British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 29, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H0529pm-07) (H0529pm 07)

H0529pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 29, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

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

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

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

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

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

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

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

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

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

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

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 29, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7107 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7108 Land Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 46) Hon. S. Hagen Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69) Hon. M. de Jong Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71) Hon. S.

Santori Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72) Hon. G. Collins Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7109 Ten things you didn't read in the newspaper P. Bell Fixed election date J. Les End of legislative session K. Krueger Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7110 Government policy on slot machines J. MacPhail Hon. R.

Coleman Mental health funding and services J. Kwan Hon. G. Cheema Government action on mad cow disease P. Nettleton Hon. J. van Dongen Bowser basin and oil and gas industry royalty structure R. Harris Hon. R. Neufeld Funding for child protection services J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 7113 Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, first report J.

Kwan Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7113 Hon. T.

Nebbeling Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 7113 Information and privacy commissioner, annual report, 2002-03 Office of the merit commissioner, annual report, 2002-03 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7113 B.

Kerr Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 7113 Report on Multiculturalism, 2000-01 Report on Multiculturalism, 2001-02

Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7113 K. Krueger J. MacPhail Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 7114 Appointment of Special Committee to Review Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Motion 102) Hon. G.

Collins Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7114 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) (continued) Hon. M. de Jong J. Kwan P. Bell W. Cobb J. MacPhail R.

Harris Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7120 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7120 Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7120 Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) J.

MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld J.

Kwan Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7133 Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7133 Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 7134 Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project Ltd., service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06 Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 7134 Community Charter (Bill 14) Safety Standards Act (Bill 19) Safety Authority Act (Bill 20) Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Bill 31) Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (Bill 32) Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33) Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34) Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61) Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66) Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr403) M&M Insulation Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr404) Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr405) Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

7107 THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. C. Clark: I had a delightful lunch today with a professor from the University of Victoria. We had a marvellous time talking about the nature of our de- mocracy and how to ensure that our interests are rep- resented by those we elect, as well as ensuring we have a passion for education in every classroom in British Columbia. Gerhard Brauer is joining us today, and I hope all of the House will make him welcome. Hon. L. Reid: I have many introductions today.

I have 50 grade 7 students from General Currie Elemen- tary School in Richmond. They are accompanied by Mr. Avery and Ms. Lavery. Would the House please make them very welcome. [1405] Then I have four of the finest women in the world. We have my mother Cathy Reid, we have my daughter Olivia Reid-Friesen, who is just three years old and very pleased to be here, and we have the souls who looked out for her when she was very small. Rheta Steer is in the gallery with her, and Rheta's sister has j u s t c o m e f r o m P r i n c e G e o r g e t o V i c t o r i a t o l i v e . H e r name is Jan Powell.

If the House would make all four of those souls welcome. Hon. G. Collins: I have several introductions to- day. In the first one, I want to recognize 48 grade 5 students here from Talmud Torah Elementary School. There are five adults with them: Mr. Larry Bauer, Mr. Elazar Reshef — I apologize if my pronunciation isn't perfect — Mrs. Andrea Milman, Ms. Lily Bouskila and Hadas Av-Gay. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. To finish, probably for this session, a long string of introduction of new citizens to British Columbia, I want to ask the House to welcome a new young person into the province.

Last night Scott Sutherland's daugh- ter Bronwyn and her husband, James Stocks, had a baby boy at 11:54 p.m. at Lady Minto Hospital on Saltspring Island. His name is Jacob Barthélémey Kemp Stocks. He weighs 6 pounds and 14 ounces, and I'm sure he came out with his eyes wide-open and a mi- crophone in his hand, asking long and difficult ques- tions to everybody in the operating room. R. Lee: It's a great pleasure to introduce to the House 42 grade 10 students from Alpha Secondary School in my riding of Burnaby North. Joining them is their teacher, Mr.

Dale Lintott, as well as two volun- teers who have taken time off their busy schedules to accompany these students. They are Frank Shin and Gordon Chow. I'm also pleased to announce to the House that they are accompanied by another teacher from Alpha Sec- ondary School, Mr. Jack Trovato. He was honoured this month by receiving the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence from Prime Minister Jean Chré- tien. Would the House please join me in congratulating him and welcoming our visitors to the Legislature. J.

Les: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House today and to thank seven people who have been assisting the government caucus as interns in the last several months. They will be here until the end of June. But as today is the final day of session, I want to take this opportunity to introduce them to the House and to thank them for everything they have done for the gov- ernment caucus. They are Theresa Gerritsen, Jonathan Kim, Tyler Wightman, Azmina Ladha and Julia Lock- hart, who were all working in caucus research, as well as Quinn Newcomb and Robert Parker, who were as- signed to caucus communications.

They have done wonderful work for our caucus, and I suspect they will all be back at some time in the future perhaps in a different capacity. There's at least one Premier in that group, I'm sure. Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the precinct, I'm pleased to say, there are two groups of school children repre- senting two schools from my constituency — much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of the member for Surrey- Tynehead, who appears to have an unlimited number of schools in his district.

But today we have grade 6 and 7 students from Morgan Elementary School, which is a new school where I had the pleasure of being at the opening ceremony in Surrey, and they are joined by their teacher, Mr. McKim. We've also got some grade 7 students from George Greenaway Elementary School, joined by their teacher, Mr. Clifford. I would ask that the members please make them feel welcome. E. Brenzinger: Today I'd like to take the opportu- nity to introduce and to thank a very special legislative assistant, Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas. She has a pot of MLAs: Rob Nijjar, Jeff Bray, Patrick Wong and myself.

We just want to say thank you to her for all the hard work on this last day of session. I hope she has a good summer. [1410] J. Bray: It's a great pleasure for me today to intro- duce three people to the gallery. First, my mother and father, Marshall Bray and Evelyn Bray, who I promised not to introduce, so I'm not actually going to do that. A c c o m p a n y i n g t h e m i s m y b e s t b u d d y a n d m y nephew, Graeme Bray, who is here for his first visit to the Legislature. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome. A.

Hamilton: As the MLA for the riding of Esqui- malt-Metchosin, I'm very conscious of the deep histori- cal links between Esquimalt, the sea and sailors. That strong tradition will be recognized June 20 to 22, when Esquimalt, thanks to the commitment and dedication of the people of the community, will stage its annual

7108 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 Buccaneer Days festival. What makes this day special is the degree of community involvement. The festival theme is nautical, and the focus is on participation by non-profit organizations. For more than 30 years these volunteers have staged displays, manned booths and marched in the traditional Saturday parade along Es- quimalt Road. I'd like to encourage everyone to join the fun by catching the seafaring spirit at Esquimalt's community event, the one and only Buccaneer Days festival. R.

Stewart: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House two schools that have come from Coquitlam to visit the Legislature. We have a group of students and teachers and parents from Como Lake Middle S c h o o l i n m y r i d i n g . T h e y w e r e o v e r a t t h e m u s e u m today, and I'm sure they got the tour of the Legislature and enjoyed their time here. We also have the band and choir from Centennial Secondary School. The band, under the leadership of music director Tim Laithwaite, performed in front of the Legislature this morning.

The choir, under the leadership of music director Carole Baker, performed in the legislative rotunda, and I know some of the members were able to participate in that. Would the House please make these two groups welcome to Vic- toria. D. Hayer: Since this is the last day of this session, I would like to keep the tradition by introducing…. I advise the House that we have 90 grades 1 and 3 stu- dents who will be visiting the parliament buildings from Tynehead Elementary School and Tynehead Mon- tessori School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, with their teachers Ms. Manjit Mann, Ms. Suzanna Filipovic, Mr.

Wayne Morin, Ms. Cindy Butler, Ms. Karen Dueck and Mr. Murray Henderson, as well as the parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them all welcome. Hon. S. Hagen: It's my pleasure today to announce that Jennifer Barclay, one of the key members of my team and office, gave birth on May 25 to a bouncing baby boy who weighed in at, I think, 8 pounds 14 ounces. B. Lekstrom: I rise today to welcome a very hard- working gentleman who works in the Legislative As- sembly with us. He is my legislative assistant and a friend of mine, Mr.

Frank Costa. Would the House please make him welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: Today I am pleased to introduce the Land Amendment Act, 2003. These amendments make an important contribution toward meeting this government's commitment to provide greater certainty and access to Crown land and resources. These amendments add a new

section to the Land Act relating to authorities for land use planning, which will streamline the planning process and pro- vide resource users with clear direction respecting government's intentions for land and resource use.

The amendments will enable the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council to establish designations for areas of Crown land and to set management objec- tives for those areas. [1415] These tools will allow the government to meet a number of needs, including the fulfilment of govern- ment's new-era commitment to establish a working forest land base that will provide greater stability for working families and enhance long-term forestry man- agement and planning.

The amendments also support the establishment of the results-based frameworks required for implementa- tion of the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003, by simplifying the framework for setting land use objectives that is currently contained in the Forest Prac- tices Code of British Columbia Act. These amendments are an important step toward the government's objectives of enhancing certainty for resource development through changes in how the province implements strategic land use decisions. I'm pleased to present this bill in the House today.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 H o n . M . d e J o n g p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H i s Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 69 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon.

M. de Jong: Bill 69 is introduced for debate in the coming fall session. When the Forest and Range Practices Act was introduced last fall, I indicated that there would be additional legislation to facilitate the

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7109 transition between the Forest Practices Code of B.C. and the new act, the Forest and Range Practices Act. This bill sets the framework for that transition. The amendments reflect the results of pilot testing that has taken place and comments that have been re- ceived over the winter months. The bill adds clarity to the designations and objectives for maintaining envi- ronmental standards such as wildlife habitat, areas' community watersheds and water quality objectives.

The bill also contains provisions to deliver on the gov- ernment's commitment to the defined forest area man- agement model by providing licensees with the means to prepare forest health strategies across timber supply areas. Lastly, the bill also contains a number of conse- quential amendments which last fall we committed to introducing this session and which are necessitated by the move from the Forest Practices Code of B.C. to the Forest and Range Practices Act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Santori presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Public Service Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 71 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Santori: I am pleased to introduce the Public Service Amendment Act, 2003. This bill amends the Public Service Act to modify the review process for public service staffing decisions.

It eliminates the Public Service Appeal Board and re- places it with an independent staffing review by the merit commissioner. This change will ensure that the integrity and accountability of the staffing process is preserved, while making the most efficient use of public resources. The bill also changes the name of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission to the B.C. Public Service Agency to reflect the recent change in direction and organization for the management of human re- sources in the British Columbia public service.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 71 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. [1420] MANUFACTURED HOME ACT H o n . G . C o l l i n s p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Manufactured Home Act. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present this bill, the new Manufactured Home Act, which tracks ownership and location of manufactured housing in the province. This replaces the current Manufactured Home Act in force since 1978. The new act will streamline manufactured home registry processes and reduce the costs of operating the registry. It will also result in improved efficiency for the registry by accommodating electronic filing and reducing the registrar's current oversight role. 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 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) TEN THINGS YOU DIDN'T READ IN THE NEWSPAPER P. Bell: As most members will know, I produce a weekly e-mail entitled "Ten Things You Didn't Read in the Newspaper This Week." Here are the top ten of the best of ten from the last year.

(1) The ministries of Advanced Education and Health Planning have jointly developed a new, more advanced nurse-training program called the nurse practitioner. These individuals will have a huge impact on the small communities in the heartlands.

(2) Wages in B.C. For the first 20 months of our time in office, wages in B.C. are up 6.8 percent. That's 62 percent higher than the national average.

(3) Of the over 200 commitments we made in our 2001 New Era document, we've acted on almost 90 per- cent.

(4) Numbers are just in on exports to China of wood products, and 2002 saw a 100 percent increase over 2001.

(5) In 2002-03 we were able to eliminate 50,000 regulations. This put us on pace to eliminate one-third of all requirements within three years.

(6) Building permits have tripled this year in the heart of the heartlands, Prince George.

(7) The heartlands economic strategy will bring together transportation, energy, forestry, tourism, agri-

7110 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 culture and new-tech technologies to create a powerful economic force for the regions and the province as a whole.

(8) We will spend $609 million in the next three years on roads in the heartlands.

(9) In the last 16 months a total of 98,900 new jobs were created in B.C. ― number one in Canada.

(10) In 2002, B.C. went from dead last in investment attractiveness, a position of dubious distinction held in both 2000 and 2001, to number three. FIXED ELECTION DATE J. Les: I t w a s a n i d e a w h o s e t i m e h a d c o m e . T w o years ago our government campaigned on a promise to implement a fixed election date in British Columbia. We told the people before the election when the next election would take place. That promise was put into law during the first 90 days of our mandate.

It was an unprecedented relinquishment of power by the Pre- mier to give up on the long-held tradition of manipu- lating election timing to suit the government in power. Now political parties in five provinces have adopted this pioneering reform. Setting a fixed election day has been promised by the Progressive Conserva- tive government in New Brunswick and the Progres- sive Conservative opposition in Manitoba, both in the heat of election campaigns in their provinces. The On- tario Liberals and the Newfoundland Tories have also adopted a fixed election day in their election platforms.

Setting a fixed day for an election is also a plank in the Saskatchewan party policy handbook. Fixed election days is just one idea of many that our government has delivered on when it comes to democ- ratic reform in British Columbia. Now British Colum- bia's ideas are spreading east across the Prairies, through central Canada and to the shores of the Atlan- tic. B.C. is taking its place once again as a leader in Canada. END OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION K. Krueger: It's the last day of session, and the mood in this venerable building once again conjures up memories of term's end in our school years.

In the ex- citement over getting back to our constituencies and getting reacquainted with our families and friends, and in the bustle of moving work and belongings back with us, often we barely get a chance to say goodbye. [1425] Nobody ever seems to feel sad about session end- ing, and I guess I don't either, but I do always feel a little wistful. Tomorrow the halls will be quiet, and everything will feel very different than it has since the second Tuesday in February. There's something very unique and vibrant about the Legislature in session and the way that a session almost seems to take on a life of its own.

The throne speech gives it birth, and the budget and legislation and other business rapidly build it to what it will be. You never really know until the end how it will all turn out. Then it's suddenly over. I guess I do feel a tinge of sadness, maybe, for the ses- sion itself. I know for sure what I love about the session, and that is the people of the Legislature and the amazing synergy that develops in working together. I don't just mean the elected people but the staff of the Legislature itself and our caucus support teams and the ministry personnel and the press gallery.

It is inspiring to see how people come together for the common good and the accomplishments that flow. Everyone gets swept up in it. Even the people who come here just to observe and report become part of the life of the session. I want to thank all of you for your

part in the life's work of this session, and I do want to wish every m e m b e r , a s w e f i n i s h i t u p , g o o d h e a l t h a n d G o d ' s blessings until we meet again. We know it is a special trust that the people of B.C. have placed in us. Only a few hundred people have ever had the privilege of serving in these seats. We take the responsibility very seriously and work very hard, often to the detriment of our families. I especially take my hat off to the mom- mies of Olivia, Hamish and Cee-Yan, somehow carry- ing off prodigious workloads while caring for these little treasures.

Let's all be sure to find some more time for our loved ones this summer. Our thoughts and our prayers will be with Alexander Hayer as he undergoes radia- tion and bone marrow transplantation next week. Life is precious and short. Take time for your loved ones. When autumn leaves begin to fall and scatter in the colder areas of this beautiful province, we'll be gather- ing again to continue this work. But for now, it's back to constituencies, families and friends. All the best to each of you, and Godspeed. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker: So it has come to this. Nobody offered to hug the Speaker.

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SLOT MACHINES J. MacPhail: Now you know where you can stick your No. 10 list. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago in open cabinet, the Premier and the minister responsible said that the gam- ing policy in B.C. was that casinos would be allowed to have a maximum of 300 slot machines. The cabinet approved that policy, but now we see that the casino in Nanaimo has just been allowed to go to 425 slot ma- chines. Now we know that the policy is really one of allowing as many slot machines as a casino can hold, as long as the provincial limit is not exceeded.

Will the minister responsible for quietly — some might say sneakily — increasing the number of slot machines tell us why this change in policy was covered up? And will he tell us why the cap approved by cabi- net is now being flouted by the B.C. Lottery Corpora- tion?

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7111 Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not sure if that's a "tomato" or the member for Prince George North across from me at the moment. [1430] Through to the member opposite, what we did is actually took gaming in this province arm's length from political influence, gave it to the corporation and said: "You manage gaming within the capacity." We identified that capacity, and the corporation is doing its job in the way it should be — without political influ- ence, as some people maybe had seen in governments of the past. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, that's a new script from the one that was in the open cabinet meeting just about 16 months ago. Actually, 18 months ago at an open cabi- net meeting, this cabinet rejected an option that would h a v e s e e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t d o e x a c t l y w h a t i t ' s d o i n g today. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why did they reject that option 16, 18 months ago? Because the cabinet docu- ment, right here, says that if they had done that, it would have been an expansion of gaming. That's what their own cabinet document said.

Can the minister explain how he developed the figure of 5,400 slot machines, and can he tell us how many slot machines are plugged in and functioning in British Columbia today? Hon. R. Coleman: The casino infrastructure in Brit- ish Columbia when we came to government had a number of commitments that had been made to it by the previous government, and we reviewed the legal responsibilities of government and those relationships. In addition, as we went through we identified that there were 18 casinos in B.C. whose capacity would be up to a maximum of 300 slot machines.

We identified that capacity of the corporation, and we moved on. We have made our decisions in public. We are not a government of Bingogate; we are not a government of Casinogate. We have no political interference in gam- ing, and we have restored the confidence in the gaming sector in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

MacPhail: Well, no wonder the Solicitor General didn't want to come clean with how many slot ma- chines are operating today, because he knows full well it's hundreds and hundreds fewer than what his gov- ernment is going to expand in days — in absolute days. The minister was hoping that no one would find out about this move. Open and accountable? He snuck it through yesterday — no news release, no splashy event, no announcement of any kind, no open cabinet meeting. When the minister sold the old policy to cabi- net, he said that openness and accountability relative to this decision are absolutely vital.

Now he secretly al- lows the Lottery Corporation to expand gaming in Brit- ish Columbia — another broken campaign promise. Again to the minister: if accountability and open- ness are so vital to him, why did he set the first policy in the light of day and change it to expand it in the cover of night? Hon. R. Coleman: There was no announcement yesterday. A member of the member's staff phoned the gaming branch yesterday and asked what the number is. They were open and accountable and told you the number, and then you ran around and thought you were making some new announcement.

We have talked about the capacity for the last 18 months. It has been a consistent number. It has been a consistent discussion. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a corporation that is operating without political influence and will do its business on behalf of British Columbians to the level it should be, rather than having — as in the past — political influence dictating stupid decisions in gaming. MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING AND SERVICES J. Kwan: A broken promise is a broken promise. There's a whole long list of them. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question. J.

Kwan: On Monday the Minister of State for Men- tal Health told this House that they have not cut any mental health services or any program in the province. Next he tried to clarify by saying mental health services have not been reduced. Those statements to this House directly contradict information provided by his own ministry. According to the coastal health authority's redesign plan, the authority is closing 15 psychiatric beds, is reducing services to mental health teams and is closing supported employment programs.

Will the minister now admit that what he told this House was not true, and will he admit that he's cutting and reducing mental health services and programs in B.C.? [1435] Hon. G. Cheema: I was waiting for that question. This is the last day. We are spending an additional $263 million, and that's not a cut. This year we are spending $1.067 bil- lion — $42 million more than last year. That's not a cut. In 2001-02 we spent $15 million in new funding to strengthen community mental health services. That's not a cut. In 2002-03 we added $18 million to strengthen community mental health services. That's not a cut.

On March 15, 2002, our government made a commitment to build new facilities across the province by spending $138 million. That's not a cut. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

7112 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 J. Kwan: This minister told this House that no service, no program has been cut or reduced. I pointed him to his own documents that prove this is false. All told, according to the government's own document — maybe he should flip his binder and find that page — the Liberals are cutting $2.2 million from mental health services at the coastal health au- thority. The minister can stop with the baloney about not cutting the budget.

The list of cuts made by his own ministry goes on and on: the mental health advocate gone, ten psychiat- ric beds at VGH closed, mental health drop-in centres being eliminated, and 67 mental health residential care beds are gone in the coastal region alone. Given this record and given the fact that this is probably the last chance for the minister to answer a question as a member of this cabinet, will he just admit that what he told this House and what he has been telling the mental health community, patients and families is simply not true? Hon. G.

Cheema: As I was indicating to you, we have been working with all the mental health organiza- tions in this province, unlike the previous administra- tion. Every organization is supporting this govern- ment's effort for mental health in this province. We are opening facilities across the province. We opened Connolly Lodge in 2002. We opened Iris House in Prince George in April of 2002. We opened Seven Oaks in Saanich in October of 2002. We opened South Hills in Kamloops in April 2003. Again, be- cause we were doing extremely well, we opened an- other facility at Iris House in Prince George. That was this year.

Not only are we funding the mental health plan, we are implementing best practices across the province. We are the only province in the country where capacity is being increased. Every other province wants to fol- low us. That's the achievement of this government. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MAD COW DISEASE P. Nettleton: I'm glad to see that the B.C. beef pro- ducers are being proactive in their handling of the mad cow BSE situation as, of course, it is of concern to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Their actions will in- clude, I understand, educational courses to protect the safety and quality of their herds.

They are considering the implementation of an accreditation process for their members following an audit process. That's good news for the minister responsible, even if it has been precipi- tated by an unwelcome event. [1440] My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I have been informed that resources are not available at present for the Ministry of Agriculture to assess the provincewide impact to the beef industry.

I also have it that without that information, the ministry cannot make informed comment to properly place pressure on the federal government to fairly compensate B.C.'s beef industry workers, who I'm also told number up to 10,000. Would it be helpful to the minister if that funding was made available and the ministry was indeed able to assist the industry in this way? Hon.

J. van Dongen: It may be somewhat prema- ture to try and do an assessment of damage to the beef industry, but I want to assure the House that, first of all, any individual farmer or rancher who has animals removed from the herd will be compensated to the level of market value and a maximum of $2,500. We also have a federal-provincial program in place that provides general disaster assistance to ranchers if there's a significant drop in income. We're currently in the process of signing a new five-year agreement to do that, and that agreement contains a significant compo- nent of business risk management.

I think the best assistance we can give the beef industry is to get the borders open. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is working very actively and diligently to win the confidence of our trading partners and get the borders open for the beef indus- try. BOWSER BASIN AND OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ROYALTY STRUCTURE R. Harris: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Last week there was media coverage suggesting that the Bowser basin, located in northwestern B.C., is attracting a significant amount of interest from inves- tors in the oil and gas sector.

Recently the minister stated he was looking for a new royalty structure for this and other regions of the province where there is a need to build infrastructure. With this heightened awareness of the potential of the Bowser basin, can the minister report on the progress he has made in devel- oping a new royalty regime? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the member and the peo- ple in the northwest have reason to be optimistic with the possibility of oil and gas industry actually happening in the northwest part of the province.

Onshore, there's an estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil in the Bowser basin and about 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by the federal survey. We want to tap into that. That was part of the job the Premier gave to me, and we're working hard at putting together a royalty scheme that will actually get the industry interested in these other basins across British Columbia. As I understand, Rally Energy, EnCana and Devon, to name a few, are very interested.

We'll have an up- date in September on a geological survey on the Bowser basin that I think will be very good and ac- tually encourage some more investment in the prov- ince. That's exactly what this government intended to do when it came to office, and we're living up to that promise.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7113 FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES J. Kwan: Child protection and community living agencies have told the Minister of Children and Family Development over and over again that they can't im- plement his cuts without compromising the safety of children. Service providers in the South Okanagan have run the numbers, and they show that after the implementation of the government's cuts, they'll have a $5 million deficit. That will mean the elimination of mental health services, youth justice programs and residential treatment, to name just a few.

The minister says the Treasury Board is reviewing the budget, but the child protection providers are in the dark. In Nanaimo service providers recently made a presentation to the local MLAs about the impacts of their cuts. They gave them a stark assessment of what will happen if the minister plans to proceed. They told them that more children will end up in care, that there will be a loss of skilled foster parents, that there will be an increased safety risk to children. How much more evidence does the minister need that his cuts can't work without compromising children's safety?

Will he tell this House: when will Treasury Board make their decision and complete their review? Hon. G. Hogg: As I've said all along and as this government has said, our primary focus will be to pro- vide and ensure that there are health and safety protec- tions for all the children and vulnerable adults in this province. [1445] This government is doing the responsible thing and reviewing all of the service plans and reviewing the im- pacts that those will have within the context of communi- ties all across this province.

That's the responsible and appropriate action for a government to take, which has that vision of ensuring that we involve communities in the development of a positive system that will support the most vulnerable people in the province. We're doing that. We're doing that as a government, and we're doing that in a process that is reasoned, responsible and is evidence- based. We will do the right thing for the right people of this province. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees J. Kwan: I have the honour to present the first re- port of the Select Standing Committee on Public Ac- counts. Mr.

Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. J. Kwan: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J. Kwan: The committee examined the retention and disposal applications made to it by the Public Documents Committee and recommends acceptance of all 21 recommendations contained in the report to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted. Motion approved. Petitions Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I rise to table a petition on be- half of 265 constituents who support the changes ur- gently needed to improve safety on the Caulfeild Overpass in West Vancouver and surrounding road- ways. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents: the annual report of the information and privacy commissioner, 2002-03, and the office of the merit commissioner annual report, 2002-03. Petitions B. Kerr: I'd like to table a petition. This petition is from the residents of Spectacle Lake.

While small in number, they are certainly passionate in their cause, and they would like to see Spectacle Lake saved as a community park for their children. I have a further petition here, with 55 signatures, from the residents near or using Goldstream bridge. This petitions the province to assist in preparing a pe- destrian walkway and viewing platform on the pro- posed new bridge at Goldstream River. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Abbott: I have the honour to present the 2000-01 Report on Multiculturalism and the 2001-02 Re- port on Multiculturalism. Petitions K. Krueger: Mr.

Speaker, I also rise to table a peti- tion presented to your office, actually, by 1,000 seniors in Kamloops concerned about medical services and MSP premiums. J. MacPhail: I rise to present a petition signed by 11,981 British Columbians who request that the House recognize that naturopathic physicians provide safe, effective and valid health care in B.C. They're calling on the government to create a scope of practice that reflects the current education and historic practice of providing safe and effective primary health care for B.C. I seek leave to make an introduction.

7114 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. MacPhail: I would ask the House to make wel- come a former Member of Parliament and government relations consultant with the British Columbia Naturo- pathic Medicine Association. Jim Hart is in the gallery today, and he is in Victoria this week trying to meet with MLAs and cabinet ministers about proposed changes to the scope of practice for naturopathic physi- cians. Would the House please welcome Jim Hart.

Motions on Notice APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT Hon. G. Collins: I move Motion 102 standing in my name on the order paper. It's a motion to charge the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to conduct the five-year review of the Freedom of Information and Pro- tection of Privacy Act, pursuant to

section 80 of that act. [That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee; (

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; (

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly. That the members of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills comprise the membership of the said Committee.] Motion approved.

Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 29. [1450] Committee of the Whole House FOREST (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

Section 3 as amended approved. On

section 4,

section 39. The Chair: Minister, is there an amendment on

section 4? Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the amend- ment standing on the order paper in my name. [SECTION 4, in the proposed

section 39 (3) by deleting everything after paragraph (

b) and substituting the following: if the holder requests the replacement or amendment by written request delivered to the minister.] Amendment approved.

Section 4,

section 39 as amended approved. On

section 5,

section 43. Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to

section 5 standing on the order paper in my name. [SECTION 5, in the proposed

section 43 (3) by deleting everything after paragraph (

b) and substituting the following: if the holder requests the replacement or amendment by written request delivered to the minister.] Amendment approved. On

section 5,

section 43 as amended. J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise? The price of pulp chips is priced by a formula that ties it to the price of pulp. Is there any intention to reduce, amend, change or eliminate that formula? Hon. M. de Jong: None that I'm aware of. J. Kwan: Just for my information, could the minister please advise this House what exactly that formula is? Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly and embarrassingly, no. I can't, off the top of my head, but those that are watch- ing these proceedings, I'm sure, at this moment are rushing to have it sent in to us. J.

Kwan: I would ask, yes, for the minister to pro- vide that information, and should there be a change — the minister said he doesn't anticipate there would be — would the minister advise the opposition accord- ingly and provide that information to the opposition? Hon. M. de Jong: That's reasonable, and yes. The answer is yes.

Section 5,

section 43 as amended approved. Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7115 On

section 9, sections 54 to 54.8. P. Bell: On 54(2)(d): "in the case of a disposition of an agreement that is a woodlot licence, any private land in the woodlot licence area remains subject to the woodlot licence." [1455] Is there a substitution provision available for wood- lot licensees, should they choose — or should they de- sire — to dispose of some private land and replace it with other equivalent private land? Hon. M. de Jong: Y e s . T h e y w o u l d h a v e t o d o i t before the transfer, but the other component to this that I want to — and I think the member is aware of….

We are engaged in a further examination in cooperation with the B.C. Federation of Woodlot Associations about that existing mix of private and Crown land that comprises the woodlot program presently. W. Cobb: On

section 2 in 54.1(

a) it talks about "will not unduly restrict competition." I guess my question would be: is there enough pro- tection here to ensure that we can in fact restrict com- petition, and we don't end up with one mill, say, own- ing all the fibre supply in British Columbia? Hon. M. de Jong: I just wanted to make sure I was referring to the right sections that the member is speak- ing about. We think so. We think that the inclusion of that language — which is significant by its presence here and, I should say, somewhat at odds with the overall philosophy of the legislation….

But it's there because of the very concern that the member has expressed here. We have heard in communities in B.C., particularly in certain communities, where the fibre supply tends to be more concentrated and where — and there are no secrets here — there are speculations about how merg- ers could occur. The inclusion of this language is predi- cated upon this notion. If you have a system built around the notion of a market and competition, then there must be a market and competition. That is why that test, as it relates to transfers and perhaps consoli- dations, exists in the legislation.

But the member is quite right when he points…. I should say, as well, that the language is included be- cause of what we heard from British Columbians — stakeholders, communities, community leaders — as we went around the province. W. Cobb: You mentioned mergers. I guess that was one of the concerns, particularly to ensure, somewhere in the review of the competition, that we actually couldn't have a blind company — the same sharehold- ers, basically, forming a different company — that could buy the timber and then do it through the back door. Hon.

M. de Jong: You cannot escape these provi- sions by cleverly registering yourself at the business corporations office. The

section contemplates looking beyond whatever corporate veil someone might try to erect. It goes to the question of controlling interests and ensuring that there is actual competition taking place. [1500] P. Bell: In 54(1)(c), the transfer of a woodlot licence, has the ministry considered requiring the terms and conditions of transfer being made public to allow for, perhaps, inclusion in the market pricing system over time? Would that be of value? Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay. His question gave rise to a number of different thoughts.

The specific answer is that it is not presently con- templated that that data would be plugged into the formula which will drive stumpage rates. His point, however, about the relevance and the values this would have — that the relevance of the values is a sig- nal for what the overall value of the timber is — is, I think, a good point. What I was trying to wrestle with here a moment ago is access. When you have a woodlot that is com- posed of private land and Crown land and it is sold as a single unit with a combined value, I'm not sure what access you would have.

I think the member's point is whether it is worth examining whether or not that data should become available. There are certainly, as I say, arguments that say it is relevant in terms of assessing the overall value of the timber resource. P. Bell: One other question on this section. Has it been contemplated whether or not the 1 or 2 percent property transfer tax would apply to the sale of a woodlot, although that would come through a different ministry? I'm not sure if that's a role that would be played by the Ministry of Forests, given that there are private lands associated with it. [1505] Hon.

M. de Jong: I am answering the question based on the assumption that the PPT — property purchase tax — presently applies to the transfer of the private land component of a woodlot. We are not do- ing anything here that would alter that fact, except that the general exemptions would apply as it relates to transfers between related parties. Nothing in this bill would alter the present application of the prop- erty purchase tax to the private component. I think, in fairness, that the member's question is whether we are contemplating any changes, and I appreciate the question.

It is not something I had turned my mind to at this point.

Section 9, sections 54 to 54.8 inclusive approved. On

section 10,

section 56.1. P. Bell: Can the minister tell me how many out- standing job creation plans there are from the previ-

7116 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 ous…? I believe it was called the jobs and timber ac- cord or something like that. Hon. M. de Jong: My advice is that there are pres- ently 12 companies with job creation plans in place. P. Bell: How much money was invested by the previous government in those job creation plans? I gather this simply amends it and does not require any execution of those commitments. Hon. M. de Jong: I can't at this moment answer the first part of the question, which is a quantification of the actual investments. The way the

section is in- tended to operate, however, represents something of a phase-out of the entire regime, because there will be ongoing monitoring of the existing plans until 2006. Some actually expire prior to that date, but after April 1, 2006, there will no longer be any monitoring. It's possible that there will be examples where the terms have not been fully complied with, but after April 1, 2006, there will no longer be any monitoring of those plans.

Section 10,

section 56.1, to

section 12,

section 67 inclusive approved. On

section 13, division 3.1. The Chair: Hon. members, on

section 13 there are nine amendments. Is it the wish to pass all of those amendments and then deal with the section, or would you like to deal with each amendment individually? Interjection. The Chair: Shall the amendments to

section 13 pass? Some Hon. Members: Aye. The Chair: So ordered.

Section 13 as amended. Now we have a number of subsections here. Would you like to deal with each subsection or the

section as a whole? J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain the new cut control requirements, please? The Chair: Minister, in my haste, I didn't have you move the amendments. If you would do that prior to answering the question…. The amendments to

section 13 — if you could move those, please. Hon. M. de Jong: I thought we did, and I will now. I move the amendments to

section 13 standing on the order paper in my name. [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.2 by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In this section, "licence" means a licence that has a term of 5 years or less and is a timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut, is a forest licence, is a tree farm licence or is a woodlot licence.] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.4 (

a) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In this

section and in

section 75.41 "licence" means (

a) a forest licence that specifies an allowable annual cut greater than 10 000 m 3 and has a term of more than 5 years, (

b) a timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut greater than 10 000 m3 and has a term of more than 5 years, or (

c) a tree farm licence that has a term of more than 5 years., (

b) by deleting subsection (3) (

a) and substituting the following: (

a) the first cut control period is the same as the cut control period for the replaced licence, immediately before its replacement, and] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.5 (

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following definition: "timber sale licence" means a timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut of 10 000 m 3 or less and has a term of more than 5 years; (

b) in subsection (2) by adding "or timber sale licence" after "forest licence", (

c) in subsection (4) and (5) by adding ", timber sale licence" after "forest licence".] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.51 (1) and (2) by adding "timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut" after "holder of a".] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.6 (4) by deleting paragraph (

c) and substituting the following: (

c) the volume of timber harvested that (

i) was charged to the replaced licences during the calendar year of the replacement, and (ii) exceeded the volume that was authorized for, or available to the holders of, the replaced licences for the immediately preceding cut control periods must be charged to the first cut control period of that other licence.] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.7 by deleting everything before paragraph (

b) and substituting the following: If the volume of timber harvested during a cut control period for a licence, as defined in

section 75.4, a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5, a timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5 or a woodlot licence, as defined in

section 75.5, exceeds the sum of the allowable annual cuts for that period that are (

a) authorized for the licence if it is a forest licence, timber sale licence or woodlot licence, or] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.8 (1) by deleting everything before paragraph (

b) and substituting the following: If the volume of timber harvested during a cut control period for a licence, as defined in

section 75.4, a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5, a timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5 or a woodlot licence, as defined in

section 75.5, is less than the sum of the allowable annual cuts for that period that are

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7117 (

a) authorized for the licence if it is a forest licence, timber sale licence or woodlot licence, or] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.9 (1) (

a) by adding "a timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5" after "a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5,".] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.91 (1) by adding "a timber sale licence, as defined in

section 75.5" after "a forest licence, as defined in

section 75.5,".] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.92 (

a) by adding ", a timber sale licence that specifies an allowable annual cut" after "a forest licence,".] [SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 75.93 (1) by deleting paragraphs (

b) and (

c) and substituting the following: (

b) for a licence as defined in

section 75.4 that does not so provide, (

c) for a forest licence as defined in

section 75.5 that does not so provide, or (

d) for a timber sale licence as defined in

section 75.5 that does not so provide.] Motion approved. On

section 13, division 3.1 as amended. [1510] Hon. M. de Jong: So here's the regime that this ad- mittedly complex bit of legislative drafting is intended to provide for. It preserves a five-year overall cut control period, and it preserves the notion that you must not overcut. So if at the end of that period, you have the expectation you would cut 100 percent of your entitlement, if you cut up to 110 percent ― so that would represent some- thing above what your entitlement is ― that 10 percent is deducted from the subsequent cut control period.

If you cut anything beyond 110 percent, you're penalized, and the penalties are very, very stiff. It is at the other end of the equation that the real significant changes occur, because what we have done away with are annual minimum requirements so that during the life of the cut control period, the harvesting will take place. It may be higher in one year; it may be lower. Although I have learned enough about this in- dustry to know that the efficiencies of operations are found when you maintain as steady and consistent a harvesting

schedule as possible. The other huge change here is that in the past, if you haven't harvested your allotted volumes, you have been entitled to make application to the Crown ― the regional manager, I think, is the statutory decision- maker ― to carry forward that undercut volume, that portion to which you were entitled to harvest but did not. That has been the exercise of a discretionary au- thority on what conditions should apply, should there be an undercut carried forward. We're eliminating that and saying, in effect, to licensees: "You will have greater flexibility to ascertain your harvesting

schedule over the life of that cut control period, but if you don't harvest it, it's going to be put to use for someone else. It will be made available to someone else." That is a sig- nificant feature of the changes that are occurring here. J. Kwan: During the briefing provided by the min- istry, we were advised that the ability to reopen the cut period at any time would therefore mean that compa- nies could dramatically increase the cut without violat- ing the annual allowable cut.

With that, by allowing the licensee to terminate, as an example, one five-year control period and start another one immediately, the amount of cut would be accelerated. Is that not the case? That's as we understand it. Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the question. It's not, but maybe I can try to explain. Over that five-year period…. The member is right. It can be a variable period, and it can restart. But there is a maximum amount of timber which a licensee is entitled to harvest, and you can't get beyond that by playing with the cut control period. So if you have an entitlement to 100,000 cubic metres….

Let's take that example; it is straightforward numbers. If your entitlement is 100,000 cubic metres per year, that's 500,000 over five years. You can't increase that through the back door by restarting your cut control period. In that kind of a scenario, if you've harvested 100,000 cubic metres over the first four years and you restart the cut control period, that doesn't entitle you to harvest more timber than you would otherwise be enti- tled to. So whether it's on the downside or on the up- side, at the end of the day, on the upside, you're held to what your allotment is. J.

Kwan: I understand what the minister is saying, that at the end of the day the amount — the allowable cut ― is the same. Therefore, it's the same amount. There would be impacts, though, I would imagine, in terms of an accelerated cut in terms of the time frame on the environment as an example. Has the minister done any analysis in that regard in terms of this kind of approach, and what kind of environmental damage may result? [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the first part of the member's statement. In fact, she asked a question, so I don't have to disagree. She asked a question that I'll try to answer.

It's possible, depending on prevailing market con- ditions, that within the licensee's cut control period the volumes that are harvested in one year could be higher and in another year, lower. So when the price of lum- ber is where it is today, one could probably anticipate reduced harvesting activity. The price goes up, which is what we are hoping will occur, and you would see some accelerated harvesting activity. That is a separate issue.

Whatever the volumes of that harvest are, it must be conducted in accordance with all of the requirements of either the Forest Prac- tices Code or the Forest and Range Practices Act. What

7118 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 we are dealing with here is the volume entitlement, but all of the other statutory instruments that govern the manner in which that harvesting takes place continue to apply. J. Kwan: Is the minister aware of any other jurisdic- tion that has adopted this new kind of cut control re- gime? Hon. M. de Jong: All provinces that I'm aware of include some manner of cut control period within their legislation. That is a feature common to all the prov- inces. The rotating period is a feature that we think is new and unique to British Columbia.

As I say, one of the things we needed to be confident of is that the overall integrity of our sustainable timber supply analysis and annual allowable cut processes re- mained intact. For example, I mentioned I could fore- see a circumstance in which, on a year-to-year basis, harvest levels would fluctuate. I am reminded that under our present system, in any given year, under a five-year cut control period, a licensee can harvest up to 150 percent even today. Even the system we have today contemplates significant variation on an annual basis.

But I think the member's question related specifi- cally to the variable or rotating period. As far as I know, that is something that is now going to be unique to B.C. J. Kwan: The reason why I'm asking is this. I would anticipate this new cut control regime — the rotating c o m p o ne nt o f i t … . I n s o m e way s i t s o u nd s as t ho u g h there are no overall impacts in terms of the amount of timber that's harvested, because that number is limited at the end.

But if you're able to rotate that time period, it does allow for an acceleration of the cut and the har- vesting over a longer period of time, because you have a shorter period of time for the timber to produce and reproduce. [1520] The question for the minister is: what studies or analysis has the minister done in looking into this new rotating regime and the environment? What kind of studies show that it would actually increase production and therefore community stability? What kind of analysis has been done? What makes this minister think that this new approach would actually work for B.C.? Hon.

M. de Jong: The member really raises two issues. One relates to the environmental aspects of what is taking place here. I do think I have to repeat my earlier answer. What we are talking about here is rate of harvest and quantification of what the harvest will be. All of the legislation that governs how one en- gages in harvest activity in British Columbia continues to apply.

I can't point to analysis on that front, because everything about this assures me that the statutory provisions, protection provisions and environmental provisions will apply as they have and as provided for under the new Forest and Range Practices Act. Secondly, we think that at the end of the day, by providing that increased flexibility, operators are going to be better equipped to both respond and take advan- tage of fluctuations in the marketplace.

Now, I'm probably pre-empting myself, but I think there are members in this House who have concerns — and we'll hear about them — about how quickly undercut vol- umes are going to be made available for use by other licensees. There has been an argument, in fact — and I think we'll hear that in a few moments too — about shortening that cut control period. I will say this again. A significant feature to this is eliminating the ability that licensees have had in the past to say to the government: "We didn't harvest that amount of fibre because it was a lousy market, and we w a n t t o c a r r y i t f o r w a r d .

" T h a t h a s b e e n f a r f r o m a n exact science. I think the concern that I have heard in some quarters is: "We don't really want to wait five years for that determination to be made. If some licen- see hasn't used the fibre, get it out there quicker." We did an analysis. We worked with stakeholders, with licensees, who were calling for a longer period — who were looking for a period of six, seven or eight years — and we decided that the period of time that best served the purposes of the province, the communi- ties, the people that own the resource and the workers was a five-year period. W.

Cobb: As you know, we've talked about this one many, many times. The concern in my riding in the interior, of course, with this

section is the steady em- ployment. Because of breakup and a lot of other things that happen in the Cariboo in particular, forestry is classified as a seasonal industry, and I think this sec- tion could further that dilemma. I have a couple of questions throughout this sec- tion, but to start with: is there any protection here? I realize that they can cut different segments at different times over a five-year period. What would stop a licen- see from coming in, high-grading, taking off the best of the timber, then halfway through his cut period…? It would be a five-year period.

He could high-grade for the first couple of years and then shut down for the balance or sell off the rest, because elsewhere in this bill there are subdivision opportunities and what not to sell off the balance of his wood. Hon. M. de Jong: It's not really a high-grading is- sue, because all of the provisions that we dealt with yesterday in Bill 45 apply to protect against that — the harvest take-or-pay provisions.

There is, in my view, sufficient protection to ensure that the profile is being cut and that people are not simply combing the forest for the highest-value logs and leaving the junk for someone else or to rot. [1525] I think the concern, though, that the member has heard and, in fairness, that I have heard relates to the possibility for an increased cyclical nature of harvest- ing. The obligation to cut the profile or pay continues to exist. I think the concern is: in a period of time where

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7119 the price of lumber drops precipitously low, what is the likelihood of continued harvest activity taking place? The answer to that relates, in part, to the economics of maintaining steady harvesting activity — the bene- fits that will accrue from having the flexibility to re- spond to those changes in market conditions. I don't think there's anything here that should be cause for concern around the issue of high-grading. W. Cobb: I may have used the wrong term, but yeah, high-grading was some of the discussion and concern.

Is it a fact, then, that a licensee can take a five- year cut period, cut half of it when the prices are high, either sell off the rest or shut down for the rest of that time and not harvest anything for the next two and a half or three years, depending on what the high price was? Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to confirm for the…. Here's the worst-case scenario. In a five-year cut control period, because of where the price of lumber is, a licensee says: "I'm not going to harvest for the first three years and then harvest like mad in the last two years." I don't believe that's likely to occur.

That would be catastrophic for a whole bunch of reasons — the ability to maintain the infrastructure on the part of the licensee and all of those things. These people are in business to harvest. Conversely, I suppose, if the price of lumber is way up there during that cut control period, you could see licensees harvest fairly aggressively in their first year. You could see that. Now, my expectation would be that if they all do it, the price of lumber ain't going to stay up there very high. That's where I have heard the nervousness expressed — around how that is likely to play out.

The member for Skeena has also expressed a nervousness around one other feature to this that I'm sure we'll discuss in a moment. P. Bell: I'd just like to refer to the

section that talks about selling undercut volumes off a woodlot. Given the nature of woodlots and the amount of volume that is harvested in any given period, that gives me reason for concern. I'm wondering if the minister can speak to the issue in terms of: are we going to sell off as little as 500 or a thousand cubic metres? Or will there be a benchmark where, if an entire cut period goes uncut, perhaps there would be a sale on it? That entire notion of selling volume off a woodlot unless it's really not being maintained by the owner gives me some reason for concern. [1530] Hon.

M. de Jong: I don't think I disagree, actually. Just checking with the officials, I'm told that the provi- sions that have allowed for this have existed with re- spect to the woodlot program. It is exceptional indeed where they have been utilized. The key word pre- served within the

section is the word "may." It is, however, a provision we wanted to preserve in the event that we or a government in the future were confronted by a situation where a woodlot owner was simply showing absolutely no interest or no intention to make use of the asset they had been provided with. So you're quite right about the volumes, although I suppose we might want to speculate about the years ahead and the possibility that woodlots will get larger. In those circumstances it may be a provision that, I suppose, the Crown might wish to have at its disposal if the volumes involved grew significantly. R.

Harris: I'm going to look at this from a little bit of a different perspective than I've heard in some of the questions asked. The nice thing about the forest revitalization — the whole collection of bills — is that it provides a whole variable number of new access points to people that want to get into the forest industry. It actually encour- ages new entrepreneurs just by providing access to fibre. That's the key. What concerns me in

section 75.4, the ability to re- book, is that one of the unique access points that com- munities are going to see is an opportunity to benefit from a rolling undercut model, one that actually sees, when timber isn't harvested…. We have a formula in place that actually sees that fibre roll into the market- p l ac e i n s o m e k i n d o f p re d i c t ab l e f as hi o n.

I t 's t hat ac - cess to the fibre, when major licences don't want to use it, that actually gives entrepreneurs, people we refer to as Bill 13 contractors, first nations — everybody, really, in those local communities who live around that fibre basket — an opportunity to get at it. Historically, look at what's happened in Skeena, where we're been building up undercuts now for years and years. We're probably approaching three or four million cubic…. We're probably up to four now.

Yet during that time, while that undercut's been building, people who have actually had ideas or ways of generat- ing activity and putting people to work — whether it's in the value-added sector or in the harvest side or in the log market side or any of those occupations — have been really stifled by lack of access. The minister talked originally about the fact that un- der the old system, industries and companies and major licensees literally hoarded timber. The concern I have with this

section is that people will start to strategically book, not the way the member of the opposition talked about but more in terms of strategically book, so that it in fact prevents a consistent flow of fibre into the marketplace in any predictable fashion, and we won't actually see that access point realized — not in any fashion I think is going to work for a lot of the forest-dependent communities. The bills — the collection of them — are great. I think this particular

section becomes an inhibitor to an access point, and that gives me a lot of concern. I don't think it actually completes the intent of the full package we are trying to deliver. Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member's re- marks, and it's obviously an issue that he and I and

7120 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 others — people around the province — have talked about. I have the member's point that a shorter period would lead to a situation in which those unutilized or undercut volumes would find their way back into the market and be available for other interested parties more quickly. I am perhaps less suspicious — or less concerned, I suppose — than he about the pattern that may emerge. But it is, of course, something we will need to track very carefully.

It is helpful and, I think, appropriate that the member put his concerns on the record in clear, unambiguous terms, because if he's right and I'm wrong, this government or another government may have to look at the implications of that and address it in the future. [1535] The Chair: Noting the time, I'm going to put the question on the remaining sections of the bill.

Section 13, division 3.1 as amended approved on division. Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:36 p.m. Tributes BRUCE McRAE Hon. M. de Jong: While we wait, I just want to take advantage of the moment.

ADM Bruce McRae, who I know many members of the House have known, and who has served this province well and with distinction for in excess of 30 years, has just participated in what we believe will be his final debate in these chambers before he takes his retirement later this year. I want to thank him on behalf of the members and the province. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 29, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments. [1540] Mr.

Speaker: Pursuant to the order on the order paper regarding time allocation, we will now vote on third reading of Bill 29. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question before the House is third reading of Bill 29. [1545] Third Reading of Bills Third reading of Bill 29 approved on the following division: YEAS — 48 Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema Hansen J. Reid Santori van Dongen Roddick Masi Lee Hagen Plant Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Abbott Neufeld Penner Jarvis Harris Brenzinger Bell Long Mayencourt Trumper Johnston R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Bill 29, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 39. Committee of the Whole House TRANSMISSION CORPORATION ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 39; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:48 p.m. On

section 1. J. MacPhail:

Section 1 is

definitions. The definition, as it's listed here, of the B.C. Transmission Corporation doesn't sound like any other Crown corporation. So what is it? If the minister were to describe the category into which this new company fits, is it the Crown cor- poration set of companies? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it is. Before I start, maybe I should introduce Chris Trumpy, deputy minister in charge of the energy policy. I have on my right Karen Adderley, manager of regulatory

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7121 affairs in transmission; Yacout Mansour, the vice- president of grid operations, behind me; and on the other side is Shelley Murphy, senior adviser, electricity policy. J. MacPhail: So it is a Crown corporation, the min- ister says. Where would it be in here that it's a Crown corporation like other Crown corporations which legis- late their operation as a benefit to the province? Hon. R. Neufeld: It is a company, a corporation, owned by the Crown. There are many such examples in British Columbia of the same type of Crown.

I can give these: Columbia Power Corporation, Victoria Line, Land and Water British Columbia. There's a whole host o f t h e m t h a t a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d t h i s s a m e w a y . I t i s wholly owned, completely owned — 100 percent — by the people of the province of British Columbia. [1550] J. MacPhail: The minister has said it's a Crown cor- poration, so I'm satisfied that he's made that admission. What does the RTO expect in terms of a transmission company? Hon. R. Neufeld: First off,

section 1 in this act is not talking about an RTO. In fact, at no place in the act do we talk about regional transmission organizations. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that information. That was useful. My question is…. The minister has said this is a Crown corporation, not a company, so if British Columbia were to join an RTO, what is the requirement of member- ship in the RTO ― a company or a Crown corporation? Hon. R. Neufeld: It is a company under the Com- pany Act, owned by the Crown, so it's a Crown corpo- ration.

The decision, to my knowledge, as to what the RTO will require has not been made in the U.S.A., and at some point in time they will make it. But this is a company, a corporation, owned by the Crown, by the people of British Columbia. Further to that, it will be a company that's regu- lated by the B.C. Utilities Commission, exactly the same as B.C. Hydro is regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat for me the Crown corporations in British Columbia that are subject to the Company Act, as he just stated? Hon. R. Neufeld: There are a number of them.

I listed them before, and I probably don't have all of them, but I have a number of them here. They are the Columbia Power Corporation, Victoria Line, Land and Water British Columbia, B.C. Pavilion Corporation. There are some that are dissolved ― the Skeena Cellu- lose ones. Those are some examples. J. MacPhail: I have only the time to take the minis- ter at his words — that they're also Crown corpora- tions, subject to the Company Act. The definition of "transferred employee" deals with employees designated transferable.

The corporation intends, as I understand it, to pick certain people and transfer their positions away from the authority. Will that designation be by name ― Christian and last name ― or by position? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, under

section 1…. Later on we deal with employees, if we want to wait until then. In fact, there's an extensive part of this bill that deals with pensions and employees. J. MacPhail: No, I'd like my question answered now, please. [1555] Hon. R. Neufeld: With the agreement, I'll read out

section 7(1): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, for the purpose of effecting transfers referred to in sub- section (2), make orders as follows: (

a) identifying by name, classification or other description, employees of the authority to be transferred employees." Yes, they do have the names of the employees.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail:

Section 2 is a key

section in this legisla- tion. The

section is titled "Applicability of certain stat- utes and common law to transmission corporation." How will the application of the Economic Devel- opment Electricity Rate Act

section 32(7)(

f) affect the rate structure set up at B.C. Transmission Corporation? Hon. R. Neufeld:

Section 32(7)(

f) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act has been repealed in Bill 40. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I can't keep track. Did the Hydro and Power Authority Act subsume the Eco- nomic Development Electricity Rate Act? Hon. R. Neufeld: The Economic Development Elec- tricity Rate Act was also repealed in Bill 40. J. MacPhail: Okay. Isn't everything nice and tidy? The Financial Administration Act applies to the B.C. Transmission Corporation. Will the B.C. Transmission Corporation be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. J. MacPhail: How will that occur? The act is silent.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Ministerial order. J. MacPhail: A ministerial order. Is there not a way that the minister can do that the way it's done every- where else, which is to amend the legislation to de- mand that this be included under the

schedule of the

7122 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 FOIPPA? I'm sure the minister is well aware that the freedom-of-information commissioner stated that be- cause Bill 39 does not designate BCTC as a public body under the FOIPPA, it should be added to the schedule. [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. R. Neufeld: It can be done either way. There is a regulation from the Minister of Management Ser- vices that adds B.C. Transmission Corporation to the FOI requirements. [1600] J. MacPhail: What particular statutes or statutory provisions is the minister excluding this Crown corpo- ration from and why? Hon. R.

Neufeld: B.C. Transmission Corporation will be treated exactly the same as B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: When the minister says — just to clar- ify — that they will be treated exactly the same as B.C. Hydro, there are no fewer exemptions…. This is almost like a double negative. Are there fewer exemptions that apply to B.C. Transmission Corporation than do to B.C. Hydro, or is it absolutely identical? Hon. R. Neufeld: All sections of the Company Act apply. All sections of the Financial Administration Act apply, and all the ones that apply to B.C. Hydro will also apply to BCTC.

There is apparently a fairly exten- sive list, as I understand. [1605] J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering whether the minis- ter can tell me, under

section 40…. I'm trying to see right here. Was there an entire repeal of the Economic Development Electricity Rate Act? Was the entire act repealed? If the minister could just quote me that. Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it did repeal the whole act. J. MacPhail: Now, I understand that that act did allow the government to provide reduced electricity rates in order to stimulate economic development. I'll just read a

section of that act that has now been re- pealed. It previously said: "An order under

section 2 or 4 may contain terms and conditions that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers are advisable, including terms and conditions (

a) setting the economic development rate for surplus electricity to be supplied, (

b) specifying the period during which the economic development rate is applicable, and (

c) specifying the amount of surplus electricity to be supplied at the economic development rate." That allowed for lower electricity rates. That act has been repealed now. Is there any contemplation of the permission of lower rates? Hon. R. Neufeld: The member will recall that we repealed the jobs-for-power bill also, the same as this one. The B.C. Utilities Commission will regulate the prices for electricity as they relate to commercial, in- dustrial and residential in British Columbia. We don't have any intention of having a special rate for a special company.

We will actually have the same rate across a broad brush of companies. J. MacPhail: J u s t t o b e c l e a r : t h i s g o v e r n m e n t h a s repealed legislation that would permit lower rates to stimulate economic development, by repealing the Economic Development Electricity Rate Act. Is there an ability for a person or a company or anyone to obtain intervener status to recommend to the BCUC that there is justification for a rate reduction in order to enhance the economy? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, this government has said there will be no special deals and no business subsi- dies. We will have the B.C.

Utilities Commission set the rates. They'll be cost-based rates in the province of Brit- ish Columbia. They will set them the same for BCTC as they would for B.C. Hydro. That's why that was re- pealed. R. Hawes: I wonder if I could seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Hawes: There are, in the gallery today, 54 young students from E.S. Richards school in Mission, grades 4 and 5. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Tough — who isn't really tough; he taught three of my kids some years ago — and 21 adult chaperons are accompanying them to Victoria today.

Could the House please make them welcome. [1610] Debate Continued J. MacPhail: The minister didn't give me the list, but I assume that the Expropriation Act still applies to the B.C. Transmission Corporation as per the Hydro Act,

section 32(7). Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. There are no expropriation rights needed for BCTC because B.C. Hydro still owns all the transmission, all the poles and all the wires. BCTC is actually charged with running the business on those wires. We just checked briefly for the Economic Develop- ment Electricity Rate Act. No one can remember the last time that was even used. Had it been used, it was quite a long time ago. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that evaluation of the corporate memory. I'll just say that so far in this Legis- lature the corporate memory has often been completely incorrect. Never let it be said that I'm accusing it at this

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7123 time, but on several occasions, in this session particu- larly, the corporate memory has failed. The Expropriation Act doesn't apply to BCTC. Is that what I'm hearing the minister saying? He's nod- ding yes. Any expropriation for expansion of transmis- sion lines will be done under the Hydro Act. Is that right? Hon. R. Neufeld: If there were need for expropria- tion to build a transmission line, B.C. Hydro would have that authority and would do that. J.

MacPhail: Any requirements to consult and to meet the duty to accommodate with first nations are the responsibility of B.C. Hydro? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. J. MacPhail: If one were to determine the cost of expanded transmission in this province, to whom would one turn — B.C. Transmission Corporation or B.C. Hydro — to determine the costs of expansion of transmission lines? Who is held accountable for those costs? Hon. R. Neufeld: It is a responsibility of BCTC to put forward the planning if there is a requirement for further transmission. They would put that plan to the BCUC.

The BCUC would review it in the normal ways that they do, and then they would instruct B.C. Hydro to build it. J. MacPhail: Does the B.C. Transmission Corpora- tion do all of the planning, including receiving the submissions from proponents for expansion? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. J. MacPhail: And then B.C. Transmission Corpora- tion orders B.C. Hydro to build it? What if B.C. Hydro says no? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, when BCUC reviews the plans for expansion on transmission and approves those plans that are in the best interests of consumers, they will then instruct B.C. Hydro to build the facilities.

I can't imagine B.C. Hydro would refuse it, because they are required to provide electricity to British Co- lumbia first to the people of the province. They're mandated to do that; they have to do that. If there's not enough transmission room, they're obviously going to have to build enough transmi ssion room to be able to do that. [1615] J. MacPhail: As I understand it, Hydro has the abil- ity to get sources…. They have claimed that they're going to build up sources of energy other than through the transmission lines. The government takes great pride in that. So, where is it?

What other example exists where one Crown corporation can order expenses in- curred by another Crown corporation? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, in discussions, none that I know of within B.C. This is a process that we're beginning here. J. MacPhail: Just tell me quickly: if we're breaking new ground here where we are separating two bodies, and the government claims they're both Crown corpo- rations…. We'll take them at their research. Yet one Crown corporation can impose costs on another Crown corporation. So we have rankings of Crown corpora- tions now. The B.C.

Transmission Corporation can im- pose costs on another Crown corporation. Can that Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, appeal to the BCUC about those imposed costs? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, we'll have public hearings before any new transmission would be built. B.C. Hy- dro would have the opportunity to appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission. J. MacPhail: I'm wondering about this — inde- pendent power producers wanting an expansion of transmission lines so that they can wield power for export. It has nothing to do with domestic use. It has nothing to do with the ratepayers of B.C.

Hydro, and yet they could make a case to the B.C. Transmission Corporation — close relations. The Transmission Cor- poration could hear their case and say: "Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. That's great profit for you independ- ent power producers, so we'll build the transmission lines." No use whatsoever domestically — and Hydro has to pay those costs? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, there's a step missing, and it's the B.C. Utilities Commission. The B.C. Utilities Commission will review those costs.

They will review the benefits, and they'll also determine how that will be paid back, if in fact they do agree with building trans- mission strictly for export for an IPP. J. MacPhail: So it is possible that transmission in this province could be expanded strictly for IPP export use. Is that correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: That could be a possibility. An IPP may want to build strictly for export. Maybe they want to build their own line. I don't know. Maybe they'll want to access B.C. Transmission. They'll be able to do that, but there's a process that has to happen if you need new transmission lines.

That's not always the case. There could be room to move those electrons on what's already there, and that will be a benefit to the province of British Columbia because there will be a wheeling rate charged for that. J. MacPhail: Well, who knows whether it will be a benefit or not — whether the wheeling charge makes

7124 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 up for the debt incurred by B.C. Hydro building the transmission lines? It will be privately built — is that it? [1620] Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the B.C. Utilities Commis- sion will make that determination on application from Transmission. The B.C. Utilities Commission will not see B.C. Transmission Corporation or B.C. Hydro lose money if they have to build new transmission to carry electrons for an independent power producer. There will be a wheeling right. It's much the same as a pipeline. There's a pipeline that goes in the ground. They're not always full.

They're sometimes part empty, and there's room to move other products or more product through it. There's a rate that people have to pay to be able to do that. If you have to expand the transmission, I would as- sume, when you get to that finite point — I'm not going to preguess the B.C. Utilities Commission — they're go- ing to have to determine what that rate would be and what would be in the best interests of British Columbi- ans. It could possibly be that they may say: "You know what, IPP?

If you want to export across the border and we have to build new transmission, the whole cost of that may be the cost to the IPP." Again, that will be done through the B.C. Utilities Commission, through a panel of experts that will be able make a decision on that. Again, the consumers in the province benefit. J. MacPhail: There is a huge difference, Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect. There could now be com- peting interests presenting to the B.C. Utilities Com- mission. The B.C. Transmission Corporation, whose interests are only served by profit of an IPP…. I make no judgment on this.

I'm just saying that the submis- sion could be that the IPP needs expanded transmis- sion strictly for export purposes, and oh yeah, by the way, there will be a wheeling charge paid to the prov- ince. Who knows whether that is in any way compen- satory or not. Or, you then may have the other competing interest of B.C. Hydro having this ownership foisted upon them for no purpose to their ratepayers — none to the ratepayers — and having to absorb the costs of mainte- nance of that transmission line, regardless of future prospects whatsoever.

For the very first time there's a ranking of priorities in this province in use of our hy- dro, and private interests have top ranking. Hon. R. Neufeld: We can get into some real fine details here, but again, I'm going to stress…. J. MacPhail: Yeah, that's the idea. Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, I'm going to stress the fact that the B.C. Utilities Commission is again involved. I know that's a new thing in British Columbia when it comes to B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corpora- tion, but it will be involved and looking out for the best interests of British Columbians. After all, B.C. Hydro hasn't changed.

What happens is they are still to deliver electricity to people in the province. Our energy policy states that we have to maintain the lowest possible rates going forward in the province. British Columbia is number one. It is first. In a hearing, it will not preclude others from put- ting forward their points of view. A public hearing is inclusive of a lot of different individuals. It w

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0529pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0529pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ddddfafe84f131e9b5628e5103ff414bc00564a7

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