2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Safety Standards Act (Bill 19)

Hon. G. Abbott

Safety Authority Act (Bill 20)

Hon. G. Abbott

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Hon. G. Abbott

Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 25)

Hon. C. Hansen

Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26)

Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Economy in B.C.

P. Bell

Tourism in B.C.

I. Chong

Protect Our Schools campaign

K. Stewart

Oral Questions

Eligibility review for disability benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

Marijuana grow operations legislation

R. Nijjar

Hon. R. Coleman

High school graduation rate of aboriginal students

B. Belsey

Hon. C. Clark

Development of coalbed methane resources

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Neufeld

R. Lee

Hon. S. Bond

Eligibility review for disability benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2002

Standing Order 35 Motion

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Hon. J. Reid

J. MacPhail

I. Chong

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17)

Hon. R. Coleman

Museum Act (Bill 2)

Hon. G. Abbott

J. Bray

S. Orr

R. Stewart

I. Chong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. G. Hogg

J. MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)

[ Page 5551 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today in the galleries I'd like to acknowledge some very special

guests. Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, today has been proclaimed Tourism

Ambassador Day. In the galleries today are the recipients of the first annual

Tourism Ambassador Awards presented by the Council of Tourism Associations to

individuals from each region of British Columbia who have shown outstanding

dedication to their jobs and outstanding contributions to growing the British

Columbia tourism industry.

[1405]

First of

all, I'd like to introduce Nicole Fransen, representing the Thompson-Okanagan

region, from Kelowna; Bill Sanford, representing the Vancouver–Coast Mountain

region, from Vancouver; Marilyn Howard, representing the northern British

Columbia tourism region, from Dawson Creek; Scott Wedekind, representing

Vancouver Island, Victoria and the Gulf Islands, from Victoria; Lee Malleau,

representing the British Columbia Rockies tourism region, from Golden; and Carol

Clarke, representing the Cariboo-Chilcotin coast region, from Bella Coola. Also,

I'd like to welcome Richard Krentz, the chair of the Aboriginal Tourism

Association of British Columbia. I would also note that there are several other

members of the tourism industry here today to have a number of meetings with

MLAs.

Would

everyone please give these award recipients a very warm welcome and show our

appreciation for their efforts for tourism in British Columbia.

Hon. S.

Bond: It gives me great pleasure today to acknowledge two outstanding

residents from my riding, Prince George–Mount Robson. It's particularly

fitting with our focus today on tourism. Irvin Leroux and Jill Moore of Irvin's

Park and Campground were recently awarded the Tourism B.C. 2002 SuperHost

customer service award at the fourth annual B.C. Tourism industry awards in

Kamloops. This award is given annually to a front-line employee whose

exceptional customer service has contributed to the outstanding travel

experience for visitors to British Columbia. Each year Irvin and Jill welcome

over 10,000 visitors to their RV park in Valemount and treat each one of them

like one of the family. It is fitting that we recognize Irvin and Jill today as

we celebrate Tourism B.C. Day. I would like to ask the House to join me in

congratulating the success of Irvin Leroux and Jill Moore and the outstanding

services they provide in Valemount.

Additionally,

I have the pleasure of introducing three representatives from the College

Institute Educators Association of British Columbia, who are in the House today:

Cindy Oliver, the president; Roseanne Moran, the staff representative; and

Dileep Athaide, the secretary-treasurer. I'm looking forward to a very

productive meeting with them later this afternoon.

MacPhail: I welcome the last three guests as well, and I hope the meeting is

productive too. They're excellent advocates of education, all three of them.

I have

family members of my staff here today. Karen Anderson, the spouse of one of our

research officers, Don Anderson, is here. Also, she is accompanied by Don's

parents, Andy and Nina Anderson. They're visiting from Kelowna. Karen's mother,

Elsa Bieller, is visiting from Armstrong. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. M.

Coell: Visiting today is Mr. Ted Smyth, a resident of Saanich South and a

former city of Victoria tennis champion. Would the House please make him

welcome.

Visser: This is a real treat for me. Visiting us today from Campbell River

are Al and Marilyn Grant. I met Al and Marilyn Grant when I was very small,

because Al owns a sign painting company. He used to come, when I was a kid, and

hand-paint signs on the side of my father's machinery. I've known them for a

long time. They've been very supportive over the years. They have been dear

friends, and they're here today. It's Marilyn's birthday today. It's their

anniversary tomorrow. It was Al's birthday last week. I'm not allowed to say how

old they are. I could take a wild guess, but I won't. They're here visiting

their daughter, who works at Hansard, Christine Ewart. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I have the pleasure to introduce a number of guests in the gallery

today. Earlier today I had the great pleasure, at Emily Carr House, of signing

an MOU for the creation of a $5 million B.C. Heritage legacy fund, along with

representatives from the Land Conservancy and the B.C. Heritage Society. A

number of them are in the gallery today. Maureen Arvanitidis is the current

president of the B.C. Heritage Society. The society represents over 150

heritage-related member groups across the province. Rick Goodacre is the

executive director of the Heritage Society. As well, from the Land Conservancy

of British Columbia, Bill Turner, who is the president and executive director.

The Land Conservancy has been in the forefront of efforts in B.C. in the past

few years to conserve ecologically sensitive lands and properties of heritage

value.

[1410]

Also in the

gallery today is Ian Fawcett, deputy executive director of the Land Conservancy;

Stuart Stark, a vice-president of the Land Conservancy; Patrick Frey, manager of

heritage programs; and Rhonda Hunter, who is the director of the heritage

branch.

As well in

the gallery, here to observe the introduction of some new safety legislation for

British Columbia, are John Leech, the executive director of the Applied Science

Technologists and Technicians of B.C., as

[ Page 5552 ]

well as Abigail Fulton, who is the president of the British Columbia

Construction Association. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Harris: In keeping with the tourism trend started by the minister, I'd like

to take this opportunity to introduce Dan Stefanson, who is the executive

director of the Northern British Columbia Tourism Association. Would the House

please make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The White Rock Christian Warriors senior boys AAA basketball team is

the provincial champion. On March 15, 2003, led by coach Scott Allen, the

Warriors, using their quickness, their defence and their perimeter shooting, won

their second provincial title. The schools program has made the community of

White Rock–South Surrey very proud. Their commitment to excellence and to

being the best they can be is an example to each of us. I ask this Legislature

to join with me in extending our congratulations and best wishes to the White

Rock Christian Warriors, provincial champions.

Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to welcome two friends of mine, two people

that work very hard on behalf of the Peace country. My friends are from Tumbler

Ridge, two gentlemen I've known for many years. I would like the House to

welcome His Worship Mayor Clay Iles from Tumbler Ridge, as well as councillor

Don McPherson. Welcome, gentlemen.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Today in the House I'd like to introduce Michael and Beth

Campbell, two constituents of mine from Penticton. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Bennett: It's my honour today to introduce the president of Tourism Rockies.

The Rockies are one of the world's most recognized travel icons. Just recently,

within the last few days, the region known as Tourism Rockies has added the word

"Kootenay" to its name. It's my pleasure today — and I hope that

everyone here will help me — to welcome the president of the new

Kootenay-Rockies region, Chris Dadson.

Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Kevin Ridgeway, who is

president and chief executive officer of Vancouver, Coast and Mountains. Mr.

Ridgeway is joining the group that the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise mentioned a little bit earlier. I would ask the House to please make

him feel welcome.

I also have

Mr. Colin Simmons here, who is a constituent in my riding. I ask the House to

make them feel welcome.

Finally, I

would like to take this opportunity to wish the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine a very happy birthday.

Chong: Today I, too, would like to acknowledge some tourism officials: first

of all, David Petryk, the executive director of Tourism Vancouver Island. I also

want to pay a special welcome to a longtime good friend of mine, the general

manager of Butchart Gardens, Mr. Arild Solbakken. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Christensen: It's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome somebody who's in

charge of selling one of the most beautiful areas of the province, the Thompson

Okanagan. Would the House please welcome Deanna Rainey, who is the CEO of

Thompson Okanagan Tourism.

Wilson: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming Mark Nichiporuk, who is the

executive director of the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association — and, I

might add, probably one of the most unique areas in this province to visit.

[1415]

Hon. M.

de Jong: On a day when students across the province are returning to school,

four of my young constituents have decided to extend their holiday by one day

and are joining us in Victoria. Maddison, Christopher, Nicholas and Phillip

Holmberg are guiding Grandpa around the precincts today — Grandpa Dave being a

recent recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee award. Would the House make them

all feel welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I, too, have a constituent in the gallery. Mr. Jim Hart from

Summerland is here for meetings today, and I would ask the House to please make

Jim welcome.

Jarvis: Not least is Mr. Eddie Wood, who is a member of my riding and also

is the first vice-president of COTA. He is the manager of Mount Seymour

mountain, which is on the top of my riding. If you want to have good skiing,

this is the place to go. Would you all welcome him, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I have 40 friends from the Cowichan Valley here today, and I would

like to introduce them all to you by name. They're from the British Canadian

Club, and they're here for a tour and to see the stained glass window that was a

commemorative of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. I would ask the House: would you

all make them truly welcome — and everybody else.

Mr.

Speaker: And if we missed anyone, welcome to the precincts.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Safety Standards Act.

[ Page 5553 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 19 be now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Safety Standards Act. This act

consolidates several pieces of legislation and allows the British Columbia

safety system to be more flexible and innovative. This legislation provides for

a modernized, clear and fair regulatory environment supported by effective

enforcement tools.

British

Columbia is one of the leading provinces in Canada in public safety. By

introducing this legislation, we'll enhance our safety record while reducing red

tape and modernizing our safety system. This legislation is the product of

extensive consultation with industry, labour and business groups, who said the

existing legislation was cumbersome and outdated. We're acting on their request

to bring the safety act up to date with respect to changes in technology,

products and service.

I move that

the Safety Standards Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19

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.

SAFETY AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Safety Authority Act.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 20 be read for a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Safety Authority Act. This legislation

provides for the administration of safety delivery components of the Safety

Standards Act by an independent safety authority. The new authority will allow

for responsive decision-making, a more efficient operating system and greater

overall accountability.

[1420]

The

authority will operate with strong checks and balances to ensure that public

safety standards are met. This not-for-profit authority will be fully

cost-recovered through fees set in consultation with industry and based on

criteria established by the province. The authority's control over revenues will

ensure that all the funds it collects can be reinvested in the safety system.

The government retains the ultimate responsibility and accountability to British

Columbians for good governance of the safety system.

I move that

the British Columbia Safety Authority Act be placed on orders of the day for

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

Bill 20

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

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

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

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

intituled Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 22 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This is part of our commitment to

streamlining regulations and cutting red tape and providing for safe,

sustainable and livable communities. There are several minor amendments to four

acts contained in this amending act: the Heritage Conservation Act, the First

Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the Local Government Act and the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3).

The

Heritage Conservation Act amendment will wind up Heritage Trust operations by

the end of this fiscal year. Some of the funds from the Heritage Trust will go

to the new B.C. Heritage Legacy Fund. The remaining funds will be distributed to

honour outstanding commitments made by the Heritage Trust and to build capacity

and sustainability in the heritage community.

The First

Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act will streamline changes to the

advisory council appointments and modernize references to first nations. The

Local Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act and the

Vancouver Charter amendments respond to local government requests. Examples

include local governments being able to waive development cost charges for

non-profit supportive living, helping the Northern Rockies regional district

better meet the governance needs of their community and allowing one member

rather than the whole Vancouver police board to hear security alarm permit

appeals.

I move that

Bill 22 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Bill 22

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.

HOSPITAL DISTRICT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. C.

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

intituled Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003.

[ Page 5554 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 25 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003,

which will support our government's implementation of generally accepted

accounting principles and eliminate unnecessary provincial controls over

regional hospital district boards. Regional hospital districts play an important

role in sharing the capital cost of hospital construction and equipment with the

province.

Right now,

regional hospital districts are part of the government's expanded reporting

entity, meaning that their financial results are included as supplementary

information when the province's financial statements are presented. This creates

unnecessary areas of duplication and increases administrative and financial

costs for both my ministry and the regional hospital districts, as well as for

the office of the comptroller general.

Our

amendments will address these problems and facilitate the implementation of

generally accepted accounting principles for the next fiscal year. In fact, the

legislative changes were recommended by the office of the auditor general as

necessary in order to exclude regional hospital districts from the government

reporting entity when these principles are brought in.

[1425]

The

amendments will clarify that the province does not have the unhindered right to

appoint or remove directors from regional hospital district boards, and it gives

regional hospital district boards greater autonomy, because it reduces the need

for the minister to approve their annual budgets, capital expenditures,

borrowing bylaws and tax requisition.

Regional

hospital boards are made up of democratically elected officials of local

government who should be solely accountable to the taxpayers who elected them.

Our amendments to the Hospital District Act will clarify that the government

does not have the power or unhindered right to appoint or remove hospital

district board members so that these elected officials can do the work they were

elected to do.

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

25 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.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2003

Hon. G.

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

intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2003.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the

continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2003-04

have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

The bill

will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial

two months of the 2003-04 fiscal year. This will allow the time to debate and

pass the required estimates. The interim supply is required because existing

voted appropriation will expire on March 31, 2003.

This bill

will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. The bill

seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for

capital asset expenditures and loan and investments, and 100 percent of the

year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and

transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these

requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted

appropriations will expire on March 31, 2003.

I move that

the bill be placed on 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ECONOMY IN B.C.

P. Bell:

Some detractors of our government have suggested that we're not looking after

the heartlands, so I'd like to take a few moments today to review the history of

the nineties, our record so far, and do somewhat of a comparison.

In the

nineties the government of the day introduced a luxury-vehicle tax on the

pickups that heartlands residents drive to work every day. They suggested a new

tax on SUVs and pickups that would have made them even less affordable to

operate. They built three ferries for $450 million, and we know today what

they're really worth. They introduced the superstumpage that drove the forest

industry into decline and sent the mining industry packing when they turned the

richest mineral deposits anywhere in the world into a park at Windy Craggy.

We've taken

many positive steps to correct the ills of the nineties. We've made substantial

changes to the forest industry including the implementation of Bill 74, the

Forest and Range Practices Act. We've raised the threshold on luxury vehicles so

working families can actually buy a pickup. We've eliminated red tape and

duplication for the mining sector, and we've seen that sector double in

exploration since we've come into office. We're dedicating $609 million of the

$650 million collected in the new gas tax to heartlands roads, and no, that

doesn't include the Sea to Sky Highway.

We now have

a northern caucus that reports directly to the Premier and is raising northern

issues.

[ Page 5555 ]

We've eliminated PST on equipment and machinery used in the logging and

mining industry, and we've simplified regulations to stimulate oil and gas

exploration in the Nechako basin.

We're doing

exactly what British Columbians wanted us to do — that's a prosperous and

growing economy — and we recognize that a healthy heartlands will drive the

economy for all of British Columbia.

TOURISM IN B.C.

Chong: Tourism — what an exciting industry. Today we are acknowledging the

first-ever tourism day at the Legislature, with tourism industry representatives

meeting with MLAs and ministers throughout the day. Tourism is the

second-largest industry in this province, generating over $9.2 billion in annual

revenues.

[1430]

Here in

greater Victoria we generate about $1 billion of that total. Last year we saw

more than 22 million tourists visit our province, of which more than five

million were international overnight visitors. What did those visitors do? From

agritourism to ecotourism to recreational sports tourism, cultural tourism,

adventure tourism and of course shopping, B.C. truly has the best tourism

products to offer.

Marketing

is key to making this industry grow, and the various tourism industries like

COTA, Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Victoria and Tourism Vancouver Island do this

all so very well. Where does our government fit into this picture? To begin, our

government is committed to doubling the tourism industry by the year 2010. By

investing in transportation infrastructure, we will begin to connect B.C.'s

heartland communities, where the tourism potential is phenomenal. Our commitment

to work with the city of Cranbrook to complete its airport expansion will no

doubt increase international visitation in that region. Improvements to the Port

of Prince Rupert will help create economic opportunities for northern B.C.,

particularly in the cruise ship industry.

We're

developing a B.C. resort task force that will help to build and promote B.C.'s

world-class, all-season resorts so that we'll be able to maximize the benefits

of the 2010 Olympics and beyond. In Vancouver, the Trade and Convention Centre

expansion will mean that we will finally be able to attract large groups wishing

to hold their annual conferences here — not to forget Victoria, where we're

already planning for a promising year with the new paleontology exhibit at the

Royal B.C. Museum, Dragon Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China . We're

also expecting 127 cruise ship visits this summer. Every region of this province

can benefit from tourism. Tourism is a renewable resource. Let us all celebrate

it together.

PROTECT OUR SCHOOLS CAMPAIGN

Stewart: Education should be the focus of our schools, not cleanup, and

right now too much money is spent on repairs due to vandalism across this

province. School vandalism is a huge issue in many communities, and in my riding

alone, repair costs on damaged books, broken windows and graffiti reach $450,000

per year.

Recently

school district 42 joined members of our community of Maple Ridge and Pitt

Meadows to launch an anti-vandalism campaign called Protect Our Schools. This

program will help save money and put it back into the classrooms. The Protect

Our Schools campaign takes a multi-pronged approach to stopping vandalism, which

includes community awareness, a 24-hour anti-vandalism hotline and making

schools less susceptible to vandalism. Most importantly to me, the campaign

involves students in combatting vandalism through educational materials and

activities such as wall-painting murals, with programs as positive alternatives

to just hanging around after school.

This

campaign will not only heighten awareness around the costs of vandalism, it will

also bring back a sense of community and pride in our schools that has

far-reaching effects and benefits. Students have always been encouraged to take

pride in their schools, and I believe this campaign will be another motivation

for them to become actively part of the solution. I'd like to congratulate those

who have put forward so much effort into getting this program off the ground,

from the school district representatives and administrators to the local police,

community groups, and of course parents and students. Vandalism is a community

problem and requires a community solution. I encourage other school districts

and communities to find out more about what our community is doing in this

matter and to launch similar programs.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

MacPhail: Last week the deadline passed for disabled British Columbians to

return their 23-page review form. Already the letters are starting to go out,

kicking people off their benefits. In the letter sent, disabled British

Columbians are being told that they don't get to keep their benefits because

their mental impairment is not severe enough.

To the

Minister of Human Resources: can he tell the House what objective measure he's

using to determine a person's state of mental impairment that would then give

him the authority to kick them off their benefits?

Hon. M.

Coell: The member fails to grasp that nothing we are going to be able to say

will satisfy her or her friends. From the beginning of this process, they have

chosen to misinform and to spread fear among the very people they're said to be

advocating for. She should know that the review is done by doctors and

[ Page 5556 ]

health professionals, and on their recommendation, changes have been made.

Mr.

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

[1435]

MacPhail: Well, it isn't me fearmongering. I'm reading directly from the

letters that the minister is sending out. I expect it will come as a surprise to

the physicians of these people that they're responsible for kicking them off

their benefits, which is what the minister just said.

Advocates

say that many of the disabled British Columbians who were being kicked off

benefits face severe mental challenges. Many have problems with reading and

writing. You'd hope that the minister would show some compassion, but that would

be asking too much from this government.

Let me just

read from the instructions for the appeal that the minister has sent out with

his letter kicking them off benefits. This is a quote:

"Upon

submitting your request for reconsideration and employment and assistance

coordinator, EAC, or representative of the health assistance reconsideration

unit, HARU, will reconsider the ministry decision. It is important that you

submit all relevant documents relating to your request, along with your

employment and assistance request for reconsideration, in order to ensure that

all pertinent information is considered by the EAC and the HARU. If you are

dissatisfied, the EAC or HARU will indicate whether or not the decision may be

appealed."

That's part of a larger letter. Is this what is actually the

measure that the minister is using? If you can understand this paragraph,

you're kicked off benefits; if you can't, you won't know how to appeal it, so

you're still kicked off?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member would know, under the previous legislation there was no

requirement for any review. There was no requirement for a medical update of

anyone on DB-2.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

Coell: The definition was changed to make it compatible with human rights

case law — and I've said this a dozen times to the member — and to make it

comparable to other provinces.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'll tell you, the weak support coming from his own caucus is

booming support considered out there in the community. This minister has not

given any substantiation to why he's doing this, on what grounds he's doing it

or even what the criteria are for being on benefits or for being kicked off

benefits. Not only is the minister tying up the most vulnerable British

Columbians in red tape, hoping that they'll just give up and go away, he's not

even following his own rules. The rejection letter that those British Columbians

are receiving says they have 20 days from the date of the letter to appeal the

decision kicking them off benefits — 20 days from the date of the letter. But

the minister's own regulations say that a person has 20 days to appeal from the

date that they were notified. In law that means the date that they received the

letter.

Can the

minister explain to those British Columbians who are disabled why they should

bother following instructions that go against his own regulations? He is

demanding that they follow forms that will give them far fewer days to appeal.

Will he immediately stand up and apologize and issue a new letter that extends

the time to the people who are now having to appeal?

Hon. M.

Coell: This review process was never about cost-cutting. It was not

initiated to balance the books.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: Any comment to the contrary, whether made by the member or her

friends, is not based on fact. A couple of facts she might be interested in: the

previous system was growing at a rate that was not sustainable.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: From '94 to '02 the average growth rate in British Columbia — the

caseload — was 11 percent. The national average was 3 percent.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

The member

for Vancouver-Kingsway.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has

the floor.

[1440]

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

LEGISLATION

R. Nijjar: My

question is to the Solicitor General.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

[ Page 5557 ]

Nijjar: Vancouver city police estimate there are approximately 10,000

marijuana grow operations in the city of Vancouver. Law enforcement agencies are

doing all that they can. However, they need more assistance, and more needs to

be done. I've been working on this issue very hard, and I've been watching a

piece of Ontario legislation that was enacted last year. What it does is allow

civil courts to freeze, seize and forfeit the proceeds of illegal activity. It

seems to me that this legislation is working well in Ontario, and similar

legislation has worked well in the United States for many years. Is the

Solicitor General considering such legislation in British Columbia to combat the

proceeds of illegal activity?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We are reviewing the Ontario legislation as to how it may be able

to apply in our jurisdiction. All tools that are available for us to fight back

the marijuana grow ops are being reviewed at this point in time, to look at

anything that we can give the police that will help them with their job. At the

same time, we are in consultation with and talking to the federal prosecutors to

let them know that we want them to start asking for and seeking harsher

sentences in this regard. Frankly, we have to have this together as a continuum

to make the whole thing work together.

We've had a

pretty good record on the criminal forfeiture of crime because, frankly, in this

province, versus Ontario, most of our policing at the municipal, the provincial

and the federal level is all RCMP. We do have sort of a seamless relationship

for how we can deal with those forfeitures of crime. Any tool that we can get,

including the Ontario legislation, which we're reviewing now, we're going to be

looking at to see if we can give it to the police and to the communities to

fight back against this issue.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

OF ABORIGINAL STUDENTS

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Education. The number of

aboriginal students that completed high school last year went up 8 percent, from

34 to 42 percent. Although the eight-point jump is significant, the fact still

remains that it's nearly 40 percent below the average number of non-aboriginal

students graduating from school. As my constituency is home to a large number of

aboriginal students, approximately 50 percent, can the Minister of Education

tell us what she is doing to help bridge this gap?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's an important question. As the member pointed out, we've done a

lot better as a province for aboriginal kids than we have in the past.

Aboriginal graduation rates are now up at 42 percent, which is a big increase.

The member's district, in particular, has done a tremendous job of making sure

that young aboriginal children do better in their schools over the last year or

so.

We are the

only province in Canada that measures how well first nations students are doing.

We are the only province in Canada that builds those numbers into accountability

contracts so that school districts are required to set goals for improvement and

then put in place plans to meet those goals. We are now the only place that's

going to be embarking on what we're calling enhancement agreements across the

province.

Enhancement

agreements are agreements between school districts and every aboriginal group in

a district, where they sit down and talk and decide what outcomes they want for

their kids and what kind of education they're going to be delivering. It's

important that that dialogue happen in every single community. Our goal is to

make sure that we have 60 enhancement agreements in place across the province by

2005. That will be an important milestone in making sure that first nations kids

have the same opportunity to achieve that every other student in British

Columbia has.

DEVELOPMENT OF

COALBED METHANE RESOURCES

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. My riding of

Bulkley Valley–Stikine is home to vast mineral deposits as well as one of the

largest coalbed methane reserves in British Columbia. Development of these

resources will provide jobs for my constituents and new revenues for the

province.

The West

Coast Environmental Law Association has raised concerns that in some other

jurisdictions, some of the water produced from these wells can be toxic. Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what B.C. is doing to address these

concerns and learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, there is a huge opportunity in the province of British

Columbia in the development of coalbed methane. It will bring investment and

jobs and dollars to the province and to people that are living in the heartlands

of British Columbia.

[1445]

Water is an

issue with coalbed methane development, but it's not new to the ministry. We've

been dealing with water in the oil and gas industry for over 40 years. There are

sections of the Waste Management Act that are under the auspices of the Minister

of Water, Land and Air Protection, and also the regulations in the Petroleum and

Natural Gas Act that deal with waste water and how you can dispose of waste

water. In fact, there are quite a number of sections in the regulations. We are

trying to learn from the U.S.'s mistakes as best we can so we can move forward

and develop this in an environmentally sound manner.

PROGRAMS

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many people in my

language.

Interjections.

[ Page 5558 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let's have order, please, so we may hear the

question. Please start over again, member.

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many people in my

language. In January the Vancouver Community College announced that it would be

reducing the number of seats available for ESL students. Can the Minister of

Advanced Education tell my constituents what she has done to make

Hon. S.

done over the past almost two years is allow institutions the ability to make

the decisions that reflect the needs of their particular communities.

Institutions around this province are very different. I'm pleased to say that my

staff has met on numerous occasions over the last several weeks with Vancouver

Community College, and as we delivered our budget this year, certainly every

institution received either the same amount of money as last year or more money.

Within the last week we've been able to announce an additional $10 million in

unconditional grants to those institutions to help institutions like Vancouver

Community College make decisions that are appropriate for their particular

schools.

ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

MacPhail: Back to the Minister of Human Resources. Perhaps this is the time,

actually, where he could answer the questions. These are technical questions

facing people's lives, affecting people's lives. So the rhetoric is ridiculous.

Let's just

recap what the minister has told this House. The minister sends 18,000 of the

most vulnerable people a 23-page form, asking them to justify their benefits. At

least one person was so scared he took his own life. The coroner says that.

Then, contradicting his own documents, he says his intention is not to kick

people off. He says, in fact, that more people are getting assistance. So far,

I'm quoting the minister directly. Soon after, letters start arriving on

people's doors saying they're out of luck. "If you want to appeal, here are

a bunch more hoops and red tape — if you can understand it — that you have

to jump through." But the minister can't even follow his own rules and

tells people they have much less time to appeal than the law gives them.

Can the

minister stand up and tell us why he is subjecting the most vulnerable British

Columbians to his own incompetence? Will he now send out a new letter telling

people that they have the legal amount of time to appeal his decision?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said previously to the member…. She continues to misinform and

spread fear amongst the very people she's claiming to advocate for. The previous

legislation, as I said, had no requirement for an update on medical files. The

caseload was increasing at 11 percent a year from '94 to 2002. The Canadian

average was 3 percent. This review is not about cost-cutting. It's about making

sure that people in need get the benefits that they need.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia for 2002.

[1450]

Standing Order 35 Motion

MacPhail: As provided for under standing order 35, I rise to request that

this House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating a motion to support the

resolution adopted by the city council of New York on March 12, 2003, after the

city council found that it had not been substantiated that all other means of

disarming Saddam Hussein in accordance with the United Nations resolution had

been attempted and had therefore failed. That resolution from the legislative

body that represents those who were most impacted by the terrorist attack of

September 11, 2001, calls upon the United States and allies not to engage in a

pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

This House

did not sit last week when the war started, but as the news of the war in Iraq

has reached all of us over the past days, the intent of the resolution, as

passed by the city council of New York, is of even greater import. This is our

first and perhaps our only opportunity to add our voices to the thousands that

hope to influence and halt the killing in Iraq. As per the standing orders, I

have prepared a written motion for your consideration that expresses support for

an end to the hostilities and support for the council of New York City

resolution.

Mr.

Speaker: The Chair will entertain a speaker from the government side. The

Government House Leader.

Hon. G.

Collins: Just to put forward my comments in this regard, I think I would be

reflecting all members of the House in saying that our thoughts and prayers are

with the people serving overseas, as well as their families, as well as with the

Iraqi people at this very difficult and turbulent time in that area of the

world. I think everybody hopes for a quick and early resolution of the conflict

that exists.

The matter

before the House and the motion by the member opposite to adjourn the House for

an emer-

[ Page 5559 ]

gency debate is one that comes before this House not infrequently but is

rare. I think it's six times since the existence of the standing order that

there's actually been a debate — something like that, about six times. It's

important to note that the matter that's before the Speaker is not the

importance of the issue or the importance of the subject matter but rather the

emergency requirements that a debate be held immediately.

Certainly,

since the changes in the standing orders that we brought in at the beginning of

the session as well as last year, there are ever more opportunities for all

members of this House to bring forward matters that are important to the floor

of the Legislature for debate and comment. There are a number of them. I can

just draw the Speaker's attention to opportunities where the issue can be

raised. Certainly, private member's statements are opportunities for that. We

just had that this morning. All private members of the House are able to put

themselves on the order paper for debate of really any matter which they feel is

urgent and important. I notice that opportunity was not taken.

There are

also opportunities at the beginning of every question period for statements by

members where individual members, private members, can make a statement on an

issue that concerns them and may well concern the entire House. That is an

opportunity that's available. As well, there are provisions for motions where

members can place motions on the order paper. We now have a time on Monday

mornings, this morning, where we can debate those issues that are considered

important to people, and we do periodically. In fact, this morning we debated at

length a private member's bill that was in the hands of the member previously.

All of

those are items that are available to members. There is also the issue of

whether or not there is something that has changed so dramatically that it would

require the debate of the House immediately, without notice. Certainly, there

has been conflict in the Middle East, in Iraq. This has been ongoing for some

time. The resolutions of various political jurisdictions with regard to this

matter have come forward and are all, I know, taken seriously by all members.

There

have also been opportunities for members to discuss this issue in the past.

Certainly, I notice on the order paper there is no motion on notice by that

member opposite with regard to this issue whatsoever in the past. I think there

are opportunities in the very near future, as well — as early as this morning

or as early as tomorrow, as early as this afternoon — for private members who

want to make a statement. I believe that while we all feel strongly about this

issue, all members have the opportunity to make statements. All members have the

opportunity to come forward and take advantage of the many additional….

[1455]

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: All members have the opportunity to take

part in the opportunities

that are provided to members, many of which have been added in the last two

years. I would encourage the member to do that. It doesn't downplay….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: It certainly doesn't downplay the seriousness of the matter or the

way people feel about the matter, but I think that according to the standing

orders of our House, there are other opportunities for those debates to take

place without invoking the very rarely used provision for an emergency debate.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I appreciate the comments from both

members. The motion under standing order 35 is in order, and the Chair will

consider it. I will defer my decision until later today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 18.

Second Reading of Bills

COASTAL FERRY ACT

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that the Coastal Ferry Act be read a second time.

B.C.

Ferries is being transformed into a modern, safe, reliable ferry system that is

designed to provide superior service with no additional financial burden on

taxpayers. This bill establishes a new, independent, regulatory framework for

coastal ferry services and a new service delivery model. It also provides for a

long-term contract between the province of British Columbia and B.C. Ferry

Services to ensure the future of the ferry system.

I want to

begin my comments by acknowledging the tremendous contribution made by the men

and women of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation over the more than 40 years

that the Crown corporation has served coastal communities in British Columbia.

We are taking action to restructure B.C. Ferries because of the problems with

its governance and structure which have inhibited the corporation's ability to

operate in a sound, businesslike manner. Political mismanagement and bad

business decisions in the past have meant a waste of taxpayers' money.

[1500]

The vessels

we rely on for this service are aging. Terminals need upgrading, and service

overall needs to be improved. This major capital investment must be achieved

without a huge burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia. For example, one new

Spirit-size vessel alone could cost upwards of $160 million. The overall cost of

the entire capital renewal program for B.C. Ferries over 15 years is in the

neighbourhood of $2 billion. B.C. Ferries' problems have all been well

chronicled in independent reports about the ferry system by Hugh Gordon, George

Morfitt and Fred Wright.

[ Page 5560 ]

The

provincial government and B.C. Ferries board of directors examined a variety of

potential solutions for the coastal ferry system during the core services review

process last year. In December we announced a new future for B.C. Ferries and

its role in our province's growing economy. We have determined that an authority

model best meets the objectives of creating a modern, safe and reliable ferry

service while protecting B.C. taxpayers from financial risk and the threat of

additional debt.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

We are

moving forward with this new business model so that the new B.C. ferry service

can operate in a commercial manner. The new B.C. Ferry Services is designed to

attract private sector investment, establish innovative partnerships and, for

the first time in more than 40 years, be able to respond to the marketplace and

offer services that people are seeking. Just as importantly, we are moving

forward with this new business model to strengthen our coastal economies that

have been restricted by the lack of a responsive and dependable ferry service

that is needed to move goods and people throughout the regions.

All of us

here today have been customers of B.C. Ferries. We all know the spectacular

marine and mountain scenery of Georgia strait. We know the trip through the

scenic Gulf Islands. We all want the service to succeed; we all need it. It is

fundamental to local economies, and it is one of the most prominent symbols of

our lifestyle here on the west coast. In fact, coastal British Columbians very

much want B.C. Ferries to succeed. Most of all, B.C. wants B.C. Ferries to meet

its potential, to sail on time, to have clean facilities, a good selection of

food choices and friendly services and, of course, to remain affordable.

That is why

this legislation is so important. For B.C. Ferries to meet its potential, it

needs to have the flexibility to respond to the marketplace without future

political interference. It needs to develop a collective agreement with its

unionized employees that is reflective of a contemporary commercial company.

B.C. Ferries needs to have the will, the expertise and the legislated mandate to

understand its customer base better and to be able to respond using

state-of-the-art business practices.

Right now,

B.C. Ferries falls short of its true potential. The corporation is restricted in

making good business decisions. It cannot be sustained in its current form

without enormous contributions from B.C. taxpayers. It cannot offer the

customer-friendly and progressive service that customers are seeking.

Firstly,

this new legislation sets out the terms of the corporate restructuring. This act

recognizes the new company. The act recognizes the intended conversion of the

British Columbia Ferry Corporation from a Crown corporation to a new, regulated,

independent, commercial operating company under the Company Act that will be

renamed British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. The act underpins the vision for

the new company as the integrator of services, charged with planning and

coordinating the delivery of services and activities in the coastal ferry

system.

Secondly,

the act outlines the business model and the regulatory framework. The act

establishes the B.C. Ferry Authority, which is an independent no-share capital

corporation that holds the single-issued voting share of the new British

Columbia Ferry Corporation. The B.C. Ferry Authority governs the new,

independent company.

[1505]

The current

board of directors will be a transition board and will serve until the end of

March 2004. The new board of directors, which will be established after April 1,

2004, will be a nine-member board with professional and business expertise, with

representation from B.C.'s coastal regions in order to support the mandate of

the new company. The new board will include two appointments from the provincial

government, four nominees from coastal regional districts, one nominee from

organized labour and two appointments from the community at large. The

appointment process and composition of the board are set out in the act.

Because the

new corporation is structured on a commercial basis, the province must receive

fair return. The government will hold an investment in the form of non-voting

preferred shares and will receive a return on this investment annually. In

addition, the province will also have an investment in the form of a debenture

that will receive interest at a market rate. The combination of these

investments represents the fair market value of the new corporation.

Government

and consumers will be protected under the new business model. The authority will

hold one class B common voting share, which gives it the ability to govern the

operating company.

There is

also consumer protection from the concern that the authority will sell its

voting share without the province's approval. In the event that the authority

would want to sell its common share, there is a special conversion feature that

gives the province the right to convert its preferred shares on a one-for-one

basis to class A common voting shares. This effectively gives the provincial

government a veto over any future sale of the operating company. Should the

province choose to exercise its right, the conversion will result in control of

the company reverting to the province as its preferred shares become voting

shares, effectively giving it the majority of votes.

The act

also establishes a new independent regulator, the British Columbia Ferries

commissioner, whose role it is to monitor and regulate ferry services, tariffs

and the degree to which competition is fostered.

Thirdly,

the act provides for a long-term contract between the province and B.C. Ferry

Services to establish the ferry system. The coastal ferry services contract is a

binding agreement between the province and B.C. Ferry Services with an initial

term of 60 years and is subject to renewal. With regular service review terms,

the contract stipulates the service to be delivered on a

[ Page 5561 ]

route-by-route basis and the fees to be paid by the province in exchange for

this service. This long-term arrangement establishes a predictable and stable

marine transportation system while ensuring that B.C. Ferry Services becomes a

financially viable service provider for the first time in more than four

decades.

Every four

years, or five years for the first term, B.C. Ferry Services and the province

will renegotiate the service levels and fees for service. Routes and fundamental

service levels are therefore assured for the first five years of the contract.

While

designed to protect consumers, the new structure has enough flexibility to allow

B.C. Ferry Services to encourage strategic private sector partnerships and

entrepreneurial ingenuity that will transform our ferry services into a

customer-focused, financially stable marine transportation system that will

ensure the ongoing safety of its vessels, passengers and cargo. All of the

routes that B.C. Ferries directly operated prior to April 1, 2003, are defined

under the contract as routes regulated by the B.C. Ferries commissioner and are

covered by rate caps.

With regard

to land transactions, in order to preserve public interest over the long term,

this legislation transfers B.C. Ferries terminal land and improvements to the

province. B.C. Ferry Services and the province will then enter into a long-term

lease of these facilities.

Under this

new arrangement, the province will own all the land. Ownership of the

infrastructure will also transfer to the province. Under the lease, B.C. Ferry

Services will then be given ownership of the existing facilities and will own

any new facilities for the duration of the lease. At the end of the lease term,

all facilities will revert to the province. The services of ferry terminals will

be diligently managed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the terminal leases.

[1510]

In looking

at the relationship with employees, this legislation effectively transfers all

existing employees to the new company and sets the stage for a new commercial

approach to the delivery of ferry services with the operation of a new

maintenance subsidiary. The independent nature of both B.C. Ferry Services and,

ultimately, its maintenance facility are clearly articulated in the legislation.

Previous

decisions of the Labour Relations Board have confirmed that the delivery of

ferry services is an essential service. This government has articulated its view

that the delivery of coastal ferry services is essential to the health, safety

and welfare of the residents of British Columbia. Despite the independent nature

of the new commercial company, the legislation reinforces the former decisions

of the Labour Relations Board and confirms government's direction that the

delivery of ferry services remains an essential service under the Labour

Relations Code.

important aspect with respect to the transfer of employees is pensions.

Government and the board of directors have indicated the importance of

grandparenting existing employees into the public service pension plan,

notwithstanding the changing nature of the new company, in order to ensure an

evolutionary transition. However, a new pension plan for future employees needs

to be developed that is more reflective of the commercial nature in which B.C.

Ferry Services will be operating. These details will be addressed in collective

bargaining and, ultimately, with the pension trustees of the public service

pension plan. In the meantime, with the agreement of the pension trustees, all

new employees will continue to be covered in the public service pension plan at

a minimum to April 30, 2004. All existing employees will remain under the public

service pension plan.

The

upcoming round of collective bargaining will be extremely important. The parties

involved have the ability to effectively shape their future and the commercial

nature of the collective agreements between them. Working conditions of

employees will need to be aligned with the business objectives of their

employer, the corporation and the subsidiary respectively. I encourage the

parties to be creative in their approach.

Collective

agreements for both B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and its maintenance and refit

subsidiary must properly address the needs to be efficient, cost-effective and

innovative. They must reach a collective agreement that ensures that the

corporation can fulfil its legal and statutory obligations and its requirements

under the new coastal ferry services contract. They must also reach a collective

agreement that is reflective of any conditions that may be imposed on the

corporation by the B.C. Ferry Services commissioner.

The new

collective agreement will need to be shaped in order that the corporation can

implement changes in the manner in which it conducts business. In fact, the

maintenance and repair subsidiary has the ability to become a leader in ships

maintenance and refit, but that will depend greatly on whether the collective

agreement provides the degree of flexibility needed to operate the subsidiary as

a true ships maintenance and repair operation.

government proceeds with the enactment of this legislation, there is a

significant expectation that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union will be

able to make the necessary adjustments to the new environment in which it finds

itself. I encourage serious reflection in preparation for the next round of

negotiations and thoughtful consideration of the business objectives that will

need to be met to ensure success. Given this, it is government's expectation

that new collective agreements will be concluded by October 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker

and hon. members, the primary intent of this bill is to ensure that our coastal

ferry service can flourish and support our economy. In doing so, we will

continue to protect consumers and ferry-dependent communities through the

coastal ferry services contract, which stipulates service levels and the

government's contribution for services that fall outside the mandate of a

commercial operation.

[1515]

This

legislation also provides our government with the assurance that our marine

transportation system is

[ Page 5562 ]

intact and that our ferry system is self-financing for generations to come.

Ferry users have long expressed frustration with service disruptions,

inefficiencies, late sailings and the lack of amenities. Industries such as

tourism and trucking have also expressed concerns, as have local governments,

our constituents, taxpayers and even employees of the corporation. This bill

makes it possible to begin to alleviate these concerns. The new B.C. Ferry

Services, with oversight by an independent authority, will have the flexibility

to address these issues while ensuring that the ferry system does not present

financial risk or add further to the debt burden of B.C. taxpayers. Coastal

communities and ferry users will see improved service and greater customer

choice. They will also see a commitment to fundamental service levels and fair

rates and the protection of public interest.

Fulfilling

a new-era commitment, B.C. Ferries will also be designated an essential service,

ensuring that coastal communities receive the service they need. I look forward,

with the passage and enactment of this bill, to fulfilling the commitment that

was made following the extensive core services review of B.C. Ferries and the

commitments that were set out before us in the throne speech. The Coastal Ferry

Act is designed to support the needs of all British Columbians, and I encourage

the members of this Legislature to support its enactment.

Deputy

Speaker: Continuing debate on second reading of Bill 18, the Leader of the

Opposition.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was outside having to respond to the

Minister of Transportation somehow suggesting that the NDP turned down an offer

on the fast cats. It was quite an interesting debate. I hope she is more

forthright in the debate on that matter in the Legislature.

Bill 18,

the Coastal Ferry Act, converts the B.C. Ferry Corporation to a private company,

and it allows for commercial ferry services by contract with the government. I

have some concerns about this legislation. I have received a briefing from the

B.C. Ferries Corporation, for which I thank them, but even after the briefing, I

will outline some of my concerns that can be taken up in debate at committee

stage.

This

legislation — let's be clear — is about dismantling B.C. Ferries, and

therefore my concern arises out of that. I think the bill sets up a weak

structure that lacks independence. It has weak accountability, and transparency

and oversight are weak. I also think there is some concern that is not answered

yet in the legislation about the rights of the people who work for the Ferry

Corporation, but I will have much more to say about these matters at committee

stage.

Before I

begin, I would actually hope the government isn't demonstrating another aspect

of arrogance by assuming that this legislation will be signed off by the auditor

general before this transition, in order to…. This structure has to be signed

off by the auditor general before this government can remove the debt from the

books of the new structure, and to my understanding, as recently as last week

the auditor general still had not signed off on this transition.

I notice

from the legislation that the bill comes into force on April 1. That's just

seven days from now, and of course, I can pretty much guarantee that this

government is going to use its massive legislative authority to ram the

legislation through the House and have it in effect by April 1. Of course, the

structure we put in place now is for 60 years, so it is interesting to see how

the government will actually ensure — given the fact that there's hardly

anybody who debates anything in this House except for me — that the structure

is appropriate for 60 years.

[1520]

Let me just

talk about the independence of the structures in this bill, and the areas that

I'm outlining will be the areas I'll be questioning at committee stage. The new

ferry authority board will be made up of the current B.C. Ferries board of

directors, so that's still a board that is very much in the hands of this

government. Future boards will be selected by two cabinet-appointed board

members. The criteria of appointment are not spelled out in the legislation, so

I will be asking questions about that during committee stage. The independent

commissioner appointed by cabinet is actually funded…. The office of the

independent commission is funded by ferry operators. This is the commission that

will oversee the regulation of everything to do with the ferries, and yet its

funding source is the ferry operator itself.

There's

also a lack of oversight mechanisms in this bill. What if the authority cannot

fulfil its powers or duties? What if the authority comes in over budget? What if

the commissioner is found to be working in the interests of the ferry operators,

who pay the commissioner's salary? There is absolutely no oversight mechanism

around the commission. Of course, there is no appeal mechanism built into the

bill as well.

The bill

lacks accountability mechanisms. Authorities are required to have one meeting a

year open to the public. That is the only accountability mechanism. The

commissioner may consult with the public, but it's permissive. It's not

mandatory. Even if the ferry service is being eliminated or reduced, the

commissioner only may be required to consult with the public. That, of course,

is a weakening of what the current circumstances are.

There is a

lack of transparency in this bill. Contracts are negotiated between governments

and ferry operators. The commissioner only sees the contracts after they are

signed. The ferry services are exempt from the Auditor General Act, so he or she

— the auditor general of the day — will have no way of looking at the

contracts, even after they are signed.

[1525]

The new

ferry service is exempt from the Ombudsman Act. The new ferry service is exempt

from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I will read into

the record the letter from the freedom

[ Page 5563 ]

of information and protection of privacy commissioner re this act. This was

sent on March 13, and it's from the FOIPP commissioner, David Loukidelis. It's

to the Minister of Transportation. It's entitled "Comments on Bill 18,

Coastal Ferry Act, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

write to comment on Bill 18. As I understand it, Bill 18, which is to come

into force on April 1, 2003, contemplates the transfer of the assets and

undertaking of the existing British Columbia Ferry Corporation to a new

company incorporated under the Company Act. Bill 18 would create the B.C.

Ferry Authority and the British Columbia ferries commissioner. As I understand

it, the operating company will not be covered by the FOI Act, while the

authority and the commissioner are intended to be covered by the FOI Act.

Section 83 of Bill 18 would amend

schedule 2 to the FOI Act by removing the

existing British Columbia Ferry Corporation from the ranks of the public

bodies covered by the FOI Act. No consequential amendments are found in Bill

18, however" — I also note that there are no amendments on the order

paper, as well, today — "to add the authority or the commissioner as

public bodies under the FOI Act. I am aware that

Section 76.l of the FOI Act

authorizes the minister responsible"— that's the Minister of Management

Services — "to add public bodies to

schedule 2 by regulation.

"In

light of the imminent in-force date for Bill 18,

however, it is extremely important, in my view, that the authority and the

commissioner be added as public bodies by consequential amendment under Bill

18. Nothing in

section 76.1 of the FOI Act prevents this, and the timing is

such that this approach is, I suggest, the appropriate course in this case.

"One

other issue arises. I acknowledge the proposed role for the

commissioner in regulating the operating company and the transparency and

accountability that will flow from that regulation. I suggest, however, that

it is important to ensure some degree of transparency as regards the safety of

the travelling public. I understand that an operating agreement will be

entered into between the province and the operating company. I recommend that

this agreement require the operating company to make available to the public,

on a regular and timely basis, reports and records relevant to the safety

activities and experiences of the operating company.

"If

you have any questions about this letter, please do not

hesitate to contact me."

was copied on that. There are questions that arise out of that from the

freedom of information commissioner and his recommendation that there be

consequential amendments flowing from his recommendation.

I also note

that this bill makes ferries an essential service. It creates a subsidiary for

maintenance and refit operations. I will be exploring at length what the

procedures are for ensuring that workers' rights flow, particularly with the

workers at Deas dock where there's a separate subsidiary that's now created.

There are

sections of the legislation, particularly

section 26, that do permit

nullification of sections of the collective agreement negotiated by ferry

workers. However, in the briefing at least, the officials of the minister were

quick to reassure us that that would not be the case, but I want to know what

the substance of that is in the legislation. So we will be having that

discussion.

I also want

to see whether there's a discussion about the substance between the Labour

Relations Code and this bill — about the bill prevailing. Those are the

questions that I have.

I see the

government is smiling over something to do with the fast ferries. I certainly

hope they're far more forthright on this legislation than they are now being

forthright about other matters. If they're not, they will just continue what has

been acknowledged as a mistake in the past.

We are in a

new era with the Ferry Corporation. Many questions need to be answered about

what the intent of this government is in terms of ferry service. I toured some

coastal communities last week, and there are certainly many questions about what

exactly the plan is for improving ferry service to ferry-dependent communities.

I'm going

to reserve my support or lack thereof on the record in a clause-by-clause

debate.

Chong: I want to take this opportunity to also add some comments to Bill 18,

the Coastal Ferry Act, and to say at the outset that I am supporting this piece

of legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation and a long time

coming.

watched with dismay while I was in opposition the last term, when the government

of the day played around with the B.C. Ferries Corporation. There was often

uncertainty around, such that the tourism industry, something that we have been

talking about today — celebrating tourism in our province, celebrating tourism

day today in the Legislature — was highly susceptible to interruptions in

ferry service, and this piece of legislation allows us to move forward.

With this

new act and with the establishment of the B.C. Ferry Services Corporation,

coastal communities and ferry users will now have improved service. They will

have greater customer choice. What's important, as well, is guaranteed service

levels, and this is how it will affect the tourism industry — guaranteed

service levels, something that is dependable. Fair rates. Fair rates are

important, as well, to our coastal communities.

[1530]

I live on

Vancouver Island, and I know that a number of my colleagues here — 13 members

or so in this House — represent the Island or coastal communities. We depend

on this service as our link to the mainland to transport our goods, to transport

our services and also sometimes for other vital services such as health care

which is only available on the mainland. We need to have a ferry service that is

going to provide us with that essential link, that vital link to the mainland.

We also

want to know that rates will not be politically interfered with. We want to know

that our rates will, in fact, be stable. I think it's also important that our

government has acknowledged and recognized this by going out four years or so

and knowing the increases that will be there are, on average, less than what the

previous government was going to establish.

[ Page 5564 ]

customer-focused, financially stable, reliable ferry system — these are the

hallmarks of this new piece of legislation. This is what is important to the

people. Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia will certainly be opened

up with greater choice, with more competition and a better service through this

new B.C. services act.

I also want

to just quickly mention something, because the Leader of the Opposition raised

it and she used to be upset in our last year whenever we raised the issue of

fast ferries. But because she opened it up, I just have to add my comments to

that. We know today was a rather, I guess, historic day in that we are finally

dealing with the legacy that they left us — the $463 million legacy they left

our taxpayers, a cost that we should never have…. The dollars would have been

better spent on health care and education, but the previous government, for

their political reasons, embarked on that particular venture.

I recall

that in my first term we had a ferries critic who was constantly, constantly

asking the government of the day what the costs were going to be, what other

guarantees were going to be available, what kind of service levels there would

be. Never, ever were any of those facts forthcoming. We find out now that there

was never truly a service plan and that it was really a "fly by the seat of

your pants" kind of approach.

That's not

the way this government operates. We are certainly handling our affairs in a

more fiscally prudent manner, which allows us to find savings wherever we can

and redirect them into those important vital services like health care and

education.

On the

ferries issue, it's very interesting. This certainly still resonates very much

with my constituents. I have been provided with a copy of a letter that was

dated March 30, 2001, a month and a half before the last election, and written

by the Leader of the Opposition, who at the time had this portfolio under her

purview. It's interesting. One of the sentences that I'll read from her letter

indicated where they were looking at a possible disposition and possible

recovery of some dollars for the benefit of taxpayers of this province, and this

is what this one sentence says: "Our decision was reached after a full

discussion of the contents of the memorandum and is based on the timing rather

than on the substantive aspects of the agreement." That, again, leads me to

wonder what kinds of decisions the previous government made which were never to

the benefit of taxpayers.

I just want

to say that Bill 18, this new Coastal Ferry Act, is a sound piece of

legislation. There are many sections in it. I've gone through it a number of

times. I've had the opportunity to read it and take a look at the accountability

aspects of it and the, as I say, improved service levels being provided to

taxpayers. In the end, that's what we want for our residents. Some 630,000

people live here on Vancouver Island. You add another 40,000 who are in the

Powell River–Sunshine Coast area, and you know you have about 700,000 people

who depend heavily on the coastal ferry system. I think today is a good day, or

the day the bill was introduced was a good day. It will continue to be a good

day once this act is in place, once we can move forward, once we can have those

guarantees available — in particular for one of our largest industries, the

second-largest industry in this province, tourism, which will now be able to

move forward along with this.

With that,

I thank you for the opportunity to respond to second reading.

[1535]

Deputy

Speaker: Closing second reading debate, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes, it is frustrating that the legacy of the ferries we have been

left with by the previous government, a service that is so essential and so

important to the people of this province and to our economy…. As the member

just quoted, the decision was reached by the previous government with regard to

the Pacificats. As that member stated, the quote was: "The decision was

reached after full discussion of the contents of the memorandum and is based on

the timing rather than the substantive aspects of the agreement." As the

member said, this was just shortly before the last election. It's a very

unfortunate set of circumstances, and certainly things have changed in the world

market with regard to ferries since that time.

We have

looked at the system that we have. We have looked at the importance to British

Columbia. We have looked at the public good that needs to be protected. We

believe that in this piece of legislation, it does protect the public good and

give assurances to people as we move forward that their ferry service will be

there for them. They will know what rates they're going to pay for it, so they

can make their plans. The industries that use the ferries will be better served.

The tourism industry will be better served. I believe this will lead us into a

time where we can look forward to more people travelling on the ferries instead

of feeling like the ferries were a bottleneck to our economic growth and

prosperity.

I now move

second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

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

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

Bill 18,

Coastal Ferry 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. G.

Abbott: I call second reading of Bill 17.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the bill be read a second time.

[ Page 5565 ]

These

amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act serve to transfer the compliance operations

department at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to my ministry.

Ensuring public safety on roads is a priority for this government. In 2001, 88

people were killed and over 2,000 others injured in crashes involving commercial

vehicles. Due to the size and weight of these vehicles, the consequences of

commercial vehicle crashes are often severe and result in higher fatality rates

than other motor vehicle crashes.

The mandate

of the compliance operations department is to reduce the incidence and severity

of such crashes. The department does this by administering and enforcing

programs related to vehicle inspections, the transport of dangerous goods and

operating requirements for commercial vehicles, drivers and carriers. Moving

these functions to my ministry, with its similar focus on public safety and law

enforcement, will strengthen and streamline the delivery of these important

programs and facilitate the further integration of law enforcement activities in

the province.

Now, we do

know how much I love to talk about integration and amalgamation of police

operations and services, as we move forward to build a strong police agency for

the province. We will move forward, as we integrate this into law enforcement,

to also build an integrated traffic enforcement team across regions in the

province. To accomplish that, we will need certain partners to come to the

dance, including the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We need them to

enter into the long-term relationships versus the short-term relationships we

presently have with law enforcement, and law enforcement in general, to look at

regional models so we can do this across borders to accomplish traffic safety

for all of our citizens.

transferring ICBC's compliance department to government, this bill achieves

three main purposes. First, it creates a new statutory authority, the director

of commercial vehicle safety, to assume all of the powers and functions

currently assigned to the compliance operation department to this individual. To

enable the director to carry out these responsibilities, the bill also

introduces provisions for the director to delegate authority, keep records and

access ICBC information.

[1540]

As we move

forward looking at this, the interesting aspect I found as we dealt with this

legislation was the fact that we actually had to have legislation to access ICBC

information for the purpose of traffic statistics and enforcement in British

Columbia — from a Crown corporation that we actually own. I would hope there

would be a more seamless relationship in the future with regard to the

statistical information and the ability to access that information so we can do

enforcement in a timely, professional and proper manner when it comes to traffic

enforcement.

Secondly,

this bill establishes a new decision-making and show-cause process for

enforcement actions. Under the current process, compliance operations staff must

submit their proposed enforcement activities to the superintendent of motor

vehicles in the Ministry of Transportation. The superintendent then decides

whether to approve or reject the recommended action, sometimes after conducting

a show-cause hearing into the matter.

There are

couple of things that have happened. One is that the superintendent of motor

vehicles has been transferred to this ministry so that we can get that seamless

relationship going with our law enforcement community. In addition to that, this

director now will have other responsibilities that will actually take away one

step that isn't necessary in order for us to enforce the law.

The

involvement of the superintendent has been necessary to ensure that these

critical safety and regulatory decisions were made within government, but now,

with the transfer of the compliance operations to the ministry, there is no

longer a need for a separate body to make these enforcement decisions. Thus,

this bill authorizes the director to conduct show-cause hearings and to make

final enforcement decisions. It also maintains the right to a show-cause hearing

for persons whose National Safety Code certificate, vehicle licence, vehicle

inspector authorization or inspection facility designation is cancelled or whose

use of a commercial vehicle is restricted or prohibited. People who exercise

their right to a show-cause hearing are granted an additional right to request

that the director reconsider the cancellation decision. The result is a fair and

efficient enforcement process, one that also allows dangerous-goods commercial

vehicles and carriers to be removed from the road more quickly than is currently

possible.

Finally,

this bill provides authority for transitional matters such as the transfer of

funds and records from ICBC to government. The changes put forward in this bill

will result in a more streamlined and focused delivery of commercial

vehicle–related compliance programs and a better-integrated relationship with

law enforcement on traffic enforcement. In turn, this will enhance the road

safety of British Columbia.

I move that

the bill be referred…. First of all, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're moving so quickly that I can hardly keep up to myself.

I move that

the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17,

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003, 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. G.

Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 2.

MUSEUM ACT

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 2 be now read for the second time.

[ Page 5566 ]

I'm pleased

to present Bill 2, the Museum Act, for second reading. The Royal B.C. Museum is

a cultural icon of this province. The current facility, built as a centennial

project in 1967, has created state-of-the-art exhibits showcasing our province's

human and natural history. It also houses a gallery devoted to British

Columbia's first peoples.

While we

all have a vested interest in seeing our heritage preserved, we also recognize

the unrelenting pressures on funding. It's necessary to find the balance between

government responsibility for the treasures of the province's human and natural

history and realistic fiscal requirements. Since 1996 the museum has operated as

a special operating agency, allowing it to conduct business in a slightly more

entrepreneurial fashion than previously. Through a public-private partnership,

the museum added the National Geographic IMAX Theatre. The museum also developed

and fostered market synergies with community and tourism partners.

[1545]

In this

vein, the Royal B.C. Museum has improved its programming and viability, going

from full dependence on government funding to 26 percent self-sufficiency. This

is an impressive achievement in only six years. However, fixed costs at the

museum continue to rise.

Successful

museums throughout Canada and around the world rely on a combination of

government funding and private sector donations. It is incumbent on us to

provide the museum with the necessary mechanism to achieve maximum benefits of

being both a major tourist attraction and a significant non-profit cultural and

heritage resource. The Museum Act is that mechanism. It proposes changing the

museum from a special operating agency to a government corporation, a change the

museum has actively sought for ten years. This proposed change in governance

means the museum will gain the ability to raise and carry over funds for

reinvestment in exhibits and programs. It will be able to grow an endowment for

long-term sustainability. It will be able to respond more quickly to the

competitive tourist marketplace, to increase revenue and attendance, and finally

— and I think not insignificantly — to attract major donors.

In charting

its future, the Royal British Columbia Museum was also asked to consider

synergies with like-mandated organizations. As a result, the Museum Act proposes

that the museum form a corporation amalgamating the museum, the B.C. archives,

Helmcken House and the Netherlands Carillon into one entity known as the

cultural precinct. These components already share a site perfectly situated to

showcase British Columbia to visitors and to provide a cultural centrepiece for

locals as well.

Practical

opportunities will be created by the amalgamation, by integrating services,

strengthening visibility, increasing on-line access and marketing the various

components as a whole. The museum will unite these entities under the leadership

of a single fiduciary board of directors empowered to set the course for the

future. The Royal British Columbia Museum, as a government corporation, will

continue its mandate to preserve and interpret the human and natural history of

British Columbia.

This

legislation speaks boldly to the power of partnerships, the union of private and

public interests and the synergy of place and culture. With this legislation the

museum can protect its reputation for excellence. This evolution is essential to

engaging all British Columbians and carrying out the fundraising campaigns

needed to sustain core programs and enhance collections, exhibits and

programming.

The Museum

Act will ensure that the museum remains a cultural institution of which we can

all be proud. It will also build a strong, sustainable future for the cultural

precinct.

appreciate the support of many members as this has moved forward, and I'm sure

they all have some comments.

J. Bray:

As the MLA where the Royal B.C. Museum physically rests, I am pleased to rise

and support Bill 2, the Museum Act. Really, one of the reasons I'm so pleased is

that sometimes we forget, in our daily lives, some of the jewels that we

actually have in our midst and some of the assets that we tend to overlook and

take for granted. I think it bears reminding this House and the province that

the Royal B.C. Museum is a world-class museum with world-class staff and a

world-class collection, and I am pleased to rise and support any form of

legislation that further enhances its ability to become one of the cultural

anchors for our province.

As the

minister has said, Bill 2, the Museum Act, will create a new Crown corporation

instead of the special operating agency that the museum operated under. What

this will do — and this is critical in the world of culture and in the world

of museums — is increase the museum's independence through the creation of a

provincially appointed board of directors that will be accountable to the

financial success of the museum and be responsible for creating new

opportunities.

[1550]

In my many

meetings with staff at the B.C. Museum and the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum,

one of their great frustrations was always that while they had great ideas for

fundraising and had huge support not just in this province but in fact across

this country for the work they do, there is always the concern that to some

extent, if you create a life legacy through your estate — if you make major

donations to what is essentially an arm of government — sometime in the future

your gift may actually find its way into the general coffers of government and

not for the intended purpose. By bringing in this legislation, one of the key

things it does is ensure that those who want to contribute to the culture,

history and heritage of this province can do so now knowing that gift, that

legacy, will be there for the people of British Columbia, through the museum,

for generations to come. I know this is going

[ Page 5567 ]

to have a huge impact on the way the museum operates.

The other

really exciting aspect around this legislation is that here in Victoria, we

really have a large number of cultural assets literally within walking distance

of this very building — this very building, in fact, being one of them. I know

there's been a vision for some years now to actually create a cultural precinct

here in Victoria. This act helps ensure that cultural centre becomes more than

just an idea; it actually becomes a reality. It's a centre that is limited only

by the imagination and the ability of people to get out and let the world know

about Victoria.

I'd like

just to quote from Pauline Rafferty, the CEO of the museum, who said: "This

legislation positions us to take our place among the great cultural institutions

of Canada and the world. We will do this by staying focused on our vision to

inspire curiosity and wonder and to share British Columbia's story with the

world."

This is

really part of the vision of the staff and volunteers that work at the museum.

It is recognizing that we have a vibrant history in this province, both after

European contact but also prior to European contact. This museum does such a

wonderful job of bringing that story out for British Columbians, Canadians and

visitors from around the world to really study and understand that history,

which is exciting and very diverse. Also, the museum has a huge amount of

inventory and exhibits in its stores that, when properly managed, really are

educational assets for the whole country.

The Museum

Act will create this cultural precinct in Victoria's Inner Harbour. As the

minister pointed out, it will amalgamate the museum, the B.C. archives, Helmcken

House and the Netherlands Carillon. The corporation will benefit from

operational efficiencies, joint marketing and streamlined processes. In other

words, it will really create the opportunity for these great assets to work as

one towards the marketing of British Columbia — our heritage and our history

— to the world.

As I've

said many times in this House, one of the great untapped areas of tourism is

that of cultural tourism — in other words, those individuals who will actually

travel to destinations based on culture and history as opposed to just scenery

or sporting events. So, by being able to make sure that the cultural assets here

in the capital of the province are able to work as one, we will see tremendous

benefits for tourism, which benefits not only the region but in fact the whole

province.

The

amalgamation of B.C.'s museum and archives presents a tremendous opportunity to

build collaborative strategies for the stewardship of the province's history.

Again, I don't think we should underestimate how important that partnership

between the museum and the archives will be over the next ten, 15, 20 or 30

years.

There's an

incredible amount of work that's gone into those collections that are now housed

there. There's a great wealth of history and information that will now be able

to be used in a joint way for education and research purposes — again, I

think, not only for the benefit of British Columbians but really for the benefit

of anybody in the world seeking an increase in knowledge.

As I

mentioned earlier, the whole aspect of tourism should not be underestimated. Ian

Powell, who chairs the Tourism Victoria board, recently said: "The tourism

industry welcomes this opportunity to showcase B.C.'s heritage in the heart of

the province's capital city." That, I think, is an exciting opportunity for

those in the Victoria community to band together around our history and our

culture and actually promote the capital and the province to the world.

Certainly, if and when we're successful with the 2010 Olympic bid, I look

forward to the opportunities for the Royal B.C. Museum to really showcase our

incredible history here and the history of our first nations peoples when the

world comes and visits.

[1555]

The other

thing that's really exciting about what the museum has done in many years and

what will be enhanced by this act is some of the permanent special exhibitions

that the museum has done, for instance, the Leonardo da Vinci presentation, the

current Dragon Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China attraction. They've

brought nearly one million people to the Royal B.C. Museum each year. That's a

huge number of people that come into that museum.

This is an

interesting statistic. These visitors contributed an estimated $63 million to

the greater Victoria economy — $63 million. In fact, history, culture and the

museum not only are great for those aspects of education, but quite frankly,

they're also very good for the local economy. They provide excellent

opportunities for employment. We have a large number of archivists and specially

trained people who work out of the museum, and the ability for them to operate

with better budgets, with stronger finances over time, simply means that their

work and their opportunities for research and education will be further

enhanced.

I'd like to

speak briefly about the museum to highlight why this is so important not only

for Victoria but, really, for the whole capital region. The Royal B.C. Museum

contains detailed information on all the province's natural and human history.

It houses a collection of over ten million objects and specimens valued at

approximately $600 million (Canadian), so it has a significant catalogue of

information.

The museum

was founded in 1886. It was originally developed in the wings of the provincial

legislative buildings until its current building was erected as a Canadian

Centennial project in 1967. In fact, some of the members have their offices in

what used to be the Royal British Columbia Museum. The museum building comprises

a research and collections tower named for John Fannin, the museum's first

curator.

In its

present location, the museum creates state-of-the-art exhibits of the province's

natural history and human history and devoted another gallery to British

Columbia's first peoples. Open Oceans, the last large permanent exhibit, was

added in 1987. Also on the site

[ Page 5568 ]

is a first nations carving studio and big house as well as Thunderbird Park,

famous for its totems. These areas are programmed and interpreted through a

partnership with Victoria's Native Friendship Centre. St. Ann's Schoolhouse on

Elliot Square dates back to 1843 and was used by the Sisters of St. Ann.

The museum

not only represents a collection of history. It is, in fact, part of the history

of this part of the province and part of the capital. By creating this cultural

precinct, it brings those entities together for a more formal process of

interpretation, education, cultural awareness and tourism opportunities. In

1996, as the minister mentioned, the province granted the museum special

operating agency status, thereby allowing it to conduct its business in a more

entrepreneurial fashion.

I can tell

you that those involved with the museum took that opportunity to heart. They

have worked very hard and very creatively to provide opportunities to raise

additional funds for the purpose of the museum, for the purpose of education and

for the purposes of tourism. In fact, one of the most creative events I've been

to since I was elected to this House was when the Premiers conference was held

in British Columbia a year and a half ago. The opening night reception was

actually catered and held in the museum.

It was

really a tremendous opportunity for the museum to engage in the catering

business but also to bring people in a social atmosphere to actually see the

history of the province. It's this type of creative thinking that the Royal B.C.

Museum is demonstrating that really means its ability to become a world-class

fundraising organization, the same way that it's a world-class museum, is

already in place. Bill 2 will ensure that it can actually fulfil that mandate.

I want to

just review very quickly that this has been a long process. The museum has

identified the need to become a separate entity for some years. We became

government only in 2001, and I know the minister directed the museum to review

its operations in the fall of 2001 and examine ways to improve service.

In November

2002, in an open cabinet meeting, the government approved the museum's

recommendation that the Royal British Columbia Museum become a Crown entity and

that the British Columbia archives, Helmcken House and the Netherlands Carillon,

previously under the purview of four separate ministries, be amalgamated with

the museum to form a cultural precinct. I'm very pleased to see that the

minister has moved quickly and thoroughly on this issue to actually enhance the

ability of the museum to be the cultural centre that it is.

[1600]

When we're

talking about the Museum Act, Bill 2, I think it's important to quickly review

what the mission of the Royal B.C. Museum is: to explore and preserve British

Columbia's human and natural history, to inspire curiosity and wonder and to

share our story with the world. This vision embraces three complementary

objectives that reflect the museum's mandate and mission: (1) to maintain and

disseminate the knowledge that resides in the collection, (2) to be a

significant tourist attraction and (3) to be a place of discovery, scientific

study and education. I think those are wonderful targets, and I believe that

Bill 2, the Museum Act, will help ensure that all those who work and support the

museum now will be able to take the museum to the next level. The next level

will be a world-class museum. It'll be a world-class educational centre and

research centre. I think that certainly for us here in the capital region, this

is very exciting. In fact, it's exciting for the whole province.

The Museum

Act will successfully target the Royal B.C. Museum's investment to attract and

expand its collections, its customer base and financial revenues through

ancillary commercial operations, new products and services, innovative branding

and marketing strategies, admissions revenues, licensing opportunities,

corporate sponsorships and fundraising campaigns. In other words, it will give

it the freedom to operate in a commercial way while still ensuring that it, in

fact, is a cultural and heritage entity.

As a

corporate entity the museum will receive stable funding from government and will

be able to raise additional revenue through donations and partnerships with

corporations, companies, associations and private donors. The act will also

lengthen the distance between the museum and government, thereby shifting the

Royal B.C. Museum's reliance towards private sector partnerships. According to

Pauline Rafferty, who I've quoted before and who is the museum's CEO, it has

been 15 years since any large permanent exhibits have been added, and the Royal

B.C. Museum is in need of major renewal and redevelopment to protect its

collections and ensure it long-term success. The act will give the Royal B.C.

Museum the independence it needs for diversified fundraising campaigns and P3

partnerships.

I am very

excited and very supportive of Bill 2, the Museum Act. I feel that this is going

to move Victoria's cultural tourism ahead, and I think it's exciting for

visitors to the museum, for researchers who utilize the museum and the archives,

for the staff that work there and for the volunteers. I wholeheartedly support

this, and I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.

S. Orr:

It's with great pleasure that I stand today in support of this act. The previous

member, for Victoria–Beacon Hill, covered an awful lot of very good details

— good technical details, good details about the operation of the museum —

so I'm going to try and not repeat all of that. Everything he said is true, and

I support that.

Where I'm

coming from in support of this act is a very personal point of view. I have been

involved with the museum for a long time. Don't go by my age, but it has been a

long time. I've been involved with the players in the museum. I have helped

fundraise. I have bought many, many fundraising event tickets. I have watched it

go through its evolution, and I can tell you, this is coming straight from my

heart.

The

minister introduced this, and we will be putting this act through. I can only

thank him, because I

[ Page 5569 ]

spent quite a few days padding down these long hallways to his office, and he

was incredibly patient listening to me extol the virtues of what we need to do

in order to do this. He totally agreed. I have to say that this minister is a

good visionary. He does some really good stuff when it comes to arts and

culture. For that, I thank him. This is a part of that.

The Royal

British Columbia Museum and the archives have a long and very proud history. It

is a jewel. It's a jewel not just for people who live in Victoria, although I

must admit we tend to think it is, because we do a lot of fundraising

personally. It is a jewel for the province. I know that when all our guests come

to town, the first thing we do is all go down to the museum. They also have a

fabulous restaurant — just for a little bit of advertising, they do great

catering too. They serve all British Columbians throughout their research and

their education and on-line access.

[1605]

What this

act does more than anything is enable the board to make decisions that respond

to the marketplace. I'm going to give you a little story about how that will now

work as opposed to how it was working. The Leonardo da Vinci exhibition, as we

all know, was a huge exhibition that came to town and really helped tourism, and

everybody would say that we would love one of those twice a year.

But what

happened was that the private sector, which was at that point the Gray Line bus

tours, had wanted to do a deal with the museum. They had wanted to bring more

tourists to town and sell it with a package — the museum ticket to the

exhibition with a bus ticket. This was a package tour. Really, a decision could

have been made on that in a day. That didn't happen. What happened was that it

had to go through this long process, it had to go into government, and a whole

bunch of people had to decide if it was going to work. The private sector

doesn't wait for that. You make your decisions now, you run, and away you go.

That was a really good example of why we needed this act and why we need this

change.

Now the

museum can respond. It can also respond to the bigger stage. The larger exhibits

throughout the world don't really like to deal with government. They like to

deal with private sectors. The big exhibits that go to all of the national

museums throughout the world don't like to deal with government. This is going

to really change that whole attitude. This is going to give the CEO of that

museum the opportunity to go out there as a Crown corporation and sell the

museum like a private sector museum.

As I said

earlier, what I have to say really comes more from personal experience, and it

comes from the heart. This is an extremely good decision. It is extremely good

for tourism, and it is extremely good for the museum.

I'm going

to end. We've been quoting Pauline Rafferty a lot, but I'm going to quote her

again, because as far as I'm concerned, she is a fabulous CEO, as was her

predecessor, Bill Barkley, who also was a wonderful CEO. Pauline is a visionary,

she is a personal friend, and her passion for what is going to happen to this

museum is wonderful. She said something that I thought resonated in me:

"Today we have been given the opportunity to create a cultural centre that

is limited only by imagination."

With that,

I will end. Again, I thank the minister for his vision, for his forward

thinking, for finally getting this through after a decade. We will all benefit

from this, especially the citizens of this province.

Stewart: I rise to support this bill today. I rise as a representative,

perhaps, of all the people in the lower mainland who grew up in my era knowing

the highlight of our class's trip to Victoria was going to be our visit to the

Royal B.C. Museum. It characterizes so much of what we learned about British

Columbia.

As a young

boy, we would make these trips to Victoria, and we would see the Legislature. It

would interest us to some degree, but the museum carried our interest. The

museum had, for us, what was British Columbia and what was the history of this

province. It brought it so much to life that I was excited to read our act and

the reasoning behind it, and to discuss with my colleagues from Victoria

primarily, who knows much more about this issue and much more about the history

of the museum itself, about the history of the workings of the people who put

together the museum, the people who volunteer their time for its betterment and

the people who benefit most from the museum — the people here in Victoria.

certainly brought to mind the amount of trouble government often has in making

the changes that I think government ought to make. In many cases you'll find

things that government wants to do and has been trying to do — perhaps even

succeeding governments — for many years, and no one is against them, but they

don't get done. No one is against them, but it simply isn't possible to move

forward in many circumstances.

[1610]

I applaud

the minister for putting this act forward. I applaud him particularly on behalf

of the students of today who are going to be making their trip to Victoria,

perhaps this month and next month, and they'll be seeing a museum that's second

to none. It's a museum that speaks to the history of this province in such a

personal way, and such an important way, that those of us who were born here in

this province can look and realize that long before we came — long before my

parents were born, long before my grandparents came to this province — there

was a history of the first nations people and a history of the geology of this

province all represented in a first-class museum. I want to thank the minister

for this bill. I want to thank the people of B.C. for the vision and foresight

that brought us the Royal B.C. Museum.

Chong: I feel that today I'm going to speak on nothing but tourism, starting

from my two-minute statement earlier and speaking to Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry

Act, and now to Bill 2, the Museum Act, which definitely has an impact on

tourism in this region.

I first

want to go back a number of years when I was first elected in 1996 and was

appointed critic for

[ Page 5570 ]

Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Shortly after my election, I was paid a

visit almost immediately by the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum who, I think on

urging from the CEO, requested a meeting with me. They came forward at that time

with what appeared to me to be a new idea, and that was to transform the

existing Royal B.C. Museum from what it was, which was a special operation

agency or authority — it had just received that designation — to a Crown

corporation. The reasons that they presented were sound. My colleagues before me

have already stated those reasons. That was to allow this jewel of a museum,

this provincial asset, to have an opportunity to grow, to diversify and to have

the ability to enhance its current financial resources to provide yet more

opportunities for the people who will be visiting this particular museum. It

makes a great deal of sense to me.

While I was

the critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture in that term before this one,

I canvassed this on a number of occasions and always received responses from the

ministers then responsible that it wasn't a bad idea, but they were just having

to work on it — to work on it again and then, thereafter, work on it again. I

recall the last time I spoke on this was in the spring of 2000. The then

minister responsible was Ian Waddell, and I was almost tired of asking him when

they would finally move on this legislated corporation and allow it to move

forward. He indicated to me that, in fact, the government had finally seen the

light. It was time. They were actually looking at drafting it. They were in the

final stages of it, but it would likely be in the fall that it would be ready.

I was

hopeful that in the spring of 2001, even knowing that an election was right

around the corner, they might have had the gumption — that they might have

fought for one legacy that they could have left behind, a positive legacy.

Unlike the fast ferries, of course, but a positive legacy they could have left

behind was in fact the transforming of this into a Crown corporation or a

legislated corporation, one that would allow the Royal B.C. Museum to capitalize

on its existing resources. But they didn't do this, and an election was called.

[1615]

Shortly

after the election — in fact, I think, a week after the election — I

received a phone call again from the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum who asked

what had happened to the proposed legislation by the NDP and where it might be.

Of course, at that time I was not in a position to share anything with them. It

was too soon. Cabinet had not yet been sworn in, and I didn't know who the

minister responsible would be. Once the minister was sworn in — that is, the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services…. I think it was within

that week that I paid him a visit and asked him where this legislation might be

and how soon we can move on it. I very much wanted to see it come forward. I

very much would support legislation allowing the Royal B.C. Museum to become a

force unto its own, to be a Crown corporation. He indicated to me that yes,

amongst his many other obligations that he had responsibility for, he would look

at this. I took him at his word that he would look into it. Shortly thereafter

he indicated to me that he did and that the previous legislation did, in fact,

have some problems, but he was certain that they could work those things out and

move forward.

I know, as

well, that my colleagues in the Victoria area had gone to see the minister, so

he was getting pressure from, I would say, a number of areas. We paid him

regular visits, and I know he listened to us. The fact that we have Bill 2, the

Museum Act, is proof that he listened to us.

Establishing

the Royal B.C. Museum as a legislative corporation means that we're going to

have a new board of directors — one that I think is going to provide a sound

business approach, and that's important to me. The board of directors will

consist of both government and community representatives. That, too, is

important, because it means that government will still be able to maintain some

control over this provincial asset, this jewel. At the same time, community

input will be there at the table making these very important decisions to ensure

that this museum continues to survive, to be sustainable and, in fact, to be

quite profitable. I think that's a very important feature with the setup of the

board of directors.

I want to

also briefly state and read into the record a part of the bill. While the bill

was introduced, I don't expect many people will pull the legislation for it and

read it. I think it's important, while I have the opportunity at this time to

speak on this bill, to read into Hansard the purposes of the corporation,

so all those who may want to review what is said at the second reading debate

understand the reasons why I so wholeheartedly support this legislation. It

states here in

section 4 of Bill 2 the purposes of the corporation. They are as

follows: (

a) to secure, receive and preserve specimens, artifacts and archival

and other materials that illustrate the natural or human history of British

Columbia; (

b) to hold and manage the archives of the government; (

c) to increase

and communicate knowledge of the natural and human history of British Columbia

by research, exhibits, publications and other means; (

d) to serve as an

educational organization; (

e) to develop exhibits that are of interest to the

public; (

f) to manage, conserve and provide access to the collection; (

g) on the

request of the government, to manage cultural and heritage facilities designated

by the government; (

h) to perform functions usually performed by a museum and

archives.

I think

that sums it up quite well. It sums up what we do expect our Royal B.C. Museum

to do. That is what they have done in the past, but this again confirms it. This

reinforces in legislation what they are to do and, in fact, makes it that much

stronger. The Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum have been asking for this

legislation for years, as the minister indicated. It's finally here, and I think

it's good not only for the greater Victoria capital region area but also for the

entire province.

I recall

the exhibits that have come through that museum and the limitations that were

there. I recall

[ Page 5571 ]

one of the first ones — the Genghis Khan exhibit. I think that was the

first major exhibit that the museum procured for one of its showings. It was

learning, at that time, how to market that kind of an exhibit. While it was

still learning some of those things, I think it was also restricted very much by

government, because they weren't able to look at other avenues of increasing

what could have been a substantial increase to their budget, which would have

allowed them to make improvements not only to perhaps their building but looking

at other smaller exhibits that they could bring here.

[1620]

It's

already been mentioned: the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit — a hugely successful

exhibit. Right to the very last weeks and days people were lined up around the

block. People from Seattle…. Again, tourism potential was very much brought to

light. The Leonardo da Vinci exhibit allowed other businesses throughout greater

Victoria to also highlight the exhibit — to do a play on the Leonardo da Vinci

exhibit within their businesses and to promote it that much more.

We recently

had the Emily Carr exhibit, one of British Columbia's own personalities — very

important as well. To be able to showcase her life in the Royal B.C. Museum was

a natural fit, another successful exhibit. And now, today, we have Dragon

Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China — as has already been said by many

people — an outstanding exhibit that is going to bring tourists from all over.

I even think our Asian and international tourists will perhaps pay us a visit

here in Victoria. When this exhibit was back in their homeland, perhaps it could

have been in a region that they were not able to visit. Coming to Vancouver and

coming over to Victoria, paying an extra day visit or an extra night visit here,

is certainly going to benefit our local economy and community.

There is

huge local support here. There are financial donors who have already made it

known that they want to support this as well. The mandate of this museum is not

going to change based on the purposes, as I've outlined, in the legislation. I

think everything that is important to this corporation will now be able to be

solidified. One thing I do want to say that's important to me, as a local area

MLA, is that the head office of the corporation will be here in the city of

Victoria, and that is good for all of us who represent this museum.

With that,

I thank you again for the opportunity to offer my comments on second reading of

Bill 2, the Museum Act, which is very much supported by this member and her

constituents.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I hope my voice holds up here for a little while. I do particularly

want to thank my colleagues — the members who have spoken on this bill — for

their very generous comments. I'll do my best to weather the current storm of

appreciation and tuck it in my pocket for perhaps more difficult days in the

future, although, hopefully, we won't have very many of those.

I think

what's clear in all of the comments that have been made by the members is the

enormous pride that these members and all British Columbians feel in the great

institution of the Royal B.C. Museum — that great jewel in our provincial

crown. It is a point of pride not only to the city of Victoria but to every

corner of British Columbia. Certain