protection and personal

injury accident coverage. Every vehicle and every driver licensed in British

Columbia must carry basic coverage, and only the Insurance Cooperation of

British Columbia provides it.

Optional

insurance, however, includes additional liability and underinsured motorist

coverage beyond the minimum provided as part of that which is included in basic

insurance, as well as collision and comprehensive coverage for the vehicle. It's

up to the consumer how much, if any, of these optional coverages to purchase and

what insurer they wish to purchase them from.

As well,

this bill replaces the authority of cabinet through the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set ICBC's premiums. Instead, the bill

provides authority for the BCUC to regulate ICBC's basic insurance business as a

monopoly. The Utilities Commission has a long history of regulating public

utilities which are monopolies in other fields such as natural gas and

electricity. This change will make use of the expertise the commission has in

monopoly regulation to ensure that the Insurance Corporation's basic insurance

business is as efficient and its performance as high quality as possible. ICBC

premiums will be set in an open and transparent manner, ensuring that ICBC

remains financially sound and continues its recent progress in becoming more

efficient.

The

Utilities Commission will also have jurisdiction over the level of service

provided by ICBC. That's a common feature of monopoly regulation to ensure that

the monopoly does not react to pressure placed on its revenues by reducing the

level or quality of the service which they provide. The commission will be able

to regulate ICBC's practices and procedures but not to intervene in individual

Competition

in the optional automobile insurance market has been limited in the past because

of several natural advantages that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

has in that market, which are both financial and operational in nature. As a

result, while private insurers are able to provide optional insurance in B.C.,

they currently have a very small percentage of the market. Consumers suffer from

the lack of choice in the market and because the benefits of competition, in

terms of downward pressure on premiums and upward pressure on quality services,

are not fully realized.

[1545]

This bill

addresses this issue by making several changes that will equalize the

opportunities afforded to private insurers and ICBC. ICBC has financial

advantages, as a result of its tax-exempt status and lack of a

[ Page 7000 ]

requirement to earn a revenue return for its investors, which will be

eliminated under the bill. The corporation will not be required to pay tax, but

it will be required to earn a profit from its optional insurance business equal

to that earned before tax by private insurers, placing them in an equal and

competitive position.

Another

financial advantage arises because minimum capital requirements are currently

imposed on private insurers by the financial institutions regulators but not on

ICBC. ICBC's optional insurance business will be required to meet the same

capital adequacy test as their competitors after a reasonable phase-in period.

So long as ICBC meets the profit and capital targets for its optional insurance

business, the Utilities Commission will not regulate optional premiums.

There are

other items that I will be raising in committee stage of the bill to focus

attention to those issues. I move second reading of the bill.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to the motion passed in this House

yesterday, the time for debate on this bill has elapsed, so I will call the

question. The question is second reading of Bill 58, Insurance Corporation

Amendment Act, 2003.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 58,

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 61.

COMMUNITY SERVICES LABOUR

RELATIONS ACT

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the Community Services Labour Relations Act be read a

second time now.

I'm pleased

to stand before the House to begin second reading of the Community Services

Labour Relations Act. This legislation creates a new social services labour

relations structure that is streamlined and reflects service delivery

structures.

This

legislation both recognizes and simplifies the Community Social Services

Employers Association's role as a social services bargaining agent. In the past

the employers association bargained on behalf of agencies, which voluntarily

assigned their bargaining rights to the Community Social Services Employers

Association. This legislation establishes the Community Social Services

Employers Association as the sole accredited bargaining agent for its member

agencies, consistent with the practice in the health sector as well as the

education sector.

The

legislation will create three bargaining units for the sector: community living,

aboriginal services and general services. The cabinet will have the ability to

consolidate the bargaining units into one if it is deemed in the future to be

more appropriate. The legislation requires unions in the sector to be part of an

association of unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. This model, as

well, is patterned on the model used in the health care sector, where unions

come together as bargaining associations. The unions will be expected to create

and agree to articles of association. In the event that they're unable to do so,

the Labour Relations Board will step in to help them complete that task.

The

legislation provides the Minister of Skills Development and Labour with

discretionary power to require a vote to determine a single union for social

services. This discretionary power would be a tool to promote labour stability.

It would be exercised to improve service delivery or flexibility, cost

effectiveness or if it was in the public interest.

Government

also believes that the role of volunteers in the social services sector is vital

and must be preserved. The presence of volunteers involves the community in

planning, development and delivering services to improve the lives of British

Columbians. That role will be protected. The collective agreement in the social

services sector will not be allowed to prevent an agency from using a volunteer.

However, under this legislation the positions held by unionized employees are

protected as long as the use of an unpaid volunteer cannot result in the layoff

of an employee.

Finally,

the Community Services Labour Relations Act will provide legal clarification for

the purposes of collective bargaining of the status of employees, contractors,

subcontractors, family home providers, employers and the government.

I move

second reading.

MacPhail: This legislation, Bill 61, is entitled the Community Services

Labour Relations Act. It is interesting to note that we have very little time to

debate this bill, given that the government has decided to ram this legislation

through at the last minute. So I am going to make my comments brief.

Nevertheless, I do want to be on record about what exactly is going on here.

[1550]

In the

1980s, when some of the current Liberal ministers were Social Credit ministers,

they privatized and contracted out many community services that were then part

of the public service. Now the Ministry of Children and Family Development and

the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services have close to $900

million of taxpayer money going to contracted agencies between the two

ministries. All of those services used to be in the public service. Throughout

the 1980s and the 1990s those services stayed as contracted agencies but were

publicly funded.

The

relationship between those contracted agencies and the government is entwined in

such a way that the

[ Page 7001 ]

government cannot exist without those agencies because the agencies actually

do the direct delivery of services for children and families and women's groups

and day care, and those agencies cannot exist without the government because the

vast majority of their funding comes from government. It is these very

organizations that are now part of the reorganization of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development.

Given the

chaos that exists in the reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, I wonder what the rush is in passing this piece of legislation.

Bill 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act, is supposed to set up the

structure for collective bargaining under the new regional authorities for child

and family services. There'd be no need for this legislation if the government

weren't reorganizing the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

But here we

are, taking time away from debating the Health Services budget in this chamber

in order to pass this legislation, and yet the government is slowing down the

transition to the new community governance model completely. In fact, the whole

transition to a new governance model for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is in chaos. It's been thrown into chaos; it's ground to a dead

stop. The ministry is reviewing its strategic plan, its service plan, because

they missed targets. Treasury Board is reviewing the funding allocated to the

transition, and the auditor general is investigating the regionalization scheme.

The

opposition provided evidence in this House in question period that the move to

regionalization is putting kids at risk. A risk register produced by the service

providers that are now having their bargaining structure changed — produced by

those service providers and Ministry of Children and Family Development staff

and obtained by the opposition — predicted catastrophic consequences for kids,

given the government is making massive budget cuts at the same time that it's

completely restructuring the system. Front-line workers say that you can't

undertake such a restructuring when cutting the budget by 23 percent. It puts

kids at risk. Yet the government is doing just that.

Despite

these complications in the move to community governance, this government insists

on ramming this legislation through this House without thorough consideration

and debate. Why is it important? What's the link? Well, I assume, given the

failure of this government to actually make the budget cuts that the Minister of

Finance has asked of the Minister of Children and Family Development, that the

government will now turn to the bargaining table to make up for its inability to

make those cuts in service.

I am glad

the government is moving away from cutting the services, because it would be

chaos. Children would be at risk and fall through the cracks. But is it fair to

turn now to the people who are delivering those services and force a collective

bargaining model on them, which this government will now use to seek that 23

percent cut? They're putting in place a new collective bargaining structure, and

who knows whether it's balanced? We can't possibly have time to debate it

thoroughly. Instead of slowing down and seeking consultation from employers,

workers and perhaps even their own MLAs, the government decided to introduce

this bill last week in a flurry of legislation and ram it through by the end of

this session, just two days from now.

[1555]

There are a

number of concerns that I wish to raise about this bill. I spent some time last

week canvassing the very organizations that will be affected by this bargaining

change, including the people on the ground and the front line. I will canvass

them now briefly, given the fact that there's minimal time for debate, but I

will pursue them more vigorously at committee stage if indeed there is time.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

This bill

does reorganize unions into three bargaining units. The Minister of Finance

likes to claim it's the same as the way the health sector at the community level

was reorganized. Well, when he was in opposition, the Minister of Finance

disagreed greatly with that reorganization of bargaining, even though that had

been done with huge public consultation.

Now we have

three bargaining units imposed: community living service agencies, aboriginal

service agencies and then other general service agencies. Each unit must then

establish an association of unions to represent them in bargaining.

There are

concerns that some workers have been excluded from the creation of these three

units. For example, it was suggested, as I did my consultation last week, that

child care workers are excluded from these bargaining units. This exclusion

denies early childhood educators the opportunity to be paid a fair wage through

a negotiated agreement. Those are the concerns raised by the front-lineworkers.

This bill

also gives the minister the option of calling a vote to bring all members of a

bargaining unit under one union. There is very little detail provided about when

the minister can do this or under what conditions. Given the record of this

government in imposing rather than negotiating, it is with a great deal of fear

and concern that workers on the front line look at that particular provision.

They look at it with trepidation. The consequence for workers is that they may

find themselves represented by a union that's not of their choice, or they may

not feel adequately represented at all.

The bill

also limits what can be negotiated as part of the collective agreement. Instead

of negotiating the use of volunteers through the bargaining process, the

government has included a blanket clause that says no agreement can prevent the

use of volunteers. The legislation says that jobs will not be lost to

volunteers, but there are no details about how this will be monitored or

enforced.

I have to

claim surprise at why this provision is in here at all. Every agency I talked

with said: "What is the issue here? We need volunteers and our experienced

[ Page 7002 ]

workers. There's never, ever been an issue of a volunteer being

inappropriately excluded from doing his or her contribution — ever." The

people on the front line looked at this and said: "What are they getting

at? What problem is it that doesn't exist and that they're trying to solve?

What's really behind the intent of this clause?"

I actually

talked to organizations around the province. It wasn't just in high-density

urban organizations, and it wasn't just in rural organizations. It was across

the board, across the spectrum. Not one could claim to have had a problem where

a volunteer was excluded from making a contribution in any way.

The bill

also says that agreements cannot prohibit contracts with family home providers.

Well, that's interesting. What is a family home provider? Group homes, group

home workers are not protected now, because of that addition, from job loss in

the event that family home providers are now used.

What does

that mean for the foster care sector? What does this mean for the mental health

sector? Will there be a big conversion with the government now funding family

home providers, and the group home workers are then excluded? It could mean that

the government could choose to contract with family home providers at the

expense of the unionized group home workforce, and there is absolutely nothing

that can be done.

[1600]

Finally,

there are concerns regarding the successorship following the shift to community

governance. It appears that once the services are downloaded to regional

authorities, successorship provisions will not apply. I would say that this

poses a great risk to workers' benefits. In fact, because there is such

confusion and chaos in the move to the regionalization of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, nobody can possibly know what the bargaining

structure should be as a result of that reorganization.

Wouldn't it

make sense from a practical, pragmatic, proper, commonsense use of tax dollars

to finish the reorganization of the community sector affected by the Ministry of

Children and Family Development? Finish that, put the governance and structure

in place — the regional authority model — and then determine the bargaining

structure for the workers in that sector. But no, here we are just hours away

from this Legislature shutting down, and we're designing a bargaining structure

where there's no model in place to which the bargaining structure will apply.

What

happens if it's decided that there will not be separate aboriginal authorities?

That discussion is going on in the community right now. The community living

sector has huge concerns about the way their authority is being set up. Once

again, it's the cart before the horse, where we're changing something based on a

new system that doesn't exist. It will be on that basis that I will be pursuing

comments and questions at committee stage about the intent of this bill and the

consequence of this legislation.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 61,

Community Services Labour Relations Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 40.

Committee of the Whole House

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 40; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:03 p.m.

Sections 1

to 23 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:04 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

[1605]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 45.

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST (REVITALIZATION)

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:09 p.m.

On

section

The

Chair: Before we proceed, there is an amendment on this section. Possibly we

should deal with that

[ Page 7003 ]

amendment first of all, because it may have some bearing on the rest of the

debate.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I do move the amendment on the order paper standing in my name.

[SECTION 1 (c), by adding "community forest

agreement," after "by repealing the

definitions of".]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: Could the minister explain the amendment, please, and why it is

necessary?

[1610]

Hon. M.

de Jong: In the drafting of the bill, the reference to the various licences

neglected to include the term "community forest agreement," which is a

defined term and type of tenure, and that is why the term "community forest

agreement" needs to be included after the words "definition of. "

MacPhail: So we're repealing the

definitions of community forest agreement?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Not unusually,

section 1 sets out the

definitions used throughout

the Forest Act. The definition of the B.C. timber sales agreement is being

amended, and that is consequential to amendments that are occurring, I believe,

section 109 of the Forest Act made by this bill.

In addition

to that, under subsection (

b) the

definitions of a number of terms — Christmas

tree permit, forest licence for use permit, road permit, and there are a number

of them — are repealed, and they are replaced by the new

definitions that

exist under, I believe, subsection (5) of the bill.

MacPhail: This

section deals with the consequences of the new definition of

B.C. timber sales agreement. I'm wondering why, given the ruling of the WTO

today, we need to pursue this legislation so vigorously that we're actually

assigning time allocation to the debate on this legislation.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize to the member. I'm not sure if her question was

"Why are we doing that?" or the assertion that we are. I just

apologize. I didn't hear what she said.

MacPhail: We've got less than two hours to debate this legislation. I put on

record yesterday about two days' worth of questions in terms of the overlap of

legislation, and what the consequences of it are, at second reading. That wasn't

even a clause-by-clause analysis. That was just trying to take a poke at this

government about the chaos in which they've got forest legislation now.

I read this

morning a direct quote from the Government House Leader. Here's what he's

saying: "The government has been completely transparent, and the bills

which are being moved ahead are the ones that have to be passed this spring. For

example, the forest bill deals with market-based reforms that form part of the

province's position in the softwood lumber dispute…." It's not me linking

it to the WTO or the softwood lumber dispute. The Government House Leader linked

the two.

understanding is that the WTO ruled this morning that the provincial stumpage

system is not a subsidy. Am I correct?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am relying, first of all, not on a reading of the entire

judgment. I'm relying upon the advice that I have received from our counsel in

Washington. That advice is that today the WTO, similar to what they did last

summer with respect to the preliminary determination ruling that they made,

found that although stumpage could in certain circumstances be construed as a

subsidy, they did not make that finding in this case. Rather, they found that

the methodology that the American commerce department had utilized in

determining the numbers that they have since applied, which the member is

familiar with, was a flawed methodology and inconsistent with their obligations

pursuant to WTO treaty law.

[1615]

I think

that is an important distinction, and it is a ruling in which the WTO is saying

to the Americans: "You have done this incorrectly, and you must now go

back." I believe that is good news, insofar as supporting the argument we

have been making that this utilization of cross-border comparisons that the

American commerce department has utilized was incorrect. At the same time, I

heard earlier in question period where the member was observing that it doesn't

do a great deal for us now. I agree with her. There is no immediate relief that

flows from this ruling that we have received today. But it does, I think,

provide us with an enhanced position from which to negotiate further.

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition on the amendment.

MacPhail: Oh, sorry. I thought we passed the.…

The

Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment

approved.

section

1 as amended.

MacPhail: What exactly, if any, victory is the British Columbia government

claiming today, then, from the WTO ruling?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Throughout this process, we have argued a number of things. We did

argue that stumpage in no case can be considered a subsidy. The WTO disagreed

and, as I understand it, in their ruling suggested that there are circumstances

in which stumpage

[ Page 7004 ]

could, depending on how it is administered, be a subsidy. It did not make

that additional finding in this case. I think that is a significant positive for

us.

I think it

is a win when the WTO says to the U.S. commerce department, "You have

calculated these numbers incorrectly," understanding that our position on

that issue is that there are domestic benchmarks within Canada that the commerce

department should have been utilizing. It is improper, and not just improper but

inconsistent with treaty law, for the U.S. to attempt to take data from the

United States and apply it to a comparison of the Canadian circumstance. The WTO

has agreed. It's consistent with a ruling they made last summer. I think that

is, by any measure, a win.

It is my

understanding, as well, that the WTO today also examined the whole argument

around pass-throughs — and that is of particular significance to the

remanufacturing sector which the member and I have talked about in this House in

the past — and the disproportionate amount of problems this has caused for the

remanufacturing sector. The WTO's ruling of today — preliminary ruling because

it doesn't become final for another 30 to 60 days — as I understand it, is

even stronger than their findings of a year ago. That is a significant victory,

I would suggest, for the Canadian and British Columbia position.

There may

be other aspects to this that, upon closer review of the decision, I could

offer. But at this point those are some key features of the decision that I

think qualify, on balance, as a win for us.

MacPhail: I would have thought, from what the minister said in question

period — I listened very closely — that he should now be able to have enough

confidence to know that, from what he said and in answer to a question from one

of his own MLAs, we have the right, as a sovereign nation, to determine how our

Crown assets are managed. Is that going too far in interpreting the WTO decision

of today?

Hon. M.

de Jong: No, but I believe we have always had that right. These decisions

that we make, as they relate to the administration of our public lands and our

publicly owned resources, fall squarely — and in the case of forestry —

within the ambit of this House and the Crown in the right of the province of

British Columbia.

[1620]

We can

negotiate, and the member has been part of governments where negotiations have

taken place. The results of those negotiations, I suppose one could argue, guide

at times the development of public policy, but the sovereign jurisdiction has,

does and, in my view, will remain within the ambit of this House and the Crown

in the right of the province of B.C.

MacPhail: As I've pointed out time and again after attending public meetings

on this matter, this legislation is very controversial, and there are

communities that have great concerns about this legislation. Yet the government

is suggesting that this legislation has to be rammed through because the reforms

are required as part of the province's position in the softwood lumber dispute.

The Minister of Finance said that yesterday, less than 24 hours ago.

Hence my

confusion. Do we have to do this for the softwood lumber dispute, or don't we?

Are we doing this because this is the government's idea of where the reforms

should go — in which case the communities would be very interested in hearing

this — or is the government doing this as the Minister of Finance suggests?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's a point I'm happy we get an opportunity to clarify. We are

making this change to our timber pricing model system because we believe it is

the right thing to do. I can tell the member this unequivocally: if we were not

engaged in a trade dispute with the Americans, I would say that this is the

right thing to do. The notion that timber would be offered for sale

competitively and that we would base the stumpage that people pay on the market

value of that timber is, one, a change.

acknowledge that. It is a change from the way things have happened in the past,

but it is, in my view, a change that is long overdue and should take place and,

based on what I have learned in discussions around the province and with those

involved, one that I would be advocating irrespective of the dispute that exists

with the Americans.

I will say

this — and I don't quarrel with what the member has said about some of the

response or commentary she may have heard: conceptually, even amongst those

people and groups who have expressed to me some concerns about some of the

concepts enshrined in Bill 29, I have not heard the same degree of concern

around the shift to a market-based timber pricing system. I have heard anxieties

expressed about what it means for individual corporate bottom lines, but in

general I have not heard from the same groups that have expressed concerns

around some of the appurtenancy provisions we were talking about in Bill 29 and

some of those other changes.

I think,

broadly speaking, that this shift to market-based timber pricing is something

there is widespread support for, particularly the provisions that would see

timber made available on a competitive basis. Now, the specifics around the

timber pricing model. Is it based on standing timber? Is it log transactions?

There are differences of opinion on that, and I'm sure the member has heard some

of those opinions. The notion that we would offer timber competitively and take

that data to help drive a truly market-based timber pricing system, get rid of

the old notion of the waterbed, which I think is a mechanism the member's

government inherited…. It didn't create it, to my recollection, but it is

something that her government inherited and wrestled with. I think those are,

broadly speaking, changes that enjoy a degree of support across the fold.

[1625]

MacPhail: Just one final question. Is it the minister's view that this

legislation — Bills 27, 28, 29, 44, 45

[ Page 7005 ]

— have to be passed before this government returns to the softwood lumber

negotiating table?

Hon. M.

de Jong: One is not a prerequisite for the other, in my view. In fact,

unless we see and hear things from the U.S. side that we have not heard to this

point, I'm not entirely certain — I am hopeful, but I cannot guarantee to the

member or anyone else — that there will be a table to return to. We will need

to see and hear a more reasonable expression of their desire to settle this than

we have seen thus far. I'm hoping that will emerge, but, again, it is far from

certain.

MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's candour, because that would be my view

as well, but it is this very legislation that the Government House Leader uses

as an example of why we have to have things rammed through the House. I quoted

from it exactly. He used this legislation specifically as the reason why we are

invoking closure in this chamber. I read again: "For example, the forest

bills deal with the market-based reforms that form part of the province's

position in the softwood lumber dispute," he said, meaning the Government

House Leader. I thought it was interesting that he linked the two, when other

people in the government have been careful not to. I guess any excuse to use the

heavy hand of closure will do.

Section 1

illustrates the issue that I raised during second reading debate yesterday.

Because we don't have a PowerPoint presentation and we don't have anything

colour-coded that we can flash on the walls to follow things here, I'm going to

have to do this by reading. This bill, in

section 1, reads as this.

Section 1 of

the Forest Act, 1996, is amended "(

a) in subsection (1) in the definition

of 'BC timber sales agreement' by striking out '(

b) to (e)' and

substituting '(

b) to (f).'" But as I said yesterday, if you actually go to

the statute, you will not find any definition of a B.C. timber sales agreement.

You won't even find it in the consolidated version that the ministry staff were

so kind to give me, and you won't find it in the updated version of the act —

that same version that's found on the ministry's website. The reason for that is

the definition of the B.C. timber sales agreement is found in Bill 27, and Bill

27 has not yet received royal assent.

Perhaps the

minister could explain to me how he's keeping track of what's in force and what

isn't.

Hon. M.

de Jong: To use the member's terminology, I'm not intending here to be

cheeky, but all of us know — and this member does as well — that laws do not

take effect following the passage of third reading in this House until they have

received royal assent and until they have been proclaimed by whatever mechanism

the statute at that point provides for.

[1630]

What I

think I'd like to point out — and I don't underestimate or diminish the point

the member has made about the complicated nature of the amendments and sometimes

amendments that refer back to provisions that have either just come through the

House or are, in the case of Bill 29, still before the House…. It is a result

of having approached the task of revising the Forest Act in something of a

thematically staged process.

The member

will know that Bill 27 was largely geared to the task of effecting a takeback of

tenure and reallocating that tenure, along with some other ancillary features.

Bill 29 — as we are engaged in that discussion — approaches the Forest Act

from the point of view of dealing with specific statutory provisions around the

link to processing facilities, cut control and the transferability of titles,

and so there is a series of amendments that deal with that. Then this bill deals

with the creation of a framework around which tenure would be offered

competitively.

I will not

quarrel with the member's assertion that it is a challenging task to make the

linkages, taken in their entirety, through legislative drafting. I know that

because I saw it from the perspective of watching it come together. I will also

say to the member that if one could have taken all three of those features and

in a timely way wrapped them into one huge omnibus amendment, I think that would

have been preferable from the point of view of affecting the debate here. It

would be stupid not to concede that. It leads us to a situation where we are

cross-referencing back and forth.

I do ask

the member to accept my candid response that this is something that has emerged

out of the thematic approach to changing the Forest Act. But I don't quarrel

with the difficulty it presents from the point of view of affecting the debate

and, candidly, for a member who is confronted by the challenge of having to

debate many pieces of legislation in this House.

MacPhail: I would be less troubled if it were thematic — the approach

we're taking to this. But as I pointed out yesterday in my second reading

comments, it's all over the map. It's not as if one piece of legislation deals

with one approach, and then the next piece, another theme. It's all over the

map.

Let me ask

this of the minister. What would've been the problem with introducing an omnibus

bill where all of this work had already been done and allowed proper

consideration — not by me but by the public or perhaps by the Liberal MLAs,

who actually represent the constituencies that are going to be forever affected

by these changes? What happened between the introduction on March 26, the debate

on April 29, the passage of Bill 27 on May 6 and then, two days later, the

introduction of this legislation that amends the very work we passed on May 6,

two days before?

[1635]

Here's why

I'm asking this. It's because