2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

British Columbia Railway Asset Protection Act,

2003 (Bill M203)

J. MacPhail

Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)

Hon. G. Plant

Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70)

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Korean Heritage Day

L. Mayencourt

Fraser Valley air quality

R. Hawes

Small business in Burquitlam

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Management of Coquihalla Highway

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Hon. G. Collins

Promotion of tourism in B.C.

W. McMahon

Hon. R. Thorpe

Government action on mad cow disease

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van Dongen

Sale of Crown land in Comox Valley

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice

Amendment to motion on government business

schedule (Motion 101)

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Tony Bhullar to select standing committees

Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report,

Forest Practices Board, annual report, 2002

Petitions

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Third Reading of Bills

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

D. MacKay

Hon. G. Plant

B. Penner

V. Anderson

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 47)

[ Page 7037 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Jarvis: I'd like to introduce to the members of the House Adam Petersen, a

young man who has moved into my riding in North Vancouver. He has just finished

being a student at Capilano College. He has been studying for his CAB licence

for an insurance broker. He's a good supporter of this government, so please

make him welcome.

MacPhail: Today I rise to introduce Glen Naylor to the House. Mr. Naylor

made the trip down the Island today from Parksville to visit one of our interns

who is his grandson. I asked the intern working with us — and I was hoping the

answer would be yes — whether his grandfather was older than me, but he

couldn't guarantee that he was. That was extremely unfortunate on the part of

the intern for not saying the right answer. Anyway, Mr. Naylor should be

extremely proud of his grandson, Hayden, who is doing a wonderful job. Would the

House please make Mr. Naylor welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: I would like to welcome to the House today someone who is providing

leadership in the area of private post-secondary education in the province, and

that's Daren Hancott. He's the Vancouver campus director of the University of

Phoenix, and he has been meeting with ministry staff today. I would very much

like to ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: Today we are joined in the gallery and the precincts by two groups of

enthusiastic students from Diefenbaker Elementary School in Richmond-Steveston.

They are accompanied by their principal, Susan Johnsen; by teachers Mrs.

Csontala, Mrs. Hindson and Mrs. Waterfall; and by a group of parents. Working

among the students is a specially fortunate young man who gets to have his

twelfth birthday announced on the floor of the Legislature, Michael Yap. I hope

all members of the House will please welcome all these fine students and their

parents and teachers.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 11 students who are touring

our Legislature today. Saira Kanwal, Laureen Naidu, Jason Chan, Michael Goitard,

Al-Rahim Habib, Patricia Trinidad, Jana Ingelsman, Shalini Arya, Stacey Neves,

Kylie Van Eaton and Raymond Soo, of grades 10 and 11, are visiting from Surrey.

Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Jonathan Nielson.

These 11

students were participants in the Rotary Club of Surrey "Adventure in

Surrey" speech meet, an event that focuses on developing a greater

awareness among young people of both the responsibility and the importance of

Canadian citizenship. These grades 10 and 11 students were asked to speak on

what there is to celebrate in Canada. Their responses were lively and

represented a refreshing image of youthful pride in being Canadian.

As an

acknowledgment of their fine work, I invited these students on a trip to the

B.C. Legislature to gain a greater understanding of how our provincial

government functions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hawes: Today in the precincts we have 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic

Elementary School with their teacher, Ms. Heron, and five adults as chaperons.

Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Our Kelowna Rockets hockey team returned from Quebec City, from the

Memorial Cup. They had a fabulous season, and I want to officially congratulate

them here. They had what has been described as a Cinderella season. They were a

very young team, and they won the WHL finals. I think I've already made that

point to the members from….

Interjections.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Yes, okay. From Kamloops and from Cranbrook.

I want to

congratulate Marc Habscheid, who won the honour of Coach of the Year for the

Canadian Hockey League, and Bruce Hamilton, who is the Executive of the Year —

both from the Kelowna Rockets organization.

Next year

Kelowna is hosting the Memorial Cup, and I can tell you our Rockets will be back

there to defend it. Congratulations to them, and I hope the House also

congratulates them.

[1410]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today I had the privilege of listening to 42 students from Glenrosa

Middle School play. Their band was here, and they played in front of the

Legislature. It's been a lifelong dream of the band director, Eddie Atherton, to

bring the group here to Victoria and play in front of the Legislature. I just

wanted to say what a great event it was. Would the House please make them feel

very welcome here in Victoria.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

ASSET PROTECTION ACT, 2003

J. MacPhail

presented a bill intituled British Columbia Railway Asset Protection Act, 2003.

MacPhail: I move the bill standing in my name on the order paper, entitled British Columbia Railway

[ Page 7038 ]

Asset Protection Act, 2003, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

MacPhail: This bill amends the British Columbia Railway Act to ensure that

neither the government nor the company may lease or sell any part of the lines

and property of the company. B.C. Rail is turning a profit for British

Columbians, and therefore there is no need to sell B.C. Rail, particularly since

the sale of B.C. Rail will have severe impacts on B.C.'s communities and economy

and could be devastating for northern communities.

According

to recently released internal B.C. Rail documents, over 70 percent of B.C.

Rail's workforce — that's over a thousand people — will lose their jobs if

CN takes over operations. B.C. Rail offices will be moved out of the province,

resulting in the loss of family-supporting management and union jobs in

communities like Prince George. The cost of transporting goods will increase by

500 percent, which will cripple the forest industry, an industry that's already

reeling. Some of the rail lines may be abandoned, leaving the resource-dependent

communities with no service.

The sale of

B.C. Rail does not make economic sense. Massive job losses coupled with

increased costs of production for an industry will hurt this province. British

Columbians are telling the opposition that profitable public assets like B.C.

Rail should not be sold off to pay for this government's failed economic plans

or its record-breaking deficits.

I move that

the bill be put on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill M203

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

APPOINTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Administrative Tribunals Appointment and

Administration Act. This bill flows from the administrative justice project, the

first system-wide review of administrative tribunals in the history of British

Columbia. The bill is the first in a series of legislative reforms that will

ensure British Columbia has an administrative justice system that is

accountable, relevant, affordable, citizen-focused, accessible and fair.

The two

principles that underlie this bill are independence and accountability, and in

this bill we give effect to those principles by focusing on the appointment and

the tenure of tribunal members and on the role of tribunal chairs in overseeing

effective tribunal operations. This bill establishes the principle of merit as

the basis for tribunal appointments and recognizes the role of tribunal chairs

not only in the appointment of members but also in the overall management and

operation of the tribunal itself. These measures will strengthen the

independence of administrative tribunals, foster greater public confidence in

their impartiality and enhance the public accountability to and through

government.

While the

bill is intended to apply to all administrative tribunals, we recognize that one

size does not fit all. Accordingly and where appropriate, the provisions of the

act have been modified to meet the unique circumstances of individual tribunals.

Under the bill, tribunal chairs and members will be given fixed-term

appointments, replacing the current practice of at-pleasure appointments which

create uncertainty of tenure. This change will strengthen tribunal independence.

The bill

recognizes the need to have highly experienced and capable tribunal members. To

encourage the development and retention of expertise, the bill will remove the

current impediments to reappointments in the same tribunal or cross-appointments

to others. This will enhance the effectiveness of administrative tribunals and

provide lasting benefits to all those who use their services.

[1415]

The bill

fosters public accountability by clearly articulating the leadership

responsibilities of tribunal chairs, and this concept of accountability to and

through government will help us realize our new-era commitments for responsible,

accountable management of public resources and tax dollars.

I move the

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

of the House after today.

Bill 68

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.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION

REPEAL ACT

Hon. R.

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

Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 70 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 70. This bill repeals the Commercial

Appeals Commission

[ Page 7039 ]

Act, dissolves the commission and makes necessary consequential amendments to

all statutes with reference to the Commercial Appeals Commission Act.

This

legislation follows recommendations made through the core services review

process. That process concluded that the number of appeals made annually to the

Commercial Appeals Commission was not sufficient to warrant its continued

operation. The commission was mandated to hear appeals of administrative

decisions made under the authority of the provincial statute that adopted the

commission as a main avenue of appeal. The commission primarily heard appeals of

licensing decisions associated with consumer protection or finance-related

statutes. These are appeals of decisions related to the ability of an individual

or company to do business within regulated sectors. These are not appeals

related to disputes between consumers and suppliers.

A number of

the statutes amended by this bill replace the current appeal to the commission

with the appeal to the courts. Other statutes are being amended to provide

appeal to a new tribunal, the financial services tribunal, which will be the

responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Finance.

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 70

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) KOREAN HERITAGE DAY

Mayencourt: As many members of this House have noted, May is Asian Heritage

Month here in British Columbia, and it's my pleasure to speak today on the issue

of Korean heritage in our province.

Immigration

from Korea has grown significantly since the 1970s, but it's really the economic

might of the Republic of Korea that has caused more and more Koreans to come to

British Columbia to set down roots and engage in business here. In my riding, we

have numerous Korean restaurants, Internet cafes and bars that are all around my

community, serving the Korean community as well as the other people in the

larger community.

Additionally,

we have an astonishing record on international students. We have around 30,000

come here because it's a safe and vibrant and beautiful place, and because it's

economical for them.

understand, from the 2001 census, that over 28,000 individuals named the Korean

language as their mother tongue, and that's a very significant group of people.

This increased population continues to put down roots, and they continue to

share their rich culture and traditions with the rest of British Columbia.

On Saturday

we're all getting together to celebrate Korean Heritage Day at the Plaza of

Nations in Vancouver. We're going to honour the fortieth anniversary of

diplomatic relations between Korea and Canada. It will be a great day, full of

festivities and dance and arts and culture. We'll also take a few moments to

honour the many Korean Canadian veterans that have served in Canada's armed

forces. It's always a favourite part of the day for me, when I go to Korean

Heritage Day, to take a moment to honour those men and women who have

contributed so much to Canada.

Another

special guest that will join us there is Ji-Won Park, a young lady who came to

Canada last year. The Korean community has been so generous, as has the rest of

British Columbia, in supporting her in all of her trials and tribulations.

I just want

to ask all members to join me in celebrating Korean Heritage Day on Sunday.

[1420]

FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY

Hawes: This B.C. Liberal government is committed to ensuring that the people

of British Columbia live in the healthiest environment possible. That means

strenuous environmental protection, a strong water protection regime and clean

air standards. To that end, we have introduced a number of bills that ensure our

environment is protected in a sensible, sustainable and sensitive way. We've

passed water protection legislation that ensures clean, safe water and have

demonstrated our commitment to clean air through our actions.

The Fraser

Valley has one of the most challenged airsheds in British Columbia. It's a huge

trap for pollution and airborne particulates, and only through stringent control

by local, provincial and federal governments can this be mitigated. For years

the citizens of the Fraser Valley have done their utmost to ensure that the

quality of the air in the valley does not deteriorate further. In fact, their

efforts and the expenditure of considerable amounts of capital have begun to

evidence measurable improvement.

Yet, in the

Fraser Valley we continue to be challenged from the south by the SE2 plant in

Sumas that has refused to take "no" for an answer. As I speak here

today, the National Energy Board is hearing an application to allow SE2 to

connect into the grid to enable their power production to flow through to the

United States.

Hundreds of

dedicated and concerned citizens are lining up to speak against this proposal.

We, too, as a provincial government — a Liberal provincial government — are

standing alongside the local residents, with both our legal counsel and our

MLAs, who will be making submissions to the hearing. As a resident of the Fraser

Valley, I'm proud of our commitment to ensuring that our work to improve air

quality in the valley airshed is not compromised by the SE2 project, which

[ Page 7040 ]

has no benefit at all to residents of the Fraser Valley, just as I am proud

of our initiatives to protect the environment without strangling economic

growth.

SMALL BUSINESS IN BURQUITLAM

H. Bloy:

I rise today to acknowledge small business, the backbone of the economy of

British Columbia. The riding of Burquitlam is very fortunate to have hundreds of

small entrepreneurial businesses. My riding of Burquitlam, like others in

British Columbia, has a variety of cultural groups that excel in the business

community. Though 99 percent of these individuals and businesses are never

recognized formally for their contributions to British Columbia, their work does

not go unnoticed. British Columbia thrives because we have such a rich, diverse

population that all bring new thoughts and innovations into the very lifeblood

of our province.

I would

like to particularly congratulate four exceptional entrepreneurs that happen to

do business in the riding of Burquitlam. The first three names are winners of

the B.C. New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards. Bayne Vardy is the president and

owner of B.C. Furnace Service Ltd. Mr. Vardy emigrated from London, England, and

has built one of the largest companies within his industry.

John Shen,

another recipient that I'm proud to represent, is the founder of Palcan Fuel

Cells. I've toured his facility. His technology and fuel cell development is on

the cutting edge in British Columbia.

Johnny Fong

is a person I'd like to congratulate, as I've had the pleasure to meet him on

several occasions. Mr. Fong was the recipient of the outstanding achievement

award for his tireless work in establishing a number of successful businesses in

British Columbia and for his selfless dedication to a multitude of charities in

and around his community.

The fourth

person from my community, Kazuko Komatsu, is president and CEO of Pacific

Western Breweries. Miss Komatsu has just been nominated for the International

Business Person of the Year Award by the International Management Development

Association. They will be holding their twelfth congress here in Vancouver this

June. I look forward to having the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise visit my riding again to meet these four individuals and many other

businesses in British Columbia.

[1425]

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MacPhail: With each passing day, outrage is growing at the Liberals' plan

for selling off the Coquihalla Highway, and that outrage is being fed by a

minister who refuses to give simple details about what the government expects in

return for the sale. The Minister of Transportation told this House on Monday

that she has a bottom line, but she won't say what it is. Would she like to take

this opportunity to come clean and tell interior residents just how low she

plans to go in this Coquihalla fire sale?

Hon. J.

Reid: There is great benefit to the people of the region and the province

with the operating partnership of the Coquihalla. It's very important, as we go

through this process and we work with the mayors and have a mayors' council,

that there is a business case that will be made. If the province won't benefit

in a proper way from this, in an adequate way from this, we wouldn't be doing

the partnership, so there are benefits. If the benefits are going to accrue to

the users of the highway and the taxpayers of B.C., then this will be a good and

positive partnership to engage in.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: What the residents of the interior are asking for are some

guarantees that they will benefit. Over and over again, despite repeated

questions to this minister, she refuses to give any details to the interior

residents whatsoever. "Trust me," she says.

Well,

interior residents don't want to pay with their highway to bail out the

government with a short-term cash infusion. They paid for the highway through

their tolls, and they have a right to know how much it's going to be sold for.

The conventional wisdom that's out there circulating — if the minister doesn't

deny — is that this government is willing to sell off the Coquihalla for as

little as $500 million.

In order to

add $500 million to the bottom line, the government is going to lose

approximately $55 million in revenue for the next 55 years. That's over $3

billion in today's dollars that they're going to lose. If that were a loan, the

payback would be 500 percent. Given what an obvious ripoff this deal is to the

taxpayers, will the minister listen to the people of the interior and kill this

desperate cash grab of the Coquihalla?

Hon. J.

Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to be able to clarify the misinformation

that the member of the opposition is clouding the issue with. The highway has

not been paid for. On top of that, being able to give the benefit to the

people…. Let me give an example of the benefits people can receive. For

example, if there's a worker who lives in Merritt and travels just three times a

month to Vancouver for work, over a year's period right now they'd be paying

$720 a year in tolls. If we are able to do a partnership agreement, that person

would see a reduction of $520 a year. I believe that is a significant benefit to

the people of the area.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I guess it's just the residents of the interior that just don't

understand how valuable this representation is, just like when the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson attended a public meeting and ac-

[ Page 7041 ]

cused the people in the room of being stupid. I guess that's the same thing

this minister is doing.

This

minister reminds me of the person who quit their job so that they could get

vacation pay to pay off their credit cards. That's exactly what she's doing. It

just does not make any sense to sell a perfectly good highway to get out of a

fiscal hole. It's no wonder the Minister of Forests doesn't understand, no

wonder he doesn't understand it.

Even if the

private operator spends half of the revenue stream on maintenance and operating

costs, it's still over a billion and a half of lost revenue in today's dollars

to the people of B.C. that's going into someone else's pocket. British

Columbians — not the Minister of Forests and not the Minister of

Transportation, clearly, but British Columbians — know a ripoff when they see

one, and this one can be seen coming from miles away.

[1430]

Again to

the minister: if she won't listen to the people of the interior and tell them

what she expects to get for the highway, will she promise that if Liberal MLAs

from the southern interior tell her that this is a dumb deal…? Will she then

kill it?

Hon. G.

Collins: It's a little hard to sit here in this House after ten years of NDP

and that member and have her give math lessons to this side of the House. First

of all…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …the revenue stream from a partnership on the Coquihalla Highway

is not required to balance the budget in 2004-05, despite the assertions of the

members opposite.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Collins: No revenue stream, no revenue source from a partnership on the

Coquihalla is booked into the fiscal plan. I've said that repeatedly. The member

either knows that and is misleading the public or doesn't pay attention, so I'll

just clarify that for her here today.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Thirdly, if there is going to be the windfall, as the member

prescribes, using her math, then it would seem to me that there would be a vast

number of people willing to bid for that revenue stream.

The reality

is that we'll put out the partnership. We'll describe what the benefits need to

be. We'll describe what the benefits need to be to the people who live there.

We'll describe what the parameters are and the safety parameters are on the

Coquihalla Highway. The bidder will have to respond to that and comply with

that. Then there'll be a competition over what the value of that is. The thing

is that the proceeds from that go to the people of British Columbia to be

reinvested in infrastructure.

Lastly, at

the end of 55 years the people of British Columbia still own the Coquihalla

Highway, and they get it in prime condition back into British Columbia. In the

meantime they've been able to build additional infrastructure. It's a good deal

for the people of the province.

PROMOTION OF TOURISM IN B.C.

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

Enterprise. The summer tourist season is approaching, and the Kootenays are in a

great position to benefit. I understand the minister met with tourism ministers

from across the country in Vancouver this past weekend to discuss tourism

initiatives.

Can the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise let people throughout the

Kootenays and the rest of the province know what steps are being taken to

promote this vital sector of British Columbia's economy?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, our government has made extra funding commitments to

tourism in British Columbia — $500,000 to regional tourism, which includes

$75,000 for Tourism Rockies, and $750,000 in incremental funding to Tourism

British Columbia to be used in nearby markets so that rubber traffic can come

into British Columbia and help offset some of the losses from long-haul air

traffic.

On May 9 we

met in Toronto, and the Canadian Tourism Commission committed a further $5.4

million to advertise into key cities in the United States. Two of those, which

are going to benefit the Kootenays in bringing people into British Columbia, are

Seattle and San Francisco. Then, this past weekend the tourism ministers from

across Canada met in Vancouver. We have committed to developing a ministerial

task force to have a national tourism strategy in place by September 15.

On Monday I

attended Rendez-vous Canada in Vancouver. It was the second-largest Rendez-vous

Canada in the history of this country. Tourism Rockies and all of the tourism

operators in British Columbia were front and centre, working hard to attract

visitors to British Columbia.

Our

government is committed to working with tourism operators throughout British

Columbia to grow that industry, to create employment and to create jobs

throughout British Columbia.

[1435]

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON MAD COW DISEASE

Nettleton: To the Minister of Agriculture — again, regarding the effects

of BSE, or mad cow disease, on British Columbia — I would like to reiterate my

suggestion that the minister seriously consider that no

[ Page 7042 ]

animal feed enter or be produced in British Columbia that contains animal

product — that is, protein slaughtered from cattle. I say let's not wait for

the federal government to do this out of necessity, but rather let the B.C.

government protect its own cattle industry now, through a complete ban on animal

content in any and all animal feed.

Could the

minister then please tell the House what steps are being taken to assure and

inform the public that British Columbia beef products are safe, if indeed that's

the case, and can the minister also indicate how many other farms, ranchers or

beef producers may be feeding cattle ruminant-based poultry feed in

contravention of the law? Is the British Columbia government investigating this

at the present time, or is the ministry leaving this issue entirely in the hands

of federal inspectors?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I want to start out by advising the House and the public that

there continues to be no evidence of any compromise in the safety of our food

supply. On the three farms that were identified in the feed investigation, none

of the animals entered the food supply. I also was advised this morning that all

of those ruminant animals will be removed by the CFIA, and they will be

destroyed and tested for BSE — 62 cattle and 35 goats. The CFIA is continuing

to interview customers of certain feed mills. I think it's important for farmers

to recognize that they have to comply with the law in terms of the use of

poultry feed.

All of this

is a federal matter. I was advised this morning by the federal minister that

they are continuing their full investigation. There are no new farms under

quarantine, but they continue to do so in a systematic manner. It's very

important from the point of view of international trade that we do so in a

scientific manner, and we support the CFIA on their efforts.

SALE OF CROWN LAND IN COMOX VALLEY

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is embroiled in an issue

involving Crown land in his own riding, and it smells even worse than fish

farms. Recently the Courtenay city council narrowly voted to annex a 40-acre

piece of Crown land known as the Lannan forest. This was a required step towards

the completion of one of the worst backroom deals that the Comox Valley has ever

seen.

For years

the regional district of Comox-Strathcona has expressed its strongest interest

in obtaining the Lannan forest for a park. This past November, the public

learned for the first time that Land and Water British Columbia had secretly

negotiated a deal to sell the land to Crown Isle Resort for a golf course and

what many believe may turn into a subdivision.

Can the

minister explain why no one else was allowed to bid on the land and why the

public can't even find out what the price is?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I don't want to pre-empt a press conference that's going to be held

at 3 o'clock this afternoon by the city of Courtenay, telling the public of the

Comox Valley that this is probably the best land deal that's ever happened in

the Comox Valley. But I want to tell you that Land and Water British Columbia

has done a very, very good job in making sure that the land that's coming in is

going to be well used. They look at economic factors — how many jobs are going

to be created — and this government is interested in new jobs. As you know, we

had almost 80,000 new jobs in the province last year, and we've had 17,000 new

jobs so far this year. We want some of those jobs in the Comox Valley.

I'm very

pleased to say and to advise the member opposite that she should pay attention

to the press conference that's going to take place at 3 o'clock this afternoon,

where the mayor and the city council unanimously will say that this is a good

deal for the people of the Comox Valley.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

This deal was brokered by real estate agent Art Meyers, who contributed $9,000

to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's nomination campaign.

[1440]

A condition

of the Lannan forest deal was that the property had to be annexed by the city of

Courtenay. City councillors said they were being blackmailed into the annex of

Lannan in order to preserve other pieces of Crown land, which is to be announced

later today. Well, will the minister intervene and say that this mess stinks and

allow the public to be involved in making decisions about the Crown land we own?

MacPhail: Were they blackmailed into having the press conferences too?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

The term

"blackmail" is unparliamentary, and I'd ask the member to withdraw it

immediately.

MacPhail: I withdraw.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. S.

Hagen: As usual, the members opposite have false information and are giving

out false information.

The realtor

in question was retained when Land and Water B.C. was called the B.C. Assets and

Land Corporation in about the year 1994, when I believe those people were in

power. The realtor in question received no commission on this sale. The realtor

in question was

[ Page 7043 ]

being paid an hourly rate for advice. There is no commission paid on this

sale to anyone.

[End

of question period.]

Motions on Notice

AMENDMENT TO MOTION ON

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. G.

Collins: I move Motion 101 standing in my name on the order paper.

[That the motion passed by the House on May 26, 2003, be amended to

read as follows:

Day

Time

Bill

Stage

Monday:

2:45-4:45

4:45-9:00

Health

Services

Bills 40, 45

Com. of Supply

2nd Reading

Section A:

5:00-9:00

MOS

Mental

Health

MOS Int., Long

Term Home Care

Com. of Supply

Tuesday:

10:00-12:00

2:45-3:45

3:45-4:30

4:30-6:00

Bills

50, 51

Bills 64, 66, 58

Bill 61

Bills 40, 45

2nd Reading

2nd Reading

2nd Reading

Committee and

3rd Reading

Section A:

10:00-6:00

Health

Services

Com. of Supply

Wednesday:

2:45-4:30

Bills

61, 66

Committee and

3rd Reading

4:30-9:00

Office

of the

Premier

Votes 1-7 and

Final Supply

Com.

of Supply

Thursday:

10:00-11:00

Bills

50, 51

Committee

and

3rd Reading

11:00-12:00

Bills

58, 64

Committee

and

3rd Reading

2:45-6:00

Bills

29, 39

Committee and

3rd Reading]

MacPhail: I would ask the minister if he could please explain the necessity

for this motion.

Hon. G.

Collins: It is an amendment of the earlier motion for time allocation, and

it merely adds the words "3rd Reading" after the word

"Committee" in various places on the motion to clarify that the bill

needs to go through all stages in order to complete government business.

Motion

approved.

Motions without Notice

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave I move that Mr. Bhullar be added to the list of members

composing the Select Standing Committee on Education and the Select Standing

Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for the present session.

Leave

granted.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY BHULLAR TO

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Motion

approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M.

de Jong: Tabling reports, Mr. Speaker. I've got the 2002 annual report for

the Forest Appeals Commission and the 2002 annual report for the Forest

Practices Board.

Petitions

MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by over 1,000 British Columbians

who say they are opposed to extended care patients being treated as second-class

citizens and ask the government to keep the Gorge Hospital open.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 61.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY SERVICES

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 61; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections

1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[1445]

section 4.

Hon.

G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to

section 4.

[SECTION 4, by deleting the proposed

section 4 (1) and (2) and

substituting the following:Association of unions

(1) A trade union certified to represent the employees of an agency

included in a bargaining unit established under

section 3 must belong to a

single association of unions composed of all trade unions representing employees

in all bargaining units established under

section 3.

(2) The trade unions affected by subsection (1) must agree,

within 30 days of the date on which this

section comes into force, to articles

of association that

(

a) are consistent with this Act and the Code,

(

b) provide the association of unions with exclusive

jurisdiction to bargain on behalf of the bargaining units for which the

association of unions will be certified and to conclude a single collective

agreement for each bargaining unit established under

section 3,

(

c) provide the association of unions with the right and

obligation to resolve differences among its members with respect to the

administration of the

[ Page 7044 ]

collective agreements referred to in paragraph (

b) of this subsection,

including differences with respect to the right or obligation to a particular

trade union within the association of unions,

(

d) include provisions with respect to ratification and other

collective bargaining processes that reflect the relative membership size of

trade union representation in the bargaining units within the

association of

unions, while ensuring that a member or group of members of a constituent trade

union is not treated by the association of unions in bad faith or in a manner

that is arbitrary or

discriminatory,

(

e) provide for the future addition to the association of

unions of any other trade unions that the Labour Relations Board may certify to

represent employees of an agency that are within a bargaining

unit, and

(

f) include any other provision that the Labour Relations

Board determines may be necessary in order to ensure that the association of

unions can function as a bargaining agent and administer a

collective agreement

on behalf of the employees within its jurisdiction.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 4

as amended approved.

Sections 5

to 10 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:46 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 61,

Community Services Labour Relations Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: Pursuant to the order passed today in this House, the question is

now third reading of Bill 61.

Bill

61, Community Services Labour Relations Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon.

G. Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 66.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 66; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

Sections 1

to 10 inclusive approved.

section

MacKay: I rise today to speak to

section 11 of Bill 66, which is before the

House today, to express my opposition to the amendment being passed through this

House.

First of

all, I'd like to make the House aware of the Election Act as it presently stands

today.

Section 30(

b) is the

section under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act that we're looking at repealing completely. Basically,

section 11 under the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act states that we're going to remove the

disqualification of prisoners serving sentences of two or more years from voting

in provincial elections.

This issue

of allowing prisoners who are serving time the right to vote in provincial

elections has been with us for some time. Back in 1988 there was an amendment to

the provincial Election Act wherein it was decided that a person is disqualified

from voting at any election and shall not make an application to have his name

inserted in a list of voters who, under subsection (

b) says: "…has been

convicted of treason or an indictable offence, unless he has secured a free and

conditional pardon for these offences or has undergone the sentence imposed for

the offence, but it does not apply if that person who had been convicted of the

indictable offence has been released or is on probation…."

The issue

of allowing prisoners the right to vote was an issue in 1988, and the issue came

up again in 1995, when the last amendment to the provincial Election Act stated,

and qualifies, individuals who are disqualified from voting. It states today

that, "Without limiting

section 29 (f), the following individuals are not

entitled to vote in an election," and subsection (

b) states: "…an

individual who was imprisoned in a penal institution serving a sentence of 2

years or more." That's the legislation we are proposing to amend today.

Mr. Chair,

I served for 28 years in the RCMP, and I know from experience that for an

individual to be sentenced to a period of two years or more, they would have had

to have committed a significant criminal offence with extenuating circumstances.

So you might wonder what sort of crime and punishment would see a person

sentenced for such long periods of time, and I'd like to give you just a couple

of examples.

There are

many in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I'm going to give you only two examples

of sentences where people can be imprisoned for a period of two years or more.

One is murder — taking the life of another individual — or sexual assault.

Those two sections in the Criminal Code carry a penalty

section that can exceed

two years or more. It can carry up to life imprisonment.

As I

mentioned in the House two days ago when I responded to the member for

Vancouver-Kensington, people look to government to enact legislation to protect

them. As elected officials we have an obligation to do that.

[ Page 7045 ]

From this point forward, after the enactment of a piece of legislation, we

look to the police and to our court system to enforce sentences for those who

break the law.

[1455]

The

Criminal Code of Canada deals with criminal issues such as murder and sexual

assault, which are just two of the many offences that carry a sentencing

provision of two years or more.

I'd like to

look for one moment at

section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The highlight

there is the purposes and principles of sentencing. I'm going to read to you

section 718 of the Criminal Code: "The fundamental purpose of sentencing is

to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law

and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just

sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives." There are

several there, but subsection (

c) talks about: "…to separate offenders

from society, where necessary."

I think, in

my understanding of the law today, that means sending them to jail, because

you're separating them from society. It's interesting. When one starts looking

at the Criminal Code stats in Canada and provincially, crime rates in British

Columbia for the year 2000 were 11,250 Criminal Code offences per 100,000

population. That's in the province. Nationally, the average was 7,665 per

100,000 population. In 2001 there were 12,794 federal prisoners serving time in

federal institutions across Canada. Today, in this province, there are 1,901

prisoners serving sentences of two years or more.

The issue

before us today in this House is prisoners who have been sentenced to a period

of incarceration for a period of two or more years having the right to vote in a

provincial election. Let me ask you: are votes important? Is a single vote

important? I'm going to give you a couple of examples of just how important

votes are in a democratic society, a society in which we all live in this

country.

The first

thing I want to bring to the House's attention is the recent presidential

elections that took place in the United States of America in the year 2000. That

was the closest presidential race since 1867. After 93 votes had been counted in

the United States, only 26,000 votes separated the two candidates, and I needn't

remind this House that the United States has a population of somewhere around

350 million people.

There are a

couple of other examples I'd like to bring to your attention. In 1649, and

that's going back a few years ago, a margin of one vote cost King Charles I of

England his head. In 1800 one vote made Thomas Jefferson the third President of

the United States. In 1845 one vote annexed the Republic of Texas to the United

States. In 1941 the Selective Service Act, otherwise known as the draft, was

passed by a margin of one vote just weeks prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor.

All those were determined by one vote.

I'll take

you back into the United States again, down to Lost Springs, Wyoming. Leda Price

is the mayor of that small community, and she was duly elected back on November

5, 2000. She voted for herself, drawing an X by her name on the official

Converse County ballot. With a single ballot, with a single vote, she elected

herself mayor for the fifteenth two-year term — unanimously. Nobody else

bothered to vote, so she elected herself.

Those are

critical things to recall on the importance of a vote in a democratic society,

so there should be no mistake: the right to vote is a privilege enjoyed in a

free and democratic society. People have fought and died for that right we enjoy

today.

The

Election Act of British Columbia is now before this chamber due to a proposed

amendment wherein prisoners who have previously been denied the right — and

rightfully so, in my view — would have the right to vote, should this

amendment go through. I am of the strong belief that prisoners who are

incarcerated for two or more years forfeit the rights and privileges they had.

They leave those rights and privileges at the prison door after they've been

sentenced to a period of incarceration, and after they've served their time,

they pick those democratic rights up — the right to vote — when they leave

that prison after they've served their debt to society.

[1500]

I happen to

be the grandfather of three beautiful grandchildren. My eldest is a ten-year-old

granddaughter. She's ten years old, and that makes me think back to the terrible

tragedy that happened recently in Toronto. I refer, of course, to the kidnapping

and murder of ten-year-old Holly Jones. Can anybody in this chamber imagine the

emotional suffering of the parents and grandparents of this young, innocent

child who was taken from us?

I also want

you to stop and think for a moment and consider the tragedies surrounding sick

people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, who preyed on young people. Think

of the sick pedophiles who preyed and continue to prey on young children today.

Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo are serving sentences of two years or more.

When the

individual who so tragically took the life of that young girl from Toronto is

caught, he or she will be facing a jail term in excess of two years. So I ask

the members of this chamber: do you want these types of people voting in a

provincial election? It will happen if we allow this amendment to go through.

Federal

prisoners are moved around the country subject to risk and other criteria

established by the penitentiary service. Can you imagine the person who killed

that young child in Toronto winding up in a prison in British Columbia? With the

passage of this amendment, we will allow that sick person the right to vote in

our provincial elections, and that is a shame. That's a terrible shame to allow

something like that to happen.

I also want

to stop for a moment and remind people about the families of victims of crimes —

serious crimes like murder, where husbands, wives, daughters and sons were

murdered and taken from those families. Those people who committed those crimes

will be given the right to vote if this amendment goes through.

I am

offended to think that we are considering, through this amendment, giving the

right to vote to those who have been removed from society because of their

criminal behaviour. I find it repulsive to think

[ Page 7046 ]

that the likes of Clifford Olson and others who have committed terrible

crimes will have a say in a free and democratic society through the right to

vote. I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I cannot support the passage

of it through this House.

With the

greatest of respect, I understand the Supreme Court of Canada is forcing the

province of British Columbia to conform to the law of the land. I understand

that, but I also understand that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada —

when that decision was made to force provinces to allow prisoners serving two

years or more the right to vote — was a split decision. It was a 5-4 decision.

I want to

read just one of the comments during that decision back in 1993. This is coming

from the judge. This really perplexes me, because he says here: "A majority

of the nine judges on the Supreme Court rejected allowing prisoners the right to

vote, saying it was unconstitutional." Part of the reason for that argument

was that they said the right to vote was so important it could only be abridged

for very specific reasons aimed at addressing a specific problem.

Well, I'm

sorry. I have to ask myself, when I look at my grandchildren and my children,

and when I talk to families in my riding who have lost loved ones because of

people who have committed a criminal act and taken loved ones from them: what

more can the Supreme Court of Canada be looking for than those types of people

who have taken lives? And we now want to give them the right to vote in this

province.

[1505]

I respect

the Supreme Court of Canada for the right to pass legislation, and I'm a

law-abiding citizen. I respect what the Supreme Court of Canada does. That

doesn't say I necessarily agree with them. If there's bad law passed, we have a

right — we have an obligation — to stand up and speak against anything of

that nature. That's what I'm doing in this chamber today.

As I said,

I'm strongly opposed to this amendment and cannot support the passage of it

through this House. I would urge other members — because I am standing up

speaking on behalf of other members of this House — to stand up and be counted

as being opposed to allowing this amendment to go through.

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me say a little bit about what

section 11 of Bill 66 is doing.

I'm grateful for the comments of the member opposite. I think what I need to do

is put it in a bit of a different context.

The Supreme

Court of Canada recently made a decision in a case called Sauvé that arose out

of a challenge to the federal Elections Act by a prisoner serving a term of

imprisonment, I believe, in a federal penitentiary. The prisoner challenged the

fact that the Canada Elections Act did not allow prisoners serving terms of

imprisonment of two years or more the right to vote. The argument that Mr. Sauvé

made to court was that the denial of the right to vote represented to him a

violation of his rights as a citizen of Canada as guaranteed to him by

section 3

of the Constitution Act, 1982 — that part of the Constitution Act called the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Here's what

section 3 says under the heading "Democratic Rights," and I'm quoting:

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of

the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for

membership therein." Those words are rightly important. They lie at the

heart of our conception of democracy. They represent a strong guarantee by the

authors of our constitution of the right of all citizens to vote in elections.

Mr. Sauvé

challenged the federal statute on the basis that the federal statute violated

his rights under

section 3, and that challenge, as I recall, went through three

different levels of judicial decision-making. It went to trial, it went to the

Federal Court of Appeal, and it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The

question whether or not Mr. Sauvé's rights were violated by the provisions of

the federal Elections Act was regarded by all who heard it as a difficult one.

The case has an interesting history in that at both appeal levels, there were

divided decisions. In the Supreme Court of Canada, the outcome of the case was a

decision by a 5-4 majority.

One of the

things that I think is important to put on the table, if you will, in the

discussion of the Charter is to remind members, who probably don't need

reminding, about

section 1 of the Charter. What

section 1 says is that the

Charter "…guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only

to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in

a free and democratic society."

When you

read

section 3 and

section 1 together, it's clear there is room for an argument

on a case-by-case basis about whether a particular provision of a particular

statute which may, on its face, violate one of the rights guaranteed in the

Charter should nonetheless be allowed to stand because it is a reasonable limit

prescribed by law and can be, in the language of

section 1, demonstrably

justified in a free and democratic society.

[1510]

We know a

couple of things about the Charter. We've learned them over the 20 or so years

since the Charter came into force. One is that reasonable people will disagree

on a case-by-case basis from time to time about whether or not a particular

situation constitutes a violation of Charter rights.

The second

thing we know is that in our system, that issue is to be decided ultimately by

the courts. In particular, when we look at

section 3 of the Charter, we know the

issue of whether and in what respect the right to vote can be infringed upon is

a decision fundamentally for courts.

One of the

reasons we know that is because some of the provisions of the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms are made expressly subject to something that is usually called the

notwithstanding clause, and that is a provision of the charter that allows

Parliament or the Legislature of a province to expressly declare that a

particular provision of a federal or provincial statute shall operate

notwithstanding a provision of the Charter. The problem for the argument here

before us is that the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to

section 3 of the

Charter. We don't have the ability that we might

[ Page 7047 ]

have in this House to decide if, as legislators, we believe so strongly in a

particular provision of our statutes that we wish to make them operate

notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter as interpreted by the courts.

In this

case, in the case of

section 3, it is the courts that make the law. They do so

through judicial decisions — judicial decisions that are sometimes unanimous

and judicial decisions that are sometimes divided. In this particular case, the

Supreme Court of Canada that heard the appeal in this decision was divided, but

it nonetheless made a decision. It made a decision by a majority of 5-to-4 that

the provisions of the federal Elections Act, which restricted the right of

prisoners serving long terms of imprisonment to vote, were unconstitutional.

In this

chamber sometimes votes are close — less so now than it was, perhaps, in the

parliament or two before this one. Whether a vote is close or not close, it

doesn't really matter at the end of the day. If the government can muster a

majority in support of an initiative, that initiative will become law.

It's also

the case, at least on the law as it is today in Canada, that so long as there is

a majority in the last court that hears a matter — in this case, the Supreme

Court of Canada — the majority decides the outcome of the matter. The Supreme

Court of Canada conclusively determined that the provisions of the Elections Act

of Canada that restricted the right to vote for prisoners serving long terms of

imprisonment were unconstitutional. The constitution actually makes it pretty

clear that that's how this all operates.

I believe

Elections Act. It's now up to us to decide what to do about the provincial

Election Act. The Supreme Court of Canada case did not concern the provincial

Election Act, but I think there is no basis for an argument that would

distinguish the reasoning in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in its

application to the federal act from its potential application to the provincial

act. That is, all of the arguments and reasons that the majority at the Supreme

Court of Canada used to strike down a provision of the federal Elections Act

would apply with the same force and vigour to the provisions of the Election Act

of British Columbia which are currently before us in

section 11 of Bill 66.

[1515]

That being

the case, the government is of the view that

section 30(

b) of the Election Act

is unconstitutional. We as legislators need to respond to that reality. I think

there is really only one way to respond to that reality as government. It

certainly is the only way to respond to this reality in this case, which is the

one before us. Rather than wait for some citizen, presumably a prisoner serving

a term of imprisonment of two years or longer, to come forward and challenge the

provision of the Election Act that is before us now, we think the right course

of action is to repeal this unconstitutional provision.

We could

argue at some length about whether or not this provision ought to be

constitutional. We could argue at some length about whether prisoners serving

short or long terms of imprisonment have or should have the right to vote. That

is a reasonable debate. Some evidence of the reasonableness of the debate is

that it took place even in the Supreme Court of Canada and resulted in a

division on a pretty narrow majority on that very issue. But at the end of the

day, we in this chamber really don't get to decide that question, because that

question — according to the constitution of Canada, under which we are

governed and are free — is decided by the courts, not in this chamber. The

constitution — which exists to protect all of us, and which keeps us free —

is here invoked and here relied upon to insist upon the repeal of this provision

in the Election Act.

I am

certain that the debate will continue here — or if not here, elsewhere —

about what the right thing to do is to deal with some of the important arguments

that my colleague opposite has made about the challenge of wrapping our heads

around the idea that people serving terms of imprisonment of two years or longer

should be allowed to vote. I will follow that debate with interest and concern,

because I think there are some really good questions being asked. But they're

not questions that admit much debate in their application and outcome in this

chamber this afternoon in my respectful view, because I think what we must do is

that which the constitution requires of us. In this case, the constitution

requires of us that we repeal this restriction in the Election Act.

Penner: I've been following this debate with considerable interest and was

impressed by the comments of both the Attorney General and the member for

Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

I'd like to

seek a bit of clarification around this issue, so I have a question for the

Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm whether currently, under the

provincial Election Act as written, persons serving jail terms in provincial

prisons — that is, serving sentences of less than two years in our provincial

jails — are permitted to vote?

Hon. G.

Plant: They are permitted to vote.

Penner: Can the Attorney General give us any estimate of what it might cost

taxpayers if the province were forced to defend a court action seeking a

declaration that the current provision in the Election Act prohibiting those

prisoners serving prison sentences in excess of two years from voting…? If

such a court challenge were to be brought on the province, what would it cost

taxpayers, assuming that such a case would be challenged not just at the initial

trial level, but also appealed to the Court of Appeal of B.C. and perhaps the

Supreme Court of Canada?

[1520]

Hon. G.

Plant: It's hard to predict the exact cost of a particular case,

particularly when it's hypothetical. Constitutional challenges of this sort

frequently cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and occasionally

[ Page 7048 ]

they go into the millions of dollars. In this particular case, it might even

be the case that all parties would end up being funded by the public purse for

one reason or another. That would increase the cost to taxpayers if there were

to be a court challenge.

Penner: I thank the Attorney General for that clarification.

I must

confess to feeling somewhat conflicted on this matter. It's a difficult issue. I

think the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine argued quite succinctly and

effectively that society traditionally wishes to impose certain social sanctions

on people who offend society's rules — our laws. I think that's only proper.

I consider

myself to be something of a fan of Thomas Hobbes and his argument in favour of a

social contract. That is, at nature, we are all free individuals to conduct

ourselves as we see fit, but we have decided collectively as a society to

surrender certain individual rights to act the way we may feel like towards our

neighbours in order to build a better society — something in it for all of us.

But a fundamental component of that social contract is that if you violate that

social contract — i.e., you act out against a neighbour in a way that violates

the social code or the social norms — there are consequences.

That is

why, in my view, it makes sense not only to incarcerate people for certain

offences against our mutually agreed-upon rules but also to limit their

participation in society for a period of time through other means. I think that

was the original rationale behind provisions across Canada restricting

prisoners' rights to vote in democratic elections. It was just part of that

social sanction applied to people who have willingly gone out and violated our

mutually agreed-upon standards of social conduct.

I certainly

sympathize with the comments and the sentiment by the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine. I'm sure all members of this House feel very strongly about

the types of individuals he referred to — the types of people serving very

lengthy sentences for very serious crimes. None of us, I think, wish to

countenance any of those types of activities that led to those people serving

lengthy prison sentences.

But I have

also listened carefully to what the Attorney General had to say, and I'm

concerned about the potential cost to taxpayers in fighting what will almost

certainly, based upon a Supreme Court of Canada judgment, be a losing cause. I

consider myself a fighter as much as anybody. I don't often shy away from a big

battle, especially when I think it's important. But I think in this case, taking

a look at the evidence — and I am a lawyer and have had some experience

arguing Charter of Rights cases at the trial level — it looks like a pretty

safe bet that if this matter were to go to court, the province of British

Columbia would lose given the precedent that's already been established by the

Supreme Court of Canada.

In the

interest of saving taxpayers the cost for what will ultimately be a losing

battle, I think I will bring myself — albeit reluctantly and somewhat

grudgingly — to vote in favour of this

section as proposed by the Attorney

General in the bill before us. I know it's a bigger issue than we'll be debating

here today.

From time

to time, we hear concerns and criticism about what's known as judge-made law.

It's important to realize that judges are called upon to make those decisions by

legislators who have drafted the law in the first place. But from time to time,

it's certainly been my impression that especially our senior courts have at

times interpreted our constitution, and particularly the Charter of Rights, in

ways that perhaps the legislators never anticipated.

Perhaps

that's the risk those legislators made decades ago when they decided to

effectively hand the courts what amounts to very hot potatoes on difficult

issues that legislators themselves during negotiations in the early 1980s

couldn't bring themselves to agree upon. So we collectively, as a society,

handed some very difficult decisions over to the judges. From time to time,

we're not very happy with those decisions. I must confess, although I'm a lawyer

and I respect the role of the courts, that there are certainly times when I

disagree very strongly with the decisions that some courts have made — not all

the time and, in fact, not most of the time. I think most of the time the

decisions, even from our Supreme Court of Canada, are bang on.

But I'd

have to confess that in this particular instance, I would have cast my vote with

those four members of the Supreme Court of Canada — those in the minority —

and I would have argued strenuously that people who have committed the most

serious types of offences in Canada, in addition to losing the right to move

freely in our society for a period of time, have also lost the right to

participate democratically in our society for a period of time. Thank you for

the opportunity.

[1525]

Anderson: As I listen to all sides of this discussion, I find it fascinating

and challenging for all of us to think clearly. One of the items that comes to

my mind, though, is the recognition that there are those, of course, who have

been sentenced for two years and longer who have performed horrendous crimes.

There have also been those who have sentences of two years or longer who have

not committed any criminal act, for they have been found to have been innocent

at a later date.

There is

one other aspect of this that I think is important — that, regardless, those

people who are incarcerated for two years or longer are still fathers or

mothers. They still have influence upon their children. They are still the

guides of their own families. They are husbands or wives. I don't think we

should lose sight of the significance of them as persons, which this judgment

does recognize — that they are persons within the society regardless of the

horrendous mistakes that some of them have made.

Those who

have been judged to have made those mistakes have, in many significant cases,

not made them but have simply been judged wrongly. I think we

[ Page 7049 ]

must take that into account, and so I would support the Attorney General in

his presentation.

[1530]

Section 11

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 61

Falcon

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Penner

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Brenzinger

Bell

MacPhail

Kwan

Chutter

Mayencourt

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 8

Wilson

Jarvis

Belsey

Trumper

MacKay

Cobb

Lekstrom

Hunter

Sections

12 to 19 inclusive approved.

[1535]

The

Chair: Attorney General on the amendment on

section 19.1.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name to add

section 19.1 to Bill

[SECTION 19.1 by adding the following section:

Financial

Institutions Act

19.1

Section 37 (1.1) (

c) of the Financial Institutions Act, R.S.B.C.

1996, c. 141, is amended by striking out "the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations." and substituting "the administrator."]

Amendment

approved.

Sections 20

to 41 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move an amendment standing in my name in the orders of the day to

section 42.

[SECTION 42 (a), by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and

substituting the following:

(3) A master is entitled to the remuneration, allowances and benefits established under

section 13 (13) to (15) and

(17) of the Provincial Court Act., and]

Amendment

approved.

Section 42

as amended approved.

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name to

section 43.

[SECTION 43, in the proposed

section 12

(

a) by deleting "sections 16 to 24 of the Judicial Compensation

Act" wherever it appears and substituting "sections 19 to 19.8 of the

Provincial Court Act", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (2) (

a) by deleting ' "January

1, 2003" ' and substituting ' "December 1, 2002" '.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 43

as amended approved.

Sections 44

to 46 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:37 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 66,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete with

amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: Pursuant to order 101 passed in this House today, the question is

now third reading of Bill 66.

Bill

66, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier.

[1540]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 7050 ]

The

committee met at 3:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 8:

office of the Premier, $52,270,000.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Just so the member opposite knows, I will be joined today by my

deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring, Brenda Eaton, and my

deputy minister and cabinet secretary, Ken Dobell. I'm also joined by the

Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, the MLA for Richmond Centre.

We look forward to answering any questions that the members may have.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I'll be joined in a moment by some staff members, and I'll

introduce them when they come in.

It's my

pleasure to give a brief overview to the committee about the work of the

intergovernmental relations secretariat, which is part of the office of the

Premier. Our objectives in intergovernmental relations are to advance British

Columbia's priorities with other Canadian and international governments and to

manage protocol activities, official honours and awards, and conferences and

events.

B.C. is

involved in planning Canada's annual Premiers' conference, the Western Premiers'

Conference, the annual meeting of western Premiers and western U.S. Governors,

and the annual meeting of PNWER, or the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region.

Leaders may meet for only a couple of days, but the preparation — involving

exchanging documents, conference calls, travelling and face-to-face meetings to

lay the groundwork for progress on issues of mutual concern — is considerable.

A good

illustration of intergovernmental cooperation is the Canada–British Columbia

partnership announced in this year's Speech from the Throne. British Columbians

want their provincial and federal governments to work together on their behalf.

We agree, and we are creating a new partnership with the federal government in

recognition of the importance of British Columbia to the current and future

health of our nation's economy and society.

Over the

past year we've worked in partnership with the federal government on such things

as the Olympic bid, with over $300 million committed subject to Vancouver

winning the bid; the new Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, where over

$200 million has been committed; the new Gulf Islands national park; the

softwood lumber dispute; forestry worker and community adjustment, where a

significant portion of the $340 million announced by the federal government over

the past year will be spent in British Columbia; the pine beetle infestation,

where $40 million has been committed; highway and border infrastructure

initiatives, where over $225 million has been committed; and just last week a

joint federal-provincial contribution of $84.5 million towards 35 green

infrastructure projects, with a value of nearly $127 million, under the $800

million Canada–British Columbia infrastructure program.

We intend

to continue to work in partnership with the federal government on these and

other initiatives for the benefit of British Columbians and all Canadians. We

are taking a constructive approach to federal-provincial relations. Cooperation

with the federal government is key to meeting the broad range of provincial

priorities from resolution of the softwood lumber dispute and offshore oil and

gas development to urban rapid transit, high-tech cluster development, and

improved fisheries management.

We are

identifying areas where B.C. is not receiving its fair share and working with

federal ministers and B.C. ministries to achieve a more equitable distribution

of federal government contract expenditures.

[1545]

Major areas

where B.C. has traditionally fared worse than other provinces include

procurement spending, spending on cultural industries and spending on highway

infrastructure. We're concerned that federal economic development organizations

give more favourable treatment to northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

We're considering whether Western Economic Diversification, dealing with B.C.,

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is enough to help our province grow out of

our have-not status.

Getting

people together to hear other views on the issues we all deal with is also an

important part of the intergovernmental relations secretariat in British

Columbia. Our annual provincial congress is a unique and effective way for B.C.

leaders of every political stripe to share perspectives on issues that are of

common interest to all British Columbians so that we can work together for the

benefit of all.

The

congress is part of our commitment to enhance B.C.'s working relationship with

municipal, aboriginal, federal and other provincial representatives. Logistical

support for the provincial congress is provided by the protocol and events

branch of intergovernmental relations. Working with other provincial and

territorial governments is also critical to our success. We're ensuring that

British Columbia is a proactive national leader, a full and equal partner in the

Canadian Confederation and a pivotal player in its future development.

We worked

very hard with the federal government and the other provinces to secure more

health care funding for patients in British Columbia at the February first ministers

meeting. We must ensure that British Columbia has the means to provide patients

with the care they need. The new first ministers' arrangement on health was

certainly an important step in that direction.

On the

international scene, British Columbia must play a strong role in international

relations, particularly with the United States of America, with an approach that

emphasizes economic, education, cultural and other links, while promoting the

government's strategic priorities. While the Minister of Forests is leading

British Columbia's campaign to resolve the softwood lumber dispute,

intergovernmental relations provides support.

[ Page 7051 ]

Through

British Columbia's membership in PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region,

we have been exchanging information with American legislators on the softwood

lumber dispute as well as getting support for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics

and Paralympic bid. British Columbia's involvement in the Canadian-American

Border Trade Alliance has led to significant improvements in security and

efficiency at the Canada–United States border.

Our

international relations also focus on the Asia Pacific region, where we are the

leader in Canadian trade, education and cultural relations. About 22 percent of

British Columbia's total trade is with the Asia Pacific region, and we wish to

take advantage of the opportunities offered through events like China's

accession to the World Trade Organization. We continue to pursue development of

British Columbia's markets and other relationships in the region.

My role as

Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations includes building

relationships with the international representatives of the British Columbia

Consular Corps with visiting representatives from other countries. The Consular

Corps is vital to British Columbia's international interests. I'm hosting

meetings between senior B.C. representatives and the 76 members of the corps to

keep them up to date on our policies and show them the best face of our

province. Apart from the Consular Corps as a whole, I consistently meet with

individual consular and trade officials from around the world to build

relationships.

conclusion, we live in a time of a rapidly changing domestic and international

scene. IGR plays a vital role in providing strategic advice to the Premier and

other ministers. I want to extend my thanks to the staff of the

intergovernmental relations secretariat and to the staff of other ministries who

have worked with us. Success in intergovernmental relations is about

relationship-building and cooperation. Our success involves the efforts of many

dedicated people who are continuing to build relationships with their colleagues

in other provincial governments, in the federal government, in the United States

and in other countries.

I would

like to now introduce the staff joining us here this afternoon. The first on my

left is Pierrette Maranda, who is acting deputy minister and senior adviser,

federal-provincial relations. On my right is Garry Curtis, the senior adviser,

strategic services, and on his right is Keith Ogilvie, senior adviser,

international relations.

MacPhail: I'd like to read into the record a letter sent to the Premier on

May 21 of this year. It's from Harry Nyce, chair of the regional district of

Kitimat-Stikine.

[1550]

"Dear

Premier,

"Re

Skeena Cellulose Inc., a public inquiry:

"The

prolonged closure of the Skeena Cellulose pulp mill and sawmills is having a

devastating effect on northwestern British Columbia. The provincial government

sold the company to NWBC Timber and Pulp for just $6 million, plus a further $2

million offered for unsecured creditors. Yet the public's expectations, if not

the obligations on the purchaser in the sales contract, are far from fulfilled.

In the meantime, some logging proceeded on the timber tenures, supported by log

export permits, but high unemployment persists, and property taxes owed to

northwest communities remain unpaid.

"The

regional district is not suggesting some impropriety has occurred with

the sale of Skeena Cellulose. However, the British Columbia public, and

especially northwest residents, deserve a comprehensive evaluation of what has

become a major economic and social catastrophe. We call upon the provincial

government to clear the air with a public inquiry into the sale of Skeena

Cellulose and its subsidiaries. The regional board recommends appointment of a

special commissioner with the powers of subpoena to investigate the sale

agreement and identify the reasons why little progress has been made to restart

company operations.

"The

provincial government has a responsibility to protect the interests of

the British Columbia public, yet sale of the assets of Skeena Cellulose has

returned little for British Columbia. An inquiry is needed to determine why.

"Yours

truly,

"Harry

Nyce, chair of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine."

What

is the Premier's reply?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Obviously, Skeena Cellulose was a grave challenge for all of us in

government as we looked at how we could put that enterprise, as well as those

communities, on a sound financial footing. We were challenged not just by the

changing jurisprudence around the sale and the acquisition. We're also

challenged by the social problems that have been created in the northwest

through almost a decade of, frankly, government misappropriation — programs

that didn't work, didn't respond to the needs of communities and didn't

recognize the challenges that the marketplace was presenting.

I have not

read the letter. I'm pleased to hear the letter. My response would be, as I

would do in a case like this, to deal with the Minister of Forests and talk with

him. I see no particular benefit in a public inquiry at this time. I think the

important thing that we're trying to do is create some stability in the

northwest to create an opportunity for economic growth in the northwest based on

forestry, based on mining and based on opportunities that are created in the

energy industry and the transportation industry. The great port of Prince

Rupert…. They're all part of the components that we will build a stronger and

more vital enterprise and economy in the northwestern part of province.

appreciate the comments from the regional district. I'm always glad to hear from

local representatives. But I don't believe that we would move any further

forward than we have and we are now — any more expeditiously — by having a

public inquiry.

MacPhail: Perhaps the Premier could outline how 2003 is better than 1998,

let's say, for that community economically.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think one of the advantages of 2003 is that at least the

northwestern part of the prov-

[ Page 7052 ]

ince knows that we're paying attention to them. They certainly understand

that we recognize the transportation challenges that they faced. We have

opportunities in tourism, opportunities in mining.

There is

clearly a major challenge that we face as a result of Skeena Cellulose. I think

that challenge was mishandled by the previous government. We could obviously

have a debate about that, and I would recommend that the member opposite do that

with the Minister of Forests.

There's

also a significant change in the environment with regard to first nations. This

government has said to first nations that we welcome them into the economy of

British Columbia. We look at them as partners as we move forward to build an

environment of prosperity, and that prosperity will be for the northwestern part

of our province as well as for the rest of our province. The expansion of

mineral opportunities, of mining opportunities throughout the northwest is a

huge opportunity for people in those communities. The potential for tourism

development is an enormous opportunity for those communities.

I believe

that when you look at what small businesses are telling us throughout that part

of the province, they see that the government is on the right track. They're

encouraging us to move more quickly. We are trying to do that as we bring

together not just regional districts but the federal government, the government

of Alberta, the government of British Columbia and the private sector to try to

make sure we meet all the opportunities and open all the opportunities to the

people and the communities of the northwest.

[1555]

MacPhail: It's interesting. The Premier says the change to 2003 from 1998 is

that they're paying attention to that corner. I just read a letter where the

regional district chair is asking for a public inquiry. The Premier hasn't even

seen the letter yet, and he's rejecting a public inquiry. How's that paying

attention to them? I'd like to know.

Perhaps the

Premier could say what effect the continued closure of Skeena Cellulose, after

this government selling it for six million bucks, has had on unemployment. What

are the unemployment changes from 1998 to 2003 — or let's just say from 2001

to 2003? What effect has the Skeena Cellulose sale by this government had on the

unemployment rate in the area?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Unemployment is clearly up in the area. I'm surprised the member

has to ask that question.

The

challenges that we faced in terms of the Skeena Cellulose sale…. We know those

challenges; they're clear. There was a long gap between when the acquisition was

made and when the union finally came to the table and said they were going to be

part of the solution.

As the

member opposite should know, there were court decisions made that required the

government to move forward with regard to this in a different manner than had

traditionally been the case. We have done that.

I think the

real issue here, in terms of the northwest, is that the vision for the northwest

is one that will reinforce the economies and the assets of the northwest,

whereas the previous government, Mr. Chair, as you know, decided the…. The

Tatshenshini decision had an enormous impact on the northwest. We know that the

Skeena Cellulose decision, and the way the previous government managed it…. I

had people from the northwest today saying that that cost them thousands of

jobs; it cost taxpayers over $400 million. Clearly, that is a major and

difficult issue for us to deal with as a government, when we look at the social

infrastructure of those communities.

But I can

tell you, Mr. Chair, the northwest of this province has great potential and a

bright future. It's a future that has been generated by MLAs who have focused

their attention on moving us forward in a comprehensive manner. It's a future

that says we can open up that part of the province with opportunities, with

improved transportation, with improved relationships with first nations, with

improved mining activities, with improved opportunities in the energy field and

with improved opportunities in forestry.

Most of the

contractors there will tell you and most of the people there will tell you that

it has been very, very difficult over the last two, three, four and five years.

We're trying to turn that around. It does take time. I'm the first to admit

that, but I think the positive contributions from the people in the northwest

are something that we should celebrate. We should congratulate them on their

perseverance. We know that in the long term, the northwest of this province and

indeed the entire province of British Columbia will benefit.

MacPhail: Well, actually, the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine is

looking for specifics, not rhetoric. The unemployment rate has almost doubled in

the regional district from '01 to '03. Can the Premier tell us what has happened

to the assessed value of residential housing in the regional district of

Kitimat-Stikine?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No. I'm really not in a position to do that. I'm sure the member

can get that from the B.C. Assessment Authority.

MacPhail: The Premier stands up and says how great things are going for the

area of Kitimat-Stikine, and he's getting a thumbs-up from his own member. Well,

he should know this, because he's claiming that things are going to get better.

The assessed value of housing in that regional district has plummeted so that

the total assessed value is less than 50 percent of what it was last decade —

less than 50 percent.

Why is that

important? It's important because people don't have jobs. The unemployment rate

has skyrocketed; they don't have jobs. The pulp mill isn't about to open, and

they've got to move out of town. But they

[ Page 7053 ]

have to sell their houses first, and they can't sell their houses. That's why

it's important.

Perhaps the

Premier, then, could say what specific good news this regional district has to

look forward to in the next six months. What actual investment is being made in

the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, let me just go back for the member opposite, because the

member tends to sort of forget about what her government did to this part of the

province.

The

forestry policies of the previous government were raised time and time and time

again by citizens of the northwestern part of British Columbia as being

detrimental to their economic future, as being detrimental to their social

future. We, unfortunately, inherited a forest industry which was in decline. It

was a forest industry which was driving investment out. It was a forest industry

that was watching as literally dozens of mills closed under the previous

government's auspices.

[1600]

Our goal is

to restore a sense of confidence and certainty in the region. There will be

literally hundreds and thousands — up to millions — of dollars of

transportation investments, which will be taking place in the northwestern part

of this province in the next six months. Those projects have been initiated.

They will be moving forward.

There also

is work that is going on today, as the member opposite knows, with regard to

improving our forest industry in this province. That's taking place every single

day in British Columbia as we move ourselves forward from the decade of decline

that we saw with the previous government.

I am the

last to suggest that all of the problems that were built up over ten years have

now been solved. They have not. But we have started, I think, the process of

creating a framework of economic certainty — a framework of economic

opportunity in mining, in energy, in forestry, in tourism, in retailing, in

technology. All of those things are applicable to the northwestern part of our

province.

The

economic opportunity that is created by the great port of Prince Rupert is one

that has been there for years. Through the decade of the 1990s I can recall

where, for some reason, the previous government didn't seem to recognize the

opportunities that Prince Rupert did present. This government has embraced that.

We are looking for investments in containerization; we have put dollars into

building that study and that business case. We're looking at investing millions

of dollars in a new cruise ship facility for the port of Prince Rupert.

All of that

builds throughout the northwest, as you go across Highway 16 from Prince Rupert

to Terrace, to Kitimat; as you carry on to Smithers and down to Burns Lake and

right through to Vanderhoof and Prince George. People will then make their

choices about whether they want to go down the Rocky Mountain Trench or Highway

All of

these opportunities, as much as we would like there to be an instant solution to

problems that took a decade to build…. We're going to continue to work

relentlessly both with the MLAs and the communities in the northwestern part of

this province to identify opportunity, to create a condition of certainty and to

assure that in the northwestern part of British Columbia the economic future —

the future in terms of jobs in the resource industries, in public services,

including education services and health care services — is there for people in

that great region of the province.

[G.

Trumper in the chair.]

MacPhail: Well, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee in the

regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. Not only has unemployment almost doubled,

but the assessed value of housing has fallen by 100 percent directly as a result

of this government's actions for selling off Skeena Cellulose without any job

commitments. The direct effect of this government's actions on the regional

district of Kitimat-Stikine is to almost double unemployment and have assessed

value of housing plummet to half its value. Bankruptcies have skyrocketed. Oh,

and here's the last statistic of what this government's effects from selling

Skeena Cellulose have had on that regional district: population is plummeting.

People are leaving the area. It has plummeted by thousands in that regional

district directly as a result of this government's fire sale of Skeena Cellulose

with not one requirement for the new owner to invest in the community.

That's why

the regional district is asking for a public inquiry. That's been rejected by

the Premier. Well, if he's not going to do the public inquiry, perhaps he could

explain then what economic targets his government has set to actually reverse

those trends — the time line for them.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Our goal is to move the economies of the northwestern part of this

province and the communities in the northwestern part of this province forward

as quickly as possible. We do not pretend, as the previous government did, that

we can buy our way into this with the taxpayers' dollars. We cannot; we don't

believe that. We believe we have to create an environment where investors want

to come into the northwestern part of province. As we do that, it's important

for us and for the member opposite to recognize the exceptional assets they have

in that part of the province.

[1605]

First of

all, the fibre basket we know in the northwestern part of the province is what's

known as a decadent fibre basket. Unfortunately, the previous government wasn't

capable, evidently, of recognizing that and having it reflected in their forest

policy. People lost jobs. We know that. We know that Skeena Cellulose itself

cost our taxpayers in British Columbia over $400 million.

Those are

challenges that we inherited and that we accept the responsibility for turning

around. We will

[ Page 7054 ]

do that. We will do it with forest policy that encourages private sector

investment, that encourages contractors, that encourages people in the salvage

business. We'll do it with policy that will make sure that the transportation

infrastructure is there for the northwest, as they have identified for more than

a decade.

We will do

it by assuring that we open up our province to opportunities in mining and

exploration which, certainly, people in Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat, Prince

Rupert and Stewart all saw as their opportunity in the past, which was taken

away from them by the previous government and its attitude.

We will do

it by encouraging tourism, as I've said before. We're looking at the opportunity

for improving not just Highway 16 but other roads that are critical to the

economic infrastructure of the northwest. In fact, we will have completed a road

we had to undertake with the Nisga'a Lisims government, which the previous

government announced but didn't fund.

Those are

all steps to try and improve the social and economic infrastructure for the

northwestern part of the province. They are critical to building a long-term

future. The investments that we've made in the educational and health care

infrastructure are critical to creating stability in communities.

recognize that throughout the rural part of British Columbia there has been a

continued reduction in the population base. For us to be able to respond

positively to that, we have to open up our province to opportunity again in our

resource industries. We have to open up our land base in the province in the

northwest and in other parts of this province. We intend to do that — working

with communities, working with the various regions of the province so every

region has the opportunity to pursue a path to prosperity.

MacPhail: I guess if the Premier wants to use this time to spew hollow and

empty rhetoric — fair enough. I'm asking very specific questions, and he's

looking to assign blame everywhere else except by taking responsibility for

himself. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna work for the people who are listening.

Just the

same way that he just rejected immediately out of hand a public inquiry into

Skeena Cellulose, the people whose circumstances have changed dramatically and

negatively in the northwest will not be comforted at all by his hollow rhetoric.

Then let me

ask this. The Premier says the forest policy changes that his government is

bringing in…. I'm amazed that he can understand them, but I'm pleased that he

can understand them. How is it that the forest policy changes that are now going

to make the whole province subject to the same rules that now apply in the

northwest…? How is that going to help?

This

government has said that licensees can now come in, take our publicly owned

timber and not be obliged to create one job anywhere. It's all going to be left

up to the goodwill of the licensees. That's exactly what this government did

when it sold the tenure and the mill of Skeena Cellulose to NWBC Timber and

Pulp. It said: "Don't worry. You don't have to create any jobs. The link is

gone. Here's the tenure, and oh, by the way, you can export 35 percent of the

annual allowable cut."

In fact,

they are exporting 35 percent. They're exporting every single log they've cut

down. They're not using one single stick of wood, whether it be three

centimetres or a thousand centimetres in diameter. They're not using one stick

of wood locally. It's all being exported. Tell me how the new forest policy

reforms that will replicate this potential all across the province are good

news?

[1610]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think it's very important…. I understand that the member

opposite doesn't agree with this, and her government obviously didn't agree with

it. It is critical to the long-term future of the entire province's economy that

we have a competitive forest industry. It has to be internationally competitive.

We can't think that our forest industry can deal just within the borders of

British Columbia. We are a small, open economy, and we are effectively

price-takers.

If we are

not competitive, unfortunately we see what took place through the decade of the

1990s with the previous government. We accept our responsibility to change that.

We were elected to change it, and we said we would do that. We also believe it's

important for the benefits of that public resource to be maximized for the

public. Those are important initiatives that have been undertaken with the

forest policy review that we've done.

We know

that prior to the previous election, there was a significant — what they

called — B.C. discount from investors. I guess I understand that there are

differences of opinion on how we can move forward to regenerate and revitalize

the forest industry back to a position of stability and competitiveness where

resource communities can take full advantage of the opportunities that are

presented to them. I understand there are differences of opinion with regard to

that. But, clearly, for us to be successful in the northwestern part of the

province or any part of this province with regard to forestry, we are going to

have to be competitive. We are going to have to encourage investment. We are

going to have to try and find a long-term and durable solution to the softwood

lumber challenges that we have faced in this province year in and year out for

more than a decade, probably almost two decades now. All of those things, we

believe, will take place as a result of the forest policy changes that we have

initiated.

I know the

member opposite had a chance to review these in some detail both at the

legislative stage and through estimates with the Minister of Forests, and that

debate can carry on. I believe it's clear that we need and we require private

sector investment. The member opposite believes we can socially engineer our way

to success, but what we saw when that kind of policy was put in place was

failure. What we saw were thousands and thousands of people losing their jobs.

We have to find a way that we can turn that around, encourage

[ Page 7055 ]

private sector investment, encourage renewed productivity in the industry,

encourage the industry to move forward so it can meet the needs of its customers

in a timely way, and assure that we in the province of British Columbia have the

most competitive industry that we can possibly have. That's how we'll secure

long-term work and long-term economic stability for the citizens we represent.

MacPhail: It's interesting that the Premier says I can have that debate with

the Minister of Forests. Sorry, this government brought in closure. I was a

quarter of the way through debating exactly these issues yesterday, issues that

are so crucially important around forestry, and the government brought in

closure. Sorry, Madam Chair to the Premier, there isn't any ability to discuss

these issues, because this government doesn't want to discuss these issues. They

want to have a secret government without any debate, and that's exactly what

happened yesterday. I was on

section 4 of a bill that had dozens and dozens of

sections dealing with exactly these monumental changes in forest policy, and I

was cut off — shut down.

The

Minister of Forests couldn't answer me with the changes that occurred in mill

openings or closures since April 1 of 2002. The Premier has just suggested that

things are better in the forest sector now. So could he tell me how many crew

hours of closing there have been in mills since April 1 of 2002? That means

permanent shutdowns, definite shutdowns and indefinite shutdowns.

Hon. G.

Campbell: No, I don't have that information.

MacPhail: No. That's right. This government, according to the Minister of

Forests, doesn't keep track of that information anymore. How would they possibly

know how well the rural communities are doing? How would they possibly know?

[1615]

I'll tell

you what our research shows. The number of crew hours in sawmills and pulp mills

has plummeted since April 1, 2002, and that's not surprising. The softwood

lumber dispute remains unresolved. The industry itself has been thrown into

confusion by this government's continuing attempt to change forest policy to

appease the Americans and get a deal with softwood lumber. Companies have no

idea what exactly those changes are going to be in the forest sector.

What we do

know for sure is that this government is going to sell a public asset to the

highest bidder. We learned that yesterday. The licensee with the highest bid,

regardless of what they can offer the community, will get the licence. There

will be no requirement to create one job or process that timber in the area at

all — not one requirement.

I'm

wondering what studies the government has done to see what impact that will have

on the heartlands.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First of all, I want to talk about the parliamentary calendar. I

certainly recognize that the member opposite has had a very difficult time

through this session because she has on many occasions felt alone. I also know

how government worked previously. What we've tried to do is make sure that

members know when the government will be sitting and when it won't be sitting.

The members opposite agreed to the parliamentary schedule. We laid that out, and

we did it purposefully so that people could actually plan their lives.

I can

recall the previous government, when they were caring so much about the families

of members, deciding to call a session of the Legislature two days before a

spring break. I can recall the previous government dumping legislation on the

order paper and deciding that the clever way for us to deal with the legislation

was to push opposition into the small hours of the morning. That is not the way

to actually operate a House.

understand that it's difficult to organize schedules, and I recognize the

challenges the opposition may have felt they had. However, having said that,

there has been ample opportunity for the opposition to review bills, had they

decided to do that. There has been ample opportunity for them to review

estimates with all the ministries, had they decided to do that. That is their

choice.

I can tell

the member opposite that she's welcome to communicate with the Minister of

Forests, and he will answer her questions as fully as he can. I can also tell

the member opposite that from 1998 to 2003, 26 mills closed in this province.

For the member to suggest that the policies that are being put in place in

British Columbia are in some way appeasing Americans is simply for the member to

stare the facts in the face and close her eyes. The fact of the matter is that

we are not doing any such thing. We're creating an environment in British

Columbia where our forest workers have the opportunity to have some security in

their long-term future.

It's all

very well to sit there and pretend that the policies of the past were working.

They were failing. They failed 15,000 forest families — 15,000 people in the

forest industry — in the last five years. That's why the changes are required.

You can't simply sit there and stamp your feet and say: "Why doesn't the

world do what we want it to do?" We have to respond in a way that's

thoughtful. We have done that. We have to respond in a way that ensures the

public maximizes the benefit of that resource. We've done that. We have to

respond in a way that ensures forest workers can have a long-term future in

their industry. We are doing that. We have to encourage young people to make

sure they can look at forestry as a potential career choice, as a potential

profession for the future. We are doing that.

We still

have one of the most exceptional resources in the world here in forestry. It's a

natural resource. It's what people did to the resource in the past that has led

to the requirement for us to make changes today. That's why we're making the

changes. That will work and have benefits not just for folks in the northwest of

the province but also for folks in the Peace, folks in the

[ Page 7056 ]

Kootenays, folks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Throughout the province there will

be benefits that will accrue from this, because we will be encouraging

investment in this province for a change, we will be recognizing the strength

and the commitment of our forest workers, and we'll be building the long-term,

sustainable development of a critical industry to our province and resource

communities in every region of this province.

[1620]

Hawes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hawes: Earlier today I introduced a class from Hatzic Elementary that was

actually held up, and they weren't in the House. That was a practice; this is

the real introduction. They are here. It's a grade 7 class from Hatzic

Elementary in Mission with their teacher, Mrs. Heron, and a number of adult

chaperons. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: It was actually the Minister of Finance who said the reason they

had to rush the forestry bills through was to resolve the softwood lumber

dispute, so I was just quoting from the Minister of Finance — when he said

that. For this Premier to somehow suggest that agreeing to an orderly

schedule

means the government can rush in dozens of bills at the last minute and invoke

closure and that somehow that's what we agreed to is actually to just denigrate

the institution, to denigrate parliament. But it's clear that that's what

they've done all along, anyway. My colleague and I used every opportunity we had

— not to rag the puck, not to ask the same question over and over again —

but we were still cut off. Well, actually, we weren't cut off. The people of

British Columbia were cut off, who required important answers.

Perhaps the

Premier could tell me what, in the WTO ruling yesterday, requires the changes to

be made that his government is making in forest policy.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The WTO ruling that came down yesterday simply said that the

Americans had not been correct in terms of saying that we were subsidizing our

logs, our resource. And if they were correct, they weren't correct in the

methodology they used, which is what we said all along. But let me be clear. The

WTO ruling is a litigative route that we are following in British Columbia and

in Canada. It has really very little to do with the issue that we're dealing

with, with regard to softwood, except it gives us…. If we need to, it will

allow us, hopefully, to bring the Americans to the table.

The really

important thing, I think, about the softwood agreement and the important thing

about the policy initiatives is the WTO…. You know, I think, clearly the

reason we're even there is because policy in the past was not transparent.

People couldn't see through what we were doing and why we were generating the

resources we have. Literally government after government — not just this

government, not simply the last government, but previous governments — has

gone through this constant, frankly, harassment from the American lumber

industry that can't compete certainly with British Columbia and probably with

Canada.

What we're

doing right now is putting in place a policy framework which we believe is

required for British Columbia. It's a policy framework that encourages

competition. It's a policy framework that encourages investment. It's a policy

framework that we believe will encourage the long-term stability of the

industry. It's a policy framework that will allow us to compete globally in all

of the marketplaces against all of those who compete against us. And frankly,

it's a policy framework that we can take down in terms of the issues that have

been raised by the Americans and ask for a changed circumstance, which may have

immediate and positive impacts on the people of British Columbia and the forest

resource in British Columbia.

I think

it's a strategy that makes sense to deal with the WTO, with NAFTA. It's also a

strategy that makes sense for us to negotiate a long-term, durable resolution to

softwood, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

I can't help but get into the debate. The Premier said that it's more important

for this House and for members of this House to organize their lives so that it

justifies this government to ram legislation through and to ram estimates

through. Yesterday we just went through a process in Committee A whereby Health

estimates…. Forty percent of the province's budget is spent in the Health

ministries. The opposition did not have ample time to engage in questioning the

Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care, even when the opposition had

agreed when asked by the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, to allow for

both this House, this chamber, and Committee A to operate simultaneously to

facilitate Health Services estimates debate.

We allowed

for that last week, and then we were engaged in debate in Committee A. I was

there engaging in debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health, and my

colleague the opposition leader was in this House debating estimates with the

Minister of Health Services. We were asked by the House Leader to actually stand

down and wait until this week and let the Liberal MLAs ask their minister

questions. In the spirit of cooperation, we did. We stood down, and lo and

behold, by noon the House shut down, and it didn't resume. Opportunities for the

government MLAs to ask their minister questions in Health estimates were shut

down.

We resumed

debating this week, and we were in the House yesterday and Monday in that series

of debates.

[ Page 7057 ]

The House, of course, began operating on Monday at 10 o'clock. The small

House was not called for debate, and then they only started around 4 o'clock —

4:45 p.m. to be exact, if my memory serves me. Then all of a sudden yesterday,

when debate got shut down in the small House and in this chamber, the Minister

of Health Services accused the opposition of ragging the puck. That's simply

untrue.

Then the

opposition got accused of taking the floor time and preventing Liberal MLAs from

asking their minister questions. Two opposition members…. We have to split up

into two different Houses, and somehow we delay the government's agenda. The

Premier says we have opportunities to debate these issues with the respective

ministers, and it simply is not true. I really have to raise that matter with

the Premier.

The other

issue I want to raise with the Premier is this. The Premier says that he is

building opportunities for prosperity for British Columbia. Well, he's been at

it for two years — two years of building the opportunities for prosperity for

British Columbia.

In the

Kitimat region that my colleague had just talked about, what have we seen? We've

seen unemployment go up. We've seen residential property values go down. We've

seen personal incomes, disposable income for individuals, go down. We've seen

the unpaid property taxes go up. We've seen bankruptcies go up. We've seen

populations leaving that region going up. So much for prosperity.

If that's

the definition of the Premier's prosperity for the region, I hate to think what

the opposite is, because people will say, like in other ministries — and

perhaps the Ministry of Children and Family Development: "Please, don't put

us as your top priority." You know what? When that happens, they have

nothing but bad news — nothing to celebrate.

Now, I want

to ask the Premier this question. He says he has a vision for the community,

that prosperity is coming. When exactly will prosperity come? Is it going to be

in their lifetime, or is it the next lifetime?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm the first to admit that we inherited a mess from the previous

government.

MacPhail: We'll get to that. We'll get to the statistics.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Okay. I think it's important for us to note that in terms of the

previous government, we watched as people started to leave this province. It

wasn't a place that people wanted to live, let alone come to. That was something

that was brand-new in British Columbia. British Columbia, when the previous

government was elected, was attracting people from not just all over the country

but all over the world. We lost that through the decade of decline under the

previous government.

In the last

year we created 79,000 new jobs in this province. Now, I'm the first to say that

79,000 is just a start, but it's 79,000 more jobs. In the last year for the

first time we had over two million people at work in this province. In the last

year, in fact, we watched as our economic growth in the province grew at triple

the rate that forecasters had suggested it would. In the last year we watched as

average take-home pay grew at three times the national average. It was the

highest level of average growth in the country.

[1630]

In the last

year what we found was that investors had moved British Columbia from the last

place they wanted to invest when this government was first elected to third

place. I'm not pleased with third, but I know that we're moving in the right

direction when you go from ten to three, and I have confidence we're going to

move to one.

When we

talk about the northwest of this province, we think about the Tulsequah Chief.

Finally we're moving forward with that. We look at the opportunities that are

being provided to first nations, and finally we're moving forward with that. We

look at the potential for offshore oil and gas. Finally we're moving forward to

build the fact base for that. All of those are things that have been identified

by people in that region of the province.

Having said

that, let me simply point out that this is a large province. I recognize that

when you aggregate those numbers, some parts of the province have done better

than other parts of the province. That's why what we're trying to do is build

regional strategies that will respond to the needs of different regions of this

province. If you think of the northwest, they have opportunities that we believe

we can capitalize on. We're working with them to do that. If you think of the

Kootenays, they have a different set of opportunities, which require different

investments in public infrastructure that we can capitalize on and which will

create even more employment in the Kootenays. When I think of the

Cariboo-Chilcotin and I think of the challenges that they face there, I think of

other opportunities that can be realized.

The thrust

of our government has clearly been — it was when we were elected, and it

remains — to encourage private sector investment in this province, to

encourage job creation, to encourage the development of small businesses. I

recognize that many small businesses have had a great deal of difficulty, but I

am heartened by the fact that recently small businesses were surveyed, and 78

percent of them said the government is going in the right direction. They want

us to carry on. They want us to move forward. That's what we intend to do.

MacPhail: We'll get into the economic indicators now and the progress that

this government is making in the economy. That's what British Columbians voted

for. It's true. They thought the Liberals were going to be better economic

managers. We concede that. They didn't think that they were going to be more

compassionate. They've certainly judged the Liberals on their performance in

health and education, where the approval ratings for a government are at the

lowest of any government in history.

[ Page 7058 ]

But the

Premier says the economy is doing fine, that everything's on track. Here are the

economic indicators from his own Progress Board. British Columbia is tenth in

economic growth, ninth in social conditions, sixth in jobs — progress report.

When compared to Alberta, Ontario, Washington State, Quebec, Oregon and

California, B.C. ranks in the bottom third in all categories except the top

marginal personal income tax rate. Yeah, that's true. The rich pay far less

here. That's the good news. That, of course, is because the Premier stepped over

the threshold on day one and brought in a gigantic, massive tax cut to the

richest in this province. Unfortunately, though, there was one part of that

promise that they forgot to deliver on, and that was that the tax cuts would pay

for themselves, so half a promise kept — the promise to the rich friends, but

not to the rest of British Columbia.

Pretty much

everybody has judged. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has judged that the tax

cuts have not paid for themselves and won't for quite a while. As a matter of

fact, it says five years. Everybody pretty much admits that the tax-cut policy

was a failure, and we now know that it's inflicting hardship on British

Columbians. But let's look at that. The most recent report forecast of RBC

Financial Group shows British Columbia dead last in economic growth — dead

last. It also shows that there's very little p