British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 8, 2002

H0508pm-08

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 8 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 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3275 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3275 Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46) Hon. G. Plant Business Corporations Act (Bill 47) Hon. G.

Collins Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3276 Nurses in B.C. S. Brice Actions against Liberal MLAs J. Nuraney Work of emergency preparedness volunteers S. Orr Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3277 Irene Chanin's position with BCBC J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori Hon. G. Campbell J. Kwan Referendum on treaty negotiations K.

Johnston Hon. G. Plant School district funding R. Sultan Hon. C. Clark Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team J. Kwan Hon. R. Thorpe 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid M. Hunter Hon. T. Nebbeling Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3280 J.

Kwan Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3280 Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39) Hon. M. de Jong Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40) Hon. M. de Jong Irene Chanin's position with BCBC .............................................................................................. ......................................... 3283 Hon. G.

Campbell Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3284 Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41) Hon. M. de Jong M. Hunter G. Trumper

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3286 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong Hon. K. Falcon Hon. C. Hansen Hon. R.

Neufeld Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3290 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3290 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3291 Food Safety Act (Bill 37) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3291 Food Safety Act (Bill 37) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3291 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Hon.

M. Coell J. Kwan J. MacPhail V. Anderson S. Orr J. Bray

3275 WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members L. Mayencourt: I h a v e s o m e g o o d f r i e n d s i n t h e gallery. I'd first like to introduce Josef and Gita Baka- linsky, who are visiting here from my riding, Vancou- ver-Burrard. Would the House please make them wel- come. Directly behind them are two gentlemen that have been very helpful to me in my campaign times, Tex Enemark and Michael Hillman. Would the House please make them feel welcome as well. [1405] Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to introduce two old friends to the gallery as well: Tex Enemark, who is well known to these buildings as a former deputy minister for previous governments; and a man who served as, I think, my father's campaign manager — o r i t w as t he other way around — when they were seeking office in Burnaby, Mike Hillman. I hope everyone will make them both welcome. B. Lekstrom: It's not often that I get to rise in the chamber to introduce guests from my constituency. It's a long way, and…. Interjection. B. Lekstrom: Just about.

I have the privilege today to introduce two friends of mine from Dawson Creek who are down here visit- ing. I would like the House to please make welcome Mr. and Mrs. Court Wright from Dawson Creek, who have contributed greatly not just to Dawson Creek but to the northern area in its development. Please make them welcome. S. Orr: I have the pleasure today of introducing two special people. Mr. Bob Kennedy is the regional repre- sentative for the Emergency Social Services Associa- tion, and with him is Ms. Kelly McReynolds. She is the coordinator of the disaster and international services for the coastal region.

Will the House please make them welcome. Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce Anne Sutherland Boal. She's our province's first chief nurse executive. This is National Nursing Week, and Anne has been visiting nurses throughout B.C. and joins us today in the gallery. If you recall, she was appointed last fall, and she's been very busy implementing the province's $21 mil- lion nursing strategy. Anne has been investing quite a bit of time working on the long-term provincial health human resources plan.

She's met with nurses across the province — registered nurses, nurse educators, re- searchers, registered psych nurses, LPNs. You name it, she's met with them. She's working very hard for us. Certainly, in this time of change, as we're implement- ing improvements to the health care system, she is reaf- firming our commitment to nurses and showing that we do value them and we are going to make sure that they can deliver quality health care as we make the necessary changes. I want to thank Anne for her commitment to nurses, and I ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 46, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. This bill amends five statutes which are under the responsi- bility of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Last summer we introduced and passed the Lob- byists Registration Act, which contains an exemption for members of various public boards and councils. The act as passed last summer, however, did not in- clude an exemption for employees of bodies that rep- resent those boards and councils. The amendment to the act introduced here today adds such an exemption to ensure that employees of these representative bod- ies have the same level of exemption that the school boards and municipal councils already have under the act.

The amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act also includes a correction to an oversight in the original drafting. A reference was omitted to a regulation- making power, and

section 11 is amended to add that necessary reference. [1410] The amendments to the Offence Act will streamline the hearing of motor vehicle and other violation ticket disputes. Those who dispute the fine amount or re- quest time to pay will be able to do so in writing rather than appearing in court. When an offence is being dis- puted, the enforcement officer who issued the ticket may submit his or her evidence in writing rather than attending the hearing. In addition, the amendments I am introducing will provide for a reduced fine if the defendant pleads

3276 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 guilty and pays the fine within 30 days, thereby pro- viding an incentive for persons to pay their ticket within the prescribed time. This is estimated to reduce the number of disputes by as much as 2 percent, thereby reducing costs to the justice system. I am introducing amendments to the Provincial Court Act which are intended to support the changes to the Offence Act and also to implement changes recommended by the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee with respect to judges' pensions.

The Sher- iff Act is amended in ways that I will make clear in second reading. Finally, the Supreme Court Act is amended to remove an anomalous requirement for a Supreme Court justice to reside in the Peace River district. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Business Corporations Act. Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 47 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I am pleased to introduce the new Business Corporations Act, which will govern how companies are created, dissolved, organized and man- aged in British Columbia. The new Business Corporations Act replaces the 1993 Company Act. It will enhance British Columbia's potential as an attractive jurisdiction for incorporation and assist in rebuilding a competitive business envi- ronment in the province.

The new act will provide Brit- ish Columbia corporations with greater flexibility in the areas of corporate governance, corporate finance and fundamental corporate changes. As well, it will reduce the regulatory burden — for example, by re- moving regulatory overlap with the securities legisla- tion. The new act will also result in improved efficiency for the corporate registry and business in British Co- lumbia by accommodating electronic filing and search capabilities. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 47 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 25B) NURSES IN B.C. S. Brice: This is Nursing Week, and as such, I wish to recognize the significant role that nurses play in car- ing for all of us. There are 35,000 registered nurses in B.C., 2,000 registered psychiatric nurses and 5,000 li- censed practical nurses. As this is Nursing Week all across the country, I would especially like to draw at- tention to their contribution in maintaining the health of British Columbians.

Nurses are and will continue to be the largest group of health care providers in the province. Our govern- ment has made a commitment to addressing the chal- lenges that nurses have identified as affecting their abilities to provide optimal patient care. The Ministries of Health Planning and of Advanced Education have implemented strategies to address these concerns. Our government has taken actions through a number of strategies to increase the number of nurses entering or returning to the profession, including increasing the number of education seats and the successful recruit- ment of foreign specialty nurses.

I understand that the return-to-nursing program introduced by the Minister of Health Planning has had a tremendous response from both foreign- and B.C.- educated nurses. Our government has supported con- tinuing education through a distribution of specialty education grants to health authorities and nurse inno- vation grants to allow nurses the flexibility to design their solutions to the specific needs they face.

In addition to nurses who are providing direct care to patients, it's important to acknowledge nurses in leadership positions, nursing educators and nursing researchers. [1415] Finally, I want to acknowledge the new graduates across the province that have dedicated their time and careers to nursing. They are the future of the profes- sion, and we thank them for their commitment. I ap- plaud the value, knowledge, compassion and strength with which all nurses fulfil their duties and recognize their contribution to the health and well-being of all British Columbians. ACTIONS AGAINST LIBERAL MLAS J.

Nuraney: I would like to raise a matter of a very serious nature today. I feel very disconcerted, almost angry, when I hear of some of the tactics used to ex- press contrary opinions. For example, the offices of a number of MLAs were forcibly occupied and damaged, and the Premier was recently mistreated on his flight back from Kelowna when some members of a union accosted him. These are cruel, uncivilized tactics similar to the ones I experienced in the Congo, where I used to live under a regime that had no regard for democracy. We lived under a dark cloud of fear where anarchy pre-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3277 vailed, and we were continuously threatened. These were the very reasons why I left that country. The recent activities remind me of those conditions, and I am ashamed of these methods. The organizations that deploy these destructive tactics could, in my opin- ion, use their abilities more constructively and help us to rebuild our province.

We live in a society that is civilized, where the ten- ets of democracy are the very essence of our being Ca- nadians, where dialogues are employed to iron out differences and where confrontations take place around tables and not on the streets. These are values that demonstrate the markings and makings of a civi- lized society. Those who are dissatisfied with the actions of the government have avenues open to them to bring forth their concerns. After all, we are all wanting what is best for British Columbians.

People spoke loud and clear in the last election and gave this government an overwhelming mandate to effect changes — changes that would correct the ills of the past. It is understood that some sections of our so- ciety may have philosophical differences. But these differences should be dealt with through a democratic process and not through unruly, unlawful and violent means. I stand here today in the House to deplore these activities that contradict the very principles of decency and a civilized society. I pray that a better understand- ing may prevail. WORK OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS VOLUNTEERS S.

Orr: This week is Emergency Preparedness Week, and the theme is "Keeping Canada Safe: Emer- gency Preparedness Begins with You." Six thousand volunteers are registered with the provincial emergency preparedness programs in emer- gency social services. These volunteers provide imme- diate help to people who are forced from their homes because of fires, flood, toxic spills or a major catastro- phe such as an earthquake.

These wonderful volun- teers not only give of their time but are trained to pro- vide emotional and physical support, as well as food, shelter and clothing. [1420] On a more local level, in my area Mr. Bob Kennedy is the Emergency Social Services Association's regional representative for Vancouver Island. Bob and his team do a remarkable job, and I have firsthand experience of this. Like all my fellow MLAs, I keep a watchful eye over my riding of Victoria-Hillside, and whenever there is a disaster that requires Bob's services I try to attend, especially when it involves my constituents losing their homes.

The most recent example for me was the fire at one of our local hotels in which 50 of my constituents lived. This blaze started in the early hours of a very cold m o r n i n g a n d r a g e d m o s t o f t h e n i g h t . A t 2 : 3 0 i n t h e morning I arrived, and as always, there was Bob with his volunteer team already fully set up and organized. They had a B.C. Transit bus, warm and waiting, to make sure that everyone had somewhere to go and sit and be warm while they gathered all the information they needed from the hotel guests and my constituents.

The Salvation Army Beacon Bus was there to set up, serving hot coffee and snacks not only to the victims of the fire but also to the firefighters. He had already organized an emergency centre for people to go to so they could find everyone alternate accommodation, and the list goes on. At the end of that long night and day, the emergency social services vol- unteer team took care of people. They made sure eve- ryone was safe. That is their job, and they love doing it.

I am very glad that we have proclaimed this week Emergency Preparedness Week, and I am glad we are able to officially thank all those wonderful volunteers for their dedicated work. What I am really glad about is that they are here and that they take care of us. Oral Questions IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC J. MacPhail: Yesterday we asked the Premier why a new position was created at the B.C. Buildings Corpo- r a t i o n f o r h i s D e p u t y M i n i s t e r o f P u b l i c A f f a i r s , I r e n e Chanin, and he didn't answer the question.

So today I ask the minister responsible for BCBC: what is Irene Chanin doing, and how much is she be- ing paid? Hon. S. Santori: As many of you are aware, BCBC is undergoing a considerable amount of transformation in the corporation. Irene Chanin has been seconded to BCBC. There has been one early retirement in the communications area as well as one on leave, and BCBC looks forward to the expertise and skills that she will bring to the corporation. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: As of this morni ng there were no va- cancies again in BCBC.

I asked the minister to specify how much Ms. Chanin was being paid. The Premier said he wanted to change the way government handled communications, and that's why he hired Ms. Chanin as part of that strategy. We were told in estimates that Ms. Chanin was a career public servant and would be the right person to do the job. But as we know, the Premier's communication strategy has been an embarrassing failure. Will the minister for BCBC table today the terms and conditions of Ms. Chanin's secondment agreement to the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Hon. S.

Santori: Once again, I will repeat my re- sponse to your previous question. BCBC is looking

3278 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 forward to the skills that Ms. Chanin brings to the ta- ble. If you're looking for specifics on the rate of pay, I'll take that on notice. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: The secondment that the minister talks about was never put to any open competition. There are no new positions at BCBC. In fact, it was made up out of thin air in order to sweep a problem under the rug. It's been well known for months that Ms.

Chanin's responsibilities have been taken over by the Premier's office staff, Martyn Brown and Andy Orr, and the gov- ernment is hiring an expensive ad agency to put things back on the rails. But it was only in the last few weeks that the BCBC job was found for Ms. Chanin. [1425] Can the Premier tell the House if at any time the government paid Ms. Chanin a deputy minister's sal- ary to sit at home? Hon. G. Campbell: No. J. Kwan: One of the Premier's… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. J. Kwan: …signature efforts to reorganize govern- ment has been a complete failure.

Rather than admit that he's made a mistake, the Premier has tried to hide the error by quietly rewarding Ms. Chanin with a cosy, well-paid job. British Columbians have a right to know how much this failed experiment is costing. This secondment is nothing more than an expensive cover for the Premier's mistakes. To the Premier once again: Ms. Chanin was due for a performance review at the end of June. Instead of parachuting her into a new job with a six-figure salary, why did the Premier not proceed with Ms. Chanin's review and terminate her contract if it was found that she was not up to the job? Hon. G.

Campbell: Ms. Chanin has been seconded to BCBC. When she was hired by government, she was hired on a three-year contract. She has been seconded to BCBC. As I said during estimates, we are in the midst of a major transition with regard to communica- tions. The details of that will be available to the public in June. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: That's not the same thing, and it's also not the same thing as what the Premier said. The right thing to do would have been for him to proceed with Ms. Chanin's review and end her con- tract.

We all know how hard it is for the Premier to admit when he's made mistakes. I'll give him one more chance. Instead of ordering the Crown corpora- tion… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. J. Kwan: …to cover his tracks, would the Premier today cancel Ms. Chanin's secondment agreement and do the right thing: review her performance in the posi- tion she previously held and then decide whether or not she deserves a six-figure salary? Hon. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, as I said yes- terday and as I will say tomorrow, Ms. Chanin has been seconded to BCBC.

When she was hired, she was hired by government on a three-year contract. We are in the midst of a major change in communications. The details of that communications change will be available to the public in June. REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS K. Johnston: My question is to the Minister Re- sponsible for Treaty Negotiations. The treaty referendum is an exercise in direct de- mocracy. For the very first time all British Columbians are being given the opportunity to have a say on the principles that should guide this province's treaty ne- gotiation process.

With a week remaining in the referendum, can the minister responsible update all British Columbians on the number of voters who have mailed in ballots? Hon. G. Plant: Yes, I can. The information I re- ceived earlier today is that there are 670,000 returned ballots. I do want to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the member's interest in the subject to encourage all members of the House and all British Columbians to cast their vote and make sure the ballot is returned to Elections B.C. before May 15. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Fraserview has a supplementary question. K.

Johnston: The referendum on treaty principles has been viewed by many of my constituents as an issue that only affects rural and northern communities across British Columbia. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotia- tions tell my constituents why it is very important, re- gardless of where they live, to vote in this referendum? Hon. G. Plant: All communities will be affected by treaties. Rural and urban British Columbia will be af- fected by treaties. We all live as British Columbians, as neighbours, with and among first nations. The treaty

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3279 process will be improved by a referendum that has given all British Columbians the opportunity to pro- vide input to government on the principles that should guide the province's approach to treaty-making. [1430] As we move forward through treaty-making to build a stronger, more prosperous province for all British Columbians, whether you live in a city or small town or in the country, you've got an interest in the future of the province — a n i n t e r e s t i n t r e a t y - making and an opportunity to participate in a democ- ratic process that will help build a stronger province for all of us.

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING R. Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Edu- cation. The government's new-era platform states that more of each education dollar is going to be devoted to the quality of education and less of it to bureauc- racy. Now that the new funding formula has been announced and the school districts have received their budgets, can the Minister of Education tell us how this election promise has been fulfilled? Hon. C. Clark: A c o u p l e o f way s . F i rs t , we a re a l - ways encouraging school districts to minimize their administration costs.

That's one of the reasons the legis- lation we've introduced to the House encourages school districts to enter shared-services agreements, which we think will help them really minimize their administration costs. Also, we have created a new funding formula that will do two other things. It will allow school districts to keep any efficiencies they're able to find in their budg- ets. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will also reduce the amount of reporting and pa- perwork they have to do by a third.

That means school districts will become much more interested in what they're achieving… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Clark: …as opposed to reporting all the time on just how they're going to get there. Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver– Capilano has a supplementary question. R. Sultan: The media has reported expressions of outrage from certain school boards and from the teach- ers union over cuts in the school budgets. However, the fiscal plan from the Ministry of Education shows that education spending has actually been increased this year.

Could the Minister of Education clarify this con- fusion? Hon. C. Clark: We made a commitment in the elec- tion to protect the Education budget. Not only have we done that, but we have increased the Ministry of Edu- cation budget by $20 million this year. This is in the context of the largest government restructuring in Brit- ish Columbia's history. We are the only jurisdiction in the country that I'm aware of that has undertaken this kind of restructuring and protected the Education budget. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. Order.

Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order so that we may hear the answer. Hon. C. Clark: We are the only jurisdiction in the country that I'm aware of that has protected the Educa- tion budget in the context of a governmentwide re- structuring that is this large. That speaks very clearly to every British Columbian about how dearly we value a quality education system for every student. SALE OF VANCOUVER CANUCKS HOCKEY TEAM J. Kwan: It's just a bit much to listen to the Minister of Education. Everybody else is wrong except… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J.

Kwan: …for this Minister of Education. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: O r d e r , p l e a s e , s o t h a t w e m a y h e a r the question. J. Kwan: On Monday the minister responsible for bailing out the Canucks said no to a subsidy. He did not say no to using lottery moneys to help the team. He did not say no to a special sports lottery, but the ques- t i o n r e m a i n s o f j u s t w h a t i t i s h e ' s p r e p a r e d t o d o t o assist the sale of the Canucks.

To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enter- prise: will the minister confirm today that no new or existing revenues from gaming will go to subsidize the sale of the Vancouver Canucks — yes or no? Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be clear once again for the member over there. Our government is not in the busi- ness of providing subsidies to any business in British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what our govern- ment has done for the economy of British Columbia.

3280 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 We've cut taxes 17 times in the first ten months of be- ing government. We've reduced personal income tax by 25 percent, so people throughout British Colum- bia… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1435] Hon. R. Thorpe: …have more money in their pock- ets to do what they want. We are committed to cutting red tape by one-third, and we're well on our way to achieving that goal. Let me tell you, British Columbia used to be num- b e r o n e . T h e y t o o k i t t o n u m b e r t e n , a n d n o w w e ' r e rebuilding the economy of British Columbia.

Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. 2010 VANCOUVER-WHISTLER OLYMPIC BID M. Hunter: I regret that my question is not for the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I have a question for the Minister of State for Community Charter and the 2010 Olympic bid. People around our province are excited about the possibility of hosting the world for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, so that we may hear the question. M. Hunter: I know that Salt Lake City recently an- nounced a surplus resulting from its hosting the 2002 games this past February.

Can the minister responsible for the 2010 Olympic bid please tell the House what a successful bid for the games is going to mean to the people, the economy and the future of this province? Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me tell the member and the House that next year in Prague we will be designated as the 2010 site for the winter games, there is no doubt that the announcement…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members, so that we may hear. The minister has the floor. Hon. T. Nebbeling: A s I s a i d , w h e n i n P r a g u e next year, Whistler-Vancouver will be designated as the 2010 winter games site.

With that, no doubt, will be a tremendous boost to our economy. It will become a catalyst for a tremendous boost to our economy. It will create tens of thousands of jobs and tremen- dous new income for the province. Some of that money, certainly, will help and assist young athletes to find new levels of competition and make them better athletes. When we were in the last Olympics in Salt Lake City, it was overwhelming when we saw our young Canadian athletes on the winners' podium. The pride that was shared by many Canadians and many British Columbians was felt strongly.

W e want t o m ak e s u re t h at i n 20 10 we h av e m o re Canadian winners on the podium, and for that reason we have created a program called Legacy Now. It is a fund that will assist young athletes to compete in na- tional and international competition. Further funds will be made available for training programs that will make our young athletes better athletes, will make them bet- ter champions, and no doubt in 2010 more champions will be on the winners podium. [End of question period.] Petitions J. Kwan: I have the honour to present three peti- tions today.

The first is signed by 808 British Columbi- ans who oppose the government's cuts to health care, Pharmacare, income assistance for single parents and social housing. The petition asks the government to live up to its election promises and reinstate funding for these programs. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Please continue. J. Kwan: The second petition is from End Legis- lated Poverty. There are 2,034 British Columbians who oppose the government's cuts to B.C.'s social safety net, including programs for seniors, refugees and single parents.

The third petition is also from End Legislated Pov- erty and is signed by 630 British Columbians opposing changes to income assistance. The petition argues that these changes will hurt children, single-parent families and women. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 39. [1440] Second Reading of Bills PROTECTED AREAS FORESTS COMPENSATION ACT Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This bill, Mr.

Speaker, applies the Forest Act's existing compensation provisions to outstanding claims arising from the establishment of parks, pro- tected areas and ecological reserves under land use

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3281 planning initiatives, the bulk of them having occurred in the last decade. I guess the question, as it is with most pieces of legislation, is: why is the bill necessary? In this case that is a particularly appropriate question, because during the last decade the previous administration did make a series of decisions around land use planning, around the establishment of parks and certain reserves, decisions that fall squarely within the ambit of a pro- vincial government. There is a legislative provision…. Or maybe I should back up before I get to the Forest Act and

section 60. When governments make those decisions, they at times have impacts on the interests of others. Those land use decisions and land designations impact on people, organizations, agencies, companies that have other activities taking place, other rights in those par- ticular areas. That doesn't mean the decisions shouldn't be made, but it means that perhaps as a society and as government we have to take account of the impact those land use decisions are having. Happily, the Forest Act, by virtue of

section 60, takes account and contemplates and anticipates those kinds of decisions being made and actually sets out a methodology or a framework by which compensation can be paid in response to those land use decisions, compensation to those parties whose interests have been affected by those land use decisions. There is a mechanism for invoking the provisions of

section 60 and applying them, coming up with a calculation, em- barking upon a discussion with the affected party and settling that issue of compensation. So if that mechanism existed and those decisions were made, I guess the question that arises is: why are we here today with a piece of legislation that is going to apply back to decisions that were made starting in 1995? Well, the reason we're here and having to do that, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration that was in power, the NDP government that was in power, at that time chose not to invoke those provisions of the Forest Act.

It would be mere speculation on my part to try and explain why that is, given that the legislative provi- sions existed by which that compensation could be calculated, but they didn't invoke those provisions. It was not a particularly onerous or complicated ma- noeuvre in order to do that. They chose not to. In at least a couple of cases that has given rise to claims, and there are perhaps other claims associated with those land use decisions. [1445] The problem is this.

By virtue of the previous NDP government's unwillingness to invoke those provisions of the Forest Act, the taxpayer has been left exposed to claims that will be brought via the courts and uncer- tainty associated with the methodology or the formula that might be employed, absent the application of sec- tion 60, to calculate what that entitlement is for parties whose rights have been affected by those land use de- cisions. It was that failure to act that has in turn put the taxpayers at risk, which we are seeking to address by virtue of this legislation today.

The bill will address inequities that exist or will continue to exist or would otherwise exist in the compensation process when those harvesting rights and the improvements that licensees may have made to the land were lost through the creation of those protected areas. I should say this as well, Mr. Speaker. I point this out because it provides me with an added degree of comfort in bringing this bill before the House. Some of this has been litigated before the courts already. Some parties have chosen to negotiate with the government.

In some of those cases those negotiations have proved fruitful and compensation packages have been settled upon, but some of them have proceeded to the courts. The courts have heard argument. In a previous deci- sion of the B.C. Supreme Court, the ruling was that

section 60 of the Forest Act is the appropriate mecha- nism and does provide the best means for settling these compensation claims. In a sense, one can say that this act, in part, is our attempt to codify something that the courts have already offered an initial ruling on. The bill contains three main provisions to apply the Forest Act's compensation provisions to the establish- ment of those protected areas. Firstly, the bill deems parks, protected areas and ecological reserves to be deleted from applicable forest tenures and timber sup- ply areas on the date those protected areas were cre- ated.

That ensures that the boundaries of those tenures and areas reflect the establishment of those protected areas. Secondly, for area-based tenures such as tree farm licences and woodlot licences, the bill deems the dele- tion of land from the tenure to be, in fact, a deletion pursuant to

section 60 of the Forest Act. This in turn allows the compensation provisions of that

section to apply to those tenures. Thirdly, for tenures that operate in timber supply areas, Bill 39 deems any reduction in the allowable annual cut of these tenures that resulted from the establishment of the protected area to be a reduction, again pursuant to

section 60 of the Forest Act. As with the area-based tenures that I referred to a moment ago, this allows the compensation provisions of

section 60 to be applied towards determining what, if any, com- pensation entitlement exists. [1450] Bill 39 also contains provisions to ensure that com- pensation for protected areas is only paid as justified. In making that calculation, there are several things that are considered. Any compensation payable to a forest tenure holder is reduced by any financial benefit that was conferred on the holder because of the creation of the protected area.

In addition, the bill ensures that compensation is not payable to tenure holders, pursu- ant to these statutory provisions, who have already settled a claim with government. There are several ex- amples of that. Lastly, Bill 39 contains provisions to ensure that compensation payable for protected areas is limited to

3282 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 the amount determined under the Forest Act regardless of any court actions that may be underway, and there are at least a couple that fall into that category. I guess the final point is that Bill 39 is brought to this House founded on the principle that the existing compensa- tion provisions of the Forest Act are the proper vehicle to address compensation for protected areas.

This bill will ensure that forest tenure holders are fairly compensated and will bring clarity and consis- tency to the compensation process for the Crown, for the forest industry, for forestry tenure holders and for the taxpayers, who at the end of the day are obligated to make good on whatever those compensation settle- ment packages end up arriving at. The preferred course, obviously, would have been for the previous administration to clearly invoke the provisions of

section 60 that were at their disposal at the time they made these decisions through the latter part of the 1990s. They chose not to. We don't know why that is, and it is pointless now, I suppose, to speculate. They chose not to do that. We are here today by virtue of Bill 39 to bring clar- ity, fairness and certainty to the process by ensuring that those existing provisions of the Forest Act,

section 60, are the methodology, the formula, that is applied towards calculating and negotiating those compensa- tion claims to the extent they may arise. Those are my comments at this stage on second reading. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 39, Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. de Jong: I then call second reading on Bill 40.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 40 be read a sec- ond time now. This bill, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, contains a number of amendments — some of them of a technical nature, some of them of a house- keeping or clerical nature and one dealing specifically with the small business program that I will make some comment upon. It's the type of bill that probably lends itself to scrutiny at committee stage, given the nature of its composition.

The amendments relating to the small business program will specifically allow timber harvested under the program to be certified. In addition to that, we'll establish a framework for the extension and surrender of small business agreements. The certification provi- sions of this are, I think, important.

The world has changed, and in British Columbia we are acutely aware of the need to ensure that our product — really the best product in the world har- vested by the most talented foresters, harvesters and processors in the world — is viewed as emanating from a process that in every way maintains the highest possible environmental standards. [1455] There are people in this House who are well ac- quainted with the strides that have been made in Brit- ish Columbia in achieving and moving along the path of third-party certification.

There are a number of dif- ferent systems available, whether they're international, such as ISO, or CSA, FSC. A number of these processes exist, and what our licensees, processors, harvesters are understanding is that in addition to their other interest in preserving the highest possible environmental stan- dards, there is a sound business case to be made for being able to say to our markets around the world that we have the benefit of that third-party certification. If I can, just for a moment, talk about those provi- sions.

The amendments in this bill will enable envi- ronmental certification standards to be included in small business licences. Certification, as I just men- tioned, does involve an independent agency verifying that the agency, harvester and licensee standards for forest management have been met. Enabling forest m anag e m e nt p rac t i c e s t o b e ce rt i f i e d b y an i nd e p e n d - ent agency is clearly something that is of growing im- portance. I think the question we need to focus on with re- spect to this bill is its benefits to small business and smaller licensees within the province.

It will allow them to respond to the increased demand for certified t i m b e r a n d w o o d p r o d u c t s . T h a t d e m a n d m a y b e f o r their own products, but the reality is that many small businesses and small licensees in British Columbia sell to major licensees. It may be, in part, that if they wish to continue supplying those major licensees, they need to be in a position to demonstrate that they are comply- ing with the certification standards that their customer, the larger licensee, has already adopted.

I should say, as well, that this amendment is en- tirely consistent with and, in fact, motivated largely by the government's new-era commitment to ensure that we are not only practising sound forest and environ- mental management practices but that we are telling the world and ensuring that the world is aware of that fact as well.

The last thing I want to say about the certification provisions is that there is a recognition — and I think this point needs to be made — that the cost associated with independently achieving certification through some of these international agencies or even North American agencies can be prohibitive, particularly for a smaller licensee. What we are saying by virtue of this bill is that we, as the Crown, want to be in a position to add a condition to a small business licence that says: "You will conduct yourself in accordance with these

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3283 standards." That will allow us to achieve certification for the timber that falls within the ambit of the small business program, sparing that small business person the cost associated with the administration and the paperwork that is part and parcel of receiving certifi- cation but giving them the benefit, as long as they maintain the standard. That's key.

As long as they conduct their operations in a manner that is consistent with that third-party certifying agency, they will enjoy the benefits that accrue on the marketing side of the equation. [1500] This forest statutes amendment bill also contains amendments that will set out a framework for the ex- tension and surrender of small business licences. The amendments are designed to ensure that bidders for small business licences are aware of their options and obligations in advance, should they be successful in their bid.

The amendments relating to extension will allow a small business licensee to extend the term of their licence, provided they meet specified require- ments such as the prepayment of stumpage. The intent of this

section of the bill is to give licensees some flexi- bility over the harvest schedule, while at the same time encouraging licensees to harvest timber during the term of their licence. The amendments that relate to the surrendering of a licence will allow small business holders to more readily surrender the agreement before it expires if, again, they meet certain specified requirements, which in most cases will involve paying a portion of their security deposit to the government.

The importance of this — and that is specifically in allowing an agreement holder to surrender their agreement instead of holding it and not harvesting — is to provide the ministry and the Crown with the opportunity… [Interruption.] Hon. M. de Jong: …quite frankly, to hear the an- gels. [Laughter.] It will provide us with an opportunity to resell the timber and get it out into the marketplace to someone who can use it, wants to harvest it and therefore will be employing people and deriving collectively the bene- fits that are associated with that activity.

It is, in short, to give others an opportunity where the original licen- see decides that they are not in a position or no longer wish to proceed. The extension and surrender amendments will not become effective until regulations are developed to support the changes. We're going to consult with for- estry representatives in the development of those regu- lations. The small business amendments in Bill 40 will en- able small business licensees to respond to market de- mands and will provide the consistency, certainty and transparency for licensees and the government around the administration of the program.

IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC Mr. Speaker: The Premier seeks the floor. Hon. G. Campbell: I just want to clarify a response I gave in question period today to a question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She asked if at any time the government paid Ms. Chanin a deputy minis- ter's salary to sit at home. I answered no. I want to clar- ify that response. On my return to my office, my deputy minister informed me that he did instruct her to go home and to take some time off during this period of transition, and she did that. Debate Continued Hon.

M. de Jong: Continuing, then, with Bill 40, these are the more technical and housekeeping amendments. One of the technical amendments recon- ciles the accepted practice of administering Forest Act agreement harvest levels with the provisions of the act. The Forest Act requires licensees to harvest a minimum amount of their allowable cut during a five-year cut- control period. In certain circumstances licensees are allowed to carry forward unharvested volumes of tim- ber from one cut-control period to the next.

However, we have discovered that the method by which carry- forward has been administered differs in different parts of the province. While differing means of admini- stration were accepted by both the government and the licensees, we want to ensure that there is a standard means of doing it and consistency across the board. The amendment validates the records of the ministry in respect to carry-forward. And it provides a definitive starting point for future administration, while respect- ing the past understanding that existed between the ministry and licensees.

Another technical amendment contained in this bill ensures that holders of Forest Act agreements can still access Crown land after their agreements expire in cases where they need to do so in order to carry out outstanding obligations. This amendment provides certainty for agreement holders and ensures operations under these agreements are in full compliance with all regulatory requirements. [1505] Then, in terms of a couple of the other provisions, I'll mention two of them.

One of these amendments is to the Forest Practices Code to clarify the circumstances under which a licensee may be exempted from the re- quirement to obtain government approval of a road layout and design. A road layout and design shows the location of the road and includes drawings of culverts and bridges. Licensees are not required to submit them for approval in areas of low risk. However, they are still expected to prepare them. Unfortunately, the re- quirement to prepare a design was lost when the ex- emption provisions were moved from the regulations to the act.

The amendment restores the requirement for licensees to prepare the layout and design.

3284 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 At the same time we're taking the opportunity to match the exemption criteria for woodlot licence hold- ers more closely to the forest practice requirements that are applicable to these licensees. This will make it eas- ier for woodlot licence holders to qualify for an exemp- tion where, again, it is appropriate for them. The last amendment I'll speak about is one which is a result of the creation of the new Ministry of Sustain- able Resource Management. One of the functions of the new ministry is in respect of inventories.

As a result, we are repealing the provisions of the Forest Act which require the chief forester to maintain an inventory of forest lands. Those are my comments at this stage with respect to second reading. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 40, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 41.

FOREST (FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be read a sec- ond time now. Let me make these general observations, Mr. Speaker. One of the commitments the new government made in the lead-up to the last election, and certainly since that election, was our desire to ensure that oppor- tunities for first nations were fully taken advantage of — opportunities to ensure that economic development and the desire first nations have to develop their local economies to the benefit of their peoples.

Where we could identify where obstacles to that occurring ex- isted, we have committed to dismantle those obstacles and find ways around those obstacles. For many first nations, by virtue of where they live, where their traditional territories are, perhaps one of the most obvious entries into economic development activity relates to the forest.

One of the things that I have learned very quickly is that by virtue of how for- est-management policy has evolved in British Colum- bia — not over years or even the last decade, but over generations, decades — there are a number of impedi- ments to allowing that to happen. [1510] We are confronted by the sad anomaly of a first nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island where they very much would enjoy and profit and benefit by being more fully integrated into the forestry economy. They are surrounded by timber but have virtually no opportunity to participate. It must be very frustrating.

I say this recognizing that there is another activity taking place called treaty negotiations. That, too, is a fundamental priority for government, for the Premier and for the minister responsible, the Attorney General. It is something that the Minister of Sustainable Re- source Management is cognizant of. We're all aware of it, but we're also all aware that it has taken years since the advent of the treaty negotiation process — a decade with some progress but little tangible results.

This government and this Premier have said: "Let us turn our minds not exclusively to the process of sitting down at a table to negotiate a comprehensive treaty settlement, but let's actually turn our minds to what we can do more immediately to improve the lives of first nations." As I say, for many first nations people that means finding a way to integrate them more di- rectly into our forest economy. This bill actually has two main components.

It has provisions that govern how a first nation can be awarded forest tenures, and it has provisions relating to the suspension or cancellation of those tenures if the first nation, for whatever reason, finds it cannot com- ply with the terms of the agreement which gave rise to that award of tenure. I will also say this parenthetically.

When I took this job, one of the comments I heard from first nations and others involved in the forestry economy was that there was general recognition and acceptance for the propo- sition I have just made: first nations have a legitimate interest and an equal desire to be involved in the for- estry economy, but we haven't adapted our public policies to facilitate that in an open and transparent way.

We are confronted time and again by situations where there is at least a suspicion that when the Forests ministry offers out a timber sale licence, the offering is made in a way that people believe is deliberately de- signed to lead to a particular result. Of course, it's al- ways unspoken; it's rarely explicit. It does nothing to facilitate a sense of cooperation amongst those people, first nations and other licensees, who are competing for that wood.

There is a sense that if we are genuine — and this government is — about our desire to ensure that first nations are given the opportunity to develop the capac- ity, which in many cases already exists, to participate in the forestry economy, then let's be open about it. Let's actually identify where those opportunities exist and say to everyone: "We're going to take advantage of that opportunity." Let's do it openly and be candid about it.

I know a lot of times governments present legisla- tion, and we ask the people watching and other mem- bers to have some faith that this is what our intention is and this is why we're doing it. Happily, in this case we can actually point to an example. In the short life of a new government, we have done this already. We did it with respect to a situation on the west coast where last year we passed a bill — a specific bill, admittedly, that addressed a very specific situation. With the difficulties associated with ensuring that the

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3285 agreement-in-principle with the Sliammon could be honoured while at the same time acknowledging that honouring that agreement was going to have an impact on another licensee, finding a way to navigate through those waters proved horribly difficult. It gave rise in part to my belief that the Crown needed an additional tool if we were going to be serious about getting on with facilitating economic development on the part of first nations. [1515] We will obviously invite first nations participation. We will invite their application.

Their applications for licences and agreements will be evaluated under an open and transparent system. It will admittedly be tied to their ability to demonstrate a sound business case. T h a t w i l l v e r y m u c h b e a p a r t o f t h i s . I n a l l c a s e s t h e licence or agreement must be in support of a treaty- related or economic measures agreement between the first nation and the government.

That will ensure that tenures awarded under these new provisions are di- rected, as well, at supporting our government's com- mitment as set out in the New Era document to move ahead with interim measures and to ensure greater certainty as we move ahead with the broader treaty- negotiating mandate. Bill 41 also contains provisions which allow forest tenures to be directly awarded to parties other than first nations to deal with the effects that these parties may feel from treaties, agreements-in-principle or treaty-related or economic measures.

That speaks di- rectly to the kind of situation I just referred to that we w e r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h l a s t y e a r o n t h e w e s t c o a s t , where in order to abide by the terms of a previously negotiated agreement-in-principle, we were confronted by the reality that a couple of small logging operators were going to have their rights impacted. We needed a means, and we need a means, to ensure that people are treated equitably. This represents a tool which will allow for the government to do that.

The second component, which I referred to briefly, does aim at ensuring that first nations honour the treaty-related or economic measures agreement, which forms the basis for this direct award of timber. The bill allows a provision to be placed in the directly awarded tenures requiring the first nation to comply with the treaty-related or economic measures agreement. What follows, of course, is that there can be a suspension or cancellation of the direct award if the first nation does not comply with that economic measures or interim measures agreement.

Those suspension and cancellation powers are vested in the minister rather than a ministry official. I hope, and I intend to say to the House, that it is a signal of the import of that particular power. I am actually confident of the rarity with which it would have to be utilized. Bill 41 does support the government's commitment to assist first nations in expanding their entree into the business world in exploring and exploiting economic opportunities close to their home and where they live.

It is about increasing economic opportunities and pro- viding stability in first nations communities that many of us take for granted where we live. [1520] I will offer this anecdotally. In the short time that I've had this job, I have had an opportunity to visit many first nations communities, whether the Ditidaht on the west coast of Vancouver island or elsewhere in the province. The pride that people — any people, first nations or otherwise — take in their homes, in their community when they're working is a notion that I think everyone in this House understands.

It is not unique to first nations or non–first nations. It's just that the opportunities for first nations to participate more fully in the forestry economy have been much more limited. This is not going to solve that overnight, but it is, I think, a step in the right direction. It provides a tool that will help us address that problem, and it is why the bill comes to this House, obviously, with my recommendation and my request for the support of members. M.

Hunter: I rise briefly to just speak about this bill, because I have to confess that when I first saw the title and the words "first nations development," my mind was cast back ten years or m ore to an i nitiative of the federal government which went under a similar titular head. It was called the aboriginal fisheries strategy, and its purpose was to provide for economic development opportunities, amongst other things, for aboriginal people. I was taken by the minister's statement that many of our co-citizens, aboriginal people, are surrounded by trees but provided no opportunity to benefit.

I heard those words ten years ago in the world of fisheries said by federal officials, senior officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from Ottawa, so I was a little bit nervous, and the minister knows I was nervous, when I first heard of this initiative. It is with considerable relief and, in fact, gratitude that I read the bill and see that this bill sets out not the rather perverse approach of the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which took from Peter to pay Paul, which created penury in formerly very vibrant aboriginal communities in coastal British Columbia to benefit other aboriginal people.

Rather than do that, this bill sets out clear objectives of using natural resources which we are entrusted to manage for the people of British Columbia, our forests, to improve the economic viability of our co-citizens who are aboriginal people in the clear context of the purpose of moving forward with treaty negotiations and supporting that very im- portant objective. I find, Mr.

Speaker, that being the central purpose of this bill — its transparency; its attempt to be reason- able, rational, to take a sound and sober approach and leave the power to make these important allocation decisions in the hands of a minister accountable to this House and to the people of British Columbia…. I find that this bill is indeed a long, long way from where, when I first read the title, I thought it might be leading us.

3286 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 I believe that this bill, in fact, represents one more step in a number of steps this government is taking to develop the kind of clarity and certainty that the forest business needs. It sends signals outside of the forest business community that we intend to develop rela- tionships with our aboriginal people using our natural resources in a sensible and transparent way. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support for this bill. G. Trumper: I would like to add my support for this bill.

I come from a riding that has a large aboriginal population. Some of it is in the semi-urban area of the Alberni Valley, but some of them live on the west coast and are isolated in many ways and have not been able to participate in the growth of economic development for themselves. One of the things I hear all the time from my abo- riginal friends is that they want to be part of the eco- nomic diversification and the prosperity that goes with it for their people. Some of them live in conditions which are not satisfactory and which I find very dis- turbing.

They have a very high unemployment rate in their areas, and they want to have the opportunity to participate with their friends and neighbours in the areas that they live. [1525] I have been, over the years, very involved in treaty negotiations at the local level. I have also been the community representative on some of the groups, which included aboriginal and Ministry of Forests and the forest companies, trying to come to some agree- ments for them to be able to do forestry in their various areas. It's been difficult for them to get agreements be- tween the various parties.

I was very privileged to be asked by the aboriginal community to be the commu- nity representative sitting at the table. Those discus- sions have gone on over the years. Some of the discus- sions have been very fruitful and successful. There have been agreements that have been worked at and agreed to in my area between some of the companies and the aboriginal nation. I believe that Bill 41 will enable them to participate in the industry, will enable them to be part of the in- dustry that takes place in my area and also right through British Columbia, but will also enable them to come to some agreements.

I have always said that the treaty is the icing on the cake. We need far more agreements between aboriginals and other economic ventures to improve their way of life and their stan- dard of living in their particular areas. This is part of it. I want to commend the Minister of Forests for put- ting this bill forward. I think it is a great step forward for all people involved in the industry. I look forward to seeing some of those results taking place and seeing growth take place in the aboriginal communities in my area and also right through British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading on Bill 41. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 41, Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'm calling Commit- tee of the Whole to consider Bill 35. Committee of the Whole House DEREGULATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:29 p.m. Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved. On

section 22. J. MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the intent behind

section 22? [1530] Hon. M. de Jong: I'm joined by Mr. Grieve from the ministry. In short, the

section allows for the provision of a pilot or pilots or trial that will allow for the allocation of timber-cutting rights on the basis of area as opposed to volume. The member may have more questions about why that is deemed to be worthy for us to inves- tigate. I'm happy to provide her with that additional information. J. MacPhail: As I understand it,

section 8 of the Forest Act currently regulates it on the basis of volume. Is that correct? Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct. J. MacPhail: So this implements a trial program expiring about five years down the road on regulating AACs based on area of land, as the minister has said, rather than volume. What does the trial program en- tail? Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I'd like to tell the member is that what's contemplated here is a consen- sual arrangement between licensees and the Crown where the licensee is actually interested in making the shift that would require some adjustments to the terms of the licence itself.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3287 I'm advised that there are three TFL holders at the moment who have expressed an interest. We would define, obviously through negotiations, the area, make the adjustments to the licensing documents and then proceed on the strength of the defined area as opposed to the volume. To anticipate where we might go with this exchange, the notion in

part is that there will be licensees who believe they may be able, through ad- vanced practices like intensive silviculture, to improve the return on the land. If their licence is guided purely by volume, there is less incentive, obviously, for them to make those advancements. J. MacPhail: How will the government be monitor- ing progress on this trial program? [1535] Hon. M. de Jong: Certainly, all of the other statu- tory provisions that govern forest practices continue to apply.

The member knows, because she has com- mented in the past, that some of those statutes — the Forest Practices Code in particular — are under review at the moment. I may have misunderstood the question, and the member may be speaking to how we judge the success of the program. If that is the thrust of the questioning, then I think that over the longer term it will relate, in part, to whether or not the practices employed will lead to improved harvest volumes. That's obviously some- thing that takes some time to measure. Is that, in part, the…? J.

MacPhail: I'm just trying to figure out how the government will judge whether this should be ex- panded as a trial program. I'm trying to figure out the benchmarks of success. Secondly, then, on this, are there any parties interested in pursuing this? Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the second ques- tion is yes, there have been expressions of interest. With respect to the first question, there are meas- urements as they relate to forest sustainability. That is something, as the member knows, that the chief for- ester verifies on a regular basis and actually makes determinations around annual allowable cuts.

There is an immediate measure. I also want the member to know that we are, at the moment, exploring the degree to which defined area management in certain geographic areas of the prov- ince might represent a more viable and more efficient means by which to manage forests. That relates to things like we've just talked about. Annual allowable cut determinations are obviously a measurement as they relate to forest practices and performances, and there's a component of requiring coordination amongst licensees themselves who might be operating in a defined area.

I don't think there's any secret about an interest in many quarters to examine this with a view to its possible broader application. Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved. On

section 27. J. MacPhail: This repeals sections that provide en- vironmental safeguards by requiring a designated en- vironmental official to review a forest development plan that covers an area that includes a community watershed. Particularly, 41(7)(

b) states that the envi- ronmental official must approve the portion of land under question if "the designated environment official is satisfied that the portion will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies." [1540] The way this will now work, I assume, after the repeal of that

section is that the district manager will be the only person to approve the forest development plans. That's how I read it. To the minister: who will ensure that the forest development plan adequately manages and conserves forest resources now that this

section is being repealed? Hon. M. de Jong: I don't quarrel with the first part of the member's analysis. In effect, the point I want to make is that all of the rules as set out under the guiding legislation continue to apply under the present regime. Two government officials sign off on the plan. Once this amendment has passed, if it does, one official will sign off on the plan. The assessment by both ministries with responsibil- ity under the present regime is that the duplication served no purpose and that all of the safeguards as they are set out in the regulatory regime apply and will con- tinue to apply.

Instead of getting two government signa- tures, the licensee or the applicant will need to get one. J. MacPhail: The two officials that had to sign off before were a forestry official and an environment offi- cial. Let me just create a scenario for the minister, then, of why I'm curious about this. It is because it's also no secret that this government is moving toward self- regulation by resource-based companies, and I'm won- dering what stutter steps are in place in a move toward self-regulation solely with the companies self-regulating. Who is there to maintain the environmental initia- tives?

Who is there to uphold the environmental prin- ciples? Forestry managers are going to be incredibly busy with their own role in relationship to the indus- try, and now we have a situation where it's just the district forest manager signing off on a plan that will increasingly become subject to a self-regulating indus- try. Those are my concerns. Perhaps the minister could address them. Hon. M. de Jong: I can, and I appreciate this is the appropriate forum for the member to put her concerns on the record. Let me try to deal with this in two stages.

The advice from both ministries, compelling in the way it was presented, was that all of the regulatory s a f e g u a r d s c o n t i n u e t o a p p l y . T h e r e w a s n o p u r p o s e served in having sign-off by two officials where they were applying precisely the same set of considerations.

3288 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 Admittedly, this is a deregulation bill, where the minister of state responsible has attempted to identify areas where that degree of duplication exists, and we've candidly dealt with it. This is an example of that. Now, the member speaks to another issue, and we're going to have ample time to discuss that in the weeks and months ahead through the discussion around the results-based Forest Practices Code discussion paper.

My hope is that we will have legislation that I know will be vigorously debated with this member, but I think and I know that we can maintain those stan- dards. In fact, in some cases, we can heighten the stan- dards within the ministry and, with dedicated en- forcement and compliance officers, ensure that those standards are being applied. [1545] I should say that dedicated compliance and en- forcement officers, in a way, haven't existed heretofore because of the manner in which government has been structured and the ministry has been structured.

We will at last, if and when we get to restructuring around a results-based code, have people who are dedicated entirely to the function of ensuring compliance and ensuring that those standards are met. That is admittedly a discussion and a debate for us to have at another time. I think it will probably be a prolonged debate, because there are many issues and questions that people have about a pretty significant shift from a prescriptive regulatory document to one that is built around achieving certain objectives. J.

MacPhail: My concern here is that the deregula- tion is taking place where somehow this government identifies duplication as assuming that the district for- est manager and the environmental official have abso- lutely common interests. That's not the case; it's not the case at all. There's a tension between those officials, and rightly so — rightly so. Here, under the guise of duplication, the environ- mental official's sign-off is being removed, and it's left up to the district forest manager to sign off.

I under- stand that the debate is down the road, but this is, un- der the guise of deregulation, taking a very concerted, one-sided approach to forest management. Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved. On

section 30. Hon. K. Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 30 standing in my name on the order paper. [SECTION 30, by deleting the proposed

section 30 and substituting the following: 30

Section 143 (3) is amended by striking out "24 (2)" and "72 (2)".] Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved. Sections 31 to 35 inclusive approved. On

section 36. J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain the necessity to repeal this part that deals with the Hospital Founda- tion of British Columbia? Hon. C. Hansen: This particular provision for a B.C. Hospital Foundation was put into the act a num- ber of years ago to take advantage of certain federal tax advantages that were in place at that time.

Since the federal tax rules have changed, there is no longer a need for this particular provincewide foundation that was set up as an agent of the Crown of British Colum- bia, totally distinct and separate from the various hos- pital foundations that we have set up as societies and not-for-profit organizations throughout the province. This is simply removing the reference to this provincial Crown-owned foundation, as it is no longer required. J. MacPhail: The minister is offering reassurance that this affects in no way any individual hospital- based foundations. Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 36 to 44 inclusive approved. On

section 45. J. MacPhail: I'm just curious as to this one. This is a bill dealing with deregulation, and this amends the Mineral Tenure Act. It repeals paragraph (

p) and re- places it with (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), (

u) and (v). Just help me here with how this is deregulation. [1550] Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I agree. I asked some of the same questions, but it got placed in this bill. It's there. It actually facilitates the ministry to improve the ability to manage mineral titles by introducing more regulatory-making powers. It makes the ability to make more regulations. J. MacPhail: Maybe the Minister of State for Deregu- lation could answer this question. Tell me how this par- ticular

section contributes to the tally. How many get added to the plus side, and how many get taken away? My question to the Minister of State for Deregula- tion is: removing one

section and adding seven — just help me with where the tally stands after we pass this amendment. Hon. K. Falcon: Just to clarify. This is actually an enabling section. This would enable the regulations to be brought forward, which would then, of course, be included in the tally. J. MacPhail: Yup, it enables prescribing, specifying, specifying, respecting, requiring, prescribing and then

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3289 any other matter if we haven't covered it in those first ones. We've got a tally going here. I think there's a big board somewhere. I think there's a two-for-one princi- ple that applies to the board. Just help me. Hon. K. Falcon: I think the key for the member to understand is that this says they may prescribe. Until they actually do prescribe, we wouldn't include it in the tally. That's a very important distinction. We want to make sure that there's accuracy in the tally. You need to understand the distinction between enabling and actually prescribing. J.

MacPhail: Well, then back to the Minister of En- ergy and Mines: did the Ministry of Energy and Mines ask for this? If so, what's the intent of use? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we asked for them. J. MacPhail: I guess we'll be expecting the Ministry of Energy and Mines to use it pretty soon. There are seven different ways in which he can do his business. Let me count the ways: seven. Does the Minister of Energy and Mines have to get rid of seven, 21 or 14 different regulations? Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe I can help shed some light on this. Actually, the regulations are in place.

The regula- tions were there under the last administration, but they were not legally enforceable without these changes. W h a t w e h a v e d o n e i s m a k e t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t were in place under the previous administration now legal through the addition of these. I appreciate that it's not removing a whole bunch of statutes, sections or whatever. But that's basically what it does. I think that's pretty straightforward. I appreci- ate that it's adding some. I guess I'm going to have to figure out a way to take away some more, and you and I can have another debate about that at another time.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the rescue by the Minister of Energy and Mines. As always, he's forthright. I was just curious as to a tally. I appreciate his explanation. [1555] Here's why I'm just curious. We've been here Mon- day, Tuesday and Wednesday. I think the majority of questions at committee have been asked by two people in this chamber. We try to limit our questions in this chamber. We were looking for deregulation in the bill, as opposed to re-regulation. That was only my curios- ity, through to the Minister of State for Deregulation.

I sure hope I'm not letting other things slip through that perhaps are re-regulation under this bill.

Section 45 approved. On

section 46. J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the intent of this section, please? Hon. R. Neufeld: This is a deregulation much similar to what the Forests minister explained before. Responsi- bilities are transferred from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Rather than having two approving officers, you now have one approving officer with one statute that covers what happens on the mining site.

It's an ability just to have the responsibility with one person, but with the same responsibilities that would have been under the act with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. J. MacPhail: I'm wondering: did the Minister of Energy and Mines consult with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on this change? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. J. MacPhail: I'm curious to know what the Minis- ter of Water, Land and Air Protection said, because here's what this

section does. We're repealing the re- quirement under the Mines Act for the owner or manager to submit a site profile if they're applying for a permit or if they're applying for revisions to condi- tions of their existing permit. According to the Minis- try of Water, Land and Air Protection website — pretty current, actually — site profiles are forms that require information about the past and present uses of a site, as well as basic land descriptions. They re- quire readily available information and should not require the assistance of a consultant to complete.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection g o e s o n t o s a y , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m i n i n g industry: "Site profiles are an important new mecha- nism for the province to screen potentially contami- nated sites." Given that fairly enthusiastic support by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, what was the reply when the Minister of Energy and Mines consulted with her? Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, again, I'm going to say that the specific amendment — I'm going to read this to her — to the Mines Act eliminates the need to submit a site profile under the Waste Management Act when mining operation has already been permitted under the Mines Act. J.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that, but what we're trying to figure out — and there are many thou- sands of people in this province trying to figure out — is what the commitment is to sustainability in this province and to land use in a sustainable way. [1600] What this amendment does is say the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, who was until this amendment an enthusiastic supporter of these site pro- files and goes as far as to say: "Don't worry, companies; you don't need a consultant; don't do a lot of money…." They've done everything possible to make it as company-friendly and business-friendly as possible.

That's gone now. The overview, the protective watch- dog nature, of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

3290 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 Protection is gone. It's up to the mine owners them- selves to tell us all of these issues. Perhaps let me ask this: is this a further step toward industry self-regulation? Hon. R. Neufeld: The Mines Act has similar if not almost identical requirements on minesites. That's all we're doing.

I know it's a hard concept, but we're try- ing to move away from having hundreds of people run around the province when we can do it more efficiently with less and still retain the high environmental stan- dards that we have in our mining industry in the prov- ince of British Columbia and have had for a long time. I'm sure the member would agree with me that the mining industry is very environmentally conscious about what goes on, on the land base. They're very careful about what goes on and have been recognized for that many times over.

This is in no way to treat the environment any differently than we have before. It's a simple streamlining. J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps we're repealing the sec- tion under the Mines Act that requires this. Were there two sections in the Mines Act that were exactly the same? Perhaps the minister could point to the

section and read out of the Mines Act the

section that now does exactly the same thing. Hon. R. Neufeld:

Section 10(1), and I'll read it: "Before commencement of any work in, on or about a mine, the owner, agent or manager must ap- ply for and obtain a permit from the chief inspector and must, as part of this application, file with the dis- trict inspector a plan outlining the details of the pro- posed work and a program for the protection and reclamatation of the land and watercourses affected by the mine, including the information, particulars maps established by the regulations or the code." J. MacPhail: It's the minister's view that that re- places what now is required as a site profile under this section? Hon.

R. Neufeld: Yes. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that. My final question is: where is the requirement that the chief inspector must not approve an application until that is done — all that is taken into account? That's what this

section says. Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, in

section 10(1) it says: "Before commencement of any work…a permit must be obtained." Sections 46 to 55 inclusive approved. On

section 56. Hon. K. Falcon: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add 56.1 to the bill: [SECTION 56.1, by adding the following section: 56.1

Section 105.91 (4) is amended by adding ", 105.95" after "105.93".] Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

Section 56.1 approved. [1605] Sections 57 to 68 inclusive approved. On

section 69. J. MacPhail: This

section dissolves the B.C. Health Research Foundation. Could the minister explain the r e c e n t h i s t o r y o f t h e B . C . H e a l t h R e s e a r c h F o u n d a - tion? Hon. C. Hansen: This, like the Hospital Foundation that we were describing earlier, was set up as an agency of the Crown specifically to take advantage of the federal tax rules that were in place at the time. Those particular tax provisions no longer exist, so there's not the advantage there that there was prior.

Now, with the establishment of the Michael Smith Foundation, the functions that were undertaken by the Health Research Foundation have been moved over to the new Michael Smith Foundation. Sections 69 to 75 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:07 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 35, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete with amendments. Third Reading of Bills Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported? Hon. K. Falcon: With leave of the House, now, hon. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill 35, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a third time and passed.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3291 Hon. G. Bruce: I call committee on Bill 37. Committee of the Whole House FOOD SAFETY ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 4:10 p.m. Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:10 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 37, Food Safety Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Bruce: Can I ask for a short recess? We're just getting the troops down here, and I will be calling Bill 27. Mr. Speaker: We will just take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:13 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. G. Bruce: I call committee on Bill 27. Committee of the Whole House EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 4:15 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. M. Coell: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name on the orders of the day: [SECTION 1, in the proposed definition of "dependent child" by deleting "a child who" and substituting "a child, other than a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities, who".] On the amendment. J. Kwan: The amendment makes reference to the definition of a dependent child. It looks to me like the major change here relates to the age of a person, chang- ing it from 19 back to 18 to qualify. Is that correct? Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that is correct. J.

Kwan: Could the minister please advise: is the change of the age from 19 back to 18 a result of the community advocating for that change? Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's correct. The community pointed out that there was a potential gap in service between 19 and 18, so we've changed it to 18. J. Kwan: I understand that in the act there are two

definitions, one that relates to a dependent child and then another one that relates to dependent youth. Could the minister please explain the differences be- tween these two

definitions? Hon. M. Coell: A dependent youth is a person who is 16 to 18 years old, and a dependent child is under 16. J. Kwan: I'm sorry. The minister says the dependent child is someone who is under 16, but yet the act actu- ally says a dependent child is someone who is 18 years of age and is a person with a disability. There's a dis- crepancy with respect to what the minister just advised the House. Hon. M. Coell: Dependent youth is a subset from 16 to 18, and dependent child is 18 and under. J. Kwan: From a qualification point of view, how does that differ? Is there any difference? Hon. M.

Coell: These are children in a family where the family is on income assistance, so you have…. Children under 16 are required to be in school, so they would be covered by the School Act. The sub- set, 16 to 18, would be children that we would want to w o r k w i t h t o h a v e a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n a n d t o w o r k with, with the employment programs. [1620] J.

Kwan: Is the minister saying that a dependent youth means an individual who has reached the age of 16 and that when a youth has reached the age of 16, they're expected to engage in an employment plan with the ministry if they're not in school or even if they are in school? Hon. M. Coell: If for some reason they're not in school, then they would be required to have an em- ployment plan. Now, that employment plan might well say that you are involved in a school program other than school. It could be a training program. They

3292 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 would either be part of training programs or be return- ing to school at that age. J. Kwan: A dependent child, according to the defi- nition of the act with the amendment, is anyone who is age 18 and under. A dependent youth is anybody who is 16 and over. There is a two-year period in which there's an overlap — you're both a dependent youth and a dependent child. Hon. M. Coell: The dependent youth is a subset of the zero-to-18 dependent child.

The reason for that is so that someone who had reached the age of 16 would be covered under the School Act and be required to attend school. From 16 to 18 that would allow for an employment plan to assist a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old in developing some plans for their future. J. Kwan: If an individual is, let's say, 19 or 20 and the individual is still in the home with the family, is that person then still classified as a dependent youth? Hon. M. Coell: At age 19 they would have the right to apply for income assistance on their own and wouldn't necessarily be part of a family. J.

Kwan: Yes, but if they don't apply on their own, if they're not living independently, are they still quali- fied as a family unit for income assistance? Or would that person be required to go and work, under the em- ployment plan definition? Hon. M. Coell: There's no change from the legisla- tion now. When someone reaches 19 on B.C. Benefits, they would apply on their own. It's the same in the new act. J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I don't think the minister under- stood my question. I know of cases where people have not applied on their own. They stayed with the family unit when they reached the age of 19.

In that instance, I'm asking the minister: would that person be classified under the definition of a dependent youth and would therefore still be classified as a family unit for the pur- poses of collecting income assistance? Hon. M. Coell: I think the only area where that might happen is if someone was 19 and attending school. They would let you continue to finish the school year even if you had turned 19, but at the end of your school year you would be able to and have the right to apply as an individual. The person is now con- sidered an adult. [1625] J.

Kwan: Just for the purposes of discussion, let's just use the age of 20. If the person is 20 years old and is still attending school, then that person is eligible to receive income assistance with the family unit under the definition of dependent youth. Am I correct in as- suming that? Let's just start with it piece by piece. Hon. M. Coell: No. In B.C. Benefits legislation that isn't the case, and it wouldn't be the case in this legisla- tion as well. J. Kwan: I know of a case where a person was older than 19 and needed to collect income assistance, and an individual was behind in their schooling — fair enough.

Because the individual was an immigrant and there was much catching up to do, she was behind by several grades. By the time she was 20, she was only in grade 11. The ministry did try to cut her off and told her to go get a job at McDonald's. The matter was ap- pealed, and the case was won. She was allowed to stay with the family unit, so she was not cut off income as- sistance as a family unit. Is the minister now saying that under this act, that is no longer the case — that the person would indeed be cut off, and she would not be qualified as a dependent youth for the family unit? Hon. M.

Coell: I'm not familiar with that case, but there is no change from B.C. Benefits to this act. J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister to be familiar with that case. I'm illustrating, simply by bringing that case forward, to get clarity in terms of the

definitions of the eligibility that would apply under this act, what is deemed to be a dependent youth and what is deemed to be a dependent child. In that instance that person was qualified to continue to receive income assistance. If there's no change, then one would assume that if a case like that surfaces today, that individual would be qualified to receive income assistance with the family unit. Is the minister saying that that is not the case? I personally know of a case as such. Hon. M. Coell: As I say, I'm not aware of that case.

There has been no change between the BC Benefits Act and this act for eligibility. J. Kwan: I just want the minister to advise me. In that scenario, if there's no change and because I know of a case where someone is qualified and is deemed to be able to receive income assistance with the family unit…. Can the minister then advise me: should a per- son like that come forward today and need to receive income assistance with the family unit, would that per- son be qualified, and what category would this person fit — under what definition? Hon. M. Coell: Clarification.

Under the current legislation and under the legislation that's in committee stage, a person could still live with the family, but they would have income assistance as an individual. They wouldn't necessarily be part of the family package of income assistance, but they could still live with the family and collect income assistance over the age of 19. J. Kwan: Is the minister then saying that that indi- vidual would be eligible for income assistance in the full amount? Or what portion of the income assistance

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3293 would this individual be qualified to receive? Is it the shelter and the support portion? [1630] Hon. M.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0508pm-08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0508pm 08
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	954038b53adf829699bea68b8e3424f132621898

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