2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Doreen Lawson

P. Sahota

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)

Hon. S.

Hagen

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003

(Bill 77)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Canadian merchant navy

V. Roddick

Women in Canadian politics

I. Chong

Pitt Meadows Airport

K. Stewart

Oral Questions

Income assistance regulations and

loss of benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

J. MacPhail

Access to timber in North Thompson

Valley

K. Krueger

Hon. M. de

Jong

Income assistance regulations and

loss of benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M.

Coell

Export of cattle to U.S.

D. Chutter

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Impact of physical activity on

learning

R. Nijjar

Hon. C.

Clark

Integration of mental health and

addiction services

Brenzinger

Hon. G.

Cheema

Fees for seniors' residential care

V. Anderson

Hon. K.

Whittred

Ministerial Statements

Flooding in

Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton area

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) (continued)

B. Belsey

K. Stewart

M. Hunter

R. Visser

V. Roddick

J. Kwan

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Committee of the Whole House

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 35)

Hon. S. Bond

J. Kwan

D. Jarvis

D. Hayer

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House

Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal

Act (Bill 70)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal

Act (Bill 70)

Committee of the Whole House

Local Government Bylaw Notice

Enforcement Act (Bill 65)

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant

J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Local Government Bylaw Notice

Enforcement Act (Bill 65)

Committee of the Whole House

Administrative Tribunals Appointment

and Administration Act (Bill 68)

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant

Reporting of Bills

Administrative Tribunals Appointment

and Administration Act (Bill 68)

Third Reading of Bills

Administrative Tribunals Appointment

and Administration Act (Bill 68)

Second Reading of Bills

Water, Land and Air Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 55)

Hon. J.

Murray

J. MacPhail

Financial Administration Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 59)

Hon. G.

Collins

J. MacPhail

Business Corporations Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 60)

Hon. G.

Collins

J. MacPhail

[ Page 7345 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hunter: It's my pleasure and privilege today to introduce five children who

are being home-schooled. It's nice to know that the Legislative Assembly is on

the curriculum of home schools. These children are with their mother, Delphine

Charmley from Nanaimo. They are Jason, Brandon, Nikolas, Brenda and Jackie, and

I'd like to ask the House to give them the usual warm welcome.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery is somebody who's become no stranger to this

place. It's my pleasure to introduce Terry Colburn, whose native name is

Iskaital. Terry has also recently become a hereditary chief of the Navajo

nation. Joining Terry is his friend Yvonne Sproule, and both have become well

known in Victoria as peer mental health advocates. I'd like to again ask the

House to please make them welcome.

Tributes

DOREEN LAWSON

Sahota: I rise to mourn the passing of an incredible and dedicated Canadian

and British Columbian. Doreen Lawson, a longtime Burnaby city councillor, died

in Burnaby Hospital last Saturday night, suffering from a heart attack at the

age of 75.

Doreen

Lawson was the first female president of the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities and made many contributions to the city of Burnaby in her

lifetime. In 1997 she was presented with the Vancouver Natural History Society's

Frank Sanford Award, and in 2002 she received a Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for

her contributions to her community. Ms. Lawson was also executive director of

the B.C. Liberals in the mid-eighties.

On behalf

of my colleagues from Burnaby, I would ask the House to extend condolences to

Doreen Lawson's family.

Introductions by Members

Roddick: In Victoria today, after a successful Saturday evening in

Tsawwassen with the Delta Police Pipe Band, is the United States Army Field Band

and Soldiers Chorus, the musical ambassadors of the United States army. With

good humour, the musical director of our 15th Field Artillery Regiment Band

asked them to use their musical expertise to sing a resounding conclusion to the

softwood lumber dispute. Would the House please give them a highly charged

welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: We are joined in the House today with four interested, committed and

involved people from the community of Surrey–White Rock. I would ask the House

to please welcome Joe McIvor, Elaine Liau and Ian and Gail McKenzie.

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to take the opportunity to extend my congratulations to

the Leader of the Opposition, who I understand became engaged on the weekend.

I've been

told there are three things that can happen in your life, which are really

life-changing moments. One is having a child, the other is getting married, and

the third is getting elected. I'm pleased to know that the member opposite has

now done all three.

MacPhail: Several times.

Hon. G.

Collins: Several times. [Laughter.]

I do want

to extend congratulations to her and wish her the best. Also, perhaps the House

could send our condolences on to Pierre Pettigrew, who I know will be very

disappointed. [Laughter.]

[1410]

H. Long:

In the House today we have a former member of this House and his daughter. The

member in the House was a former Minister of Agriculture at the time in the '86

era when some of us other members were sitting here — the Minister of Labour

and yourself, Mr. Speaker. So I would like to welcome to this House Larry

Chalmers and his daughter, Jennifer.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. S.

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

intituled Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that Bill 73 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management proposes amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act,

the Assessment Act, the Assessment Authority Act, the Land Act, the Land Title

Act, the University Endowment Land Act and the Water Act.

This bill

is consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation

initiative. The bill also underscores government's goals of operating more

efficiently, supporting the economy and responsibly managing the province's

natural resources.

I will

touch briefly on each of the acts being amended by the Sustainable Resource

Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. A housekeeping

[ Page 7346 ]

amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act will allow the chief

executive officer to require an application to the Agricultural Land Commission

when the commission receives notice of an intention to deposit or remove fill

from agricultural land. The amendment clarifies the CEO's authority and

responsibility to require proponents to submit an application for proposals to

remove or deposit fill which may have a significant impact on the land and may

warrant local government review through the application process.

Housekeeping

and deregulation amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority

Act will eliminate duplication and outdated regulatory requirements. The

Assessment Act is also amended to allow assessors to adjust the assessment roll

where the property owner agrees to the change, eliminating the need for numerous

uncontentious matters to go before the property assessment review panels.

The Land

Act is amended to provide the authority to refuse to accept applications for

dispositions of Crown land where the application is incomplete or the land is

reserved or withdrawn from disposition. The amendments to the Land Act will also

remove unnecessary and outdated restrictions regarding the date on which a

disposition of Crown land takes effect.

A number of

housekeeping amendments are being made to the Land Title Act to reflect changes

in government organization. In addition, the

schedule to the Land Title Act is

being amended to increase specified land title fees to pay for e-filing, which

is effective April 1, '04, as part of the governmentwide review of fees and

licences.

Finally,

changes are being made to the Water Act to authorize the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding activities in or

about a stream in order to support the ministry's move towards more

results-based regulation.

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 73

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.

TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. R.

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

intituled Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 77. This bill amends the Residential

Tenancy Act and the new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, which are not yet in

force.

The

legislation initially allowed a three-year carry-forward of rent increases.

These amendments will limit rent increases to once a year without any

carry-forward. The actual rent increase percentage will be established by

regulation. Additional amendments will ensure a clear understanding of rights

and obligations for both landlords and tenants, will reduce disputes and will

lead to fewer arbitration hearings. Clarification of the policy intent will also

lead to consistent decision-making.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 77

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

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

Statements

( Standing Order 25b)

CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY

Roddick: It gives us all great pleasure to be able to recognize and

celebrate the many contributions and achievements of Canadians. In times of need

we rise to the occasion, as we did this summer during the forest fires and as

did the unsung heroes of the merchant navy. The Battle of the Atlantic was the

longest battle of the Second World War. There was no arena more crucial than to

maintain open sea lanes.

Canadians

have only now officially acknowledged the importance of our merchant service.

Our Premier, on behalf of the province, delivered a cheque for $1 million

towards the Juno Beach Centre, which opened in June of this year, to honour our

country's contribution to World War II — including the fourth arm of our

fighting services, the merchant navy.

Few people

realize the toll wreaked on shipping in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By early fall

of 1942, U-boats had sunk 21 ships. Then on October 14 the ferry Caribou was

sunk, carrying mothers and children, Canadian and American military, plus crew.

The very next vessel to cross that gulf had on board RCN Second Lt. James Flood

Clark, his wife Kathryn and his rambunctious two-year-old daughter Valerie, who

stands here today proudly representing Delta South.

Approximately

12,000 merchant seamen were engaged by war's end — some too young to be

soldiers, 15 to 16 years or younger, and others too old for the armed services,

over 40. While statistics provide an awesome account of ships and tonnage lost,

the true cost of the war at sea was a human one. There were no safe havens for

merchant seamen. These men, and actually a few women, were remarkable,

astonishing and magnificent.

WOMEN IN CANADIAN POLITICS

I. Chong:

I rise today to acknowledge October as having been proclaimed Women's

History Month, and this year's national theme: "What do you mean, women

[ Page 7347 ]

couldn't vote?" In so doing, I would like to recognize a few of the many

women who have been at the forefront of innovation and government.

would like to start with Canada's first woman elected to a provincial

Legislature and first cabinet minister without portfolio, Mary Ellen Smith. Her

husband was a member of the provincial Legislature when he died in 1917. After

his death, Mrs. Smith won a seat in the by-election in 1918, becoming the first

woman in the British Empire to succeed her husband's seat. In 1921 she then

became Canada's first cabinet minister without portfolio.

Nancy

Hodges was another influential woman in B.C. legislative history. As a columnist

for the then Victoria Times, she was always interested in politics and

was elected MLA for Victoria in 1941. In 1949 she became the first woman elected

Speaker of the B.C. Legislature and also the first in the Commonwealth. Later,

in 1953, she again made history by being the first B.C. MLA appointed to the

Canadian Senate.

Activist

Rosemary Brown was the first black woman elected to a Canadian Legislature in

1972, and she represented her constituents extremely well with vision and

determination. In honour of her service, Rosemary Brown received the Order of

B.C. in 1995 and the Order of Canada in 1996.

There are

so many women who have achieved firsts from arts to health to science and to

business, all of this being possible after winning the right to be included in

the

definitions as persons and then the right to vote, although for some women

of colour, their right to vote came decades later. During my lifetime I have

also observed many firsts in the political world: the first woman Premier here

in British Columbia and the first woman Prime Minister in Canada. As well, on

May 28, 1996, I along with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant became the

first persons of Asian descent to be elected to the B.C. Legislature.

I hope all

members of this House and British Columbians everywhere find time to celebrate

Women's History Month this October and every October, not only because we should

but because we can.

[1420]

PITT MEADOWS AIRPORT

Stewart: I'd like to take a moment to highlight one of the true economic

jewels of our region, the Pitt Meadows Airport. During Small Business Week it is

especially important to look at the facilities that support our local

entrepreneurs. This airport does its fair share. With three active runways, it

is always one of the busiest airports in the province in terms of takeoffs and

landings. It has a full seaplane access available on the Fraser River and a

designated deep-sea port. It offers air ambulance, charter flights, helicopter

service, flying and parachute lessons, and sightseeing tours. You know, in less

than 20 seconds I've already covered a few million dollars of annual economic

activity in our region, mostly by small business.

There's

more. The airport has lofty goals. It aims to be a real player in servicing the

region's commercial air passenger market. Later this fall a 5,000-square-foot

terminal will open, which accommodates numerous other activities including

restaurants, pilot shops and other services. The airport also begins work on a

new ramp for floatplanes, and an upgrade to riverside docks was just completed,

along with new tie-downs for 19 more aircraft.

With a land

base in excess of 700 acres, they have big plans for growth. Down the road, Pitt

Meadows Airport would like to welcome commuter traffic from such places as

Kamloops, Victoria and Kelowna, because — let's face it — the more traffic,

the more people we'll see taking advantage of our local businesses and services.

Further

down the road to the Olympics, the airport can help position the Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows region as the perfect alternative to the hustle and bustle

of Vancouver when the world comes to our door in 2010.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

AND LOSS OF BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

Since this House last sat, statistics have come out showing that unemployment is

above 9 percent in this province. More than 200,000 people are now unemployed.

Those are public numbers — numbers that this government cannot be proud of.

This

government also cannot be proud of the number of people who are going to be

kicked off of income assistance. That's why the Minister of Human Resources is

hiding the number. Let me give him another chance. Can he tell this House how

many people will lose income assistance over the next fiscal year?

Hon. M.

Coell: The member knows that there are over two million people working in

this province. She also knows that that's the first time in the history of

British Columbia that we've had that many people working. She also knows that

this ministry has put tens of thousands of people back to work in the last two

years.

She also

knows that this ministry has 10,000 jobs available for people on income

assistance. She also, I think, wants to return to the days where one in ten

British Columbians was on welfare and six in ten single parents were on welfare

— to those lofty days of the NDP. What this government wants to do is help

people to succeed and to work in this province.

J. Kwan:

This minister knows how many people are going to be kicked off of income

assistance come the next fiscal year. According to the minister's own budget

numbers, we calculated that approximately 27,000 people will lose income

assistance.

[ Page 7348 ]

Now we have

the evidence to confirm our worst fears. According to confidential internal

figures compiled for the minister on October 9 — less than two weeks ago —

28,000 people will be kicked off of income assistance in the first fiscal year.

It's not hard to see that the 10,000 jobs that this minister claims to have do

not equal the 28,000 people who will lose income assistance.

The

minister doesn't like to confirm numbers. Will he stand in this House and deny

the numbers in his own government document?

Hon. M.

Coell: The province of British Columbia is moving ahead with job creation.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: The members of the NDP would love to return to the days where

socialism on demand for welfare was always there.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: The members cannot stand to see people succeed in this province.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

Coell: This member cannot stand to see people succeed in this province. The

people on income assistance are succeeding in this province. The people who are

able to work in this province are going to find employment, and they're going to

find success, and they're going to find prosperity in this province, because

they have a government that's concentrating on finding employment for people,

not welfare.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

There is no point for this minister to try and play games with numbers. We have

them. The minister knows exactly how many people will lose benefits, and it's

more than the number of jobs he says are available. Will the minister stop

playing games and come clean and admit what everyone knows and what people are

warning this minister? Thanks to his government's policies, thousands of British

Columbians will lose support, and many of those will end up on the streets.

Hon. M.

Coell: Since this government was elected, over 100,000 new jobs have been

created. There are 10,000 jobs…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: …in our ministry for people on income assistance.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. We will continue when we have order in the

House. The minister has the floor.

Hon. M.

Coell: I don't know what the two members of the opposition don't understand

about success, about people finding employment, about people leaving income

assistance and earning two to three times what they were on income assistance.

The days of the NDP, where it was a better job to be on welfare, are over. The

days of prosperity for people on income assistance are here, because we're

actually looking for jobs and helping people find a better, more prosperous way

of life in this province.

MacPhail: I suspect this minister is going to spin himself right out of

responsibility, right out of the cabinet. Perhaps this minister should have gone

to New York or Washington or wherever it is that ministers or Premiers go to

duck hard questions. The facts on the economy are clear: over 9 percent

unemployment, the highest in almost a decade; over 200,000 people without work;

the worst-performing economy in the country.

Two weeks

ago we came forward right into this chamber with a confidential briefing note on

this issue. That minister dismissed the information as out of date. As he was

doing that, these numbers were being prepared for this minister at the same time

that we were asking questions in the House.

This is

dated October 9, 2003. It's simply not credible that this minister didn't have

those numbers when he was standing up saying he didn't know, in this

Legislature. Why did the minister hide these numbers from the House? More

importantly, why did he hide them from the public? Why did he refuse to tell

British Columbians the truth?

Hon. M.

Coell: The truth is that people on income assistance are finding employment

with this government. They're finding employment….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Listen to the answer, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: Under the NDP, income assistance was viewed as a life entitlement.

What we view for people on income assistance — opportunities — is

entitlement for a job, and that's why we have programs that create and support

people on income assistance to find employment. That's what we'll continue to do

— to see people on income assistance actually have success in British

Columbia, unlike a lifetime of welfare offered by the NDP.

[ Page 7349 ]

ACCESS TO TIMBER

IN NORTH THOMPSON VALLEY

Krueger: The people of Barriere and Louis Creek are still reeling from the

announcement by Tolko Industries that they will not be rebuilding the mill at

the Louis Creek site. The Minister of Forests and I have been working for some

time to help the people of Vavenby-Clearwater, who suffered a similar loss of a

major employer approximately one year ago. I wonder if the Minister of Forests

can update my constituents on the prospect of community forests, additional

woodlots and additional allotments to the North Thompson Indian band in order

that my constituents can have better access to fibre in their efforts to

diversify the economy of the North Thompson Valley.

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, that lies at the heart of what the forestry revitalization

plan is all about. The tragic events that have befallen the North Thompson

Valley add to the urgency in getting on with the full implementation of that

program. It's about creating those new opportunities for community forests for

woodlot owners, and I'm pleased to advise the member that I met with some of the

woodlot owners from the Barriere–Louis Creek area this weekend.

[1430]

We're going

to ensure we're doing all we can to support them, and I'm happy to say to the

member that in the days ahead, I'm looking forward to making a significant

announcement as it relates to involvement of first nations in the area in the

beginnings of the cleanup of the fire-damaged wood.

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

AND LOSS OF BENEFITS

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this government loves to duck responsibility. Health

care cuts? Blame the health authorities. School closures? Blame the school

boards. Worst economy in the country? Blame world markets and escape the

Legislature.

Now the

Minister of Human Resources refused to admit what his own briefing documents

say. When this new rule kicks in, his own documents say that 28,000 people will

lose income assistance over the next fiscal year — his own documents. Again to

the minister: we have the numbers. Why is he so ashamed to admit that they're

true?

Hon. M.

Coell: Well, I'll give the member a couple of numbers: 100,000 jobs created

in this province. Tens of thousands of people from income assistance found

employment with a government that looks for people on income assistance to

succeed in this province.

The people

on income assistance for the first time actually have a government that's

helping them find prosperity, helping them get off income assistance and create

better lives for themselves. The members of the NDP dream of the lofty days of

$2 billion budgets, six in ten single parents on income assistance, one in ten

members of the public on income assistance. This government has been helping

people find employment and will continue to do so.

EXPORT OF CATTLE TO U.S.

D. Chutter:

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

members of this House are aware, the ranching industry was hard-hit this summer

after a BSE-infected cow was discovered in Alberta. Cattle ranchers are facing

difficult times with the partial border closure to Canadian beef that continues

to be in place. Can the minister tell ranchers what steps he is taking to get

the U.S.–Canada border reopened and to help ranchers get their cattle to

market?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I want to acknowledge that there are media reports that the U.S.

is getting ready to open the border for live cattle under 30 months. We have not

been able to get any confirmation of that, and neither has the federal

government. I want to reassure the cattle industry in British Columbia that we

remain completely focused on trying to get the border opened, and that's a high

priority.

The Premier

has been very active on this file, starting with the Premiers' conference in

Kelowna. He's had meetings with the U.S. Ambassador, Paul Cellucci. He has been

in the western Governors' meeting in the United States with BSE on the agenda as

a high priority, and he intends to raise it in the next couple of days in

Washington, D.C. So we remain very focused on getting the border opened, and

hopefully the media reports are correct.

IMPACT OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

ON LEARNING

Nijjar: The Minister of Education is working hard to increase physical

activity in our schools and cites examples of high cases of obesity with our

youth. However, does the minister have evidence that physical activity is

positively correlated with positive academic outcomes?

Hon. C.

Clark: In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that links physical

activity and improved cognitive function for kids, and it makes sense too. If

kids are moving and their blood is moving, it's making their brains work better.

There is absolutely no question that that's true.

So what

we're doing in British Columbia, for the first time, is saying that rather than

just recommending the amount of time that kids should spend being active in

schools, we are going to start requiring it so that we can make sure every child

in every school, in every classroom, is physically active for a certain amount

of time every week so that we know they will learn better when they're in their

schools.

We need

more incentive programs. We should be linking physical activity to things like

the Olympics.

[ Page 7350 ]

We have an incredible opportunity in 2010 to showcase the physical prowess of

our population, to inspire kids to move and inspire kids to do better and reach

further. That's what we should be doing in all our schools. We're starting now,

we're going to be working for the future, and by 2010 we will have…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …a culture of sport in British Columbia.

[1435]

INTEGRATION OF MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

Brenzinger: My question today is to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

Surrey has been wrestling with a number of drug issues. As a community, we are

working hard to ensure that neighbourhoods remain safe and that the medical

needs of people with addictions are being met.

This year,

during estimates, the minister spoke of merging mental health and addiction

services. Will the Minister of State for Mental Health tell the House what

progress is being made to unite treatment of addictions and mental health

services?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Prior to restructuring, 70 percent of the clients in B.C.'s

addiction system were also patients of the mental health system. In 2002, for

the first time in B.C., we brought addiction services directly into the health

care delivery system and also began to integrate these two services with the

mental health services to better meet the needs of the clients who were

frequently excluded from both systems.

I can give

a few examples of the service improvements in the Fraser health authority. The

Fraser health authority's plan will result in more detoxification services and

youth services. Through the new mental health funding, the Fraser health

authority has created a dual diagnosis position in each of the mental health

centres in the Fraser health authority. There has been a significant amount of

cross-training between the addictions staff and the mental health staff, and a

collaborative model has been developed between the Surrey primary care clinic

and the mental health centres. We will continue to make improvements in mental

health in this province.

FEES FOR SENIORS' RESIDENTIAL CARE

Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long

Term and Home Care. Fee adjustments have been made to residential care for

seniors, and while the client is obviously the prime concern, families in

Vancouver-Langara want to know that they will be able to grow old together. The

couple must face distance and financial challenge. While one goes into a care

facility, the other must live on the remaining income, having paid for much of

this care. Can the minister explain what has been done to ensure the base income

of the person remaining at home?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member does indeed raise a very good question, and that is why

the ministry has taken great care to ensure that the well spouse who remains at

home will have sufficient income to live comfortably. The co-pay is actually

calculated twice. It is calculated, first of all, using it as a marriage

deduction. Secondly, it is calculated as though the person was single, and the

best to the client of those two sums is the one that determines the co-pay. If

that still is a hardship to the couple, then there is an appeal process. So

there is, I think, really good care taken to ensure that the person has good

income to live comfortably.

[End

of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

FLOODING IN

SQUAMISH-WHISTLER-PEMBERTON AREA

Hon. R.

Coleman: As requested by the Premier, I attended the communities of Squamish,

Whistler and Pemberton yesterday and over the weekend to look at the damage and

devastation and to talk to the communities with regard to the emergency

protection act and how it applied to their communities. On behalf of the

Premier, I'd first of all like to offer my condolences and his, and the

condolences of this House, to the families who have lost loved ones in this

disaster and prayers for those missing loved ones that they be found safe.

I had the

opportunity to tour the area yesterday and stopped and briefly spoke in

Pemberton, where I met with the mayor and emergency program officials. I spoke

to the mayor of Whistler, and I had the opportunity to meet with law

enforcement, fire and all our emergency program people and a number of

volunteers on the ground. Once again, as we saw last summer, we saw people

coming together in a tragedy. The volunteer effort is incredible. The number of

hours being logged by people, from volunteer fire departments through to

emergency personnel, is staggering. We are sending more people into the area to

help this community as they deal with this incredible issue. We want to assure

the people that the province will be there, as it was in any other disaster. It

would be there for food and water and for accommodations.

[1440]

In addition

to that, something else was pretty remarkable to watch yesterday. We have some

pretty good people working for us in this province, particularly in our

department of transportation and highways, who were on the ground yesterday

actually putting in material at the one portion of washed-out road — so they

could open the road to Whistler yesterday afternoon — and already moving

bridging material up to Rutherford Creek, south of Pemberton,

[ Page 7351 ]

to start to rebuild that bridge. Hopefully, they'll have it open in 26 to 48

hours. That in itself, when you've seen the disaster and the water that's

moving, is an incredible feat.

addition, disaster financial assistance will be provided by the province and the

federal government and will be made available to the people who are affected by

this disaster. In a natural disaster such as a flood, for which people and

businesses cannot readily obtain private insurance, the program provides some

compensation. Each case is considered individually, and I encourage people to

contact their local government office or a provincial emergency program office,

or go to the Internet to www.pep.bc.ca to obtain an application form and file

their claim.

Once again

we as a province are sent challenges because of the type of weather and

structure and terrain that we experience as a province. We are up to the task to

deal with these incidents as members of our communities come together in a

program that works. Again, on behalf of the Premier and the government, I want

to thank everyone for their assistance, dedication and commitment to the

communities they live in and to those people around the province who are with

these people today.

J. Kwan:

The opposition would like to begin by saying that we want to send our

condolences to the families of the people who have lost lives — the two people

who died as a result of this tragedy — and the two people still missing. Our

hearts go out to the families. We hope the two that are missing will be found

safe very soon.

The

Sea-to-Sky corridor is faced with tremendous challenges. Even as we speak, as

the rain continues, families are still under threat. I know that the emergency

teams are working very hard trying to pull together all the efforts to deal with

the situation. The personal losses experienced by the families, by the people in

and around that community, can only be felt by the people who have experienced

it, not unlike the people in the Kelowna region who have recently faced the

fires. We now have another region which is faced with the floods. The damages,

the aftermath, are yet to begin for this region, for people to come to grasp the

losses they have experienced, the shock and of course the disbelief.

There is

much work to be done as we speak in this Legislature. I am glad to hear that

disaster relief will be in place for the families or individuals faced with

these losses. I hope that process will be short for the families as they're

dealing with these difficult challenges, and I hope that as we in the

Legislature work on different items, we will continue in all of our best efforts

to put forward prevention strategies as well to ensure that such tragedies can

be minimized as much as possible.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 48.

Second Reading of Bills

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

( continued )

Belsey: It's an honour and a privilege to be able to speak to the

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act. This is a very important

bill for many parts of communities on the north coast. This bill ensures that

potential aquaculture sites, finfish and shellfish, are covered in the same way

we look at land-based farm sites.

[1445]

I have some

fine examples of aquaculture that go on in my riding. There's a community called

the Kitasoo, or Klemtu. It has been involved with aquaculture for a number of

years now and has been able to put many citizens of its community to work. The

goal was to have one person working in aquaculture in every household. They have

been able to achieve that goal. They have created jobs throughout their

community. When you go to that community today, you can see the benefits of

aquaculture and understand why it's important that in a bill such as this we

affirm exactly the rights to carry on fish farming, whether it's shellfish or

finfish.

The right

to farm is a system that has worked very well for the province, local government

and the farming industry. These amendments will not affect those communities

that accept the spirit and the objectives of the right-to-farm system. The

amendments will encourage local governments to plan for farming. They will

support government in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors. They clarify the

legislation to ensure that industry's development is not constrained by the

unnecessary and unreasonable regulations at the local government level.

There have

been a lot of people in the province that have spoken out against aquaculture,

some of them very notable people. But you know, at one time they supported it. I

have a

section out of Hansard , when, at the time, the minister for the

environment, the Hon. Rafe Mair, spoke out in support of aquaculture. I'd just

like to share that with you. His words were: "I

think that this is one of the most exciting things that's come on stream, not

just shellfish but the whole question of aquaculture. I think we're going to

find a difference in the people's taste now that the Third World has decided

that they are tired of being starved to death by the rest of the world. I think

we're going to find that there's going to be a great future for all the

aquaculture schemes that are coming on stream, including shellfish that they've

been talking about. The only disagreement I would have with you is that I think

the prospects are greater than you say."

An Hon.

Member: Who said that?

Belsey: Rafe Mair.

It has been

studied to death. People like David Suzuki have single-handedly done more to

destroy the

[ Page 7352 ]

economy of British Columbia than anybody else with his position on

aquaculture. The B.C. environmental assessment office salmon aquaculture review ,

SAR, was a panel of 12 scientists. They concluded that salmon aquaculture as

practised today in B.C. at the current level of production presents low

probability of risk of adverse effects to the province's environment.

[1450]

The

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, came out in their report

and confirmed that salmon aquaculture presents a low overall risk to the

environment. For instance, NOAA asserts that the potential for farm salmon to

spread disease to wild salmon represents a low risk and that the potential for

escaped Atlantic farmed salmon to colonize or compete with wild Pacific salmon

represents a very low risk.

I applaud

the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for bringing, under the umbrella

of farming, the concerns that many have to ensure that farm sites for finfish

aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture do have protection, that this industry can

develop, and that greater jobs and better opportunities exist for people in the

coastal communities I represent.

I want to

thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.

Stewart: I, too, rise to support the right to farm. It's interesting that

100 years ago in Canada, when we had a population of just over five million

people, 40 percent of those people lived on farms. That's approximately two

million people 100 years ago. Today we have 32 million people in Canada, and of

that number, less than 3 percent actually live on farms. That's one million

people today that are providing food to a population of 32 million, as compared

to two million 100 years ago.

I think

that says a lot about the state of farming in Canada. It's become highly

industrialized. In many cases on the prairies you'll see that where there used

to be many a farm, there are just a few very large farms. In British Columbia we

have a situation where we have the boundaries of traditional farms now very

tight to that of suburbs and cities. Much of the land that was farms 100, 50, 20

or even 15 or ten years ago is now cities, towns, suburbs, factories and

institutions. All this land was once farmed.

We have to

look at what the benefits are of agriculture. The local farms support the start

of a food supply chain that has employment in many areas: food processing,

delivery and even retail. The green spaces that are provided by our farms add to

the lifestyle of many people who live in the suburbs. Conservation areas. Many

farms provide areas of their land base for conservation. I know on our farm we

provide 90 acres of conservation space. There are many traditional lands that

were not used for farming that have, in the past, been considered marginal.

These lands are now being used in my area for things such as blueberries and

cranberry farming.

When we

look at the world situation in the production of food and farming, we look at

Europe, where a cow in Switzerland will be directly subsidized up to 2,000 euro

dollars per year. Now, if that cow happens to live for ten years, that's 20,000

euro dollars of direct subsidies for one cow. No wonder they can put those fancy

bells on them in Switzerland. We have to look at why they put on such a large

subsidy. It's because they know the importance of protecting your food supply.

They know how important it is that they have the food available in their towns,

in their communities, in their cantons to ensure that they have an active supply

of food.

High-quality

agricultural services and production are important to any civilization. They

offset natural disasters, droughts, floods and other calamities that may befall

us. The right to farm ensures that those farms continue. It ensures that there

will be proper planning between the communities that are growing and the farms

that are providing them with food.

I just

wanted to take a moment to say to the House how important I think the right to

farm is. I fully support the minister in this bill.

Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill 48, the Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act.

[1455]

Before I

address the substance of the bill before us, I'm going to fly off on the same

tangent that the Leader of the Opposition did on the last business day in this

House, when she went on a tirade about various aspects of aquaculture. It's

nothing short of laughable that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, as

she did on that day, that our Broughton Archipelago action plan is a failure. I

wonder who she consulted when she arrived at this remarkable conclusion, because

while she was eloquent that day, her eloquence on this matter is matched only by

her substantial ignorance of the facts. Judging by her intervention in this

debate, she is spectacularly misinformed. Even someone with the most elementary

grasp of salmon would know that pink salmon have a two-year cycle. Fish

protected by our plan in the spring of 2003 in the out-migration will not return

until 2004.

What does

she have to say about the spectacular abundance of pink salmon returning to the

Fraser River this year, many of which travelled through the areas where sea lice

are alleged to be problematic? Anyone with an elementary grasp of salmon science

knows that pinks are famous for varying abundance — large buildups followed by

stock crashes. We can expect more of the same, because that's what history has

taught us.

The Leader

of the Opposition ignores science that doesn't accord with her own view. Oh yes,

she can cite

chapter and verse from her NDP buddy Jim Fulton and his friends at

the Suzuki Foundation. Why, she can even read from a columnist in my own local

paper who trots out her views. But she chooses not to cite the information from

DFO's recent work, which imparts new information about the occurrence of sea

lice and its potential impacts. She fails to cite the knowledge that

[ Page 7353 ]

fishermen could tell her if she took the trouble and time to ask them.

Fishermen would tell her that sea lice are an inevitable and constant fact of

life in coastal British Columbia. Fish populations survive and prosper despite

them.

The Leader

of the Opposition said in this debate: "Municipal governments know

best." I assume that notion did not lie behind the 1995 Right to Farm Act

passed by the disastrous government of which she was such a prominent member.

But now the minister needs to clarify the 1995 act. Suddenly the Leader of the

Opposition insists that city hall knows best. Now, let me say that I think our

city and town halls across the province are populated by dedicated people who

seek election, who are trying to do their best for their communities — no

question about that. What they do not necessarily have and what we do not ask

them to have is a vision of what is good for the provincial rather than the

local interest. That is the job of people who sit in this chamber.

The Leader

of the Opposition, in her intervention, appears not to understand the concept of

provincial interest. But then why am I surprised when for ten years she helped

put the interest groups who supported her ahead of the public provincial

interest? Was it not the NDP that introduced the agricultural land reserve 30

years ago? What was that if not the kind of intrusion into the jurisdiction of

local governments which the Leader of the Opposition would now place as such a

high priority? You know, it's too bad she's wrong in that, because Bill 48 is

not intended to reduce the authority of local governments in land use planning.

It doesn't change this government's commitment to ensure local input on

aquaculture siting. In fact, we've committed to the Union of B.C. Municipalities

that together we will develop a protocol to ensure input at the local level.

The Leader

of the Opposition in her remarks the other day criticized me for saying my

community in Nanaimo is doing fine. She used the background of a writer who

writes for the Nanaimo Daily News , who claimed the sky was falling, and

here I am, day after day, saying how great my community is. Well, so it is —

and no thanks to her government, I might add.

I have

never, ever denied the social problems that Nanaimo faces, and my colleagues on

this side of the House will surely attest to that. But I do share the view of

thousands of Nanaimo residents who think they live in one of the province's most

desirable places, and nothing the Leader of the Opposition says or does will

change their opinions. In fact, just last week the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of B.C. issued a report which documented that there are 6,600 new

jobs on Vancouver Island in 2003. The unemployment rate in Nanaimo is down from

12.7 percent in 2001 to 8.6 percent in 2002. That is attesting to the right

track that this government is on. I will never, as long as I'm a member in this

House, say anything other than the fact that my community has its problems. But

it's a great place to live, and we are starting to move forward and leading this

province in economic redevelopment. I'm proud of that.

[1500]

This boring

and repetitive tirade from the Leader of the Opposition, her continuing

accusations of malfeasance against members of the executive council, her

conspiracy theories — and I think the one the other day was about No. 9 —

are not only tiresome, but they're increasingly irrelevant to the majority of

people in this province who simply want to get on with their lives and their

businesses.

What she

needs to know is that when I accept a campaign contribution, I don't move into

the pocket of the contributor, as she would have people believe. Let her say the

same about her relationship with the unions that have contributed to her cause

over the years.

I want to

move on to the substance of this very important bill. The right-to-farm

principle is not new, but it is extremely important, as other members have said.

The system has worked well for this province since the Right to Farm Act was

introduced in 1995. It has done local government and farmers quite well for a

number of years.

The

right-to-farm legislation exists not only to protect agriculture but also for

the benefit of those who live adjacent to farming areas, including aquaculture

areas. The existing legislation ensures that farmers follow acceptable practices

and provides avenues for dispute resolution. This bill clarifies the existing

law by allowing the government to designate Crown lands suitable for aquaculture

as a farming area.

I think we

need to be clear in our understanding of this bill. The existing law has always

applied to aquaculture. The last government made that decision. All this bill

does is clarify how the law applies to aquaculture. The amendments, as I said

earlier, have been discussed with the UBCM. We are working on a protocol for how

this system will work. The government has assured the UBCM that we will work

together to that end. These amendments will not affect communities that accept

the basic principle of the right-to-farm system. They will support and allow

growth of the aquaculture and agriculture industries under current regulatory

systems.

Members

know that I support the development of the aquaculture industry. I think

investors in that industry need a clear policy environment and consistency of

treatment by governments. I also know there are agencies that are opposed to

aquaculture. Islands Trust, for example, has registered its opposition to this

bill. I'm afraid I must differ with their

interpretation of the impact that this

bill will have.

In my

opinion, the right to farm and the production of food under provincial law and

regulation are a matter of provincial interest. This bill clarifies that

interest at no cost to local government. In fact, the amendments to the Right to

Farm Act introduced by this bill encourage local governments to plan for the

development of the agriculture and aquaculture industries. The focus in the

future is going to be on the identification of Crown lands that are technically

and socially suitable for aquaculture. The right-to-farm system will focus on

planning for farming at the local level, followed and

[ Page 7354 ]

supported by actions consistent with plans. It does not focus or require

designation of Crown land as farming areas. Designation will take place only if

necessary or helpful to support the objectives of the right-to-farm system.

The

right-to-farm system and changes proposed under this bill do not extend the

system to apply to aquaculture. The system has always applied to aquaculture. It

does not apply to all bylaws; it applies only to zoning bylaws and farm bylaws

that apply in farming areas. Most importantly, perhaps, it does not invalidate

existing bylaws.

I am

pleased to offer my support to this bill, and I look forward to the vote and

continuing debate.

Visser: I, too, want to take a moment and speak in favour of Bill 48 and the

right-to-farm legislation and its slight adjustments to include some practical

concepts around aquaculture. I've gone over Hansard — the debate so

far. I've read the legislation. I've been through some of the correspondence and

some of the rhetoric that exists out in the public domain over the last few

months, and I offer these comments.

In 1995 the

government of the day decided it was time to insert a provincial interest around

the production of food through farming. The opposition of the day supported

that, and I think that is an appropriate action. I think it's equally

appropriate today that we have this discussion around aquaculture, because what

was good for the province and the provincial interest in 1995 is certainly good

for the province and the provincial interest today.

[1505]

Aquaculture,

despite the Leader of the Opposition's tirade, isn't about big corporate

interests. It's not about all of those things they deride and call evil; it's

about people. Aquaculture is about jobs. It's about people that stand out there

and cultivate oysters on a raft in a cove — frankly, more often than not, in

the middle of nowhere. They stand there on a day like today, where it's going to

rain as much as 100 millimetres. It's a lot of rain in a day to be out there

working.

I think

it's okay that we address some of these issues, that we focus on those folks who

are out there earning that first dollar. I talked about it earlier — that

first dollar, the first dollar that allows us to generate wealth in this

province. It allows us to pay for services in this province. It gives us some of

the opportunities that many, many other countries in this world just do not have

— to provide for our citizens. So we need a little understanding and

protection around that first dollar, that job and this economy.

What the

opposition misses and the critics miss all the time is that all of these

decisions about the right to farm, aquaculture…. They need to recognize the

context in which they are made. We do land use planning. We have people employed

in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management like Joe Truscott, like John

Bones. They go out there and do marine planning. Those guys do great work. They

consult with communities; they consult with first nations; they consult with

industry groups. They travel up and down the coast of this province in small,

economically identifiable or geographically identifiable or even culturally

identifiable areas and seek input on what goes where and how it might happen. In

the case of North Island straits — through Port Hardy, the Broughton and

others around that area, and in places like Quatsino — much of that work's

been done. It's been done on the North Island straits.

We know

where we can put farm sites. We know where aquaculture has potential. We know it

now, ahead of time, before development occurs. What's critical about that is

that we've had community buy-in, and we've had the discussion about what can go

where, when it can go there and how it can go there. It's not good enough to

say: "Well, that's the end of it." It's important to provide some

certainty to those folks that make those investments out in those places. It's a

challenging business; there is no doubt. It's challenging to fight the rhetoric;

it's challenging to fight the elements. It's challenging to fight the markets,

to find the markets and to develop the products to move your industry forward.

Those folks

are up to that challenge, and it's in the provincial interest that we provide

them with the security and the certainty they need to make those investments.

It's in the provincial interest that we provide relief valves for local

governments and those citizens — farmers and upland or adjacent owners — to

have avenues for arbitration, mediation and discussion so that we can have

balance on the landscape.

We've done

planning in Nootka. We're now in the process of planning the Johnstone Strait,

and we've done the Cortes Island plan. It's good work. It's long overdue. It

makes sense to start with what we call the top or the coarse filter and let it

work down.

[1510]

It makes

sense to provide certainty, because at the end of this provincial interest that

we're all talking about, there are folks. There are biologists. There are plant

workers. There are feed suppliers. There are forklift operators. There are truck

drivers. There are ship captains. There are shipbuilders. There are suppliers.

There are all of these folks that have jobs, all of these folks that contribute

to the province, to all of our well-being. It's up to the provincial government

to get it right. It's up to the provincial government to protect their

interests. It's up to the provincial government to help them navigate those

waters that seem to be so contentious sometimes.

I'm proud

of this legislation. I'm proud of that minister for putting it forward, and I

support it completely.

Roddick: I, too, rise today in support of Bill 48. This bill does not affect

communities that accept the spirit and objectives of the right-to-farm system.

It is designed to broaden the right-to-farm legislation so that all bylaws of a

local council affecting agriculture and aquaculture are covered, not just zoning

bylaw decisions. It ensures that potential aquaculture sites are covered in the

same way as the existing licence sites, which have been included in the

right-to-farm legislation since

[ Page 7355 ]

1995 under the previous NDP government and also supported by the then–B.C.

Liberal opposition.

Only two

local governments, of which Delta is one, have been placed under the legislation

by cabinet direction. We have committed to UBCM that together we will develop a

protocol to ensure input at the local level. Delta South is a perfect example of

rural/urban conflict, having 22,000 acres of intensive farming under cultivation

and a relatively new urban population of approximately 55,000 people in the two

main centres of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

At stake

here is the modernization of our agricultural sector. Our B.C. greenhouse

industry, with its farm-gate sales of over $220 million last year, made it one

of the leading engines in horticulture and in agriculture. Delta is seen as one

of the best places in North America for greenhouse production, a renewable

resource which generates $160 million annually into Delta — both north and

south.

A new,

green, independent power group with the GVRD dump and Canagro greenhouse —

which, I might add, grows the most superlative cucumbers, peppers and

tomatoes…. Its by-product is now going to produce enough electricity for 5,000

homes via our publicly owned B.C. Hydro. The greenhouse industry is helping to

build our province as well as offering the world high-quality vegetables.

Vegetables

under glass or soil-based have to be transported to market. All our local Delta

farmers are now facing difficulty moving their equipment and their produce on

our local roads — roads built, I might add, by the farmers in the first place

— with chicanes being put in place to preclude access by large, modern

equipment and "no truck" signs suddenly appearing on main farm access

routes.

Bill 48,

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, is necessary to

ensure that our growing agricultural industry for both local and export markets

may thrive sustainably for the benefit of all. These amendments encourage local

governments to actively plan for agriculture and to ensure that local government

regulation of farming operation is consistent with provincial interests.

We still

have to eat to live. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this

bill.

[1515]

J. Kwan:

Two weeks ago my colleague the Leader of the Opposition gave an unplanned

speech about Bill 52 after listening to the insulting remarks of the member for

Maple Ridge–Mission. Now I find myself having to do the same thing.

Earlier

this afternoon the member for North Coast, in a desperate attempt to give

credibility to his government's disastrous handling of the fish farm file, tried

to rip apart the credentials and values of one of B.C.'s most renowned citizens.

The member for North Coast said that no single person has done more to harm the

economy of British Columbia than David Suzuki.

This member

should be absolutely ashamed of his statement. Mr. Suzuki has been working for

decades to improve British Columbia and all that live here. The member for North

Coast should think a little more carefully before he whips off insults like that

to one of B.C.'s most decorated citizens.

For his

awareness, I would like to read the biography from The Sacred Balance website:

"Dr.

David Suzuki is the host and on-camera guide in The Sacred Balance, the

four-part television series based on the book of the same title he co-authored

with Amanda McConnell.

"Dr.

Suzuki is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. His

television appearances, explaining the complexities of the natural sciences in

a compelling, easily understood way, have consistently received high acclaim

for over 30 years. He is the only network television science host who was

actually a practising scientist.

"He

is familiar to television audiences as host of CBC-TV's long-running series The

Nature of Things , currently in its forty-second season. His work on that

series has won him three Gemini awards and an ACTRA award as best host. He was

also host of the eight-part Planet For The Taking also on CBC-TV. His

TV series for BBC and PBC, The Secret of Life , was internationally

praised, as was his five-part series The Brain on the U.S. Discovery

Channel. "He originated the popular CBC radio series Quirks and Quarks

in 1974 and hosted it until 1979. In 1989 he hosted the five-part radio series

It's a Matter of Survival . His most recent radio endeavour was the

eight-part series From Naked Ape to Superspecies , broadcast on CBC

radio and released in book form by Stoddart.

"Dr.

Suzuki was born in Vancouver in 1936. In 1942, at age six, he was interned in

the B.C. interior, along with his Canadian-born parents, under the War

Measures Act. This ignominious experience turned out to be a 'defining moment'

for young David. There was no school the first year, and he spent his time in

the mountains exploring nature. He had been encouraged by his father, an

amateur nature enthusiast, who used to take David camping and fishing. After

the war the Suzuki family — which had lost its dry-cleaning business in B.C.

— moved to Leamington and later London, Ontario…."

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Could we please return to the principle

of Bill 48.

J. Kwan:

Yes. I was putting on the record….

Mr.

Speaker: I understand, but let us return to the principle of the bill,

please.

J. Kwan:

I am just about done here in terms of putting on the record Dr. Suzuki's

credentials. As it relates to Bill 48, it's about this individual, who has done

tremendous work in advocating for the environment, in protecting our environment

in every single form. The validity in relating this individual's credentials to

Bill 48 is the validity of an external scientist and the work that they've done

relative to the protection of the environment — mainly, the fish farm

protection item that we're talking about, relating to Bill 48.

[1520]

As I was

saying about Mr. Suzuki — his background:

[ Page 7356 ]

had moved to Leamington and later to London, Ontario, where David spent many

hours exploring the nature of Point Pelee and the swamps around London.

"Suzuki

graduated from Amherst College in 1958 with an honours B.A. in biology

and took his doctorate in zoology from University of Chicago. He held a research

associateship in the biology division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1961

to '62 and was assistant professor of genetics at the University of Alberta in

1962-63. He then moved on to the University of British Columbia in 1963 as an

assistant professor in zoology. In 1969, at age 33, he became a full professor.

For three of those years he held the E.W.R. Steacie Memorial Fellowship for the

outstanding research scientist in Canada under the age of 35. Prior to joining The

Nature of Things , he ran the biggest genetics lab in Canada at UBC. He was

also a professor at UBC's Sustainable Development Research Institute and is now

an emeritus professor there.

“Dr.

Suzuki is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and the Order of Canada

and is the author of over a hundred publications in scientific journals and of

34 books. He originated and co-wrote the text Introduction to Genetic

Analysis , which is currently in its sixth edition and is the most widely

used genetics text in the world. His best-selling autobiography Metamorphosis:

Stages in a Life describes his childhood as well as career in science,

broadcasting….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I think we've heard plenty on that. Let

us get back to the principle of Bill 48, please.

J. Kwan:

On the principle of Bill 48, I would hope that the member for North Coast will

apologize for his remarks at his earliest convenience. After all, he's lashing

out in a desperate attempt to discredit this government's critics. Before he

complains about these hard-working British Columbians, he should take a look at

his own government's credibility.

This

government has no credibility on this file. From secret meetings with CEOs,

spilling insider information, interfering in investigations and ignoring the

threat of sea lice, this government has no right — no right whatsoever — to

make such a remark about the reputation of a citizen who has a longstanding

record on his stance on environmental issues and his knowledge base on

environmental issues, just because that individual does not share this

government's view.

Mr.

Speaker: We are at second reading of Bill 48, and the minister closes

debate.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I am pleased to close second reading debate on Bill 48. Just a

couple of comments, first of all, with respect to the relationship of this bill

to the Community Charter. The Community Charter does seek to maximize

decision-making at the local level but always within the framework of a

provincial interest.

The policy

of the Community Charter does establish a number of areas where the province

establishes the framework — areas such as health care, education, forests,

agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas, and mining. Those are examples of sectors

where the province seeks to establish the provincial interest, and the Community

Charter respects that. The Community Charter contemplates the respectful working

relationship with local government, where — as I said — we maximize

decision-making at the local level but always within a provincial framework.

A comment

about consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We have in the past

year, starting last fall, had a very active consultative process with the Union

of B.C. Municipalities. It involved representatives from my ministry, from the

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and from the Union of

B.C. Municipalities. The process included the selection of a chair that was

acceptable to everyone. It included a five-person committee and a comprehensive

process, including a written report.

The

original proposal that we had of extending the agricultural land reserve to

include new aquaculture sites was abandoned through that process. We have

committed to continuing to meet formally with the executive of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. We had a formal meeting with them after the committee process,

and we have committed to work with them to work out the implementation of this

bill.

[1525]

The member

opposite quoted from a letter from the Comox-Strathcona regional district. I did

have a meeting with the directors of the regional district to assure them that

the comments I had made originally were not in any reference to their regional

district. It was referring to another municipality — namely Delta — and the

experience we've had there of the municipality deliberately taking decisions

that the province felt were unreasonable towards agriculture. I might add that

in the previous government, the minister then had the same view of Delta's

actions.

There were

also comments about the planning role of local government, and certainly this

amendment to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act in no way

undermines local government planning authority. The province will continue to

support local planning and planning at the local level, including full public

participation. Our government, through the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management, has been involved in comprehensive regional land use planning

processes, and these have continued through our government as well as the

previous government.

Any

decisions by cabinet in designating areas for potential new aquaculture will be

based on their biological suitability for aquaculture. Then the more detailed

level of planning and zoning decisions and that sort of thing, which normally

take place at the local level, will continue to take place at the local level.

The ultimate test is simply that local government treats aquaculture and

agriculture in a fair and reasonable manner, as contemplated in the provincial

guidelines. So with that, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 48.

[1530-1535]

Second

reading of Bill 48 approved on the following division:

[ Page 7357

YEAS — 62

Falcon

Coell

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill

48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon.

M. Coell: I call committee stage on Bill 35.

[1540]

Committee of the Whole House

ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:41 p.m.

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to take the opportunity to introduce to the House the staff

with me today as we look at committee stage debate on Bill 35. I have, on my

left, Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister for post-secondary education; and on

my right, Tony Loughran, the manager of legislation.

Section

1 approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 2 of this legislation is being amended, we understand, to simplify the

obligations of the minister. The legislation would no longer contain obligations

to coordinate continuing education programs or to require institutions to submit

annual budgets. Instead of establishing post-secondary policies in consultation

with institutions, the minister, as we understand, will be at the table with the

newly created board.

Could the

minister please advise the House what the specifics are of the mandate of the

new board?

Hon. S.

Bond: Perhaps we need to have the question clarified slightly, because this

particular

section deals with relationships with boards that govern institutions

— in particular, working directly with institutions and presidents. So unless

I misunderstood the question, I'd be happy to have the member opposite clarify

that for me.

J. Kwan:

I'm looking at the old act, and under

section 2, "Powers and duties of

minister," it reads:

"The

minister must do the following: (

a) establish, in consultation with the boards,

policy or directives for post-secondary education and training in British

Columbia; (

b) provide services the minister considers necessary to an

institution, and the minister may require the institution to use the services

provided; (

c) make an annual report for the fiscal year to the Legislature about

the state of post-secondary education and training in British Columbia; (

d) coordinate continuing education programs; (

e) require institutions to submit to

the minister annual budget proposals in a form satisfactory to the

minister."

[1545]

The new act

we're now dealing with amends this by substituting the following: "(

a) establish, in consultation with institutions, policy or directives for

post-secondary education and training in British Columbia." I take that to

mean the duties and powers that were formerly described in the legislation are

now being repealed and substituted with this one sentence in sub (a). I would

take it that the board that would be established would then take on many of the

responsibilities that the minister was to perform. I'm just wondering whether or

not that is the case.

What role

would the board be playing, and what is the mandate of the board if the minister

is no longer going to be doing this work? Or will the minister continue to do

this work? Maybe I'm just misreading this altogether, and even though the

language that was in the legislation is being repealed, the minister will carry

on doing those duties.

Hon. S.

Bond: There will be no new board created. In essence, what we're doing is

bringing into more currency the legislation in which boards currently do these

things in this way. The boards we're talking about are actual governing boards

of institutions, and we're simply saying that they should continue to do the

things

[ Page 7358 ]

that they do. We're bringing this legislation in line with current practice.

There is no creation of a new structure of any sort. We're simply streamlining

and clarifying roles of existing boards that govern institutions.

J. Kwan:

Am I right in reading the legislation, under

section 2 — the items (

a) to

(

e) that I read out earlier — that the minister will no longer be performing

those duties? Or is it implicit that the minister will be performing those

duties, but it states that somewhere else in the legislation?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, practice would be that the minister isn't doing them now and

hasn't for a number of years. Let me give you an example. In existing

legislation if you take sub-subsection 2(1)(d), it's: "coordinate

continuing education programs." The Minister of Advanced Education does not

do that, so what we're doing with the amendment is simply bringing this

legislation — the bill — into line with current practice.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister review the annual budget proposals from the institutions?

That's being taken out now too.

Hon. S.

Bond: The system doesn't work that way and hasn't for a number of years.

There aren't proposals presented to the minister. In fact, our institutions work

together with the ministry, with an educational plan. A budget is created based

on that, and it's dealt with by block funding. So in fact, we don't do that any

longer.

J. Kwan:

For how long haven't we done that?

Hon. S.

Bond: We can certainly get the exact details around that. My staff is

suggesting it's been at least a decade since that has not been done in that

particular manner. We're simply trying to bring legislation into line with

practice.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 3 is amended so that the minister will be allowed to require that an

institution grant an applied master's degree. Could the minister please advise:

what is an applied master's degree?

Hon. S.

Bond: An applied degree, either at the master's level or even an applied

baccalaureate, is a degree that focuses very specifically on a work component, a

work approach — a career-based degree. We're currently working on the

definitions as we bring the Degree Authorization Act into practice. In fact, it

is not a typical arts and science degree. It is very much focused on career, a

work-type focus.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

The criteria that the minister will be considering for this applied degree

which the minister is working on right now…. Would that be made public once

this is known? How would the process take place whereby a person is granted an

applied degree? Does a person apply to be granted an applied degree to the

minister, or does the minister just wake up one day, and she has an idea or

someone gives her an idea that so-and-so should receive an applied degree? How

would that process work?

Hon.

S. Bond: The process for receiving a degree, whether it be applied or in

essence a more traditional academic degree, would be similar. An institution

would make a proposal to have the right to grant a degree. What's different is

not the process. What's different is the content and the focus of the degree.

In terms of

the criteria, yes, they will be made public. In fact, the proposals will be made

public, as the system will have proposals made on line actually. There will be

an opportunity for people to look at new degree-granting proposals from various

institutions as they post them and go through that process of approval through

the Degree Authorization Act.

Kwan: I hate to say this. It's been a repeated pattern now that the

Solicitor General has distracted me for part of the answer. I missed the part

about how a person goes about receiving the degree. Sorry, I was….

Hon. S.

Bond: Just to repeat that…. I can probably do a better job of it the

second time around too.

In essence,

they'll receive a degree the same way they receive a traditional academic degree

or any other type of degree. What's different is the content and focus of the

degree. It will be work- or career-related. An institution will come through the

degree authorization process and say: "We would like to offer an applied

master's degree." The criteria will be made public, as will the proposal.

Once it's approved, students will sign up and receive a degree.

Section

3 approved.

section 4.

J. Kwan:

Section 4. I would assume, then, that the applied bachelor's degree, as well as

the applied master's degree — well, we already dealt with the master's degree

— would be the same process as the master's degree that the minister outlined.

Hon. S.

Bond: That's correct.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

Jarvis: I would just like to ask the minister if it was possible under this

section. Would they be able to give degree-granting status to, say, Capilano

College in my riding?

Hon.

S. Bond: In fact, Capilano already has the first applied degree in terms of

this new process. This

[ Page 7359 ]

would allow them to continue that process to add additional applied degrees

— absolutely.

J. Kwan:

That's just prompted a question. I would assume that this process is open for

any institution, though. It's not specific to any one, but it's open to any

institution that might want to go through the process.

Hon. S.

Bond: That's absolutely correct. Obviously, the rationale and logic behind a

process like this is to increase opportunity and choice for students at colleges

and institutes. The ability for colleges to grant applied degrees is quite

historic, actually, and something that we're very proud of, and it absolutely

applies to all institutions.

Section 5

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 6 amends

section 31 of the act itself, which would mean that

institutions will no longer be able to plan or incur deficits. Previously, this

was allowable with the liability approval of the Minister of Finance and the

Minister of Advanced Education. The money for expenditures and emergency funding

provided previously is being repealed. Likewise, the position of a bursar, a

financial adviser to the board, is also being eliminated. This, of course, is of

concern to the opposition, considering this minister and this government's

record on underfunding institutions while demanding more seats — which puts,

of course, the burden onto their students.

[1555]

Here are

just some of the stats to put on the record from the Advanced Education service

plan. Funding to institutions will be cut by $90 million by '05-06. The funding

decrease does not address higher student numbers and increasing participation

rates. The funding levels will not even compensate for inflation. Increases in

funding for student financial aid are occurring in tandem with unprecedented

tuition increases. The allocated funds will not be able to keep pace with the

growth in student numbers, much less the increase in costs.

All the

colleges, university colleges and institutes, except for Malaspina, will receive

less in '06 than in '02-03. At the same time they will be required to fund over

3,400 new spaces. As a result, funding per student will be reduced throughout

the province. The provincewide colleges are looking at a situation where less

than a third of their spaces will be funded by government, and by '05

per-student funding will hit a 30-year low.

Earlier

this year the Okanagan University College received some extra funding after the

minister announced $12 million of savings had been found in the ministry. At the

same time she announced the extra funding, she demanded more seats. The funding

was not even enough to cover the imposed increases. The Okanagan University

College ended up losing $122 per student, and again the burden has been

transferred to the students. As a result, OUC students are facing a 38 percent

tuition increase on top of last year's 65 percent increase.

The

question I have for the minister is: why is the government eliminating this

provision, in terms of incurring a deficit? What's the rationale behind that?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, we actually believe that institutions, even in challenging

times, should manage budgets well. We think that starts at government, and it

should be obvious to institutions that they should work to manage budgets within

the budget they have.

J. Kwan:

It's funny, coming from a government who actually incurred the highest deficit

ever in the history of British Columbia — this Liberal government. Of course,

what she calls challenging times is off-loading more demands onto the

universities, onto the colleges, without actually funding them. As I had pointed

out earlier, that simply translates to the students on the ground, and that's

what we're seeing right now.

Even the

notion of money for expenditures for emergency funding, which was previously

supplied or provided for, is now being repealed, and I find that shocking,

actually. In the case around emergencies and so on, why would the minister even

eliminate that provision in the case around emergencies? Obviously, emergencies

arise when people don't anticipate such things occurring. What's the recourse,

then, for these institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: I guess I'm just surprised that one would suggest that a statement

that says an institution must not plan for or incur a deficit does not make

good, sound financial practice for the province of British Columbia. In fact,

that's how institutions should manage their budgets. Obviously, it says that if

a deficit should occur at any time during that year, the board must come to the

minister quickly and say: "Here's what we think we need to be able to do to

manage that deficit, should that occur." So from my perspective, that's

very acceptable and appropriate accountability for the use of public dollars in

this province.

J. Kwan:

The issue that I take with the minister on the notion around my concerns is that

it's not only the concept that the minister is saying — that they should not

plan for or incur deficits. It's taken out of the legislation

whereas, before,

emergency funding would be provided in legislation. That's now being taken out;

that's being repealed. So that's a stark difference. It's one thing to say:

"Hey, you know what? You should try not to do a deficit."

By the by,

this government has condemned deficits ever since it was in opposition. You know

what? Once they came into government, this Liberal government incurred the

highest deficit ever in the history of B.C. The members behind me are saying,

"Get off it," but you know what? Those are the facts. You don't like

them? That's the reality.

[ Page 7360 ]

Interjection.

[1600]

J. Kwan:

Excuse me? The member for Cariboo South is saying that it's a lie. It is not a

lie. It is absolutely true that this Liberal government incurred the largest

deficit ever in the history of British Columbia. That is a fact. I challenge any

member in this House to dispute that. All they have to do is look at the budget

books.

The

question to the minister is emergency funding. Why is she repealing that

provision?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, I just want to, first of all, clarify exactly what we're

discussing here. Certainly, in

section 6 it says that 31(1) is repealed and the

following is substituted. If I go back to the original bill, there is a

section

that talks about if an emergency exists. "Despite subsection (1), if the

minister considers that an emergency exists, the minister may authorize an

institution to make an expenditure…." If that's the

section the member

opposite is talking about, we're only repealing

section 1, which says that you

cannot plan for a deficit. In essence, looking at certainly what I see in our

bill in the amendments, only subsection (1) is repealed — not subsection (3),

which talks about the emergency funding you're concerned about.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 7 repeals sections 32 and 39 of the old act. If you go to

section 32 of

the act, it reads: "To cover a liability or expenditure approved under

section 31 (1), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may (

a) increase

a grant for operating expenses, or (

b) direct the institution to include

provision for the liability or expenditure in its budget for the next fiscal

year."

Then 39

goes on to say: "

(1) Each board must appoint a bursar to exercise powers

and perform duties assigned to the bursar by the board.

(2) The bursar must

advise the board on all financial matters of the institution.

(3) Unless the

board, by resolution, directs that the bursar be excluded from its meeting, the

bursar or the bursar's designate must attend all meetings of the board."

The

question to the minister is…. This

section of the act explicitly takes out the

notion of emergency funding, yet previously the minister said the notion of

emergency funding still exists. If that's the case, then why would this

section

be repealed, especially as it relates to the emergency funding component?

Hon. S.

Bond: Leaving 31(3) in allows us to make sure that in the case of an

emergency, that potential still exists for the minister to deal with that. In

fact, by leaving 31(3) in, we do have the ability to deal with the emergency

provisions.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister then saying that in repealing

section 7, which is sections 32

and 39, there are no ramifications whatsoever for institutions to get emergency

funding from the minister?

Hon. S.

Bond: What the amendments mean is that an institution has to provide for us

a deficit management plan, which has not been required previous to this.

Certainly, subsection 31(3) allows for the provision of emergency circumstances.

It must be in the context of a deficit management plan.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

The minister says that previously institutions were not required to provide for

a deficit management plan, but previously, where the institution incurs a

deficit, that deficit must be approved by the minister. Therefore, work must be

done by the institution. For the minister to suggest that is not required, I

actually don't think is true. In my reading of the old act, it actually states

that for a deficit to be incurred, the Minister of Finance — which used to be

called Finance and Corporate Relations — as well as the Minister of Advanced

Education must approve it. Therefore some planning must be done, I would assume,

with the institution.

Hon. S.

Bond: In previous practice, institutions had to demonstrate they had a debt

and they had a deficit. What this does is strengthen our ability to actually

deal with deficit circumstances. They now have to have a deficit management

plan.

J. Kwan:

So the question to the minister about triggering the need for emergency funding

from the minister…. With this amendment, is the minister saying that there is

no change whatsoever for institutions should the need for emergency funding be

required, since the same process is in place as the legislation before it was

amended?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, if an institution is going to incur a deficit for any reason,

they must come to the ministry quickly.

Interjection.

Hon. S.

Bond: It is two different cases, and that's what I'm going to talk about.

So if

they're going to incur a deficit for any reason, they come to us in the context

of a deficit management plan in terms of how they're going to manage that. Then,

in the case of extraordinary circumstances, there exists the potential for the

minister to deal with emergency circumstances because of 31(3).

J. Kwan:

So that means no changes at all, in terms of the process and the availability of

emergency funding for institutions. I just need a simple answer — yes or no.

Hon. S.

Bond: There is a change in the sense that in order to deal with deficits of

any nature, they need to come to the ministry with a deficit management plan.

[ Page 7361 ]

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps saying that if there's an emergency that triggers additional

funding — which then would mean, if you follow that logic, that the

institution would end up running a deficit — it is only when those emergencies

surface that that would have to have the approval of the minister, etc. For the

minister to deal with this issue, the institution must come forward with a

deficit management plan, but there's no provision within which the minister

actually touches on emergency funding.

When I talk

about emergency funding, I don't mean to say the institution would be allowed to

run a deficit. I mean to say: will the minister provide assistance, additional

funding, to address the situation? That, to me, is what emergency funding is —

not emergency funding that says; "Okay, you have an emergency; too bad, so

sad." We're not going to help you, but this year we'll allow to you run a

deficit, which will only mean for the institution, at the end of the day, that

they'll have to cut programs or off-load those costs onto their students.

Hon. S.

Bond: Provision exists for the minister to deal with emergency

circumstances. Having said that, the first and most important thing an

institution would be asked to do would be to look within its own fiscal

framework, come to the ministry and be prepared to deal with it through a

deficit management plan. But the possibility still exists for the minister to

deal with emergency circumstances because of 31(3).

J. Kwan:

What would the minister deem to be emergency situations that would actually

allow for an institution to get additional funding from the minister?

[1610]

Hon. S.

Bond: Obviously, the word "emergency" denotes the fact that it

can't be something that exists or is as a result of the day-to-day management of

an institution, so it would have to be unexpected and significant. From our

perspective, the first place that institutions would need to look is within

their own fiscal envelopes, but obviously the word "emergency" denotes

a certain set of circumstances that would not be considered within the

day-to-day management or operation of an institution.

J. Kwan:

In the situation that's actually happening right now where, as an example, the

government — this minister — is underfunding institutions but at the same

time is demanding more seats from the institution, that puts more of a burden

onto the students. In that instance, the minister — I would assume — by

demanding more seats, would deem that not to be an emergency in terms of

pressures on the institution. When the minister says "emergency," what

would she qualify as an emergency? Can the minister give me a concrete example

of what would be deemed to be an emergency?

Hon. S.

Bond: Obviously, emergencies would be dealt with on an individual and

case-by-case basis. We're talking about decision-making within a fiscal

framework. That's good and responsible business and management practice. We

should point out that every institution in the province last year received more

or the same number of dollars that they received the year before. In fact, we

are asking institutions and the boards that govern them to make challenging

decisions in the best interests of students in their communities. That's called

management. That's what we expect them to do.

J. Kwan:

But the reality doesn't change. That is that by '05-06, funding to institutions

will be cut by $19 million, and in fact, by '05-06 the per-student funding will

hit a 30-year low. At the same time this government, this minister, is demanding

more seats from these institutions without more funding to deal with it. My

concern from the opposition side is that these pressures are being put on the

institutions, which later on in many instances is off-loaded to the students.

People are therefore being impacted by this incredible financial burden that

this government has put on.

I'm

concerned, in terms of the emergency provision, that language is being repealed

in this new legislation on emergency funding, yet the minister says: "Don't

worry; everything is fine." The record in the past from other ministers,

from other debates, shows that whenever the minister says, "Don't worry;

everything is fine," it usually actually throws up a red flag to say that

everything is not fine and that there is something we should be concerned about.

The

opposition is certainly concerned about the ability of the institutions to

manage the budget cut, to ensure that advanced education is protected and that

access to education is not hampered for the students who are faced with

financial pressures. These are our concerns, and we want to make sure the

minister understands them.

Section 7

also repeals

section 39 of the old act, which is the position of a bursar, which

is a financial adviser to the board. Why would the ministry eliminate this

position?

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, this is permissive. If the institutions would like to have

a bursar, they can have one. We're bringing this bill, the College and Institute

Act, into line with the Institute of Technology Act and the University Act.

Neither of those acts requires the position of a bursar. Certainly, institutions

are more than welcome to have a bursar if they would like to have one.

[1615]

Section 7

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

This section, as we understand it, changes

section 44 of the old act. Changes to

the

section on the expenditure for benefits will allow the minister to withhold

money from future grants if an institution

[ Page 7362 ]

owes money to government due to a lockout or strike. Employees don't get

benefits while locked out or on strike, and so institutions must pay back that

money to government. The new legislation makes it easier for the government to,

of course, get at this money and for them to automatically deduct it from next

year's grant.

Is it the

minister's anticipation that the dollars that are clawed back from the

institutions as a result of this provision…? Would those moneys be earmarked

for advanced education for institutions, to be redistributed back somehow, or do

they go to general revenues?

Hon. S.

Bond: It would stay within the Ministry of Advanced Education.

J. Kwan:

Would the money be redistributed back to a range of institutions, in some form,

within that fiscal year?

Hon. S.

Bond: Yes.

J. Kwan:

Is it anticipated by the minister that the mechanism in which the minister would

do that would be…? I suppose towards the end of the year there's X amount of

money in this account, and then the minister will make an announcement of sorts

to say this money has been saved from this provision and will therefore be

redistributed back to the institutions for educational purposes.

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, the circumstance itself would be very unusual. That would

be an option we would consider, but certainly we have no specific option that

we've determined at this point in time.

J. Kwan:

Would this apply to the situation with UBC, the strike that took place this

year?

Hon. S.

Bond: This is, of course, the College and Institute Act. Technically

speaking, it wouldn't apply to the UBC circumstance, and it wouldn't, obviously,

go backwards. But a scenario in the future, where something like that might

occur in the college and institute sector…. This would be something that would

apply from here forward.

J. Kwan:

Could moneys be held in a special account so that you actually know

distinctively how much money is saved from this provision?

Hon. S.

Bond: The money would be returned to the Ministry of Advanced Education. It

would remain in the line that is responsible for post-secondary institutions and

would be reallocated from there.

Section 8

approved.

section 9.

J. Kwan:

Section 9 deals with

section 51. This

section allows for the minister to have

more flexibility in applying certain parts of the Company Act. Could the

minister please advise: what is the intent with this section?

[1620]

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, this provision already exists. What this amendment does is

simply move the responsibility down from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education to sign off. We

do that to try to streamline and make the process more efficient, with certainly

a quicker turnaround time.

J. Kwan:

Sorry. The minister says this already exists. Could she direct me to the old

act, where that

section is applied?

Hon. S.

Bond: Actually, it's

section 51 of the current College and Institute Act,

and it reads: "The Company Act does not apply to an institution, but the

Lieutenant Governor in Council may declare that all or part of that Act applies

to an institution." We're simply moving that line of responsibility down

from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the Minister of Advanced Education

and the Minister of Finance.

Sections 9

to 14 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 15 makes amendments to the Institute of Technology Act, and the changes

in this act are similar to those described under the changes to the College and

Institute Act. Once again, can I assume that where the questions were asked with

respect to designating a bachelor's degree or honours degree, in terms of the

process — instead of it going to cabinet, it being delegated to the minister

— the issues around institutions applying for that authority are the same as

what we talked about earlier?

Hon. S.

Bond: That's exactly right. In essence, what we're doing is simply

streamlining the process for approval, moving it down one level again from the

Lieutenant-Governor to the minister.

Sections 15

and 16 approved.

section

D. Hayer:

I'm interested in the changes to

section 17 of the bill as it relates to

financing for the Institute of Technology. Could the minister explain in greater

detail what these changes in

section 17 will mean to the institution and how

they will help them? And will these also apply to all post-secondary

institutions?

Hon. S.

Bond: Actually,

section 17 reflects pretty much the same dialogue and

discussion that we had with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. In

essence, it walks through the same issues around not

[ Page 7363 ]

incurring a deficit and the issues that were debated earlier. In fact, it

brings into legislation current practice, and it simply says that institutions

must manage their institutions well. Again, it just brings consistency across

the entire post-secondary sector. In order to respond to the member's question:

absolutely, this will apply to the institutes. We have just dealt with that in

the College and Institute Act as well.

Sections 17

to 25 inclusive approved.

section

[1625]

J. Kwan:

Section 26 deals with amendments to the Royal Roads University Act. It appears

to me it's a small amendment, which would allow the Minister of Advanced

Education to recommend that all or a part of the Company Act may apply. Could

the minister please explain specifically what the impacts are on Royal Roads

University with this amendment?

Hon. S.

Bond: Again, we are simply creating consistency across the acts, so the

existing Royal Roads University Act in

section 3(5) says: "The Company Act

and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor

in Council may by order direct that the Company Act or the Society Act or any

provision of either applies to the university." We're simply saying that

it's no longer the requirement of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that,

but the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education can sign off

on that. So the provision already exists in legislation.

J. Kwan:

It used to say "Company Act and Society Act" that applied, and now

it's being changed to "the Company Act" only — right? Are there any

implications with respect to deleting the Society Act?

Hon. S.

Bond: Again, we're cleaning up outdated legislation in the sense that there

was no determination at that point whether it was either Company Act or Society

Act, and it's been determined that the Company Act is the one that would

apply.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says that it's outdated legislation, is she saying that the

Society Act no longer applies, so therefore it's not relevant? Or is it just the

provisions within it that are not relevant? If the anticipation is such that the

answer is that the provisions with the Society Act are no longer relevant…. My

apologies. I actually don't have the Society Act in front of me, and so I'm just

wondering what kind of provisions would no longer be relevant in this instance.

Hon. S.

Bond: Apparently, and certainly using the history of my staff, it was common

practice to use both in terms of the use of language. The best fit that would

cover all the needs for Royal Roads is inherent in the Company Act, and so

certainly that is the one that makes this provision more reflective of Royal

Roads University.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, through the Chair.

J. Kwan:

Yes, my apologies, Mr. Chair. I was trying to expedite things. Because I don't

have the Society Act in front of me, I'm just curious to know what doesn't apply

under the Society Act. Perhaps the minister can seek that advice from her staff.

Hon. S.

Bond: Royal Roads is a corporation, not a society, and there's nothing that

would be covered in the Society Act that isn't covered in the Company Act for

Royal Roads.

J. Kwan:

Will we see or will we anticipate the frustration or anxiety that arose when the

Sea to Sky University was proclaimed as a company through legislation, rather

than an institution? Will we be seeing any of those kinds of ramifications on

the repealing of this

section of the act? I'm now just going with the minister's

opinion.

Hon. S.

Bond: No, we don't expect major impact in that direction. Certainly, the

Company Act has been in place and used as a provision for a significant period

of time. We don't expect there to be a significant impact in that direction.

[1630]

Sections

26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 29 deals with the definition of the faculty member, which is being

changed to include those who are not full-time and have served less than four

months as university staff. Could the minister please tell what kind of

implications, if any, there are with this amendment?

Hon. S.

Bond: The

section actually amends the definition of faculty member to allow

more flexibility. I think it's good news in the sense that new and part-time

faculty members now will have the opportunity to serve on university boards and

senates, and that wasn't possible before. In fact, it was inconsistent with the

College and Institute Act and also the Institute of Technology Act. It means

employees, whether they're new or part-time, will have the opportunity to serve

on boards and senates.

J. Kwan:

I guess I'll ask that question when we get to

section 34, because related to it,

of course, is that under

section 34…. Well, I'll ask the question when we get

to 34 so as not to confuse things. I'm ready to go to

section 30.

[ Page 7364 ]

Section 29

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

section 30, which amends the

section to say that the Company Act may apply,

all or in part, on the recommendation of the minister. Could the minister please

advise under what circumstances she would make a recommendation to apply the

Company Act? What sections of the Company Act would be applicable for this

amendment?

Hon. S.

Bond: Certainly, our intent is not to impose the Company Act. We anticipate

that an institution would come to the Minister of Advanced Education, the

Minister of Finance, and request that the Company Act be applied, and we would

look at the individual circumstances — certainly, at the request of

institutions. It's not our intent to impose that.

Section 30

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 31 amends sections 19 and 23 and allows that students and employees

sitting on the board of governors no longer need to be full-time students or

workers. Can I take that to mean…? It further goes on to say that a person

residing outside of B.C. can now be a full member of the board. Maybe the

minister can advise: why this change, particularly with the provision that

allows for a person residing outside of B.C. to be on a board of an institution

in B.C.?

[1635]

Hon. S.

Bond:

Section 31 is certainly about the ability for boards and institutions

to look for great people to work on boards. We believe that students also…. To

this point in time if you came from outside the province, you couldn't serve on

a board. We think there are extraordinary people outside the province of British

Columbia, though the majority of them live in British Columbia. We think boards

should have the ability to look for the right people — fantastic and talented

people. This just creates more flexibility and basically removes what we believe

to be an arbitrary criterion.

J. Kwan:

The amendment, I see, does not prescribe how many people are from British

Columbia. In other words, could it be that a board could have a composition of

members all from outside of B.C., as an example?

Hon. S.

Bond: If we were to take the provision to its utmost, I suppose,

technically, you could end up with that circumstance. But I'm totally confident

that wouldn't happen. I should point out that in essence, we are responding to a

request from the institutions, which asked us to consider this provision. Mainly

they were concerned about students — that part-time students and students, in

particular, from outside the province were not given that opportunity. So

really, institutions came to us and said, "Would you consider this?"

and we are responding in a positive way to their request.

J. Kwan:

Is there anticipation for an outside appointment — that is, people outside

of B.C. — to facilitate bringing in financial support to the institution? Is

that the main thrust behind it?

Hon. S.

Bond: No. Certainly, that's not the major intent. I think the principle

behind it is simply that we want our institutions to be governed by

extraordinary people, and they are. If there is a case where there is someone

with incredible expertise in a particular field, we want institutions to have

the ability to involve that person in our institution in this province, and we

think that's a good idea.

Sections 31

to 33 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 34 amends

section 35(2) of the old act. The students sitting on the

university senate do not have to be full-time students, and the senate is losing

its requirement to have an additional four members appointed by cabinet. Why

this change and, particularly, the addition of four members to be appointed by

cabinet?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, we're removing the role of cabinet in appointing members of

senate. We believe that institutions should be able to do that, so in fact we're

allowing institutions to make those decisions, and cabinet will not be involved

in that process.

J. Kwan:

So the composition of the number of people would stay the same. Or would you

lose four people also?

Hon. S.

Bond: In the case of both senates and foundations, typically cabinet would

make their decision based on recommendations by the institutions in the first

place. So in fact, what we're doing is leaving the composition as it exists,

giving institutions the autonomy to make those choices and removing cabinet from

the process.

[1640]

Sections 34

and 35 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

I just want to ask a quick question here, and I think the answer I

anticipate is similar to the one that the minister gave earlier, and that is

about the composition of the amendments to the University Foundations Act. Once

again, it's the process around the appointment that's being changed, and that is

that the foundation would be able to make their appointments, but the

composition remains the same.

Hon. S.

Bond: That's correct.

[ Page 7365 ]

Sections 36

to 39 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Same question to

section 40. That is the University of Victoria Foundation Act.

I just want to double-check.

Hon. S.

Bond: It's exactly the same.

Sections 40

to 45 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 35,

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I call committee stage on Bill 70.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION

REPEAL ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:43 p.m.

Sections 1

to 70 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

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

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 70,

Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I call a five-minute recess.

Mr.

Speaker: The House will recess for five minutes.

The House

recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I call committee stage on Bill 65.

Committee of the Whole House

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BYLAW NOTICE

ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 65; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:51 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

As I raised at second reading, the opposition does have some specific concerns

with this bill that I wish to explore in committee.

The

creation of a system to allow municipalities to more efficiently resolve bylaw

infractions could be a good thing, but not if it comes at the expense of

increased costs for municipalities and, of course, at the cost of due process.

The act,

section 1, deals with the positions of adjudicator, bylaw enforcement

officer and screening officer, and those titles are defined. How would these

three positions function under this new system?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm sorry, I didn't catch all three of the positions. The

adjudicator, the screening officer and the bylaw enforcement officer — were

those the three, and how do they function? Just hang on a second.

The

bylaw enforcement officer is very similar to the position that exists now where

someone issues a ticket. The screening officer is a new position, although there

is an analogue to existing positions, I'm sure, in most medium and large

municipalities — somebody who is employed to act as a bit of a quality control

person to make sure the parking meter is working. If someone sends in a letter

and says you really shouldn't ticket me for this day because the parking meter

wasn't working, then that would be someone who could do a bit of that. The

screening officer here will have a slightly more expanded role in terms of

entering into compliance agreements.

The third

category of officials is the adjudicator. The adjudicator means exactly what it

says in

section 1, "a person appointed under

section 15," which is the

dispute adjudicators provision. The people appointed under

section 15 will be

appointed to adjudicate disputes with respect to the enforcement of bylaws.

J. Kwan:

What would their counterparts be under the current court-based system? The

adjudicator, I pre-

[ Page 7366 ]

sume, would be like the judge, the enforcement officer would be the

enforcement officer, and the screening officer would be….

[1655]

Hon. G.

Plant: This is a new system, and I've already explained it. The bylaw

enforcement officer is a little bit like the person who issues the ticket now.

The adjudicator would, in most cases, be a Provincial Court judge or a judicial

justice of the peace hearing an enforcement matter. The screening officer is a

new position — at least, it's a statutory position — but I suspect that most

cities have somebody that works in their bylaw enforcement department who

currently acts in a way as a bit of a quality assurance person. The screening

officer function is described in more detail in

section 10, I think, of the

bill.

J. Kwan:

While I flip to

section 10, perhaps the minister could tell this House what

qualifications the screening officer will need.

Hon. G.

Plant: None are provided for in the bill.

J. Kwan:

Section 10, "Screening officer," actually talks about what the

screening officer is able to do or not do — cancel the notice, etc., — but

the minister actually said the screening officer would be some sort of quality

control or quality assurance person. When he refers to this notion of quality

assurance, what is he referring to?

Hon. G.

Plant: I already gave an example. I was referring, in the context of the

existing regime, to where sometimes a ticket is issued for a reason it ought not

to have been. I am sure there are times and places where somebody writes a

letter to the municipality and says, "I got a parking ticket for this, and

you really shouldn't have issued the parking ticket because the parking meter

wasn't working," and there is somebody in city hall who goes and checks and

finds out that the parking meter wasn't working that day and has the ability to

recommend that the ticket be cancelled.

That is a

function that probably exists now. In terms of the new regime,

section 10 of the

bill is the first provision — there are a couple of others that are relevant

— that says what the new position of screening officer is all about. I would

commend those provisions to the member for an understanding of the role of the

screening officer.

J. Kwan:

That's extremely helpful of the Attorney General, with his answer in terms of

referring the opposition to various sections of the act. We'll get to those

sections of the act and will ask those specific questions accordingly.

What are

the possible prescribed bodies under the definition of "local

government"?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think this definition may be similar to the definition of local

government in the Local Government Act. It certainly would be intended to be a

body that was a local government–like body.

J. Kwan:

Would that include, for example, Nisga'a?

Hon. G.

Plant: I believe it could.

J. Kwan:

The minister's answer is: "I believe it could."

Would these

prescribed bodies, municipalities or regional districts, etc., be required to

implement this act?

[1700]

Hon. G.

Plant: At the moment, no, but eventually they may be. As the member knows,

one of the things we're doing at this point is working on the terms of a pilot

project with the three municipalities in the North Shore of Vancouver to make

sure this model is workable and efficient and affordable. I am confident that we

will learn from that pilot project that this model will work, but we have a

little more work to do yet before that happens.

I think

that, in fact, this act has a special provision, or a somewhat unusual

provision, in

section 29 that allows the act to be phased in. That provision

expressly contemplates the possibility that the act will apply to different

local governments at different times, because we are contemplating that this

scheme will be phased in rather than imposed provincewide all at once.

J. Kwan:

So in other words, a municipality or a board of a regional district or a

prescribed body could opt not to move to this new system as the legislation

stands now?

Hon. G.

Plant: No, the reverse, as I said.

J. Kwan:

In other words, then, what the minister will do at some point…. Even if

municipalities do not want to exercise the authority under this act, they'd be

forced to do so at some point in time?

Hon. G.

Plant: Not necessarily. The act is designed to be empowering and enabling,

if you will, and so that's why there's a

section —

section 29 — that allows

for the act to be phased in. If the scheme works and can be made to work for all

municipal governments, then it is possible that at some point the act will apply

to all local governments in British Columbia. That's not a sure thing at this

point.

J. Kwan:

You can't have it both ways. When the question, "Could a municipality,

a regional district or a prescribed body opt out of this new system?" was

asked, the minister said: "No, the opposite is true." So that means

that all municipalities, regional bodies or prescribed bodies at some point in

time would have to buy in per

section 29, which doesn't actually specify when

exactly. It simply says "applying this act to different local governments

at different times." That's

[ Page 7367 ]

what it says. If municipalities cannot opt out, that means they will be

forced into the system at some point in time. Isn't that true?

Hon. G.

Plant: I suppose it's possible that there may be some municipalities that

might want to opt out at some point. At the moment what we'r