2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Pets in Rental Housing Act (Bill M202)

J. Kwan

Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203)

J. Kwan

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Holocaust remembrance

V. Anderson

Ethanol industry in B.C.

B. Lekstrom

Esquimalt Neighbourhood House

A. Hamilton

Oral Questions

Funding for inner-city schools

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Abbott

Mental health plan funding

I. Chong

Hon. G. Cheema

Mountain pine beetle action plan

P. Bell

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

W. Cobb

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 22)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. MacPhail

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 25)

Hon. J. Reid

J. MacPhail

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 24)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Gaming Control Act (Bill 6)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

M. Hunter

L. Mayencourt

Reporting of Bills

Gaming Control Act (Bill 6)

Third Reading of Bills

Gaming Control Act (Bill 6)

Hon. R. Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 18)

Hon. C. Hansen

Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 19)

Hon. S. Hawkins

J. MacPhail

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Hon. L. Reid

[ Page 2667 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Collins: I hope the House will bear with me for a moment. I have a number of

introductions on behalf of the government and then a comment I'd like to make

today as well.

[1405]

It gives me

great pleasure to introduce Mr. Tan Kee Yong, chief executive of the Singapore

Land Authority, and his delegation. They're visiting British Columbia to gain

insight into our experiences and legal approaches to land titles, strata

property and land use. They're meeting with officials from the Ministry of

Finance, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of

Transportation. Would the House please make them most welcome.

As well, I

have the honour to introduce to the House the Rt. Hon. Lord George Penrose and

Lady Penrose. Lord Penrose is visiting us from Scotland, where he sits as a

member of the High Court and is currently heading a British government inquiry

into the near-collapse of the British life assurer Equitable Life. Lord and Lady

Penrose are in British Columbia to celebrate the birth of their grandson, Scott

George Brown, who was born to their daughter Susan Brown and her husband, Mark,

in Vancouver. I hope the House would also make them very welcome.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure to introduce a number of veterans with

us today in the gallery: Jack Cockrell, a World War II veteran; Russ Murphy, who

served in Korea; Charlie Watkins, World War II; Alan Wardell, World War II;

Gordie Quan, who served in Burma and India and was a World War II demolitions

expert; Ms. Nita Walsh, World War II, served in England; Boots Gree — I doubt

his parents named him that — who served in the navy in World War II; Bob

Burrows, a World War II veteran; Vic Mumford, Korea; and Denis Young, a World

War II veteran as well.

I want to

introduce them and welcome them here today, because today is a special day in

Canadian history. Today is the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I

have a few comments I'd like to make on behalf of the government as well.

Mr.

Speaker, 85 years ago today a force of 100,000 Canadian troops set out under a

creeping barrage of artillery through a no man's land of barbed wire, craters

and death at a place called Vimy Ridge. They faced down their fears, and by

stepping onto the battlefield, they stepped onto the pages of history. The

Canadians defeated an entrenched German enemy that had believed the ridge was

impregnable.

The Battle

of Vimy Ridge was a pivotal turning point in World War I and turned the momentum

in favour of the allies. For Canada it was much more than a battlefield victory.

The world learned that Canadians were a cohesive, courageous and determined

people, capable of great innovation, unencumbered by class distinction, and

ready and able to take their place among nations.

The great

innovator at Vimy Ridge was Major General Arthur Currie. In the words of one

historian, he was "plucked from obscurity by the onrush of history."

Prior to the war, Currie was a struggling real estate and insurance broker from

right here in Victoria. He rose in rank and prominence based on his merits and

for his uncompromising stance to neglect nothing in the preparation for battle.

He went on to lead the entire Canadian corps.

Currie was

joined by 8,000 other British Columbia troops at Vimy Ridge. Their presence was

bolstered by the battlefield presence of non-combatant personnel such as nurses,

doctors and chaplains. Battalions representing British Columbia include the 7th

and 16th Battalions of the Canadian Scottish; the 47th Battalion and the 29th

Battalion, known as Tobin's Tigers, from Vancouver; the 54th Battalion from the

Kootenays; the 72nd Battalion, the Seaforth Highlanders, from Vancouver; and the

102nd Battalion, known as Warden's Warriors, from northern British Columbia.

Many of

these men returned home to a dynamic emerging nation across the Atlantic from

war-torn Europe. And many stayed behind, their names etched in limestone at the

base of Canada's great monument at Vimy Ridge.

I thank the

veterans in the gallery for joining us today to honour this occasion, and I

would ask all hon. members to take a moment sometime today to remember the

Canadians who fought on our behalf at Vimy Ridge 85 years ago.

[1410]

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two special

visitors from Richmond: Leonard and Joyce Lewis. Leonard and Joyce have been in

Canada for nine years now. This is their first visit to Victoria and their first

visit to the Legislature. Will the House please make them welcome.

Anderson: I ask the House to join me in welcoming Susan Bluman. She is the

grandmother of Mike, our LA, whom most of you know. She's here today as a part

of our Holocaust remembrance. Susan Bluman is a survivor. Along with her are two

other survivors, Sidi Schaeffer and David Schaeffer. Accompanying these folks

are Leona Beutel, Josh Beutel, Robert Goldschmid and Richard Kool. Will the

House please make them welcome.

R. Lee:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. George Bluman in the gallery today.

Dr. Bluman is the head of the department of mathematics at the University of

British Columbia. He was my thesis supervisor and my professor at UBC. He is

also the uncle of our legislative assistant, Mike Schroeder, and the son of Mrs.

Susan Bluman, who was just introduced by my

[ Page 2668 ]

colleague from Vancouver-Langara. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hamilton: It's my pleasure to introduce Julie, who sits up in the balcony.

Julie is the executive director of the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House. Would the

House please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PETS IN RENTAL HOUSING ACT

J. Kwan

presented a bill intituled Pets in Rental Housing Act.

J. Kwan:

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

Motion

approved.

J. Kwan:

People live healthier and happier lives with pets. Studies have proven that

seniors live longer and fuller lives with pets. This bill acknowledges that

currently pet owners in British Columbia are discriminated against in their

search for rental housing. It provides B.C. renters the opportunity to have pets

in rental premises within reasonable limits. The bill allows landlords to remove

pets if the animal is noisy, aggressive, destructive or flea-ridden. Landlords

also do not have to admit dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls or bull terriers.

However, it should also mean that responsible pet owners are not judged guilty

and denied housing before they have the opportunity to prove otherwise.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill M202

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

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

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT

REMUNERATION ALLOWANCES

AND PERQUISITES ACT

J. Kwan

presented a bill intituled Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and

Perquisites Act.

J. Kwan:

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

Motion

approved.

J. Kwan:

This act will bring a greater degree of accountability and openness to the

process that determines what we pay those government employees who serve at the

pleasure of the executive council. Too often politicians seek to justify only

after the fact what they have done behind closed doors. Too often, when it comes

to personnel matters, the public and indeed the rank and file of the public

service are the last to know how salaries and benefits of the most senior

members of the public service are determined. This bill will open that process

up to a tripartite committee that will include a member of the public to ensure

that British Columbians are confident in the job that senior managers are doing

and that they're being paid adequately and appropriately for their performance.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill M203

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

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

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

Anderson: Today we participate in the annual legislative recognition of

Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah. Yom ha-Shoah is recognized internationally

as a day of reflection and commemoration of the six million innocent Jewish

children, women and men whose lives were inexcusably cut short between 1933 and

1945 in a planned undertaking to exterminate a people.

For years

after the Second World War there was little or no discussion of this

catastrophe. Yet, as time passed, it was clear that in our failure to remember,

we risked repeating these events in later years. With great difficulty and

courage, the survivors of the Holocaust were encouraged to tell their stories

for the benefit of future generations. We thank them for sharing with us these

extremely difficult experiences.

The

Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Remembrance and Education, in my

constituency of Vancouver-Langara at 41st and Oak, was opened November 1994 for

education and remembrance. The centre is dedicated to speaking and spreading the

truth about the past and breaking down the walls of prejudice and intolerance

for present and future generations.

The

centre's many programs, like the Gesher project's "Images of the

Holocaust," contribute important new perspectives on the Holocaust's

devastating impact on survivors and their children. Yet, at the same time, the

Gesher project's moving exhibition of artwork from first- and second-generation

survivors is irrefutable evidence of the resilience of the community and its

commitment to ensure that the Holocaust and its lessons are never forgotten.

Hundreds of

people of all ages and backgrounds visit the centre throughout the year. Classes

of school children are often given the opportunity to hear from survivors who,

as children themselves, faced the murder of family and imprisonment at Nazi

camps.

[ Page 2669 ]

It is our

privilege to have come to share with these survivors and have them share with us

this day. Let us, in our own prayerful silence, remember and appreciate these

folks and share with them a rededication to build a world where there is peace

and respect for all. Thank you.

ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Lekstrom: Renewable fuel ethanol is an opportunity for British Columbia. Not

many people know that Henry Ford built the first Model-T to run on pure ethanol.

Production of ethanol creates new permanent jobs in British Columbia, which will

benefit all of us in the future as we strive to improve our economy and

diversify our industries in our province today.

Ethanol

reduces greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air and water pollution and, as well,

will not contaminate our groundwater. Ethanol eliminates the need for the use of

MTBE and MMT at our refineries.

Canada, the

United States and the European Union are all moving to adopt mandatory renewable

fuel standards. As well, British Columbia will be there in the future. There are

now 61 producing ethanol plants in the United States, with another 13 under

construction. Of these 74 plants, 33 are owned by farmer cooperatives. In the

United States, with all of these plants including the new ones coming on line,

the production will be over 10 billion litres a year, twice the annual gasoline

consumption in British Columbia.

British

Columbia is now the only province west of the Maritimes that does not have a

producing ethanol plant. In Dawson Creek, on Saturday, April 27, 2002, I wish to

invite all of my colleagues to attend a conference called An Ethanol Industry

Opportunity for Your Community. This event is being sponsored by the Peace River

regional district and presented by Bill Vanderland, president of EnerGreen Power

Inc.

I'm pleased

to announce that my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy and Mines, Richard

Neufeld, will be the keynote luncheon speaker at this event. This event will

also feature expert ethanol speakers from the oil industry, agriculture and

government. We invite you to hear how British Columbia–developed technology

will convert incinerated forest residues into valuable products. These products

include specialty sugars like xylitol for food and lignosulphonate for concrete

and electricity.

[1420]

I would

encourage all of my colleagues, if the possibility is there for them, to attend

and learn what we can do to diversify and enhance our industry in British

Columbia.

ESQUIMALT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Hamilton: The town of Esquimalt has many strengths: a strong sense of

community, a tradition of helping one another and working hard. However, we also

have some families and individuals who need occasional support and encouragement

to help them overcome difficult times and work towards making a number of

positive changes in their lives, such as finding work, being good parents,

having healthy babies or staying in school.

This

afternoon I would like to speak about Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, which has

worked in our community for over 25 years, offering a continuum of integrated

services and mobilized resources that promote health, education, employment,

well-being and positive social change. People come to Esquimalt Neighbourhood

House because it is a warm, welcoming, non-judgmental environment where they can

get information or resources or participate in the many activities that support

healthy families and individuals.

Much of

Esquimalt Neighbourhood House's funding comes from the provincial government.

However, this is augmented through fundraising, enterprise and sponsorships. The

programs provided actually save money in the long term by helping people get

back to work, keeping kids out of ministry care, helping students stay in school

and out of the criminal justice system, and supporting families through

difficult times before they become crises. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House also

helps people develop their own supportive networks in the community, leading to

independence from formalized programs.

Among the

many services that Esquimalt Neighbourhood House offers are the following. They

provide Best Babies nutritional and life skills counselling, services for young

moms and their babies, preschool parent-child drop-in support and parenting

skills. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House offers counselling for preteens, teens and

their families for individuals who cannot afford regular counselling services.

They have youth and family counsellors at four local schools, employment and

pre-employment training programs, a job search centre and a computer lab to

assist those searching for work. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House also offers the

community low-cost clothing and household goods and volunteer opportunities

through their thrift shop.

These are

just a few examples of the great community service that Esquimalt Neighbourhood

House offers. Again, I recognize Julie Holder, the board, the staff and the

volunteers for their dedication.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard seeks the floor.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an announcement.

Leave

granted.

Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, it seems that during the introductions we've

neglected to do something very important. We want to extend our very warm wishes

to the Minister of State for Community Charter on the occasion of his birthday.

Thank you very much for joining me in that.

[ Page 2670 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR INNER-CITY SCHOOLS

J. Kwan:

The Ministry of Children and Family Development has received the report of

the committee appointed to develop a funding formula for programs that serve

at-risk children in the 110 inner-city schools across the province. The

committee recommended that the current level of funding be maintained and

guaranteed for three years. That was two weeks ago.

To the

Minister of Children and Family Development: does he agree with this

recommendation, and when can we expect the report to be released?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The terms of reference of the report that was received were to look at

the socioeconomic modelling that exists across the province for the provision of

services to those children in schools who may need socioeconomic support. It did

not make recommendations with respect to funding to inner-city schools at all.

That was not part of the terms of reference. It did just look at if the

modelling were to remain the same, if the service were to remain the same, if

the dollars were to remain the same, how they would best be distributed,

consistent with updated information around the socioeconomic needs. It was not a

report on recommending the services for this year or in future years.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The Vancouver school board is meeting tonight to determine how it will deal

with a $25.5 million shortfall. It will be looking at the demand from the

Ministry of Children and Family Development that it cut programs for inner-city

school funding.

[1425]

Schools

such as Lord Roberts Elementary in Vancouver are already overcrowded. Children

are forced to share their education space with adult strangers. Facilities are

old and insufficient for the number of students. Parents are stressed. Teachers

are stressed. Children are stressed. Inner-city school programs are not a

luxury; they are a necessity if we provide all children with equal access to

education.

Can the

minister assure us that children who need early literacy, early intervention and

prevention programs, and families who need translation, multicultural workers

and outreach workers will not be abandoned to budget cuts?

Hon. G.

Hogg: In fact, this government has made a large commitment to early

childhood development as it expanded the funding to early childhood development

specifically because of that drive and that need.

This

government recognizes and appreciates the information and work that has been

done by researchers around this world — from Fraser Mustard, who's been a

consultant to this government, to Clyde Hertzman and the work that he's done

locally. This government has looked at, is managing and is focusing on the

recognition that those early childhood years are the most important years in

terms of learning. A focus of energy and support in that area will ensure that

we have children better prepared to attend school, better prepared for support

at school and better prepared to learn. That's the focus that this government is

taking, using evidence-based research to put funds where they're most effective

at driving the services and needs of children across this province.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The inner-city school funding has proven to be effective. Parents are

calling for this government to reinstate the $5.4 million that they have cut.

Today workers at the Richmond Youth Service Agency are to be told that their

contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development will be

discontinued at the end of June. This agency has been providing necessary

services to some 500 elementary school–age children over 12. Their contract

was to extend to March 2003 — yet again, another broken contract. The Richmond

Youth Service Agency helps children deal with social, emotional or behavioral

challenges, real challenges that affect their ability to learn.

Will the

minister now accept his challenge? Will he stand up today for the children faced

with these cuts and call on his government, his own colleagues, to ensure that

the funding is in place for this agency?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This government is going through a review of some 15,000 contracts and

is reviewing those based on a set of principles that look at and address

evidence-based research that suggests what is the most effective way of

providing services to children across this province.

This

government does not want to provide programs for programs' sake. We want to

provide programs for people's sake, programs that make a difference in terms of

the lives of the children that we're dealing with. That is the focus that we're

taking. That is the direction we're going in. That is what the people of this

province expect and will receive.

We are

committed to providing quality programs for children and families across this

province, and that's exactly what this government will be doing.

EFFECTIVENESS OF REFERENDUM

ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Aboriginal Services said that the

signature requirement for the referendum is covered under the Recall and

Initiative Act. Today he knows that he's wrong. Under the Recall Act, signatures

must be witnessed by a registered canvasser. In this referendum there's no such

requirement, opening up the process to forgery and abuse. Never before have

ballots been treated like junk mail. British

[ Page 2671 ]

Columbians are paying millions for a deeply flawed election process that

would not meet the test of fairness in Florida.

Will the

Minister of Aboriginal Services stand up and admit that this referendum is so

bungled that whatever the results and no matter how many ballots are returned,

it's essentially a meaningless waste of millions of dollars?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Abbott: First of all, I've got to say that it's a huge relief to see that at

least one of four million British Columbians is still reading David Schreck's

website, where one gains these absolutely fabulous insights into the psyche of

British Columbians.

[1430]

The fact of

the matter is — unlike the New Democratic Party, apparently — we don't

believe that British Columbians set out to manipulate, cheat and distort. They

just want to have their views expressed.

If the hon.

member has allegations of fraud or forgery she'd like to make, go ahead and make

them. Clearly, what we are offering in British Columbia for the first time is an

opportunity for British Columbians to state their views on principles which

should guide us in that very important process of treaty-making.

That

government had ten years to make the process work. It was a dismal failure; it

was half a billion dollars and no treaties. We're going to turn that around, and

we're going to turn it around on the goodwill and common sense of British

Columbians.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I note that the Minister of Aboriginal Services did not answer my

question and continues to misunderstand the law that applies.

The fact of

the matter is that this referendum process is open to abuse. Yes, that is

exactly the allegation. Today we heard from letter carriers who are telling us

that hundreds of ballots are being returned because Elections B.C. data has

errors and addresses are now outdated. Thousands of people haven't received

their ballots, and thousands more have received ballots that aren't theirs.

Particularly British Columbians in neighbourhoods where there's a high turnover

in occupancy have been disenfranchised by this process.

Again, to

the Minister of Aboriginal Services: how can British Columbians have any

confidence in the process where thousands of British Columbians are receiving

ballots that don't belong to them?

Hon. G.

Abbott: If I was forced to take my chances with either David Schreck or

Elections B.C., I'll take my chances every time with Elections B.C.

If there

are concerns with respect to the process or specific ballots, they should be

forwarded via the 1-800 number or any other mechanism to Elections B.C. to

ensure that this is conducted properly.

Again, to

go back to the point, why do these two members assume that British Columbians

would set out to manipulate, distort, cheat and frustrate a system that has been

put in place so we can canvass the people of British Columbia about the treaty

process? We want the opinion of the people of British Columbia on the treaty

process. We're going to get it. And notwithstanding the suggestions of the

members opposite, it is going to be a fair process, and it's going to be an

opportunity to celebrate democracy again in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

has the floor.

MENTAL HEALTH PLAN FUNDING

Chong: Last Thursday during the estimates debate for the Ministry of Health

Services, the Leader of the Opposition said the NDP had funded the mental health

plan. However, during their term in office mental health advocacy associations

were very specific in voicing their displeasure at the fact that the last

government failed to fund the mental health plan.

Can the

Minister of State for Mental Health clear up the confusion and outline what

funding has been directed by this government to the mental health plan?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The $125 million plan is designed to increase the community services

for people who have serious and persistent mental illness.

In 1998 and

1999 about $10 million was spent on the plan. From 1999 to 2001 there was no

allocation by the NDP government for the mental health plan — none. There was

zero allocation.

[1435]

In 2001-02

we've funded over $15 million towards the mental health plan. In this year's

budget we have invested over $17 million more as part of our commitment to the

mental health plan. We have also committed an additional $138 million over the

next five years for the capital projects. This is a total commitment of $263

million for the mental health plan.

Chong: The opposition has also claimed that while they were in government,

they increased funding for adult mental health. Again, can the Minister of State

for Mental Health tell us if those dollars were directed towards the mental

health plan?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Any funding increase during the past year was primarily due to the

wage compensation increases, population and demographic increases, and

inflation. Let's be very clear. There was no money for the mental health plan by

the NDP. They did not bene-

[ Page 2672 ]

fit the patient, no matter how hard the leader of the NDP wishes they did.

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE ACTION PLAN

P. Bell:

The mountain pine beetle epidemic in the northern interior of the province has

been growing exponentially over the past few years. Currently, there's an

estimated 70 million cubic metres infested, and it's estimated that this year's

flight could add an additional 100 million cubic metres to that.

Can the

Minister of Forests give us an indication of the progress of the action plan

from this past winter?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member will know, because he participated in the process last

fall, that we took data and a number of recommendations from a panel of MLAs and

a technical group headed by R&S Rogers into an action plan to attempt to

better combat the pine beetle infestation.

Those

recommendations that were acted upon included the appointment of a beetle

management coordinator — the beetle boss, as he's become known; the

designation of special emergency management zones; amendments to the Forest

Practices Code regulations to deal with an expedited processing procedure that

would allow us to get at infested wood more quickly; and, also, encouraging the

purchase of infested woods by processors from smaller entities like woodlot

licensees.

The report

is positive in this sense. I think we enjoyed good success in directing the

harvest of infested wood. The vast majority of the wood harvested was

beetle-infested wood. The bad news is the weather did not cooperate, and the

infestation has continued to spread. That poses an ongoing, serious dilemma for

us and is something we're going to pursue as we move forward in the weeks and

months ahead.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George North has a supplementary question.

P. Bell:

Clearly, as the minister indicated, with the warmth of this past winter the

mountain pine beetle epidemic is going to worsen. I'm wondering if the minister

can give us an indication of what his intentions are as we move forward and what

further steps we can take.

Hon. M.

de Jong: One of the assurances we gave the stakeholders in that part of the

province most directly impacted was that at breakup at the beginning of May of

this year, we'd come back and do a detailed assessment of what parts of the

action plan worked, what didn't, where the results were positive and where they

weren't. We're going to follow through on that in the first week in May in the

Prince George area.

Beyond

that, I think we need to follow through on some proposals around the possibility

of summer haul of infested wood. I think we need to continue to pursue with the

federal government sources for funding for things like research. There are

notions for log storage that I think could be of assistance.

The bottom

line is this: the infestation, sadly, is continuing to spread at an alarming

rate. There are untold millions, possibly billions of dollars in timber value

that are put at risk. The challenge is still there for us.

[End

of question period.]

W. Cobb:

I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

W. Cobb:

I would like to present a petition I received from the recreation society in my

riding.

Collectively,

they received 169 signatures from Cariboo South constituents. The petition urges

the B.C. government to reconsider the closure of Trumpeter Mountain to

snowmobilers.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

I rise to table a petition. I have a petition here with 57 names, calling on the

government to continue its support for inner-city school funding that provides

money for early literacy and prevention programs, in-school counsellors,

academic support and resources, recreation programs, multicultural workers and

translators, early intervention initiatives and outreach support to families.

These 57 names are added to the earlier petition that I tabled, which contained

523 names, bringing it to a total of 580.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members we'll be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 22.

Second Reading of Bills

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. S.

Hagen: It is my pleasure to address the principle of the bill that proposes

amendments to the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, the Forest Practices Code

of British Columbia Act and the Water Act, which are consistent with the

government's new-era commitments and its focus on red-tape reduction and

elimination of burdensome legislative requirements. The bill also underscores

government's goal of reducing expenditures and bolstering the economy while

simultaneously continuing protection of the province's resources.

The

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act establishes a management framework for 6.3

million hectares of wilderness land in northeastern British Columbia

[ Page 2673 ]

that was identified for protection and special management for the Fort St.

John, Fort Nelson and Mackenzie land and resource management plans. The act

established an approval process for the planning and management of Crown land

and natural resources in the management area with shared approval of

responsibilities amongst officials within the resource ministries. With

responsibility for land use planning now residing in this ministry, there is no

need for one minister or designated ministry official to be involved in

approvals.

The act

amendments, along with the minor amendments to the Forest Practices Code of

British Columbia Act in this bill, streamline the approval process for the

Muskwa-Kechika, giving the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management the sole

responsibility for enacting landscaping unit objectives, oil and gas pre-tenure

plans and recreation plans. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will

have sole responsibility for park management plans and wildlife management

plans.

Advising on

natural resource management in the Muskwa-Kechika management area is a very

capable and dedicated group of volunteers who comprise the Muskwa-Kechika

Advisory Board. The board is headed by a chair who, like the other members of

the board, contributes considerable free time to the work of the board. Although

the original intent was that the board members not be paid, it is now clear that

the duties of the board are such that the chair is required to expend a very

significant amount of time on board functions. For that, it was decided that the

chair should be remunerated. The legislation will reflect that the chair can be

paid for the important and time-consuming work done respecting board functions

and management.

[1445]

From a

financial perspective, the government makes a significant contribution to the

Muskwa-Kechika trust fund each year. The act establishes a two-part trust fund.

One component is the general account out of which the trustee — the minister

— may make expenditures regarding research, mapping, training, advisory board

expenses, administration and staffing. Bequests and contributions and

fundraising revenue are deposited to the general account unless the gift of

appropriation specifies otherwise.

The second

component of the trust fund is the project account, from which the trustee may

specifically make payments for the purpose of a project but not for

administration, travel or services related to the operation of the trust fund or

of the advisory board. The project account accepts donations from third parties

wishing to contribute directly to the achievement of the M-K management

objectives. Third-party contributions are matched by the government up to a

certain amount. Government is currently legislated to top up the general account

of the trust fund to restore the balance to $3 million each year.

In times of

fiscal restraint those are high costs. Core review direction determined that a

smaller contribution to the trust fund can be made while still ensuring that the

important planning and research tasks continue. This bill reduces the required

annual funding provided to the general account of the trust fund by $2 million,

resulting in an annual appropriation of $1 million. However, the legislation

also makes it clear that there is an opportunity for government to pay more than

the required $1 million when and if it can do so.

This bill

also emphasizes government's commitment to establish funding partnerships with

the private sector and foundations. At present, government is only able to match

third-party contributions to the project account of the trust fund up to a

maximum of $400,000. This bill increases the incentive for more partners to

commit funds directly to the MK trust fund by increasing the amount from

$400,000 to $1 million that government will be required to match. These

financial changes ensure that the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund will continue to

have sufficient resources to fund the necessary planning, research and

conservation work required to manage and sensitively develop this magnificent

area.

The

Muskwa-Kechika management area is one of the most impressive wilderness areas in

North America — and in the world. It is rich in wildlife, mature and

old-growth forests, spectacular geology formations, lakes, rivers and streams,

waterfalls and hot springs, rolling subalpine and alpine areas. It is also rich

in natural resources, with outstanding subsurface resource values including

extensive oil and gas potential. These resources are critically important to the

northern economy and also to the health of the provincial economy. The

Muskwa-Kechika management area also has tremendous cultural and heritage

significance to first nations, who continue their traditional use of this land,

known as Dena Keyih by the Kaska Dena people, for hunting, gathering and

fishing.

The

proposed amendments to the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act demonstrate this

government's continued commitment to the values of northern British Columbia and

particularly to the special management of the Muskwa-Kechika area.

Now turning

our attention to the proposed Water Act amendments, one of the tenets of this

government is that a number of regulatory processes now in place require

streamlining and greater efficiency. Our new-era vision included reducing

government cost through increasing efficiencies, reducing red tape and the

regulatory burden, and providing for faster approvals respecting access to Crown

resources. This bill strives to achieve all of these. While we certainly have an

obligation to protect our precious water supplies and ensure that they are

utilized as efficiently and respectfully as possible, we also have an obligation

to those who need convenient access to water to carry on their day-to-day

business operations.

The

proposal of the amendments are threefold. First, it establishes more flexible

notification procedures for licensing decisions. Second, it introduces a

de-permitting system for the short-term use of water in appropriate

circumstances. Finally, it ensures that employees of Land and Water British

Columbia continue to have valid authority in legislation.

[ Page 2674 ]

In order to

make notification procedures more flexible, the bill accelerates access to water

resources by streamlining processing time for many applications, reducing

turnaround time and making the decision-making process more responsive to

clients' needs and circumstances. It also provides for reducing operational

expenditures for government and reducing the regulatory burden and costs borne

by clients.

[1450]

The act

currently provides that water licences can be amended in a variety of ways, such

as by transferring the place of use to another parcel of land. For various types

of amendments, when the licence is amended, the act requires notice be given,

but these notice requirements vary according to the type of amendment. Some are

very time-consuming or excessively thorough. Others are overly prescriptive

about how notice must be provided. Further, there is little, if any, rationale

for the variability of these requirements. In short, they constrain the

decision-maker from exercising discretion as to when notice is warranted and

what is appropriate in the circumstances.

Government

also has the authority to cancel or suspend licences. Currently, when a licence

is to be cancelled, notice of the proposed cancellation must be sent by

registered mail or published in a newspaper each week for four consecutive

weeks. We are changing that so that there is no longer a requirement that the

mail be registered, and we are reducing the publication period from four weeks

to three weeks. This provides adequate opportunity for those affected or those

who have indicated an interest in the licence to respond.

Ultimately,

officials will have greater flexibility while still having the responsibility to

ensure that people's rights are protected. We are therefore amending this act to

allow for this discretionary judgment regarding notification requirements. This

will improve flexibility and provide operational efficiency without jeopardizing

the rights of others.

Next, the

bill provides for significant reductions in red tape for short-term users of

water. As noted above, under the Water Act the property in and right to use

water in a stream is vested in the government. In turn, government issues water

licences to allocate specific amounts of water to persons who wish to divert and

make beneficial use of it on an ongoing basis for domestic, agricultural,

industrial and other purposes. Those intending to use water on a short-term

basis, a period of 12 months or less, apply for written approval rather than a

licence from the appropriate officials.

The current

statutory process for issuing approvals for short-term use of water is

time-consuming and seasonally intense, during the spring particularly. Regional

offices are often preoccupied with other pressures at that time — for example,

pesticide permits in freshet — and yet must deal with the applications on an

urgent and case-by-case basis. Delays can impede businesses such as road

maintenance contractors, who require water on a temporary basis for various

activities including bridge washing and dust control.

As well,

the current statutory process requires that each applicant pay the required

approval fee to the appropriate regional office. The cumulative application

charges can be significant to small businesses, particularly those with

wide-ranging operations such as highway maintenance.

Currently,

the Water Act does not authorize the making of regulations relating to approvals

for short-term use. This bill will add that regulation-making authority. New

regulations would then permit the short-term diversion or use of water without

written approval, provided the use or diversion was undertaken in the prescribed

manner for specified sources. Any diversion or use not in accordance with the

regulations would still require written approval. In cases where approval is not

required, there would still be a requirement to notify the regional water

manager to provide contact information and pay rental fees for one year. As

noted earlier, however, the approval fees would not apply.

The

proposed regulations will only apply where short-term withdrawals would have no

negative impact on existing water users or in-stream needs. In other cases, a

written approval would still be required, and the approval fee as well as the

rental fee would be charged.

Enforcement

will involve monitoring records on a random-audit basis, issuing tickets for

offences and responding to complaints. Offences will include failure to comply

with the proposed regulation governing short-term water use. A detailed

compliance strategy will be prepared as part of the implementation plan for

these amendments.

1999-2000, approvals for short-term use were issued primarily for mining, road

work, power, pipeline testing and flushing in camps. Corresponding revenues were

approximately $60,000. Both the number of approvals issued and the associated

revenues have been declining over the last six years, but the figures may rise

again as resource industries recover economically. On average, over the last six

years approximately 250 approvals were issued annually, with a value of

approximately $80,000. If the proposed amendment is enacted, a portion of these

revenues would be forgone, offset in part by increased workload efficiencies.

Finally,

the bill will address issues surrounding the authority of statutory officials.

Specifically, provisions will ensure that these officials have valid authority

to carry out their duties. Changes have been made as a result of government

reorganization, and this bill recognizes that the statutory officials named in

the Water Act are now employees of a government corporation, Land and Water

British Columbia, rather than employees of government.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[1455]

MacPhail: I rise to make some comments about Bill 22 that will guide the

minister on questions I'll be raising at committee stage as well.

[ Page 2675 ]

I want to,

just for moment, go back to the original Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act,

which is amended by this legislation today. The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area

Act was really a breakthrough in land use planning in this province and was

recognized as that worldwide — a breakthrough in land use planning. In fact,

then opposition members, now government members, particularly from that area,

acknowledged that it was really breakthrough legislation that could form the

model of future land use planning. It covers 4.4 million hectares of unspoiled

wilderness that has huge ecological significance in the northeastern part of

British Columbia that's now known as the Muskwa-Kechika.

The bill

had four parts to it and dealt with the fact that even though it was widely

recognized as the equivalent of the Serengeti of the North, one of the last

large intact predator-prey ecosystems south of the 60th parallel, it also

contained considerable oil and gas reserves and valuable mineral deposits.

Careful exploration and development would have major social and economic

benefits for all British Columbians, the government of the day recognized.

That's why more than three million hectares of the Muskwa-Kechika area were put

into what are called special management zones, where resource development would

be allowed to continue.

There were

four major components to the legislation. The first established the

Muskwa-Kechika management plan and allowed that all management activities in the

Muskwa-Kechika, both for development and for protection, must be consistent with

the locally developed management plan. The next component ensured that planning

must occur prior to certain activities so that industrial and recreational

development is orderly, efficient and integrated with other uses.

The third

part of the act established an advisory board to provide a public oversight role

for the Muskwa-Kechika and to make recommendations for expenditures from a

special trust fund that was established in the act. Then the fourth part of the

act established that the trust fund was to assist with planning and research in

the Muskwa-Kechika. Then there was a legislated requirement that the provincial

government fill the coffers of that trust fund at the beginning of each fiscal

year to $3 million.

Here's what

Bill 22 does to that groundbreaking act creating the Muskwa-Kechika management

area. I think what we've got is a little bit of a grab of money, or let's just

say a taking away of money from actually managing that world-class area of our

province.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said, there was a legislated requirement that the provincial

government fill up the coffers of that trust fund every year to $3 million. In

fact, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management acknowledged that during

his estimates, when my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was

asking him about that trust fund. The way it was established, just so we know

how the trust fund used to work, is that the grant of up to $3 million was made

each year. Then the local community or the environmental community or the

development community could raise $400,000 of their own money, and the

provincial government would match those funds up to another $400,000.

[1500]

The

Muskwa-Kechika fund, in any one year, could have $3.8 million in it, of which

$3.4 million was provided by the provincial government. What this legislation

now does is say: "Oh, sorry. We're only going to put $1 million into the

trust fund."

"But

don't worry," says the minister. "The community can raise another

million dollars out of their own funds, and we'll match those dollars." A

total of $3 million is eligible to go into the trust fund, of which a maximum of

$2 million will be provided by this government, as opposed to $3.4 million

previously. In fact, the community has to more than double their fundraising

efforts to get that maximum amount of money.

I'm not

quite sure why the minister felt the need to underfund this world-class

management area trust fund that was working extremely well, that was lauded by

members of the current government, industry and the environmental community and

that really put British Columbia on the map of doing proper land use planning

with this trust fund. Anyway, that's gone now, but we do have a hint of where

the minister is going on this from his comments in estimates. He's saying the

matching funds could primarily be raised from U.S. foundations and industry.

I'll be curious in committee stage to know what insight the minister has into

what those U.S. foundations are and what industry will actually do that massive

increase in fundraising for this very important land use area.

There are

other amendments, particularly to the Forest Practices Code. Once again, we see

the shift in terms of responsibility for environmental protection going from the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection who is the only advocate in this

government, the only person responsible for advocating on behalf of

environmental protection. The minister herself doesn't actually see that as her

role, but if you were to look anywhere else in government about policing the

environment and protecting the environment, it should be with the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection.

We now see

the shift of responsibility for ensuring proper environmental sustainability

under the Forest Practices Code from the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection over to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who freely

admits he's an economic minister. He's there to develop. He's there to cut, cut,

cut. It is disturbing once again to see the shift away from environmental

sustainability in a way that in any way keeps the environment at a par, let

alone more highly protected than those who would use our forests solely for

economic interests.

I worry

about this. It is not as if the shift of the Forest Practices Code

responsibility is there in a way that is then balanced back to give the Minister

of Water, Land and Air Protection equal authority. Her authority is gone

completely under this amendment to the Forest Practices Code. I do worry about

that greatly. I will be

[ Page 2676 ]

questioning the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management very, very

carefully about the effect of the lessening of all of the principles of

sustainability by this shift to his responsibility.

I also have

concerns about whether indeed the amendments to the Water Act are simply as

minor as the minister has made out in his opening comments under

section 22. Of

course, the amendments to the Water Act now allow a diversion or use of water on

streams for a term not exceeding 12 months. For the very first time we are now

permitting a diversion of water on streams for a term not exceeding 12 months.

[1505]

I worry

about two things. First of all, what does that do to salmon habitat? Wild stock

spawn in streams. What will that mean when someone is allowed to divert a stream

for up to 12 months? What if there's a dam on a stream that's a spawning ground

for our wild salmon stock? That is of extreme concern to me. Is it to help out

independent power producers who have been asking for this? Where are the

protections for riparian zones? Where are the habitat protections? As we know,

this government has already made amendments that in fact do away with any sort

of habitat protection for salmon — for finfish — in this province at all.

This is just a continuation of that.

Independent

power producers. Have they been lobbying this government to such an extent to

say: "Hey, give us those streams"? Where is there anywhere in here a

protection to restore the streams after the 12 months? What's the role for the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to protect the environmental

integrity of streams during this process?

Mr.

Speaker, I must say that I will have many questions about stream protection,

about regulations flowing from this and about possible reasons the minister has

for the short-term diversion that will have long-term consequences for salmon

habitat — again, a great deal of concern.

I will also

have questions about whether indeed this government is committing a full $1

million, even though it's $2 million less than used to be committed to the trust

fund for the Muskwa-Kechika, because the legislation says that the government

will provide up to $1 million.

Again, this

is a bill that raises perhaps more questions than it answers and certainly moves

in a direction that is pro-development and anti-sustainability.

Stewart: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: I met a few minutes ago with some very nice people from my alma

mater, Our Lady of Fatima Elementary School in the Maillardville area of

Coquitlam. It was only a few years ago that I attended that school. [Laughter.]

I haven't changed a bit.

Today we

welcome 39 grade 5 students from both the French immersion program and the

regular program, along with their teachers, Ms. Kate Copley and Mr. Tim

Bourchier, and four parent chaperones from Our Lady of Fatima Elementary School

in Maillardville. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 22.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22,

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, 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.

de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 25.

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Bill 25

includes amendments to three statutes: the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways Act, the Ferry Corporation Act and the Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Act. Bill 25 also provides authority to repeal the Ferry Act, which

applies to inland ferries.

[1510]

The most

significant amendments contained in this bill allow for a new part to be created

in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act to provide for inland ferry

administration. These amendments are in accord with the ministry's service plan

released in January.

Inland

ferries have been serving local residents and businesses at some locations for

decades. Budget reductions have required the Ministry of Transportation to look

for ways to reduce costs. At a time when the province is facing a $4.4 billion

structural deficit, we need to ensure that ministry resources are being properly

managed to meet the transportation needs of all British Columbians. User fees

will allow the ministry to protect and maintain these inland ferry services

while also ensuring more equitable ferry service delivery across the province.

These

changes fall into four basic categories. First, the hours of service will be

reduced on most routes to 17 hours a day beginning May 15. The exception will be

the Arrow Park cable ferry, which will be reduced to 15 hours a day from 18

hours. Where we are reducing hours, there will be a call-out procedure in place

for emergency responders to access the ferry outside of

[ Page 2677 ]

regular service hours. This emergency response has been in place for ferries

that have been operating less than 24 hours a day in the past.

Reaction

ferry services will remain at the current levels, except for the Usk ferry,

which will be reduced to 17 hours from the 18 hours presently. There will be no

change of service for the Adams Lake ferry at this time. Three reaction ferry

services that have alternative roads available will be offered to the

communities in the private sector this year without government subsidy. They are

the Marguerite, McLure and Little Fort ferries. To date, we have already

received nine expressions of interest regarding these ferries.

A toll

structure will be developed in consultation with communities, and the tolls will

be implemented by the end of the year. It is only fair that inland ferry users

help cover some of the costs of that service by paying tolls, just as coastal

ferry users do. This will level the playing field for all British Columbians and

help the ministry meet its budget objectives.

Amendments

respecting inland ferries include the provision of a regulation-making authority

to establish fares, safety guidelines and the direction of passengers and

vehicles at terminals and on vessels; establishing that it is a duty of vehicle

drivers and passengers to pay the required fares; and establishing that

non-payment of fares is an offence and subject to penalty.

The Ferry

Act will be repealed, as it does not support the new inland ferry business

model, and certain of the authorities in that act are also already provided for

in other legislation.

Bill 25

also amends the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to address an

issue raised by the auditor general with respect to the accounting treatment of

provincially owned SkyTrain assets which are leased to TransLink. The amendment

clarifies

section 5 of the act to allow the current leasing arrangement to be

treated as an operating lease, as opposed to a capital lease, for accounting

purposes. This amendment is supported by the auditor general, the comptroller

general, the Ministry of Finance, B.C. Transit and TransLink.

streamlining amendment is also included in Bill 25. Currently, there is a

provision in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act which requires the

ministry seal be affixed to contracts. This requirement results in delays and

costs to the private sector, as contracts must be sent to Victoria to have the

seal affixed. Removing the seal requirement streamlines the contracting process

and saves time and money. In addition to removing the seal requirement, a

transitional provision is included in Bill 25 which retrospectively validates

any contracts entered into without the ministry seal.

MacPhail: I'm responding to Bill 25. We'll be voting against it.

I was

looking, actually, for the member for Nelson-Creston to see whether he was going

to be speaking to this piece of legislation. Of course, he has taken a very

strong view against the massive cuts to the inland ferry system, privatization

and imposing user fees — and with absolutely good reason. These cuts to the

inland ferries, the privatization and the imposition of user fees severely harm

the communities who relied upon these inland ferries.

[1515]

Of course,

it came as a big surprise. I don't think any new-era commitment said: "Hey,

we're going to privatize your ferries, cut service, cut your community off and

impose user fees." I don't think that was a new-era promise, but it's one

that this government has managed to put through in legislation, despite the fact

that they know how harmful it's going to be to communities.

I'll quote

from what the Nelson-Creston MLA actually said. I expect, given this is what

he's been saying, that he will actually join with me and my colleague to vote

against Bill 25, because all of his words say he disagrees with everything

that's in this legislation.

Let me

quote from the member for Nelson-Creston. This would have been on March 20 of

this year — last month: "Local residents have every reason to be upset.

When the dams were built in the sixties, they were promised free ferries until

the bridge was built here. They're now being told that there's no free ferries,

and there's no bridge." Wow, there's a brave MLA. He joins with the member

for West Vancouver–Capilano to bring to the attention of his government

harmful changes their government's making to their local communities.

What's the

context of that comment? I want to be fair to the member for Nelson-Creston.

Here's what the context is, and here's what this government is ignoring in this

community. The Arrow Lakes ferry is one of the inland ferries for which this

minister is going to charge user fees, cut service and cut off communities from

their ferry. The Arrow Lakes ferry was provided after the then B.C. Hydro

flooded the area in the 1960s as part of the Columbia River negotiations.

Then-Premier W.A.C. Bennett promised a free ferry until a bridge could be built.

The communities used to be accessible by land until the Columbia River was

dammed. Mr. Bennett, the Premier of the day, said: "Free ferry until a

bridge is built." There is lots of evidence that that was the promise made.

Never once did this Liberal government say to that community: "Oh, you

know, that promise that was made way back when, and we don't agree with it. In

fact, we're going to cut your ferry service and charge you more."

In fact,

the mayor of Nakusp told the now Minister of Transportation that that promise

was made, and the Minister of Transportation said that if the community can find

evidence of this promise, they would get their bridge. Of course, in this

particular case it's the mayor of Nakusp who's being written off as being wrong

in quoting the minister. The minister now denies ever making that promise.

Today here

we have the people who are the losers in this government, the community

represented by the MLA for Nelson-Creston. Let's see what else the mem-

[ Page 2678 ]

ber for Nelson-Creston wrote. This was on March 8 of this year:

will be meeting with community leaders and the public to develop creative

ideas to minimize the impacts to residents. Lower rates for local residents,

users and low-income seniors is something I'm exploring for each ferry. In

the Arrow Lakes area there may be a better case for special consideration in

light of the promises made surrounding the Columbia River

negotiations."

Oops. The MLA for Nelson-Creston has been convinced of the promises made to

the community back in the 1960s. I wonder if he's going to stand up in the

Legislature and tell the Minister of Transportation what he's found out and that

his community deserves either a bridge or free ferry service.

[1520]

What are

the consequences of these cuts the minister is making to inland ferry service?

Well, let's look at what some people in the community are saying. Let me just

quote from what is called the Harrop-Procter ferry community, which are the two

small but nevertheless viable communities that will be very negatively affected

by these cuts to their ferry service.

"When

the government cuts ferry service to the rural communities of Harrop and

Procter, residents will have to 'shove off' from the rocky shores of

Kootenay Lake and make the half-kilometre water crossing in the dark,

starting April 1. The government announced plans to shut the ferry from 11

p.m. to 6 a.m. on February 20, 2002. The ferry is the only access in and out

of the two communities for the 600-plus permanent residents.

"'The

ministry staff told us that shift workers and other residents who travel by

ferry at night can park their cars on the side of the road and pull their

boats up on the shore, as long as they aren't in the way of ferry,' says

committee chair Rick Morley. 'The ministry said they might consider

installing a phone and possibly an outhouse for the people stranded on the

shore when the ferry is no longer running. This is not an acceptable

solution.'

"The

Harrop-Procter ferry has been in existence since the 1920s and has been on

24-hour, on-demand service for close to 30 years. The announcement that the

service would be cut has united the community, left shift workers high and

dry and raised community concerns about how reduced ferry service will

affect their access to emergency service among other things.

"With

only three weeks until nighttime ferry service is cut, the residents are

scrambling to find a solution. 'Without ferry service at night I might have

to quit my job,' said Kristen Bompas, a 28-year-old mother of two who took

the night shift so she could be with her two young children through the day

and earn money to pay her taxes. 'I might have to park my camper on the side

of the road and start sleeping in it.'

"Nurse

Patty Miller, 53 years old, is in the same boat. 'I work at least ten late

shifts a month. I don't get to the ferry until 11:30 at night. How will I

get home? Am I supposed to sleep in my car? I don't own a boat, and even if

I did, it's dark, the water is cold, and the waves can be big. What does the

minister expect me to do?'

"Procter

resident Laurie Summerville has had to turn down $1,200 in shift work in

April because of the uncertainty of the ferry schedule. 'That's a lot of

income to lose,' says Summerville.

"Like

these three residents, the rest of the community is wondering if free

parking and use of an outhouse is really what the Minister of Transportation

meant when she said in a CBC radio interview that 'we want to be able to

find ways of accommodating them.'

"Late-night

shift access in and out of their communities is just one of the many

concerns. Small business operators are worried tolls, to be implemented at

the end of the year, will affect their business. Residents are outraged that

a curfew has been imposed on them.

"Without

night-time ferry service, road crews won't be able to clear the winter

roads. Poor driving conditions will make it even harder for the volunteer

firefighters and first responders to get to an emergency. If the emergency

is on the other side, there will be a further delay while emergency crews

wait for the ferry driver to arrive and start the ferry before making the

five-minute crossing.

"Since

the government announced cuts to the entire inland ferry system, residents

in Harrop and Procter have formed a committee and are working to keep their

ferry running day and night.

"'We

met with our MLA from Nelson-Creston, who offered no support. We've asked

for a meeting with the minister and have received no reply. It appears that

she has no intention to meet with us,' says Morley. 'She needs to know that

it's not acceptable to implement this policy which affects our lives, our

access to emergency services, our freedom of movement, our local economy and

our property values on such short notice with no consultation or

input.'"

That was the end of the news release from the Harrop-Procter ferry committee,

Mr. Speaker.

Let me read

another letter. This is a letter from a resident of Nelson, Gerry Kalinski. He

is a retired business person. This letter was written March 13, 2002, to the

Minister of Transportation.

[1525]

"Dear Minister:

"My

name is Gerry Kalinski. I am a retired businessman recently relocated to

British Columbia from Alberta. I'm a director of the Kootenay Lake hospital

foundation. I also sit on a committee with a group of community leaders that

is trying to help the community manage impending change in health care in

rural areas. I am also a resident of Harrop-Procter.

reach the conclusion that your office and your ministry has made up your

mind about the implementation" — he's talking about the

Harrop-Procter ferry service cuts — "regardless of the conflicts in

our statistics, regardless of the outcome of our cost-benefit analysis,

regardless of our safety concerns for our shift workers, our seniors, our

sick and our children, and regardless of any statements that you have made

to our citizens and to the press regarding talks with affected communities.

find your response very puzzling. You are aware that there is no other route

out for these 600 permanent residents in British Columbia; aware that our

acute health care review report has been delayed by this very government, so

we don't know how far we have to transport our emergencies; aware that we

don't know yet the results of cuts to ambulance and even to whom they will

report; aware that your ministry employees have not done an appropriate

emergency response plan, or if they have, they have not communicated it to

us; aware that we have 100 or more shift workers who will either have

[ Page 2679 ]

to risk their lives or quit their jobs and end up on

government payrolls; aware that when people quit their jobs, they will not

easily find another job, given the number of other cuts in the area; aware

that these people could have trouble with unemployment insurance for

quitting their jobs; aware that we have firefighting issues on both sides of

the water; aware that we have people here with existing illnesses that would

be put into increased danger because there is no adequate emergency response

plan yet."

Mr. Kalinski, a retired business person, goes on and on. He ends with:

have a problem. When I look at this from a business point of view, I cannot

understand all this added physical risk and increased financial burden to

these British Columbians. I cannot understand how it is justifiable to save

your ministry $25,000. Budgeting human life as acceptable collateral damage

in your war to balance your budget is unacceptable to me and many other

Canadians.

"Please

respond yourself this time, as it is important for myself and community

members to hear from you directly."

That was the letter to the Minister of Transportation.

Here's

another one from the same community, but these are children. This letter is to

the Premier, to the Minister of Transportation and to the MLA for Nelson-Creston

— to all those three — dated March 14:

"As

the grade 4-5 teacher at Redfish Elementary School, my job entails

discussion of current events in the classroom. No issue thus far this school

year has affected the students in my class as profoundly as the reduction of

hours and addition of tolls of Harrop ferry — not 9/11, not the teachers'

job action, not the bombing of Afghanistan.

"Although

my inclination is to protect the students from bad news, this past month

their minds have been consumed by anxiety about how the ferry changes would

affect them, their families and their friends. The children's words for how

they feel are 'worried,' 'mad,' 'upset,' 'helpless,' 'confused' and

'bewildered.'

"Here

are a few excerpts from their writing." These are quotes from grade 4-5

students. "'I don't think this idea should happen, because many of the

kids at Redfish live in Procter, so they will have to pay every time they

get on the ferry, and it's going to cost so much. The late workers won't be

able to get to their houses on the other side. If you go on with this idea,

then everyone will move.'"

"Another

one: 'My friends will move away. It won't work for my mom. We'll have to

pay.'"

"Another

one: 'You wouldn't get very much money from the tolls because everyone would

move. Don't disrupt people's lives. All the people in Procter are upset and

worried and angry too. Some of our moms and dads work early and late.'"

"Another

one: 'I am worried because the school bus would have to pay and because

people will move away. If your mom or dad had to go to work and the ferry is

closed, they'll have to quit.'"

"Another

one: 'I think a toll would be stupid because we already pay for our ferry in

our taxes. A toll wouldn't be good for Redfish school, because people from

Harrop and Procter will move and go to a different school. I think less

hours for the ferry to run is stupid, because my dad won't be able to go to

work.'"

That's nice. That's what grades 4 and 5 students are having to discuss in

their school. It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.

Let me read

another letter to the editor of the Nelson Daily News , dated Monday,

March 25. It's from a group of seniors. It's an open letter to the Minister of

Transportation.

[1530]

"To the Editor:

"Because

our MLA for Nelson-Creston has expressed little or no interest in our

problem, I am writing as a senior resident of the Harrop-Procter area to

express my dismay for the decisions you have made regarding the Harrop

ferry.

"To

reduce the operating time of this ferry from 24 hours to 17 hours is

troubling. As you know, this ferry is the only road access we have from our

communities. Many find it callous and arrogant that you have chosen to

restrict our freedom of travel by seven hours each day. To limit our road

access in this manner is rank discrimination and, we believe, a restriction

of our freedom.

"You

have created conditions of uncertainty and fear for many seniors, who are

frightened by decisions that have not taken their needs and concerns into

account — for example, rapid-as-possible access to emergency care during

the small hours, when seniors are the most vulnerable. This is on top of the

anxiety created by the unknown decisions pending regarding our hospital in

Nelson and the care — or lack of — that will be available to them.

"Also,

we have been made aware that tolls will soon be placed on ferry use. Even a

minimum charge of $2 each way could amount to hundreds of dollars each year

for even casual use. Trips for shopping, visits to doctors and other

professionals are weekly occurrences.

"No

other citizens are being treated in this high-handed fashion. With few

exceptions, all other mainland residents have no such restrictions on access

to their homes."

Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on. That letter is an open letter from a senior,

Agnes Marley, to the Nelson Daily News .

The local

MP, Jim Gouk, the MP for the Nelson-Harrop-Procter area, also wrote a letter to

the editor, dated Monday, March 11, 2002. It was an open letter from the Member

of Parliament to the Nelson-Creston MLA.

"The

West Kootenay and Boundary area has been particularly hard hit, with

closures to courthouses and forestry operations and expected hospital

closures. Now I have been informed that there will be significant

curtailment of the schedules for the Kootenay Bay, Harrop and Glade ferries.

must question the wisdom and fairness of such a decision. In the case of the

Kootenay Bay ferry, this is a primary winter alternative for those concerned

with their safety travelling over the Salmo-Creston portion of Highway 3,

with its high avalanche risk. It is also the only route available during

times that Highway 3 is closed in the winter, either as the result of an

avalanche or for avalanche control. It also presents some unreasonable

hardships for some Balfour and Kootenay Bay residents who need to travel

during the potential shut-down periods for employment purposes. The Harrop

and Glade ferries are in an even worse situation.

[ Page 2680 ]

"Aside

from the potential employment problems mentioned above, there is the matter

of public safety caused by the lack of access to and from these isolated

areas. This would restrict the ability of residents to leave their homes for

medical emergencies or to provide access for police, fire and ambulance

services. One also has to consider what would happen if an unexpected

traffic problem prevented a resident from reaching the ferry for the last

trip, and they were stranded away from home. Are any of these situations

fair? I think not.

"As

I said at the opening of the letter, I recognize the fact that there are

problems which must be addressed. Viable solutions must not simply create

new problems. I realize that a number of small solutions add up. However, in

the grand scheme of things, the potential savings from altering

long-established ferry schedules is not worth the disruption and hardship it

would cause.

am sure that you are well aware that we work for the constituents, not the

party. Occasionally, that places us in a conflict position. When that

happens to me, the choice is clear: the constituents come first. I trust you

feel this way also."

That's an open letter from the local MP, Jim Gouk, to the MLA for

Nelson-Creston.

It's quite

clear that this legislation is going to do unprecedented harm to communities

served by the inland ferries. It is astounding that this government, when these

announcements were made in February as budget announcements, continues to

proceed with these horrendous cuts — never announced, by the way, during the

election. Frankly, no one is relieved by the privatization of these inland

ferries; no one is relieved about them.

[1535]

Let me just

look at some other areas where there's been reduced service and the potential

for privatization of the ferries that serve the communities of Little Fort and

McLure. Who knows what will happen when that occurs? Let me read how that

community views changes in their ferry service. This is from an

article in the North

Thompson Times by Ann Piper: "Valley Ferry's Future in Doubt."

This is where this bill confirms their worst fears that there will be

privatization, imposed user fees and cut service. In fact, these may be some

ferries that are actually cut — gone, sayonara.

"For

the communities of Little Fort and McLure, continued ferry service is a

matter of concern. At Little Fort, the volunteer fire department depends

upon the ferry to carry fire trucks and firefighters to the east side of the

river when duty calls, and a substantial proportion of the community's tax

base is there as well. Police and ambulance personnel also rely upon the

ferry for quick access in emergencies. At both Little Fort and McLure the

ferry serves a first nations reserve on the far side of the river. Without a

ferry, those on the far bank face a long alternate route to services

available since pioneer times via the ferry."

Wow! There's a new era: back to the pioneer days. That's this government's

definition of "new era" for Little Fort and McLure. This is an area

where this government should have had a sober second look and should have said:

"We are not serving the residents in rural British Columbia well by these

ferry cuts, and we should not proceed with them."

You know,

this government…. It's so funny. I sit here in question period, and I hear

government backbench MLAs from the rural areas lobbing soft questions to these

ministers over here every day. "Oh, please tell us what you're doing to our

rural communities." Why isn't there an MLA standing up here, saying:

"Why the heck are you cutting our inland ferry service to harm rural

communities? Why are you attacking rural communities?" And yet not one. I

don't hear one government MLA stand up and ask that. The member for

Kamloops–North Thompson, whose ferries are being adversely affected by this,

could stand up, instead of lobbing one of his soft questions, and ask a real,

legitimate question on behalf of his community — but no, dead silence and

skating over the issues.

The

Minister of Transportation continues to refuse to answer the questions of these

rural communities about why she is doing this and frankly, more to the point,

why she didn't tell anyone before they had a decision about what choices to make

about the future of their community. Why didn't her government even raise a peep

of a hint that they were going to so adversely affect communities like Little

Fort, McLure, Harrop, Glade and Procter? No, this minister decided to just issue

a news release and then refer people where they…. They don't actually publish

this. You've got to go on line and find out what the details of these cuts are.

Mr.

Speaker, there it is. The cuts are drastic. The imposition of user fees is huge

— unprecedented proportionately. Communities will be ill-affected to an

unbelievable degree by all of these changes. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The

McLure and Little Fort ferries are going to be cancelled, as is the Marguerite

ferry north of Williams Lake. Those communities have not had any success from

their MLAs in defending their interests.

[1540]

colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting against this

legislation. It's unnecessary; it's ill-advised. It particularly targets for

harm rural communities. Those are three reasons why, at a minimum, every MLA who

represents these communities should vote against this legislation. Particularly

the MLA for Nelson-Creston should vote in defence of his community and against

this bill.

[1545]

[The bells were ordered to be rung.]

Second

reading of Bill 25 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 61

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

[ Page 2681

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Collins

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Bloy

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Speaker, 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 25,

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 24.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be now read for a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, amends sections

of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. Members of this Legislature will

remember that the new Crime Victim Assistance Act was passed last year. The new

act transfers responsibility for criminal injury compensation from the Workers

Compensation Board to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

It is

designed to make services to victims more efficient and responsive. It enhances

the benefits to victims of crime by strengthening and increasing the range of

benefits provided. These benefits include medical and dental care; vocational

rehabilitation for victims of crime and members of the victim's family; income

support for the victim or their family for lost or reduced income; counselling

for the victim or their family; counselling for the witnesses of crime;

protective measures to ensure the safety of a victim; travelling expenses for a

victim or their family; and compensation to the victim's family for the loss of

love, guidance or affection.

However,

the act is not yet in force. Proclamation of this act is expected early this

summer. In the meantime, these amendments are an interim measure that makes pain

and suffering awards consistent between the old and the new programs.

The

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, will remove pain and suffering

awards in respect of applications received on or after April 16, 2002.

Applicants will still be entitled to all other benefits under the act.

[1550]

Pain and

suffering awards are being removed for significant policy reasons. Specifically,

our experience shows that they are inconsistent and unfair. The awards create

delays in adjudicating criminal injury compensation and generate most of the

reviews and appeals. No doubt similar programs in other provinces face these

problems, as most of them eliminated pain-and-suffering awards a decade ago

after the federal government reduced some cost-sharing agreements for criminal

injury compensation.

We are

going to make the enhanced benefits under the Crime Victim Assistance Act as

retroactive as possible. Our goal is to make sure that victims of crime who

apply for benefits in the interim period will get the enhanced benefits that

would be available under the new program. People are deeply affected when

violent crime touches their lives, and we have a responsibility to help quickly.

This amendment and the new Crime Victim Assistance Act show that we are

committed to ensuring faster access to improved support services that help not

only the victims but also their caregivers, children and spouses.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 24.

MacPhail: Let's be clear about what Bill 24 does. It removes the ability of

a person who is criminally injured at work from claiming pain and suffering as a

victim of crime.

I remember

the introduction of the amendment to this legislation in the early nineties, so

I went back and researched the debate around the time when the Criminal Injury

Compensation Act was amended to now include pain-and-suffering awards to

individuals criminally injured on the job. I just went back to review it and see

what the then opposition said about that.

I just want

to make it clear that in June of 1995, the then government introduced an

amendment that added pain-and-suffering awards to individuals criminally injured

on the job, who receive all but pain-and-suffering benefits under the Workers

Compensation Act and Government Employees Compensation Act of Canada.

Really, the

intent of this, as the then Attorney General said when this amendment was

introduced, was so that those who are criminally injured while working are

eligible for pain-and-suffering benefits under the act. Although these

individuals may receive benefits from the Workers Compensation Act, they do not

re-

[ Page 2682 ]

ceive pain-and-suffering awards under that legislation. In effect, this

amendment corrects a disparity between those criminally injured while at work

and those criminally injured away from work. Now that disparity, which had been

corrected in 1995, is being reimposed by this Liberal government.

What did

the then opposition say? Well, the Liberal critic said: "To start, the

official opposition and I congratulate the Attorney for bringing this bill

forward. It is long overdue…. The amendments to the Criminal Injury

Compensation Act are unfortunately long overdue, and I must pay some recognition

to the too many victims we have all been in contact with and are well aware

of."

Mr.

Speaker, the then Liberal critic went on and on in page after page from Hansard

to support the changes to the legislation that brought it into line, saying that

just because you're criminally injured and you happen to be at work, you should

be no less compensated than if you were away from work. There was universal

support for this amendment on the very basis that it corrected a disparity that

there was no basis for: that people who are injured on the job through a

criminal act should have less access to benefits for pain and suffering —

which is real — than those who were not criminally injured at work.

I'd be

happy, having done my own research, to give the Solicitor General the debate

from June 20, 1995, on all of the discussion around the awarding for pain and

suffering through the Workers Compensation Act that was absolutely appropriate.

There was complete agreement around that.

[1555]

I don't

know why the minister feels the necessity to once again impose such a disparity.

He says that there will be other programs to make up for it, but there can't be.

The test for pain and suffering is a real legal test with a wealth of law

attached to it about who gets it. It's not open to abuse, because it's an

independent body that awards it. It's for the individual. It's for the

individual to make up for being a victim of crime in which he or she was

criminally injured.

There is no

replacement program that the Solicitor General could possibly offer in this area

that would make up for the reimposition of this disparity. I'm not quite sure

why this government feels the necessity once again to attack working people.

That's what this legislation does. We had legislation this morning to favour

corporations. We've got legislation this afternoon to attack working people.

That's what

this government is all about: take from those most in need, most deserving, and

give to those who are already the wealthiest in this province. Bill 24 is a

perfect example of that. Once again, let me be very clear. This opposition will

be voting against the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act for those very

reasons.

Mr.

Speaker: On Bill 24, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

closes debate.

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, through to the member's comments, pain and suffering

was allowed in for workers in 1995. We're removing pain and suffering for

everyone, not being disparaging against whether they're working people or

non-working people as victims of crime.

We're

trying to develop a program that actually meets the needs of victims quickly,

one that is there for them with counselling services, loss of income and the

things that affect these people. The protective measure issues, the travelling

expenses issues were not there before in the old act but were all tied up into a

large bundle of money that went to pain and suffering that was tied into long

tribunals. People were revictimized through the system, sometimes up to 18 to 24

months, when they should have got the services and the counselling they needed

immediately when they were victimized or traumatized by being a victim of crime.

[1600]

I think

we're moving in the right direction here by bringing it back over from the

Workers Compensation Board so the ministry can react quickly, deal with issues

around victims of crime, do it the same for everyone and do it fairly for

everyone. Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 24.

[The bells were ordered to be rung.]

Second

reading of Bill 24 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 61

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Collins

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Bloy

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[ Page 2683 ]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 24 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1605]

Bill 24,

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: At the request of the opposition, I move that the House recess for

15 minutes.

Mr.

Speaker: There will now be a 15-minute recess. We'll reconvene at 4:20.

The House

recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee on Bill 6.

Committee of the Whole House

GAMING CONTROL ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; T. Christensen in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:24 p.m.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'd like to move the amendment to

section 7 that is placed with the

Clerk.

[SECTION 7(1), by deleting the proposed paragraph (

j) and

substituting the following:(

j) must do other things the minister may require

and may do other things the minister may authorize.]

Amendment

approved.

[1625]

Section 7

as amended approved.

Sections 8

to 12 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Under

section 13 and I think it might be 14 as well, I am curious

to know a couple of things about the amount of revenue that will be flowing in

through gaming. One is on the question of expansion.

Section 13 talks

about….Net income from the Lottery Corporation, other than from casino gaming

and from bingo, must go into the consolidated revenue fund.

The next

section I will speak to in a moment, if so directed, says that the balance of

net income in each fiscal year goes into the consolidated revenue fund.

Basically, between those two sections, the net revenue goes to the government

— the consolidated revenue fund.

How does

the government restrict the flow of revenue so that there is no expansion of

gaming, as they promised during the election?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I guess the difference is between your net revenues and your gross

revenues and what you do. We made a commitment during the election to stop the

expansion of gaming as it existed relative to this sector. There was a decision

made at a cabinet meeting in January to recognize some facility operators that

had gone significantly down the path, based on legal opinion and information

that we received that they should be allowed to continue down the path to

receiving either their maximum allowable amount of slots or be permitted to move

to a community that might accept them for slots because they had made some

significant moves. After having done that, because we felt that was the exposure

of government, we've said no more expansion of gaming.

MacPhail: Let me quote from a Times Colonist

article of October 21,

2001. It's a quote from the article, so I'd like the minister to respond to

this. Jacee Schaefer, whose company manages six casinos from B.C. Lottery

Corporation, says the Solicitor General told her he wanted to explore "just

what was meant by expansion." That's the end of the article. Schaefer told Times

Colonist columnist Jody Paterson she was hopeful that would mean casinos

would be allowed to "transfer licences from anti-slot communities and

reopen slots in more welcoming environs."

Can the

minister tell me whether that promise has been delivered upon?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm not about to comment on the comments of an individual in a

particular newspaper article. However, whatever comments may have been

interpreted by this individual with any meeting I may have had with them, the

reality is that we took forward a decision to cabinet. The cabinet decision was

done in public, like we said we'd always make these decisions, in an open

cabinet in Fort St. John. We've made the decision, and the sector will be

managed by the B.C. Lottery Corporation under those guidelines for the future.

MacPhail: The minister may know that when I was minister responsible for

gaming, I introduced an exposure bill. I've been comparing the two, and it's

fair enough. I'm just trying to find in the Solicitor General Act where it has

any say or regulation about when licensees apply to move, there will not be an

expansion of gaming.

[1630]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Maybe I could refer the member back to

section 6(1), where the

minister may issue written directives to the Lottery Corporation as a matter of

[ Page 2684 ]

general policy. The Lottery Corporation is to comply with those directives.

General policy is set by cabinet and has been set by cabinet. It's very clear

that every non-slot casino in British Columbia is not going to be permitted to

move. That is very clear as per the open cabinet decision.

Therefore,

whether someone wants to apply or not, they can go ahead and apply, and the

answer will be: "You're not eligible to move and get slot machines."

The movement, of course…. We've turned the management of this sector over to

the B.C. Lottery Corporation, because we feel the management of gaming and the

decisions day to day on the business cases of how that sector is managed should

be handled by an arm's-length corporation and not at the whim or decisions of

the minister. Therefore, the corporation will handle any relocations within the

parameters of the decisions of cabinet in January, and those were pretty clear.

MacPhail: That's exactly why I'm asking the questions. The policy of no

expansion of gaming has to be made by the government. There's nothing in this

legislation, where policy has become legislation, saying there will not be an

expansion of gaming. It's all very well and good that the B.C. Lottery

Corporation administer the policy set by the government, but the minister points

me to the very clause that gives me concern. It says the minister may issue

written directives to the Lottery Corporation on matters of general policy, and

then he defines as general policy about the relocation of licences about whether

they can expand or not.

How will

the ordinary citizen, who may have missed that open cabinet meeting…? God

forbid, I don't think there's many British Columbians who would have missed that

open cabinet meeting. I know I certainly, if I'm about to miss it, try to tape

it and play it over and over again, but I'm not sure every British Columbian is

as dedicated as me. If they happen to miss that great cabinet meeting, how will

they know that there won't be any expansion of gaming through relocation of

licences?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The intent of the piece of legislation is to set the parameters of

how the gaming sector in British Columbia will be managed. There's not the

intent for the legislation to bind future governments by policy. Policy is set

by cabinets and by the government of the day. The policy that exists today is

pretty clear. There's no expansion of gaming in British Columbia.

In January

we said there were seven casinos in British Columbia that did not have slots. We

said we felt that two of those had gone significantly down the road to make an

investment and move towards relocation, and they should be allowed to continue

down that road. The two others that didn't have their full complement of slot

machines, who were looking to relocate and had gone significantly down the road,

should be allowed to relocate. The other five would not be allowed to relocate,

unless at some point in the future they could prove to us that they'd made

significant steps we weren't aware of as a government and may have been in some

situation for us to look at relocation.

The fact of

the matter is that we're not relocating every casino without slots in British

Columbia to a slot-friendly community. That's the policy. That's the policy of

the government, and that will be the policy as long as this government is

government.

MacPhail: It will be interesting to see how people can monitor that. I'm

sure the minister will keep the public informed on how he's enforcing that

policy.

Did the

minister meet with the city of Vancouver relating to the Gaming Act and

expansion of gaming and revenue-sharing on March 20?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I don't have my

schedule in front of me, but I did meet with the

mayor of Vancouver with regard to some of the concerns their staff had put

forward and dealt with those concerns at that time. Frankly, I think most of the

concerns were administrative rather than legislative.

[1635]

MacPhail: We could save a lot of time then, if the minister would just

update me. I won't bother to ask the questions on behalf of the city of

Vancouver, my riding. They had concerns about expansion of gaming. They're a

non-slot community. They also had concerns that the legislation was silent on

honouring the memorandum of agreement from 1999, the revenue-sharing agreement

between the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the provincial government. The

minister can just tell me. Those were the two questions they discussed at their

own council meeting, so the minister can just update me on what answers and

reassurances he gave to the city of Vancouver.

Hon. R.

Coleman: With regards to the slots, frankly, the mayor was told that the

policy existed as it had existed with the previous government, that we will not

at any time force slot machines on a local government that doesn't want them.

That would be their call.

With

regards to the expansion or the issue around UBCM and the memorandum of

understanding, that's still in place. With regards to the city of Vancouver on

the revenue-sharing, they have a 20-year contract. There are nine years to run,

with a ten-year renewal. We felt we didn't have to put that in legislation. That

is part of the management of gaming, and I assured the mayor that contract was

still in place.

MacPhail: Just to be clear. The UBCM memorandum of agreement with the

provincial government on revenue-sharing, signed in 1999, remains in full force

and effect?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That's correct.

MacPhail: The other concern, then, that the minister said was addressed was

that the council had concerns that under the government's proposed Gaming

[ Page 2685 ]

Control Act, municipal consent for changes to gaming activities was only

required in cases of substantial change to the type or extent of casino gaming.

They were concerned that the act didn't define what "substantial" was.

Could the minister tell me what reassurances were given and how they were

received?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I think we've covered off local government approval in

section

19(1), but for the member, it is basically that a substantial change is "to

use or operate a facility, other than is permitted under

section 18(2), as a

gaming facility, relocate an existing gaming facility or substantially change

the type or extent of lottery schemes or horse racing at a gaming facility,

unless the Lottery Corporation first receives approval, in the prescribed form

and manner, of the municipality, regional district or first nation that has

authority over the land use planning of the place…."

That's what

I referred the mayor to. They seemed comfortable with that. It's very clear that

consultation has to take place before anything can happen. Obviously, with the

way we've structured it, we're not looking at substantial change taking place in

the sector, with the exception of those that we felt we had some responsibility

to because of the process which they had entered into before the election of

The

Chair: I note we are dealing primarily with sections 18 and 19 now. Does the

member have a question in respect of

section 13?

MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Chair, I note that too. I will ask my questions on that

matter further when we get to sections 18 and 19. I'm just going to go back to

the issue of revenue-sharing now.

Well, I'm

reassured that the minister has said that the memorandum of agreement between

UBCM and the provincial government dealing with revenue-sharing from gaming from

1999 remains in full force and effect. I'm sure that will reassure my

municipality as well as other municipalities.

I'll save

my other questions for further sections.

[1640]

Sections 13

to 17 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Could the minister please advise me what dispute resolution

mechanism there is when there is disagreement about location, relocation or

substantial change?

Hon. R.

Coleman: My understanding is that we require it in law and that it's to be

worked out by the corporation, the UBCM and regulation.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I note, again, that in

section 21 — and I'm

not there yet — it says dispute resolution as to the location or relocation of

gaming facility. I think that meant when an individual objects to the location.

Is the minister saying that it will be by regulation if a municipality disagrees

with the application of what substantial change is and their input? It's by

regulation that that dispute resolution mechanism will be set up?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The dispute resolution that's described in

section 21 actually

deals with a neighbouring municipality that has a dispute over one being

relocated in a municipality next to them. We're putting it in law that that has

to occur. The dispute mechanism will be defined by the parties. I think that's

the explanation for the member. I'm trying to bounce back between your

relocation and substantial change and over to your dispute mechanism. I just

want to make sure which one we want to talk about first.

MacPhail: I read

section 21 the way the minister has described. What I'm

asking for is a dispute resolution that is between a municipality and the

provincial government that may involve a municipality saying: "Hey, whoa.

Wait a minute. That's expansion of gaming that we don't want and we have no

control over." That would be around the minister allowing for a licence

that he would determine is not of a substantial change, and the municipality may

say it is of a substantial change. What dispute resolution is there for the

municipality and/or the provincial government with the municipality?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Under

section 19, basically, by law the municipality has a veto

power, which means we can't relocate a facility within their region or first

nation unless we first receive their approval in the prescribed form. I think we

pretty well have covered that in law. There is no dispute mechanism, because we

just can't do it unless we have an agreement.

Section 18

approved.

section

Hunter: I do have a question for the minister with respect to the term that

appears in this

section and in some subsequent sections: first nation. Could the

minister explain to me what a first nation is in the context of this

legislation?

[1645]

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, it's the commonly used definition. It refers,

basically, to first nations that had the land use planning over their lands,

just like any municipality who should be consulted for input if it's either

going in an adjacent municipality or something's being relocated or located in

their municipality. This

section would also preclude that relocation taking

place by law without their permission.

Then

section 21, relative to a neighbouring municipality, would mean that they would

have input if they didn't want that. They would have that input just like any

other municipality.

[ Page 2686 ]

Hunter: That's helpful, but it leads me to other questions.

understand what we're trying to do in this legislation, and I understand where

the authority of a municipality or a regional district is derived. They are

derived from statutes.

First

nation is a commonly used definition. But I think it's important, if we're

relying on first nations to participate in decisions with respect to location or

relocation of gaming facilities, that I at least need to understand: what

authority do these first nations have? From what legislation is that authority

derived, and what institutions allow the first nations community to make those

decisions on their behalf?

I want to

be sure that we are in fact referring in this legislation to a body politic and

a legal institution, not just a collection of individuals who happen to be first

nations, which in the research I've done on other pieces of legislation seems to

be pretty loose. Here I think we're talking about a very important public policy

initiative, and I'd like to understand what the authorities of these first

nations are and where they are derived in the mind of the minister, if they're

going to have a say in very important aspects of our gaming policy.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I think it is very clear. It says: "…first nation that has

authority over land use planning at the place where…." And then it goes

on to the subsections where a location may take place. I think that's pretty

clear.

It's not as

broad as the member described, because we're dealing with actual land use

planning that they have the authority for on a prescribed piece of property

either in the municipality where the relocation is taking place or in the

neighbouring municipality as we go to the next section. Somebody may want to

relocate next door.

Obviously,

there's not going to be a whole mess of relocations under this government. The

fact of the matter is that when you define it, whether it be the municipality or

regional district or first nation that has authority over land use planning, I

think you have it covered.

Hunter: Would it be fair, then, to interpret the phrase in 19(1)(a),

"first nation that has authority over land use" as currently today,

without any jeopardy being suggested with respect to

interpretations of future

authorities that first nations might have that the only first nation governance

that could currently act in this capacity would be a band council under the

authority of the Indian Act? Is that a fair

interpretation?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The authority over land use planning is one of those ever-evolving

things. To draw that parallel and draw it backward to other…. You could have

two municipalities decide to amalgamate and become one, and now have the

authority under a specific council instead of two councils. The same thing could

happen relative to lands.

Let's be

clear. This affects approval for gaming facilities that are coming in and being

established in a community. It's not with respect to ones that already exist

within communities. So this is to do with the future and the present. I don't

think you can bind the future, because you don't know what the land base will be

— that people will have authority for land use planning over 15 or 20 years

from now. What it comes down to is that you have to have the authority of the

land use planning in order to engage in this process.

Hunter: I don't want the minister to misinterpret my question. What I asked

was: right here today, if this act were in force, would the first nation be

limited currently to a group of aboriginal people who had authority to make such

decisions on land use, which I understand to be only those band councils

authorized under the Indian Act? That's my question today, and it's without

prejudice, of course, to future developments and future governance arrangements.

I just need

to understand what the term "first nation" means. And if it means,

here today, a band council under the Indian Act, then I understand. If it's

something else, I need to understand that too.

[1650]

Hon. R.

Coleman: That was my understanding when I checked with our drafters.

Sections 19

to 29 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 30(2) that sits under my name on

the order paper.

[SECTION 30, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and

substituting the following:

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council, by order,

may delegate to the general manager the discretion under subsection (1) to

license persons to conduct and manage gaming events in British Columbia.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 30

as amended approved.

Sections 31

to 40 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is a

section that deals with the ability of the corporation

to award grants to eligible organizations. This is the opportunity for the

minister and me to discuss what was a commitment to give at least $125 million

annually to eligible charities from gaming revenue.

Now, in the

fall of last year — it could have been at the cabinet meeting that I had

taped; I'll go back and revisit it tonight — the Solicitor General announced

that any charity control of gaming would be gone and that the Lottery

Corporation was taking over bingo.

[ Page 2687 ]

Many charitable organizations offered bingo gaming. Then, of course, the

Lottery Corporation expanded electronic bingo, and the charities felt that that

hurt them. The charities that were eligible for sharing in that $125 million

were very concerned that the government would not continue to pay those grants

to the charitable organizations.

What

conversations has the minister had with charitable organizations regarding this

act? I note that the charities said they were not consulted on this act. What

reassurances has the Solicitor General given to charities that they will

continue to get their minimum $125 million worth of grants from gaming?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, I met with the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming

on Saturday. I talked to them about the issues in and around gaming. They were

quite happy with the changes that we've made. My staff have also met, as I have,

with the B.C. Bingo Council early on in this process. A number of things that

were done were done for the benefit of charities, not for the disadvantage of

charities.

The concern

we had, after looking at the entire structure of gaming last summer, was that

the $125 million the member refers to was actually broken up into two blocks of

money. One is a substantial amount of money which just goes out in what we call

the facility level guarantee or the top-up to bingo halls, basically

guaranteeing to charities a guaranteed profit whether an operation is viable or

not — a subsidy to bingo halls. The second part of it went into a program

called direct access, which was a program for granting that groups could apply

to.

Our hope,

as we move forward, will be that by having the corporation having some seamless

management within the gaming sector and bringing a high level of professionalism

to its management, we can actually reduce the amount of money that has to go

into the top-up into bingos over time, as we actually look at how the sector

should be operated. If the member were aware of my estimates, she would know

that in my budget I have retained all the money for the charities for this year.

MacPhail: At the conclusion of the meeting this past Saturday, was the

association satisfied?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I would say that they were. I guess you have to gauge it by…. I

gave a speech to the organization, and I did a question-and-answer for a

substantial amount of time. I actually put them well over time and dealt with

all their questions in a forthright manner. After that, the acting director of

the gaming policy enforcement branch, Derek Sturko, who's to my left — I

should have introduced him earlier — also spoke to the group and took

questions. As well, the president of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, Vic

Poleschuk, did.

[1655]

The

feedback I've gotten from the organization, from the executive director and

people who were at the meeting, is that they were quite pleased that somebody

had finally woken up and understood the needs of charity relative to how they

can spend their money, how they can do things in their community and how in the

long term we can build a program together for these funds so that they would

apply to them in addition to what some of those funds have been applied to in

the past — things like capital projects.

I think

we're going to have a very long-term, successful working relationship with the

charities to make sure we get maximum use of the dollars back in the community.

Sections 41

to 82 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 83(1) standing under my name on the

order paper.

[SECTION 83 (1), in each of the proposed paragraphs (

a) and

(

b) by deleting "money derived from a lottery scheme or horse

racing" and substituting "money derived from a lottery scheme or

horse racing or received as a grant under

section 41 (1),".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 83

as amended approved.

Sections 84

to 88 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 89 standing under my name on the

order paper.

[SECTION 89, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and

substituting the following:

(3) A person must not sell, offer for sale,

purchase for resale, or do anything in furtherance of selling, offering for

sale or purchasing for resale, any lottery ticket to a minor, unless the

person is a licensee acting under conditions of the licence that are

prescribed under

section 105 (1) (b).]

Amendment

approved.

Section 89

as amended approved.

section

Mayencourt: Could the minister confirm that the intention of

section 90 is

to provide a fully licensed environment so that British Columbia can benefit

from the full and active involvement of private sector in the resale of lottery

products owned by the B.C. Lottery Corp?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Thank you to the member for being quick off the mark. I think it

would be appropriate if I move the amendment to

section 90, because it actually

clarifies the member's concern relative to or-

[ Page 2688 ]

ganization outside the Lottery Corp being licensed to sell lottery tickets in

B.C.

I move the

amendment that's on the order paper now.

[SECTION 90, by deleting the proposed

section 90 and

substituting the following:Unauthorized sale of lottery tickets prohibited

90 A person must not sell, offer for sale, purchase

for resale, or do anything in furtherance of selling, offering for sale or

purchasing for resale, any lottery ticket, whether it originates inside or

outside of British Columbia, unless the person is

(

a) the lottery corporation,

(

b) a person authorized by the lottery corporation, or

(

c) a licensee acting under conditions of the licence that

are prescribed under

section 105 (1) (b).]

Amendment

approved.

section

90 as amended.

Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could please talk for a moment about

that amendment and what it allows people to do. Also, if the intention is to

allow for others to resell those lottery products, will there be some sort of

consultation with those reputable firms that do that business so that they can

develop regulations that will allow them to do their job and meet the

regulations that the ministry needs to put forward?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This has been one of those issues this member has spent some time

with me on.

This

amendment allows for the organizations that are presently doing it in British

Columbia, under licence by us, to continue to sell product from outside British

Columbia — their lottery tickets. Basically, as we develop regulations we will

sit down with those organizations, set up the licensing process for them so that

they continue the business that they're doing today.

Section 90

as amended approved.

Sec