2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Death of public servants in Kamloops

Hon. J. Murray

J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

Hon. G. Plant

Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65)

Hon. G. Hogg

Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 66)

Hon. G. Bruce

Transportation Investment Act (Bill 67)

Hon. J. Reid

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Business award recipients in Burnaby

H. Bloy

Support for 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid

B. Bennett

Monument for 1944 airplane crash in Port Hardy

R. Visser

Oral Questions

Health care costs for pensioners and seniors

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. G. Collins

J. Kwan

Kyoto accord

J. Nuraney

Hon. J. Murray

B. Lekstrom

Motions without Notice

Second Reading of Bill 62

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

W. Cobb

D. Chutter

P. Bell

J. Kwan

S. Orr

Hon. M. Coell

V. Anderson

T. Christensen

[ Page 3889 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Tributes

DEATH OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

IN KAMLOOPS

Hon. J.

Murray: I rise to pay tribute to the victims of the terrible tragedy in

Kamloops last week and to offer my deepest sympathies and condolences to the

wives, families, friends and colleagues of those who were killed. I know I speak

for every member of this House when I say that our thoughts and our prayers are

with the families and our employees and that we wish you strength at this very

difficult time.

What

happened last week was sudden, terrible and tragic. These dedicated public

servants were well loved and well respected. Once again, let me express my

deepest sympathies to the families involved. This government will make every

effort to ensure that support services are in place for the families of the

victims and for our employees.

[1405]

MacPhail: I rise today to join with the minister in expressing the

opposition's sadness with respect to the terrible incident that occurred last

week in Kamloops. My colleague and I share in the grief and the horror felt by

all British Columbians, and our hearts, too, go out to the families, friends and

co-workers of those who lost their lives last week.

I don't

think there are any words that any of us can say that will ease the heartache or

diminish the awful sense of loss felt by those who knew David Mardon, James

McCracken and Richard Anderson. There's nothing we can say to make sense of the

senseless and to erase the memory of that awful tragedy. All we can do is join

together and express our sincere condolences.

As elected

representatives we can commit to learning all we can from what happened last

week in Kamloops. To that end, I offer the government the full support of the

opposition. We can work together; in fact, we must work together to find out

what happened and what we can do in our capacity as legislators to ensure that

this tragedy is never repeated.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask that everyone join me on behalf of this

Legislative Assembly and stand in a moment of silence on behalf of the families

of those affected by this terrible tragedy.

Thank you,

hon. members.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Hogg: It's my privilege to introduce a number of guests to the House today

who are here to watch the introduction of a piece of legislation. They are

chairs of regional planning committees and aboriginal transition committees who

have been working on behalf of the people of this province for a number of

months.

They are

Ann Geddes, who is co-chair of the Vancouver Island regional planning committee

and chair of the Community Social Planning Council of Victoria; Debra Foxcroft,

co-chair of Vancouver Island regional planning committee and a member of the

Tseshaht first nation; Marion McAdam, co-chair of Vancouver costal regional

planning committee and president of the board of Vancouver YWCA; Scott Clark,

co-chair of the Vancouver coastal aboriginal transition committee and president

of the United Native Nations; Laura McDiarmid, who is co-chair of the Vancouver

coastal transition committee and social development director of the Musqueam

Indian band; Ken Drury, who is co-chair of the Vancouver coastal aboriginal

transition committee and director with the Métis Provincial Council of British

Columbia; James Latham, chair of the Fraser regional planning committee and

member of the regional child and youth committee for ten years; Maureen Chapman,

chair of the Fraser aboriginal transitional committee and hereditary chief of

the Skawahlook first nation; Mary Ashley, who is co-chair of the provincial

child and family development steering committee; Wayne McRann, chair of the

interior regional planning committee and founder and president of Wamaco

Distributors; Debbie Abbott, chair of the technical committee for the interior

aboriginal transition committee; and Chief Stewart Phillip, who is interim

leadership spokesman for the interior aboriginal transition committee and

president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They have many of their support

committee members with them.

I'd also

like to introduce from the community living sector Ellen Tarhsis, who is a

member of the Community Living Transition Steering Committee and executive

director of the Victoria Association for Community Living; Lynn and Oscar Rolko,

who are parents, and Lynn is a member of the Community Living Transition

Steering Committee; Isobel Behan, who is member of the board of directors of the

Victoria Association for Community Living; Ken Bradford and Charlene Barney,

representatives of the Garth Homer Self-Advocate Council; Elizabeth Anthony and

Bill and Mary Hustler, parents, and Bill is a director of the Victoria

Association for Community Living; Roberta Scott, a member of the Community

Living Transition Steering Committee and president of the Community Residential

Service Providers of B.C. With Roberta is a delegation of family-model home

providers.

[1410]

Also

present is Judy Carter-Smith, who is a former executive director of the B.C.

Association for Community Living and a former adviser to our ministry. I would

ask the House to please join me in expressing our appreciation to these British

Columbians for their commitment to working with the people of this province to

ensure that we're able to provide better services to the most vulnerable people

in our province.

[ Page 3890 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Special guests today in the gallery are visiting us from Germany.

Karsten Voigt is the coordinator for German–North American cooperation. I have

learned of Mr. Voigt's storied history, before taking this post, as a longtime

member of the German Bundestag. He also served as president of the NATO

Parliamentary Assembly. He's going to be speaking at the University of Victoria

tomorrow, I believe. He is joined by Klaus Kroeger, the consul general of

Germany in Vancouver. I hope all members will make both of them welcome.

McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce Neil Miller. Neil was a resident

of Invermere, British Columbia, for a few years and now lives in Victoria. I end

up seeing him at the airport most Sunday evenings. Would the House please make

him welcome.

P. Wong:

I am pleased to rise today to introduce several groups coming from my

riding. First, Marianne Cheng, president of the Student Society of China in

Canada; second, Sabrina Louie from the Pui Ying Alumni Association; third, a

group of respectable seniors and volunteers: Dorothy Chau, Rosalline Luk, Yuet

Ying Lam, Moo Ching Cho, Chiu Ping Lo, Kwai Ying Tse, Daisy, James and Shirley

Yee. I am pleased also to introduce my cousins, the family of Wongs. They are

Andrew Wong, Elaine Wong, Fung Sheung Wong, Shuk Chun Wong and Yee Shun Wong.

There are close to 900 Wongs on the voters list in my riding.

Finally, in

the gallery there's also the family of Chans. That is also my mother's maiden

name. There are over 450 Chans on the voters list in my riding. They are Ginny,

Katherine, Linda, Kitty, Peter, King Chiu, Kwok Ying — all of the Chans. May

the House please give them the warmest welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Human Rights Code

Amendment Act, 2002. These amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Code flow from

government's core services review, the review of our human rights system

conducted over the past year under the leadership of the administrative justice

project, and the many thoughtful comments made in response to Bill 53, the

exposure bill which was introduced this past May. These amendments will allow

government to put in place a new institutional framework for human rights which

operates at arm's length from government and which, unlike the current system,

will protect human rights in a way that is fair, efficient, effective and

affordable both for the parties involved and for taxpayers.

The bill

proposes streamlining the current complex system of three different agencies and

three different commissioners into one agency, the Human Rights Tribunal. Under

the new model, complainants will have direct access to the tribunal. Lengthy and

ineffective investigations will be eliminated. The tribunal will be given

enhanced powers to handle all aspects of complaints filed under the code and

will emphasize mediation and settlement rather than adjudication as the

preferred means of resolving complaints.

[1415]

Other

related functions will be delivered in more effective ways. For example, the

power to conduct consultations and research need not be at arm's length from

government and instead can and will be carried out by the ministry responsible

for human rights. In addition, the duty to develop an education program

concerning human rights will be transferred to the minister.

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 64

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.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

INTERIM AUTHORITIES ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Community Services Interim Authorities Act.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The Community Services Interim Authorities Act ushers in a period of

real participation and influence by communities in the delivery of services to

vulnerable individuals, families and communities. Individuals, families and

communities will soon be empowered to take over the design and delivery of

services to children, families and adults with developmental disabilities. At

the same time, I want to underline the responsibility of the province to set

standards to fund, to monitor and to maintain accountability for the overall

system of human services in British Columbia.

introducing this bill, I must recognize the hundreds of people whose efforts

have made it possible. Those who have served on the Community Living Transition

Steering Committee have earned national

[ Page 3891 ]

and international recognition for this innovative approach to delivering

high-quality services to vulnerable people. I am grateful to the community

leaders, staff, parents and family members across this province for their

ongoing contribution to this process. We have benefited from hundreds of written

submissions and thousands of hours of meetings and deliberations that are

transforming social service delivery in this province.

This bill

also moves us closer to our goal of improving outcomes for aboriginal children

and families. This bill reflects the agreements we have made with aboriginal

groups. These agreements have, I believe, established an unprecedented level of

cooperation and shared responsibility.

The bill

empowers the ministry to create a number of interim governance authorities,

including community living services, aboriginal services, and child and family

development authorities. These interim authorities will work out the details of

the permanent authorities which will succeed them. The bill sets out the roles

of interim authorities, the kinds of resources available to them and their

responsibilities in this process. It also foreshadows the creation of five

regional aboriginal authorities, one provincial community living authority and

five regional child and family development authorities.

I move the

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

of the House after today.

Bill 65

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.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 66 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Today I rise to introduce the Public Sector Employers Amendment Act,

2002. Earlier this year we gave public sector employers the tools they needed to

balance their fiscal responsibilities with the need to restructure their

workforce. This legislation builds upon those gains by opening the door to the

application of fiscal responsibility to the management of public sector

executive compensation.

[1420]

The

legislation empowers the Minister of Finance to direct public sector employers

to develop, for his approval, compensation plans for exempt employees. All

contracts must then comply with approved compensation plans. With this

legislation we will have balanced, realistic and enforceable limits upon public

sector executive severance payments. The limit upon severance payments has been

reduced from 24 months to 18 months. There are new restrictions on executive

vacation and sick leaves that will ensure that those benefits are managed in an

appropriate manner.

This bill

will deliver greater openness and accountability to public sector compensation.

By the end of the fiscal year, all public sector employers will be required to

make copies of senior executive contracts available for public inspection during

normal business hours.

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 66

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.

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT

Hon. J.

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

intituled Transportation Investment Act.

Hon. J.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: Since introducing the Transportation Investment Act during the spring

2002 sitting of the House, I have spent considerable time consulting with local

governments, communities, chambers of commerce, potential private sector

investors and the general public in 19 different communities throughout the

province. As a result of those consultations and from recommendations received

from people who have sent e-mails or written submissions in response to our

posting of the act, we have made some changes. Although the fundamental

objectives of the act remain unchanged, changes have been made to clarify

language and reflect the input received during the consultation process.

The

Transportation Investment Act is enabling legislation that will permit the

province to explore and develop public-private partnership opportunities.

Specifically, the act allows the government to reach agreements with private

investors who may build, operate and maintain highways. Any highway built by the

private sector would be required to meet provincial highway standards for

safety, design, construction and maintenance.

In order

for British Columbia to continue meeting our transportation needs, we need to

make substantial additional investments in our highway infrastructure now.

However, we must also look for the most cost-effective, efficient way to develop

that infrastructure. This will ensure that the available transportation dollars

fund as wide a range of projects as possible. This act is an essential step in

moving forward to realize the

[ Page 3892 ]

potential of private sector investment as a means of helping to accomplish

our goals for revitalizing our province's aging infrastructure while, at the

same time, protecting the public interest.

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 67

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS

IN BURNABY

H. Bloy:

It gives me great pleasure to announce the winners of the Burnaby Business

Excellence Awards held on October 17, 2002, at the Burnaby Hilton hotel. The

Burnaby Business Excellence Awards recognize and honour business excellence and

community spirit in the city of Burnaby, and the winners are….

The

community spirit award went to Metrotown Centre and Mr. Ted Williams. The

community service award went to Lougheed town centre and Ms. Fay Hickey, centre

manager, and Ms. Bonney Rempel, marketing director. The business innovation

award went to Xantrex Technology, Mr. Mossadiq Umedaly. The entrepreneurial

spirit award went to the manufacturers of the Red Square Russian food products,

Mr. Mark Tsemak. The newsmaker of the year award went to Response Biomedical

Corp., Mr. Bill Radvak. The businessperson of the year award went to Hugh Dobbie

of Dowco Consultants. The business of the year award for small business went to

Donn Dean Collision, Mr. Andrew Stewart. The business of the year award went to

Creo Inc., Mr. Dave Brown.

[1425]

Burnaby

means business. We are proud of our business community in Burnaby. Our business

success speaks to the quality of our community. Congratulations to all the

nominees and all the winners of the Burnaby Business Excellence Award, 2002, and

a special thanks to Mr. Norm Blain, executive director of the Burnaby Board of

Trade for a great gala evening.

SUPPORT FOR

2010 VANCOUVER-WHISTLER OLYMPIC BID

Bennett: There are those in my rural riding of East Kootenay who support

B.C.'s Olympic bid, and there are those who do not. Today I'd like to say a few

words about why those of us who live in rural B.C. should consider supporting a

B.C. Olympic Games. An Olympic Games in B.C. is an investment in the future of

our province, the whole province. Revenue to pay for rural public services will

be generated by an investment in the Olympic Games.

Pre-Olympics,

those rural B.C. communities that seize the day can create opportunities for

training. The state of Idaho accommodated over 200 athletes prior to the Salt

Lake City games for training. I know there are world-class ski hills out there

in rural B.C., and I know that there are world-class ice arenas out there in

rural B.C.

Another

perspective: through the 2010 LegaciesNow program the rural regions of B.C. can

add value to their communities, and we can all further the efforts and

aspirations of amateur athletes across this province.

Then there

are business opportunities that come from any large economic project. We've all

heard about the rural B.C. businesses that benefited from the Salt Lake City

games. Imagine how B.C. businesses and their employees will benefit from a

project the size of a Winter Olympics right here in British Columbia. What about

the impact on tourism that previous Winter Olympic Games had in Alberta and in

Norway? With two billion people around the world tuning into the Winter Olympic

Games, the B.C. tourism industry will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to

showcase the unparalleled natural beauty and amenities of Super, Natural B.C.

Think how

much of our great B.C. wine the world could taste during an Olympic Games. I can

see a marketing approach that tantalizes the world with snapshots of everything

B.C. has to offer from every nook and cranny of this diverse province. First, we

will win the 2010 Olympic Games, and then we will do what this province did in

1986. We will show to the world all that British Columbia has to offer.

MONUMENT FOR 1944 AIRPLANE

CRASH IN PORT HARDY

Visser: On April 19, 1944, an RAF Dakota 576 — a military version of the

venerable DC3 — took off from the Pat Bay airport in Sidney on a simple

navigation exercise. The young British aircrew, pilot officers Tom Wordlow,

James Talbot and their wireless air gunner Sgt. T.R. Moss, were barely out of

their twenties. A few hours later, in thick Port Hardy weather and low on fuel,

the plane tragically crashed into the densely wooded hillside just above the

shoreline as they were making a second final approach. Only Sergeant Moss

survived.

Largely

forgotten now for five decades, hemlock, cedar and salal have all sprouted from

the wet, moss-covered ground and grow amongst the tangled wreckage of the plane.

Its paint has faded, but the familiar crest of the RAF remains defiantly

visible. The trees sheared off by the wings and fuselage, marking its last few

seconds of flight, have sent new tops skyward, and the botanical world around it

has adopted it wholly — that is, until two months ago, when Lou Lepine, a

former RCAF fighter pilot, led a thoughtful and proud group of retired military

people living in Port Hardy, all members of the 101 Squadron of the 88 Wing of

the

[ Page 3893 ]

Air Force Association of Canada, to erect a monument to those flyers who

perished.

On that

beautiful and crisp North Island day, the Lieutenant-Governor unveiled a

stainless steel cairn to the sound of the bagpipes playing Amazing Grace. On

that day 30 of us were asked to stop and remember people we had never known and

to pay tribute to a time that is becoming more distant and remote. Remembrance

is a powerful thing and a powerful emotion on its own, but the sound of the

bugler's last post and reveille and the piper's lament that rang through the

forest brought it all into clear focus for us. To end that moment of silence, as

we stood amongst the fuselage of that plane, George Kearey of the Port Hardy

legion read the poem High Flight in a very clear and steady voice.

Messrs.

Lepine, Gage, Hellberg, Cook, Kearey, Pollock and all the others: you've done a

worthy thing. You should be very proud of yourselves. You brought the idea of

remembrance to life for a bunch of us. Thanks.

[1430]

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE COSTS

FOR PENSIONERS AND SENIORS

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Finance clearly

suggested that because seniors use the health care system more than younger

British Columbians, they should be asked to contribute more than others pay for

it. This brings new meaning to "outrageous." However, if that is the

new Liberal dictate, the Liberals are abandoning the fundamental principle that

health care access should be based on need.

Seniors

built the medicare system. They paid into it with their whole lives. Now, when

they need it most, they should not be asked to bear any extra burden to pay for

it. Does the Minister of Health Services agree with the Minister of Finance that

B.C.'s seniors should pay more than others for health care?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We've made it very clear that we support the five principles of the

Canada Health Act. We support universal access to medically necessary

procedures. For all of those services that are covered under the Canada Health

Act, we would have universal access regardless as to whether it's a senior or a

non-senior in British Columbia. Those are the principles that we will move

forward as we renew and re-energize and build a sustainable health care system

for all British Columbians into the future.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, after being ten days away, we have two contradictory points

of view: one from the Minister of Finance, who clearly said that seniors should

pay more, and the Minister of Health Services, who doesn't know what's going on.

A couple of

weeks ago the Minister of Health said he had no idea whether or not the effect

of income-testing for Pharmacare and increases in MSP premiums wiped out his

government's tax cut for average British Columbians. Today we learn that as a

result of MSP premium increases and Pharmacare income-testing, government

retirees are losing pension benefits. Can the Minister of Health Services now

tell us whether or not these changes effectively wipe out any tax cut that

middle- and low-income seniors received from the government?

Hon. G.

Collins: The reality is that health care across Canada is growing at

exponential rates. There's no question of that. The reality is that there are

four million people in British Columbia who have to pay for the health care

system. Government has not just lived up to its commitment to make sure that we

preserved and protected the money that went into health care; we added over $1

billion to the health care budget.

The health

care system is not free. It costs every British Columbian over $10 billion this

year and next year and the year after that in order to pay for that system. We

lived up to our commitment to maintain the funding for health care.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, we lived up to the commitment to fund health care, to

maintain the funding for health care. The system continues to be funded. We've

added more money to the health care system, but the reality is that those costs

are growing exponentially. Government is doing everything possible to make sure

that the system is there in the future when people need it.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: It's a bit embarrassing when the Minister of Finance gets up to

answer for the Minister of Health Services, knowing full well that this morning

the Minister of Finance said seniors should pay more. I actually don't blame the

Minister of Health Services for not getting up to defend his colleague. Since

taking power, seniors have been under assault by this Liberal government.

Today's news is just one item in a long list of broken promises and outright

betrayals.

The

government's increased MSP premiums are having a ripple effect through the

public and private sectors. It's forcing huge cutbacks in education, in health

care, in pension benefits and in the daily budgets of tens of thousands of

seniors, many on fixed income.

[1435]

Will the

Minister of Health Services now agree, after surveying all the damage that was

done through this MSP increase, to claw it back so that seniors in B.C.

[ Page 3894 ]

can enjoy a decent quality of life and access to health care when they need

it?

Hon. G.

Collins: The facts that the member opposite fails to mention are this: over

230,000 low-income British Columbians now pay lower MSP premiums than they did

previously. With income testing, low-income British Columbians will continue to

pay less for Pharmacare as well.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The reality, Mr. Speaker…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …is not only have we lived up to our commitment to make sure that

we protected the funding for health care, we added over a billion dollars to the

health care system in this province.

J. Kwan:

How soon we forget. The Minister of Finance can't even remember what he said

this morning, let alone what all the Liberal MLAs promised during the election:

health care when you need it, where you need it. [Applause.]

It's time

for the government to deliver that promise. You know, they clapped to that

promise. The fact of the reality is they have not delivered that promise. MSP

premiums have gone up. Pharmacare income testing will affect pensioners. But you

know what? They don't just impact seniors; they impact pensioners as well. They

affect businesses, large and small, in British Columbia, forcing them to pay

higher premiums for their employees.

Can the

Minister of Health tell the House if he knows whether or not private insurers

like Blue Cross are going to jack up premiums, raise deductibles and force

employers to contribute even more to the health care plans?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Let me revisit, for a minute, some of the good news that's happening in

health care in British Columbia, which affects every single senior in this

province. We have actually gone through a major redesign of health care that

means that residents in the East Kootenays can now…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …get access to an internist at the Cranbrook…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …Hospital, which never happened before.

We've got

residents in the Kootenay-Boundary area who can now get access to three new

specialists at the Trail hospital, which they would have had to go outside of

that region to get before. We've got new doctors that are being recruited into

communities throughout the province so that seniors can get access to the care

they need.

Throughout

the changes we are doing, we are making sure that those who are of lower income

are protected, whether it's access to physiotherapy or podiatry or chiropractic

care or whether it's access to heart surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. That is the

principle this government stands on, and we're proud of it.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

It is a wonder that the Minister of Health can get up and actually spout out

what he just did, because the fact of the matter is that they increased MSP

premiums. They increased costs for seniors, and now pensioners are going to be

impacted. You know what the Minister of Finance says? "Oh, they should pay

more because they're older. They cost more. They should pay more to the

system."

You would

think the government would have thought through the changes to MSP and

Pharmacare a little bit better, a little bit more carefully. In ten weeks the

Minister of Health Planning is going to bring forward income testing for

Pharmacare. Given that MSP increases alone are causing huge disruptions for tens

of thousands of people, will the minister agree to hold off on income testing

until a more thorough review, a consultation — including the public, not just

the government, not just the Minister of Finance — could be carried through?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think there was a question in there. We did do a very extensive

consultation with the public through the first time in almost ten years that the

Standing Committee on Health in this Legislature was actually charged with…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Please. Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …going out and consulting with British Columbians. I think part of

the….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. I would ask the two members to listen to the

answer, please. The Minister of Health Services has the floor.

[1440]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The two members of the New Democratic Party in this House should be

ashamed of the

[ Page 3895 ]

fact that for nine years, the Standing Committee on Health in this

Legislature never set foot out of this building to meet with British Columbians

and do those consultations.

KYOTO ACCORD

Nuraney: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

While the Kyoto accord has dominated the headlines for months now, British

Columbians still have no idea of how Kyoto's targets will be met. Adding to the

confusion, a federal-provincial meeting on the issues scheduled for today was

unexpectedly cancelled late last week.

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection explain why this meeting has been

postponed?

Hon. J.

Murray: The meeting was postponed by the federal government. We understand

the rationale was that their plan was not ready, and they intended to do further

consultations. I must say we found it very disappointing. We've been looking

forward to seeing the federal government's intentions with respect to

ratification for a while now, and we're looking forward to seeing that plan.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has a supplementary question.

Nuraney: While British Columbians are concerned about climate change,

they're also concerned about the impact this agreement will have on the economy.

Critics of Kyoto have reported that if this accord is implemented, it could cost

Canada up to 450,000 jobs.

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what she is doing to ensure

that British Columbia's economic interests are taken into account?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry and other ministries in our government are fully engaged

with the federal government and are working closely with the other provinces on

this issue, identifying areas of commonality and common concern. We have been

working with industry to identify their projected impacts of the ratification on

their sectors. We will be communicating with the federal government at the joint

ministers' meeting that is now scheduled for next week.

Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

as well. After many years of decline, the B.C. economy is finally showing signs

of economic recovery. In my constituency of Peace River South the oil and gas

sector is aiding in that recovery. However, many of my constituents fear and

have concerns regarding the Kyoto protocol and fear that it will hurt the growth

in the oil and gas sector.

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what she is doing to ensure

that this sector is not unfairly targeted by the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. J.

Murray: We don't have a lot of information about the federal government

plan.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection has the floor. The minister has the floor. Please proceed.

[1445]

Hon. J.

Murray: The federal government's plan is not clear yet. We understand the

concerns of the oil and gas sector, and we are determined in British Columbia

that we have an environmentally progressive response but also an economically

pragmatic response. We're also very clear that a strong economy is a critical

factor in having a healthy environment.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplementary question.

Lekstrom: Alberta has already come out strongly against the Kyoto protocol.

Recently other provinces, such as Quebec, have also begun to voice their

displeasure with this agreement. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection tell us what concerns the B.C. government has with the Kyoto

protocol?

Hon. J.

Murray: We have been in ongoing discussion with the federal government about

British Columbia's concerns. We will be meeting with the other provinces and the

federal government next week.

I can say

that we're becoming more concerned about the burden on British Columbia. From

the latest figures, it appears that British Columbia may be shouldering a

relatively much greater burden than other provinces, and we're very concerned

about that. We will be outlining the issues that we expect the federal

government to respond to as this issue moves forward.

[End of question period.]

Motions without Notice

SECOND READING OF BILL 62

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, I move:

[That the proceedings relating to second reading and the

order for committal of Bill (No. 62) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 be declared null and void and that the Bill

forthwith be restored to the Order Paper for second reading under the order

Public Bills and Orders, and upon completion of second reading, the Bill

may, on a Government motion without notice or leave, be committed to the

Committee of the Whole forthwith.]

Mr.

Speaker, that's to accommodate the wish of the Leader of the Opposition to speak

to this in second reading.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MacPhail: I'd like a moment to examine the motion before we decide whether

to grant leave or not. Can we have an adjournment?

[ Page 3896 ]

Mr.

Speaker: We will give the Leader of the Opposition some time to peruse the

motion. We will resume in a few moments.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, may we have a recess to examine it?

Mr.

Speaker: Please do. We will just take a few moments. The House will recess

for five minutes.

The House

recessed from 2:47 p.m. to 2:54 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is leave that the proceedings related

to second reading and the order for committal of Bill 62, intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, be declared null and void,

and that the bill forthwith be restored to the order paper for second reading

under the order, public bills and orders. Upon completion of second reading, the

bill may, on a government motion, without notice or leave, be committed to the

Committee of the Whole forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Mr.

Speaker: Leave is granted. We are now at second reading.

[1455]

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the motion.

Mr.

Speaker: On the motion, the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: For the record, this is a motion that recommits legislation so

that second reading debate can occur. I'll give you my version, Mr. Speaker, of

what happened that wasn't where…. We, the opposition, were not able to debate

second reading when the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — I think it's

Bill 62 — was debated at second reading on October 10, 2002.

There is no

question that the opposition is small. We are two of 76 MLAs who are allowed to

debate on a regular basis legislation that comes through this chamber. There are

also circumstances upon which both sides of the Legislature agree on how that

debate will proceed. For whatever reason, on October 10 — without assigning

blame to anyone — the opposition was not able to address second reading of

Bill 62. There has been all sorts of speculation in the media, in the corridors,

about how that debate did not proceed. The fact of the matter is that the second

reading debate consisted of the Minister of Finance getting up and reading again

the first reading notes into the record and no one else debating it.

I, the

person who was going to speak to it, stood at the rotating doors of the chamber

ready to speak, but the House adjourned. The House adjourned for 11 days. Now

the government is recommitting the legislation so that second reading debate can

occur.

So far, so

good. However, as is becoming increasingly clear in the practice of debate in

this Legislature, the government wants more. And when the government wants more,

it means that there will be less thoughtful debate. It means that the rules will

be set aside. The traditional rules, the orders that govern British

parliamentary democracy, will be set aside once more. How so? Because the

government, in — I'm sure they will allege — claiming to give leeway to the

opposition, have recommitted the bill for second reading but have then added

that the bill may, on a government motion without notice or leave, be committed

to the Committee of the Whole forthwith.

Here's what

we have. Here's the dilemma my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I

face. If this motion passes, we are back exactly where we were on October 10,

when virtually no debate took place at second reading — none. This is debate

on matters where passenger rail service will be ended under B.C. Rail; where

there will be substantial changes to freedom-of-information legislation; where

there will be substantial changes to people who are on disability assistance,

people who must rely on social assistance in this province. There will be

controversial legislation introduced around arterial highways.

What do we

have, Mr. Speaker? We have the government wanting their cake and the ability to

eat it too. They want to get all the credit in the world, although the public

wants this — to have a debate at second reading. I heard that loud and clear

last week. Then they want to be able to ram the legislation through as well.

[1500]

Well, it is

my submission that the public actually does care about the legislation this

government is passing with undue haste, that all of this legislation is

extremely important and needs to be thoroughly debated first, at second reading.

The public, the citizens of British Columbia, can appreciate and contemplate

that debate and then can think about it and have opportunity for input. Then, as

the rules of parliamentary democracy say, there will be a period of time in

between that debate and then the more detailed debate at committee stage. But

no, not this government. They want to pretend to be democratic but, at the same

time, have their way that there will be no thoughtful debate in which the public

can actually engage.

Does the

public engage, Mr. Speaker? Yes. One of the great aspects of the televising of

this Legislature, which has been in effect for more than 20 years now, is that

people actually can, in real time, observe debate and respond in real time

through electronic transmission via phone, fax or e-mail, and they do so

sometimes in an overwhelming volume.

Here we

have a situation where that won't occur. I'm not quite sure why the government

seems to feel the necessity to ram this all through today. It's not like they're

busy. It's not like there's a huge amount of overtime being put in, in

thoughtful debate here by the Lib-

[ Page 3897 ]

eral MLAs. Seventy-odd Liberal MLAs will say absolutely nothing on any piece

of legislation even though it affects their constituency.

One of the

aspects of last week was that some of us got to travel the province as well as

go back to our own constituencies. Some of us got to travel the province hearing

input from British Columbians. I was amongst a group of MLAs that did that. What

happened was British Columbians raised concerns about these very issues, and now

I expect it will be up to my colleague and me to raise those concerns. Fair

enough, but then it should also be up to my colleague and me to take those

concerns, have them reflected in the public and then debate legislation in

detail.

I've also

read speculation that the government will be introducing amendments to Bill 62.

Maybe not, but maybe. There's no notice of amendments. Nobody's had time to

reflect if indeed there may be amendments, so we could face not only this

situation but second reading, committee stage and amendments to legislation all

within the context of a few hours.

Now, I may

be surprised. Maybe the government won't ram through committee stage today, or

maybe they won't introduce amendments without notice and without public purview.

We have a situation where that might be the intent and the actions of the

Government House Leader, but if it isn't, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here

where no debate occurred at second reading, and the opposition is being given a

chance to have that debate but has to pay a very substantial price. They have to

give up their right to discuss with the public the intent of this legislation as

it was debated and passed at second reading before committee stage occurs.

[1505]

It is

extremely important for another reason. There are very few voices that speak up

in this Legislature, and yet there is not an overwhelming amount of work being

done. In the first week of our sitting in the fall, we sat for around ten hours

over four days. We often were finished by mid-afternoon when there was still

work to be done. In fact, the day the government en masse passed second reading

on this very bill, Bill 62, it was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I don't

know what the rush was to shut down the Legislature, because there were three

hours of work time left.

I think the

situation can be remedied by amending the motion. I have an amendment to the

motion, if I may. Before I give it to you, Mr. Speaker — I only have one copy

— I'll read it out, if I may. It's an amendment to the Government House

Leader's motion. It reads thus:

[That the motion introduced by the Government House Leader

to declare null and void the second reading proceedings on Bill (No. 62)

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 be amended by

striking out the words following "…Public Bills and Orders ;

and upon completion of second reading, the Bill may, on a Government motion

without notice or leave, be committed to the Committee of the Whole

forthwith. "]

I would be

happy to take a few moments and have the Government House Leader examine it.

Mr.

Speaker: Just let me peruse this for a moment.

Hon.

members, the amendment is in order.

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Collins: Let me just take a moment to perhaps give an alternative version of

what the member has interpreted. I've been here 11 years — I think the same

length of time as the member opposite has been. She did her duty as Government

House Leader, as I'm doing mine now, so she would not be unfamiliar with what

has been the long practice in this House — and most Houses, for that matter

— that for miscellaneous statutes bills there is generally virtually no debate

in second reading of the legislation. Certainly, if the member goes back and

tries to recall or looks through Hansard, she will find that in virtually every

case — probably not every, but in virtually every case — the debate in

second reading has been brief.

It is

generally understood, however, with a miscellaneous statutes bill that in

committee stage the debate will be somewhat more wide-ranging. That has

certainly been the practice in this House. Various successive Chairs have

permitted somewhat broader debate in committee stage around those individual

sections of the bill.

As the

Speaker is aware, normally in legislation there is a debate on principles in

second reading. Then the following day there is a debate in committee stage,

where debate happens

section by section. The debate is somewhat more back and

forth. It allows members to speak a number of times to that section, and there's

actually a bit more dialogue and discussion back and forth. In practice with

miscellaneous statutes bills, the second reading debates have been very brief,

and then committee stage is where that sort of second reading, as well as the

more detailed technical debate, takes place at the same time. That's the way it

has worked.

Not last

Thursday but the Thursday before, this issue was up for debate. It was on the

order paper. People knew it was up for second reading debate. Normally, I might

add, issues around House business are generally resolved by a member from the

opposition and a member from the government discussing those matters outside the

floor time here. But given that the member has raised these issues, I think

perhaps they need to be addressed, although that has not been the practice in

this House.

[1510]

On the

Thursday the member refers to, this issue was up for debate in second reading.

As we do all the time since the election, we have tried to consult the

opposition with regard to what matters they would like to speak to and which

they would not, because, as the member stated, they are a small opposition. If

she has a complaint about that, she should take it up with the voters. We have

gone out of our way, and we continue to go out of our way, to consult the two

members opposite about the issues that they want to allocate their energies and

their time to and accommodate our

[ Page 3898 ]

schedule — the government's — and accommodate the

schedule of the two

members opposite.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes to speak to this, I'm sure she

can do that when she closes debate on the amendment. We can have this little cat

fight back and forth across the House, but I'm not sure it's terribly

productive.

We have

always gone out of our way to accommodate the members opposite. We have done

that with regard to scheduling. We have done that with regard to the order of

estimates. We've done that with regard to numerous recesses and adjournments of

the House to allow the members opposite to go down to their office and get their

documents and whatever they need. All one has to do is look back through Hansard

since the election to notice the number of times the House has had to recess in

order to accommodate the members opposite.

On no

occasion have we gone out of our way to obstruct the members opposite from

having their opportunity to speak. The Thursday in question was no exception to

that. The members….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: If the members don't want to speak to second reading, then they can

vote against the amendment. That's up to them. They can do what they like,

but….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The members opposite on the Thursday in question apparently told

somebody on our side of the House that they wanted to speak to this. I know they

also told somebody in my office that the member wanted to speak to this issue.

That individual was not, and my staff was not, in the House at the time. He

advised that member's staff that the member opposite should contact me, because

I'd be handling the bill. I would be the one dealing with it in the House. I did

not receive that contact.

The member

opposite says she spoke to somebody on our side of the House. That may have

happened. I did not hear about that. The member was not in the House. I was

unaware she wanted to speak to it, so the debate went, and the debate finished.

There was no one eligible in the House to speak, so the vote happened.

If the

member had wanted to, she could have talked to me as she was advised. It didn't

happen. For whatever reason, there was a communication breakdown, and so….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Government House Leader has the floor.

Hon. G.

Collins: For whatever reason, there was a breakdown in communication. As I

said, in every other House that I've been involved in for 11 years, these issues

around scheduling normally happen between staff and between members. They don't

happen on the floor of the House. The member opposite has chosen to do that

today, so I'm responding.

If there is

an issue about whether or not a member can speak, then as I told her at the

time, we'd be glad to accommodate that. That's what we're trying to do here

today. The bill has been on the order paper now for 12 days. If the member

opposite has a concern that somehow the public is uninformed about this, then I

don't know what more government can do. I don't know how many bills, when she

was Government House Leader, were left on the order paper at the end of June for

12 days.

In fact, it

was a little bit difficult to take, having the member stand up in the House and

pontificate about ramming legislation through. I sat on that side of the House

many times when she was Government House Leader and watched them ram legislation

through. They'd introduce it one day, second reading, third reading — not just

one bill but dozens of bills in the last two weeks of a session. Dozens — 20

or more…. I sat here and watched it happen.

This piece

of legislation has been on the order paper for 12 days. It's not like we just

introduced it today and are putting it through the House today. It's been on the

order paper for 12 days. The member had the opportunity to travel the province

last week, she said. I'm assuming she took input on this. She said, in fact, in

her comments that she had feedback from the public on this issue. Now is the

opportunity to bring it to the floor.

We are

trying to accommodate the member opposite, as we have done on every single

occasion when the request has been made by the members opposite to have the

debate. It broke down that Thursday for whatever reason. The communication

didn't happen. We're trying to solve that problem. I made that commitment to her

at the time.

The member,

unlike as done in past years…. Discussions haven't happened behind closed

doors between Government House Leaders, as was done year after year. The member

chose to have those discussions in the corridor and through the media. That's

her prerogative, but it does change the way the House has tended to work for a

long, long time. If that's the way she wants to operate House business, I'm more

than happy to do that, but that's not the way we've done it in the past.

[1515]

Mr.

Speaker, it is a little hard to hear the member opposite talk about the rules of

the House being set aside. They're not being set aside. Second reading happened

on a Thursday 11 days ago. The bill has been on the order paper for 12 days. If

the member wishes to speak to second reading, we're trying to accommodate that

through a special provision. The House doesn't have to do that. The obligation

is always upon mem-

[ Page 3899 ]

bers, if they wish to speak in this House, to be in this House and to stand

up and take their place. That is the longstanding tradition of this parliament

and every other one.

We have

gone out of our way repeatedly to accommodate the members with special

privileges, special accommodations, special recesses, special planning, special

scheduling. We are more than happy to continue to do that, but there has to be

some onus on the members themselves if they wish to speak on legislation. We'll

try and accommodate that. It is a little hard, though, to hear the member

opposite talk about ramming legislation through, given the hundreds of bills she

put through the House during her tenure as Government House Leader in one day,

two days or three days with no consultation. Many of them were much larger.

This

government has gone out of its way to provide opportunities for the public. The

whole reason there's a fall sitting is so that legislation can be on the order

paper in the spring, so that it's not rammed through the way the NDP used to do

it, the way she used to do it when she was Government House Leader, but is taken

out amongst the public to get feedback. That's why you see the reintroduction by

ministers of pieces of legislation that were introduced in the spring. The

public has had months to look at that legislation, and we had great feedback

from our constituents.

We had

feedback from the public, and now you're seeing legislation come into the House

in an amended form in response to that consultation. The NDP government never

did that once. In nine and a half years of government, they never did that. The

whole point of a fall legislative session is to provide that accommodation for

consultation, and in fact, that's what is happening. The fall session does not

have a throne speech. It is not a whole new session. It is an additional sitting

to clean up the business from the spring session. The goal is to try and improve

the quality of legislation, to deal with legislation that needs that

consultation and to be reintroduced in the House.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: That's what we're doing. If the member doesn't like the motion, then

she should vote against it. She has the opportunity to speak to second reading,

because the members of the House want to grant her that accommodation and the

special privilege she would have over and above what any other member in this

House has. We're certainly doing that for the member opposite. If she doesn't

like it, she can vote against the motion. There is no travesty of justice here.

MacPhail: That's not what I said. It's a travesty of democracy.

Hon. G.

Collins: There is no travesty of democracy either. The legislation has been

on the order paper for 12 days. If people have comments, if the member has

comments, that would be great. I don't think she's going to inform herself any

more by her second reading speech. So she'll have more…heard from herself in

anticipation of the committee stage. There is lots of opportunity here. The

public has had 12 days — 12 days for the member opposite to speak to it. The

standing orders require three days. This bill has had 12. It has had four times

the normal consultation period for legislation.

I can't

wait to hear the speech by the member opposite. I'm sure it is going to be

scintillating, valuable and instructive as well, and I look forward to hearing

it. I don't know why she couldn't do that mostly in committee stage, which is

the way it has been done for decades by everybody else who has sat in this

House, but I'm willing to hear her need to do that.

As well,

depending on how much she has to say about the bill, then the bill may pass

quickly or may take longer. I can perhaps give the member a bit of insight into

what you do in opposition if you don't want a bill to pass. It's that you

actually debate it for a long period of time. If the member doesn't want it to

be passed today in committee stage, that's up to her. She's the opposition. All

she has to do….

MacPhail: Oh, so you are going to committee stage, are you? You are going to

committee stage.

Hon. G.

Collins: Well, I….

J. Kwan:

What about the amendments?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: If the member opposite wants to have this debate go longer, then

she can do that. There are processes in the parliamentary system to do that, so

it's fine for her to do that. She asked if the government is introducing

amendments to the legislation. I don't know if the Attorney General has any

amendments to the legislation or not. It is not uncommon for governments to

introduce amendments to legislation and then pass that.

[1520]

Indeed, I

recall on innumerable occasions where the previous government ministers would

introduce amendments without notice on the order paper. Those amendments would

be debated sometimes at length. Sometimes there would be very little debate.

Then there was a vote, and that's how the system works.

If somehow

the member opposite feels there's some travesty in democracy, all I would do is

encourage her to go back and question her own conscience, look at all the

terrible travesties of justice that happened when she was in government, because

this government has gone out of its way to accommodate the members of the

opposition.

If she

really wants to speak to the bill, she should get up and speak to the bill when

the bill comes forward.

[ Page 3900 ]

[1525]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we are voting on the amendment to the motion as put

forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which reads:

[That the motion introduced by the Government House Leader

to declare null and void the second reading proceedings on Bill (No. 62)

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 be amended by

striking out the words following "…Public Bills and Orders…."]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 66

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

On the main

motion.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, it would appear that everyone who can be here is

here. Shall we waive the five-minute time limit?

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 66

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1530]

Mr.

Speaker: The motion passes, and we are at second reading of Bill 62.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 62.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2002

MacPhail: First of all, I want to go over a little bit of history of

miscellaneous statutes amendment acts in this province. We just had the

Government House Leader say that there's a tradition around miscellaneous

statutes amendment acts debates. In a very arrogant way, the Government House

Leader said, "Well, this is how we always do it, so what's the opposition's

problem? The debate occurs at committee stage."

Well, what

the Government House Leader forgot to explain is that miscellaneous statutes

amendments are generally of consequence minimal enough that they don't require a

thorough examination of the principles of the legislation. Second reading debate

examines the principles of legislation, and committee debate examines the

technicalities, the implications, the consequences of those principles in a very

technical way.

[ Page 3901 ]

What the Government House Leader forgot to explain to all of you Liberal MLAs

is that there are massive principles at stake here in this Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act — massive principles.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

It's

unprecedented, as a matter of fact, that this government uses the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act to ram through substantive changes that reverse

longstanding principles. But I fear that not only will this Liberal government

caucus sit silent as the principles are inalterably effected on their own

constituents; they're going to allow amendments that have substantive change to

be rammed through today — once again without any notice, without one iota of

notice.

The

Government House Leader gets up in his usual hectoring way to somehow say:

"What's the problem? What's the problem with our government shutting down

the Legislature at 3 p.m., scurrying off home and not permitting second reading

debate? What's the problem with a two-person opposition not being here?"

Well, in fact, we were here. We were standing at the door ready to debate, not

having any belief that this government would shut down a Legislature at ten to

three in the afternoon when there were important principles to debate. That's

exactly what happened.

Now the

Government House Leader gets up, and he blames his staff. He blames other staff.

He somehow rewrites the rules — that it's always done between two politicians.

He blames the Whips. He blames pretty much everybody else, and that was after I

stood up and said: "Let's not assign blame. Let's talk about the principles

of democracy."

Well,

here's what's happening to the principles of democracy. Not one government MLA

got up to address these amendments, these substantive amendments, and who will

be worse off? Their constituents. It will be their constituents who will be

adversely affected by this legislation.

We must

debate the principles. We have to debate the principles at second reading, and

then we have to have public input on those principles, and then we debate at

committee stage. But not this government. This government sits silent as the

rights of their constituents are eroded day after day. These Liberal

backbenchers sit silent, or they seek permission to speak. And if the Government

House Leader says, "No, I don't want you to speak," they don't speak.

That's what

they do. They go away and they say: "Okay, I won't speak. I won't speak to

the legislation. My constituents want me to speak to the legislation, but the

Government House Leader says I can't." Let me see where the democracy is in

that.

[1535]

So far, we

have a government that works at a pathetic pace, expends huge amounts of tax

dollars to run this chamber, to run this Legislature as the crucible of debate

in democracy, shuts it down after an hour in the morning, shuts it down after

half an hour in the morning, and somehow it's the opposition's fault.

Let's go

back to the spring, where day after day after day the opposition stood up to

debate, and this government….

Deputy

Speaker: Member, I must remind you that we're to speak to second reading of

this particular bill. We've given you a lot of latitude as far as where you

speak to, but let's keep our comments to the bill.

MacPhail: I'm wondering why…. Thank you very much for your advice, Mr.

Speaker. If indeed there is some other debate that needs to occur by other

members of this Legislature, I'd be happy to accede the floor to them, but we

have a principle here of substantive change, and that's the importance of it.

There's no question that my colleague and I will debate the principles of Bill

62, and we do that day after day. Yes, there are two of us, but the real issue

here is not about the opposition at all. We're doing very well with our limited

resources in defending the interests of British Columbia on issues like the

elimination of B.C. passenger rail service and on the eradication of protection

of access to information by this government.

The real

issue here are the 76 silent Liberal MLAs who say absolutely nothing. When the

House Leader gets up to talk about the content of Bill 62, the House Leader

addresses the issue of Bill 62 and says it's always debated at committee stage.

Well, the difference here is that never before have we seen a miscellaneous

statutes amendment act with such substantive change, and the Liberal MLAs sit

here in silence. What the public is demanding in terms of democratic debate is

for their own MLAs to get up and say something.

The MLA for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant gets up and defends the interests of all British

Columbia, but particularly her constituents, and so do I. Where are the members

for, let's say, the city of Burnaby? Where are the members who are responsible

for the community of Squamish? Where are the members who are responsible for

people on social assistance in this province? I think we all have community

members who are responsible for social assistance.

Where are

the members who are allowing their government to ram through unprecedented

exemptions from freedom of information? I bet you anything, we'll see an

amendment to freedom of information. They got it wrong the first time. They're

going to ram through an amendment to see whether they can get it right a second

time and still protect their secret little backroom negotiations. I bet you

anything we'll see that.

So here we

are. Even though the Government House Leader, in his usual hectoring fashion,

stands up and says, "Oh, the problem with this is the opposition," the

public knows the problem is with the Liberal MLAs refusing to defend the

interests of their communities. In fact, we often have Liberal MLAs standing up

and saying: "You know, my community doesn't agree with this or is worried

about it. Could you please tell us

[ Page 3902 ]

what message we can take back from the government to explain how they're

wrong?" That's what they do. They don't say: "Here's the problem in my

constituency. Fix it." They say: "Please just give me some help on

what message I can take back to my community, so they'll stop beating up on

me."

[1540]

Let's take

one example in this legislation. Let's talk about this government in a

miscellaneous statutes amendment act — elimination of B.C. Rail passenger

service. Is this just a technical amendment? My gosh, the community of Lillooet

doesn't think it's a technical amendment. The people in Fort St. John are

worried about the future of B.C. Rail service and whether this is just the

canary in the cave. The people in the Cariboo are very worried about the

elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service and what it's leading to. They don't

see it as a technical amendment. The people in Lytton are worried. Then they

hear about all sorts of plans for the rail bed for B.C. Rail — the paving over

of the rail bed. They say: "Is there something more than just the

elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service?"

Here are

the principles that are at stake in this legislation. There has been a

requirement dating back to 1912. How many years is that —90 years? British

Columbia was actually a baby of a province. Back to 1912 there was a requirement

that B.C. Rail and its predecessor, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, provide

passenger rail service. But eliminating it is just a technicality — just an

absolute technicality.

Interjection.

MacPhail: The Government House Leader says they didn't have airplanes in

1912. Gosh, I'm going to call up Lytton. Maybe my colleague from

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant could go and call those people who called us from

Lytton and said, "Gee, we don't even have bus service," and find out

whether they have airplane service. Will you, please? Maybe we can eliminate the

debate now. Maybe the principle I'm on is wrong. If you have time, go check and

see whether that airplane service to Lytton is working as the Government House

Leader intimates. Maybe the member who's responsible, who represents the

community of Lytton, could get up and straighten the Government House Leader

out. That would be useful debate on a principle.

In the 1996

election the Liberals knew full well the importance of B.C. Rail. It was a cash

cow. They wanted to privatize it, and what happened there? The public was

outraged. They were harmed in the election by their view to privatize B.C. Rail.

They were harmed in election results.

In the next

election in 2001, the Liberal MLAs and candidates all got up in the Cariboo, in

Lytton, in Prince George and said: "We're not going to privatize B.C.

Rail." I guess, as always, you have to really, really question these

Liberal MLAs on what they really meant to say. A promise not to privatize B.C.

Rail doesn't actually mean they're going to keep B.C. Rail. Here we have the

bill today eliminating passenger service.

A promise

not to privatize B.C. Rail doesn't mean they're not going to privatize a little

section of B.C. Rail, because that's what they're doing as well. A promise not

to privatize B.C. Rail doesn't mean that they won't make a commitment to pave

the rail bed of B.C. Rail to Whistler, because that's what they're planning on

doing as well. Or maybe they've changed that too, because they know what a silly

idea that is. When they actually consulted with the public, and the public went,

"Huh? You're going to pave the rail bed of B.C. Rail to Whistler?"

they went: "Oh, okay. Maybe we won't."

[1545]

You really

have to listen carefully to what these Liberals commit themselves to. Then what

do they do when they're reversing and reneging on their promises? They hide that

reneging in a miscellaneous bill. Maybe no one will notice. In fact, none of the

Liberal MLAs noticed, or if they did, they were told to be quiet and not discuss

it, or they support the government's elimination of B.C. Rail passenger service.

Here are

just some of the people that maybe this government cares about — maybe just

some of the people. Mayor Kinsley in Prince George has demanded that the B.C.

Rail service continue. Mayor Wallace of Quesnel has demanded the service

continue.

The tourism

association. Now, who is in charge of tourism? I'm sure we have a minister

responsible for tourism. Maybe he'd be interested to know that tourism

associations from North Vancouver to Prince George have noticed and that

chambers of commerce along the rail corridor have noticed, along with the mayors

and councils. They all object and protest the elimination of B.C. Rail passenger

service.

Mayor

Barnett of 100 Mile House has demanded the service continue. Mayor Taylor of

Lillooet has demanded the service continue. Mayor Lonsdale of Squamish has

demanded the service continue. Pat Corbett, who operates the Hills Health Ranch

in 108 Mile House has demanded the service continue. In fact, 11 percent of his

guests, customers, arrive by B.C. Rail — but not any longer. Poor Mr. Corbett.

I'm sure the government will say: "Well, it's up to you to figure out how

to regrow that 11 percent of lost clientele." In fact, there's a prediction

that he may have to lay off staff if he already hasn't at the Hills Ranch

because of this cut in B.C. Rail service.

But these

aren't principles. These are just technicalities, according to the Liberal

government. Who needs to debate these? We need to debate them, and we will

because these very same people are contacting us and saying: "How can we

get our concerns raised? Our own MLA won't do it." My colleague from

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are here to raise these concerns.

The

interior and the north are suffering. There is no question that they are

suffering. There are two economies going on in this province. The economy of the

interior and the north is hurting like we've never seen it hurt before — not

by my words, but by the words of

[ Page 3903 ]

the people who live there and the mayors and the school trustees. The

economy's hurting, and this cancellation of rail service is just one more

example of how little this government cares about the people who live there.

Let me

quote Pat Corbett. I must say that this is all in the public domain. I don't

want this government to take out any harm on someone like Pat Corbett. This is

in the public domain that I gleaned his comments. He's one of the owners of the

Hills Ranch. Here's how he put it: "We are experiencing school closures. We

are experiencing the shutdown of emergency and on-call medical services. We are

experiencing the closure of courthouses. You add to that the removal of

transportation, and you are attacking the very heart of what makes a community

survive."

Mr.

Corbett's business isn't in my riding, and it's not in the riding of my

colleague, but it is up to us to stand up and quote those words to this

government because the MLA in whose riding he lives didn't stand up to make that

point. Maybe they did, as the Whip likes to say, behind closed doors. They

discuss all these issues, and that's good enough, but we don't have access to

that debate.

[1550]

Here's what

Mayor Barnett said: "We are at the bare minimum with our services in our

community. We are a vibrant community, and we're moving forward, but we cannot

accomplish what we can without a transportation mode." The Premier doesn't

care. The Minister of Transportation doesn't care. What do the Premier and the

Minister of Transportation care about? They care about selling B.C. Rail. Let's

see, I guess that would be what you call your flip-flop, would it? Maybe they're

saying: "Forget the 2001 election. Go back to the promise we made in 1996

to sell B.C. Rail." This government gets to skip steps of democracy. Maybe

they would just like to skip election promises too.

So,

according to the Minister of Transportation, she has confidence that this is a

line that is very important for tourism, but she chooses to sell it off rather

than develop what has been part of our history for 90 years, and this

government, in an amendment hidden in a miscellaneous statutes bill, ends it.

Paul Vallee,

vice-president of Tourism Vancouver, says that the closure of B.C. Rail

passenger service will leave a hole in the local tourism market. He said:

"Those services are particularly attractive to Europeans who are used to

rail travel. A lot of European tour companies use them as part of their

itineraries."

Well, to be

fair, the MLA for Cariboo South did care once, but now he's given up. Quoting

the MLA for Cariboo South, "It appears we have run out of time," he

says about saving B.C. Rail passenger service.

So, too,

have the MLAs for Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca. They've run

out of time as well. They must have been heartened to read the editorial in the

Prince George Citizen a few weeks back that noted: "The prevailing attitude

in and around the city is that the Cariboo Prospector and Northwind are too

valuable to see disappear. It's difficult to imagine that" — sorry; they

name them — "the MLA for Prince George–Omineca and the MLA for Prince

George North or any other Liberal MLA supporting this would have said had the

NDP attempted it."

The

government's northern caucus met with these mayors that I'm quoting from on

September 6. The mayors had some hope that the group of Liberal backbenchers

they met with would be able to help. They were wrong; nothing happened. They've

got no one to back them — no one.

Gee, that's

a strong independent voice from the back bench for you. That's the reason why we

have to alter the rules of democracy in this chamber. It's got absolutely

nothing to do with the record of the opposition. We do our job expertly and

well, given our resources. It's the Liberal backbenchers that don't do their

job, and that's what this government fails to acknowledge at every turn. The

people who should be up speaking on these principles sit around us and sit

across from us, and they sit in silence.

Gerry Offet

of the Prince George Development Corp. says the government has not given B.C.

Rail enough time to market the tourism potential of passenger rail to his city.

According to Offet: "This is a class of tourists — Americans, real

money-spending tourists — you only attract if you've got a world-class

facility. What the province proposes to do is take that world-class facility

away from us."

Or how

about councillor Bruce Strachan? Here's what Mr. Strachan said: "I don't

think they did the best marketing, and I think they've been shortsighted and far

too early in their decision. They should advertise it more, give it another

year." Sorry, Mr. Strachan, you tried, and today what this debate is about

is an obituary.

Bit by bit,

B.C. Rail is going on the auction block. First, we have B.C. Rail passenger

service, then we have the spur in the north going to Fort Nelson being

privatized. We have the rail bed being paved over by this government, the Budd

cars are going to be sold next week, the workers have their layoff notice, and

the government continues to try to find a buyer for the run to Fort Nelson and

Dawson Creek — the spur line.

The

high-handedness and insensitivity of the corporation goes on and on and on, but

they have free rein. The B.C. Rail corporation has free rein, because this

government is reneging on its promise to protect B.C. Rail, and they're selling

it off piece by piece.

[1555]

It's

interesting. In downtown Vancouver I ran into a constituent of the member who's

responsible for the town of Lytton. This poor person was in for a doctor's

appointment, and she was in an absolute panic because the only transportation

she has to get to her doctor's appointment is the B.C. Rail passenger service.

It turns out that the Lytton hospital doesn't operate as frequently as it did

about a year or so ago — doctors are leaving — so she has to come to

Vancouver for her health care, and the only way she has to do that is by B.C.

Rail passenger service.

[ Page 3904 ]

I'm sure

that sensitive, downtown-Vancouver MLA the Government House Leader would say:

"Well, maybe there's air service." No, there's no air service, and do

you know what else there isn't? Bus service. There's no bus service either. Oh,

but I guess that doesn't matter. Close the hospital and then take away the

transportation for seniors to get to other hospital services. That's this

government's health care policy, and that's this government's rural policy as

well.

You know,

millions are being made available for the road to Whistler — millions are

being made available — but the poor woman who lives in Lytton, beyond

Whistler, can't even get to Vancouver to her doctor's appointment because this

government shut down B.C. Rail passenger service. What hypocrisy. What

shortsightedness.

There's a

principle. There's a principle that needs to be discussed. Yet who's getting up

to discuss it? Nobody.

Here's what

the Premier said in estimates, March 7, 2002. I was asking the Premier about

what his plans were for B.C. Rail, because I wondered. People were asking for

assurances that he not get out of the business of passenger rail service along

the B.C. Rail line. Here's what he said:

"'The

fact that B.C. Rail may be getting out of the passenger service doesn't mean

necessarily that the passenger service will not be there.' In fact, I think

we have seen an experience where Via got out of the passenger service from

Vancouver to Banff, and that passenger service has been taken up by the

private sector. In fact, it has created more stable jobs, more economic

activity and real opportunities, I think, for many communities along that

rail line."

Well, is that what this government did? Did they ensure that the woman from

Lytton can get to her doctor's appointment? Did they ensure there wouldn't be

layoffs in the tourism facilities along the B.C. Rail line? Did they ensure that

Prince George would still have passenger service? No, they just shut it down.

There is no train carrying passengers anymore along B.C. Rail line. Yet the

Premier, in March of this year, intimated: "Don't worry, you folks. Even if

we do shut down B.C. Rail passenger service, someone else will take it

over." Wrong again. Wrong again.

Let's look

at another principle in this bill: the amendment to the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act. Let's remember the promise of a new era in

openness and transparency in government.

Excuse me,

Mr. Speaker. I'm the designated speaker on this.

[1600]

Well, let's

see what the new era is. It really is an era of concealment and evasion. In

fact, this government, even when it tries to explain itself and tries to

convince people that they're not in an era of concealment and evasion, gets it

wrong.

Section 9 of this bill, Bill 62, will allow cabinet to decide what the

public can and cannot see when it comes to the deliberation of government

committees — not cabinet committees, all other government committees. That's

what the piece of legislation says. Why are they doing this? They're doing it

because the freedom-of-information commissioner slapped the Premier's office

back in July for trying to hide documents produced by a committee of

backbenchers.

Let's just

review the history of those government caucus committees. You may recall that

when the government amended legislation affecting the laws of the Legislative

Assembly, they said: "We're going to have government caucus committees, and

we're going to take the money to pay for them out of the Legislative Assembly

budget." Actually, in all the debate recently around this freedom of

information, people have overlooked the fact that these government caucus

committee Chairs are paid with money out of vote 1 of the Legislative Assembly,

this great Legislative Assembly that sits — because Liberal MLAs are silent

— for a couple of hours a day.

First of

all, we had the creation of government caucus committees where the Chair is paid

out of money that is supposed to serve all legislators — tens of thousands of

dollars. When we raised issues about that, the government said: "Oh, come

on. We're the most open and accountable government. These committees are going

to be going out travelling to have public input. What better way to use

legislators' money?" My colleague and I said: "Well, you know, that

money is supposed to be used for all legislators." "Can we sit on the

committee?" I asked. In fact, they said: "No, you can't sit on the

committee."

Here we

have a government caucus committee chaired and paid for out of vote 1. What is

vote 1? The ordinary public doesn't know it, but it's the vote that's supposed

to run a Legislature and that's supposed to be independent of government —

independent of executive council and independent of government. Again, that

principle has been eroded and buried by this government.

Let's

follow the money. We were told there's a reason to pay these government caucus

Chairs out of legislative money. They're going to travel the province, be open

and accountable, and that's great news. Oh. Let's see. How many months later?

Sixteen months later here we are. Not only are they paid out of the legislative

budget, where the opposition doesn't get to sit on it or have any access to that

money, but now those committee are having the door slammed shut on access to

information about what the committee is doing.

Open and

accountable. Oh my gosh — new Liberalspeak, new era. That's what we like. Take

the money from the Legislature, and then tell the public: "Not only are we

not going to be open and accountable, but we're going to deny you any

information about anything we're doing." That's what this

freedom-of-information legislation does. Even if this government introduces an

amendment to say that this exemption from freedom of information applies only to

government caucus committees, they've reneged on another promise still.

What

electoral reform, what parliamentary reform, has lived up to the promises made

by this government? Not one. I predict the Minister of Management Services will

stand up and claim great credit. He'll say: "Oh no,

[ Page 3905 ]

it's government caucus committees we're trying to exempt from FOI." Then

I'll have the words of the great Government House Leader saying: "No, no.

This is a procedure setting up these committees to make them more open and more

accountable. That's why we have to take money out of the Legislative

Assembly."

[1605]

Then I

remember the Government House Leader saying: "That's the way they do it in

Alberta." Wrong. That's not the way they do it in Alberta, the great guru

of this government. They pay for it themselves, and they're not exempt from

freedom-of-information legislation. I can just wait to see the amendment that'll

be introduced.

Here we

have a situation. Let me just read what the government, the Minister of

Management Services, tried to do when the light of day was shone on this

principle being eroded with freedom of information. The government said — I

love this: "We're just clarifying a decision already made by the

freedom-of-information commissioner." I heard the words: "We're just

clarifying in legislation."

I don't

know. Silly me, I went back and got the decision and tried to see what it was

they were clarifying. Actually, what they were trying to do was reverse a

decision by the freedom-of-information commissioner. That's what they were

doing.

In fact,

here's what the Premier's office said that was not accepted by the

freedom-of-information committee: that they were implementing a committee system

similar to that used in Alberta. I'm quoting from the decision. This is a

cabinet operations senior official making the submission:

"She

deposed that the committees in this new system are created by the Premier's

prerogative. There are five committees, each of which is made up of cabinet

members and private Members of the Legislative Assembly. A member of cabinet

is the vice-chair of each of these committees, while a Member of the

Legislative Assembly chairs each committee. The chair attends cabinet

meetings to present the results of her or his committee's deliberations.

Although these committees were originally called cabinet caucus committees,

the public bodies say these committees are now called government caucus

committees."

I'm quoting

from certain parts of the decision. It's quite a lengthy decision and makes for

very good reading. Later on:

government caucus committee's consideration of a matter includes its review

of 'submissions intended to go to cabinet.' Its recommendations to cabinet

are 'presented to cabinet as minutes and in the reports given by each

chair….' Joy Illington"— who's the senior cabinet official —

"deposed that all private members who serve on these committees take

the same oath to keep cabinet confidences as do cabinet members."

Paragraph

86:

"The

applicant argues that simply calling a committee a cabinet committee is not

enough. He also says the fact that a member of a committee is also a cabinet

member is not enough to make the committee a cabinet committee."

This is the applicant who was trying to get information about these

government caucus committees and couldn't get them. That's the applicant making

that submission. He also submitted that the public body must prove that there is

a clear nexus between the consultation, monitoring and review activities and the

substance of cabinet deliberations before it can be said that the government

caucus committee is operating as a committee of the executive council.

Later on,

at paragraph 89, the freedom-of-information commissioner says:

"The

government has, in the Communities and Safety Committee, created a committee

composed of some Members of the Legislative Assembly who are members of

cabinet and some who are not."

Paragraph

90:

"The

issue at hand is not whether the Communities and Safety Committee can be

created, as must surely be so, but whether it is a committee of the

executive council within the meaning of

section 12(1) of the act."

Actually,

I'm going to walk through this, because this is important, and I'll tell you

why. Unless someone challenges this government every step of the way, they would

be there saying what they're doing now is just a clarification of this decision

instead of admitting that it's a reversal of the decision. I'm hoping, actually,

that the minister has read the decision.

paragraph 92:

"The

Premier's office also relies on the policy and procedures manual published

by the Ministry of Management Services. Among other things, it expresses the

provincial government

interpretation of the act. The government publication,

which is being called in aid by that same government, interprets a cabinet

committee as one including one or more cabinet members."

[1610]

The FOI

commissioner says: "As I have noted in a number of previous decisions, the

policy and procedures manual merely states government's policy on the

interpretation and administration of the act, and it is not binding on me."

Here's a

decision that was made under the Ontario FOIPPA legislation. It talks about the

substance of deliberations of the executive council or its committee and whether

the structure of the committee allows for exemption under cabinet

confidentiality. That decision by Ontario assistant commissioner Irwin Glasberg

said that he rejected the applicability of the cabinet confidentiality exception

on the ground that the committee in question was not a committee of the

executive council.

He said

that in his decision, the group must be composed of ministers where some

tradition of collective ministerial responsibility and cabinet prerogative can

be invoked to justify the application of this exemption. He said that on the

other hand, there are some committees — such as the one they were examining,

which was a caucus committee — that are staff committees which report directly

to cabinet but are not made up of ministers. On this basis, he found that the

agenda in question does not fall within the parameters

[ Page 3906 ]

section 12(1) of the act — i.e., it wasn't a cabinet committee and

didn't deserve cabinet confidentiality.

In fact, he

goes on to say that an advisory committee of non-members of cabinet is not

protected by the Crown privilege relating to cabinet confidentiality. Later on,

at paragraph 95, the FOI commissioner says that cabinet bears its collective

responsibilities and is fundamentally not an amalgam of persons who do and do

not hold cabinet membership. You're either in cabinet, or you're not.

Here's the

nub of the whole decision. It's technical, but it's relevant. It's technical

about democracy and how our system of parliamentary decision-making works. At

paragraph 97:

"Historical

and jurisprudential perspectives, as well as literal and logical

perspectives on the words used in

section 12(1) of the act" — as an

aside, Mr. Speaker, that's what we're amending right now — "viewed in

conjunction with relative provisions of the

Interpretation Act and the

Constitution Act, strongly compel the conclusion that a committee of the

executive council for the purposes of

section 12(1) means a committee that

is composed of members of the executive council. I am not persuaded that,

however desirable such committees may be, it includes advisory committees of

non-cabinet members working together with one or more cabinet members."

He was describing the government caucus committee. It's an advisory committee

and has one cabinet member on it.

"As

I have already said, this does not mean that a committee such as the

Communities and Safeties Committee cannot exist. It simply is not a

committee of the executive council under

section 12(1), and the substance of

its deliberations is therefore not protected from disclosure under that

particular provision. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the purposes set

out in

section 2(1) of the act and by the fact that

section 12(1) is a

mandatory exception embodying the traditional rationale for cabinet

confidentiality, which does not embrace a multitude of advisory bodies with

members who are not members of the executive council or a historical

equivalent."

What does

this government do? How do they clarify that? Really, the decision of the

freedom-of-information commissioner was to say that government caucus committees

are not cabinet committees. They're advisory committees that have a cabinet

member on them, and that doesn't qualify them as a cabinet committee. Therefore,

they're not exempt from the FOI laws — pure and simple.

[1615]

The

clarification that the government does is to amend freedom-of-information

legislation to exempt committees — just committees. That could be anything.

That could mean that if a cabinet member walks through a room and a meeting of a

committee is going on, that committee is exempt from FOI. That's what the

legislation means. But even if this government amends the legislation to say

government caucus committees are exempt from the freedom-of-information

legislation, it still flies in the face of the intent of freedom of information.

Darrell Evans, the premier advocate for freedom of information and access to

information, said it's the worst thing that's happened since the inception of

this legislation.

I can

hardly wait to see the amendment, because the amendment won't be based on any

principle of freedom of information. It will be just covering the tracks to get

to the intent this government wants to do, which is to shut down information on

government caucus committees that were supposed to be the most open and

transparent parliamentary reform we've seen, according to the Premier and the

Government House Leader. They take our money from the Legislative Assembly to

run these committees. They set up these committees, and then they say: "Oh,

we're not letting you have any access to information around those

committees."

Even though

the workload of this government seems to be sporadic, they couldn't even get the

miscellaneous statutes amendment right. They made it so broad and so badly

written that it effectively gives the government the ability to hide everything

it wants, simply by labelling some MLA committees a committee of cabinet.

Do you know

what I could see, Mr. Speaker? It's so funny. When we were having this debate

about the Legislature ten days or so ago in the public…. We were having a

debate about what the heck goes on here. Nobody's speaking up about anything

from the government benches. Some person from the government side…. I think it

was the government Whip. I could stand to be corrected. I'm sure he'll run in

here if it wasn't him, but it was a government caucus MLA official. He said:

"Oh, we debate these issues vigorously in caucus." Yeah, and then

what?

You could

actually interpret this. It's a caucus committee meeting. There are cabinet

members there. Even though they debate it vigorously, if the public went to the

next step and said: "Well, what do you do at caucus…?" "Oh, we

can't tell you. It's exempt from FOI."

Hon. G.

Collins: They already are.

MacPhail: The Government House Leader says they already are. Exactly. That's

the point. Yet the government Whip offers that up as an alternative transparent

and accountable process. The only thing the government Whip had to offer up for

transparency and accountability was their own caucus meetings. The Government

House Leader rightly points out they're secret. They're behind closed doors.

Nobody can find out what's going on about it. Again, a state of confusion reigns

on what the government meant by openness and transparency. A state of confusion

reigns. Well, it actually isn't surprising. It's shocking, but it isn't

surprising.

[1620]

I submit

that when it comes to public scrutiny of the government deliberations, vague

statements, broad-brush strokes are not only wrong, but they're completely

irresponsible. Just like the Lobbyist Regis-

[ Page 3907 ]

tration Act, which hasn't seen the light of day, the act is not to be used to

hide from public scrutiny the activities of government and its members but to

open up those activities to public scrutiny. That's what was promised. I guess

this government thinks it's okay to make a promise and then do absolutely

nothing about it.

The

lobbyist act? We have no idea. Government meets every day with pharmaceutical

lobbyists, construction contractors. Every day they meet with lobbyists looking

for business, and we were told by this government we'd know about that. Lots of

governments actually don't meet with lobbyists, but this government does it

every day, and I'm still looking for the registry. We were promised it in August

of last year. We were promised it in March. We were promised it just ten days

ago.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No, actually, we weren't. No, no, there was dead silence ten days

ago. Just like the lobbyist act that never was, we have a government that

believes they don't have to deliver on transparency and accountability. The

Freedom of Information Act is there to actually facilitate the timely and

appropriate release of government information, something that the amendment to

this act is completely contrary to.

Here's what

others have said about this particular amendment under Bill 62, this amendment

to the FOI Act: It "could potentially prevent British Columbians from

accessing a wide variety of government documents that were previously available

for public scrutiny and deliberation."

"The

Liberals announced in March that the budget of the office of the information and

privacy commissioner will be cut by 35 percent over the next three years… And

now it seems like they have landed the final knockout punch to the Freedom of

Information Act by giving themselves the power to designate what information

they deem unsuitable for public consumption." That would be the Vancouver

Sun editorial, October 11, 2002.

Darrell

Evans, whom I referred to earlier, the executive director of the Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association, says this amendment gives the government

far too much direction. He says: "It's the worst thing to happen to the FOI

Act in a decade."

Let's take

a look at how we arrived at this amendment. I've already discussed the ruling of

the freedom-of-information-and-privacy commissioner on July 26, the ruling that

said the Premier's office incorrectly withheld certain information and documents

produced with regard to the WCB smoking regulations. The commissioner said the

use of

section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to

sever some of the information and briefing notes was incorrectly applied and

ordered that the information be released. But instead of simply accepting this

ruling, the government has moved to expand the use of

section 12 of the act so

as to hide from public scrutiny the deliberations and recommendations of the

government caucus committee.

Let's be

clear. Even though the minister tried to intimate this in a letter to the

editor, the government is not doing this because the commissioner suggested they

do this. They are doing it because they don't like the commissioner's ruling.

They're escaping scrutiny by broadening the law in order to hide behind it. As

the Minister for Management Services suggested in a letter to the editor on

October 16, they're not doing it, as he said, to reinforce the act or the act's

original intent. They're not doing it because the act says the deliberations of

cabinet and its committees must be withheld under the act, and they're not doing

it simply to confirm that government caucus committees are committees of

cabinet.

They're

doing it to hide. That's exactly what they're doing. When this bill was

introduced, the commissioner said this of the addition to

section 12: "Its

use has to be very sparing. The amendment's language is not, as I believe it

could be, specific to government caucus committees and committees such as the

agenda and priorities committee. Any temptation to apply it to committees that

would not generally be acknowledged as cabinet committees must be

resisted."

[1625]

As the

commissioner rightly points out in response to the Minister of Management

Services' letter to the editor of October 16…. I'm sorry. Yes, October 16. The

commissioner in a letter dated October 16 says this: "I therefore do not

agree with you that the proposed amendment 'simply confirms' that the government

caucus committees are cabinet committees. The proposed amendment does not name

government caucus committees or otherwise apply only to them. It could be used

to cover a much broader variety of committees." This takes us to the very

essence of the commissioner's original ruling and the impact of this amendment.

According

to cabinet operations, this is the mandate of government caucus committees. Let

me read it. I'm quoting: "The mandate of each of the five government caucus

committees is, within the subject area assigned to each, (1) to review and make

recommendations to cabinet on policy, legislation and programs; (2) to monitor

existing programs and services through reviews of ministries' service plans; and

(3) to receive public delegations." Again, according to cabinet operations,

all members on these committees take the same oath as cabinet ministers to keep

cabinet confidences, and that was all revealed in the freedom-of-information

decision.

Of course,

as was pointed out in the Vancouver Sun this past Saturday, October 19, the

effect of all of this is to make all members of the government caucus members of

cabinet. Could that be a muzzle? Is that why MLAs don't get up in this

Legislature and defend their constituents' interests? Is it because the only

reason they exist now is to do the government's bidding, that they have the

responsibility — and I use the word euphemistically — to cabinet and not to

their constitu-

[ Page 3908 ]

ents, even though God knows we have enough paid cabinet members? Is that why

we're introducing this amendment? By the way, an amendment to this amendment

that specifically says "government caucus committees" still — still,

Mr. Speaker — reverses an election promise of openness and accountability.

Contrary to

that promise and the assertion of the government Whip that these committees will

provide for the most open and transparent government anywhere, the fact is that

they have produced the most closed government anywhere by imposing the condition

of cabinet confidentiality on the whole caucus. In fact, when you actually ask

for government caucus reports, you can't get them. The northern caucus on oil

and gas — whether to lift the moratorium or not…. Nobody can get that. I

asked the Premier for it in March. He said I could have it. Then later on he

says: "Oops, no, you can't have it." The government caucus committee

that reviewed smoking, which reversed the smoking regulations of the WCB — you

can't get that.

There's a

committee struck on leaky condos. God knows where that report is — missed two

deadlines there. Can't get that information. No one now can get that

information, because it's cabinet confidentiality.

There is a

larger question here as well. Can cabinet, simply by forming a committee, impose

the non-disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act? The answer to

that from the commissioner's decision, as I've already read, says no, you can't.

You can't just declare a caucus committee a cabinet committee and therefore be

exempt from FOI. You can't. Yet that's what this government's doing, and that's

the central issue.

Government

cannot hide its deliberations simply by calling any committee it establishes a

committee of cabinet. This is what the commissioner found offensive. The

government's assertion that the government caucus committees are committees of

cabinet, not because they exercise the prerogatives of executive power but

simply because of their membership, is wrong. It's wrong in the spirit and

intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

[1630]

We know

from our constitutional and legislative history that they are not legitimate

cabinet committees, and no government fiat is a substitute for the

accountability that has hundreds of years of history, constitutionally and from

a parliamentary point of view, behind it.

Including

government caucus committees in

section 12 is certainly not simply reaffirming

the intent of the act or the ruling of the commissioner. Even, as I've said,

when we see this amendment to the amendment, it still fails to acknowledge what

is happening to parliamentary democracy here in British Columbia. It's becoming

more closed, more elitist, and its deliberations are increasingly hidden from

public scrutiny. It may give the cabinet wannabes a sense that they're

contributing, but, in fact, they are being muzzled by this amendment.

I will

pause as I switch to another topic under the principles of this debate to allow

an introduction.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Virender Kataria, who is a

former Member of Parliament from India. He is visiting our province. It's my

understanding he is visiting Canada for the third time, but this is his first

visit to our province. I had the good fortune to meet with him in 1997. I met

with him last night as well, and we welcome him to our province. Would the House

please make him welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: I'm sorry, I was reading my notes. My acknowledgment. Welcome.

I'd like to

move on to the principles of another

section under the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. It's

section 10 of Bill 62, which amends the

Highway Act so as to allow private companies to build and maintain arterial

highways.

As with so

much in this bill, the government is using what are normally inconsequential

amendments ? housekeeping amendments. They're using that forum to actually bring

in huge changes to the way the government operates and, indeed, the way the

public expects it to operate. What a surprise.

In the

spring the government introduced Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, to

allow it to toll major highways in British Columbia. I think we actually had

that bill withdrawn and a new piece of legislation tabled today that, of course,

I expect we'll debate tomorrow. Maybe we'll debate all three stages tomorrow.

Who knows?

Here we

have a piece of legislation under this "housekeeping"

section that

actually needs to be read in context with the piece of legislation that was

introduced only today, and yet we're going to pass it. We're going to pass this

section. Everybody on the government side says: "That's just simply fine.

What's your problem?" "Do your job," says the government to the

opposition. "Do your job. We'll keep introducing changes that are

interlinked to legislation, but stop complaining, opposition, that we're ramming

it through."

[1635]

We have an

amendment to the Highway Act that can only be read in context of a piece of

legislation that was merely introduced today, and yet we're going to pass it.

The government seems to think that's just fine because, gosh, this bill's been

on the order paper — the housekeeping amendments, according to them — for 12

days. "What's your problem? It doesn't matter that we introduced

legislation today that will directly affect

[ Page 3909 ]

that same amendment. What's your problem?" they say.

Well, let's

just look at what this Highway Act change that we're going to ram through today

will be. Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, allowed the government to

toll major highways in British Columbia. Now, I don't recall that being part of

the New Era document, or NED as we like to refer to it — dead NED because the

New Era document is basically meaningless these days except for the pictures of

the MLAs in it. They're all still the same.

Dead NED

breaks promise after promise or has promises broken day after day. Here's one

right here. Well, actually, NED was silent. The New Era document was silent on

tolls, so I guess the minister can actually get up and say, "Well, we

didn't say we weren't going to toll major highways," and she'd be

absolutely correct. Nowhere did they say — the way they did when they said tax

cuts will pay for themselves: "We're not going to toll highways." So

cut them some slack. Silent NED, we'll call it.

So we have

a piece of legislation, Bill 57, that allows the government to toll major

highways in British Columbia. It went out to public consultation. We know that

consultation has not been going well on several fronts. As a result of that

consultation, today the minister withdrew Bill 57 and tabled a brand-new bill.

Now, we haven't debated that bill. In fact, I'll bet you the majority of us

sitting here haven't even had a chance to read it yet. But we're going to pass

this amendment that affects that new legislation.

In fact,

Bill 57, the failed piece of legislation, was blasted by the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. They blasted the government on its ill-conceived plan to sell

off public assets to the private sector and pass the bill for maintenance of

those public assets on to local communities. The Union of B.C. Municipalities

went crazy. But now, with this amendment, it's not only new highways and bridges

that could face tolls and downloading; major arterial routes are about to see

the same fate.

Gosh,

you've really got to keep track. You've got to have a flow chart, because the

government could say: "Well, we listened to the consultation around our

Bill 57, the Transportation Investment Act, so we're withdrawing it, and we're

going to do things differently, the way we pay for our roads and highways."

Meantime, they're ramming through this legislative amendment to the Highway Act

that downloads responsibility for arterial highways onto municipalities.

While the

municipalities are over here worrying about what the new, new changes are on

what they're going to have downloaded, the government's ramming through this

amendment that downloads responsibility for arterial highways. I don't think the

minister spoke at second reading, and I don't think any government MLA spoke at

second reading to talk about the principle of downloading and saying how this

was good — sending that message to their constituents how downloading was good

— but I know there was no consultation with municipalities on this matter —

none.

The

government has distracted the public with all sorts of debate around how we are

going to pay for our public assets, how we are going to build highways. We have

the Premier at the UBCM committing $330 million to the upgrade of the Sea to Sky

Highway and saying the federal government's going to share in that to the tune

of $330 million. It turns out the federal government's share of the whole

infrastructure program for B.C. over six years is $61 million. Oops. More on

that later. More on the bad math of the Premier on how much money they're

getting from the federal government to share in the costs of the Sea to Sky

Highway.

[1640]

We have all

that debate raging, and in the meantime the Minister of Transportation is

ramming through an amendment that says arterial highways will be the

responsibility of municipalities.

What's

another distraction? Well, I hope it's turned out to be a distraction, because

the public has been so outraged at it. The other distraction was the talk of

selling off the Coquihalla Highway. Well, my colleague and I knew what the

reaction would be to that, because the public told us quite clearly it wasn't

on, and we listened to them. We listened to them, unlike this government. When

we explored the idea of getting a private contractor for the Coquihalla Highway,

we actually consulted with the public. We did surveys of the public, and our

MLAs went out and met with the communities and came back to caucus and said,

"It ain't on," so we said: "Fine. It stays as a public

asset."

Not this

government. Some lobbyist comes forward to this government, RBC Dominion

Securities Inc., toting along some people who are going to try to make the same

argument, and this government says, "Oh, good. All right. Yeah, let's do

it, man. Let's privatize the Coquihalla," and not one MLA…. Well, that's

not true. The Speaker of the Legislature spoke up or talked to his constituents

about this and has concerns, because they directly affect his constituents.

So we've

got the public off worrying about the Sea to Sky Highway, knowing full well that

it's going to be a huge drain on any money available for transportation upgrades

or rehab in this province. We've got the public in a panic about this government

selling off the Coquihalla. While all of that's going on, the government's

slipping through this amendment to the Highway Act to rid itself of any

responsibility for major commuter and connecting routes throughout this

province, because that's what an arterial highway is. It's a highway that

touches on our communities, urban and rural, runs through our urban areas, runs

through communities. They're in virtually every community in British Columbia,

designated arterial highways, and this government is now downloading

responsibility for those highways onto the communities which they run through.

This

government defines it as a housekeeping amendment. The Government House Leader

says: "There's no principle here. That's why we won't debate

[ Page 3910 ]

it at second reading." Well, there's a big principle, a huge principle.

Now, why

are they doing this? Why is the government doing this? They promised they

wouldn't download onto the municipalities. That's been a broken promise — over

and over again. I was privileged to hear from mayors throughout the north who

explained in detail the downloading that's already gone on in their communities,

which is affecting their budgets. The government thought: "We've broken the

promise once; let's break it again and again."

Is there

some rational plan going on here, or is it just that they have failed so

miserably in their plans to deliver public services within what the taxpayer has

asked them to do that they now have to offload ever more costs onto

municipalities, which will have to then offload the costs onto the local

taxpayer? The answer to that question is yes. That's exactly what's happening

here.

[1645]

Is there

any rational plan to see whether a public-private partnership can even work in

these circumstances, or will the municipality have to increase their staff to

maintain these arterial highways, or will they have to increase taxes? No,

government doesn't maintain any public discussion around public-private

partnerships. It says: "Gosh, we've got to get out of this business quick

because we haven't got any money. Our tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, it

turns out, so now we have to find a way to get somebody else to pay for our

arterial highways."

There are

lots of people who have given the government free advice on not maintaining

highways in the public context, in moving it to public-private partnerships. The

B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association says it ain't on. The

Consulting Engineers of B.C. say it ain't on. Jock Finlayson and the B.C.

Business Council say public-private partnerships can't work in this province.

They don't

care what the mayors have to say about this. The government prefers to ignore

the analysis of Standard and Poor's, who have noted that in the vast majority of

cases private contracting of highways does not work.

What's the

government doing in this amendment? They're saying to municipalities: "You

figure out how to manage these arterial highways. Over to you now. We're not

going to give you any solutions. We're not going to help you there. It's your

responsibility to figure out how to maintain these, to allow private companies

to build and maintain arterial highways."

It's very

interesting. The government may fail at public-private partnerships around

building and maintaining arterial highways. What the mayors say is: "These

arterial highways are part of our community. You can't just eliminate a road

from our transportation system inside our community. If the Liberal government

fails, we have to pick up the s