2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Transportation Investment Act (Bill 57)

Hon. J. Reid

Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 59)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Whalley Chiefs baseball club

E. Brenzinger

Airspace Action on Smoking and Health organization

J. Kwan

Energy production in B.C.

B. Penner

Oral Questions

Negotiations with physicians

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Role of Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

Agriculture and livestock industries in B.C.

W. Cobb

Hon. J. van Dongen

Impact of air travellers security fee on small and rural communities

W. McMahon

Hon. R. Thorpe

Speaker's Ruling

Recommittal of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

(continued)

Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Tabling Documents

B.C. Rail, annual report, 2000

Forest Practices Board, report, 2001

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2001

Petitions

G. Trumper

I. Chong

Hon. S. Santori

W. McMahon

R. Hawes

H. Long

J. Kwan

Personal Statement

B. Lekstrom

Petitions

Hon. L. Stephens

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, annual report, 2001-02

Second Reading of Bills

Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

R. Sultan

Committee of the Whole House

Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

Committee of the Whole House

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Committee of the Whole House

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

Committee of the Whole House

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Reporting of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Third Reading of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Motions on Notice

Third reading of Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

(Motion 34)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

(continued)

S. Orr

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Third Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Motions on Notice

Third reading of Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

(Motion 35)

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

[ Page 3681 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce in the House today two special women.

Bev McGee, a great supporter of mine, and my mom, Hilda Burns, are in the

gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Speaker, after 22 years of serving us in the legislative

dining room, Betty Turko will be retiring on Friday, May 31.

Just think

of that. Betty has been working since March of 1980. Think of all the

exceptional people she's met. [Laughter.] Think of all the stories that she has

to tell, and think of all the memories that she'll take with her.

An Hon.

Member: But won't tell.

An Hon.

Member: I hope.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Betty has said to me that she believes her employment in the

legislative dining room is, in fact, a confidential cone of silence, so no one

has to worry. I do think this: we will all have memories of Betty's exceptional

service to each and every one of us and to our colleagues who came before us. On

behalf of the entire Legislature, I would just like to say thank you to Betty

for over 20 years of exceptional service to us all.

P. Wong:

I'm pleased to introduce a group of 18 people from Surrey-based Fraser Valley

Taiwanese Association. They are involved in many small businesses, including

real estate, metal fabrication, insurance and finance, arts and printing,

electronics and health. This group is led by president Fei-Lin Kung, former

president Ching-Taun Kuo, Mr. Shun-Chin Lee, Linda Su, Chi-Chen Wang, Michael

Chen, Richard Tseng, Jackie Tseng and Chi-Cheng Chung.

My hon.

colleague Dave Hayer will introduce the other delegate members. Will the House

please make them most welcome.

W. Cobb:

It is my pleasure to introduce my daughter Toni and her boyfriend, John. They're

down here holidaying from the Cariboo, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'd like to welcome to the House today Paul Smith of Labatt

Breweries and Jeff Gaulin of Molson Breweries. While you think they may be

competitors, they do come together under the association known as the Western

Brewers Association, and the association is represented by Daniel Fontaine.

Trumper: In the precincts today we have students from grades 5 to 7 from Hot

Springs Cove school with their teacher, Mr. Bown. Hot Springs Cove is about a 1½-hour

boat ride from Tofino. It's a small aboriginal village. This is probably, for

many of those students, the first time that they have been to Victoria. I would

ask you to please make them welcome.

J. Kwan:

Visiting the gallery today is Heather Mackenzie. She's the president of Airspace

Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the achievement of a

tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians. Would the House

please make her welcome.

Hawes: In the gallery today we have 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic

Elementary School in Mission with their teacher Ms. Heron and a number of adults

that are along helping. Could the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hayer: I would like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington in

welcoming members of the Fraser Valley Taiwanese Association. There are over 18

members from my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead visiting Victoria. They

supported me last time at election time, including Dr. Leo Wang, who is the

vice-president of the association; Sandy Chen, who is a director of the

association; Mei-Huei Chen Chung; Tonny Lin; Yi-Chen Lin; June Wang; Shu-Hsieng

Weh; Hsiu-Chen Lai; and Ling Na Chen.

Christensen: I'm told we're joined in the House today by a pillar of my

community. I haven't seen him up there yet, but I'm sure he's there. This

gentleman is a strong volunteer in my community, a businessman. He's a former

mayor. He's a former MLA from 1986 to 1996, during which time he served Her

Majesty in a number of portfolios as a minister of the Crown. I would ask that

the House please give a hearty welcome to Mr. Lyall Hanson.

Chong: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce two constituents of mine

who are here to watch question period and the proceedings of the House. They are

Lyse Burgess and Andrew Weaver. Would the House please make them both very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT

Hon. J.

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

intituled Transportation Investment Act.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that Bill 57, intituled Transportation Investment Act, be read

a first time now.

[ Page 3682 ]

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: British Columbia's economic vitality is in many ways dependent on our

transportation system. In order for British Columbia to continue meeting our

transportation needs, we need to make substantial additional investments in our

highway infrastructure. We must also look for the most efficient, cost-effective

way to develop that infrastructure. This will ensure that the available

transportation dollars fund as wide a range of projects as possible.

The

Transportation Investment Act will authorize the Ministry of Transportation to

enter into concession agreements with private sector investors. It will allow

those concession operators to construct, improve, operate and maintain highways.

Private sector investors will be required to meet provincial highway standards

for safety, design, construction and maintenance.

This act

provides the necessary legislative flexibility for the ministry to explore and

develop opportunities for public-private partnerships. It also allows British

Columbians to access improved infrastructure far sooner than would be otherwise

possible. For the travelling public it means providing roads that are consistent

in quality and standards. For commercial users it means more reliable means of

moving goods.

Mr.

Speaker, the throne speech outlined our government's commitment to explore more

private sector investment in our economy. We are fulfilling that commitment. I'm

introducing the Transportation Investment Act for first reading to allow for

public consultation this summer before it is debated in the House in the fall.

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 57

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.

ELECTION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

[1415]

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59, Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, is

introduced now to facilitate public discussion over the summer. It will be

debated in the fall. This bill keeps three new-era promises for electoral

reform. It keeps the new-era promise to repeal the law that restricts

third-party advertising during election campaigns. It also keeps the new-era

promise to outlaw donations from charities to political parties. Charitable

organizations, defined by the common-law test for a charity, will be prohibited

from making political contributions to elections or recall campaigns. Charitable

organizations will not be prohibited from contributing to initiative campaigns.

Lastly,

Bill 59 also keeps the new-era promise to eliminate loopholes on disclosures of

financial contributions to political parties to include donations of labour, as

is required in municipal elections. This bill will ensure the disclosure of any

donation of labour during an election or recall campaign where the individual

donating his or her services and time is being compensated by an employer. The

amendment does not apply to unpaid volunteers or to donations of professional

services made by self-employed people. These amendments are part of this

government's ongoing commitment to electoral reform in British Columbia.

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 59

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) WHALLEY CHIEFS BASEBALL CLUB

Brenzinger: I would like to share with the House another great community

sports story. We have heard plenty of hockey updates over the last few weeks,

but I would like to turn your attention to the great North American summer

tradition of baseball. The Whalley Chiefs baseball club have their home in my

constituency. They play in the B.C. Premier League and have a record of 25 wins

and 14 losses for the year.

Now, most

baseball fans will have heard of the great pitcher and Canadian, Fergie Jenkins.

Those who follow the game may also recognize names like Larry Walker, Ryan

Dempster or Jeff Zimmerman, all natives of our great province. Aaron Mayette,

who plays with the Texas Rangers, and Kevin Nicholson of the St. Louis Cardinals

were once proud Whalley Chiefs. Their hard work, talent and dedication to the

sport they love have turned their dreams into a career. Other Chiefs who have

been drafted by professional teams include Cole Armstrong, Jordan Kissock and

Kevin Johnston.

Baseball is

alive and doing well in B.C. This year we expect another Whalley Chief will be

selected quite high in the upcoming major league draft: Adam Loewen. He is a

hard-throwing, left-hand pitcher. Recently Adam, along with Jeff Francis,

another young pitcher from North Delta, were featured in a USA Today

column, further recognizing baseball's growing interest in B.C.'s talented

youngsters. In fact, according to the Major League Scouting Bureau, Surrey has

more

[ Page 3683 ]

players drafted by big-league clubs than any other city in Canada.

Like many

community groups, the Whalley Chiefs are trying to improve their facilities.

They would like to have their ballpark upgraded so that the field matches the

calibre of players they produce. Fortunately, one of the Chiefs' greatest assets

is hard-working volunteers who work to make this dream a reality. It is my hope

that we can find a way to help the Whalley Chiefs create a ballpark in Whalley

that can allow the organization the ability to focus on the pride of the team:

the players. Whalley and all of Surrey are very proud of the Chiefs and the

tradition of excellence that they have established.

AIRSPACE ACTION ON SMOKING

AND HEALTH ORGANIZATION

J. Kwan:

I rise today to speak to the matter of clean air and to highlight the work of

Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the

achievement of a tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians,

including those who work in the hospitality industry. This organization is not

alone in advancing the public understanding of the science on tobacco smoke and

health. Health authorities around the world are unanimous in telling us that

there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, even at the bar or the

lounges.

The science

is also clear that the ventilation of a designated smoking room is, at best, a

cosmetic solution intended to take away some of the smell of smoke. Most of the

toxic chemicals in smoke, such as carcinogenic gases, cannot be filtered and are

the ones that you can't see, taste or smell. The bottom line is that ventilation

is not intended to make the air in a designated smoking room safe.

[1420]

Every year

Airspace takes the time to publicly acknowledge those who assist the tobacco

industry in its war against humanity. In the fine tradition of parliament, I'll

be leaving with the Clerks, to be shared and viewed by members of the House, the

often-ducked, rarely coveted Airspace Bedfellows Award. I quote from the

document: "The Airspace Bedfellows Award for distinguished and exemplary

service to the multinational tobacco industry at the expense of worker, child

and public health in the province of British Columbia has been awarded to the

Minister of Labour this year."

ENERGY PRODUCTION IN B.C.

Penner: I would also like to speak about protecting air quality and comment

on a rapidly growing source of electric energy which doesn't produce emissions.

Members

will know that last week the Washington State regulatory agency looking into the

Sumas Energy 2 power plant proposal reversed their earlier unanimous opposition

to the project and recommended the project be approved by Governor Gary Locke.

The 1,000 tonnes per year of pollutants emitted by SE2 would exacerbate already

significant air-quality problems in the Fraser Valley on both sides of the

Washington State–British Columbia border.

Fine

particulate matter — that's PM 10 — concentrations currently exceed Canadian

24-hour criteria on certain days, as do maximum hourly ozone concentrations. In

the eastern Fraser Valley levels of fine particulate have been temporarily

recorded at levels more than 70 percent higher than what is considered safe.

We are not

alone in our concerns. A recent report released two weeks ago in California

concluded that dirty air causes or contributes to the deaths of 9,300

Californians every year, more than the number of deaths in that state attributed

to traffic accidents, homicide and AIDS combined.

Contrary to

some reports, SE2 is not proposed to be a cogeneration facility. Rather, the

natural gas burned at the plant will be for one purpose. The natural gas burned

will be used to power the plant. Cogeneration, however, entails multiple uses

for the energy consumed.

This is the

case at the newly operational Island cogeneration plant near Campbell River. By

replacing older boilers at the Elk Falls pulp and paper mill, which were used to

process steam, about 240 megawatts of electricity are now produced with almost

no net increase in most criteria pollutants. Clearly, cogeneration is preferable

from an energy efficiency and human health perspective.

I've spoken

in the past about the power of small hydro projects, which divert small amounts

of water to generate significant amounts of electricity. This private industry

is now growing in British Columbia.

There is

also potential for wind energy. It is no longer experimental. Washington State

has 178 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, with another 800

megawatts planned or proposed.

California

has 1,671 megawatts of installed wind capacity. Even Texas, not normally thought

of as a green state, has 1,096 megawatts of wind energy. In Canada, Alberta has

about 55 megawatts of wind energy.

B.C. is

behind in this area, but some time next year we may see the first wind towers

being constructed on Vancouver Island as part of B.C. Hydro's wind demonstration

project.

Wind energy

may not be the answer for all of our growing electricity needs, but along with

cogeneration, small hydro and other alternatives, wind energy should be part of

our energy portfolio.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS

MacPhail: British Columbians are in a high state of anxiety about their

health care system. Many feel

[ Page 3684 ]

like it's high noon. The Minister of Health Services said just moments ago

that he would have a statement after question period. I'm afraid that British

Columbians have learned to be very wary when this government says it has a plan

to resolve this dispute.

Everything

it's done so far has done nothing but inflame and prolong the dispute. Every day

more and more patients are not getting the care they need and the care they

deserve.

I ask the

Minister of Health Services: what assurances can the minister provide British

Columbians that whatever he's planning will not just unify the doctors in their

job action, inflame the situation and result in even more chaos and confusion

for patients?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It is individual British Columbians that have been paying a very big

price due to the fact that some physicians in the province have decided to deny

them access to health care.

I have

certainly had communication from a lot of doctors who actually have taken the

time to recognize that there's $392 million in new money on the table, that

there is a fair proposal there, that they will be well compensated, and that it

will address the issues around recruitment and compensation.

[1425]

We as a

government are not going to stand by when we see people who are writhing in pain

on the floors of their homes waiting for back surgery or when we see patients in

Kelowna who are being denied access to urgent care because their doctors won't

care for them. We have made it clear today that we are prepared to take action.

If the BCMA is not prepared to bring this to a conclusion quickly and restore

patient care in this province, we will take the action necessary to ensure that

those patients can once again count on health care in this province.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because I was looking for something

new. This is what the Minister of Health Services has been saying for weeks,

despite repeated offers of assistance from the opposition to assist in settling

this dispute.

There are

those that are very close to this government who have said that this government

has screwed up this dispute from the beginning. We wouldn't be here today if the

government had lived up to its binding arbitration process that it agreed to and

gave its full support to. Now it's a game of chicken, and British Columbians are

having to pay the price of seeing who will blink first.

To the

Minister of Health Services: instead of using ultimatums, wouldn't it be smarter

to first try to demonstrate some goodwill, admit that it was wrong to rip up the

binding arbitration process and establish a new binding arbitration process for

all future disputes that's fair to both sides?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As this member knows very well, the binding arbitration process that

she is referring to was put in place by her government. There were four items in

the terms of reference. I will even give credit to the previous government —

to the fact that they did not agree to an open-ended binding arbitration

process. There were conditions. The arbitrator had to consider the financial

circumstances of the province and had to consider the administrative and

management needs of the health authorities. The arbitrator did not do an

adequate job of that, and we had grounds to appeal that arbitration. That member

knows that.

I would

like this member to stand up in this House and tell this House which programs

she would like to see cut in the provincial government in order to come up with

the extra $300 million to $400 million a year it would have cost had we gone

through with the full ramifications of the McEachern arbitration award.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm actually surprised by the admission of the Minister of Health

Services. Now he admits that he could have chosen a court appeal process that

would have been fair. Instead, he decided to rip up a contract. That's what he

did. No wonder doctors are saying that this government has messed up this

dispute and that they have lost confidence in this minister. They're demanding

that he and his colleague the Minister of Health Planning be fired.

Even B.C.'s

top heart doctor, a senior Liberal fundraiser, has called on the Premier to fire

these ministers. But you know what? I don't know whether I would go that far,

but I would ask the minister this: if his ultimatum, which he continues to do to

inflame the situation, backfires and if, as a result, B.C.'s health care system

descends into further chaos, will the minister do the right thing and step aside

from this dispute and ask the Premier to hand it to someone who hasn't earned

the pathological enmity of the doctors and lost the trust of patients and who

may actually have a chance at getting this dispute resolved?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I want to recognize that there are thousands of doctors in this

province who want to get on with putting patient care first. We want to get on

with putting patient care first.

[1430]

We have

tried and tried in every way possible to get the BCMA to come back to the

negotiating table so that these issues can be resolved. They asked for binding

arbitration. We offered them binding arbitration. They asked for things to be

negotiated. We said: "Yes, let's negotiate it." There is a point at

which we have to provide the strong leadership necessary to put patients first

in this province, restore care for patients throughout British Columbia, and we

are prepared to do that.

[ Page 3685 ]

ROLE OF MINISTER OF STATE

FOR INTERMEDIATE, LONG TERM

AND HOME CARE

J. Kwan:

It's not only patients and doctors who have lost trust in this government's

ability to manage the health care system. The opposition has learned that one of

the Premier's own cabinet ministers is requesting and asking questions around

the health care cuts.

The

opposition has seen an e-mail which was sent last week on behalf of the Minister

for Long Term Care to public servants from one of her own senior ministry

officials. In that e-mail, the minister instructs the bureaucracy to provide her

with answers to some very serious questions about cuts to health care.

Apparently, she couldn't get answers from her own cabinet colleagues.

To the

minister of state: why did she not express these very serious questions and

concerns, which the opposition shares, before and not after she turned seniors'

lives upside down? Will she table in the House today the questions she posed to

the public servants?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Well, what a surprise that a minister is taking the responsibility

to ask questions about the very people that fall within the jurisdiction of that

minister. This government was committed to embarking on a long-range plan that

would provide for the benefit of patients in this province, and that is what we

are endeavouring to do.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister should be asking those questions at the cabinet table, not of her

senior officials within the ministry.

In that

e-mail, the minister's official says that the minister of state has asked for

answers to a number of serious questions before she attends a conference of

private long-term care providers. The e-mail asks why the North Shore health

region is facing more cuts to care for seniors and mental health than any other

region. "Are health authorities ensuring alternatives are in place"

before eliminating programs that currently provide quality care for those who

need it the most?

The

minister did not bother to ask these questions before the cuts were implemented.

Now we have to ask them on her behalf. Perhaps the Minister of Health Services

could answer these questions for her own minister and cabinet colleague.

Hon. K.

Whittred: The question that the member opposite has read is an illustration

of exactly what my job is. My job is to attend to the long-term care issues…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Whittred: …around seniors in this province. For me to ask a question about

the dispersal of those services in a health region, I think, is part of my job.

AGRICULTURE AND

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRIES IN B.C.

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Livestock

production has played a major role in the economy of my riding for over 100

years. However, ranchers today are competing on an international scale that they

never dreamed of, could never have imagined, a generation ago. Can the minister

tell us how British Columbia's livestock industry is performing in this highly

competitive business?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: It is correct. The livestock industry has done very well this

past year. Returns in the industry are up 14.5 percent.

I think a

lot of the credit goes to the men and women who work on our ranches for their

innovation, their dedication and their competitiveness. They are throughout

rural British Columbia. They've done a great job. They generate a lot of jobs in

those communities as part of their service industry.

Two

concerns, both revolving around the U.S. farm bill. They're concerned about

increased subsidies and the country-of-origin labelling provisions in that new

farm bill. We look forward to working with them on that, and I look forward to

seeing the member's constituents at the annual meeting on June 7 in Dawson

Creek.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplementary question.

[1435]

W. Cobb:

I hope I can be there.

Agriculture

is often overlooked as a segment of our B.C. economy. Can the minister tell me

and my constituents what the future outlook may be for this important sector?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I guess if I were a rating agency, I would characterize it as

steady and positive. B.C. agriculture has some major strengths, and one of those

is our diversity of many different commodities. When some sectors are down,

others are up or going along in a strong fashion. We also have a very stable

industry that grows a certain amount every year. It has a very good record of

growth, and certainly we're optimistic about that growth continuing.

Agriculture

operates in all parts of British Columbia. Even in the GVRD we have a major

agricultural industry. They had an open house on the weekend, which I thought

was very good. Farmers and ranchers are looking to an active and meaningful

relationship with our government to help create the conditions for ongoing

growth in this sector.

[ Page 3686 ]

IMPACT OF

AIR TRAVELLERS SECURITY FEE

ON SMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. I understand that the minister was recently in Halifax at a

provincial-territorial conference on tourism. I have heard from a number of my

constituents about the reduction in airline services, particularly to those

communities that rely on air travel to connect to other centres. Can the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what was discussed at

this conference and if there was any discussion about small communities and

airline services?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes, there were extensive discussions last week at the tourism

ministers conference on air travel to rural and small communities across Canada.

I had meetings with Robert Milton, the chief executive officer of Air Canada.

I'm having follow-up meetings in the coming weeks with Air Canada officials.

Our

government, as have other governments across Canada, has asked Air Canada to

make sure they let our communities know what's happening well in advance, that

they consult with communities and that they understand the importance of air

travel to small and rural communities, especially to communities that depend on

tourism. We are working on this issue. We will continue to work on this issue.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary

question.

McMahon: A number of people in my constituency are very concerned about the

federal government's recently imposed air travellers security charge. While this

extra fee is intended to support increased security measures in airports, some

tell me that very little actual security improvements are taking place and that

the fee is a hardship for smaller communities. Can the Minister of Competition,

Science and Enterprise tell us if anything is being done to address concerns

about this fee?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Again, this was a very topical issue at our tourism ministers

conference last week in Halifax, and all tourism ministers across Canada have

made it our number one priority in the coming months. Following my meeting in

Halifax, I travelled to Ottawa where I had the opportunity to meet with Minister

Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada. Mr. Martin has committed to a

review of the air security tax. That review will be completed this fall.

Mr. Martin

has also asked British Columbia to participate in that review, and we will be

participating in that review to ensure that the air security tax provides the

security but that our rural and small communities and our tourism industry

throughout British Columbia is not disadvantaged. British Columbia is going to

work with Canada to find the solution for British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Speaker's Ruling

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, on May 28 the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose, as

she stated it, "to seek advice" from the Chair about events that

occurred in the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. The

decisions made by that committee are not subject to review by the Chair, and

matters arising in committee are invariably settled in committee unless they

come forward as part of a report to the House.

It is

reasonable to assume a report will be coming to the House from the committee,

and when adoption of the report is moved, the member may raise such questions as

she deems appropriate.

Recommittal of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

[1440]

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave, I move that the proceedings relating to third reading of

Bill 54, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, be

declared null and void and that the said bill be recommitted forthwith with

respect to

section 73.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment to

section 73 that is in the possession of the

Clerk.

[SECTION 73, by deleting the proposed

section 73 (1) and substituting the

following:

(1) Sections 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14, 30 to 36, 39 to 42, 46

to 57, 59, 65 and 70 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor

in Council.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 73

as amended approved.

[ Page 3687 ]

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as

amended.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 54,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete with

amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Plant: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 54,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a third time and

passed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J.

Reid: I have the honour to present the annual report for B.C. Rail for the

year 2000.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Two reports: the 2001 report from the Forest Practices Board and

the 2001 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

Petitions

Trumper: I would like to table a petition. The petition is signed by 154 of

my constituents requesting from the Ministry of Human Resources the extension of

a preschool study qualifying low-income families to the end of the fiscal year,

June 2002.

Chong: I rise to table a petition from FAIR, families against imposed

reconfiguration. They are opposed to middle school reconfiguration by school

district 61. It is signed by 3,183 individuals.

Hon. S.

Santori: I rise to table a petition from 4,100 citizens of the West

Kootenays with respect to the closure of the Kiro Manor long-term care facility.

[1445]

McMahon: I rise to present a petition. This petition has approximately 3,100

signatures asking government to consult with the community of Revelstoke to keep

Moberly Manor open.

Hawes: I rise to present a petition signed by 10,500 of my constituents

requesting that acute care, critical care and maternity remain open in Mission

Memorial Hospital.

H. Long:

I rise to table a petition that I received from the Sunshine Coast Conservation

Association and Sunshine Coast Water First. Collectively, they've received 5,082

signatures. The petition urges the government to prohibit all industrial

activity within their community watershed and to transfer control of the

community watershed to the community.

J. Kwan:

I rise to table two petitions. The first contains the names of 191 residents

from the constituencies of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Nelson-Creston,

Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Penticton–Okanagan Valley and Cariboo North. The

petitioners call on the government to put an end to its mean-spirited attack on

youth, seniors, the poor, the sick and the disabled and to respect legally

binding contracts. Further, they call on the government to remind the MLAs that

it's their role to listen to, consult with and represent the needs of their

communities and not simply to impose the government's agenda.

The second

petition is signed by 17 residents of my constituency. They express their deep

concern about the cuts the government is imposing on schools, hospitals, social

services and the public service. They note that it is the most vulnerable in our

province, and especially our children, that these cuts hit the hardest. They

call on the government to restore funding to these vital public services and

commit itself to putting the needs of people and communities ahead of tax cuts

for the wealthy.

Mr.

Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that petitions are to be put forward

without political comment.

Further

petitions?

Personal Statement

Lekstrom: I rise to make a personal statement in relation to a point of

order brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Lekstrom: The point of order raised on the afternoon of May 2, 2002, implied

that I received a $6,000 stipend for the work I was doing as chair of the

government caucus committee on the offshore oil and gas task force. The Leader

of the Opposition was incorrect. At no time did I receive any stipend for the

work I did on behalf of and as chair of the committee on this task force.

I would

like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to clarify this

matter.

[ Page 3688 ]

Petitions

Hon. L.

Stephens: I rise to present a petition from the Rainbow old age pensioners

organization and 400 members of my Langley constituency in regard to health

services at Langley Memorial Hospital.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present herewith the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee annual report for the period April 2001 through March 2002,

pursuant to

section 5(9) of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr402.

Second Reading of Bills

SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY ACT

Mr.

Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano. [Applause.]

[1450]

Sultan: I'm honoured.

I move that

the bill be now read a second time.

The Sea to

Sky University Act is a private bill establishing a new university in British

Columbia. SSU will be a private, non-secular, non-profit liberal arts

institution with enrolment of initially 400 and ultimately 1,200 students. It

will offer British Columbians expanded academic choice and a high-calibre

internationally oriented curriculum subject to rigorous quality standards.

Motion

approved.

Sultan: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr402,

Sea to Sky University Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:51 p.m.

Sections 1

to 14 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:51 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Sultan: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr402,

Sea to Sky University Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 58.

Committee of the Whole House

CARRIER LUMBER LTD. FOREST

LICENCE COMPENSATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 58; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:53 p.m.

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:53 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 58,

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1455]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee debate on Bill 38.

[ Page 3689 ]

Committee of the Whole House

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 38; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Related to

section 1 but actually the entire bill itself, I'd like to ask the

minister some questions around the consultation process that took place with

this bill.

During

estimates debate on March 7, I asked the minister about the changes to the

Environmental Assessment Act and with whom he would be consulting on these

changes. When the question was asked of the minister on the major reform of the

environmental assessment process — who would be consulted and who has been

consulted — the minister responded as follows, and I quote from Hansard :

"There is a committee in place which has had two meetings so far to discuss

these changes. The committee is made up of five environmentalists representing

environmental organizations, one from labour, one from the UBCM and four from

business. There is also a first nations group in place being consulted."

The

question was then asked of the minister: "Does the minister have the names

of these groups?" The minister responded by saying: "Yes, I do."

Then

several weeks later the environmental assessment office sent me some more

specific information around the consultation procedure. I was given a list of

the people who currently sit on the environmental assessment advisory committee,

with the following statements. The EA advisory committee provides advice and

feedback to the EAO, the environmental assessment office, on implementation of

the environmental assessment process and the development of policy regulatory

initiatives. This group assisted in the development of the act and continues to

act as a standing advisory committee to the deputy minister of the environmental

assessment office.

The

statement was accompanied by a list of the people on the committee. I won't go

through the list again.

Could the

minister please outline the exact consultation procedure he or the environmental

assessment office had with the advisory committee and this list of individuals?

How many times did the committee meet? What was the result of that process? Was

the committee supportive? Did the minister accept submissions from members of

the environmental assessment advisory committee? If so, who?

[1500]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The consultation process which took place involved two conference

calls, one meeting that I held with environmental groups and a follow-up meeting

between my staff and environmental groups. As you know, the briefings on the

basic elements of the bill have been held with members of the EA advisory

committee composed of 12 representatives of various stakeholder groups: local

government, labour, industry and environmental.

As the

member also knows, it's not normal practice to circulate a bill to the public

prior to the introduction in the Legislature. When the current act was being

developed in the mid-nineties, the public had access to an earlier bill that had

been introduced in the House but was then withdrawn. Considerable consultation

has since taken place with the development of the regulations.

J. Kwan:

After second reading debate, where I expressed concerns of the West Coast

Environmental Law Association that no consultation had been done, there seems to

have been a discrepancy around the consultation. Since that time, members of my

staff have been in contact with Karen Campbell of West Coast Environmental Law.

As the minister is aware, she's also a member of the environmental assessment

advisory committee, one of the people supposedly consulted on this issue. Here's

what she had to say. The minister can correct the House if he disagrees with the

chain of events.

According

to the minister in estimates debate and the material provided by the

environmental assessment office, the advisory group "assisted in the

development of the act," while I've learned that the committee never once

met as a whole group to discuss the changes. Apparently, the members of

committee representing the environmental groups, like West Coast Environmental

Law and the B.C. Environmental Network, attended a 27-minute-long briefing on

the changes and were able to participate in two conference calls.

They were

advised on what changes there would be. There was no opportunity for discussion,

no opportunity to provide submissions and no opportunity to offer suggestions

about changes to the new act. This is beginning to sound like a real stretch of

the definition of consultation. There was no opportunity for participation to

develop the bill, like there was with the original one. This really fits in with

Bill 38's drive to remove all legislated public consultation requirements.

However,

the subgroup of the committee did apparently get one message across. They were

deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. The one group that is supposed

to be consulted on environmental assessment is deeply concerned about the lack

of consultation. I fear that this sets a very bad precedent for any consultation

under the new act.

Perhaps the

minister could let me know if my account of the events is accurate so far.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Under the new process, the approach to public notification, access to

information and consultation will be very similar to that in place now but with

an increased emphasis on providing the information electronically. Public

meetings and public

[ Page 3690 ]

comment periods will continue to be normal features of project reviews.

I'm also

advised by staff that after their first meeting with the environmental group,

there were some changes made to the draft legislation.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

The chain of events: did that actually occur? The people the minister was

supposed to consult with say otherwise.

I'd like to

bring the House's attention to a letter from the deputy minister of the

environmental assessment office that she wrote to the members of the advisory

committee, dated May 9, 2002 — the very day the bill was introduced. Wouldn't

it be surprising after all that consultation? Here's what the letter said. I'll

just quote parts of it:

"Unfortunately,

there has not been sufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation on the

provisions of the new bill. Environmental community representatives on the

committee recently raised this concern in a meeting with the hon. Minister

of Sustainable Resource Management, and I know that he appreciates this

feedback.

can say that certain key changes have been made to provisions in the bill as

a result of the feedback received from the committee members during our

recent briefing sessions.

"As

I mentioned during our last conference call, the environmental assessment

office is committed to consulting the committee on both the regulations and

the operating procedures which will be required for the new

legislation."

It is signed by Dr. Sheila Wynn, deputy minister.

By the

deputy's own admission, there has been insufficient time to allow for in-depth

consultation. There you have it, right from the deputy minister herself. Let me

just quote again: "Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient time to

allow for in-depth consultation on the provisions of the bill." Could the

minister explain exactly what consultation occurred and why there was not

sufficient time for consultation, since this government has been in power for

over one year, and the minister talked about consulting on March 7, over two

months ago?

Also, the

letter says: "I can say that certain key changes have been made to

provisions of the bill as a result of the feedback received from committee

members…." Perhaps the minister could let the House know what those key

changes were, since Karen Campbell says she couldn't imagine the bill being any

worse than it is right now.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm very pleased the member read that letter out from my deputy

minister, because of course it confirms exactly what I said just prior to that,

so I appreciate that very much. It substantiates what I said.

As I

mentioned before, there were two conference telephone calls of all stakeholder

groups. There was a meeting that I held with the environmental sector, followed

up by a meeting with my staff, the members of the EA advisory committee composed

of 12 representatives of various stakeholder groups, local government, labour,

industry and environmental. I'm confident that there has been sufficient

consultation on this bill. I think it's a great bill.

It also

fulfils several new-era commitments that our party made during the election

campaign. I'd just like to list some of those commitments: a thriving private

sector economy, enhanced competitive business climate, sustainable resource

development, a scientific and principled approach to environmental management,

balanced decision-making, eliminating federal-provincial overlaps, open and

accountable government, and reducing red tape and regulatory burden.

J. Kwan:

If the minister's answer to my questions is a demonstration of the consultation

process, then I understand what happened there. The fact of the matter is that

the minister has no intention of listening to the people, no intention of

actually answering the question. My question to him was: if consultation in fact

took place — the deputy minister says in her letter that consultation did take

place and that changes were made to the bill — what were those changes?

The

minister just bypassed all of those questions and went on some rhetoric about

the new-era commitment, which had nothing to do with the Environmental

Assessment Act consultation process.

Let me just

advise the minister, then, of this information. Karen Campbell's position has

since been backed by other members of the environmental assessment advisory

committee, including Lloyd Manchester, Pat Moss and Alan Young.

Here's a

letter sent to the opposition caucus from Pat Moss:

"Yes,

you're right that the advisory committee was only informed about the changes

but not consulted. We had a conference call with the EA office, where we

were told the basic direction the new legislation would take, and then a

meeting was arranged with the minister and the four environmental members of

the environmental assessment advisory committee.

"On

both these occasions we were 'informed' rather than consulted and had no

sense that our opinions were given any consideration. We all expressed the

view that this was a huge backward step for environmental assessment in B.C.

and a complete gutting of the current Environmental Assessment Act.

"Two

of us have been on the committee for over eight years and helped develop the

original legislation, so we are particularly angry about the dismantling of

the process."

Pat Moss, chair, environmental assessment caucus, B.C. Environmental Network

and member of the environmental assessment advisory committee.

[1510]

Here's

another letter, from Alan Young:

"I'm

on the environmental assessment advisory committee and share [Karen

Campbell's] views on the process. We were given briefs through the

conference calls, once the bill had been formed. It would be incorrect to

say that we have been consulted and a gross exaggeration to say that we had

helped to form the changes that this bill represents. It is worthy to note

that the representative from the mining industry shared a number of our

concerns."

[ Page 3691 ]

Alan Young, executive director, Environmental Mining Council

of B.C.

I have to

wonder: if a significant percentage of the advisory committee is against the

changes and the lack of consultation, how can the minister stand up and defend

the contents of this bill? If every single environmental representative is

against the changes and the way they have occurred, how can the minister claim

this approach is balanced, and how can the minister even just pretend that

consultation actually took place?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I appreciate the patience of the member opposite. I thought the

meeting that I had was a very good meeting. We had a full and frank discussion

as a group around the table in my office. I have lots of these meetings with

various groups. I remember this one specifically because of the quality of the

people attending that meeting.

I mentioned

the changes that came out of the conference call meetings. One of the changes,

which was a very major change, was that we did away with the power of the

minister to waive projects out of the process. The second change was to ensure

that we could regulate public consultation requirements. We would actually have

it in regulation to make sure that there was full public consultation.

I just want

to talk a bit about the benefits of this act to the people of British Columbia.

I think this has profound meaning to the environmentalists as well.

preserves the features of the current process which work, such as process

management by the environmental assessment office, but with clearer

accountabilities; reviewability of projects established primarily by regulation,

with an option to designate projects to be reviewable where this is in the

public interest; environmental assessment certification of projects based on

balanced ministerial decision-making; assessment of the same broad range of

effects — environmental, economic, social, heritage and health, with a strong

focus on environmental protection; flexibility to custom-designed review

procedures for individual projects; procedural simplification and greater

ability to focus on technical issues; ability to maintain current levels of

public involvement — very, very important; more cost-effective — ability to

review the same number of projects for less cost; more timely — reduced

overall review duration; greater procedural choice for proponents; and finally,

enhanced federal-provincial review cooperation — very, very important now that

we're trying to attract investment back to the province of British Columbia —

so that we can make the procedures move in tandem between the province and the

federal government instead of one after the other.

Section 1

approved on division.

Sections 2

to 9 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Since the Liberal government has decided to invoke closure on all of the bills

on the order paper and shut down essential dialogue, we're extremely limited in

our ability to go through this legislation as thoroughly as it deserves. There

are over 40 sections in this bill that I have identified as needing substantial

review and debate. However, with this government's arrogant decision that debate

is not needed nor wanted in this House, it will likely pass by all the backbench

MLAs toeing the line.

[1515]

We can see

just from the minister's comment just now on the questions around consultation

that not only did he not address the issue around consultation…. The minister

says, "Well, I feel satisfied with the consultation," notwithstanding

that all the people whom he's supposed to have consulted with do not feel

satisfied with the consultation. They wrote to the minister and said: "You

know what, minister? We were not consulted. We were simply informed, and the

changes took place…. We're not satisfied with it. We feel that it actually

harms the environment in terms of what this act is pushing through."

Well, that

doesn't matter, because that's good enough for the minister. He feels satisfied.

He talks about the rhetoric in the New Era document.

Part 3 of

Bill 38 outlines the new environmental assessment process, one that sets this

province back at least 20 years and completely guts the legislative requirement

for consultation with first nations and other stakeholders. The project

committee stage is gone. Public advisory committees are gone, and the

environmental assessment boards are gone.

The

provisions in the current legislation are the backbone of public consultation

and participation in the process. Without them, communities, first nations and

concerned citizens will lose their guaranteed consultation.

Removing

the legislative provisions for the environmental assessment board is a major

blow to the independency of the process and the opportunity for experts on

specific matters in specific regions to be directly involved.

The really

disappointing change, however, is the removal of the project committee stage,

the government of B.C., affected municipalities and any first nations whose

traditional territory is involved. Bill 38 will remove this much-valued

guaranteed involvement in the process.

Furthermore,

the elimination of public advisory committees will do certain harm to the

ability of the public to be involved. The whole process will be lost under

part

3. By removing the project committee stage and moving towards this

"flexible" approach, this legislation removes the public's guarantees

for public notice and participation. Furthermore, it grants far too much power

and discretion to the minister and the executive director. This is supposed to

be an open and account-

[ Page 3692 ]

able process steered by the public, not subject to political interference.

Concerned citizens will no longer have the opportunity to actively participate

in the direction an assessment proceeds. Instead, the minister or the deputy

minister can arbitrarily make crucial decisions that should be left to

stakeholders and those with local expertise.

What

guarantees does the public have now on consultation under this act?

The

Chair: Before the minister responds, please, I just want to confirm that

section 3 was passed.

Section 3

approved.

section

10 (continued) .

Hon. S.

Hagen: I really do appreciate that question, because it's important. I'd

like to answer the question to the fullest extent that I can.

The

environmental assessment office will set consultation requirements for each

review, including the role and responsibilities of the proponent. Once set, they

will be binding.

There will

also be an ability to modify those requirements if circumstances change. This is

very similar to the approach under the current act. While the intent is to

establish consultation guidelines in the environmental assessment office's

operating procedures, there will also be a power to make regulations with

respect to consultation requirements.

One of the

attributes of this new act is that it is an open and transparent process. Public

notification, access to information and consultation are fundamental elements of

good environmental assessment and will continue to be an important part of this

new process. Requirements for public consultation will be set early in the

project review, and once set, they will be binding. Public meetings and public

comment periods will continue to be a feature of project reviews.

The project

information centre, currently called the project registry, will facilitate open

and transparent reviews by ensuring public access to information about project

review. Over the next three years access to information will be provided

primarily by electronic means. There will also be power to make regulations with

respect to consultation requirements. I'm confident that the process as laid out

is a good, open and transparent process.

[1520]

There was a

question asked with regard to first nations interests. This is very important to

me. It's very important to this government. It's a key issue. The environmental

assessment office will have to ensure that any fiduciary and constitutional

obligations towards first nations are met, their concerns are identified and

adequate efforts are made to address them. First nations will be provided with

information on projects during the preapplication period and will have

opportunities to identify how their interests may be potentially affected. First

nations may be invited to sit on technical working groups where issues of

concern to them are under discussion.

J. Kwan:

The minister's answer is telling. On the one hand, he says: "There is

consultation. Don't worry; be happy. All is the same." In reality,

everything is different and is stipulated in this act.

The public

are asking those questions as well. In fact, just this morning a letter arrived

from Francine Roulston of the Stó:lo nation. She said that she had been in

contact with the environmental assessment office just this morning, but their

answers from the environmental assessment office left her unsure and concerned.

Let me just quote parts of the letter that she sent to the opposition:

"I'm

sorry I'm not that confident, and neither are the Stó:lo people. We agree

that the new act may violate the legal requirements set out in the Adams

court case. Yes, the new Environmental Assessment Act would be illegal. Who

will decide if the first nations will need to be consulted? What about

ground-breaking court cases — Taku River, Haida? Will the decisions be

able to be overturned? The treaty negotiations issue — isn't the above

question asking just that? We need to be a visible noise in the

environmental process. The Stó:lo nation refuses to take a step backwards.

Anything that we as a nation or individually we will do."

Then it goes on to talk about how they'll proceed and make sure

that they'll review the bill and also participate in the process to make sure

that their voice is heard.

On the

sections that strip the public of its right to consultation, there are major

concerns around aboriginal rights. First nations groups in this province have

grave concerns and are gearing up for court battles against this legislation. It

is worthy of note that they already have quite an arsenal of court decisions

ready to fight this bill in the courts and with the treaty negotiations. This

bill will do nothing to get B.C. back on track, to get B.C. in business, as it

exists now.

On behalf

of the first nations groups like the Stó:lo nation, the Hupacasath nation, the

Lil'wat nation and others, they want to urge the government to reinstate

legislated requirements for consultation before it is too late. The new act

directly undercuts the court's affirmation of the role of first nations by

removing them from the process altogether. Removing consultation with aboriginal

rights and interests from the environmental assessment process means that

aboriginal governments may have no option but to go to the courts or resort to

public protest to ensure that their views are considered. The government's

deliberate removal of a cooperative mechanism in this new act may result in

greater uncertainty and more delay for project proponents in the long run.

Let's look

at some of the court decisions. The list obviously starts with Delgamuukw and

the Haida cases, which establish the requirement of consultation regardless of

title. Then there is the Taku case. In Taku River Tlingit first nation et al v.

Ringstad et al, 2002 BCCA 59, the B.C. Supreme Court held that the government

had failed to consult adequately with this

[ Page 3693 ]

northern first nation and forced the government to reconstitute the project

committee to consider whether or not the sustainability of the Taku River

Tlingit would be affected by the mine development.

Also, there

is the Adams case, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated that federal and

provincial governments cannot create legislation with discretionary powers that

could infringe aboriginal rights without providing guidelines. Here's a quote

from paragraph 54 of the case:

[1525]

"If

a statute confers an administrative discretion which may carry significant

consequences for the exercise of an aboriginal right, the statute or its

delegate regulations must outline specific criteria for the granting or

refusal of that discretion which seek to accommodate the existence of

aboriginal rights. In the absence of such specific guidance, the statute

will fail to provide representatives of the Crown with sufficient directives

to fulfil their fiduciary duties, and the statute will be found to represent

an infringement of aboriginal rights under the Sparrow test."

It seems highly unlikely that the courts would uphold a statute

that provides for broad provincial discretion over major projects with no

guidance for protecting and accommodating aboriginal rights.

Of course,

there is the Labrador Inuit case that I described during second reading stage.

It states: "…the process of environmental assessment is not a frill

engrafted on the development process; nor should it be regarded as an

administrative hurdle to be gotten over in the march towards economic

development. It is, rather, an integral part of economic development."

It is clear

that Bill 38 will contribute to increased uncertainty in treaty negotiations and

will strip many communities and individuals of the right to participate. Using

the words of a member of the government's own environmental advisory committee,

I can't imagine this bill being any worse.

Can the

minister please advise this House: has he sought legal opinions on this matter,

on the potential violation of the rights of aboriginal people for consultation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, I'm advised that we have indeed consulted with several lawyers.

I think the key issue here is that the environmental assessment office will have

to ensure that any fiduciary and constitutional obligations toward first nations

are met. The government is intent on that. We're focused on that. I have been

meeting with first nations groups throughout the province since June 5 of last

year, and we've established some very, very good working relationships with

those groups not just on the coast but throughout the interior of the province.

J. Kwan:

You know, I have no doubt in my mind that the environmental community

organizations, some of whom are here today watching this debate, and the

aboriginal community and organizations, some of whom are also here today, have

every good intention to want to consult with the government. The problem here is

this: the government is not reciprocating that good intention to the

organizations from the environmental community and from the first nations

community.

The

minister keeps on getting up to say: "Don't worry; be happy. Everything is

just fine." Then why would we get a letter just this morning from the Stó:lo

nation saying that they are concerned? Do people just dream this up, or is the

minister making this up as we go along? That is the discrepancy that is before

us today. What he says is one thing. The reality, when you check with the people

who he said he was talking with, who he had been talking with, who he truly

consulted with, is that they say otherwise, and they say it on record in writing

to the minister. It is now being registered in this House.

This bill,

Bill 38, is absolutely outrageous. It can cause undue harm for British Columbia

in a variety of ways. Environmentally it could set British Columbia back some 20

years on environmental protection. The original act was done in true

consultation with all concerned. They were at the table. That was consultation;

this is not. Taking away, in legislative language, the requirement to ensure

that first nations people are at the table for consultation is a complete

violation of the court decision. What the government is setting up is huge

uncertainty in the area around aboriginal rights that will not bring certainty

to British Columbia and that will not help in the economic recovery of British

Columbia.

[1530]

The

minister needs to go back and review how he is harming British Columbia on all

these fronts. The opposition will not be supporting

part 3, "Environmental

Assessment Process," in all its sections, because every

section strips away

the authority of the people who used to have a role to play around the

environmental assessment process. This strips away the ability to ensure there

is no political interference with the environmental assessment process. It

allows for the government to put its dirty fingers into the cookie jar and to

smear the entire process.

All that

does is do harm to British Columbia in the long term. It's not even helping the

proponents in the long term, because all it does, potentially, is have

long-lasting negative impacts that will cost the proponents in the long term,

cost British Columbians in the long term and, of course, delay the progress that

is much needed in British Columbia.

Hon. S.

Hagen: In listening to the member opposite and having her suggest that what

we're doing here could cause more harm to British Columbia and more harm to our

economy, I have to say it would be impossible for anything to damage the economy

of B.C. more than the government that was in power from '91 to 2001. It wouldn't

be possible for anything…

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member, order. Order, please.

[ Page 3694 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: …we did to damage the economy more than those people did in their

government in the ten years.

I want to

make another couple of points here. My staff tell me they have just completed a

two-full-day meeting with a first nations working group, which was very

productive with full and open consultation. I want to repeat that the

consultation process will indeed be in the regulations, so we will actually

regulate what the consultation process will be. This act now brings British

Columbia into the same position that all of the other provinces across Canada

are in, which is that they operate their environmental assessment acts without

committees.

I can't

help but note that the two members who were in the previous government that did

so much damage to the province economically were part of the government that

appointed a special environmental adviser to the SkyTrain expansion, the largest

project ever undertaken in the province, without consultation groups.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Now, Mr. Chair, I just want to point out….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member. Listen to the minister, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want

to enlighten the two members opposite on why we need a new act. We need a new

act because we are committed as a government to high-quality environmental

assessment of major projects, and we'll achieve it with this new bill. The bill

replaces the current one-size-fits-all approach with much greater procedural

flexibility, something that the members opposite would not understand, I'm sure.

The current

act is too inflexible, cumbersome and prescriptive. The process has sometimes

been ineffective and inefficient, with uncertain overall review durations.

That's the sort of thing, under the old government, that drove investment out of

the province. We need legislation that will enhance the ability to harmonize

better with the federal review process. I'm sure they would agree that it is

important to enhance our ability to harmonize this process with the federal

process. Otherwise, it delays things and drives investment capital out of the

province.

The bill

allows broad discretion to customize review procedures and to adapt to strategic

government priorities in order to improve the province's investment climate

without compromising the environment. That's the balance the two members

opposite don't understand. They don't understand the balance that we need to

achieve between the environment and the economy so that we can improve our

economy without negative damage to the environment.

I just want

to reiterate that the changes in this act are consistent with the practices of

other Canadian jurisdictions.

[1535-1540]

Sections 10

to 19 inclusive approved on the following division:

YEAS — 60

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Cheema

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections 20

to 50 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

I'd like to ask the minister this question on

section

Section 51 states:

"The act does not apply to any activity, construction, operation,

modification, dismantling or abandonment that, immediately before this

subsection comes into force…." Could the minister please advise what this

means? Does it mean that the current projects would go through the new process?

Or would they go through the old process?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer is that they will come under the new act.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

The application of it to come under the new act, I think, will jeopardize the

environment and

[ Page 3695 ]

the process that needs to be followed for these projects. These projects have

already been in the process, and for it to revert to being under a different

process all of a sudden, midstream, is wrong.

Of course,

perhaps I know what the rationale from government is on this. The new process is

a less stringent process on assessing environmental protection. That's the

government's intention: to take away environmental protection at every turn,

even projects that are already into the process for environmental assessment.

The

opposition would not support this

section of the bill. It is wrong to do such a

thing, and we will not be supporting this

section of bill —

section

Section 51

approved on division.

Sections 52

to 59 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the committee rise, report resolution without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:47 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Report and

third reading of Bill 38 approved on the following division:

[1550-1555]

YEAS — 57

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Cheema

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 38,

Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

MacPhail: In the gallery today there are various people from environmental

organizations here to observe the proceedings, probably with sadness. Peter

Ronald, Suzanne Connell and Laura Carlton are in the gallery from the Georgia

Strait Alliance. Also here today is Tom Hackney with the Sierra Club of B.C. and

the Georgia Strait Crossing Concerned Citizens Coalition. Also, another

concerned citizen in the House today is Ryan Durand, who is an environmental

planning technician, and his father David Durand, who is a community

representative on the project committee from Christina Lake. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 49.

Committee of the Whole House

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 49; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:58 p.m.

On

section

Hon. G.

Bruce: I have with me my deputy minister, Lee Doney, and my senior policy

analyst, WCB, Michael Tanner.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, because of the extreme time constraints, we're allowed

from four to 5:30 on this matter. Because of the government invoking closure,

I'll be examining only sections 8 through 11 of Bill 49. I'm not sure what

people think is so funny about that.

Sections 1

to 7 inclusive approved.

On

section

[ Page 3696 ]

MacPhail: This is repealing

section 22(1) of the Workers Compensation Act

and replacing it. It changes the compensation for an injured or ill worker from

75 percent of the worker's average earnings paid during the lifetime of the

worker to 90 percent of the worker's average net earnings. It also removes the

phrase "payable during the lifetime of the worker."

[1600]

My question

flowing from this is: will workers who are currently receiving compensation for

a permanent total disability continue to receive compensation during their

lifetime?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes.

MacPhail: If one were to compare the compensation that an injured worker

with a permanent total disability received before the passage of this

legislation versus after the passage of this legislation, on average, what's the

difference in the compensation for an injured worker?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I just want to be clear. You're looking for the comparison between a

person who would be on WCB benefits now with a disability that goes past age 65

into retirement, as opposed to when the new legislation comes in and that

benefit ends at 65. The difference would be somewhat dependent upon the type of

injury. I'm just trying to give you an average comparison here — make sure

I've got this correctly.

In the

general sense, if a wage earner was making $40,000 a year, they would receive

$534 and change a week under the new program. Under the old, or existing, system

they would have received $575. That's somebody with a $40,000 income.

It would

obviously vary depending on the nature of the injury. The more severe an injury,

the difference…. If it was somebody on a $30,000 income, they would receive

$9.50 less per week.

MacPhail: What is the consequence for those two workers with a permanent

total disability as a result of the removal of the phrase "payable during

the lifetime of the worker" from the legislation?

Hon. G.

Bruce: What that means is that under the new system, the monthly benefit

they would have been receiving ends at age 65. At that point they'll be given an

annuity of 5 percent of what their benefit had been, awarded to them during

their age as they were growing to age 65 — I guess is the best way of putting

it — and they're able to match that annuity. At age 65 their monthly benefit

ends,

whereas in the instance of right now that would have continued on.

MacPhail: What's the reduction for each of these workers' examples after the

age of 65?

Interjection.

[1605]

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't know whether I'm not speaking into

my mike, or maybe the minister was overwhelmed with that award he received

earlier. I'll try to speak more closely into the mike.

What is the

amount of the reduction that a worker would receive after the age of 65 under

the old rules compared to the new rules with those two examples the minister

quoted?

Hon. G.

Bruce: To the member: I can't give you an average. First of all, when

someone reaches age 65…. How long are they going to live thereafter, if you're

taking a 75-year-old or an 80-year-old or what have you?

Let me give

you an example, if I can. It would come in respect to a person who lost an eye.

I'll just kind of run it through, if this works for you.

This

particular individual is able to go back to work after ten weeks. Under the

current system, they would be getting a yearly award of $4,300 with the full

CPI, which would come out….

They would

receive, on a functional loss to age 65, $89,936. Under the new system, with the

yearly award of $4,006, they get a retirement benefit payable at age 65. That's

the 5 percent annuity. That would be $58,458 in total. Compared to Alberta, that

would be $15,000, and in Ontario that would be $13,920.

MacPhail: We're dealing with British Columbia here, and the minister is

taking away benefits from working people. That's a surprise to a lot of working

people. I'm not sure that it will mean any comfort for working people who have

been injured on the job that the minister is in a race to the bottom with

Alberta and Ontario for working people. They're in the race to match the

benefits for the richest in the country with Alberta. Those who make the most

amount of money will pay the least amount of taxes, the same way they do in

Alberta and Ontario. The price to be paid for that now is that injured workers

will be receiving less money.

Maybe next

year injured workers can expect to receive the same amount that they'd receive

in Alberta and Ontario. Gee, that's really good news.

Under this

system, the example that the minister just gave us, the injured worker is, on

the average example, $40,000 worse off in his lifetime. From $58,000 he would

have received….

Mr. Chair,

I'm sorry. When I say "he," I mean "she" as well. I

understand that there are both genders in the working world.

He would

have received $40,000 less — $58,000 versus $89,000. I'm sorry; it's $31,000.

My apologies.

Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Penner: In the gallery is a group of 24 students from Greendale Elementary

School in Chilliwack.

[ Page 3697 ]

They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Minato. I think this is an annual

event for her and for her school. It's my pleasure again to have had an

opportunity this year to meet with the class and the students. I had a few

moments to receive a few questions before the bells rang to bring us back here.

They are

accompanied by a number of adults — at least five, I think. I wish them well,

and I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Bruce: First of all, let's be clear. Anybody receiving a WCB benefit today

will continue to receive that same benefit tomorrow, when this legislation is

passed.

However, I

want to be clear to the hon. member that we're not doing this because it's fun.

We're doing this because of two things with respect to the review and the

reworking of WCB in the service delivery side of things: to make it more

effective and to be there for the people who are in need of it. Also important

is the fact that the system is under financial duress. It's virtually at risk.

We have a $287 million deficit, and one can't just carry along on that deficit.

We'll have a $900 million deficit by the year 2005.

[1610]

The member

knows all too well that the workers compensation system has to be changed. Their

government, in fact, undertook a study — the former administration, the NDP

government, with this member opposite — and some $7 million was spent on that

study. It was very clear that changes have to be made, and we're bringing

forward those changes.

I am not

hiding anything in respect to saying that benefits will be less for people that

find themselves in need of the WCB injury program after the June 30 date. They

will be, but more importantly, which I have to make sure as minister

responsible, is that the benefit system is there in place for workers in the

future and for people already on the system. If I were not to make significant

changes, that system would be greatly at risk.

Even with

the changes we're making, we will still have amongst…if not the best WCB

benefit program in Canada.

MacPhail: This government chose to take a whole bunch of studies and select

out of each study or review all of the benefits to change WCB that would assist

the employers and harm the workers. That's what this legislation is about,

completely.

There is

nothing in this legislation that benefits injured workers, and frankly, Mr.

Chair, today we will be having legislation rammed through — everybody will be

sitting silent here, ramming it through — that says a worker injured before

June 30 is more important than a worker injured after June 30.

That's

exactly what we're doing here, because the government wants to assist the WCB

out of a deficit that the minister keeps saying will be $900 million in three

years. The fluctuation of deficits and surpluses in the WCB changes each and

every year. Once again, this government didn't choose to reduce costs of WCB by

preventing accidents, injuries or deaths. They chose to say: "If you're

injured, you're going to have less."

Mr. Chair,

I'm proposing an amendment to

section 8,

section 22.

[Section 22(1) is amended by adding the text highlighted by

the underline:

Subject to sections 34 and 35, if a permanent total disability

results from a worker's injury, the Board must pay the worker compensation

that is a periodic payment that equals 90 percent of the worker's average

net earnings and must be payable during the lifetime of the worker. ]

I table it for you.

Actually,

Mr. Chair, the amendment is the entire set of pages, so I have a copy here for

the minister. Or can I refer to this, and then I'll table yours? Yes. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, that copy is for the minister.

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: What this legislation does — let's be clear — is say that this

government is eliminating lifetime pensions for people who are injured on the

job. That's the new-era version of assisting working people in this province.

Every single time this minister rises to table legislation that affects working

people — not their self-employed friends, not their real estate agents or

their lawyers; ordinary working people who are injured or become ill while

working — working people are worse off in this province.

[1615]

What this

amendment does — it's rather lengthy — is amend

section 22(1) by adding

text. It's a long amendment, but the thrust of this amendment is this. It is

saying that lifetime pensions are deserved. There is no justification for

removing that from injured or ill workers in this province. Eliminating lifetime

pensions and replacing them with the post-retirement benefit is perhaps the most

offensive change made in Bill 49. It is a direct attack on disabled workers.

There's no other way of describing it.

While this

government gives tax breaks to the richest in the province, they take money out

of the pockets of people who are injured on the job. Workers who are injured or

become ill as a result of a workplace accident or disease do not have the

opportunity to pay into a pension fund and then reap the benefits of the pension

from their employer. That's gone. That's what this legislation has done. And

we're ramming this through, probably so we can ram something down the doctors'

throats. The legislation doesn't allow for these workers to pay into an employer

pension fund.

They don't

make contributions to CPP. Receiving a lifetime pension for a workplace accident

ensures that they are financially provided for in their old age. That's what

this does. It makes them whole. It makes them whole as if they had continued to

work and had not been injured or become ill.

Taking away

the lifetime pension off-loads the employer's economic responsibility for

workplace injuries

[ Page 3698 ]

and diseases onto the public income assistance and health care system. That's

a direct subsidy to employers. Make no mistake about it. The minister will rise

up and say: "Oh no. No, it isn't." But it is. This government that

claims that no subsidies will be given to employers just received a giant one

today.

What this

amendment does is take the government at its word that there shouldn't be

employer subsidies — that the taxpayers shouldn't have to be responsible for

the lifetime assistance of a person injured or who became ill on the job. That's

all it does. It's a lengthy amendment, but that's all it does. It says lifetime

pensions are an appropriate payment by an employer when a worker is injured at

work or has a disease as the result of his or her work. That's all it does.

If this

government is true to its commitment to remove employer subsidies and not play

cutesy, then every single Liberal member will rise and support this amendment.

[1620-1625]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 56

Falcon

Coell

Halsey-Brandt

Cheema

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

section

8 (continued) .

MacPhail: I'll wait a minute, Mr. Chair, and I would appreciate it if the

members could clear quickly. We have limited time.

We've dealt

with the system of removing the pensions, axing the lifetime pensions for

working people. There's another change under this

section in the compensation

for injured or ill workers. Under the current system disabled workers receive 75

percent of their gross income in compensation benefits. Under Bill 49, this

legislation being brought in, workers will receive only 90 percent of their net

income in benefits. This is 10 percent less than their net income.

addition, disabled workers, particularly those in a non-union workplace, also

lose the contributions that would be made on his or her behalf if at work:

vacation entitlements, a pension plan and medical and life insurance. To say

that workers receive more on compensation than at work is false. It is a myth,

but it is one spread by this government.

Can the

minister tell the House why workers disabled by a workplace accident or disease

should receive less money in workers compensation benefits than they regularly

earn when they're at work?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'll just canvass a few of those points. The member had wondered

about the aspect of people receiving less, and that's what we're still talking

about here, in the 90 percent of net versus the 75 percent of gross.

Currently,

employees that would find themselves injured are in a situation where they're

reviewed at the end of eight weeks to see what their earnings would have been

back during the past year or so, so they could average out their benefits.

What

traditionally happens when the review is undertaken is that the amount of money

the injured worker was receiving in the first eight weeks usually is less when

it's then calculated over a greater period of time. We have changed that eight

weeks to ten weeks, so now that calculation of ten weeks extends the additional

two weeks of an increased payment to an injured worker to the tune, in overall

compensation provided by WCB, of some $27 million.

[1630]

What's the

relevance of this? It's the fact that that actually applies to about 85 percent

of the people that are injured and receive benefits through the WCB. The second

part is that these benefits, when reviewed at that ten-week period in respect to

what they should then be receiving, are also looked at from an individualized

standpoint, which is currently not the case. What we've done in that regard is

take a look at the individual and at the number of dependents they may or may

not have. Depending on that, their benefits will go up if they have dependents

or will be at the level based on the 90 percent of net earnings.

When one is

doing the calculation of averaging income to determine benefits, we also now

allow within this the inclusion of EI benefits, which was not the case but now

will be. Where an employee is perhaps a fisherman or something, during the

course of

[ Page 3699 ]

their job they receive EI benefits on a consistent basis. In other words,

they're on, and then they're off, so that's been able to be taken into account.

The approximately 85 percent of those people that find themselves injured and

receiving benefits from WCB will actually see an increase in this regard. I

wanted to make that point clear.

On the 90

percent of net versus the 75 percent of gross, the other thing one must take

into account is that an injured worker is also receiving an additional 5 percent

benefit, which works out as an annuity or can be given to them as an annuity at

age 65. They can also top up that 5 percent with an additional 5 percent. At age

65, with the injury they may have received, you take 5 percent of their benefit,

and that

part is added in and passed on to them at age 65 when they retire.

MacPhail: Gosh, why didn't I figure out that this was good news for injured

workers? Why didn't I figure it out that when the minister stands up and says

there's going to be $100 million of savings in workers compensation, it means

it's good news for the injured worker? Listening to the minister right now,

you'd think: why aren't the galleries full of injured workers throwing flowers,

rose petals, on the head of the minister?

Actually, I

can't imagine why they're not. Maybe it's because the minister is obfuscating.

Maybe it's because the minister is trying to make a bad deal look good. Can the

minister answer this question? How much money has he booked in savings from this

change from 75 percent of gross income to 90 percent of net? How much has the

minister booked in savings to give to the employer?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm not obfuscating at all. The statement was made by the Leader of

the Opposition that there was nothing in this at all for injured workers. I am

not standing here today purporting for one minute that this is a better system

in respect to the lifetime benefits package that was currently in place.

I have to

get the financial sustainability of the WCB system in hand. It wasn't managed

properly, and I'm not going to belabour the fact of your ten years there. I'm

not going to belabour that fact. It wasn't managed properly. We're in a deficit.

I've got to make sure the system is protected, so we're making changes.

Understandably, those changes are going to cost. They are.

To be able

to manage this system, there will be $98 million in all the adjustments that

we're making. I'm very clear on that. I made that clear in the press conference

in detail, in the background material that I'm putting out. The statement was

made that there were no other benefits. In fact, the 85 percent of the people

that represent as first-time-through of about 170,000 cases a year that WCB goes

through will see an increase.

I'm not

looking for rose petals. No, I'm not at all. I'm doing this; I'm fixing it. You

knew you could have fixed it. You chose not to fix it as a government, so I am

fixing this. Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to go on at great length about what wasn't

done and about what we are doing here, but I know that the Leader of the

Opposition has questions. I'm quite happy to answer those questions.

[1635]

MacPhail: Yeah, I guess it was in real trouble during the 1990s. The WCB was

in surplus or balanced each and every one of those years, worker health and

safety were improved, and benefits weren't cut. Gee, that sounds like a

disaster, doesn't it? That sounds terrible. Maybe it was because in that period

of time the benefits and assistance were given to reducing injuries and illness,

and where injuries and illness did occur, we supported the worker and the

family. I stand by this today.

What this

government wants to do is take 100 million bucks out of the pockets of injured

workers and give it to employers and not demand one cost-saving exercise of the

employer that prevents injury and illness. That's what we've done. At the same

time, the minister stands up and tries to say 85 percent of people would be

better off — not true. It's not true at all.

We have to

look at this in the context of what else this government is doing with the

Workers Compensation Act. The government's in the process of cutting what they

call red tape. I hope it's not blood-soaked red tape.

They're

getting rid of regulations that include health and safety regulations. One-third

of the health and safety regulations are going to be cut. Without any question

whatsoever, that will mean less health and safety protection for workers and

more workplace accidents and deaths — without question, absolutely without

question. At the same time, workers that are disabled and the surviving members

of workers who are killed on the job will receive lower benefits.

Oh, the

good news is: employers will pay lower premiums. That's the good news.

Can the

minister please explain what incentive Bill 49 provides for employers to provide

a safe and healthy workplace to prevent workplace injuries and disease from

occurring, also in the context of this minister going to cut one-third of health

and safety regulations?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, that was a little bit to canvass there.

First of

all, let's be clear. It was your government, the former NDP administration, that

actually gave the money back to the employers. Nearing the end of their mandate,

they saw fit….

MacPhail: Yeah, it was in surplus.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yeah, they were in surplus, all right.

You know,

when you have an insurance program, you have to be able to forecast out those

injuries. You see, what you're doing in an insurance program is that you have

somebody that's injured, and you have to understand how long they're going to be

alive and

[ Page 3700 ]

forecast out how much money you need to have in reserve to be able to pay the

benefits to that person.

It isn't a

year-to-year thing. It isn't: "Oh my goodness, there's a huge bubble here.

A whole pile of money came in. This is great; it's wonderful. Let's just carry

on. By gosh, at the end of the mandate when we're in political trouble, let's

try and hand some money back to people."

The problem

is that you can't do that, because you actually have real live people that are

dependent upon the fact that you have set aside enough money to look after them.

They're injured, and they're looking for that benefit, so you have to project

that out.

What

happened under the former administration was that they did receive a windfall.

The markets were strong, and they had a surplus position. Rather than doing the

actuarial work that was necessary and being cognizant of how many people were on

the system and what it was going to cost to be able to sustain them in the

future, they chose to give that money back to employers.

Let's be

clear. With the work that we're doing here in this bill, there is no return to

the employers. What we're trying to do is hold the premium rates as they are

today. If we did not make these changes, we would see an increase in premiums of

some $300 million. That's how you come to about $900 million in deficit by the

year 2005 in an economy that has been slagged by this former administration, the

former NDP government.

Small

business and business right through this province have been hammered time and

time again by an administration that was just plain neglectful of what needed to

be done in a WCB system. They left it, and they got thrown out of office. Now

what we have to do is fix the mess they left, and that's in fact what we're

doing. By doing this, we will make sure that the very people that are supposed

to be protected by WCB will have benefits there to put in their pocket to look

after them through their lifetime.

[1640]

MacPhail: Let's be clear who runs the workers compensation system. Let's be

clear. Even though this minister is the first minister to interfere directly

with the Workers Compensation Board, on behalf of allowing people to die from

secondhand smoke, let's be clear who runs the Workers Compensation Board. It is

a group of employers and representatives of employees. It is set up as an

independent system. This government doesn't put one cent into workers

compensation, so for him to stand up and somehow say it was the fault of the

previous government, either he's deliberately misleading, not telling a truth,

or he's trying to let his buddies the employers off the hook. The system isn't

run by government. It is an independent system with not one tax dollar going

into it — not one.

That wasn't

good enough for this government. Even though not one tax dollar has gone into it

and it's operated completely independently of government by employers and

employee reps, he didn't like that at all. He wanted to take money out of

workers' pockets and give it to employers. That's the kind of unprecedented

interference….

You know

what? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour says: "Well, if you don't

like the answer…. He's giving you an answer." Yeah. This minister's rule

about solving a deficit is to steal money from workers and give it to employers.

It's like they do everything: steal from the poor to give to the rich. That's

exactly this government's motto. I asked a question about what this government

is doing to interfere on the side of workers to prevent accidents and injuries

and illness. This minister stood up on a rant and didn't answer the question,

because he's doing nothing with his employer friends to prevent illness and

injury and deaths of workers.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Revisiting history is incredible. It was the former administration,

the former NDP government, that fired the board. I think it was 1995. They fired

the board and put in a panel of administrators.

MacPhail: What's wrong with that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Absolutely nothing was wrong.

MacPhail: We didn't take away benefits from workers.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, I think you were absolutely….

MacPhail: What the heck is wrong with that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The former administration was absolutely within their right to stand

up and fire that board.

MacPhail: Exactly. We didn't steal from workers to give to employers, like

you do.

The

Chair: Order. Order, please. Let's hear the minister.

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know why they fired the board? They fired that board because it

had become deadlocked. They had this group that was employers and employees.

They came to the board not with the interest of running the WCB system as a

whole, for the benefit of the injured workers. They adjudicated and tried to

make decisions on the basis of what was best for their own self-interest.

What this

legislation does is provide for a whole new governance model so that you can

have a board — a chairman, a couple of representatives from the general

public, a person with actuarial experience, a worker representative, an employer

representative and a person who has professional experience and has worked with

injured and disabled people — of seven come to represent not any of those

specific interests but the interests of the entire WCB system so that it's there

to protect and be there as a benefit system for injured workers.

[ Page 3701 ]

The Leader

of the Opposition asked, in respect to the whole aspect of occupational health

and safety and job protection…. Absolutely right. This particular bill does

not address that particular issue at this point — very clear about that. I

have also made it clear that we'll be bringing more legislation through in the

fall. In that legislation will be issues dealing with occupational health and

safety. There'll probably even still have to be another time of bringing

legislation through in the spring a year from now dealing with all of this.

There also

has to be a significant cultural change in how all of that works between the WCB

system and the employers and employees. That's why we're bringing in the new

governance model.

[1645]

The hon.

member was absolutely correct — their former administration, in firing the

board when they did. We replaced the panel of administrators. Now, with the

passage of this legislation, we'll be putting a new board of directors in so

they can get on with improving the service delivery of the WCB system and

bringing financial sustainability to the WCB system, to try and hold rates so

that they don't get out and become uncompetitive and to make sure that their

benefits are amongst the best of any WCB system in all of Canada.

MacPhail: Every time this government takes action by legislation, they take

away from workers and give to employers. Let's review the history of WCB in the

1990s: six consecutive surpluses totalling $1.5 billion; during that period of

time, $720 million rebated to employers. Wasn't that awful? A surplus of $1.5

billion: this is the record that the minister says is so awful. Over $700

million was rebated to employers. Employer assessments declined during that

period of time by 22 percent and are now at the lowest average rate since 1991.

It's true:

the WCB did have an operating loss at the end of 2001 of $280 million. That was

primarily, almost exclusively, due to a decline in investment return. The rate

of return in 2000 was 10 percent; in 2001 it was 7 percent.

It is

simply not possible for the board to forecast a $900 million loss over the next

three years. The investment returns for 2001 were possibly an exception due to

the events of September 11. Surely, given the great investment expertise at the

WCB, they would protect against that.

I must say

it is embarrassing for this minister to stand up and do a substantial rant that

somehow the nineties were bad and that he's going to make it all better. Yeah.

Who he's making it better for are the employers in this decade at the expense of

the workers. Shame on him.

Hon. G.

Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct in those numbers

that she was referring to relative to the earlier years of the nineties. Again,

I come back to….

MacPhail: Up to 2000. Up till you took over.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Up to 2000…

MacPhail: Up till you came in charge.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …the actual surplus had come to $75 million. This year it has a

deficit — this year unaudited. Of 2001 it has a deficit of $287 million. You

lived on a bubble. It shouldn't be surprising. It was how the administration of

the past ten years ran the entire financial affairs of the province. You

didn't….

MacPhail: Surpluses — yeah, that was terrible.

Hon. G.

Bruce: They weren't surpluses. It was how you tried to pretend that your

budgets….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: The surpluses that were given….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, member. Order, please. Let's listen to the minister's

response.

Hon. G.

Bruce: The surpluses that were given back weren't real surpluses. They were

simply a situation where they had a bubble of that year — a little simple

forecasting out of how many people…. What we're talking about here are the

very people we're trying to protect and making sure we have the money in the

system so we can pay the benefits for….

MacPhail: Your rich friends.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's got nothing to do with rich friends. They're not…. The former

administration gave all those people the money back when they shouldn't have

given the money back, because they knew they were in political trouble. That's

why they did that. That's why they did the ICBC rebates too. They knew they were

in political trouble.

All you had

to do…. You've got real, live people who are injured and are looking for

benefits, hoping somebody's paying attention to make sure there's money in that

injury fund in the future. They didn't pay attention to that. You didn't pay

attention to that.

We're faced

with $286 million in deficit in 2001, $422 million by 2002, $301 million by

2003, $251 million by 2004 and $181 million by 2005, giving us a $1

billion-plus-change deficit by 2005. What do we do — sit there, and let's just

hope?

[1650]

I can't do

that. I can't do that for those people who are depending on the fact that there

will be benefits for them under this system today and in the future. We're

bringing about the very changes that you could have brought about. We're fixing

what you shouldn't have done in the first place, which was give back the

surpluses. You shouldn't have given back the surpluses at the end of your

mandate. You were out of control at

[ Page 3702 ]

that point. You were trying to win friends; you couldn't do it. That's all

that really amounted to at the end of the day.

Now we, as

a new government, are faced with, yes, putting a new governance structure in

place, having to adjust the benefits packages in this thing to make sure that

it's sustainable and trying to maintain and hold the rates. We're just trying to

maintain and hold the rates, not reduce the rates. That's what we're attempting

to do here. We know there's more that has to be done. We'll be canvassing that

through the summer months — occupational health and safety and spousal

benefits, those types of things. We're going to get this house in order, and

we're going to get this WCB system back on the road. With the changes that we're

making, we'll in fact still have amongst the highest benefits of any WCB system

in Canada.

MacPhail: Who rebated to the employers the $720 million during the nineties?

Who rebated it?

Hon. G.

Bruce: There was $103 million that was credited at the end of 1999, not $720

million.

MacPhail: But who did it?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The board….

MacPhail: Exactly. The board did it. The government didn't have anything to

do with it — absolutely nothing. The minister stands up and says — quite

improper parliamentary procedure — "Your government did it."

There was a

surplus. The WCB is run by employer and employee representatives. Every time

there was a surplus, the WCB board voted to reduce assessments and rebate

employers. The employee reps on the board at the time said: "Oops. You'd

better be careful. You'd better protect…" — and this is all on the

record — "in case the investment returns aren't as lucrative in the

future." But oh no, the WCB, independent from government — I think the

minister maybe needs a lesson on how WCB operates — lowered their assessments

and gave the returns to the employer. Fair enough. The employers' advice was

taken, not the workers' advice, and every time there was a surplus throughout

the 1990s, employers benefited.

The first

time there's a deficit, what does this government do? They don't say to the

board: "Manage it." What does this government do? It interferes for

the first time on behalf of the employers. That's exactly what's happening here.

This minister is deliberately misleading to somehow suggest that the government

had anything to do with returning the money to employers — absolutely anything

to do with that.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'll stand completely corrected. I and millions of other British

Columbians now fully understand what took place, and we all believe the Leader

of the Opposition, who was then a member of the government, and why they did or

didn't do whatever they did or shouldn't have done or should have done.

MacPhail: Not interfere is what we did — not like you.

Hon. G.

Bruce: There again, you see, the problem is that at the end day statutorily

the government has the responsibility to make sure that the WCB system is

working and is operational.

Interjection.

[1655]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Absolutely, because it was your administration that fired the board

in 1995. Correct me. I could be wrong in that. I believe so. It was the NDP

administration that fired the board in 1995, then proceeded to dilly and to

dally but understood that there was a problem.

The NDP

government understood back then that there was a problem and had a royal

commission. They spent seven million of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on that

royal commission to bring forward a report of those things that needed to be

attended to at the WCB. They understood.

They spent

that amount of money, I would think, not just because they were on a fishing

trip, not just because they wanted to go and blow $7 million, but because they

realized there were things that needed to be undertaken, worked on and improved.

That came

back to the government of the day. The government took it very neatly and nicely

and put it on the shelf in behind the minister's office. There were five or six

volumes of it. They simply proceeded to ignore all that was in there and did

nothing. Now we have the situation where we as a new government have to fix the

mistakes that were there in the past.

MacPhail: Thank God we're having this debate. It's too bad this government's

ramming through this legislation, because this minister would continue to

mislead the public that somehow his actions are to correct mistakes of a

previous government. Somehow this minister is interfering on behalf of his

employer friends when the employer friends had already taken from the kitty

throughout the 1990s.

I also need

to correct the record, and then we're going to move on. I'm not going to allow

the minister to continue to mislead the House as we continue to debate.

The

Chair: Member, member.

MacPhail: To mislead the public. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. He had to be

corrected. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I will not continue to rise to have to correct

the wrong statements the minister is putting on the record that the WCB

implemented many of the changes of the royal commission that didn't require

legislation — many of

[ Page 3703 ]

the changes. That's why the accident and illness claims rate went down, down,

down.

The

Chair: Shall

section 8 pass?

MacPhail: Division.

The

Chair: I understand we're going to defer division until after

section 11.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section is dealing with payments for total or partial

disability for retirement benefits. The injured workers over the age of 65 will

not receive periodic compensation. An injured worker will be able to receive

compensation after the age of 65 if the board is satisfied that the worker would

not have retired at the age of 65 but later. In that case the worker will

receive compensation until the date that the board believes the worker would

have worked.

That's the

beginning of it. There are sections on payment for retirement benefits, the

handling of money to be paid as a retirement benefit, retirement services and

supports.

On April

26, 2002, the minister made a statement on the Day of Mourning: "Workplace

deaths destroy productive lives and shockingly interrupt relationships, leaving

survivors to struggle toward a resolution of emotions and thoughts — a

resolution they may never reach." That's the end of this Minister of

Labour's quote. This is also the case for workers disabled from occupational

accident or disease, particularly those permanently disabled.

Can the

minister explain how this government can then justify taking away millions of

dollars from the pockets of older disabled workers by eliminating their pensions

after the age of 65?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I just want to be clear in our

definitions here. Anybody currently

receiving a WCB benefit today will receive the same tomorrow, once this

legislation is passed, as what they're receiving today.

[1700]

For a newly

injured worker, after June 30, at age 65 the benefits they were receiving up to

that part will cease. I've said that very clearly. They will also be awarded a 5

percent lump sum amount — the contribution that WCB will put aside. That same

worker can also complement that amount by an additional 5 percent of their own

if they so choose. At age 65 there will be a mandatory review of that

individual's needs from the standpoint of additional things other than the

benefit side. If it's deemed by the board, when that review would take place,

that that type of benefit continues to them, it shall continue.

MacPhail: There are two different classes of workers in this province as of

June 30: those who are injured or made ill on the job before June 30 and those

after June 30. Perhaps the minister can explain how workers are to survive

financially in retirement if a workplace accident or disease permanently

disables them. What are they supposed to do now?

[H. Long in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is a wage-loss retirement program. That's what WCB is about.

Wages and income usually end at 65. These provisions that we've put in place….

Again, I want to be clear on this. At age 65 there will be a lump sum payment

representing 5 percent of the benefits that that individual was receiving up to

age 65. They can complement that by an additional 5 percent. They'll also have a

mandatory review of their needs over and above the benefit side. Those things

that they require will be provided through WCB. Through that process this is

what the WCB will be providing.

Now, this

is for people that are injured in the workplace after June 30. The people that

are currently receiving WCB benefits as they are today will get the same amount

tomorrow.

MacPhail: There will be a real reduction in benefits to workers. He admitted

to that at the beginning. I'm asking the minister: what other sources of income

does the minister anticipate a permanently disabled injured worker would have to

make up the money he's taking out of their pockets?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't know individuals' income levels at age 65. Some people may

have pensions, government or company pensions. I can't answer what each and

every individual will have at that point.

MacPhail: No, but he sure is able to shovel it back into the pockets of the

employer, regardless of when an employer needs it.

Mr. Chair,

I'm moving an amendment to

section 9,

section 23.2(6).

[Section 23.2 is amended by deleting the text highlighted

by strikethrough:

(6) A

worker may only once

(

a) make

an application under subsection (3), and

(

b) apply

to stop the deductions.]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: This amendment to

section 23.2(6) is in response to changes being

made to compensation paid to workers who reach the age of retirement. Under this

bill, workers who receive compensation will have 5 percent of the amount of

compensation they receive set aside in a retirement fund, as the minister has

just explained. Once the worker reaches the age of 65 or the age at which they

would have retired, the worker will receive in one lump sum all the funds that

have been set aside in the retirement fund. Under the legislation presented in

this bill, workers have the option of contributing 1 to 5 percent of their

compensation payments to the retirement fund.

[ Page 3704 ]

Not only

does this legislation propose to desert injured workers during their retirement

years, b