British Columbia Hansard — Monday, April 26, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (h0426pm-04) (h0426pm 04)

h0426pm-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, April 26, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

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

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

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

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

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, April 26, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10425 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 10425 Ernie Burnett V.

Roddick Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10425 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10425 College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26) Hon. S. Bond Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27) Hon. G. Abbott Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 33) Hon.

M. de Jong Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 34) Hon. R. Thorpe Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10427 Second-language programs in B.C. R. Lee Legislative internship programs K. Krueger Forest fire control and prevention B.

Bennett Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10428 Employment transition services for sex trade workers J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen Studio program for at-risk youth J. Kwan Hon. S. Hagen Skilled labour shortage H. Bloy Hon. S. Bond B.C. Rail–first nations benefits trust P. Nettleton Hon. G. Plant Marijuana grow operations in rental housing R. Stewart Hon. R.

Coleman Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10431 Coal Act (Bill 28) Hon. P. Bell B. Bennett D. MacKay B. Lekstrom Hon. P. Bell

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10436 Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act (Bill 14) Hon. J. Les T. Nebbeling J.

Kwan Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10441 Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act (Bill 14) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10441 Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 24) B. Lekstrom Hon. J.

Les Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10442 Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 24) Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10442 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. Kwan Hon. M.

Coell Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10468 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation Hon. K. Falcon J. MacPhail

10425 MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 The House met at 2:05 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. J. Les: On behalf of my colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I am pleased to introduce to the House this afternoon 21 grade 12 students from the Mount Cheam Christian School in Chilliwack. They are here to observe the Legislature today and, hopefully, leave at the end of today slightly more educated and impressed with how the Legislature works. They are here with their prin- cipal, Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk, and three other chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. P.

Bell: It's a real pleasure today to introduce to the House my administrative assistant, who is nor- mally very capable, competent and fast. However, yes- terday she tried to take

part in the Times Colonist 10K run, and things are happening somewhat slower around the office today. I would ask that the House please make Melanie Hughes very welcome. P. Wong: In the gallery today we have a group of nine visitors. They are the senior government officials from the Guangdong provincial government pursuing a one-year MBA degree at the UBC Sauder school of busi- ness.

The group members are Huazhong Lu, general manager and professor, Technological Development Co., South China Agricultural University; Wenping Huang, division chief, the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Guangdong Province; Liansheng Liu, dean of the insurance faculty, Guangzhou College of Finance; Dehao Li, director and associ ate professor, department of science and technology, Maoming University; Chao- qiu Liu, associate professor, head of Education Technol- ogy Centre, Guangdong Radio and TV University; Xiaosheng Wu, deputy department chief, education and culture department, overseas Chinese affairs office of Guangdong Province; Jian Zhang, public procurator, deputy director of legal policy research office, the Peo- ple's Procuratorate of Guangdong Province; Shiwen Luo, deputy executive, People's Government of Lianping County, Guangdong Province; and finally, Haohai Chen, deputy dean, department of foreign languages, Guang- dong Polytechnic Normal University.

Would the House please make them most welcome. Tributes ERNIE BURNETT V. Roddick: I rise today in sadness, yet celebration — celebration of a life well lived. Ernie Burnett, alder- man and mayor of Delta from 1979 to 1987, died peace- fully at Delta Hospital on Saturday evening. Ernie was a man who not only gave selflessly to his community but also had an enormous respect for public office and all that it entails. His belief in and support of public service consistently contributed to the betterment of Delta and, subsequently, our province.

We give thanks to his families for so graciously sharing him with us over the years, and I ask that this House join me in giving Ernie Burnett a well-earned round of recogni- tion and appreciation. Introductions by Members Hon. T. Christensen: It's my pleasure to introduce four constituents of the member for Powell River– Sunshine Coast. These are four students in that area. What makes them exceptional students is that they are all mothers as well. Would the House please join me in welcoming students Amanda Mason, Frances Raci, Chelcea Devlin and Amanda Rogers.

They are accom- panied by their youth care outreach worker Debbie van Dok and their teacher, Terri Thompson. Would the House please make them all welcome. J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Linda Irvine. She is a high school teacher-librarian in Nanaimo, and she is h e r e i n V i c t o r i a t o d a y o n a p r o - D d a y . S h e i s a l s o t h e mother of our very able intern, Sara Irvine. Accompa- nying Linda, as well, is he r other daughter, Melanie. Would the House please make them welcome. J.

Bray: Hazel Mitchell, who works in the Premier's office, advised me that joining us in the House today is her father, John Mitchell, who is actually a constituent of mine, as well as her brother David Mitchell. [1410] Also joining us in the gallery today is a visitor from England, Anne Cason. Hazel wanted me to make it very clear that not only is Anne a tourist here to Victo- ria for the next six weeks, but she is also Hazel Mitchell's nana. I would as k that the House please make them all very welcome. Hon. R.

Thorpe: After working for seven years in the legislative building, a key member of my office staff, Caroline Mawbey, is joining the House to see it live for the first time. Would the House please make Caroline very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled College and Insti- tute Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S.

Bond: Two statutes currently govern public colleges, university colleges and institutes in British

10426 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 Columbia: the College and Institute Act, which governs colleges, university colleges and provincial institutes; and the Institute of Technology Act, which governs the British Columbia Institute of Technology. This year the British Columbia Institute of Technol- ogy celebrates its fortieth anniversary as a unique and integral part of B.C.'s post-secondary education system.

It has been a truly remarkable journey for the institu- tion, growing from a single campus in Burnaby in 1964 to a world-class polytechnic institution boasting five campuses, 12 satellite locations around British Colum- bia and more than 48,000 students. A s p a r t o f a l a r g e r r e v i e w o f B . C . ' s p u b l i c p o s t - secondary system legislation, it was determined that there was some overlap between the Institute of Tech- nology Act and the College and Institute Act. BCIT has been consulted during the legislative review.

These amendments will not substantially affect its operations, and BCIT supports their passage. Amendments introduced today under the College and Institute Amendment Ac t, 2004, will repeal the Institute of Technology Act and place BCIT under the College and Institute Act to eliminate unnecessary du- plication that currently exis ts between the two acts.

At the same time, the College and Institute Act will be amended to streamline public post-secondary educa- tion legislation, clarify th e discretionary powers of boards and provide them with the autonomy and flexi- bility that better reflect their roles and range of respon- sibilities, and formalize recognition of BCIT's unique role and mandate as a public polytechnic institution. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce Bill 27, the Agricultural Land Co mmission Amendment Act. This bill reflects government's commitment to expedite treaty settlements with firs t nations.

Amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act enable first nations who are involved in treaty negotiations or who have signed treaties to apply directly to the Agricul- tural Land Commission to change land uses of treaty settlement lands within the ag ricultural land reserve. Currently, first nations are re quired to obtain the ap- proval of local governments before applying to the Agricultural Land Commission. [1415] These amendments will facilitate treaty negotia- tions by enabling first nations to determine with cer- tainty the land use restrictio ns for potential treaty set- tlement lands.

Having a clear insight into what activi- ties can occur on those lands will provide first nations with important information before they decide whether to ratify a treaty package. Post-treaty, first nations will have the same abilities and obligations as local gov- ernments for the purposes of making agricultural land reserve applications on land s within their treaty set- tlement lands. First nations will be required to provide public notice and, where requ ired by the regulation, to hold a public hearing for proposed changes within the agricultural land reserve.

These obligations are similar to those that apply to local governments and landown- ers currently. Treaty settlements will encourage investment within the province by providing greater land use cer- tainty and will contribute to the economic well-being of first nations and all British Columbians. I am pleased to present this bill in the House today. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 H o n . M . d e J o n g p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled For- ests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 33 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 33 is the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. The bill makes amendments — many of them housekeeping in nature, but several sub- stantive amendments — to the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Forestry Revitaliza- tion Act.

Some of those amendmen ts include amendments which speak to successorship rights of contractors and subcontractors where tenure transfers are involved and the conditions under which parties to those transfers may contract to waive replaceability. The compensa- tion provisions of the Forest Act — in particular, sec- tion 60 and

part 13 — and the Forestry Revitalization Act have been harmonized to provide a consistent means across those acts to fairly compensate licensees for government actions that affect their rights. As well, this legislation makes amendments to the Forest and

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10427 Range Practices Act to clarify obligations in several key areas. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 H o n . R . T h o r p e p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Gover nor: a bill intituled Pro- vincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Thorpe: Bill 34 proposes a number of amendments to the taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. These amendments are proposed to ensure fairness, equity and clarification fo r taxpayers, to provide efficiencies in the tax administration and revenue collection process, and to align the provincial in- come tax provisions with those of the federal Income Tax Act.

The bill proposes amendments to 12 acts: the Cor- poration Capital Tax Act, Hotel Room Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Land Tax Defermen t Act, Logging Tax Act, Mineral Land Tax Act, Mine ral Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Property Transfer Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Taxation (Rural Area) Act and Tobacco Tax Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments dur- ing second reading of this bill. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SECOND-LANGUAGE PROGRAMS IN B.C. R. Lee: Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the annual general meeting of the British Columbia Heritage Language Association. This organization represents over 150 organize d language programs in British Columbia which offer instruction in interna- tional language education — languages other than English or French. More th an 35,000 students are cur- rently enrolled in international language programs across British Columbia.

Over 1,000 instructors are involved in teaching these languages in our commu- nity. [1420] With the 2010 Winter Olympics on the horizon, we are once again preparing to welcome the world to our beautiful province. Isn't it nice that British Columbians can give our visitors a warm welcome by conversing in their own languages?

In fact, our youth are learning many languages in our community, including Am- haric, Armenian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Dari and Pashto, Farsi, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japa- nese, Khmer, Korean, Kurdish, Nepali, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Sinhalese, Spanish, Swedish, Tag- alog, Tamil, Fanti, Ewe, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. International language education programs provide young people with opportunity not only in learning a communication skill but also in intellectual, social and cultural development.

Many governments recognize the advantages of a multilingual population in eco- nomic development and the importance of second- language education. Alberta has just confirmed its commitment through a provincial education policy that mandates second-language education for all students from grade 4 to grade 9. British Columbians must rise to accept this chal- lenge. I believe that we already have the advantage of a large multilingual population.

All we need to do is expand on this advantage by implementing a strong second-language program in our school system as well as supporting the community-based language educa- tion programs. LEGISLATIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS K. Krueger: Today I have the privilege of ac- knowledging two nationally renowned internship programs. One we have right here in B.C.; the other is a few hours south, in Olympia, Washington. Many of our colleagues were themselves part of the provincial internship program at the genesis of their careers in the public service.

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, the member for Chilliwack-Kent, Richard Overgaard, Martyn Brown, Tom Syer, Jessie McDonald, Jay Schlosar, Sarah Bonner, Jennifer Erickson, Milan Pavlic, Robert Parker, Jonathan Fershau, Jerry Muir and Marc Coward all benefited tremendously from the ex- periences and opportunities afforded to them by the program and draw on those in their service to British Columbians while working here in the Legislature.

Established in January '76 by the three major uni- versities in B.C. at the time, the current program is now advised by four of the outsta nding universities in B.C. — UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC. Our six-month intern- ship program offers an oppo rtunity to university grads to supplement their academic training by observing the daily workings of the Legislature firsthand and to pro- vide MLAs with additional assistance during the par- liamentary session.

With a six-week stint in a provin- cial ministry, lectures by independent officers and po- litical figures, week-long visi ts to the constituency of- fices of MLAs, and educational trips and caucus as-

10428 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 signments to either the government or the opposition, our program provides ten bright young minds with a unique perspective of the Westminster system at work. As part of the program exchange at the end of Feb- ruary, the B.C. interns were hosted in Washington by the interns in Olympia, a numb er of whom are visiting us today. I understand our interns were made to feel very welcome as both the Wa shington State Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions in their honour.

Every year 60 Washington State under- grad interns go to Olympia during the winter quarter or spring semester to work with staff and members of the Washington State House of Representatives or Sen- ate. The Washington internship is a widely respected program for American university students. Educating youth and prepar ing them for the future is a meaningful undertaking for any government. We are pleased to share this common goal with our neighbours, as we also share a myriad of aspirations and objectives.

I wish to thank Karen Aitken and Jenni- fer Horvath of B.C. and Judy Best and Joan Elgee, the Washington State intern pr ogram coordinators. These internships would not be possible without their contri- butions. Would the House please join me in recognizing these programs and the work of coordinators and the interns with us, both past and present. FOREST FIRE CONTROL AND PREVENTION B. Bennett: When setting up the Filmon review, the Premier committed government to a no-holds-barred review of the 2003 fires. I personally took Mr. Filmon out to show him the buildup of fuels in our Rocky Mountain Trench forests. Mr.

Filmon subsequently made various recommendations, and the Premier has said that we will meet all 42 recommendations. [1425] One of Mr. Filmon's key recommendations is to do more prescribed burning to safeguard our communi- ties. We should remember that it took many decades of fire suppression to create the challenge of too much fuel in our forests and that the remedy will not be completed in one season. I am happy to report that in the Rocky Mountain forest district this spring, we did more prescribed burning than at any time in history and probably set a provincial record — over 3,000 hec- tares burned.

This isn't cheap. One series of four burns of 484 hectares cost $72,355. Another series of three burns of only 286 hectares cost $71,780. On one day the local Forest Service personnel, under the very capable supervision of Greg Anderson, safely burned nine square kilometres, which is a one-day record and an awesome accomplishment for the Forest Service in the Cranbrook office and all their contract workers and certified volunteers. But while this controlled burning will reduce the risk of wildfires, the public must be vigilant. A disturb- ing story is emerging out of Cranbrook.

Police are in- vestigating an arsonist who is deliberately starting bush fires in the interfac e between the community and the forest, and if he's not stopped, these fires could result in the awful devastation we saw in areas of the province last year. Most of this spring's forest fires have been caused by people, not nature — though most, no doubt, were accidents. We are heading into what looks like another very dangerous fire season. It's important to remember that fire prevention and fire safety are everyone's responsi- bility.

Homeowners in the interface should be taking action now to protect their homes and their properties. Please, let's all be careful with fire — more careful with fire than we were last season. Let any forest fires we have in 2004 be caused by nature, not people. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION SERVICES FOR SEX TRADE WORKERS J.

MacPhail: According to a confidential question- and-answer document prepared for the Minister of Human Resources, British Columbians with mental health conditions and serious drug problems that inter- fere with their ability to search for and accept employ- ment will have their benefits taken away if they don't look for work. The minister says it's all about helping people. He's writing letters to the editor to tell every- body to stand down and not worry.

But he doesn't mention that his government is clos- ing doors on innovative programs designed to get young people — many who have drug, alcohol and mental health problems — off the street. At the end of April, WISH, a non-profit society on the downtown east side, is losing a $125, 000 provincial grant to pro- vide pre-employment programs for sex trade workers, many of whom have mental health and addiction is- sues.

To the Minister of Human Resources: how can he justify cutting employment programs that get people off the street and into schoo l, into work, when the gov- ernment is demanding that they look for work as a condition of receiving assistance? Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to point out to the member that since the Gordon Campbell government was sworn in on June 5, 2001, this government has spent $300 million on job training programs for various indi- viduals.

In the meetings that I've had with advocacy groups and other groups, they make it very clear to me that the people they represent actually do want to become en- gaged in the community. They want to be trained and they want to work. Research is clear that for people with temporary mental illness or an addiction issue, being involved in an employment program is very helpful to them. With regard to the specific issue that the member questioned about, that

part icular group was duplicat- ing services offered by anot her group. We fund PEERS in Vancouver, who are able to take up….

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10429 J. MacPhail: Did you actually talk to them? Hon. S. Hagen: I have met with PEERS, as a matter of fact. They are going to be able to deliver the pro- grams that are necessary for those clients. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has another question. J. MacPhail: That shows just how out of touch this Minister of Human Resources is with the answer he just gave. WISH does not compete and is not a duplica- tion of PEERS at all.

In fact, WISH has been a very suc- cessful downtown east side program supported by a wide range of governments, including Social Credit governments and NDP governments, and this gov- ernment just cancelled its pre-employment program. They claim they want to help people get jobs, but they're taking away the supports to help people get the life skills and confidence they need to find and main- tain employment. [1430] According to ministry officials, this minister's offi- cials, the B.C. Liberals have decided that funding drop- in centres for at-risk youth is no longer a priority — their own briefing documents.

The government's guidelines for funding say that community-based out- reach programs for high-risk youth should get minor emphasis. Apparently, prog rams that focus on out- reach and prevention are no longer worthy of govern- ment support. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, time for the question, please. J. MacPhail: To the Minister of Human Resources: can he confirm that drop-in centres for at-risk youth are getting the axe, and can he tell us how much this mean-spirited move is adding to the government's bot- tom line so that it can pay for its failed high-income tax cut? Hon. S.

Hagen: I can tell the member opposite one thing and one thing for sure. This government is not going to give up on the people who need the help the most just because they have some barriers. Our pro- grams are put in place not just… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor. Hon. S. Hagen: …to spend money. They're actually put in place to achieve results. We actually want to help those people achieve their potential. Every human being out there has potential. We want to make sure that our clients, particularly, are able to reach that po- tential through the programs that we have.

I know the member is pretty focused on Vancouver. I'd like to remind her that we just announced a $3.25 million Vancouver agreement, which is going to de- liver some of those services as well. However, having said that, the program that she's talking about was a duplication of a program that we are presently fund- ing. STUDIO PROGRAM FOR AT-RISK YOUTH J. Kwan: The minister and this government are cutting programs that are successful and that help people in the community, and the minister knows it. Let me give the minister another example.

For 17 years the Studio has been helping some of Vancouver's most vulnerable and troubled young people get their lives together. For these young people, the Studio is a life- line providing a safe, caring atmosphere away from a hard life on the streets of the downtown east side. For many, the Studio is the difference between a life on the streets and a life of learning, work and opportunity. The program costs the province $60,000 a year, but the Premier has cut the funding, and now the Studio may have to close its doors.

To the Minister of Human Resources: what is wrong with the Premier's pr iorities when he happily spends $600 million on a highway to Whistler but won't spend $60,000 to help youth find a way off the streets? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. Hon. S. Hagen: I want to say to the member oppo- site and to all of the people of this province: nobody cares about the people in th is province more than the Premier. The member opposite is focused strictly on dollars of expenditures. We're actu ally focused on outcome. We're focused on how people's lives can be changed for the better.

I was at a graduation ceremony this morning out at Camosun College on a job-track pro- gram. Thirty people took that program, have gradu- ated and are now looking forward to being in the workforce. They had three people there who graduated from the program prior to this, who gave testimonials about how their lives had been changed for the better because of these programs. We examined every program to make sure that the program is delivering what it's intended to deliver. In the case of this one, it was duplication. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question. [1435] J.

Kwan: The minister is completely out of touch. The Studio has been successful for 17 years and has lived through several administrations. Why? Because it provides much-needed programs for youth at risk. The

10430 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 cost to fund the Studio is less than half of one deputy minister's salary. It is less than the cost to taxpayers to keep Bob Virk on staff until the police concludes the investigation into the B.C. Rail raid. The Studio, the Picasso Cafe and other innovative, successful programs are closing their doors because this Liberal government can't see the value in giving hope to at-risk people. I ask the Premier. These programs are critical. We cannot afford to lose them. On behalf of the young people, will the Premier today announce that he…? Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member has the floor. J. Kwan: T o t h e P r e m i e r , o n b e h a l f o f t h e y o u n g people: will the Premier announce today that he is re- versing this government's mean-spirited cuts to drop- in centres as a first step — restore the $60,000 funding to the Studio so that it can keep its doors open to at-risk youth? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. S. Hagen: I would ask the member opposite: what is wrong with an expenditure of $300 million, since we became government, to help people change their lives for the better?

Wh at's wrong with designing programs that really work for people, where there's a positive outcome, where people's lives are changed for the better? This government is committed to make sure that the programs that are delivered are actually pro- ducing results that will work for the people who are the clients of this ministry. SKILLED LABOUR SHORTAGE H. Bloy: My question today is to the Minister of Advanced Education. There have been many reports to date from the construction industry about the looming shortage of skilled workers in this province.

The con- struction sector will need thousands of jobs to complete the Olympic projects between now and 2010, and in my riding of Burquitlam there are many projects going on that will require additional workers. But I consider this a good-news question. It certainly shows that the fi- nancial direction that the Premier of this province has put us in is working. We are creating jobs. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burquitlam has the floor. Please ask the question now. H.

Bloy: However, with this good news, can the minister please tell us what she's doing to ensure that we'll be able to attract and train enough workers? Hon. S. Bond: Well, the good news is that there is a boom in terms of building and particularly in housing starts in British Columbia. We have a plan to be able to begin to deal with the shortage of workers in this prov- ince. In fact, the Industry Training Authority is working hard to create a system that's responsive and reacts quickly. In fact, we have a plan in place to see an increase in workers of 30 percent over the next three years.

The great news is that our numbers are up. In fact, we have institutions creating new sections all the time. Just recently we invested an additional $800,000 to reduce wait-lists so we can accommodate the number of appren- tices that are registering in our programs. We're on our way to meeting the needs that are evident in the province. B.C. RAIL–FIRST NATIONS BENEFITS TRUST P. Nettleton: Surprise, surprise.

First nations are now responding to the disco very that they've been manipulated by this government, in particular by the Attorney General, into accepting piecemeal the benefits trust fund, not realizing that it was falsely being tied into the promotion and validation of the B.C. Rail sale. Now the Attorney General and the Premier have pushed aside the Minister of Transportation in order to defend the indefensible. Today's opinion piece released by the Attorney Gen- eral on this issue is not disclosure but misinformation.

Even before this release was out, a growing list of first nations were withdrawing from the rail benefits trust initiative. This included the Tl'atz'en nation, who in a letter to the AG dated April 22, 2004, stated: "Until full and complete disclosure of the agreement and the oppor- tunity to understand the implications of the sale, we for- mally withdraw our support to the benefit trust fund." [1440] Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, time for the question now. P. Nettleton: My question is to the Attorney Gen- eral.

How long will the AG and this government con- tinue this subterfuge and backward dance with the truth? When will this government lay all the cards on the table, come clean and deal honestly with first na- tions and indeed…? Interjections. P. Nettleton: You know, the laughter on the gov- ernment side of the House…. Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the time has long since passed for the question. P. Nettleton: And so it is for this government. Hon. G.

Plant: I am confident that every member on this side of the House could get up and speak pas- sionately about the work that we've done as a govern- ment to improve the lives of aboriginal people in Brit- ish Columbia and about the opportunity presented by

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10431 the first nations–B.C. Rail be nefits trust proposal to put $15 million into 25 different first nations communities. We have been consistent throughout. Back in February, when I wrote to the 25 first nations, I said quite clearly that the trust does not invo lve aboriginal rights and title and related consultation and accommodation. Par- ticipation in the $15 million trust will not have any conditions related to assertions of rights and title. We've been clear from the outs et that this is an oppor- tunity for first nations.

I am confident that the majority, if not nearly all, of the 25 first nations will participate in the opportunity presented to them — more good news for rural British Columbians. MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS IN RENTAL HOUSING R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In my riding the city of Coquitlam, along with a number of other municipalities in the lower mainland, has in troduced bylaws that im- pose upon property owners the duty to ensure that their rental homes do not become grow ops.

I own a rental property, and as the minister no doubt knows, the task of a landlord to monitor a pr operty to keep it free of illegal activity is very difficult. What is this government doing to assist property owners in identifying grow ops? Hon. R. Coleman: On January 1 we brought in a new Residential Tenancy Act in this province, which allows a landlord, without arbitration, to inspect their property once a month if they have a rental property. That's a huge breakthrough for that community, because obviously it takes more than a month to grow a grow op.

We also gave them the power to evict for illegal activity. In addition to that, we also have B.C. Hydro monitoring and a relation with police on the education. The B.C. Real Estate Association actually recently added to their property condition disclosure statement that you have to disclose if there's ever been any illegal activity, like a grow op or drug labs, in your property. Along with mu- nicipalities, we continue to find the tools that will assist those people found in those circumstances. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members, we'll be beginning the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In this House I call second reading of Bill 28. [1445] Second Reading of Bills COAL ACT Hon. P. Bell: As I announced during first reading, under the Coal Act, government issues coal licences and leases for the exploration and production of Crown-owned coal. The amendments introduced in this act deal with eliminating overlap and duplication and simplify the administration of coal tenure.

The changes we are introducing reduce regulation and cre- ate a modern, simplified system for acquiring and holding coal rights. I want to stress that this government will continue to uphold and maintain the same strong environmental regulations and guidelines, safeguards, and health and safety standards that the coal industry has long been noted for in this province. Let me be clear on one sp ecific change.

With this bill we are removing from the Coal Act a duplicate provision that already exists under the Park Act, which prohibits exploration, deve lopment and production of coal in provincial parks or heritage sites unless author- ized by a park use permit from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Th e duplicate existed in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection under the Park Act and continues to remain there. There is no change with regards to explor ation extraction activities of coal in parks.

Further, the two-zone land use system that is cur- rently in place for hard-rock minerals is also being es- tablished in this act for coal. The two-zone system recognizes that parks and other protected areas are off- limits — I repeat, off-limits — to development. I will go into a bit more detail on that in a moment. The amendments in this bill support government's commitment to substantiall y reduce the regulatory burden for the industry, prov iding a secure, consistent coal tenure system.

The ne w act will see the elimina- tion of 49 regulatory requirements, representing a 34 percent reduction in red tape overall for the benefit of both industry and government. Several streamlining changes will delete unnecessary requirements that are duplicated by other statutes or processes, and I've al- ready identified one of those. Policy changes introduced by the amendments in- clude removal of the requirement for a free-miner's certificate. Coal tenure is applied for through a map selection process, not staking.

The access rights pro- vided by a free-miner's certificate are not required for coal exploration purposes. The free-miner's certificate was simply an unnecessary burden to the coal industry and government, and with this act that is being de- leted. In addition, we're remo ving the requirement to provide core samples. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, coal core deteriorates over time and has a limited use- ful life; thereby the storage of coal core makes little sense. Government still has the authority to require submission of other technical data such as electronic logs and geological reports.

Both government and in- dustry will have significant savings in both shipping and storage costs through this change. Removal of holding leases by this act as well, al- though the minister may, on application, transfer the sole existing holding lease to a lease or licence…. There is one existing holding lease. In the past, a coal licensee

10432 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 was allowed to apply for a holding lease if production from the applicant's locati on demonstrated the coal production was not feasible at that point in time. Al- though only one holding lease currently exists, this provision is potentially open to abuse and could lead to a hoarding of coal rights. The owners of the sole hold- ing lease have been consulted and will have the ability to apply for a coal lease or licence. In addition, as I said ea rlier, we are incorporating the wording to reflect the two-zone land use system for mining.

The two-zone land use system that is currently in place for minerals is also being established for coal. The two-zone system recognizes that parks and pro- tected areas are off-limits — and I repeat, are off-limits — to development. The incorporation of the two-zone system in coal legislation will provide more certainty for the coal industry by confirming an operator may apply for permission to do work and have applications adjudicated on their own merits anywhere outside of parks and protected areas. [1450] In addition, we are also providing in this act for flexibility in the size and shapes of licences.

These changes will allow industry more flexibility in the size and shapes of their licence s. The minimum size for a coal licence will be about 65 hectares, depending on what latitude you are in the province, and the maxi- mum size for an individual licence will be approxi- mately 1,700 hectares. The current size limit under the old act would allow for up to four units, which was 260 to 340 hectares, so this really should simplify the process of acquiring coal licences and reduce the amount of paperwork involved.

The grid used to describe licence locations is the same grid that is currently used for petroleum, natural gas and geothermal resources and will be used for minerals in the future, as is noted in another act that has been introduced in this House. Several of the changes will mean savings for indus- try and government through less red tape. Certainly, a good example of that is the deleting of the free-miner's certificate. I t ' s a v e r y e x c i t i n g t i m e i n t h e c o a l i n d u s t r y r i g h t now.

There has been an incr edible resurgence in coal markets throughout the world led by the Chinese mar- ketplace in particular, but also India and Japan. There was recently announced by the Pine Valley Mining Corp., a new mine just south of Chetwynd. It's the first new coalmine to come on stream in many, many years. I know many of the members in this House have interests in various coal properties in their particular ridings and really would love to see more activity in the industry. We get calls on a regular basis from con- stituents who are looking for coal.

The member for Burnaby North recently sent me an e-mail looking for contacts in the industry, which we will gladly pass on to the Mining Association of B.C., identifying some of the key coal tenure holders in the province. There is a huge need for coal, which has largely been as a result of what's been taking place in China over the last num- ber of years. We are definitely support ing the coal industry. We know that it is key for us. The member for East Kootenay will be speaking in a little bit. His riding is largely dependent on the coal industry and has cer- tainly done very well by it over the years.

We want to invite the coal industry back to British Columbia. It was clear through the 1990s that they were not wel- come here. We saw that as mine after mine after mine closed in British Columbia, Australia's coal industry was expanding, growing, developing and taking over the markets that we had once controlled. I'm glad we're able to make this change for the coal industry. It is key. Certainly, Tumbler Ridge is one of those communi- ties that will benefit in a big way from the changes we h a v e m a d e i n t h i s C o a l A c t .

T h e m e m b e r f o r P e a c e River South and I visited Tumbler Ridge about three or four weeks ago. There was a community there that used to be 5,000 or 6,000 people, which is now just a shadow of its former self, but they are excited about what's happening at Pine Valley. They are excited about what Western Canadian Coal is going to do with the Wolverine project. They 're excited about the possi- bility of Quintette maybe having another look, and then there are many other proj ects in the area that can be developed. I think there's an exciting time in front of us.

In rewriting the Coal Act, we consulted very closely with those holding coal tenure or wishing to acquire tenure. I make no apology for that. I believe that as a government, we need to consult with the people who wish to be in the business and ensure that we are com- petitive on a global basis. Th e coal industry is a global industry. There are coal resources around the world, and the coal industry will go to where the friendliest regulatory regimes and best taxation regimes are. We need to be competitive on a global basis in order to attract them to the province.

I look forward to passing this legislation and dem- onstrating our government's firm commitment to pro- moting investment in mining and to building a strong economy for all British Columbians through the provi- sion of this enhanced certainty for industry. I am pleased to move second reading now. B. Bennett: It's my honour to stand up and support the Coal Act, introduced by the Minister of State for Mining.

It came to my atte ntion earlier today that I almost missed the opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation, and had that happened, I might not have been able to return home. [1455] First of all, I guess, it's not major legislation, but it's legislation that just goes one step further to make it a b i t e a s i e r t o d o b u s i n e s s h e r e i n t h i s p r o v i n c e . I t ' s r e - duced 34 percent of the red tape in the previous legisla- tion. That has to be a positive thing. It's also incorpo- rated the two-zone land use system for mining, which is important to the coal industry.

The coal industry in the East Kootenay, obviously, is an entrenched industry that has done very well, con- tinues to do well and has a 50-year plan ahead of itself.

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10433 On the other hand, there are possibilities for additional coal operations around the province, and for those new operations, these changes to the Coal Act will be quite beneficial. It will make it a lot easier for them to do business in B.C. and, hopefully, will encourage them to invest their money and to create jobs here, because that's what this is all about. Coming from an area where coalmining makes one of the two largest economic contributions in the region, I can say without hesitation that the coal industry has been good for B.C.

In British Columbia we don't use coal a lot. We use it a little bit in our concrete plants. We send most of it offshore to places like Japan. Japan has been our historical export destination. We're also, as the Minister of State fo r Mining indicated, sending more and more coal to China, with their burgeoning economy. For the most part, coal has gone out of the province to Asia and, to some extent, now to eastern Canada and also to the U.S. Other jurisdictions, on the other hand, like Alberta have coal — not as high a q u a l i t y o f c o a l a s w e h a v e h e r e i n B .

C . , b u t t h e y d o have large reserves of coal — and they tend to use that coal to generate jobs in their own jurisdiction. I think that in the future here in British Columbia, we really do need to put our minds to ways that we can use this very abundant resource, this very high- quality coal, to export — exporting is great; the money comes back to the province; it helps pay for education and health care — but we also need to find ways to use that coal to generate some value-added opportunities right here. The production of electricity might be one example of how you could use that coal or the coal tailings.

In the East Kootenay, in the little communities of Elkford and Sparwood and Fernie, there are 2,600 di- rect jobs in the coal industry today, and the company, Elk Valley Coal Corp., is appa rently beginning to hire more. Those 2,600 direct jobs in the industry average $82,000 a year in salary and benefits. I never get tired of saying that. It actually boggles the mind to think that in a small, far-flung rural area like the East Kootenay, you can have a mass of high-paying jobs like that. When we think about rural B.C., I know we hear sometimes that it's suffering, and some areas of the province are suffering.

It's been a challenge to get the forest industry back on its feet after the decade of de- cline. I think we are getting there in that regard. In the areas where we've had a strong mining presence, like the Elk Valley and like this coal industry, they have actually done reasonably well. Thank goodness we've had that industry in this province. People have had money to buy some toys like ATVs and snowmobiles and half-ton trucks. People have had money to take holidays. It really adds to the quality of life for rural British Columbians when they've got these kinds of jobs to depend on.

I am unabashedly a promoter, and an enthusiastic promoter, of coal industry jobs. I know that the coal industry pays a lot of money to the pro- vincial government and to the federal government in terms of taxes. Of course, those taxes go to pay for health care and education. [1500] As the Minister of State for Mining indicated, the coal industry around the world is in a period of expan- sion. Right now the five mines in the East Kootenay are going full tilt.

They have a guarantee from Canadian Pacific Railway that at least six trains a day, seven days a week, will go from the Elk Valley out to the port in Vancouver. Actually, they have enough market right n o w t h a t t h e y c o u l d p r o b a b l y d o u b l e t h a t i f w e h a d more rail lines. So transporta tion infrastructure does become a bit of an issue for them and for us. There's more coal there. There's more coal that could be sold. We just need to find a way to get it to market.

Then, of course, there are the undeveloped coal zones in the province up in the northeast in particular and, I think, some north of Prince George and actually some very high-quality coal north of Prince Rupert in the Skeena region — so lots of opportunity out there. Apparently we have about 100 years of coal potential in the province in terms of the known reserves and, I'm sure, much more that we don't know about. As long as the coal is taken out of the g r o u n d i n a w a y t h a t i s r e - sponsible…. Certainly, I think the Elk Valley in my rid- ing is a perfect example of how that can happen.

They've been mining coal in the Elk Valley for 100 years. In fact, two of the largest mines are located very close to both the Fording River and the Elk River. Both of those rivers are pristine rivers with wonderful cutthroat fishing in them. They're just as good today…. In fact, many of the old-timers will tell you that those rivers are better fishing today than they were 30 years ago. The coalmines are located in close proximity to both those rivers. It can be done. I think that's an im- portant point to make.

Coalmining is a responsible industry, and it can be done in a way that does not have an unsustainable impact on the environment. Having used this opportunity to talk about this Coal Act and the changes made by my colleague, I will just close by saying that this is not the last that you'll hear me speak of coal. D. MacKay: I am pleased to stand up today and support second reading of the Coal Act amendment, 2004. I guess I should probably qualify myself as stand- ing up and speaking on behalf of the coal industry.

I grew up in a small coalmining town in southwest Al- berta — a small place called Mercoal; c-o-a-l spelled at the back end of it. Obviously, it was a small coalmining town. My father worked underground for a number of years until we left Mercoal in 1957 and moved to Hin- ton. The coalmine provided a good-paying job for my father, and I went to school with a number of children. T h e o n l y i n d u s t r y w e h a d i n t h a t s m a l l t o w n o f M e r - coal was coalmining. When the mines closed in 1957, it was a bit of a shock to us.

We had to leave the town I grew up in as a youngster because the demand for coal worldwide had dried up, and nobody was interested in buying coal anymore. I'm pleased today to be able to stand up and sup- port the amendments to the Coal Act in British Colum-

10434 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 bia because of the demand for coal once again. That's great news for the coal industry across this country, but in particular B.C. Because I represent the riding of Bulkley Valley– Stikine, and it is such a gr atefully endowed part of the province in mineralization and coal…. I can remember when I first went to Smithers back in 1981. There was a small coalmine that had just closed at the small village of Telkwa. The miners' hats were still hanging on the racks; their tags were still there. It looked like it had just shut down the day before.

I can remember taking my father there, and we walked through the old coalmine shack that contained all these old relics from the coalminers. It was a bit of a reawakening for me to realize that that's what my father and my grandfather both had done. They were both involved in the coal industry in Alberta before the mines closed. So it's certainly an honour for me to stand up and support these amendments. When we look at the increase in coal prices to- day…. That's what's driving the demand for coal worldwide. In order to be able to meet the demand….

W e h a v e t h e c o a l r e s e r v e s h e r e , b u t w e h a v e t o m a k e changes. We had to make changes to attract the in- vestment dollars to take the coal from the ground, and we've done that with this piece of legislation. Getting rid of 49 regulato ry requirements actually reduced the regulation by 34 percent. One of our com- mitments as government was to reduce red tape and regulation to attract investment dollars back here, and we're doing that. This is a good step in the right direc- tion.

We're also supporting the objective of promoting investment in mining — not just coalmining but gold- mining and coppermining. All those things are seeing a big resurgence in this province, and it's because of some of the changes such as the Coal Act amendment before this House today. [1505] The two-zone system had to follow. It was a natu- ral, because the coalmining community also has to know where they can look for coal, where they can't look for coal. These changes clarify that and exemplify which areas they can't go in.

Parks and protected areas, as the minister of state has stated, are out of bounds for the mining industry. There's no argument there; it is understood. So when they go out and start looking for coal reserves, they know wh ere they can't go. That's good news. The requirement to have a free-miner's licence didn't make a whole bunch of sense for the coalmining industry. I mean, it made sense for the hard-rock min- ers, because they needed that licence to be able to go on private property and search for minerals. You don't do t h a t w i t h t h e m i n i n g i n d u s t r y .

I t i s a l l d o n e b y m a p selection, and that's another step in the right direction to simplify things, to make the administration process to acquire a coal tenure simple and easy and to reduce the red tape and cost for the mining industry. We have done so much. I've got two coalmines in my community, in the riding — one being Telkwa right on the CN main line that runs from Prince George through to Prince Rupert. It is a natural fit.

We should do what we can — and the minister of state is doing what he can — through changes such as this to make sure that coalmines like the small coalmine at Telkwa reopens again and creates employment opportunities for families. Families who rely on those good-paying jo bs from the mining indus- try will once again surface in that small community of Telkwa. It will provide jobs for families. It will create employment opportunities. It will provide a tax base for the community as well. A little bit further north in the riding that I repre- sent is a place called the Klappan coalfields.

It's a huge coal deposit, and it's situated on the old B.C. Rail line that runs through there. It is estimated there is about 2.5 billion tonnes of coal in the ground there. With the coal prices on the rise again, the people who own that tenure are looking very seriously at opening that pit. They're also talking to CN , and once the ink is dried on the contract between B.C.

Rail and CN, I suspect the owners of Klappan Coal will be talking to CN once again to look at extending the rail line up to the coal- fields, to move the coal by train down to Prince George and back out through Prince Rupert, which is the near- est saltwater port for them. So I am really pleased that the minister has finally introduced some amendments to reinvigorate the coal industry. As I said, growing up in a small community of coalmining towns, I went to school with young chil- dren that went into the coal industry.

I suspect that had the coalmine stayed open lo nger than 1957, I probably would have followed in the footsteps of my grandfa- ther and father. I myself might have been underground working in the coalmines, and I'm glad in some senses that the coalmine actually closed down when it did. Interjection. D. MacKay: I probably would have. The member has suggested I may have made more money had I stayed in the coal industry , and that's probably the truth. I am pleased to be able to stand here and support the Coal Act amendments as introduced by the Minis- ter of State for Mining. G.

Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Hogg: We're very privileged today to have a number of people present from Whale House in Surrey– White Rock. They are a number of bright, interested and interesting individuals who have taken the bus over here to Victoria today, and they've had a tour of the building. I just met with th em and heard a number of good, positive questions about government and the way the government functions. David was their tour guide, and they tell me he did a marvellous job. Would

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10435 the House please give a thunderous ovation and wel- come to the people from Whale House. Debate Continued B. Lekstrom: It is my privilege today to rise in the House to support Bill 28, the Coal Act, as presented by my colleague from Prince George North, the Minister of State for Mining. In the minister's comments earlier he talked about the riding of Peace River South, which I'm extremely proud to be from and represent, and coal is a big issue for us in the northeast part of our province.

Tumbler Ridge has faced some very beneficial times as a result of the coal industry and likewise faced some significant challenges when those mines decided they had finished their job there and had left. The bright spot is that with th e changes that the minister has talked about today in the Coal Act and the new focus on the coal industry in British Columbia, we see new mines interested in opening up in the northeast part of British Columbia. [1510] It is an extremely valuable resource. I think it has been overlooked in many cases as a dirty resource, when in fact it isn't.

The technology has advanced to- day to the point where we can burn coal virtually as clean as natural gas. I think that's an important point for all British Columbians and people around the world to recognize. The issue really — about being able to go out and look for coal, the tenure issue — is one of the two-zone issue, which I think is vitally important. It's a go or no- go zone, however we'd like to refer to it.

If we have somebody that's prepared to invest in our province and go out and look for coal, we aren't going to, as a gov- ernment, allow them to go through that process, find the coal they need, spend millio ns of dollars to get it to a point where they can come to government and say, "We now want to extract that resource," only to be told by a government: "You may have spent millions of dollars, and you may have put many years of work into this, but having found it, we're now not going to let you take that coal out of the ground." The Coal Act lays it out cl early.

If you're going to invest in our province and look for coal in one of the zones in which you're allowed to explore for coal, then should you be successful in finding that coal, we're go- ing to allow you to extract it, put people to work and allow them to make money and raise their families, and benefit not just the communities but the entire province. This bill streamlines our administration of the coal tenures, which I think is vitally important to the com- mitment we made to the people of British Columbia, which was to make doing business with government easier.

We're going to do that while at the same time maintaining our environmental standards in British Columbia. I think we're known around the world for our strong environmental standards and how we ex- tract our resources in British Columbia and how those resources work for all of us. We're going to maintain those high standards. I can't say enough about wh at this bill means to the northeast part of our province and in particular two communities in my region, Tumbler Ridge and Chet- wynd. Chetwynd is set to benefit greatly from a new coalmine being implemented in our region, as well as Tumbler Ridge.

Not only do these communities benefit but also the communities in the entire northeast. We have workers that will re side anywhere. They will commute to these mines, they will work, and they will s t a y i n c a m p if t h e y h a v e to. They bring that revenue back to the communities, they spend that money there, and they raise their families there — all at the same time as having a quality of life second to none. There's going to be a lo t of discussion, I think, through the committee stage of this bill. I believe it's about 34 sections long. Many of the sections, I think, are long overdue.

They lay out an easy path for people who are interested in this industry and this resource to approach government, to go out into the field, to ex- plore, to find this resource and to extract it. I'm very proud to be here this afternoon, on behalf of my con- stituents of Peace River South, to stand in support of Bill 28. Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 28, the Min- ister of State for Mining closes debate. Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very pleased to see that we clearly have unanimous consent of the House today.

Everyone who has bothered to take the opportunity to speak to this wonderful act has agreed with it, so I think that's very, very encouraging — to see that all 79 members of the Legislature are in full support of this act moving forward into the twenty- first century and allowing ourselves to tap into that wonderful natural resource that is coal. Certainly, the opportunities are fabulous for us all — 2,600 direct jobs, as the member for East Kootenay identified earlier in his

part icular riding. That is a sig- nificant number of people. The average salary is $89,900 per year — the highest average salary of any industry in British Columbia. It's one of the safest heavy industries — in fact, the safest heavy industry — in British Columbia. Mining has an incredibly safe re- cord. I was fortunate just a few weeks ago to attend the Quinsam coalmine, which is located in Campbell River. It's the only underground coalmine that still exists in Canada.

That particular mine, although it's not a big mine, competes on the safety awards levels with all of the open-pit coalmines, which are clearly — one would think — safer that an underground coalmine. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to tell you that the Quinsam coalmine has gone two years without a re- portable accident — an underground coalmine over two years without a reportable accident. It is an in- credibly safe operation and in fact much safer than many other industries that people work in today. [1515] Coal can be a safe industry. It's a very productive industry.

As we identified earlier, a large number of

10436 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 employees make a high level of salary. I'm looking forward to a much-expanded industry as a result of this very positive, simplified act. We need to develop what the member for East Kootenay identified in his riding and was expanded by the members for Peace River South and for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. There are certainly many other locations around the province that have tremendous coal resources.

We've already heard that coal can be burn t in a very clean manner, similar to that of natural gas, so it is a great source of energy for us as we move forward through the twenty- first century. I want to congratulate the members that chose to speak to this bill today, but I especially would like to make note of the member for East Kootenay. He has been a tremendous advocate for the coal industry for as long as I have known him, and I think he's really brought the issues of the coal industry to the fore- front for all members of this House.

In fact, I recall that this member for East Kootenay once gave all the members of this House a chunk of coal for Christmas one year. Interjection. Hon. P. Bell: Twice — pardon me. He twice gave us a chunk of coal for Christmas. He has been a tremendous advocate for the indus- try. I think the industry sh ould recognize that they have someone who is eager to make things positive for the industry and to bring it to the forefront. I would also like to congratulate all the members of the mining task force. They ca me to us with a series of recommendations.

We're gradually pulling those recommendations forward and moving them to the point that we have a successful mining plan. This piece of legislation, I think, is a clear commitment to the min- ing action plan that we'll be bringing forward and to all the members of the mining task force. We took the work very seriously in carrying it forward. I'm pleased with the results that this act will achieve for us. I think it is very, very good news going forward for the economy of British Columbia. It will help us fund the health care system and education sys- tem that all of us so desperately desire.

With that, I am pleased to move second reading of the Coal Act. Motion approved. Hon. P. Bell: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 28, Coal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. J. Les: I move consideration by the House at committee stage of Bill 14. Committee of the Whole House VANCOUVER TOURISM LEVY ENABLING ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; K. Stewart in the chair. The committee met at 3:19 p.m. Hon. J. Les: With me today from the ministry is the assistant deputy minister, Doug Caul, and from the staff, Francesca Wheler. On

section 1. T. Nebbeling: I have a number of questions on the bill. I hope that with the answers the minister will pro- vide me, I can find a reasonable level of comfort with this bill. I should say to th e minister that an introduc- tion of a tax on tourism businesses is something that, in principle, I have no problem with. [1520] As the minister is aware, as part of how Whistler got together…. We introduced an organization similar to Tourism Vancouver, which was then called the Whistler Resort Association and after that became Whistler One.

One of the tools to finance that operation was indeed through a form of taxation on the existing business community that was created in the new town centre, where 85 percent of the busine sses resided. So I clearly support the direction of getting more revenue to pro- mote Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area and the province as a whole through this kind of taxation. However, one of the questions I was asked by — of all industries — the restaurant industries had to do with the title, and that is the Vancouver tourism levy.

It is specifically on the word "tourism." One of the con- cerns expressed by the restaurant association is that many of the members in the greater Vancouver area do not cater to the tourism industry but to local business. How can businesses that are outside the traditional tourism area, like downtown Vancouver, be safe- guarded so that they would not have to charge an ad- ditional levy or tax — whatever that levy is, and we will be talking about it later — that would only really apply to the local customers? Hon. J. Les: Just a technical matter. I'm not sure exactly which

section of the bill this refers to, but I will answer. The Chair: We're dealing with

section 1. T. Nebbeling: I meant in the title. The Chair: Just for clarification, members, the title is the last item we bring up. We're dealing with

section 1 of the bill. Hon. J. Les: I'm certainly happy to answer the ques- tion. The member's concerns are well founded, frankly,

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10437 in that the restaurant and food services industry is composed of many different classes and is very diverse not only in the services and types of services that are offered but also geographic ally very diverse and dis- persed. It will be the challenge for Tourism Vancouver to craft an approach that caters to those restaurant businesses that specifically benefit from the tourism industry. I quite agree th at perhaps some, perhaps many of them, do not.

If Tourism Vancouver were to attempt to approach a majority of restaurants and food services industries that in no way benefit from the tour- ism industry, I suspect that it would be flatly turned down in terms of the process of gaining the assent of those to be levied. There will be a careful balance re- quired on behalf of Tourism Vancouver to ensure that it fine-tunes a proposal to that segment of an industry that does indeed directly benefit in a real way, as well as apparently from the tourism industry. [1525] T.

Nebbeling: The minister is saying that part of the structure that the levy or the tax ultimately will have as its body of operation will include geographical areas that could be targeted for this introduction of that levy. How does that work? When I see the minister introducing in the defini- tions the fact that this bill, although it is Tourism Van- couver, will apply to the greater Vancouver area — almost the region of the GVRD, which means the ter- rain of other tourism organizations like Tourism Rich- mond, Tourism Surrey, Tourism Burnaby….

I find it a little difficult to understand what the minister is say- ing, unless he tells me that this is actually going to be done on a geographical basi s rather than an overall coverage of the lower mainland. Hon. J. Les: I think there are some pretty clear ex- planations to meet the member 's concern. First of all, although the bill in several cases refers to the greater Vancouver area, any tourism-related business outside of the city of Vancouver can and may opt in as a con- tributor to this tourism levy on a voluntary basis.

There is no ability for Tourism Vancouver to demand or in any other way include any of the tourism-related busi- nesses from outside of the city of Vancouver. It's got to be optional on behalf of the business located outside of the city of Vancouver. Secondly, in terms of those businesses that are lo- cated within the boundaries of the city of Vancouver, it is quite open to Tourism Vancouver and the various associations within the city to further subdivide the city on a geographical basis. For example, you could include the downtown peninsula and no other part of the city of Vancouver.

I use that only as a very rough example. I hope that clarifies the matter for the member. This is very much a case of allowing as much flexibility as possible so that the levies , when collected, are from businesses that truly do benefit from the major expan- sion of the tourism industry t h a t w e f o r e s e e i n t h e years ahead. T. Nebbeling: Okay. Let me think. In consultation with organizations like the restaurant association or the taxi associations, whatever they're called…. Tourism Vancouver is mandated to have discussions with these groups together on side.

Does that mean that if the restaurant association, for example, says, "Well, the geographical area along the waterfront from Victoria right up to Stanley Park going into English Bay, Bur- rard…." So that whole area, Robson area, the down- town area…. All the restaurant s fit in there. That's the target area for the levy. The restaurant association goes to the membership, and the membership is asked how they feel about this levy. That will lead to my next question, the levy itself.

If the membership says no, if 75 percent of the member- ship says, "Listen, we're not going to add more cost to the bills," for whatever reason, is it done? Is it dead? Or are there then other mechanisms for Tourism Vancou- ver to still go after that sector? Hon. J. Les: In the hypothetical example that the member posed, where 75 percent of a certain group were to vote in opposition to a proposal by Tourism Vancouver, clearly the measure would not be able to proceed.

The bill does make several references to the fact that these decisions must be made democratically, and certainly a large majority voting in opposition would mean that the matter would end at that point. I think the next question was: what then? Simply, Tourism Vancouver would have to reassess the pro- posal it had put forward — I would suggest undertake some significant consultation and fine-tune and re- submit something that perhaps would have the sup- port of at least a majority of the intended businesses in terms of the new levy that was proposed. [1530] T.

Nebbeling: Well, it's interesting, because nine months ago the restaurant association was approached by the B.C. and Yukon Hote ls Association group, and they actually made a proposal to the restaurant associa- tion to initiate a tourism tax on top of the bill to use for exactly the same purpose th at Tourism Vancouver is talking about. I know, after having talked to the presi- dent of the organization, that the suggestion that was lobbied with the membership went up in flames. So, it is not the first time this ki nd of a process is being un- dertaken or considered.

I think one of the reasons the restaurant industry in general spoke against this levy was that this was an idea that came from a group, an association, without r e a l l y c o n s u l t i n g b e f o r e t h e y c a m e u p w i t h w h a t t h e idea entailed, what the levy was. People said no, and I think that in a sense Tourism Vancouver, with our en- dorsement, is doing exactly the same.

I have called a number of associations over the last week, asking: "Have you been contacted by Tourism Vancouver to discuss this potential good idea?" None of them had actually had a phone call or a meeting discussing what it is. The on e big question that, at the end of the day, will still be here is: what is the levy? We

10438 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 know that in

section 4, every potential business that has any connection with the tourism industry is tar- geted for participation. But nobody knows what the levy is. One of the more prom inent leaders in this asso- ciation said: "I feel like jumping in a funnel, and I don't know where the hell the end is." Not having had any negotiations or discussions with the stakeholders for buy-in, I believe we will have the same result that the hotel and motel association experienced. One of the things that I find strange is that…. The definition of levy here says: "'levy' means a levy pre- scribed under

section 4." So "levy" means a levy that we can impose on a number of different businesses. It doesn't give me the definition. I don't know what you have in mind or what the tourism industry has in mind. Is it a flat fee annually? Is it 3 percent on top of the bill? Is it based on square footage? I don't know. But I do know that Tourism Vancouver has already stated they expect $6 million to $8 million in revenue from this levy annually. That's a big chunk of dough.

It is something that I think should have been part of this bill as a direction so that people can truly, up front before we pass a bill, say: "We believe in this, we can see this as a good thing, and we will participate in it." Can the minister explain to me why "levy" really has not got a definition that explains what the levy is? It just says that the levy can be a charge on certain businesses, but it is not a proper definition. [1535] Hon. J. Les: In response to the questions from the member, I would point out, first of all, that the bill does not impose any levies on anyone at this time.

It is sim- ply legislation that enables levies to be negotiated be- tween Tourism Vancouver and various tourism indus- try sectors in the city of Vancouver. The key word there is that these levies are to be negotiated and then adopted democratically. Clearly, if you consider the various types of tourism industries, what is appropriate as a me chanism in the hotel indus- try, for example, may not be at all appropriate for the taxi industry or the restau rant industry or other tourism-related industries.

Every industry has a differ- ent revenue structure, and I' m sure operators in these various industries also have different wishes as to how they might contribute from their businesses to the marketing of tourism opportunities in Vancouver. The fact that there isn't a specific definition as to what a levy is in each of the specific sectors of the tour- ism industry is quite deliberate, because this is a matter that is, frankly, better left to the discussions and nego- tiations between Tourism Vancouver and the tourism industry as opposed to an imposition that would be foisted upon them by us here in Victoria. T.

Nebbeling: I don't think I can agree with the minister, and the reason is, as I said before, that we are not inventing the wheel. Our tourism association that promotes British Columbia is given the tools to finance these promotions. We are not inventing the wheel be- cause it has been done. I was part of the resort association creation and how they were given exactly the same tool that we are doing here…. The Whistler Resort Association act is very spe- cific on (

a) how the taxation is constructed and (

b) how the people that pay for this or who collect these levies from the visitors play a role in how that money is being spent by their representation on the board. In Whistler, for example, the hotel sector has a seat on the board. So does the commercial sector; so does the chamber of commerce. Th ere are only, in total, eight members. The way that money is collected is de- scribed in the bill; how the money is being spent is con- trolled by those that actua lly pay the levies. The asso- ciation, because of that mechanism, has been able to convince everybody to be on board.

As a matter of fact, it is mandatory in Whistler for a specific business area. I think you can be prescrip tive in bills like this. It tells people exactly what is going to happen, and it also shows how they're not walking into a situation…. What I'm really worried about here, as well, is the situation of taxation without representation, because I don't know how the members from the businesses that will be paying are going to have a voice on the board that is meaningful.

Right now, I think the tourism board has spoken a couple of times to them, but there are always about 35 or 40 directors, and I don't know how they elect them. Once you start putting a tax onto businesses to pay for the operation, then I thin k it is not only that Tour- ism Vancouver has to look at how they convince peo- ple to participate in this program, but they also have to, in a democratic way, make sure those that pay these levies, these taxes, have a say in how it is being used or how the promotion will work.

I regret we don't have that clarity and that transpar- ency because I think it would be a lot easier to sell to these various business groups, and I think the end result is that you are going to have many more people buy into this. That is my reaction to what the minister said, but I believe some other members have some questions. J. Kwan: My questions actually just follow up on some of the issues the member for West Vancouver– Garibaldi has raised. [1540] On the question around the levy. The question was put to the minister in term s of how much the levy is.

The minister said he doesn't know and that Tourism Vancouver will sort of go through a process and set that themselves. On the question relating to this bill — which was a question I asked of the minister during the estimates debate with the ministry — and that is: how much does the ministry anticipate this bill, with this new levy, will bring in? If the minister doesn't know exactly what the l e v y i s , d o e s h e h a v e a n y a n t i c i p a t i o n o f h o w m u c h money is to be brought in by this bill? Hon. J.

Les: In response to the question from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I am not able to give her any estimate of the amount of revenue that is

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10439 g o in g t o b e ra i s e d a s a re s u lt o f th i s l eg i s l a t io n . Th at is going to be a matter for negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and its membership and the tourism sector in the city of Vancouver. I woul d assume generally that if Tourism Vancouver puts forward collaborative propos- als that receive broad support in the tourism commu- nity, the revenue could be ve ry significant.

If on the other hand they fail to consult and fail to devise intelli- gently thought-out proposals, then frankly there could be very little revenue raised as a result of this legislation. Certainly by supporting this legislation, I make no representations as to how successful Tourism Vancouver is going to be. That ball is in Tourism Vancouver's court, as well as in the court of the tourism sector generally in the city of Vancouver. J. Kwan: According to newspaper reports, the an- ticipation is that they will receive somewhere between $6 million to $8 million with respect to the levy.

I would have thought the minister would have had some sort of calculation here, especially as this bill is actually spon- sored by the minister. In terms of how that process might work — even some legwork in terms of early con- sultation with this levy — one would have expected that the minister would have ha d discussions with Tourism Vancouver. Tourism Vancouver, in turn, would have had discussions with its membership around this, as the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi had alluded to.

It is kind of perplexing that here we have a bill be- fore us, but the minister has no idea how it is going to flow on the ground that would impact the people. Yet it is here in legislation, and we are debating the matter. None of that consultation, it appears to me, has been done. That's, quite frankly, strange — t h a t n o n e o f t h i s work has been done, and the minister doesn't have any information with respect to that. The levy that is expected, though, and the language which this bill is using with respect to the application of the levy and so on….

It is not clear how the levy will be charged as an example. Just to use one example for which we know a levy is in place in the tourism sector, that would be the hotel tax. It is very transparent in that format. It is actually out and open and is stated clearly in the bills that one gets. Is it anticipated that the levy that would be charged under this bill would be as transparent as the hotel tax, o r w o u l d i t b e s i m p l y b u r i e d i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e product that is provided? [1545] Hon. J.

Les: I want to reassure the member that there is going to be good transparency and accountability back to the tourism industry in the city of Vancouver. There is a requirement in the bill that audited financial state- ments be produced annually and that those be provided in the form of an annual report back to those same busi- nesses to which any levy might apply. J. Kwan: Is there any requirem ent, though, in this bill where the public would know, if a levy is applied, how much that levy is for a particular service or a par- ticular product?

Coming back to the other closest ex- ample I could think of — the hotel tax — if one goes to stay at a hotel, you get your bill at the end. It actually shows the hotel tax at 2 percent and what the amount is. So the customer knows, in other words. Is there a requirement for that level of transparency so that the consumer knows what they're paying for? Hon. J. Les: The answer to that question is that it will not necessarily be automatically noticeable by the public in terms of what the levy is in any particular sector.

That is because the question of how the levy is to be collected and at what point in the transaction or in the business cycle the levy is to be collected is a mat- ter of negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and the business sector. There may be some businesses, for example, that simply agr ee with Tourism Vancouver that each of their businesses will pay X amount of dol- lars once a year towards the marketing campaigns of Tou rism V ancou ver. In that k ind of case, t here wou ld not be a levy on each transaction with each member of the public with which they do business; it would sim- ply be a flat fee.

I use that only as a hypothetical exam- ple, but that is quite a pl ausible example of how this levy might apply in some situations. [1550] J. Kwan: There could be a difference then, in terms of how different businesses might apply the fee. In some cases, if a business chooses to pay the fee at the end of the year, they may not explicitly say they're charging their customers this amount of levy on the cost of the product or service they are providing, although it is very feasible.

I would assume that those businesses would roll the fee into the cost of the service or the product they are provid- ing to the customer. The customer would not know ex- actly where all the fees lay — you know, where the price breakdown is — that would incorporate the levy…. But in another instance a business owner could choose to be explicit and transparent about it. They would collect their levy with the product or the service which they provide to the customer, and then in the bill it would explicitly say that there is a levy charged.

Is that what the minister is saying — that it could vary from business to business depending on how they operate? Hon. J. Les: I should underline again that the struc- ture of these particular levies is going to be a matter of negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and the vari- ous tourism sectors. My ex pectation would be that you're not going to see very much variation in terms of how a levy is collected within the different sectors of the tourism industry.

There is likely to be considerable vari- ety from sector to sector, bu t I think once a sector has agreed with Tourism Vancouver that they will contrib- ute — I am making an assumption, and I believe this is the correct assumption — there is going to be unanimity and a common approach within each of those sectors. J. Kwan: It is clear when the hotel tax is applied how much is added to your bill as a result of the hotel

10440 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 tax. Then it is out there. Why not put in a requirement so that the levy that is charged would be transparent in the services or the product that is being provided, no matter what sector? You know how much is going to GST, you know how much is going to PST, you know how much is going to the levy, and you know how much is going to the product or the service itself. You have a complete breakdown of the cost of whatever it is that the consumer is buyi ng.

Wouldn't that be a bet- ter way of ensuring that th is information is out there publicly — for the consumer's consumption, most im- portantly? Hon. J. Les: I guess it depends to a certain degree on how you look at this. The way we're looking at this legislation is that this provides for the industry a way to generate marketing money.

I'm sure that many — if not all, in fact — of these businesses today are already expending a lot of money on marketing their industry and their individual businesses. [1555] So this is marketing money, and I'm not sure that at the end of the day it makes a lot of difference whether there is another line item th at purports to show how much these businesses are expending on the marketing of their industry or their individual business.

I think, again, we have agreed with Tourism Van- couver that they need to adopt a sector-by-sector ap- proach to generate additional marketing money, given the vast opportunities that are before them in the next five to six years. This should, if properly executed by Tourism Vancouver and their stakeholders, as I'm sure they will…. This simply is going to generate additional marketing money. Although the consumer has some interest in terms of how much money these businesses are spending to market themselves, I'm not sure that's an overriding interest of the consumer. J.

Kwan: Well, while it may not be of great concern for the government whether or not the levy is laid out for the consumer's point of view, I would think that it is an important piece of information for the consumer or cus- tomer. I'll tell you, when I go to a hotel, those bills add up. You do want to see ho w it all breaks down and where the costs are coming from — especially in this instance, where you have Tourism Vancouver's levy ap- plied only in this region but not in other regions. There is a competition question, as well, for the consumer's in- formation.

You know, it's basic information that I would think is important in terms of it being required to be bro- ken down for the consumer's point of view. I would disagree with the minister that maybe con- sumers don't want to know. I expect they would want to know where all the fees are coming from and why a certain product has a particular cost. People generally w a n t t o k n o w t h a t k i n d o f t h i n g .

E v e n a t r e s t a u r a n t s now, aside from the tax costs, it also breaks down — if you drink liquor, the liquor tax, as an example — so that you actually know from your restaurant bill how all the pieces are broken down and then how it all adds up at the end of the day. I f t h e c a s e i s s u c h t h a t a s w e k n o w f r o m t h i s b i l l , Bill 14, the levy is to apply to a marketing campaign, how much additional tourism revenue and how many more tourist visits does To urism Vancouver anticipate will result from the marketing campaign that this levy would finance? [1600] Hon. J.

Les: Just as I said a few minutes ago, I can- not speculate with any accuracy as to the amount of levy revenue that will be generated by this bill and by the various agreements that Tourism Vancouver might achieve between itself and its stakeholders. By the same token, I can't speculate very accurately how much additional tourism revenue might be generated as a result of the spending of that additional levy revenue. However, we all know that there are some huge opportunities available to the tourism industry in the lower mainland and, specifically, in the city of Van- couver.

We will be starting construction very soon on the new trade and convention centre, which will triple the number of people that can be hosted at conventions in the city of Vancouver. If properly marketed, which I'm confident it will be, and backed up by appropriate additional marketing and support by Tourism Van- couver, I think we are perhaps setting the stage for a major success for all members in the tourism commu- nity in the city of Vancouver. Again, this legislation was deliberately not in- tended to be prescriptive. It was brought forward at the request of Tourism Vancouver. It is enabling in nature.

It is very much going to result in agreements reached on a voluntary basis between Tourism Vancouver and its stakeholders, democratically decided. It's industry- driven, which I think is, again, preferable to imposition from Victoria. J. Kwan: What is the breakdown now in terms of the activities in each of th e different sectors in the re- gion with respect to lo cals versus visitors — that is, those from outside of th e community? What percent- age are locals, and what percentage are out of the coun- try, out of the province, et c.? Does the minister have any sense…? Hon. J.

Les: I'd like to respond to the member's question. However, we do not have that information accurately available this afternoon, but I would cer- tainly undertake to make that information available as soon as I can locate it. J. Kwan: I'll tell the minister why I asked that ques- tion. Depending on what th ose numbers look like, is there any consideration or any possibility for this con- sideration where the levy would apply…?

If the idea is to bring tourists into the province to spend their dol- lars, and so on and so forth, and if this money goes into the marketing of it as well, is there any potential for the levy to apply only to tourists — therefore not to locals, as an example? Are there such opportunities for the application of that levy?

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10441 Hon. J. Les: I think the answer to that question is fairly evident from what I've said earlier. This would clearly be a matter of negotiation between Tourism Vancouver and the individual sectors. There are clearly going to be some sectors that benefit more than others from increased tourism presen ce in the city of Vancou- ver. Whether that's related di rectly to specific increases in tourism revenue or in tourist numbers, again, that's going to vary from sector to sector.

In some cases that's much more easily calculated than in others. [1605] Therefore, I can't be much more specific than that today, other than to say those who are in the business of tourism probably know bett

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0426pm-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0426pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	af7555ae30774f77f2506dc26673f67ec80bb2e1

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