British Columbia Hansard — Monday, May 27, 2002

H0527pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, May 27, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 8, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, May 27, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3581 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3581 Don Ramsay B.

Penner Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3582 Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58) Hon. M. de Jong Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3582 Work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving R. Stewart Adult basic education programs T. Christensen Responsibilities of MLAs J.

Bray Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3583 Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. C. Hansen Canora Club mental health centre J. Kwan Hon. G. Cheema Sumas power facility B. Penner Hon. J. Murray Hydroelectricity prices J. Les Hon. R.

Neufeld Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3586 Office of the merit commissioner, annual report, 2001-02 Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia, annual report, 2000-01 British Columbia Centre for International Education, annual report, 2000-01 British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation, annual report, 2000-01 Travel Assurance Fund and Travel Assurance Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02 Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02 B.C.

Lottery Corporation, annual report, 2000-01 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3586 B. Belsey Hon. C. Clark Standing Order 81.1 Motion..................................................................................................... ............................................... 3586 Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3587 Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) Hon. J. Reid Hon. G. Bruce Hon. G. Cheema J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe R. Stewart Hon. J. Murray L.

Mayencourt Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3593 Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3593 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Hon. R. Neufeld Hon. S.

Santori Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3596 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3596 Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3596 Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3597 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) (continued) J.

MacPhail K. Krueger R. Stewart Hon. G. Bruce Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3602 Police complaint commissioner, letter of resignation Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3602 Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan S.

Orr Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203) (continued) Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) (continued) J. MacPhail

3581 MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two school groups from Dogwood Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. [1405] Today we have 58 grade 4 and 5 students. With them are their teachers, Mrs. Chohan, Mr. MacPherson and Mrs. Ecclestone, and the parent volunteers that make these trips possible. Would the House please make them very welcome. Hon. G. Campbell: I have three announcements for the House today that are of equal import, I think.

First, I'd like to inform the House of the birth of Nicholas Andrew Beatty. He was born on Friday, May 17 and weighed in at seven pounds, nine ounces. His mother, Diana, is doing well, as is his brother B.J., and I assume his father, Jim Beatty, is doing equally well as they celebrate Nicholas's birth. Can we give them a round of support. I am also pleased to inform the House that today the director of communications for the government, Andy Orr, celebrates that incredible period of time when he turns 40 — no longer a kid.

I think he should know that the next half of his life will be a lot more difficult than the first half of it was. Finally, none of us in this House today should let the exceptional performance of the Kootenay Ice go unnoticed, when they won the Memorial Cup for the province of British Columbia. Hon. L. Reid: I have a number of individuals visiting us in the gallery today. Janet Law and her son Brandon are with us, and they have guests: Henry and Dorothy Benham from St. Albert and Margaret Davison and Gillian and Linda Westgarth from Burnaby, B.C. I'd ask the House to please make them extremely welcome. Hon. G.

Abbott: W e h a v e a n u m b e r o f d i s t i n - guished guests from the local government realm in the gallery here today, specifically from the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities.

They in- clude Councillor Mary Ashley from Campbell River, who's the president of the association; Mayor Pearl My- hres from Zeballos, who's the past president; Councillor Stan Dixon from Sechelt, the first vice-president; chair George Holme from the Nanaimo regional district, the second vice-president; director Adrian Belshaw from the Sunshine Coast regional district, who's an electoral area representative; Councillor Don Gemmel from the Powell River district, director-at-large; Councillor Bea Holland from Victoria, director-at-large; Mayor Jack Peake from Lake Cowichan, who's a director-at-large; and Eydie Fraser, who's their executive coordinator.

I'd like to ask the House to make them all welcome. B. Belsey: It gives me great pleasure today to intro- duce the winners of the Pacific Northwest zone cham- pionships for the gentleman's sport well known as golf. These young fellows are here to golf in the competition in Victoria. I'd like to introduce Dave Clark, Jeremy Pierce, Dave McKay and my two nephews Dylan and Devin Palmer, along with the two coaches Larry Hope and Howard Linn. Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House I'm really proud to have one of my brothers in attendance — my brother Larry, one of the original six Falcon boys.

Larry is joined by his daughters, and my nieces…. Interjections. Hon. K. Falcon: O h no w , c o m e o n. H e 's jo i ne d b y his two daughters, my lovely nieces Kelsey and Alison. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today. E. Brenzinger: I'm very proud today to introduce in the House my mom, Jena Haggart, who's here for the week to visit Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome. Hon. B. Barisoff: Today I have the pleasure of in- troducing a constituent of mine, Yasmin John-Thorpe, the better half of the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. [1410] Hon.

M. de Jong: Joining us today are students — 80, I think — from MEI school in Abbotsford, with their teacher, Ms. Baarda. I hope all members will make the MEI elementary students welcome. Tributes DON RAMSAY B. Penner: It is with great regret and sadness that I rise to report the passing of Don Ramsay, mayor of the village of Harrison Hot Springs, at the age of 52. Don succumbed to cancer this morning after a valiant battle over the past year. He was first elected mayor in 1996 and was re- elected in November 1999 with about 83 percent of the vote.

Don was much loved and well known in his community, both as mayor and as the piano player and singer at the Harrison Hot Springs hotel. Don is survived by his mother, Muriel, in Coquit- lam; his brother, Jim Ramsay, in New Westminster; and his sister, Donna Ramsay, in Prince George. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that on behalf of the House you convey our condolences to his family. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. So ordered.

3582 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 Introduction and First Reading of Bills CARRIER LUMBER LTD. FOREST LICENCE COMPENSATION ACT H o n . M . d e J o n g p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H i s Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 58 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: The introduction of Bill 58 signals the achievement of a negotiated settlement to the long- standing Carrier Lumber dispute and brings to a close a dark

chapter in our provincial history authored by the previous government. All British Columbians were shocked and saddened to learn of the political interference and government conduct that the Supreme Court of British Columbia naturally identified as being deceptive and the result of bad faith in their finding in favour of Carrier Lumber in July 1999. Today, Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring closure and provide both Carrier and the Crown with the ability to put this dispute behind us and to move forward on to more positive endeavours. These were not easy negotiations. The amounts involved were significant.

But today's settlement fairly addresses past injustices while at the same time focus- ing additional resources happily on the pine beetle infestation in the interior. The settlement package with Carrier Lumber totals just under $75 million in terms of costs to the Crown. That is $30 million cash, $2.6 mil- lion in terms of land transfer, $1.1 million referring to gravel and an estimated $41.1 million relating to 1.5 million cubic metres of timber to be harvested over the next five years free of stumpage.

This bill specifically provides the government with the means to directly award the forest licence that I have just referred to for the 1.5 million cubic metres. This is a significant settlement that reinforces the point that when governments abuse their power, it is the taxpayers that ultimately pay. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Forests has the floor. Please continue. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 58 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) WORK OF MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING R. Stewart: O n e o f m y c l a s s m a t e s i n h i g h s c h o o l was Fred Gribble. We graduated in 1977. A couple of years later, my classmates and I were shocked when Fred was killed by a drunk driver. [1415] Fred's mother, Sally Gribble, brought MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, from California to Canada in 1981 in memory of her son. Today there are 50 MADD chapters across Canada, with chapters in every province and territory. Here in B.C. there are five chapters, greater Vancouver being the largest, which reaches from Squamish to Aldergrove.

There are also MADD chapters in Chilliwack, representing the upper Fraser; in Port Hardy, representing Vancouver Island; and in Kelowna and Cranbrook. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has two main pur- poses: get drinking drivers off our roads, and help the victims of this terrible crime. I know that representa- tives of MADD met in April with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General regarding their ongoing advocacy. These days it is street racing that is in the news.

For me, these senseless deaths of young people from street racing are made even more personal as my eldest daughter turned 16 this past weekend and is busy reading her driver's manual. As we witness the carnage of street racing on our roadways, it is perhaps too easy to forget that all too often it is alcohol or drugs which add to the feeling of invincibility in our youth. I take my hat off to MADD, which has succeeded in changing many of the prevailing attitudes of our soci- ety about drinking and driving. MADD is now work- ing with our young people, trying to change their atti- tudes.

This very day, MADD has speakers in two lower mainland schools, talking to secondary school students about the issue of drinking and driving. I stand in the House today to recognize Sally Grib- ble, who has since passed on. I know I join with my colleagues in congratulating and encouraging mothers and the others who work against drinking and driving. ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS T. Christensen: L a s t w e e k e a c h o f u s w e r e i n o u r constituencies doing our constituency work.

Beyond providing me with an all-important opportunity to attend my daughter's first birthday, being in my con- stituency for the week also allowed me to attend the graduation and participation ceremony for the adult basic education program at the Kalamalka campus of OUC, which is in Vernon. Adult education programs offer adults an opportu- nity to acquire the skills necessary to competently and independently function in a modern, technological society as citizens, workers, community and family

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3583 members and consumers. The programs offer compe- tencies in a variety of curriculum areas, including life skills, mathematics and the all-important communica- tion skills of speaking, reading, writing and, of course, listening. They also provide opportunities for pre- vocational and academic training. In Vernon 74 students were recognized for their participation in the ABE program and their completion of various levels of education within the program. It was unlike any other graduation program I've at- tended.

Students in the ABE program come from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. There are single parents. There are recent immigrants. There are people who have worked for years, often in labour- intensive jobs that have resulted in one or more inju- ries, who wish to improve their formal education and obtain different employment. The one thing they all had in common was the desire to improve their educa- tion — in many cases, to obtain their grade 12 equiva- lency as a foundation to go on to post-secondary edu- cation.

They have goals of pursuing academic programs, skills-focused vocational and technical programs or other educational opportunities at our colleges, univer- s i t i e s a n d o t h e r w i s e . M a n y h a v e a g o a l o f i m p r o v i n g their employment opportunities. They are all seeking to improve their lives and the lives of their dependents through bettering their education.

In listening to the students, two things stood out: firstly, the dedication of the students themselves, who are returning to school later in life, often when their high school experience wasn't a positive one, and who, because they're later in life, are juggling the responsi- bility of parenting and/or working while pursuing their studies; and also the dedication of the instructors. Student after student commented on the integrity and commitment of their instructors in going the extra mile to build enthusiasm in the classroom and to ensure their students' success.

I want to commend OUC for continuing to offer these programs. I wish them the best in the future. RESPONSIBILITIES OF MLAS J. Bray: As the Legislature gets ready to rise this week, I wish to speak on what I consider to be our common responsibility over the coming months. We have seen significant changes over the last 12 months. During this time of change we've also seen an unparalleled level of rhetoric in the media — some by organized labour, some by professional associations. [1420] This crescendo of conflict sometimes serves to smother the most important voices, those of our indi- vidual constituents.

We must work over the months ahead to ensure the ability of our citizens to speak to us in our communities and make sure that it is enhanced. In order for us as legislators to assess how changes are impacting our businesses, industries, public services, neighbourhoods and neighbours, people must be able to communicate with each of us, their elected represen- tatives. However, there is a second part to this relationship: our commitment to actively listen to all the voices in our province. There are rural and urban perspectives, union and non-union perspectives, and high-, middle- and low-income points of view.

We must listen to those who provide services by government and those who receive services from government, those who agree with government policies and those who oppose gov- ernment policies. In my own riding I will be meeting with persons who run small businesses, those who work in the pub- lic service, families who rely on services from the Min- istry of Children and Family Development, constitu- ents who are concerned about the environment and environmental protection, people with disability, tour- ism operators, high-tech company owners, parents of children in the public school system and seniors.

These meetings will be my opportunity to hear and see firsthand about those government policy changes that are benefiting my constituents and to learn how government policies can be improved on behalf of those who feel they are negatively impacted by gov- ernment changes. My role as an MLA over the coming months is to make sure I represent all in Victoria– Beacon Hill and to work with the various ministries to ensure the best possible public policy. I am honoured to have this responsibility. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS J.

MacPhail: Let me see if I can find something for the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill to do. The doctors dispute is creating chaos in the health care system, and I think British Columbians are saying they have had enough. The Minister of Health Services says he's con- sidering legislative options, so here's my proposal to the minister and to his government.

If the government agrees to forgo closure of the bills currently before the House and to extend the session by a week, the opposition will agree to pass all three stages of legislation in one day, ending the doctors dispute, provided that: (1) the legislation creates a mechanism whereby doctors are legally bound to provide services; (2) it establishes a fair and balanced binding arbitration process to handle all future disputes; and (3) it's exclu- sive to the doctors dispute and doesn't tack on other items the government would like to slip through.

So to the minister: will he accept our offer, bring in legislation that meets the test of these three simple principles and put an end to the doctors dispute today? Hon. G. Collins: It's not the practice of this House to debate the order and the regulations and the stand- ing orders in question period. However, I will advise the member opposite that the standing orders already

3584 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 provide for the government, in urgent business, to move it through all three stages in one day. Should that happen or be required and we're advised by the Minis- ter of Health Services, we would do so today, tomor- row, the next day, on a Saturday, on a Sunday, what- ever it takes to get the doctors back to work and get patients proper care in British Columbia.

However, if the member wants to offer her legisla- tive drafting experience to provide the parameters of the proposed legislation to the Minister of Health Ser- vices, we'd certainly look forward to seeing anything she could put on paper. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: As usual, the House Leader takes mat- ters that are very serious very lightly. This is not an emergency, because this government has been in a fight with the doctors for months now, for almost a year.

What possible ruling could there be without the cooperation of the opposition to put this through in all three days? I would like to say that in the past, these disputes were settled without legislation. May I also remind the minister that in previous disputes, the Liberal opposition always, always took the side of doctors. I can remember the current Minis- ter of Health Planning pleading with the then govern- m e n t t o g i v e i n t o d o c t o r s ' d e m a n d s , b u t I ' m s a y i n g today to the Minister of Health Services that the oppo- sition is not going to play that game. [1425] Our offer is simple.

Allow more time for debate on the bills currently before the House, and we can pass and proclaim legislation today that ensures patient care tomorrow. I would have thought the Minister of Health Services would have jumped at the opportunity. He's had weeks to devise a legislative package. What's the holdup? Hon. G.

Collins: If the Minister of Health Services makes it clear that legislation is required in order to settle this dispute and to make sure that patients are getting the care they need, this government will do whatever is necessary to make sure that passes through this House as timely as possible, because patients are at the top of the agenda of this government and always have been.

As well, if the members opposite would like more time to debate any matter that's before this House, we're more than happy to extend yet again the offer that we open Committee A, as has been done in the past, and provide for that opportunity to double the time that may be required by members opposite to debate any legislation. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Instead of the Health Services minister getting up, we have political spin from the chief politi- cal spin master of the Liberal government. I know it's a tough spot for the Liberals to find themselves in.

For years they were very close to the BCMA. The BCMA donated to the Liberal campaign, and every time they attacked the former government, the doctors could count on full support from the Liberals, then in opposition. I think, now, the cozy relationship has de- generated into name-calling. Today doctors are closing their offices. Tomorrow specialists are closing their doors, and on Wednesday doctors are resigning their hospital privileges. Why won't the Minister of Health Services take action that ensures patients aren't again held hostage by the intran- sigence of the BCMA?

Stop the political spin-doctoring by the House Leader. Stand up for patient care. Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly appreciate the senti- ments of the member and her willingness to assist. I would welcome any suggestions she may have. Over the weekend we have looked at a range of options as to how to ensure that patient care can be maintained in this province. I was very pleased to hear on Friday the leadership role that was being taken by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to ensure that patient safety would be put at the top of the agenda.

We are still hopeful that we can get back to negotiations, because we recognize that through negotiations we probably have an oppor- tunity to close these few very minor issues that are still outstanding. We have indicated a willingness to be flexible on that, but we need the BCMA back at the table to do that. If they're not prepared to do that, we will be taking action very soon. CANORA CLUB MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE J. Kwan: For weeks now we have asked the Minis- ter of State for Mental Health why mental health ser- vices are being cut when he claims to be putting more money into the system.

Every time, he gets up and gives a lame answer. He says it's not up to him to man- age the system. If it's not up to the minister to ensure mental health patients and their families get the care they need, then why is he taking up space at the cabi- net table? The Canora Club mental health walk-in centre on the North Shore is closing… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: O rder, ple ase. Order so that we may hear the question. J. MacPhail: Pardon me? Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order so that we may hear the question. Please proceed. J.

Kwan: …because this government is eliminating its funding. Does the Minister of State for Mental

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3585 Health consider it his job to find a way to keep the cen- tre open, or is it not up to him? Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the members opposite are not listening. We are investing $263 million over the next six years to improve mental health in this province. For the first time, health au- thorities… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Cheema: …have been given specific per- formance expectations on mental health. I understand why the NDP is sensitive.

It's because they failed the patients with mental illness in this province. [1430] Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The minister's words just don't add up, because they're closing centre after centre across British Columbia. Those drop-in centres, mental health ser- vices, are being shut down. The Canora Club has been a sanctuary for mental health patients since 1958. As one of its clients says, in a letter to the Vancouver coastal health authority, without the Canora Club he would not be alive today.

The executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association has taken the issue directly to the minister. He's met with the local MLAs, and he's even met with the Premier. Still the minister has not lifted a finger to help. The minister's hands-off attitude is re- sulting in the collapse of mental health services in communities across British Columbia. Will the minister listen to the pleas of mental health patients and their families and stop with the excuses and keep the Canora Club open? Hon. G. Cheema: Mr.

Speaker, let me outline some o f t h e p o s i t i v e c h a n g e s w e h a v e m a d e f o r m e n t a l health in this province: No. 1, the commitment of capi- tal funding for the Riverview replacement facility; No. 2, child and youth mental health action plan; No. 3, clear performance expectations for mental health in this province. No. 4, $263 million for the mental health plan…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order. We will pause here until there is quiet. The min- ister has the floor, and the time comes out of question period. Please continue, Mr. Minister. Hon. G.

Cheema: No. 5, three new facilities for mental health in this province: Connolly Lodge, Iris House, Seven Oaks in Victoria. Mr. Speaker, the pro- vincial…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Please continue. Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, No. 6, anxiety dis- order initiative in this province; No. 7, depression ini- tiative in this province; No. 8, raising the status of men- tal health at the cabinet table; No. 9, $20 million for Kamloops psych facility. It goes on and on. We are improving mental health in this province. SUMAS POWER FACILITY B.

Penner: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Fraser Valley residents were extremely distressed last Friday to learn about a deci- sion in Washington State to recommend approval of the Sumas 2 power plant. If this project is built, it will pump another three tonnes per day of extra air pollu- tion into the Fraser Valley's already fragile airshed. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what her ministry has done to date to oppose SE2 and what the government's reaction has been concerning this disturbing turn of events? Hon. J.

Murray: I was very disappointed in this decision. It was a terrible decision for the residents of the Fraser Valley and for their health and well-being. We will continue to strongly oppose the Sumas 2 power plant in the Fraser Valley area. When we were elected, this government had a new- era promise to intervene in the Sumas 2 power plant, because it is the wrong plant in the wrong location. We intervened. We had an excellent staff, an excellent legal representation, strong support by the local community and the MLAs, and a very effective intervention, but unfortunately, we were not successful.

I was personally appalled by the regulator's decision, and I will con- tinue to fight it. Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent has supplementary question. B. Penner: During the regulatory proceedings last y e ar a nd t hi s y e ar t he B . C . g o v e rnm e nt c al l e d a nu m - ber of expert witnesses who gave compelling testimony about the impact the extra air pollution would have on human health on our side of the border. Can the Minis- ter of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what addi- tional steps she is taking to continue to oppose the con- struction of Sumas 2? [1435] Hon. J.

Murray: As the member is aware, this EF- SEC decision is a recommendation to the Governor of Washington. It is not a final decision on the Sumas En- ergy 2 facility.

3586 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 I started by calling an emergency meeting of the Fraser Valley MLAs. We met yesterday, on Sunday, to strategize our continuing opposition to this power plant. I've already instructed the staff in my ministry and our legal representatives to review all the aspects of this process and find if there are any grounds for appeal of EFSEC's recommendation. If so, we will file that appeal.

Secondly, we will be communicating very soon to the government of Washington our profound disap- pointment with this decision and our recommendation that the Governor turn this power plant project down. HYDROELECTRICITY PRICES J. Les: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. The future of electricity prices is a concern to many people in my riding and throughout the province. Re- cently a number of concerns have been raised about reports that have suggested the possibility of increases in the price of electricity.

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines explain how increases in energy prices can even be considered when only last year B.C. Hydro was posting record profits and issuing rebates to customers in British Columbia? Hon. R. Neufeld: This government put together a task force to come up with a plan for British Columbia, for its energy needs into the future. Part of that plan is to continue to provide the lowest possible prices for hydroelectricity to British Columbians well into the future. We want to do that by supplying a secure, reli- able supply.

Many people in this province don't realize that Brit- ish Columbia in the last ten years has been a net im- porter for three of those ten years. That will require new construction of facilities to continue to power this great province as we continue to get the economy go- ing, jobs provided and the economy back to what it was before the NDP came in — and that's number one. [End of question period.] Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to inform the House at this time that as of this morning, I have received and accepted the resignation of the police complaint commissioner. Tabling Documents Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present the 2001- 02 annual report of the office of the merit commis- sioner. Hon. S. Bond: It is my pleasure today to table the annual reports of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia and the British Co- lumbia Centre for International Education for the fiscal year 2000-01. Hon. S. Hagen: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2000-01 for the British Columbia As- sets and Land Corporation. Hon. R.

Coleman: I have a number of reports to table: the Travel Assurance Fund and Travel Assurance Fund Board annual report, fiscal year 2001-02; the Mo- tor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board annual report of fiscal year 2001-02; and the annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, 2000-01. B. Belsey: I seek leave to table two petitions. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Petitions B. Belsey: The first petition is signed by 237 con- stituents opposing cuts to legal aid funding.

The sec- ond petition is from 46 constituents concerned with the costs of relocation of workers laid off by downsizing government offices. Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to table a petition signed by 58 displaced forest workers at Fraser Mills. [1440] Standing Order 81.1 Motion Hon. G. Collins: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, which is part of our new fixed legislative calendar that provides for an orderly conclusion of government business using the procedure of time allocation. I'll just quote from Standing Order 81.1(1).

It states: "When a minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the repre- sentatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the minister may propose a motion without notice setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation, and the motion shall be decided forthwith without debate or amendment." Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say we've come to an agreement, to conclusion, on how the government business will come to an orderly conclusion by May 30 of this week.

I therefore move a motion to adopt the

schedule as agreed to, which I'm tabling with the Clerk and which has been distributed to all members. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. J. MacPhail: This motion is not debatable, and I understand that. My point of order is on the characteri- zation of the House Leader, to say that he's pleased we've come to an agreement. That agreement is under duress. The agreement was made under duress after several opportunities for the House Leader to allow for

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3587 proper debate. All sorts of opportunities were pre- sented forward. I am just saying that this non-debatable motion will be put forward, as we had to agree under duress to this schedule. It is completely unacceptable, but given the overwhelming majority of this government, we had no choice. We had no choice. I want to make it clear — not one choice. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member's point of order will be considered. Hon. G. Collins: Just a few words on the point of order, if I may.

The members of the opposition were under no duress whatsoever when they agreed… J. MacPhail: Complete duress. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. G. Collins: …unanimously to the provi- sions of standing order 81.1 at the beginning of the legislative session. As well, despite the histrionics of the member opposite, I repeatedly offered the mem- ber opposite and her colleague the opportunity to expand the debate, to allow for passage of legisla- tion to Committee A, which is the process that has been… J. MacPhail: There are two of us and 76 of you. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Thank you. Hon. G.

Collins: …done in the past as wel l as the process that is used for the estimates. When those pro- visions…. J. MacPhail: When no one else is speaking, we have to defend the entire province. It's outrageous. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: Those opportunities continue to exist for the members opposite. They were the oppor- tunities that were available to them when they agreed unanimously with this new provision. As well, they were agreed to when the members agreed to the fixed legislative calendar. If they had a problem, that was the time to raise the issue. Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

The comments of both members…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The comments of both members will be taken into account. You've heard the question. Motion approved on division. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the motion we've just passed, I call committee stage of Bill 28. [1445] Committee of the Whole House EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:46 p.m. Hon. J. Reid: I rise to declare an interest in the mat- t e r b e f o r e t h e H o u s e . I w i l l a b s e n t m y s e l f f r o m t h e chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on the bill. Hon. G. Bruce: I, too, will absent myself from Bill 28 because of my interest and will absent myself from any votes that are held. Hon. G. Cheema: I, also, rise to declare an interest in this matter before the House, and I will absent my- self from this chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on this bill. Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6. J. MacPhail: What is the minister's intent in raising the cap on the allowable tax credit allotment? Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, before I answer the member's question, let me take the time to introduce staff that are with me here today. Mr. Dale Sketchley is the director of the business investment branch of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise. He is joined by Ian Harper, our portfolio manager in the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, and George Faddis, a barrister and solicitor from the Minis- try of Attorney General.

With respect to the cap on venture capital in British Columbia, it was established in 1991 at $13 million. It remains today at $13 million. Any changes in total ven- ture capital funding in British Columbia would be sub- ject to budget considerations. The next budget is scheduled for February 2003. J. MacPhail: Did the minister say it was established at $13 million in 1991? Hon. R. Thorpe: Total tax credits under the Em- ployee Investment Act are at $13 million. Yes, that was established in 1991. It remains that today. Interestingly

3588 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 enough, though, I believe that in 1997, '98 and '99 — during that period — the former member was part of a government that in fact reduced those tax credits to $7.2 million. [1450] J. MacPhail: Sorry. The history of that is that each and every year…. Well, it was not each and every year, but over the period of the ten years, the cap on the amount to be invested was increased. The tax credit that flowed from that was then increased as well. I have no idea what the minister is talking about what- soever.

It would increase from $15 million to $20 mil- lion, I think then to $30 million, then to $60 million, to $80 million in terms of the cap and then the tax credit that flowed from that. Is the minister trying to suggest something different? Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I'm not. What I'm trying to suggest to the member across the way is that the legis- lation that was in place allowed for a total cap for em- ployee investment, since 1991, of $13 million. That's what the legislation allowed for. J. MacPhail: Then I'm not quite sure why the minis- ter is trying to say there's some history other than what I described.

I'm asking what the minister's intent is for the an- nual maximum allowable tax credit. There's been dis- appointment expressed by the business community that it remains at its current level. Hon. R. Thorpe: British Columbians were very, very disappointed at the fiscal position that the previ- ous government left them in. As most members in this House and a vast majority of British Columbians are well aware, we were left with a $3.8 billion structural deficit. We have taken a number of bold initiatives to put more money in working people's pockets.

On the first day of our government we reduced taxes to British Columbians by 25 percent, putting more money in their pockets. In fact, British Columbia now has the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada for those making $60,000 or less. We have made 17 reductions in tax since forming government. We are rebuilding the competitiveness of British Columbia, attracting new investment and creating jobs in British Columbia. We are excited about the future of British Columbia. The next budget will be tabled in this House in Feb- ruary of 2003, and we will address the tax credits at that point in time. R.

Stewart: I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent myself from the cham- ber while Bill 28 is under discussion and will not vote on the bill. The Chair: Thank you, member. J. MacPhail: It's very interesting to note that this minister, who says he's introducing competition at every point, refuses to answer the question.

His rheto- ric will serve him for whatever purpose it is, but it's to the business community, to his friends in the business community, that he is now speaking — not to me, but to the business community, who, after this bill was introduced, consistently expressed disappointment that the government was not raising the cap of allowable annual investment into labour-sponsored venture capi- tal funds. That cap is now at $80 million, and flowing from that is a provincial tax expenditure of about $12 million.

The combination of introducing competition is kind of undermined, I would think, by keeping the cap at $80 million. All I'm asking the minister is to explain how keep- ing the investment cap at $80 million and introducing "competition" assists in growing the economy, from what was a very successful venture capital fund. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm going to try to be as clear as I can for the House and, perhaps, for the member. It's disappointing to me that the member continues to want to turn up the rhetoric here on this issue.

Brit- ish Columbians actually know that hard and tough choices have been required to get ourselves out of the mess left by the previous government, in which that member was a key player. We have made very, very tough decisions with respect to funding health care, increasing funding by over $1.1 billion. We increased funding to education. [1455] I think, quite frankly, that the business community welcomes competition, as I understood the member did in some comments she made in this House earlier. I also understand that the president of the current fund has encouraged competition.

I ' v e a l s o s a i d m a n y t i m e s b e f o r e t h a t w e l o o k f o r - ward to a growing and prosperous economy in British Columbia. We look forward to increasing the availabil- ity of investment pools and venture capitals, and for startup and small businesses and other areas of en- deavour that will create jobs for British Columbians and keep our best and brightest here after having been driven away by the previous government. All in all, I believe the business community knows, as all other British Columbians do, that tough decisions are required.

We look forward to bringing forward, in consultation with my colleague the Finance minister, a review of venture-capital tax credit funding in the com- ing budget, which will be in February 2003. J. MacPhail: The employment numbers plummeted after this government took office. Employment num- bers in this province plummeted. Unemployment went up after the Liberal government was elected about a year ago. This venture capital fund is the way jobs are cre- ated in British Columbia. The business community hasn't been flooding this province with investment.

As a matter of fact, it's predicted that private sector in- vestment will fall over the next two years in British Columbia.

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3589 The government said that the changes introduced in Bill 28 would increase investment through competi- tion. That's all I'm asking the minister. We had a good thing going. Jobs were created in the thousands by the Working Opportunity Fund — by the thousands. Jobs are being lost every day in this province as we speak. I'm asking the minister what his plans are as a result of this legislation, through increasing competition with- out increasing the maximum amount allowable to be invested in venture capital. How does that result in better investment and more jobs?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I realize that the member across the way wants to engage in old-style politics of turning up the rhetoric, doom and gloom, and the world's com- ing to an end. But you know, quite frankly…. J. MacPhail: Is the minister scared to answer the question? Oh, no. The Chair: Member, that's inappropriate. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. He seemed to be intimidated by a dialogue that was going on, Mr. Chair. I accept your comments on it being inappropriate. I know that the minister has a lot of moxie, and he likes to stand up to people in giving his answers, whether it be inside or outside the chamber.

I asked him a simple question. On the record it will read: how is it that these changes in legislation will increase jobs and investment in this province, when there was a huge amount of investment and jobs created in the previous Working Opportunity Fund venture capital fund? Simple question. Hon. R. Thorpe: I n f a c t , p e r h a p s , i f t h e m e m b e r would have the common decency now to sit and listen to an answer, I would be very, very clear that I'm not sure that any member of this House intimidates any other member of this House. I'm sure that's not the member's intention.

What we're doing here is introducing competition. We're levelling the playing field. As we gather infor- mation with regards to economic growth and the effec- tive use of tax credits, our government will review the cap on the tax credits for this purpose. [1500] Let me also correct the erroneous comments, if I could, of the member across with respect to invest- ment. Under their administration, British Columbia was the number one economic engine of Canada. They had the ability to drive us to number ten. Only a week or so ago an independent report came out.

Now British Columbia has worked its way back up, through the aggressive economic policies of our government and, I might say, the determination of the private sector and all British Columbians. Now we're only behind Ontario and Alberta. British Columbia now ranks third. You know, it's been a long, long time since we've been able to have that pride in British Columbia. People are coming to British Columbia. People are investing; jobs are being created. We do face some chal- lenges again, never mind, with respect to the softwood lumber.

My colleague the Minister of Forests is work- ing aggressively on that with the government of Can- ada. Let me say for the last time that our government is committed to economic growth in British Columbia by attracting investment from across Canada and around the world. We are committed to venture capital. We are committed to competition. After we've had the oppor- tunity to gather the economic growth data and under- stand more efficiently the effective use of tax credits, we are going to review this cap on an ongoing basis based on the ability of British Columbia to provide and to pay for those tax credits. Hon.

J. Murray: M r . C h a i r , I ' v e b e e n a b s e n t f r o m the House since question period, and I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discus- sion and from any votes on the bill. J. MacPhail: I was interested to see whether the minister had actually read the report on the Investment Dealers Association. It's true that they said B.C. was third, behind Alberta and Ontario, but when they actu- ally raised the question about whether anyone's intend- ing to invest in British Columbia, the answer was no.

Private sector investment is going to fall in British Co- lumbia over the next two years. Being third is great, but when third means zero, it ain't that much of an achievement. You know, there are lots of people in this chamber and probably in the galleries right here who thought the Working Opportunity Fund was a pretty good place to invest. I'm not one of them because I was told I couldn't invest in it — fair enough. My question only was: with this introducing com- petition, sort of busting up a good thing amongst smaller parts….

What criteria does the government have for that competition, leading to more jobs and greater investment? The answer was: "Gee, wait." Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm appalled by the negativity of the member across the way and why this member wants to continue. She was part of a government that ravaged the economy of British Columbia, drove our brightest and best…. Look; she sits over there with a smirk on her face that's unbelievable. The Chair: Minister, I ask you to take back those comments, please. Hon. R. Thorpe: She sits over there with great in- terest in my words.

You know, it's appalling that you would now want to send to the world about not coming to British Co- lumbia. What have you got against working people? What have you got against small…? The question I want to know the answer to is this: what has this

3590 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 member got against creating employment in rural Brit- ish Columbia, in small communities, in the high-tech industry and in the film industry? What has this mem- ber got against creating jobs, hope and prosperity in the great province of British Columbia? [1505] Our government is committed to hope, prosperity and economic growth and to creating jobs throughout the entire province. We are committed… J. MacPhail: Let's all pray. Maybe that'll help. Hon. R. Thorpe: …to an ongoing review of tax pol- icy.

Again, for the last time, the tax policies and the use of tax credits with respect to the fund will be an- nounced in the budget of February 2003. J. MacPhail: What happens in the interim? Hon. R. Thorpe: The legislation stays the same. Venture capital credits available on various tax pro- grams stay at $13 million, and the cap for labour- sponsored funds stays at $12 million. J. MacPhail: Well, then, that means we don't have any hope of any change until the year 2004, because of course, most people do their investment in these kinds of funds for the RRSP season.

The budget for 2004 will be in February, maybe days before the RRSP season. I'm sure that the minister would never do anything that would be untoward in terms of influencing that. It means the first effect that raising the cap would have would be for the year 2004. Gee, that's really good hope. Maybe we should all pray, then, because there ain't anything happening before the year 2004. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm surprised. Well, perhaps I'm not surprised.

As a former minister and, I believe, a Finance minister, I would have thought the member would have known that RRSPs bought in the first part of 2003 are applicable to the year 2002, not the year coming forward. They're applicable backwards, not forwards. You know, I'm surprised. I have been surprised many times by that member, and I continue to be. It's important to remember that the equity capital program also administered by this minister provides tax credits to raise up to $50 million for early-stage investments.

This complements the $80 million available through labour-sponsored funds for an annual total of $130 million. J. MacPhail: Just in case there's anybody here who is actually thinking the minister knows what he's talk- ing about, let me set the record straight. The money raised under venture capital funds is done prior to Feb- ruary 28 of any year if it's attached to an RRSP tax credit as well. Funds sell out before that period of time, and unless the legislation raises the cap to take effect before that period of time, it has no effect till the next RRSP season.

Just in case the minister needs a briefing on that matter. Sections 6 and 7 approved. On

section 8. J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could suggest the purpose and intent of

section 8, please. Hon. R. Thorpe: It's enabling. It's for the establish- ment of a structured, consistent valuation process go- ing forward, transparent for all the shareholders for all the funds. J. MacPhail: What is it modelled after? Hon. R. Thorpe: The development of this method- ology or regulation will be undertaken in consultation with the stakeholders, with the industry. I'm not going to predescribe what that methodology will be until those consultations have taken place. That is our com- mitment to British Columbians, and that's what will take place. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry; what commitment is that?

When will the consultations take place, and who will be consulted? [1510] Hon. R. Thorpe: The consultation will begin within the coming months and will include a cross-section of those affected, those who have expertise and those who have an understanding of evaluations so that we can make sure there's a consistent valuation process that's transparent for all stakeholders, all shareholders, for all funds in the province of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: What problem is this resolving? Hon. R.

Thorpe: W e w a n t t o m a k e s u r e t h e r e i s a consistent valuation process going forward to ensure, in a very transparent manner, that the valuation for shareholders for all funds is established. Again, I would think all British Columbians would want their legislators to make sure that we had a consistent, struc- tured approach for valuation that was transparent for all shareholders. Again, we want to make sure the methodology for the development of these regulations will be under- taken in consultation with a wide cross-section of stakeholders. That is our commitment.

As I said to the member a second ago, that process will start in the very, very near future should this bill pass this House. J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm curious about this is that the word "prescribing" means regulating. This government takes great pride in saying that they're cutting red tape and cutting regulation. In fact, there's a Minister of State for Deregulation — a full-time job in this government, this largest cabinet ever in the history

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3591 of British Columbia. Largest deficit, largest cabinet — gee, it's a government of large, I'll tell ya. It's a big, big government, but they're going to root out regulations. Here we have, in a business-friendly bill, more to the point, red tape being introduced. That was why I a s k e d w h a t p r o b l e m w e a r e t r y i n g t o s o l v e h e r e b y bringing in red tape. You know what? The minister doesn't know. Hon. R.

Thorpe: The liberties that sometimes are taken by some members in this House reach new heights every day — or new lows, whatever you de- cide. I'm again surprised that a member of this House would not want to ensure, as legislators, that we do have a structured, consistent valuation process for the ongoing transparency for all shareholders. It's consis- tent with other jurisdictions across Canada. To suggest that this would be excessive red tape is an exaggeration but one that we are becoming very familiar with from that member over there.

You know, I think it's important that unlike the previous government here for the past ten years, this will be done in consultation with the industry, with stakeholders. We are very confident that this will be a positive move and will not create additional red tape but will provide a structured, consistent valuation process in a very transparent way for shareholders of all funds in British Columbia with respect to venture capital. J. MacPhail: This is the time, even though there is one hour to debate three bills, when the government has an opportunity to explain its philosophy behind legislation.

We have a business bill. The business com- munity hates red tape, and yet inside this bill we have a bunch of red tape being created. That was the only reason I was raising the question. I don't know what's wrong with that question. I think it's pretty reasonable. I'm very anxious to see the regulations. Tell me: does the minister have a plan to cut red tape elsewhere in the application of this legislation to make up for the introduction of more red tape? I think the minister has to cut double the red tape. It's a two-for-one kind of government. It's a big government, but it's kind of like the pizza places.

You get two for one. Will it be in this program that you…? Interjection. [1515] J. MacPhail: Yeah. The legislation here creates red tape, so will there be double the number of regulations cut elsewhere? D. MacKay: I seek leave to make some introduc- tions. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D. MacKay: With us this afternoon, from the beau- tiful Bulkley Valley and, in particular, Smithers, I have 13 students from the grade 7 class at St. Joe's Catholic school visiting today, along with five escorts who brought them down to Victoria to see the city and have a look at the Legislature.

They're up behind me in the gallery, I believe. I would like to acknowledge Mike Schultz, Tracy Wreggitt, Eugene Cole, Leslie Bush and Brian Sikkes, who accompanied all these students from Smithers to the beautiful city of Victoria. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. Debate Continued L. Mayencourt: A number of Working Opportunity Fund shareholders I've spoken with, just ordinary work- ing families, have raised a concern regarding the report on the valuation of the portfolio. Apparently, the Work- ing Opportunity Fund has GrowthWorks issue this valuation to those shareholders.

Will this allow for an independent evaluation of GrowthWorks's valuation? Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently, the corporation is re- quired only to value its shares according to generally accepted accounting principles with reference to finan- cial information to the corporation. We are going to develop in consultation the established, structured, consistent valuation process, going forward, so that it's transparent for all shareholders for all funds. I want to make it very, very clear. This will be for all funds. This is not about a particular fund.

This is a b o u t a l l f u n d s , s h o u l d w e i n f a c t h a v e f u n d s c o m e forward that want to compete in this area.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. MacPhail: Why did the government have to leg- islate the breaking of a commercial contract? Hon. R. Thorpe: This is not the breaking of a con- tract. It sets aside those provisions that sought to bind government and the administrator with regard to equity fund approvals, tax credit allocation and investment pacing. This legislation was prepared in consultation with our legal advisers at the Ministry of Attorney Gen- eral. It is important to note that governments cannot be bound to act outside legislative requirements. J.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could expand on that, because this is the legislation breaking a contract. Let me ask this, then. Can anybody who has a contract arising out of this legislation now sue the government if the government doesn't honour that contract? [1520] Hon. R. Thorpe: This sets aside only to the extent that it's outside the scope of the legislation. We are also

3592 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 looking to ensure and protect the taxpayers of British Columbia and the shareholders of the fund. That's what this

section accomplishes, and that's the extent of it. J. MacPhail: Contracts that are outside of what leg- islation? Hon. R. Thorpe: The Employee Investment Act. J. MacPhail: Well, it is absolutely ridiculous to somehow say that a contract that's legally binding…. This government gets to determine with its heavy hand of legislation and its overwhelming majority what's outside of legislation. If the government doesn't like a contract, why don't they challenge it in court? Not this government. They never like to do anything by the ordinary avenue available to every other British Co- lumbian.

They like to bring in legislation saying…. Here's what this bill says. Here's exactly what it says. It's entitled "No compensation." If the govern- ment were on solid ground, all they'd have to do is go to court. That's all they'd have to do. In fact, earlier today I heard this government saying: "Oh, isn't it aw- ful when governments don't honour contracts? It's out- rageous; it's horrendous." But the previous government didn't deny Carrier its right to court. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. J.

MacPhail: The previous government didn't say: "Oh, and by the way, Carrier, you don't have any access to court." No. What this government does is break com- mercial contracts and then say: "You've got no avenue to take us to court. You've got no compensation, and you can't sue us." That's the difference. I was shocked when the Minister of Forests got up with his balderdash, say- ing how bad the previous government was. The previ- ous government never denied anybody the right…. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order. J. MacPhail: I ain't gonna be laughing at his jokes, because time is limited.

The Chair: Member, we are dealing with Bill 28. J. MacPhail: Exactly, and it's on point. This gov- ernment is breaking a contract and then saying: "No compensation and no right to sue." Never before has any government done that to a commercial contract except for now — never before. Commercial contracts that are violated have always had the right to be tested and judged in court. This time, this government says no. There are 55,000 shareholders that they have a con- tract with, but what do they say to the 55,000 share- holders? They say: "No compensation." That's what they say.

No compensation is payable to a corporation or any other person because of or arising out of any- thing in this act or the amendments made by this act. That's unprecedented. It's never ever been done before.

Then it goes on to say: "No action lies, and an action or other proceeding must not be brought or maintained, against the government, the administrator or any other person for compensation or any other remedy arising as a direct or indirect consequence of…this Act…." So here we have, for the first time in the history of British Co- lumbia, a commercial contract being ripped up, just like this government thought they could do to working peo- ple. They have done it to working people, but now they're doing it to a commercial contract — first time ever.

It's so ironic today that we had the Minister of Forests standing up with a bunch of bravado saying: "Wasn't it awful in the past?" Well, the fact of the matter is that Carrier Lumber got compensation. Carrier Lum- ber did get compensation, because they had a right to take the government to court. They had a right to sue. Now what this government has done….

They're breaking a contract of greater commercial value, by the way, than could ever be contemplated in the past, and this government is saying: "No right to sue and no compensation." Shame on them. [1525-1530] Sections 9 and 10 approved on the following divi- sion: YEAS — 62 Coell Hogg L.

Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Hansen Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Belsey Bell Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Locke Nijjar Bhullar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3593 Sections 11 and 12 approved. Title approved. Hon. R. Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:32 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 28, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 54. Committee of the Whole House MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:34 p.m. Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved. On

section 30. [1535] J. MacPhail: Sections 30 through 35 amend the Leg- islative Assembly Management Committee Act. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee is a group of officers, for lack of a better term, from the government and the opposition to manage the com- pensation, benefits and working conditions, both physical and compensatory, of people within the legis- lative precinct. This change in this bill allows the Lieu- tenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations that will provide for the security of the legislative grounds.

The legislative grounds have been expanded to include Confederation Garden Park, the area of land bounded by Belleville, Menzies, Superior and Gov- ernment Streets. It also allows the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council to make regulations to permit or prohibit the use of the legislative precinct by the public or by any other person, and persons not complying with these regulations may be subject to a penalty. That's a

summary of what we're about to do here. My question is: why? Hon. G. Plant: The essential purpose of these amendments is to correct an anomaly that exists, in our view, in the law of British Columbia in terms of the responsibility for the legislative grounds.

That respon- sibility is an important feature of how it is that people have the right of access to the Legislature, and it has, by an interesting and somewhat curious parliamentary and regulatory history, become the case that a set of regulations that exist for the legislative grounds has become the responsibility of the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.

It is the view of the government that the basic prin- ciples and rules around access to the front lawn of the Legislature and the legislative precincts are really mat- ters that ought to be in the hands of the Speaker, who can be expected to discharge those responsibilities in a way that is free from partisan politics. Accordingly, these amendments are being introduced to move the responsibility for the regulations from the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations to the Speaker. As the member has pointed out, when we get to

section 34, the proposal is to introduce a regulation-making power and to give cabinet the power to make regula- tions providing for the security of the legislative pre- cinct. That power really already exists, and the regula- tion already exists. Other than the possibility of some technical changes to ensure the references in the regu- lation are correct, government does not intend to amend the regulations that currently exist in any sub- stantive way. J. MacPhail: Who will pay for security now? Hon. G. Plant: There is no change. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm curious.

There have been a whole bunch of changes made around this building. I now have to carry a toggle — or I think it's called a fob — to get in and out of the building. Come June 1, I'm going to have to use a fob to get into my own office. Who is paying for those changes? Hon. G. Plant: They have nothing to do with the provisions that are before the Legislature now. J. MacPhail: Actually, they do, because they're se- curity changes that are being made by someone that isn't the Legislative Assembly Management Commit- tee. I was just wanting to have some input, as a mem- ber who works here, into those changes.

That's all. I've been denied any opportunity to do that. I'm looking for a place to say what my view of security is. [1540] Hon. G. Plant: The member should take advantage of the opportunity that is available to her, as it is to all members of the House, to raise the questions and con- cerns that she has directly with the Speaker, who is responsible for security in the building. J. MacPhail: The changes that have been made in security are already the responsibility of the Speaker, the Attorney-General says. That's interesting. I'm fine. I take him at his word on that.

3594 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 What is the intent of this? What other powers are being transferred, then? Hon. G. Plant: What I tried to say quite carefully when I was introducing the provisions…. We're actu- ally talking about the front lawn of the Legislature here, colloquially speaking. We're not talking about the building, but about the precincts — that is, the land around the buildings. We're also talking about Confed- eration Garden Park. We're drawing a distinction be- tween the building and the lands around the building.

The building has been the province of the Speaker, the responsibility of the Speaker and the Sergeant-at- Arms, for as long as I've been a member. Nothing that we have introduced here today is in any way going to affect that. What this bill does is clarify responsibility for the grounds, the land around the building itself. J. MacPhail: I take it that these changes are being made in response to Camp Campbell, which was on the front lawn of the Legislature for the month of Feb- ruary. Hon. G. Plant: There was an incident…. I always wondered why it wasn't called Camp MacPhail.

There was an incident on the front lawn of the Leg- islature earlier this year that did give rise to some in- teresting research. That was really when we deter- mined that the responsibility for the legislative ground protection regulation rested with the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations under, of all things, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act. T h e m e m b e r i s r i g h t .

I t w a s t h a t i n c i d e n t t h a t alerted us in government to the strange way in which these matters were being regulated — not so much the strange way they were being regulated, but in fact, the chain of authority. It was that incident and the actions that took place around it that caused us to think that really, the public interest would be better served if the Speaker were in fact directly and primarily responsible for security for the legislative precinct. J. MacPhail: I will be watching it with interest, then, if that type of incident is the incident that pro- vokes this change.

I'll be watching it with interest to ensure that what has always been a place of public congregation and, frankly, a place of public protest, continues to be allowed to be so. Sections 30 to 54 inclusive approved. On

section 55. J. MacPhail: Just for the record, I want it noted that I have many other questions, but given the time alloca- tion and the inability to explore these issues, I am pick- ing my issues extremely carefully. By virtue of ac- knowledging that I am complying with the time limits, it doesn't mean that there are not dozens of legislative changes that are virtually going undebated and there- fore without any public scrutiny.

Section 55 changes the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act. There are some concerns. These changes under this act propose two main exemptions that are of serious concern. First, it provides an exemp- tion from the permit requirements of the Mines Act. Second, it provides a further exemption for these same activities from the Waste Management Act — two big exemptions. I'm glad to see various people here to talk about these exemptions. Also, it's clear that currently under the Mines Act, mining companies are required to obtain a permit be- fore conducting mining activity.

As part of the applica- tion process, mining companies are often required to propose environmental protection measures for dam- age to water courses resulting from the mine. [1545] The Mines Act already provides that where the chief inspector of mines is satisfied that a permit is not required because of the nature of the work, the com- pany can be exempted from this requirement. Bill 54 adds another exemption, stating that the chief inspec- tor can exempt a mine from the permit requirements if the proposed activity meets the "prescribed require- ments" for an exemption.

These requirements are to be included in a yet-undrafted regulation. It's sort of like the move when Minister of Finance this morning said the reason we should hoist a private member's bill is because the work wasn't yet complete, but here we are ramming through legislation even though there are no regulations yet. "The exemption is overly broad and could apply to mining works that harm the environment." Interjection. J. MacPhail: This actually is from the West Coast Environmental Law Association. That's absolutely right.

When people heard that legislation was going to be rammed through, they immediately came to our assistance because of these serious matters. It's quite correct that we're getting a lot of assistance. The West Coast Environmental Law Association has done a de- tailed analysis.

"From a land use planning perspective, exemptions on mineral exploration could limit the ability of gov- ernment to impose terms and conditions that would ensure compatibility with established land use zones and habitat protection concerns." We find ourselves in a situation once more, asking the Minister of Mines: could the minister inform the House as to what type of prescribed requirements…? Oh, I think that's red tape. What kind of red tape will allow an exemption from a permit? Hon. R. Neufeld: This enables a more transparent process to take place and is applicable only to low-level activity. J.

MacPhail: Well, it's interesting, because that ex- emption's already in place, but we have another ex- emption allowed the mining industry. I'm not sure

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3595 what the minister is going to prescribe in the regula- tions. It can only be an expansion of the exemption that is currently available. Maybe I could ask the Minister of Mines what role the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will have in setting these prescribed requirements. The Minister of Mines said in estimates that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection would be setting the standards and holding the Minister of Energy and Mines accountable to those standards.

What role, if any, is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection playing in expanding the exemption that mines have from environmental protection? Hon. R. Neufeld: The act and the code still apply. There was consultation between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection when these were being drafted and pro- posed. There will continue to be a working relation- ship, as I said in estimates, between the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Ministry of Sus- tainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Energy and Mines on all these issues. J.

MacPhail: Isn't that good to know? The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection approves of this. Isn't that great? Energy and Mines get to have more exemption from any of the rules of the land that protect the environment, and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is on board — good news. Hon. R. Neufeld: That's absolutely an erroneous statement. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protec- tion was involved in the discussion. This does not al- low the exemption of any environmental rules.

Envi- ronmental rules will still be applied to the highest level that they've always been applied within the mining industry. They will continue to be, along with the sup- port and work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The Chair: Shall

section 55 pass? J. MacPhail: Again I'm put in this situation where I have to call our protest against sections on division. That means that the opposition, the member for Van- c o u v e r – M o u n t P l e a s a n t a n d I , w i l l b e o p p o s i n g s e c - tions.

Section 55 approved on division. Sections 56 to 65 inclusive approved. On

section 66. [1550] J. MacPhail: This is a curious section.

Section 66 is on the Public Service Labour Relations Act, where it's exempting a person employed as an industrial relations officer or employment standards officer of the em- ployment standards branch. That means that they can never join a union. Well, they don't belong to unions. There was an organizing attempt, and it failed. It says here — I always love the explanatory notes under this government — that it "provides clarity and certainty regarding the excluded status of industrial relations and employment standards officers." What clarity is needed? They're excluded.

Is that because the government's now going to force IROs and ESOs to cross picket lines? Hon. S. Santori: What this is doing is enshrining what's been a verbal and a written agreement since the mid-seventies. It's a housekeeping issue, and it does add clarity into the system. J. MacPhail: Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers, as part of their job of being neutral and assisting parties through labour relations disputes, never had to cross picket lines. Will they now have to? Hon. S.

Santori: We don't ex pect IROs or EROs to cross picket lines that would be confrontational or that would create anything confrontational with a legal picket line. As I said earlier, this has been the practice since the 1970s, and this is just enshrining what has been in place for the past 30 years. J. MacPhail: To conclude, there will be no require- ment of…. I'm sorry — EROs? Is that the new em- ployee relation…? I'm sorry. Whatever. I want to get it right. Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers will not be required to cross picket lines? Hon. S.

Santori: This enshrinement of what was in place over the last 30 years is not intended to change the culture of past practices, and we wouldn't expect them to have to cross picket lines. Sections 66 to 69 inclusive approved. On

section 70. J. MacPhail: This is interesting, given what we just debated in the changes to the Mines Act under

section 55. You have to look at what the changes to the Mines Act were and combine it with this change to the Waste Management Act. It's a very, very small amendment — I think it's one line. But you have to combine the two, and you come up with a very disturbing result. Again, the West Coast Environmental Law Asso- ciation…. Thank God there are organizations out there that are worried about the environment, be- cause this government isn't. The Waste Management Act is B.C.'s primary environmental protection law. It contains a prohibition against releasing pollutants into the environment without a permit.

That's the basis of the act. This act that we're debating right now contains a number of specific exemptions from that prohibition. This act is expanding the number of ex-

3596 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 emptions from that prohibition under the Waste Management Act. Most of those exemptions are for activities that are supposed to be in compliance with the permit issued by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Bill 54 — this bill, this exemption, this amendment we're debating right now — now allows mining opera- tions that are exempted from permitting under the Mines Act that we just passed to be also exempted from the pollution provisions of the Waste Manage- ment Act. Wow.

That means that mining activities could be conducted with no regulatory oversight from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and would be im- mune from prosecution for any environmental damage done under the Waste Management Act. Here we have a situation where you've got to read so carefully every single move that this government makes. You have to put the pieces of the puzzle to- gether.

Here we see a degradation of environmental protection that will affect British Columbians, and it's going to go through like that. [1555] The Ministry of Energy and Mines, in practice, has been the regulator of mining activity at mine sites, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has played a very strong role until now in ensuring the levels of environmental protection are maintained.

If the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection no longer has the ability to commence prosecutions for environmental harm as a result of some mining activi- ties, the public and the public's environment will be left unprotected from the as-yet-undefined, exempted ac- tivities. That's what we're doing right here. That's the combined effect. That's what we're ramming through in this House. How does the minister justify…? What protection, if any, does the public have that the exemptions he now has the ability to give, the expanded exemptions, will not do any harm to the environment? Why is this change here? Hon.

R. Neufeld: I explained to the member earlier why it's there. The member should know that this is for low-level risk. This is not for mining. This has every- thing to do with exploration only, as will be laid out by regulation. It's still subject to the Mines Act. It will still be subject to the environmental rules of the day. I want to stress again that this just makes it more transparent, gets rid of some of the red tape and the duplication and moves us towards facilitating mining in British Columbia. J. MacPhail: That's dead wrong. The minister is not telling what's in this bill.

This Waste Management Act exemption that we're going to pass in near moments allows for greater pollution. It takes away any protec- tion that used to be held within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection from continuing to prohibit releasing pollutants into the air without a permit. It's gone. That's exactly what the amendment does. If it doesn't, maybe the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection could get up and explain how the fact that no longer prohibiting pollutants is good for the envi- ronment.

Section 70 approved on division. Sections 71 to 73 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:58 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage on Bill 52. Committee of the Whole House MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 52; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:59 p.m. [1600] Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:01 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002, re- ported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading on Bill 49.

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3597 Second Reading of Bills WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 (continued) J. MacPhail: This is the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We're well into the debate about the changes in this legislation. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did a very thorough analysis of what the consequences of the changes are to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

She described how British Columbia was making changes to basically take away worker protection, to transfer resources out of the pockets of injured workers into the companies in whose work- places a worker had been injured — transferring $100 million out of the pockets of injured workers into the companies, reducing the protection for the families of injured workers, taking away the long-term benefits for injured workers, reducing the nature of claims that will be available for injured workers. She did a very, very thorough analysis of that.

Then I had the honour to rise and continue to ad- dress these draconian changes to the Workers Com- pensation Amendment Act. I'm not going to go through it again, because we have very little time left, but I was taking a different perspective in addition to my colleague, a perspective on the history of why workers compensation is in place. [1605] I approached it from the point of view of our youngest workers. I talked about how when we send our children off to school, we street-proof them, and every single parent takes that very seriously.

But when we send our 16-, 17- or 18-year-old off to work, do we talk about job-proofing them in terms of health and safety? No, but the Workers Compensation Board has done that. Many new Canadians who arrive in British Columbia, who come and join our society and make our society so wonderfully multicultural, need to be instructed in the rules of occupational health and safety as they exist here. That was the role of the Workers Compensation Board. Huge strides were made in the nineties — huge strides — with the WCB investing in injury and illness prevention. That's the way to go.

Doesn't it make sense, if you're trying to find cost efficiencies where people's health and safety are at risk, not to take money out of injured workers' pockets and give it to employers but to say to employers: "Stop injuring people; stop killing people; let's work together to stop that from happen- ing"? Does this government do that? No. There's not one iota of pressure put on any employer by this govern- ment to stop injuring workers. In fact, this government, by regulation, is assisting in the injury of workers. I'd go as far as to say this government, by regulation, is assisting in the killing of workers.

Interjection. J. MacPhail: Well, let me explain. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, because it's factually proven. It is factually proven. This government is allowing, forcing, hotel and restaurant workers, bar workers, to work in places where there's secondhand smoke, where they're subject to secondhand smoke. Guess what. Five hundred deaths per year are due to secondhand smoke. People who have never smoked in their lives die because of secondhand smoke — 500. What did this government do? This government overturned a WCB regulation.

Well, first of all, they delayed a WCB regulation and then went out on some review of that regulation. The member for Vancouver- Burrard conducted that review of whether the regula- tion to prohibit hotel and restaurant workers to be sub- ject to secondhand smoke should stay. Now, I heard, and I actually asked the minister during estimates, how many submissions were re- ceived during that review. I'd heard on the street that it was one, and the minister didn't deny that. The minis- ter didn't deny that at all. Given every opportunity to deny it, he didn't.

After a cursory — one might say sham — review, this government decided to overturn a WCB regulation that prevented hotel and restaurant bar workers from being subject to secondhand smoke, which can kill them. There's my explanation, and I dare anyone, any Liberal backbencher, to stand up and say I'm wrong — anyone. They know full well I'm right, but that isn't good enough. Not only are they permitting greater injury and greater death, this government is now say- ing that employers who participate in the injury, illness and perhaps death of workers get more money in their pockets.

That's what this legislation is about. Do you know what this government would have saved in injury and illness if they'd put in place the WCB regulation prohibiting smoking in bars because of the health and safety of hotel and restaurant workers? Millions of dollars — millions of dollars on our health care system. The biggest pressure on our health care system is the cost of illness, injury and death related to tobacco use — billions every year on our health care system. Every other jurisdiction is saying smoking is bad. What does this government do?

"Oh, for economic rea- sons we have to allow smoking in bars." Would that be for the economy of those workers who have to work in those bars? No. In whose economic interest is it for this government to overturn the WCB? This government could've saved millions of dollars by merely upholding a WCB regulation, but that should've sent us a signal. That should have sent us a signal about the intent of this government in the way they treat injured and ill workers in this province. [1610] What good is it doing? Is it helping? Is it helping the economy in any way to have more ill and injured workers?

My colleague, in a very, very detailed analy- sis of the effect of work-related injury and illness on our productivity, outlined the hugely deleterious effect of those absences from work. Those absences from

3598 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 27, 2002 work far outweigh any strike action, any lockout ac- tion, but oh no, this government has to make all of these changes that don't do anything to prevent injury or illness. They have to do it. Why? Oh, I know why. It's be- cause their Liberal donors asked them to do it. That's why. That's exactly why. Here we are today, deliver- ing, right on schedule. Our Liberal donors asked us to take away the rights of injured workers, and we're do- ing it. Well, who else got a say besides the B.C. Business Council and the small business community?

Oh, the board of trade would have got a say, yeah. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Fraser Institute was consulted as well, but who else? Well, it wasn't a lot of other peo- ple who got a say. There certainly was a lack of any input from those who disagreed with these changes. Oh, sure, the B.C. Federation of Labour was consulted, and they spoke out vehemently against these changes, but the Community Legal Assistance Society, for in- stance, which deals every day with people who have claims, wasn't consulted.

In fact, the entire consultation process was done in a way that really said: "Those of you that don't agree with the direction we're going in get little, if any, perfunctory say in what is going to happen in the changes." Here we have a situation where this government is fundamentally altering the pact that was made in the early 1900s between employers and their workers. There was a pact made. It was a legally based pact that said if a worker was injured on the job, their avenue for recourse was to the Workers Compensation Board, not to the courts.

That was because our courts would have been tied up forever on lawsuits against employers on whose sites or places of employment people had been injured, killed or made ill. There was a trade-off, and this government is altering the balance of that trade- off. They're saying to employers, "You, Mr. or Ms. Em- ployer, have greater rights," and workers are still de- nied access to the courts. In fact, if WCB does too good a job of holding that in balance, this government will go in and interfere directly — interfere directly and overturn the WCB as they did on the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

What does that mean for workers? What does it mean now? Is our province a better place? Does the new era under this Liberal government mean it's a bet- ter place for injured and ill workers? I would suggest not. I would predict not. [1615] You know, on the weekend we learned about a tragic death of a person who was a contract worker at Cominco. Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully here, because I don't want to…. There's an investiga- tion into this, and we will await the outcome of the investigation. This was a worker who was 41 years old.

He was a contract worker at Cominco in Trail, I think — the Cominco site in Trail. Cominco had put these workers at risk by making them exposed to a highly, highly dangerous chemical. This isn't controversial. I'm not risking anything here. That was proven. The workers became very ill, very sick. The WCB investigated. Teck Cominco was fined $270,000. That was last summer. Now a young man who was exposed to that chemical, for which the company was fined, has died, and there's an investiga- tion.

What this government has done is not to say: "We're going to beef up protection for workers so that this kind of situation never occurs again." They're not beefing up enforcement. They're not beefing up com- pliance. They're not expanding the occupational health and safety requirements of employers to stop injuring and killing workers. They're saying: "Oh no. We're go- ing to make it so you have to pay less in terms of your contributions for protecting against injuring workers and supporting the compensation of families of injured or killed workers." That's what this government's do- ing.

Then, as they're wont to do…. This government's great at ballooning up deficits; they like to do that. They like to balloon up deficits out in the future, and t h e n s a y : " O h , b a d , b a d , e v e r y o n e e l s e b u t u s . " T h a t ' s what they're doing with our fiscal situation in British Columbia right now. Then on the basis of that, they're cutting health and education programs. Now we've got another new made-in-Liberal-land deficit. It's called the workers compensation deficit. The minister's predict- ing that that's going to balloon to $300 million. He came up with that figure. Well, Mr.

Speaker, as time runs out here, let me just say that that is a manufactured prediction of what the deficit will be, a manufactured prediction of what the WCB deficit will be, for this reason. Historically, work- ers compensation boards across this country have had to manage their way out of deficits and have done so. You don't need to weaken the law on behalf of compa- nies at the expense of injured and ill workers. You force employers and workers to work together to prevent illness and injury from ever occurring. That's what happened throughout the 1990s. The number of claims went down.

It's true that the value of each claim went up, but that was because only the most serious claims by the most serious infractions occurred. We were on a downward trend of the number of claims being brought, which was wonderful news. What does this government do? It says: "The work- ing people who are reducing the number of claims and the companies who are reducing the number of claims are not required to do anything anymore." This go

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0527pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0527pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	91a0e9c087a11337896a9ad403f466c9d854e9cc

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