2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ernie Burnett

V. Roddick

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

College and Institute Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Hon. S.

Bond

Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 33)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Provincial Revenue Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Second-language programs in B.C.

R. Lee

Legislative internship programs

K. Krueger

Forest fire control and prevention

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Employment transition services for

sex trade workers

MacPhail

Hon. S.

Hagen

Studio program for at-risk youth

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Hagen

Skilled labour shortage

H. Bloy

Hon. S.

Bond

B.C. Rail–first nations benefits

trust

Nettleton

Hon. G.

Plant

Marijuana grow operations in rental

housing

R. Stewart

Hon. R.

Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Coal Act (Bill 28)

Hon. P.

Bell

B. Bennett

D. MacKay

Lekstrom

Hon. P.

Bell

Committee of the Whole House

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act

(Bill 14)

Hon. J.

Les

Nebbeling

J. Kwan

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act

(Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 24)

Lekstrom

Hon. J.

Les

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 24)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation

Hon. K.

Falcon

MacPhail

[ Page 10425 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J.

Les: On behalf of my colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I am pleased

to introduce to the House this afternoon 21 grade 12 students from the Mount

Cheam Christian School in Chilliwack. They are here to observe the Legislature

today and, hopefully, leave at the end of today slightly more educated and

impressed with how the Legislature works. They are here with their principal,

Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk, and three other chaperons. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Hon. P.

Bell: It's a real pleasure today to introduce to the House my administrative

assistant, who is normally very capable, competent and fast. However, yesterday

she tried to take

part in the Times Colonist 10K run, and things are

happening somewhat slower around the office today. I would ask that the House

please make Melanie Hughes very welcome.

P. Wong:

In the gallery today we have a group of nine visitors. They are the senior

government officials from the Guangdong provincial government pursuing a

one-year MBA degree at the UBC Sauder school of business. The group members are

Huazhong Lu, general manager and professor, Technological Development Co., South

China Agricultural University; Wenping Huang, division chief, the Standing

Committee of the People's Congress of Guangdong Province; Liansheng Liu, dean of

the insurance faculty, Guangzhou College of Finance; Dehao Li, director and

associate professor, department of science and technology, Maoming University;

Chaoqiu Liu, associate professor, head of Education Technology Centre, Guangdong

Radio and TV University; Xiaosheng Wu, deputy department chief, education and culture

department, overseas Chinese affairs office of Guangdong Province; Jian Zhang,

public procurator, deputy director of legal policy research office, the People's

Procuratorate of Guangdong Province; Shiwen Luo, deputy executive, People's

Government of Lianping County, Guangdong Province; and finally, Haohai Chen,

deputy dean, department of foreign languages, Guangdong Polytechnic Normal

University. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Tributes

ERNIE BURNETT

Roddick: I rise today in sadness, yet celebration — celebration of a life

well lived. Ernie Burnett, alderman and mayor of Delta from 1979 to 1987, died

peacefully at Delta Hospital on Saturday evening. Ernie was a man who not only

gave selflessly to his community but also had an enormous respect for public

office and all that it entails. His belief in and support of public service

consistently contributed to the betterment of Delta and, subsequently, our

province. We give thanks to his families for so graciously sharing him with us

over the years, and I ask that this House join me in giving Ernie Burnett a

well-earned round of recognition and appreciation.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T.

Christensen: It's my pleasure to introduce four constituents of the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. These are four students in that area. What

makes them exceptional students is that they are all mothers as well. Would the

House please join me in welcoming students Amanda Mason, Frances Raci, Chelcea

Devlin and Amanda Rogers. They are accompanied by their youth care outreach

worker Debbie van Dok and their teacher, Terri Thompson. Would the House please

make them all welcome.

J. Kwan:

Visiting us today is Linda Irvine. She is a high school teacher-librarian in

Nanaimo, and she is here in Victoria today on a pro-D day. She is also the

mother of our very able intern, Sara Irvine. Accompanying Linda, as well, is her

other daughter, Melanie. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

Hazel Mitchell, who works in the Premier's office, advised me that joining

us in the House today is her father, John Mitchell, who is actually a

constituent of mine, as well as her brother David Mitchell.

[1410]

Also

joining us in the gallery today is a visitor from England, Anne Cason. Hazel

wanted me to make it very clear that not only is Anne a tourist here to Victoria

for the next six weeks, but she is also Hazel Mitchell's nana. I would ask that

the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: After working for seven years in the legislative building, a key

member of my office staff, Caroline Mawbey, is joining the House to see it live

for the first time. Would the House please make Caroline very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. S.

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

College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: Two statutes currently govern public colleges, university colleges and

institutes in British

[ Page 10426 ]

Columbia: the College and Institute Act, which governs colleges, university

colleges and provincial institutes; and the Institute of Technology Act, which

governs the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

This year

the British Columbia Institute of Technology celebrates its fortieth anniversary

as a unique and integral part of B.C.'s post-secondary education system. It has

been a truly remarkable journey for the institution, growing from a single

campus in Burnaby in 1964 to a world-class polytechnic institution boasting five

campuses, 12 satellite locations around British Columbia and more than 48,000

students.

As part of

a larger review of B.C.'s public post-secondary system legislation, it was

determined that there was some overlap between the Institute of Technology Act

and the College and Institute Act. BCIT has been consulted during the

legislative review. These amendments will not substantially affect its

operations, and BCIT supports their passage.

Amendments

introduced today under the College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004, will

repeal the Institute of Technology Act and place BCIT under the College and

Institute Act to eliminate unnecessary duplication that currently exists between

the two acts. At the same time, the College and Institute Act will be amended to

streamline public post-secondary education legislation, clarify the

discretionary powers of boards and provide them with the autonomy and

flexibility that better reflect their roles and range of responsibilities, and

formalize recognition of BCIT's unique role and mandate as a public polytechnic

institution.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26

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.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

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

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I am pleased to introduce Bill 27, the Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act. This bill reflects government's commitment to expedite treaty

settlements with first nations. Amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission

Act enable first nations who are involved in treaty negotiations or who have

signed treaties to apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission to change

land uses of treaty settlement lands within the agricultural land reserve.

Currently, first nations are required to obtain the approval of local

governments before applying to the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1415]

These

amendments will facilitate treaty negotiations by enabling first nations to

determine with certainty the land use restrictions for potential treaty

settlement lands. Having a clear insight into what activities can occur on those

lands will provide first nations with important information before they decide

whether to ratify a treaty package. Post-treaty, first nations will have the

same abilities and obligations as local governments for the purposes of making

agricultural land reserve applications on lands within their treaty settlement

lands. First nations will be required to provide public notice and, where

required by the regulation, to hold a public hearing for proposed changes within

the agricultural land reserve. These obligations are similar to those that apply

to local governments and landowners currently.

Treaty

settlements will encourage investment within the province by providing greater

land use certainty and will contribute to the economic well-being of first

nations and all British Columbians. I am pleased to present this bill in the

House today.

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 27

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.

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 33 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Bill 33 is the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. The bill makes

amendments — many of them housekeeping in nature, but several substantive

amendments — to the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the

Forestry Revitalization Act.

Some of

those amendments include amendments which speak to successorship rights of

contractors and subcontractors where tenure transfers are involved and the

conditions under which parties to those transfers may contract to waive

replaceability. The compensation provisions of the Forest Act — in particular,

section 60 and

part 13 — and the Forestry Revitalization Act have been

harmonized to provide a consistent means across those acts to fairly compensate

licensees for government actions that affect their rights. As well, this

legislation makes amendments to the Forest and

[ Page 10427 ]

Range Practices Act to clarify obligations in several key areas.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33

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.

PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R.

Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Bill 34 proposes a number of amendments to the taxation and revenue

statutes administered by the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. These amendments

are proposed to ensure fairness, equity and clarification for taxpayers, to

provide efficiencies in the tax administration and revenue collection process,

and to align the provincial income tax provisions with those of the federal

Income Tax Act.

The bill

proposes amendments to 12 acts: the Corporation Capital Tax Act, Hotel Room Tax

Act, Income Tax Act, Land Tax Deferment Act, Logging Tax Act, Mineral Land Tax

Act, Mineral Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Property Transfer Tax Act, Social

Service Tax Act, Taxation (Rural Area) Act and Tobacco Tax Act. I will elaborate

on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

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 34

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) SECOND-LANGUAGE PROGRAMS IN B.C.

R. Lee:

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the annual general meeting of the

British Columbia Heritage Language Association. This organization represents

over 150 organized language programs in British Columbia which offer instruction

More than 35,000 students are currently enrolled in international language

programs across British Columbia. Over 1,000 instructors are involved in

teaching these languages in our community.

[1420]

With the

2010 Winter Olympics on the horizon, we are once again preparing to welcome the

world to our beautiful province. Isn't it nice that British Columbians can give

our visitors a warm welcome by conversing in their own languages? In fact, our

youth are learning many languages in our community, including Amharic, Armenian,

Mandarin, Cantonese, Dari and Pashto, Farsi, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian,

Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Kurdish, Nepali, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi,

Sinhalese, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog, Tamil, Fanti, Ewe, Ukrainian and

Vietnamese.

International

language education programs provide young people with opportunity not only in

learning a communication skill but also in intellectual, social and cultural

development. Many governments recognize the advantages of a multilingual

population in economic development and the importance of second-language

education. Alberta has just confirmed its commitment through a provincial

education policy that mandates second-language education for all students from

grade 4 to grade 9.

British

Columbians must rise to accept this challenge. I believe that we already have

the advantage of a large multilingual population. All we need to do is expand on

this advantage by implementing a strong second-language program in our school

system as well as supporting the community-based language education programs.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

Krueger: Today I have the privilege of acknowledging two nationally renowned

internship programs. One we have right here in B.C.; the other is a few hours

south, in Olympia, Washington. Many of our colleagues were themselves part of

the provincial internship program at the genesis of their careers in the public

service. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, the member for

Chilliwack-Kent, Richard Overgaard, Martyn Brown, Tom Syer, Jessie McDonald, Jay

Schlosar, Sarah Bonner, Jennifer Erickson, Milan Pavlic, Robert Parker, Jonathan

Fershau, Jerry Muir and Marc Coward all benefited tremendously from the

experiences and opportunities afforded to them by the program and draw on those

in their service to British Columbians while working here in the Legislature.

Established

in January '76 by the three major universities in B.C. at the time, the current

program is now advised by four of the outstanding universities in B.C. — UBC,

SFU, UVic and UNBC. Our six-month internship program offers an opportunity to

university grads to supplement their academic training by observing the daily

workings of the Legislature firsthand and to provide MLAs with additional

assistance during the parliamentary session. With a six-week stint in a

provincial ministry, lectures by independent officers and political figures,

week-long visits to the constituency offices of MLAs, and educational trips and

caucus as-

[ Page 10428 ]

signments to either the government or the opposition, our program provides

ten bright young minds with a unique perspective of the Westminster system at

work.

As part of

the program exchange at the end of February, the B.C. interns were hosted in

Washington by the interns in Olympia, a number of whom are visiting us today. I

understand our interns were made to feel very welcome as both the Washington

State Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions in their

honour. Every year 60 Washington State undergrad interns go to Olympia during

the winter quarter or spring semester to work with staff and members of the

Washington State House of Representatives or Senate. The Washington internship

is a widely respected program for American university students.

Educating

youth and preparing them for the future is a meaningful undertaking for any

government. We are pleased to share this common goal with our neighbours, as we

also share a myriad of aspirations and objectives. I wish to thank Karen Aitken

and Jennifer Horvath of B.C. and Judy Best and Joan Elgee, the Washington State

intern program coordinators. These internships would not be possible without

their contributions.

Would the

House please join me in recognizing these programs and the work of coordinators

and the interns with us, both past and present.

FOREST FIRE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Bennett: When setting up the Filmon review, the Premier committed government

to a no-holds-barred review of the 2003 fires. I personally took Mr. Filmon out

to show him the buildup of fuels in our Rocky Mountain Trench forests. Mr.

Filmon subsequently made various recommendations, and the Premier has said that

we will meet all 42 recommendations.

[1425]

One of Mr.

Filmon's key recommendations is to do more prescribed burning to safeguard our

communities. We should remember that it took many decades of fire suppression to

create the challenge of too much fuel in our forests and that the remedy will

not be completed in one season. I am happy to report that in the Rocky Mountain

forest district this spring, we did more prescribed burning than at any time in

history and probably set a provincial record — over 3,000 hectares burned.

This isn't cheap. One series of four burns of 484 hectares cost $72,355. Another

series of three burns of only 286 hectares cost $71,780. On one day the local

Forest Service personnel, under the very capable supervision of Greg Anderson,

safely burned nine square kilometres, which is a one-day record and an awesome

accomplishment for the Forest Service in the Cranbrook office and all their

contract workers and certified volunteers.

But while

this controlled burning will reduce the risk of wildfires, the public must be

vigilant. A disturbing story is emerging out of Cranbrook. Police are

investigating an arsonist who is deliberately starting bush fires in the

interface between the community and the forest, and if he's not stopped, these

fires could result in the awful devastation we saw in areas of the province last

year. Most of this spring's forest fires have been caused by people, not nature

— though most, no doubt, were accidents.

We are

heading into what looks like another very dangerous fire season. It's important

to remember that fire prevention and fire safety are everyone's responsibility.

Homeowners in the interface should be taking action now to protect their homes

and their properties. Please, let's all be careful with fire — more careful

with fire than we were last season. Let any forest fires we have in 2004 be

caused by nature, not people.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION SERVICES

FOR SEX TRADE WORKERS

MacPhail: According to a confidential question-and-answer document prepared

for the Minister of Human Resources, British Columbians with mental health

conditions and serious drug problems that interfere with their ability to search

for and accept employment will have their benefits taken away if they don't look

for work. The minister says it's all about helping people. He's writing letters

to the editor to tell everybody to stand down and not worry.

But he

doesn't mention that his government is closing doors on innovative programs

designed to get young people — many who have drug, alcohol and mental health

problems — off the street. At the end of April, WISH, a non-profit society on

the downtown east side, is losing a $125,000 provincial grant to provide

pre-employment programs for sex trade workers, many of whom have mental health

and addiction issues. To the Minister of Human Resources: how can he justify

cutting employment programs that get people off the street and into school, into

work, when the government is demanding that they look for work as a condition of

receiving assistance?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd like to point out to the member that since the Gordon Campbell

government was sworn in on June 5, 2001, this government has spent $300 million

on job training programs for various individuals.

In the

meetings that I've had with advocacy groups and other groups, they make it very

clear to me that the people they represent actually do want to become engaged in

the community. They want to be trained and they want to work. Research is clear

that for people with temporary mental illness or an addiction issue, being

involved in an employment program is very helpful to them.

With regard

to the specific issue that the member questioned about, that particular group

was duplicating services offered by another group. We fund PEERS in Vancouver,

who are able to take up….

[ Page 10429 ]

MacPhail: Did you actually talk to them?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I have met with PEERS, as a matter of fact. They are going to be able

to deliver the programs that are necessary for those clients.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has another question.

MacPhail: That shows just how out of touch this Minister of Human Resources

is with the answer he just gave. WISH does not compete and is not a duplication

of PEERS at all. In fact, WISH has been a very successful downtown east side

program supported by a wide range of governments, including Social Credit

governments and NDP governments, and this government just cancelled its

pre-employment program. They claim they want to help people get jobs, but

they're taking away the supports to help people get the life skills and

confidence they need to find and maintain employment.

[1430]

According

to ministry officials, this minister's officials, the B.C. Liberals have decided

that funding drop-in centres for at-risk youth is no longer a priority — their

own briefing documents. The government's guidelines for funding say that

community-based outreach programs for high-risk youth should get minor emphasis.

Apparently, programs that focus on outreach and prevention are no longer worthy

of government support.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, time for the question, please.

MacPhail: To the Minister of Human Resources: can he confirm that drop-in

centres for at-risk youth are getting the axe, and can he tell us how much this

mean-spirited move is adding to the government's bottom line so that it can pay

for its failed high-income tax cut?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I can tell the member opposite one thing and one thing for sure. This

government is not going to give up on the people who need the help the most just

because they have some barriers. Our programs are put in place not just…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …to spend money. They're actually put in place to achieve results.

We actually want to help those people achieve their potential. Every human being

out there has potential. We want to make sure that our clients, particularly,

are able to reach that potential through the programs that we have.

I know the

member is pretty focused on Vancouver. I'd like to remind her that we just

announced a $3.25 million Vancouver agreement, which is going to deliver some of

those services as well. However, having said that, the program that she's

talking about was a duplication of a program that we are presently funding.

STUDIO PROGRAM FOR AT-RISK YOUTH

J. Kwan:

The minister and this government are cutting programs that are successful

and that help people in the community, and the minister knows it. Let me give

the minister another example. For 17 years the Studio has been helping some of

Vancouver's most vulnerable and troubled young people get their lives together.

For these young people, the Studio is a lifeline providing a safe, caring

atmosphere away from a hard life on the streets of the downtown east side. For

many, the Studio is the difference between a life on the streets and a life of

learning, work and opportunity. The program costs the province $60,000 a year,

but the Premier has cut the funding, and now the Studio may have to close its

doors.

To the

Minister of Human Resources: what is wrong with the Premier's priorities when he

happily spends $600 million on a highway to Whistler but won't spend $60,000 to

help youth find a way off the streets?

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. S.

Hagen: I want to say to the member opposite and to all of the people of this

province: nobody cares about the people in this province more than the Premier.

The member

opposite is focused strictly on dollars of expenditures. We're actually focused

on outcome. We're focused on how people's lives can be changed for the better. I

was at a graduation ceremony this morning out at Camosun College on a job-track

program. Thirty people took that program, have graduated and are now looking

forward to being in the workforce. They had three people there who graduated

from the program prior to this, who gave testimonials about how their lives had

been changed for the better because of these programs.

We examined

every program to make sure that the program is delivering what it's intended to

deliver. In the case of this one, it was duplication.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question.

[1435]

J. Kwan:

The minister is completely out of touch. The Studio has been successful for 17

years and has lived through several administrations. Why? Because it provides

much-needed programs for youth at risk. The

[ Page 10430 ]

cost to fund the Studio is less than half of one deputy minister's salary. It

is less than the cost to taxpayers to keep Bob Virk on staff until the police

concludes the investigation into the B.C. Rail raid. The Studio, the Picasso

Cafe and other innovative, successful programs are closing their doors because

this Liberal government can't see the value in giving hope to at-risk people.

I ask the

Premier. These programs are critical. We cannot afford to lose them. On behalf

of the young people, will the Premier today announce that he…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member has the floor.

J. Kwan:

To the Premier, on behalf of the young people: will the Premier announce today

that he is reversing this government's mean-spirited cuts to drop-in centres as

a first step — restore the $60,000 funding to the Studio so that it can keep

its doors open to at-risk youth?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I would ask the member opposite: what is wrong with an expenditure of

$300 million, since we became government, to help people change their lives for

the better? What's wrong with designing programs that really work for people,

where there's a positive outcome, where people's lives are changed for the

better? This government is committed to make sure that the programs that are

delivered are actually producing results that will work for the people who are

the clients of this ministry.

SKILLED LABOUR SHORTAGE

H. Bloy:

My question today is to the Minister of Advanced Education. There have been many

reports to date from the construction industry about the looming shortage of

skilled workers in this province. The construction sector will need thousands of

jobs to complete the Olympic projects between now and 2010, and in my riding of

Burquitlam there are many projects going on that will require additional

workers. But I consider this a good-news question. It certainly shows that the

financial direction that the Premier of this province has put us in is working.

We are creating jobs.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burquitlam has the floor.

Please ask

the question now.

H. Bloy:

However, with this good news, can the minister please tell us what she's doing

to ensure that we'll be able to attract and train enough workers?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, the good news is that there is a boom in terms of building and

particularly in housing starts in British Columbia. We have a plan to be able to

begin to deal with the shortage of workers in this province. In fact, the

Industry Training Authority is working hard to create a system that's responsive

and reacts quickly. In fact, we have a plan in place to see an increase in

workers of 30 percent over the next three years.

The great

news is that our numbers are up. In fact, we have institutions creating new

sections all the time. Just recently we invested an additional $800,000 to

reduce wait-lists so we can accommodate the number of apprentices that are

registering in our programs. We're on our way to meeting the needs that are

evident in the province.

B.C. RAIL–FIRST NATIONS

BENEFITS TRUST

Nettleton: Surprise, surprise. First nations are now responding to the

discovery that they've been manipulated by this government, in particular by the

Attorney General, into accepting piecemeal the benefits trust fund, not

realizing that it was falsely being tied into the promotion and validation of

the B.C. Rail sale. Now the Attorney General and the Premier have pushed aside

the Minister of Transportation in order to defend the indefensible.

Today's

opinion piece released by the Attorney General on this issue is not disclosure

but misinformation. Even before this release was out, a growing list of first

nations were withdrawing from the rail benefits trust initiative. This included

the Tl'atz'en nation, who in a letter to the AG dated April 22, 2004, stated:

"Until full and complete disclosure of the agreement and the opportunity to

understand the implications of the sale, we formally withdraw our support to the

benefit trust fund."

[1440]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, time for the question now.

Nettleton: My question is to the Attorney General. How long will the AG and

this government continue this subterfuge and backward dance with the truth? When

will this government lay all the cards on the table, come clean and deal

honestly with first nations and indeed…?

Interjections.

Nettleton: You know, the laughter on the government side of the House….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the time has long since passed for the question.

Nettleton: And so it is for this government.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am confident that every member on this side of the House could get

up and speak passionately about the work that we've done as a government to

improve the lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia and about the

opportunity presented by

[ Page 10431 ]

the first nations–B.C. Rail benefits trust proposal to put $15 million into

25 different first nations communities. We have been consistent throughout. Back

in February, when I wrote to the 25 first nations, I said quite clearly that the

trust does not involve aboriginal rights and title and related consultation and

accommodation. Participation in the $15 million trust will not have any

conditions related to assertions of rights and title. We've been clear from the

outset that this is an opportunity for first nations. I am confident that the

majority, if not nearly all, of the 25 first nations will participate in the

opportunity presented to them — more good news for rural British Columbians.

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

IN RENTAL HOUSING

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. In my riding the city of Coquitlam, along with a number of other

municipalities in the lower mainland, has introduced bylaws that impose upon

property owners the duty to ensure that their rental homes do not become grow

ops. I own a rental property, and as the minister no doubt knows, the task of a

landlord to monitor a property to keep it free of illegal activity is very

difficult. What is this government doing to assist property owners in

identifying grow ops?

Hon. R.

Coleman: On January 1 we brought in a new Residential Tenancy Act in this

province, which allows a landlord, without arbitration, to inspect their

property once a month if they have a rental property. That's a huge breakthrough

for that community, because obviously it takes more than a month to grow a grow

op. We also gave them the power to evict for illegal activity. In addition to

that, we also have B.C. Hydro monitoring and a relation with police on the

education. The B.C. Real Estate Association actually recently added to their

property condition disclosure statement that you have to disclose if there's

ever been any illegal activity, like a grow op or drug labs, in your property.

Along with municipalities, we continue to find the tools that will assist those

people found in those circumstances.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be beginning the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Transportation. In this House I call second reading of Bill 28.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

COAL ACT

Hon. P.

Bell: As I announced during first reading, under the Coal Act, government

issues coal licences and leases for the exploration and production of

Crown-owned coal. The amendments introduced in this act deal with eliminating

overlap and duplication and simplify the administration of coal tenure. The

changes we are introducing reduce regulation and create a modern, simplified

system for acquiring and holding coal rights.

I want to

stress that this government will continue to uphold and maintain the same strong

environmental regulations and guidelines, safeguards, and health and safety

standards that the coal industry has long been noted for in this province.

Let me be

clear on one specific change. With this bill we are removing from the Coal Act a

duplicate provision that already exists under the Park Act, which prohibits

exploration, development and production of coal in provincial parks or heritage

sites unless authorized by a park use permit from the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection. The duplicate existed in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection under the Park Act and continues to remain there. There is no change

with regards to exploration extraction activities of coal in parks.

Further,

the two-zone land use system that is currently in place for hard-rock minerals

is also being established in this act for coal. The two-zone system recognizes

that parks and other protected areas are off-limits — I repeat, off-limits —

to development. I will go into a bit more detail on that in a moment.

The

amendments in this bill support government's commitment to substantially reduce

the regulatory burden for the industry, providing a secure, consistent coal

tenure system. The new act will see the elimination of 49 regulatory

requirements, representing a 34 percent reduction in red tape overall for the

benefit of both industry and government. Several streamlining changes will

delete unnecessary requirements that are duplicated by other statutes or

processes, and I've already identified one of those.

Policy

changes introduced by the amendments include removal of the requirement for a

free-miner's certificate. Coal tenure is applied for through a map selection

process, not staking. The access rights provided by a free-miner's certificate

are not required for coal exploration purposes. The free-miner's certificate was

simply an unnecessary burden to the coal industry and government, and with this

act that is being deleted.

addition, we're removing the requirement to provide core samples. As you may

know, Mr. Speaker, coal core deteriorates over time and has a limited useful

life; thereby the storage of coal core makes little sense. Government still has

the authority to require submission of other technical data such as electronic

logs and geological reports. Both government and industry will have significant

savings in both shipping and storage costs through this change.

Removal of

holding leases by this act as well, although the minister may, on application,

transfer the sole existing holding lease to a lease or licence…. There is one

existing holding lease. In the past, a coal licensee

[ Page 10432 ]

was allowed to apply for a holding lease if production from the applicant's

location demonstrated the coal production was not feasible at that point in

time. Although only one holding lease currently exists, this provision is

potentially open to abuse and could lead to a hoarding of coal rights. The

owners of the sole holding lease have been consulted and will have the ability

to apply for a coal lease or licence.

addition, as I said earlier, we are incorporating the wording to reflect the

two-zone land use system for mining. The two-zone land use system that is

currently in place for minerals is also being established for coal. The two-zone

system recognizes that parks and protected areas are off-limits — and I

repeat, are off-limits — to development. The incorporation of the two-zone

system in coal legislation will provide more certainty for the coal industry by

confirming an operator may apply for permission to do work and have applications

adjudicated on their own merits anywhere outside of parks and protected areas.

[1450]

addition, we are also providing in this act for flexibility in the size and

shapes of licences. These changes will allow industry more flexibility in the

size and shapes of their licences. The minimum size for a coal licence will be

about 65 hectares, depending on what latitude you are in the province, and the

maximum size for an individual licence will be approximately 1,700 hectares. The

current size limit under the old act would allow for up to four units, which was

260 to 340 hectares, so this really should simplify the process of acquiring

coal licences and reduce the amount of paperwork involved.

The grid

used to describe licence locations is the same grid that is currently used for

petroleum, natural gas and geothermal resources and will be used for minerals in

the future, as is noted in another act that has been introduced in this House.

Several of

the changes will mean savings for industry and government through less red tape.

Certainly, a good example of that is the deleting of the free-miner's

certificate.

It's a very

exciting time in the coal industry right now. There has been an incredible

resurgence in coal markets throughout the world led by the Chinese marketplace

in particular, but also India and Japan. There was recently announced by the

Pine Valley Mining Corp., a new mine just south of Chetwynd. It's the first new

coalmine to come on stream in many, many years.

I know many

of the members in this House have interests in various coal properties in their

particular ridings and really would love to see more activity in the industry.

We get calls on a regular basis from constituents who are looking for coal. The

member for Burnaby North recently sent me an e-mail looking for contacts in the

industry, which we will gladly pass on to the Mining Association of B.C.,

identifying some of the key coal tenure holders in the province. There is a huge

need for coal, which has largely been as a result of what's been taking place in

China over the last number of years.

We are

definitely supporting the coal industry. We know that it is key for us. The

member for East Kootenay will be speaking in a little bit. His riding is largely

dependent on the coal industry and has certainly done very well by it over the

years. We want to invite the coal industry back to British Columbia. It was

clear through the 1990s that they were not welcome here. We saw that as mine

after mine after mine closed in British Columbia, Australia's coal industry was

expanding, growing, developing and taking over the markets that we had once

controlled. I'm glad we're able to make this change for the coal industry. It is

key.

Certainly,

Tumbler Ridge is one of those communities that will benefit in a big way from

the changes we have made in this Coal Act. The member for Peace River South and

I visited Tumbler Ridge about three or four weeks ago. There was a community

there that used to be 5,000 or 6,000 people, which is now just a shadow of its

former self, but they are excited about what's happening at Pine Valley. They

are excited about what Western Canadian Coal is going to do with the Wolverine

project. They're excited about the possibility of Quintette maybe having another

look, and then there are many other projects in the area that can be developed.

I think there's an exciting time in front of us.

rewriting the Coal Act, we consulted very closely with those holding coal tenure

or wishing to acquire tenure. I make no apology for that. I believe that as a

government, we need to consult with the people who wish to be in the business

and ensure that we are competitive on a global basis. The coal industry is a

global industry. There are coal resources around the world, and the coal

industry will go to where the friendliest regulatory regimes and best taxation

regimes are. We need to be competitive on a global basis in order to attract

them to the province.

I look

forward to passing this legislation and demonstrating our government's firm

commitment to promoting investment in mining and to building a strong economy

for all British Columbians through the provision of this enhanced certainty for

industry. I am pleased to move second reading now.

Bennett: It's my honour to stand up and support the Coal Act, introduced by

the Minister of State for Mining. It came to my attention earlier today that I

almost missed the opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation, and had

that happened, I might not have been able to return home.

[1455]

First

of all, I guess, it's not major legislation, but it's legislation that just goes

one step further to make it a bit easier to do business here in this province.

It's reduced 34 percent of the red tape in the previous legislation. That has to

be a positive thing. It's also incorporated the two-zone land use system for

mining, which is important to the coal industry.

The coal

industry in the East Kootenay, obviously, is an entrenched industry that has

done very well, continues to do well and has a 50-year plan ahead of itself.

[ Page 10433 ]

On the other hand, there are possibilities for additional coal operations

around the province, and for those new operations, these changes to the Coal Act

will be quite beneficial. It will make it a lot easier for them to do business

in B.C. and, hopefully, will encourage them to invest their money and to create

jobs here, because that's what this is all about.

Coming from

an area where coalmining makes one of the two largest economic contributions in

the region, I can say without hesitation that the coal industry has been good

for B.C. In British Columbia we don't use coal a lot. We use it a little bit in

our concrete plants. We send most of it offshore to places like Japan. Japan has

been our historical export destination. We're also, as the Minister of State for

Mining indicated, sending more and more coal to China, with their burgeoning

economy. For the most part, coal has gone out of the province to Asia and, to

some extent, now to eastern Canada and also to the U.S. Other jurisdictions, on

the other hand, like Alberta have coal — not as high a quality of coal as we

have here in B.C., but they do have large reserves of coal — and they tend to

use that coal to generate jobs in their own jurisdiction.

I think

that in the future here in British Columbia, we really do need to put our minds

to ways that we can use this very abundant resource, this very high-quality

coal, to export — exporting is great; the money comes back to the province; it

helps pay for education and health care — but we also need to find ways to use

that coal to generate some value-added opportunities right here. The production

of electricity might be one example of how you could use that coal or the coal

tailings.

In the East

Kootenay, in the little communities of Elkford and Sparwood and Fernie, there

are 2,600 direct jobs in the coal industry today, and the company, Elk Valley

Coal Corp., is apparently beginning to hire more. Those 2,600 direct jobs in the

industry average $82,000 a year in salary and benefits. I never get tired of

saying that. It actually boggles the mind to think that in a small, far-flung

rural area like the East Kootenay, you can have a mass of high-paying jobs like

that.

When we

think about rural B.C., I know we hear sometimes that it's suffering, and some

areas of the province are suffering. It's been a challenge to get the forest

industry back on its feet after the decade of decline. I think we are getting

there in that regard. In the areas where we've had a strong mining presence,

like the Elk Valley and like this coal industry, they have actually done

reasonably well. Thank goodness we've had that industry in this province. People

have had money to buy some toys like ATVs and snowmobiles and half-ton trucks.

People have had money to take holidays. It really adds to the quality of life

for rural British Columbians when they've got these kinds of jobs to depend on.

I am unabashedly a promoter, and an enthusiastic promoter, of coal industry

jobs. I know that the coal industry pays a lot of money to the provincial

government and to the federal government in terms of taxes. Of course, those

taxes go to pay for health care and education.

[1500]

As the

Minister of State for Mining indicated, the coal industry around the world is in

a period of expansion. Right now the five mines in the East Kootenay are going

full tilt. They have a guarantee from Canadian Pacific Railway that at least six

trains a day, seven days a week, will go from the Elk Valley out to the port in

Vancouver. Actually, they have enough market right now that they could probably

double that if we had more rail lines. So transportation infrastructure does

become a bit of an issue for them and for us. There's more coal there. There's

more coal that could be sold. We just need to find a way to get it to market.

Then, of

course, there are the undeveloped coal zones in the province up in the northeast

in particular and, I think, some north of Prince George and actually some very

high-quality coal north of Prince Rupert in the Skeena region — so lots of

opportunity out there.

Apparently

we have about 100 years of coal potential in the province in terms of the known

reserves and, I'm sure, much more that we don't know about. As long as the coal

is taken out of the ground in a way that is responsible…. Certainly, I think

the Elk Valley in my riding is a perfect example of how that can happen. They've

been mining coal in the Elk Valley for 100 years. In fact, two of the largest

mines are located very close to both the Fording River and the Elk River. Both

of those rivers are pristine rivers with wonderful cutthroat fishing in them.

They're just as good today…. In fact, many of the old-timers will tell you

that those rivers are better fishing today than they were 30 years ago.

The

coalmines are located in close proximity to both those rivers. It can be done. I

think that's an important point to make. Coalmining is a responsible industry,

and it can be done in a way that does not have an unsustainable impact on the

environment.

Having used

this opportunity to talk about this Coal Act and the changes made by my

colleague, I will just close by saying that this is not the last that you'll

hear me speak of coal.

MacKay: I am pleased to stand up today and support second reading of the

Coal Act amendment, 2004. I guess I should probably qualify myself as standing

up and speaking on behalf of the coal industry. I grew up in a small coalmining

town in southwest Alberta — a small place called Mercoal; c-o-a-l spelled at

the back end of it. Obviously, it was a small coalmining town.

My father

worked underground for a number of years until we left Mercoal in 1957 and moved

to Hinton. The coalmine provided a good-paying job for my father, and I went to

school with a number of children. The only industry we had in that small town of

Mercoal was coalmining. When the mines closed in 1957, it was a bit of a shock

to us. We had to leave the town I grew up in as a youngster because the demand

for coal worldwide had dried up, and nobody was interested in buying coal

anymore.

I'm pleased

today to be able to stand up and support the amendments to the Coal Act in

British Colum-

[ Page 10434 ]

bia because of the demand for coal once again. That's great news for the coal

industry across this country, but in particular B.C.

Because I

represent the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and it is such a gratefully

endowed part of the province in mineralization and coal…. I can remember when

I first went to Smithers back in 1981. There was a small coalmine that had just

closed at the small village of Telkwa. The miners' hats were still hanging on

the racks; their tags were still there. It looked like it had just shut down the

day before. I can remember taking my father there, and we walked through the old

coalmine shack that contained all these old relics from the coalminers. It was a

bit of a reawakening for me to realize that that's what my father and my

grandfather both had done. They were both involved in the coal industry in

Alberta before the mines closed. So it's certainly an honour for me to stand up

and support these amendments.

When we

look at the increase in coal prices today…. That's what's driving the demand

for coal worldwide. In order to be able to meet the demand…. We have the coal

reserves here, but we have to make changes. We had to make changes to attract

the investment dollars to take the coal from the ground, and we've done that

with this piece of legislation.

Getting rid

of 49 regulatory requirements actually reduced the regulation by 34 percent. One

of our commitments as government was to reduce red tape and regulation to

attract investment dollars back here, and we're doing that. This is a good step

in the right direction.

We're also

supporting the objective of promoting investment in mining — not just

coalmining but goldmining and coppermining. All those things are seeing a big

resurgence in this province, and it's because of some of the changes such as the

Coal Act amendment before this House today.

[1505]

The

two-zone system had to follow. It was a natural, because the coalmining

community also has to know where they can look for coal, where they can't look

for coal. These changes clarify that and exemplify which areas they can't go in.

Parks and protected areas, as the minister of state has stated, are out of

bounds for the mining industry. There's no argument there; it is understood. So

when they go out and start looking for coal reserves, they know where they can't

go. That's good news.

The

requirement to have a free-miner's licence didn't make a whole bunch of sense

for the coalmining industry. I mean, it made sense for the hard-rock miners,

because they needed that licence to be able to go on private property and search

for minerals. You don't do that with the mining industry. It is all done by map

selection, and that's another step in the right direction to simplify things, to

make the administration process to acquire a coal tenure simple and easy and to

reduce the red tape and cost for the mining industry. We have done so much.

I've got

two coalmines in my community, in the riding — one being Telkwa right on the

CN main line that runs from Prince George through to Prince Rupert. It is a

natural fit. We should do what we can — and the minister of state is doing

what he can — through changes such as this to make sure that coalmines like

the small coalmine at Telkwa reopens again and creates employment opportunities

for families. Families who rely on those good-paying jobs from the mining

industry will once again surface in that small community of Telkwa. It will

provide jobs for families. It will create employment opportunities. It will

provide a tax base for the community as well.

A little

bit further north in the riding that I represent is a place called the Klappan

coalfields. It's a huge coal deposit, and it's situated on the old B.C. Rail

line that runs through there. It is estimated there is about 2.5 billion tonnes

of coal in the ground there. With the coal prices on the rise again, the people

who own that tenure are looking very seriously at opening that pit.

They're

also talking to CN, and once the ink is dried on the contract between B.C. Rail

and CN, I suspect the owners of Klappan Coal will be talking to CN once again to

look at extending the rail line up to the coalfields, to move the coal by train

down to Prince George and back out through Prince Rupert, which is the nearest

saltwater port for them. So I am really pleased that the minister has finally

introduced some amendments to reinvigorate the coal industry.

As I said,

growing up in a small community of coalmining towns, I went to school with young

children that went into the coal industry. I suspect that had the coalmine

stayed open longer than 1957, I probably would have followed in the footsteps of

my grandfather and father. I myself might have been underground working in the

coalmines, and I'm glad in some senses that the coalmine actually closed down

when it did.

Interjection.

MacKay: I probably would have. The member has suggested I may have made more

money had I stayed in the coal industry, and that's probably the truth.

I am

pleased to be able to stand here and support the Coal Act amendments as

introduced by the Minister of State for Mining.

G. Hogg:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg:

We're very privileged today to have a number of people present from Whale House

in Surrey–White Rock. They are a number of bright, interested and interesting

individuals who have taken the bus over here to Victoria today, and they've had

a tour of the building. I just met with them and heard a number of good,

was their tour guide, and they tell me he did a marvellous job. Would

[ Page 10435 ]

the House please give a thunderous ovation and welcome to the people from

Whale House.

Debate Continued

Lekstrom: It is my privilege today to rise in the House to support Bill 28,

the Coal Act, as presented by my colleague from Prince George North, the

Minister of State for Mining. In the minister's comments earlier he talked about

the riding of Peace River South, which I'm extremely proud to be from and

represent, and coal is a big issue for us in the northeast part of our province.

Tumbler

Ridge has faced some very beneficial times as a result of the coal industry and

likewise faced some significant challenges when those mines decided they had

finished their job there and had left. The bright spot is that with the changes

that the minister has talked about today in the Coal Act and the new focus on

the coal industry in British Columbia, we see new mines interested in opening up

in the northeast part of British Columbia.

[1510]

It is an

extremely valuable resource. I think it has been overlooked in many cases as a

dirty resource, when in fact it isn't. The technology has advanced today to the

point where we can burn coal virtually as clean as natural gas. I think that's

an important point for all British Columbians and people around the world to

recognize.

The issue

really — about being able to go out and look for coal, the tenure issue — is

one of the two-zone issue, which I think is vitally important. It's a go or

no-go zone, however we'd like to refer to it. If we have somebody that's

prepared to invest in our province and go out and look for coal, we aren't going

to, as a government, allow them to go through that process, find the coal they

need, spend millions of dollars to get it to a point where they can come to

government and say, "We now want to extract that resource," only to be

told by a government: "You may have spent millions of dollars, and you may

have put many years of work into this, but having found it, we're now not going

to let you take that coal out of the ground."

The Coal

Act lays it out clearly. If you're going to invest in our province and look for

coal in one of the zones in which you're allowed to explore for coal, then

should you be successful in finding that coal, we're going to allow you to

extract it, put people to work and allow them to make money and raise their

families, and benefit not just the communities but the entire province.

This bill

streamlines our administration of the coal tenures, which I think is vitally

important to the commitment we made to the people of British Columbia, which was

to make doing business with government easier. We're going to do that while at

the same time maintaining our environmental standards in British Columbia. I

think we're known around the world for our strong environmental standards and

how we extract our resources in British Columbia and how those resources work

for all of us. We're going to maintain those high standards.

I can't say

enough about what this bill means to the northeast part of our province and in

particular two communities in my region, Tumbler Ridge and Chetwynd. Chetwynd is

set to benefit greatly from a new coalmine being implemented in our region, as

well as Tumbler Ridge. Not only do these communities benefit but also the

communities in the entire northeast. We have workers that will reside anywhere.

They will commute to these mines, they will work, and they will stay in camp if

they have to. They bring that revenue back to the communities, they spend that

money there, and they raise their families there — all at the same time as

having a quality of life second to none.

There's

going to be a lot of discussion, I think, through the committee stage of this

bill. I believe it's about 34 sections long. Many of the sections, I think, are

long overdue. They lay out an easy path for people who are interested in this

industry and this resource to approach government, to go out into the field, to

explore, to find this resource and to extract it. I'm very proud to be here this

afternoon, on behalf of my constituents of Peace River South, to stand in

support of Bill 28.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 28, the Minister of State for Mining

closes debate.

Hon. P.

Bell: Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very pleased to see that we clearly have

unanimous consent of the House today. Everyone who has bothered to take the

opportunity to speak to this wonderful act has agreed with it, so I think that's

very, very encouraging — to see that all 79 members of the Legislature are in

full support of this act moving forward into the twenty-first century and

allowing ourselves to tap into that wonderful natural resource that is coal.

Certainly,

the opportunities are fabulous for us all — 2,600 direct jobs, as the member

for East Kootenay identified earlier in his particular riding. That is a

significant number of people. The average salary is $89,900 per year — the

highest average salary of any industry in British Columbia. It's one of the

safest heavy industries — in fact, the safest heavy industry — in British

Columbia. Mining has an incredibly safe record.

I was

fortunate just a few weeks ago to attend the Quinsam coalmine, which is located

in Campbell River. It's the only underground coalmine that still exists in

Canada. That particular mine, although it's not a big mine, competes on the

safety awards levels with all of the open-pit coalmines, which are clearly —

one would think — safer that an underground coalmine. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased

to be able to tell you that the Quinsam coalmine has gone two years without a

reportable accident — an underground coalmine over two years without a

reportable accident. It is an incredibly safe operation and in fact much safer

than many other industries that people work in today.

[1515]

Coal can be

a safe industry. It's a very productive industry. As we identified earlier, a

large number of

[ Page 10436 ]

employees make a high level of salary. I'm looking forward to a much-expanded

industry as a result of this very positive, simplified act. We need to develop

what the member for East Kootenay identified in his riding and was expanded by

the members for Peace River South and for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. There are

certainly many other locations around the province that have tremendous coal

resources. We've already heard that coal can be burnt in a very clean manner,

similar to that of natural gas, so it is a great source of energy for us as we

move forward through the twenty-first century.

I want to

congratulate the members that chose to speak to this bill today, but I

especially would like to make note of the member for East Kootenay. He has been

a tremendous advocate for the coal industry for as long as I have known him, and

I think he's really brought the issues of the coal industry to the forefront for

all members of this House. In fact, I recall that this member for East Kootenay

once gave all the members of this House a chunk of coal for Christmas one year.

Interjection.

Hon. P.

Bell: Twice — pardon me. He twice gave us a chunk of coal for Christmas.

He has been

a tremendous advocate for the industry. I think the industry should recognize

that they have someone who is eager to make things positive for the industry and

to bring it to the forefront.

I would

also like to congratulate all the members of the mining task force. They came to

us with a series of recommendations. We're gradually pulling those

recommendations forward and moving them to the point that we have a successful

mining plan. This piece of legislation, I think, is a clear commitment to the

mining action plan that we'll be bringing forward and to all the members of the

mining task force. We took the work very seriously in carrying it forward.

I'm pleased

with the results that this act will achieve for us. I think it is very, very

good news going forward for the economy of British Columbia. It will help us

fund the health care system and education system that all of us so desperately

desire.

With that,

I am pleased to move second reading of the Coal Act.

Motion

approved.

Hon. P.

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

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

Bill 28,

Coal 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. J.

Les: I move consideration by the House at committee stage of Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

VANCOUVER TOURISM LEVY

ENABLING ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:19 p.m.

Hon. J.

Les: With me today from the ministry is the assistant deputy minister, Doug

Caul, and from the staff, Francesca Wheler.

On

section

Nebbeling: I have a number of questions on the bill. I hope that with the

answers the minister will provide me, I can find a reasonable level of comfort

with this bill. I should say to the minister that an introduction of a tax on

tourism businesses is something that, in principle, I have no problem with.

[1520]

As the

minister is aware, as part of how Whistler got together…. We introduced an

organization similar to Tourism Vancouver, which was then called the Whistler

Resort Association and after that became Whistler One. One of the tools to

finance that operation was indeed through a form of taxation on the existing

business community that was created in the new town centre, where 85 percent of

the businesses resided. So I clearly support the direction of getting more

revenue to promote Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area and the province as

a whole through this kind of taxation.

However,

one of the questions I was asked by — of all industries — the restaurant

industries had to do with the title, and that is the Vancouver tourism levy. It

is specifically on the word "tourism." One of the concerns expressed

by the restaurant association is that many of the members in the greater

Vancouver area do not cater to the tourism industry but to local business. How

can businesses that are outside the traditional tourism area, like downtown

Vancouver, be safeguarded so that they would not have to charge an additional

levy or tax — whatever that levy is, and we will be talking about it later —

that would only really apply to the local customers?

Hon. J.

Les: Just a technical matter. I'm not sure exactly which

section of the bill

this refers to, but I will answer.

The

Chair: We're dealing with

section 1.

Nebbeling: I meant in the title.

The

Chair: Just for clarification, members, the title is the last item we bring

up. We're dealing with

section 1 of the bill.

Hon. J.

Les: I'm certainly happy to answer the question. The member's concerns are

well founded, frankly,

[ Page 10437 ]

in that the restaurant and food services industry is composed of many

different classes and is very diverse not only in the services and types of

services that are offered but also geographically very diverse and dispersed. It

will be the challenge for Tourism Vancouver to craft an approach that caters to

those restaurant businesses that specifically benefit from the tourism industry.

I quite agree that perhaps some, perhaps many of them, do not. If Tourism

Vancouver were to attempt to approach a majority of restaurants and food

services industries that in no way benefit from the tourism industry, I suspect

that it would be flatly turned down in terms of the process of gaining the

assent of those to be levied. There will be a careful balance required on behalf

of Tourism Vancouver to ensure that it fine-tunes a proposal to that segment of

an industry that does indeed directly benefit in a real way, as well as

apparently from the tourism industry.

[1525]

Nebbeling: The minister is saying that part of the structure that the levy

or the tax ultimately will have as its body of operation will include

geographical areas that could be targeted for this introduction of that levy.

How does that work?

When I see

the minister introducing in the

definitions the fact that this bill, although it

is Tourism Vancouver, will apply to the greater Vancouver area — almost the

region of the GVRD, which means the terrain of other tourism organizations like

Tourism Richmond, Tourism Surrey, Tourism Burnaby…. I find it a little

difficult to understand what the minister is saying, unless he tells me that

this is actually going to be done on a geographical basis rather than an overall

coverage of the lower mainland.

Hon. J.

Les: I think there are some pretty clear explanations to meet the member's

concern. First of all, although the bill in several cases refers to the greater

Vancouver area, any tourism-related business outside of the city of Vancouver

can and may opt in as a contributor to this tourism levy on a voluntary basis.

There is no ability for Tourism Vancouver to demand or in any other way include

any of the tourism-related businesses from outside of the city of Vancouver.

It's got to be optional on behalf of the business located outside of the city of

Vancouver.

Secondly,

in terms of those businesses that are located within the boundaries of the city

of Vancouver, it is quite open to Tourism Vancouver and the various associations

within the city to further subdivide the city on a geographical basis. For

example, you could include the downtown peninsula and no other part of the city

of Vancouver. I use that only as a very rough example.

I hope that

clarifies the matter for the member. This is very much a case of allowing as

much flexibility as possible so that the levies, when collected, are from

businesses that truly do benefit from the major expansion of the tourism

industry that we foresee in the years ahead.

Nebbeling: Okay. Let me think. In consultation with organizations like the

restaurant association or the taxi associations, whatever they're called….

Tourism Vancouver is mandated to have discussions with these groups together on

side. Does that mean that if the restaurant association, for example, says,

"Well, the geographical area along the waterfront from Victoria right up to

Robson area, the downtown area…. All the restaurants fit in there. That's the

target area for the levy. The restaurant association goes to the membership, and

the membership is asked how they feel about this levy.

That will

lead to my next question, the levy itself. If the membership says no, if 75

percent of the membership says, "Listen, we're not going to add more cost

to the bills," for whatever reason, is it done? Is it dead? Or are there

then other mechanisms for Tourism Vancouver to still go after that sector?

Hon. J.

Les: In the hypothetical example that the member posed, where 75 percent of

a certain group were to vote in opposition to a proposal by Tourism Vancouver,

clearly the measure would not be able to proceed. The bill does make several

references to the fact that these decisions must be made democratically, and

certainly a large majority voting in opposition would mean that the matter would

end at that point.

I think the

next question was: what then? Simply, Tourism Vancouver would have to reassess

the proposal it had put forward — I would suggest undertake some significant

consultation and fine-tune and resubmit something that perhaps would have the

support of at least a majority of the intended businesses in terms of the new

levy that was proposed.

[1530]

Nebbeling: Well, it's interesting, because nine months ago the restaurant

association was approached by the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association group, and

they actually made a proposal to the restaurant association to initiate a

tourism tax on top of the bill to use for exactly the same purpose that Tourism

Vancouver is talking about. I know, after having talked to the president of the

organization, that the suggestion that was lobbied with the membership went up

in flames. So, it is not the first time this kind of a process is being

undertaken or considered.

I think one

of the reasons the restaurant industry in general spoke against this levy was

that this was an idea that came from a group, an association, without really

consulting before they came up with what the idea entailed, what the levy was.

People said no, and I think that in a sense Tourism Vancouver, with our

endorsement, is doing exactly the same.

I have

called a number of associations over the last week, asking: "Have you been

contacted by Tourism Vancouver to discuss this potential good idea?" None

of them had actually had a phone call or a meeting discussing what it is. The

one big question that, at the end of the day, will still be here is: what is the

levy? We

[ Page 10438 ]

know that in

section 4, every potential business that has any connection with

the tourism industry is targeted for participation. But nobody knows what the

levy is. One of the more prominent leaders in this association said: "I

feel like jumping in a funnel, and I don't know where the hell the end is."

Not having had any negotiations or discussions with the stakeholders for buy-in,

I believe we will have the same result that the hotel and motel association

experienced.

One of the

things that I find strange is that…. The definition of levy here says:

"'levy' means a levy prescribed under

section 4." So "levy"

means a levy that we can impose on a number of different businesses. It doesn't

give me the definition. I don't know what you have in mind or what the tourism

industry has in mind. Is it a flat fee annually? Is it 3 percent on top of the

bill? Is it based on square footage? I don't know. But I do know that Tourism

Vancouver has already stated they expect $6 million to $8 million in revenue

from this levy annually. That's a big chunk of dough.

It is

something that I think should have been part of this bill as a direction so that

people can truly, up front before we pass a bill, say: "We believe in this,

we can see this as a good thing, and we will participate in it."

Can the

minister explain to me why "levy" really has not got a definition that

explains what the levy is? It just says that the levy can be a charge on certain

businesses, but it is not a proper definition.

[1535]

Hon. J.

Les: In response to the questions from the member, I would point out, first

of all, that the bill does not impose any levies on anyone at this time. It is

simply legislation that enables levies to be negotiated between Tourism

Vancouver and various tourism industry sectors in the city of Vancouver.

The key

word there is that these levies are to be negotiated and then adopted

democratically. Clearly, if you consider the various types of tourism

industries, what is appropriate as a mechanism in the hotel industry, for

example, may not be at all appropriate for the taxi industry or the restaurant

industry or other tourism-related industries. Every industry has a different

revenue structure, and I'm sure operators in these various industries also have

different wishes as to how they might contribute from their businesses to the

marketing of tourism opportunities in Vancouver.

The fact

that there isn't a specific definition as to what a levy is in each of the

specific sectors of the tourism industry is quite deliberate, because this is a

matter that is, frankly, better left to the discussions and negotiations between

Tourism Vancouver and the tourism industry as opposed to an imposition that

would be foisted upon them by us here in Victoria.

Nebbeling: I don't think I can agree with the minister, and the reason is,

as I said before, that we are not inventing the wheel. Our tourism association

that promotes British Columbia is given the tools to finance these promotions.

We are not inventing the wheel because it has been done.

I was part

of the resort association creation and how they were given exactly the same tool

that we are doing here…. The Whistler Resort Association act is very specific

on (

a) how the taxation is constructed and (

b) how the people that pay for this

or who collect these levies from the visitors play a role in how that money is

being spent by their representation on the board.

Whistler, for example, the hotel sector has a seat on the board. So does the

commercial sector; so does the chamber of commerce. There are only, in total,

eight members. The way that money is collected is described in the bill; how the

money is being spent is controlled by those that actually pay the levies. The

association, because of that mechanism, has been able to convince everybody to

be on board. As a matter of fact, it is mandatory in Whistler for a specific

business area.

I think you

can be prescriptive in bills like this. It tells people exactly what is going to

happen, and it also shows how they're not walking into a situation…. What I'm

really worried about here, as well, is the situation of taxation without

representation, because I don't know how the members from the businesses that

will be paying are going to have a voice on the board that is meaningful. Right

now, I think the tourism board has spoken a couple of times to them, but there

are always about 35 or 40 directors, and I don't know how they elect them.

Once you

start putting a tax onto businesses to pay for the operation, then I think it is

not only that Tourism Vancouver has to look at how they convince people to

participate in this program, but they also have to, in a democratic way, make

sure those that pay these levies, these taxes, have a say in how it is being

used or how the promotion will work.

I regret we

don't have that clarity and that transparency because I think it would be a lot

easier to sell to these various business groups, and I think the end result is

that you are going to have many more people buy into this. That is my reaction

to what the minister said, but I believe some other members have some questions.

J. Kwan:

My questions actually just follow up on some of the issues the member for

West Vancouver–Garibaldi has raised.

[1540]

On the

question around the levy. The question was put to the minister in terms of how

much the levy is. The minister said he doesn't know and that Tourism Vancouver

will sort of go through a process and set that themselves.

On the

question relating to this bill — which was a question I asked of the minister

during the estimates debate with the ministry — and that is: how much does the

ministry anticipate this bill, with this new levy, will bring in? If the

minister doesn't know exactly what the levy is, does he have any anticipation of

how much money is to be brought in by this bill?

Hon. J.

Les: In response to the question from the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, I am not able to give her any estimate of the amount of revenue that

[ Page 10439 ]

going to be raised as a result of this legislation. That is going to be a

matter for negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and its membership and the

tourism sector in the city of Vancouver. I would assume generally that if

Tourism Vancouver puts forward collaborative proposals that receive broad

support in the tourism community, the revenue could be very significant. If on

the other hand they fail to consult and fail to devise intelligently thought-out

proposals, then frankly there could be very little revenue raised as a result of

this legislation.

Certainly

by supporting this legislation, I make no representations as to how successful

Tourism Vancouver is going to be. That ball is in Tourism Vancouver's court, as

well as in the court of the tourism sector generally in the city of Vancouver.

J. Kwan:

According to newspaper reports, the anticipation is that they will receive

somewhere between $6 million to $8 million with respect to the levy. I would

have thought the minister would have had some sort of calculation here,

especially as this bill is actually sponsored by the minister. In terms of how

that process might work — even some legwork in terms of early consultation

with this levy — one would have expected that the minister would have had

discussions with Tourism Vancouver. Tourism Vancouver, in turn, would have had

discussions with its membership around this, as the member for West

Vancouver–Garibaldi had alluded to.

It is kind

of perplexing that here we have a bill before us, but the minister has no idea

how it is going to flow on the ground that would impact the people. Yet it is

here in legislation, and we are debating the matter. None of that consultation,

it appears to me, has been done. That's, quite frankly, strange — that none of

this work has been done, and the minister doesn't have any information with

respect to that.

The levy

that is expected, though, and the language which this bill is using with respect

to the application of the levy and so on…. It is not clear how the levy will

be charged as an example. Just to use one example for which we know a levy is in

place in the tourism sector, that would be the hotel tax. It is very transparent

in that format. It is actually out and open and is stated clearly in the bills

that one gets.

Is it

anticipated that the levy that would be charged under this bill would be as

transparent as the hotel tax, or would it be simply buried in the service of the

product that is provided?

[1545]

Hon. J.

Les: I want to reassure the member that there is going to be good

transparency and accountability back to the tourism industry in the city of

Vancouver. There is a requirement in the bill that audited financial statements

be produced annually and that those be provided in the form of an annual report

back to those same businesses to which any levy might apply.

J. Kwan:

Is there any requirement, though, in this bill where the public would know, if a

levy is applied, how much that levy is for a particular service or a particular

product? Coming back to the other closest example I could think of — the hotel

tax — if one goes to stay at a hotel, you get your bill at the end. It

actually shows the hotel tax at 2 percent and what the amount is. So the

customer knows, in other words. Is there a requirement for that level of

transparency so that the consumer knows what they're paying for?

Hon. J.

Les: The answer to that question is that it will not necessarily be

automatically noticeable by the public in terms of what the levy is in any

particular sector. That is because the question of how the levy is to be

collected and at what point in the transaction or in the business cycle the levy

is to be collected is a matter of negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and the

business sector. There may be some businesses, for example, that simply agree

with Tourism Vancouver that each of their businesses will pay X amount of

dollars once a year towards the marketing campaigns of Tourism Vancouver. In

that kind of case, there would not be a levy on each transaction with each

member of the public with which they do business; it would simply be a flat fee.

I use that only as a hypothetical example, but that is quite a plausible example

of how this levy might apply in some situations.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

There could be a difference then, in terms of how different businesses might

apply the fee. In some cases, if a business chooses to pay the fee at the end of

the year, they may not explicitly say they're charging their customers this

amount of levy on the cost of the product or service they are providing,

although it is very feasible. I would assume that those businesses would roll

the fee into the cost of the service or the product they are providing to the

customer. The customer would not know exactly where all the fees lay — you

know, where the price breakdown is — that would incorporate the levy…. But

in another instance a business owner could choose to be explicit and transparent

about it. They would collect their levy with the product or the service which

they provide to the customer, and then in the bill it would explicitly say that

there is a levy charged. Is that what the minister is saying — that it could

vary from business to business depending on how they operate?

Hon. J.

Les: I should underline again that the structure of these particular levies

is going to be a matter of negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and the various

tourism sectors. My expectation would be that you're not going to see very much

variation in terms of how a levy is collected within the different sectors of

the tourism industry. There is likely to be considerable variety from sector to

sector, but I think once a sector has agreed with Tourism Vancouver that they

will contribute — I am making an assumption, and I believe this is the correct

assumption — there is going to be unanimity and a common approach within each

of those sectors.

J. Kwan:

It is clear when the hotel tax is applied how much is added to your bill as a

result of the hotel

[ Page 10440 ]

tax. Then it is out there. Why not put in a requirement so that the levy that

is charged would be transparent in the services or the product that is being

provided, no matter what sector? You know how much is going to GST, you know how

much is going to PST, you know how much is going to the levy, and you know how

much is going to the product or the service itself. You have a complete

breakdown of the cost of whatever it is that the consumer is buying. Wouldn't

that be a better way of ensuring that this information is out there publicly —

for the consumer's consumption, most importantly?

Hon. J.

Les: I guess it depends to a certain degree on how you look at this. The way

we're looking at this legislation is that this provides for the industry a way

to generate marketing money. I'm sure that many — if not all, in fact — of

these businesses today are already expending a lot of money on marketing their

industry and their individual businesses.

[1555]

So this is

marketing money, and I'm not sure that at the end of the day it makes a lot of

difference whether there is another line item that purports to show how much

these businesses are expending on the marketing of their industry or their

individual business.

I think,

again, we have agreed with Tourism Vancouver that they need to adopt a

sector-by-sector approach to generate additional marketing money, given the vast

opportunities that are before them in the next five to six years. This should,

if properly executed by Tourism Vancouver and their stakeholders, as I'm sure

they will…. This simply is going to generate additional marketing money.

Although the consumer has some interest in terms of how much money these

businesses are spending to market themselves, I'm not sure that's an overriding

interest of the consumer.

J. Kwan:

Well, while it may not be of great concern for the government whether or not the

levy is laid out for the consumer's point of view, I would think that it is an

important piece of information for the consumer or customer. I'll tell you, when

I go to a hotel, those bills add up. You do want to see how it all breaks down

and where the costs are coming from — especially in this instance, where you

have Tourism Vancouver's levy applied only in this region but not in other

regions. There is a competition question, as well, for the consumer's

information. You know, it's basic information that I would think is important in

terms of it being required to be broken down for the consumer's point of view.

I would

disagree with the minister that maybe consumers don't want to know. I expect

they would want to know where all the fees are coming from and why a certain

product has a particular cost. People generally want to know that kind of thing.

Even at restaurants now, aside from the tax costs, it also breaks down — if

you drink liquor, the liquor tax, as an example — so that you actually know

from your restaurant bill how all the pieces are broken down and then how it all

adds up at the end of the day.

If the case

is such that as we know from this bill, Bill 14, the levy is to apply to a

marketing campaign, how much additional tourism revenue and how many more

tourist visits does Tourism Vancouver anticipate will result from the marketing

campaign that this levy would finance?

[1600]

Hon. J.

Les: Just as I said a few minutes ago, I cannot speculate with any accuracy

as to the amount of levy revenue that will be generated by this bill and by the

various agreements that Tourism Vancouver might achieve between itself and its

stakeholders. By the same token, I can't speculate very accurately how much

additional tourism revenue might be generated as a result of the spending of

that additional levy revenue.

However, we

all know that there are some huge opportunities available to the tourism

industry in the lower mainland and, specifically, in the city of Vancouver. We

will be starting construction very soon on the new trade and convention centre,

which will triple the number of people that can be hosted at conventions in the

city of Vancouver. If properly marketed, which I'm confident it will be, and

backed up by appropriate additional marketing and support by Tourism Vancouver,

I think we are perhaps setting the stage for a major success for all members in

the tourism community in the city of Vancouver.

Again, this

legislation was deliberately not intended to be prescriptive. It was brought

forward at the request of Tourism Vancouver. It is enabling in nature. It is

very much going to result in agreements reached on a voluntary basis between

Tourism Vancouver and its stakeholders, democratically decided. It's

industry-driven, which I think is, again, preferable to imposition from

Victoria.

J. Kwan:

What is the breakdown now in terms of the activities in each of the different

sectors in the region with respect to locals versus visitors — that is, those

from outside of the community? What percentage are locals, and what percentage

are out of the country, out of the province, etc.? Does the minister have any

sense…?

Hon. J.

Les: I'd like to respond to the member's question. However, we do not have

that information accurately available this afternoon, but I would certainly

undertake to make that information available as soon as I can locate it.

J. Kwan:

I'll tell the minister why I asked that question. Depending on what those

numbers look like, is there any consideration or any possibility for this

consideration where the levy would apply…? If the idea is to bring tourists

into the province to spend their dollars, and so on and so forth, and if this

money goes into the marketing of it as well, is there any potential for the levy

to apply only to tourists — therefore not to locals, as an example? Are there

such opportunities for the application of that levy?

[ Page 10441 ]

Hon. J.

Les: I think the answer to that question is fairly evident from what I've

said earlier. This would clearly be a matter of negotiation between Tourism

Vancouver and the individual sectors. There are clearly going to be some sectors

that benefit more than others from increased tourism presence in the city of

Vancouver. Whether that's related directly to specific increases in tourism

revenue or in tourist numbers, again, that's going to vary from sector to

sector. In some cases that's much more easily calculated than in others.

[1605]

Therefore,

I can't be much more specific than that today, other than to say those who are

in the business of tourism probably know better than I and most members of this

House how to appropriately structure such a thing to be broadly reflective of

the success of the marketing campaigns that are being anticipated.

J. Kwan:

My question, though, was: is there such a possibility where the application of

the fee in the different sectors would apply, let's say, not to locals but only

to tourists from out of the province or out of the country or whatever? I'm not

saying how it should be prescribed. I'm talking about whether or not that

possibility is there. And am I understanding the minister correctly that that

possibility is there but that it's up to the industry, in the sector, to decide

whether or not they want to apply that kind of differential fee?

Hon. J.

Les: Subject to the logistical viability, the possibility is certainly there

in this act to enable Tourism Vancouver and its stakeholders to devise those

kinds of systems to generate the levies that are anticipated here.

Sections 1

to 14 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Les: I move that the House rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:07 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14,

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. I.

Chong: I call committee stage of Bill 24.

Committee of the Whole House

MOTOR DEALER AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; H. Bloy in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:10 p.m.

On

section

Lekstrom: Under

section 1 of Bill 24, 1(d)(

c) is where my question falls:

"machinery primarily intended for construction, mining or logging

purposes."

Can the

minister please tell me: are we dealing with the sale of logging trucks, or is

that covered under the Motor Vehicle Act, for instance? These are pieces of

equipment that are highway-worthy. They go out and so on. When we look at

somewhat of an exemption, where it refers to but does not include — and that

subsection is laid out that way…. Could the minister please answer that for

me?

Hon. J.

Les: I point out to the member that this bill deals with passenger vehicles

only and was not intended to include the categories of vehicles that he

enumerated.

Lekstrom: A couple of questions regarding…. I believe they'll be captured

under

section 1. It seems to be somewhat of a change. I'm going with some people

within my area — RV dealers, for instance — that have worked for 30 or 40

years selling RVs. Now they are required under this act, I believe, to take some

training, if I'm correct in my

interpretation. Can the minister just elaborate

somewhat on that? I know it would probably deal with the issue of motor homes

and so on. Is there a reason that I've missed or my constituents have missed as

to the need for this when in fact it's gone on for 30 or 40 years and worked

very well? Now they're questioning me, as their representative, to say:

"Why do we now have to go and take this?" I guess it's a pretty broad

question, but I would hopefully get an answer.

Hon. J.

Les: This change was made at the request of the auto sales industry. They

want to enhance the professionalism of their professional sales force and in

that way become, perhaps, more professional and responsible and accountable to

the public they serve.

Lekstrom: Fully understanding that, I agree. I think it enhances their

ability to showcase to the public that they're a responsible group. I guess my

question is more focused on the recreational vehicle dealers. Are they part of

the auto dealers association? I thought there was a difference. If they are, was

there a request from the recreational vehicle dealers to be included within this

legislation?

Hon. J.

Les: The Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association specifically also

requested to be included in this designation and registration of their

salespeople.

Lekstrom: Maybe just in conclusion then, I imagine…. The question I would

have is: are all recreational vehicle dealers in the province then mandated to

be part of this association? Do they speak for all recreational vehicle dealers

— whether it be trailers, motor

[ Page 10442 ]

homes or so on? Is it mandatory participation, or are they speaking on behalf

of their affiliates or associates and there is a group of others that aren't

associated with this Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association?

[1615]

Hon. J.

Les: The Motor Dealers Association speaks for most but not necessarily all

of the dealers that the member refers to. However, upon the proclamation of this

act, it will apply to all dealers in the province.

Lekstrom: Thank you for the clarification on that. I do want to follow

through with the first question I raised, where we talked about the vehicles and

for personal automobiles that I think you referred to on that.

Can the

minister tell me: if it is the motor dealers of British Columbia that have

talked about this and a recreational…? If I'm interpreting

section 1(d)(

c) properly, why would someone that sells Kenworth or large trucks like that not

want to be included? Why would their salespeople be exempted under this act —

if I'm interpreting that right?

Hon. J.

Les: The class of vehicle that the member refers to has historically never

been included under the definition of motor vehicle. I think the common public

perception is that they are a completely different category of vehicle. As such,

they have other inspections and other mechanisms that are mandatory to ensure

that the public interest is served in the buying, selling and operation of those

particular classes of vehicles.

Lekstrom: Well, through to the minister, I want to thank you for your

answers. It's an issue. When our constituents raise the issues with us, we

commit to them to bring them to the floor of the Legislature to ask questions

during committee stage, and I thank you for your answers.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Les: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24,

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: In this House I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we will be considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Bloy in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:20 p.m.

The

Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[H.

Bloy in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 17:

ministry operations, $486,921,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Prior to the weekend break we were discussing issues related to local

governments, particularly — in my view — as a result of a series of

government cuts in programs, which have a direct impact on local governments. We

used some examples in Vancouver, where the elimination of housing programs, for

example, has impacted British Columbia greatly. In the city of Vancouver we have

seen tent cities popping up here and there, where people are in great need of

housing and unable to get it. Local governments are definitely impacted that

way.

We also

canvassed today, as an example, in question period where a number of drop-in

centres…. Funding has been cut for women's organizations, like the sex trade

workers with WISH; like the youth community and at-risk youth, where programs

are being eliminated. The Studio has lost its funding from the provincial

government. That all, in my view, has a direct impact on the local governments

and how they must deal with the closure of these drop-in centres and programs,

and so on.

The

minister, of course, says that the local governments are not required to replace

these programs, so therefore they're not seen to be off-loading onto local

governments. I would simply say that I beg to differ. It is not my intention, of

course, to bring up every program that the government has cut that, in my view,

has impacted local governments. If I did that, we would never finish the

estimates debate, and we would, I expect, disagree. The minister would give me

the same answer and just say that local governments are not required to replace

these programs, and I would get up and say that local governments are impacted

by it, because their communities have to deal with the fallout as a result of

the elimination of these programs.

[ Page 10443 ]

I want to

recap quickly the different points of view around that, and then I want to move

on to other questions relating to the Community Charter.

[1625]

The

Community Charter looks at the opportunity, if you will, to give local

governments more responsibility. The other side of that, of course, is that the

Community Charter was supposed to give local governments revenue-generating

opportunities as well. Let me ask the minister the question: what

revenue-generating opportunities under the Community Charter that were to be

given to local governments have actually come into play, and how are they being

utilized by local governments if they exist?

Hon. M.

Coell: A couple of comments for the member. The Community Charter doesn't

give the municipalities or local government new revenue sources. There is some

flexibility in fees that they could charge for services they presently deliver.

Also, the local area financing of services gives them more flexibility in that

area as well. We're working with them on the traffic fine revenue and also

grants-in-lieu for Crown corporations.

It's early

days now. The charter's been in place for three and a half months. We're working

with them on a number of, as I said, the revenue-sharing opportunities. I

suspect that will, over the next 18 months, come into play with traffic fines,

grants-in-lieu for Crown corporations and other potential revenue-sharing

opportunities between the province and local government.

J. Kwan:

So there are no new revenue-making opportunities through the Community Charter,

with the exception of perhaps some fees — fees which the local governments

could apply and charge to their citizens formerly in any event. Yet local

governments, we know, through the Community Charter and through the actions of

the government and the policies of the government, do have more

responsibilities. As I mentioned earlier, they also have impacts of downloaded

effects in terms of program cuts and so on.

Okay. Now,

in the area of fees, could the minister elaborate on what fees local governments

have applied for the purposes of revenue-generating in the different

municipalities?

Hon. M.

Coell: We're not aware that any local governments have changed their fee

structure using the Community Charter at this point.

J. Kwan:

Okay. Presumably the minister is keeping an eye on that, and when these fees do

apply, the minister would know, in which case we'll ask the minister the same

question next year when we have estimates to see where things are at.

With

respect to traffic fines, the minister says that the government is now working

on a revenue-sharing formula with local governments on traffic fines. We know

there is one that has existed. The government, of course, made the commitment

that there would be an increase in revenue-sharing with traffic fines to local

government and particularly for those moneys to be targeted towards policing.

[1630]

Is it

anticipated that in the next few months a revenue-sharing formula would be

finalized with traffic fines?

Hon. M.

Coell: The simple answer to that is yes, in the near future.

J. Kwan:

The answer has actually become more vague. The minister said in the next few

months earlier. Now it's in the near future. We're still talking about in the

next — what? — two to three months. Is that fair enough to say — that

there will be a finalized traffic-revenue-sharing formula with local

governments?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that's correct, in the next few months.

J. Kwan:

Thanks very much. My apologies. I don't mean to be nitpicky about it, but my

experience with other ministers is that when they use vague terminology, it

generally means no commitment. I want to make sure that we're not sort of

heading down that road. I don't think that's the intention of the minister, so I

just want to get specific about that.

Is it the

intention that the traffic fine revenues that would be shared with local

governments would be targeted towards the policing sector?

Hon. M.

Coell: It would be directed to local government for crime prevention and

local community policing as well.

J. Kwan:

Is the commitment what the government had promised earlier in terms of the

transfer of dollars through revenue fines to local governments?

Hon. M.

Coell: We in the ministry have been consistently following the new-era

commitments.

J. Kwan:

If that was true, the revenue-sharing-with-traffic-fines commitment would have

been met already, but that's not the case. Am I assuming, then, from the

minister's answer that the revenue-sharing on traffic fines would be the amount

which the Premier had committed to earlier?

Hon. M.

Coell: We had said that the number was 75 percent within our first term, and

I believe we've met that commitment.

J. Kwan:

What is the formula that is now being discussed with local governments in terms

of the sharing of traffic fine revenues?

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry has been working with the UBCM, and the submission will

be going forward to cabinet shortly.

[ Page 10444 ]

J. Kwan:

I understand the minister's answer is that the commitment is based on what the

government said during the new-era campaign. We'll measure the announcement

then, in a couple of months — on whether or not that is the reality with

respect to that. We should also keep in mind, of course, that the provincial

government had actually cut funding for local governments in the area of

community policing offices.

[1635]

That used

to be split out in terms of…. The local government used to provide some funds

and the provincial government used to provide some funds to these offices. Since

this government took office, in fact, they have cut the funding for community

police offices. Therefore, some community police offices, as a result of that,

had to suffer greatly. Some of them had to close as a result of that situation.

This traffic fine revenue-sharing might allow for local governments to put in,

perhaps, more dollars towards community police offices to keep them operational.

We do know that they are very important in the community, and they do play an

incredibly important role in providing support and safety to our local

communities.

In fact,

just this weekend we celebrated a major anniversary with the community policing

office at the Vancouver Public Library, where a variety of the community

policing offices were on site to not only celebrate their successes over the

years but also provide very important information to local community members. As

well, as we know, they attract and utilize a very strong volunteer base, and

that's what keeps a lot of these offices functioning in the way that they are.

Of course, it was also, in my view, a way to thank the local volunteers in their

respective offices as a celebratory moment but also to recruit more volunteers

to come on board, as there's always a need for more volunteers. That was just

Saturday when that celebration took place.

Now,

grants-in-lieu was the other topic the minister raised. Again, can we expect

ratification, if you will, on negotiations with grants-in-lieu? The government

actually criticized the previous government on grants-in-lieu with the previous

administration. Is it anticipated that Crown corporations will now be required

to pay the property taxes to local governments?

Hon. M.

Coell: The Minister of Finance is actually leading that discussion re

grants-in-lieu. I can inform the member that B.C. Ferries is now paying tax but

not grants-in-lieu. The B.C. Rail–CN deal would allow CN to now pay taxes.

We're working with B.C. Hydro, but, again, the Minister of Finance is the

minister leading those discussions.

J. Kwan:

But is the minister involved in those discussions? I would imagine so.

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, the ministry has been involved, but as with all taxation, it's

the Minister of Finance that leads those discussions. But we have been involved.

J. Kwan:

When do we expect the discussions in the area of grants-in-lieu to be

completed?

Hon. M.

Coell: I don't actually have a time line, but as I said, B.C. Ferries has

already hit that. I think different Crown corporations may hit that decision at

different times. The long answer to that is there isn't a time line at this

point.

[1640]

J. Kwan:

Well, the government, when they were in opposition, heavily criticized the

previous administration in this area. In fact, the Premier, I recall, in several

UBCM speeches made reference to this issue. One would have thought that the

government would have expedited this issue in terms of action to address. But

yet it isn't — it appears to me — a particular priority item for the

government, given the fact that the government hasn't even set time lines in

achieving that goal.

It really

does, I think, highlight this issue, and that is that the Premier, when he was

the Leader of the Opposition, rose time and time again to criticize the previous

administration and made commitments about certain actions that he would take.

Now that he's been in office as the Premier — it's now been over three years

— action in these areas has been very slow in coming, to the point where I

think that with respect to time lines and achieving some of these goals the

Premier has not even set…. I think that really illustrates the lack of

commitment, if you will, on the Premier's side in actually achieving these

goals.

All right.

We'll watch that as another area to see how the government's doing and measure

that against the words of the Premier when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

Are moneys

being provided to municipalities for them to produce the annual municipal

reports as described in

section 98 of the Community Charter? As we know, the

Community Charter under

section 98 requires local governments, I think, a much

larger undertaking than formerly with respect to these reports. I'm curious to

know whether or not the government is providing financial assistance to

municipalities to produce these reports under

section 98 of the Community

Charter.

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry isn't supplying any financial incentive to municipal

government. We've worked with the UBCM to provide a best-practices guide, and

that will be phased in working with local government over a three-year period,

but local government would be responsible for producing that report.

J. Kwan:

Well, that's another area in which added responsibility has been put on to local

governments. But additional resources are not there to match the added

responsibilities, and that certainly is an area of concern.

[ Page 10445 ]

Now, are

there resources provided to regional districts so that they're more able to

become familiar — educated, if you will — with respect to the amendments to

the Local Government Act? We know that in these smaller communities,

particularly where their resources are very limited…. In order for local

governments to be fully informed about the impacts and ramifications of the

changes to the Local Government Act, one might have expected the government

might have provided some resources to these small communities or regional

districts so that they could have the opportunity to fully grasp the impacts of

the changes.

Hon. M.

Coell: The regional districts, as well as other local governments, haven't

received any funds to produce reports. We haven't had any complaints from either

regional districts or local government about the added changes to reporting, but

we'll continue to work with them to make sure they're able to do the work that

they need to do with their own staff.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the minister advised that there are no additional funds to local

governments or regional districts, etc., for the purposes of reports.

[1645]

What sort

of support has the government offered to local governments, to regional

districts, with respect to them being more familiar with the new act and how to

comply with it? Now, the minister actually said on February 19, 2004: "We

have worked with local governments around B.C., providing advice and support for

the Community Charter, which took effect January 1." What sort of advice or

support has the government delivered to local governments?

Hon. M.

Coell: We've produced a best-practices guide. We've also produced a manual

for regional districts. We've had a workshop where regional districts came. We

have a website with materials on it. We do it on an on-call basis as regional

districts or local governments need to directly interface with our staff.

There's a lot of support there.

We're

getting positive feedback from the UBCM at this point. You know, with the new

Local Government Act and the changes there and then the Community Charter, there

was a lot for local government and regional districts to absorb. I think we want

to work with them to make sure that transition is smooth and beneficial to the

local taxpayer.

J. Kwan:

Yes, precisely. It is because of that that I asked the question about what sort

of resources the government has allocated to local governments to cope with the

many, many changes. We know there are no direct dollars allocated to local

governments, but the government has introduced a number of best-practices guides

and manuals and the like.

Now, how

much money has the ministry allocated to provide this support and advice to

local governments? Where does that show in the budget document as a line item?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's not broken out separately anywhere in the budget book. Staff

inform me that it was approximately $150,000 last year for charter

implementation and will be approximately the same this year.

J. Kwan:

That covers things like the website, the regional conferences, information, the

best-practices guide, etc.? Are the best-practices guide and the manual produced

by the ministry?

Hon. M.

Coell: The best-practices guide and the manuals are generally produced by

the ministry, with the help of the UBCM.

J. Kwan:

The community transition and adjustment, according to the budget book, is

receiving new funding of $2.4 million. What is that for?

[1650]

Hon. M.

Coell: The community transition and adjustment was a separate entity. It's

now been integrated totally within the local government department, so there

actually isn't a $2.4 million stand-alone operation. That operation is now

totally integrated into the local government department.

J. Kwan:

What was the fund targeted towards? What was its purpose and objective?

Hon. M.

Coell: The stand-alone department was, as the member probably knows, to deal

with communities that were in distress. Gold River would be an example of that

— and Tahsis. They would be planning for economic diversification. That's

still going on within the ministry. We're working with Port Alice right now to

see how their economy can be diversified. That's being done within the ministry

as well.

J. Kwan:

If it's no longer a targeted item under the community transition adjustment line

item but is being rolled into local governments, is it then the case that under

the budget for local governments, the specific amount is targeted towards

communities in transition?

Hon. M.

Coell: One of the interesting things, if you look at the history of some of

the cities or communities that have been in distress, is that there are sort of

peaks and valleys as the economy goes throughout B.C. in the last probably 20 or

more years. What we've done is developed an expertise within the ministry so

that when a community comes into crisis — and as I said, Port Alice is one

right now that we're dealing with…. A lot of the expertise that we learned

when dealing with Tumbler Ridge and Tahsis and Gold River we now have within the

ministry, so when a community does come into crisis, you've got the people there

who can be assigned to work on that project for a period of time. After that

crisis passes, those people can go back and work on other local government

projects, but the expertise is right in the ministry now.

[ Page 10446 ]

J. Kwan:

The definition for communities in crisis — how does the ministry or the

minister define that? Is there a set of criteria which the ministry uses to

evaluate communities and then deem a community to be in crisis? Then presumably

those communities that are in crisis would be able to access additional funds

from government to deal with a transition period. That was the purpose for which

funds were set aside to deal with communities like Gold River and others. Is

that the case now with the government?

[1655]

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm just drawing on past experience. I think in British Columbia,

from time to time, communities do get distressed. They're usually resource

towns, for the vast majority. They're either mining or logging, where there are

cyclical problems with that industry, or a mine closes down because it's

complete.

In the

past, as is now, our staff would work and put together an action plan that would

try to diversify the economy in the area, working with the mayor and council or

a regional district if need be. I think that what has happened in the past would

happen now. The minister would then take that plan forward to Treasury Board and

look for contingencies to develop that plan. I'm told that's what has happened

in the past and how we would deal with it presently.

J. Kwan:

So as it stands now, there are no dollars within the ministry's budget that are

dedicated towards communities in transition.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the professional staff we have in the ministry are able to

step into those positions. There are staff there to deal with communities that

are in crisis. Once that plan and successful implementation have been developed,

those people would go back and do other duties. As the member knows, there are

always lots of challenges that face local government, and they vary from time to

time. You have to have a broad-based expertise in your staff, which I truly

believe we have in this ministry.

There are

no funds, as I said in the past. Generally that plan would go forward to

Treasury Board. Trea