H1020pm 02

H1020pm 02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, October 20, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, October 20, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7345 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7345 Doreen Lawson P.

Sahota Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7345 Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) Hon. S. Hagen Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77) Hon. R. Coleman Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7346 Canadian merchant navy V. Roddick Women in Canadian politics I. Chong Pitt Meadows Airport K.

Stewart Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7347 Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail Access to timber in North Thompson Valley K. Krueger Hon. M. de Jong Income assistance regulations and loss of benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell Export of cattle to U.S. D. Chutter Hon. J. van Dongen Impact of physical activity on learning R. Nijjar Hon. C. Clark Integration of mental health and addiction services E. Brenzinger Hon.

G. Cheema Fees for seniors' residential care V. Anderson Hon. K. Whittred Ministerial Statements ......................................................................................................... .................................................... 7350 Flooding in Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton area Hon. R. Coleman J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7351 Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) (continued) B. Belsey K. Stewart M. Hunter R. Visser V. Roddick J. Kwan Hon. J. van Dongen Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7357 Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35) Hon. S. Bond J. Kwan D. Jarvis D.

Hayer Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7365 Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7365 Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7365 Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7365 Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65) J.

Kwan Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7382 Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7382 Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68) J. Kwan Hon. G.

Plant Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7387 Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7387 Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7387 Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 55) Hon.

J. Murray J. MacPhail Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60) Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

7345 MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 The House met at 2:05 p.m. Introductions by Members M. Hunter: It's my pleasure and privilege today to introduce five children who are being home-schooled. It's nice to know that the Legislative Assembly is on the curriculum of home schools. These children are with their mother, Delphine Charmley from Nanaimo. They are Jason, Brandon, Nikolas, Brenda and Jackie, and I'd like to ask the House to give them the usual warm wel- come. J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery is somebody who's b e c o m e n o s t r a n g e r t o t h i s p l a c e .

I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o introduce Terry Colburn, whose native name is Iskai- tal. Terry has also recently become a hereditary chief of the Navajo nation. Joining Terry is his friend Yvonne Sproule, and both have become well known in Victoria as peer mental health advocates. I'd like to again ask the House to please make them welcome. Tributes DOREEN LAWSON P. Sahota: I rise to mourn the passing of an incredi- ble and dedicated Canadian and British Columbian. Doreen Lawson, a longtime Burnaby city councillor, died in Burnaby Hospital last Saturday night, suffering from a heart attack at the age of 75.

Doreen Lawson was the first female president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and made many contributions to the city of Burnaby in her life- time. In 1997 she was presented with the Vancouver Natural History Society's Frank Sanford Award, and in 2002 she received a Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for her contributions to her community. Ms. Lawson was also executive director of the B.C. Liberals in the mid- eighties. On behalf of my colleagues from Burnaby, I would ask the House to extend condolences to Doreen Law- son's family. Introductions by Members V.

Roddick: In Victoria today, after a successful Saturday evening in Tsawwassen with the Delta Police Pipe Band, is the United States Army Field Band and Soldiers Chorus, the musical ambassadors of the United States army. With good humour, the musical director of our 15th Field Artillery Regiment Band asked them to use their musical expertise to sing a re- sounding conclusion to the softwood lumber dispute. Would the House please give them a highly charged welcome. Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today with four interested, committed and involved people from the community of Surrey–White Rock.

I would ask the House to please welcome Joe McIvor, Elaine Liau and Ian and Gail McKenzie. Hon. G. Collins: I just want to take the opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Leader of the Op- position, who I understand became engaged on the weekend. I've been told there are three things that can happen in your life, which are really life-changing moments. One is having a child, the other is getting married, and the third is getting elected. I'm pleased to know that the member opposite has now done all three. J. MacPhail: Several times. Hon. G.

Collins: Several times. [Laughter.] I do want to extend congratulations to her and wish her the best. Also, perhaps the House could send our condolences on to Pierre Pettigrew, who I know will be very disappointed. [Laughter.] [1410] H. Long: In the House today we have a former member of this House and his daughter. The member in the House was a former Minister of Agriculture at the time in the '86 era when some of us other members were sitting here — t he M i ni s t e r o f L ab o u r a nd y o u r- self, Mr. Speaker. So I would like to welcome to this House Larry Chalmers and his daughter, Jennifer.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sustain- able Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that Bill 73 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Manage- ment proposes amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Assessment Act, the Assessment Authority Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the University Endowment Land Act and the Water Act. This bill is consistent with the government's new- era commitments and deregulation initiative. The bill also underscores government's goals of operating more efficiently, supporting the economy and responsibly managing the province's natural resources.

I will touch briefly on each of the acts being amended by the Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. A housekeeping

7346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act will allow the chief executive officer to require an ap- plication to the Agricultural Land Commission when the commission receives notice of an intention to de- posit or remove fill from agricultural land. The amendment clarifies the CEO's authority and responsi- bility to require proponents to submit an application for proposals to remove or deposit fill which may have a significant impact on the land and may warrant local government review through the application process.

Housekeeping and deregulation amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act will eliminate duplication and outdated regulatory requirements. The Assessment Act is also amended to allow assessors to adjust the assessment roll where the property owner agrees to the change, eliminating the need for numerous uncontentious matters to go before the property assessment review panels. The Land Act is amended to provide the authority to refuse to accept applications for dispositions of Crown land where the application is incomplete or the land is reserved or withdrawn from disposition.

The amendments to the Land Act will also remove unnec- essary and outdated restrictions regarding the date on which a disposition of Crown land takes effect. A number of housekeeping amendments are being made to the Land Title Act to reflect changes in gov- ernment organization. In addition, the

schedule to the Land Title Act is being amended to increase specified land title fees to pay for e-filing, which is effective April 1, '04, as part of the governmentwide review of fees and licences. Finally, changes are being made to the Water Act to authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding activities in or about a stream in order to support the ministry's move towards more results-based regulation. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. TENANCY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ten- ancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be intro- duced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 77. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act and the new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, which are not yet in force.

The legislation initially allowed a three-year carry- forward of rent increases. These amendments will limit rent increases to once a year without any carry-forward. The actual rent increase percentage will be established by regulation. Additional amendments will ensure a clear understanding of rights and obligations for both landlords and tenants, will reduce disputes and will lead to fewer arbitration hearings. Clarification of the policy intent will also lead to consistent decision-making.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1415] Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY V. Roddick: It gives us all great pleasure to be able to recognize and celebrate the many contributions and achievements of Canadians. In times of need we rise to the occasion, as we did this summer during the forest fires and as did the unsung heroes of the merchant navy. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest battle of the Second World War. There was no arena more crucial than to maintain open sea lanes. Canadians have only now officially acknowledged the importance of our merchant service.

Our Premier, on behalf of the province, delivered a cheque for $1 million towards the Juno Beach Centre, which opened in June of this year, to honour our country's contribu- tion to World War II — including the fourth arm of our fighting services, the merchant navy. Few people realize the toll wreaked on shipping in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By early fall of 1942, U-boats had sunk 21 ships. Then on October 14 the ferry Cari- bou was sunk, carrying mothers and children, Cana- dian and American military, plus crew. The very next vessel to cross that gulf had on board RCN Second Lt.

James Flood Clark, his wife Kathryn and his rambunc- tious two-year-old daughter Valerie, who stands here today proudly representing Delta South. Approximately 12,000 merchant seamen were en- gaged by war's end — some t oo young to be soldie rs, 15 to 16 years or younger, and others too old for the armed services, over 40. While statistics provide an awesome account of ships and tonnage lost, the true cost of the war at sea was a human one. There were no safe havens for merchant seamen. These men, and ac- tually a few women, were remarkable, astonishing and magnificent. WOMEN IN CANADIAN POLITICS I.

Chong: I rise today to acknowledge October as having been proclaimed Women's History Month, and this year's national theme: "What do you mean, women

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7347 couldn't vote?" In so doing, I would like to recognize a few of the many women who have been at the forefront of innovation and government. I would like to start with Canada's first woman elected to a provincial Legislature and first cabinet minister without portfolio, Mary Ellen Smith. Her hus- band was a member of the provincial Legislature when he died in 1917. After his death, Mrs. Smith won a seat in the by-election in 1918, becoming the first woman in the British Empire to succeed her husband's seat.

In 1921 she then became Canada's first cabinet minister without portfolio. Nancy Hodges was another influential woman in B.C. legislative history. As a columnist for the then Victoria Times, she was always interested in politics and was elected MLA for Victoria in 1941. In 1949 she be- came the first woman elected Speaker of the B.C. Legis- lature and also the first in the Commonwealth. Later, in 1953, she again made history by being the first B.C. MLA appointed to the Canadian Senate.

Activist Rosemary Brown was the first black woman elected to a Canadian Legislature in 1972, and she represented her constituents extremely well with vision and determination. In honour of her service, Rosemary Brown received the Order of B.C. in 1995 and the Order of Canada in 1996. There are so many women who have achieved firsts from arts to health to science and to business, all of this being possible after winning the right to be included in the

definitions as persons and then the right to vote, although for some women of colour, their right to vote came decades later. During my lifetime I have also ob- served many firsts in the political world: the first woman Premier here in British Columbia and the first woman Prime Minister in Canada. As well, on May 28, 1996, I along with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant became the first persons of Asian descent to be elected to the B.C. Legislature.

I hope all members of this House and British Co- lumbians everywhere find time to celebrate Women's History Month this October and every October, not only because we should but because we can. [1420] PITT MEADOWS AIRPORT K. Stewart: I'd like to take a moment to highlight one of the true economic jewels of our region, the Pitt Meadows Airport. During Small Business Week it is especially important to look at the facilities that sup- port our local entrepreneurs. This airport does its fair share. With three active runways, it is always one of the busiest airports in the province in terms of takeoffs and landings.

It has a full seaplane access available on the Fraser River and a designated deep-sea port. It of- fers air ambulance, charter flights, helicopter service, flying and parachute lessons, and sightseeing tours. You know, in less than 20 seconds I've already covered a few million dollars of annual economic activity in our region, mostly by small business. There's more. The airport has lofty goals. It aims to be a real player in servicing the region's commercial air passenger market.

Later this fall a 5,000-square-foot terminal will open, which accommodates numerous other activities including restaurants, pilot shops and other services. The airport also begins work on a new ramp for floatplanes, and an upgrade to riverside docks was just completed, along with new tie-downs for 19 more aircraft. With a land base in excess of 700 acres, they have big plans for growth.

Down the road, Pitt Meadows Airport would like to welcome commuter traffic from such places as Kamloops, Victoria and Kelowna, be- cause — let's face it — the more traffic, the more people we'll see taking advantage of our local businesses and services. Further down the road to the Olympics, the airport can help position the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows re- gion as the perfect alternative to the hustle and bustle of Vancouver when the world comes to our door in 2010. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS AND LOSS OF BENEFITS J.

Kwan: Since this House last sat, statistics have come out showing that unemployment is above 9 per- cent in this province. More than 200,000 people are now unemployed. Those are public numbers — num- bers that this government cannot be proud of. This government also cannot be proud of the num- ber of people who are going to be kicked off of income assistance. That's why the Minister of Human Re- sources is hiding the number. Let me give him another chance. Can he tell this House how many people will lose income assistance over the next fiscal year? Hon. M.

Coell: The member knows that there are over two million people working in this province. She also knows that that's the first time in the history of British Columbia that we've had that many people working. She also knows that this ministry has put tens of thousands of people back to work in the last two years. She also knows that this ministry has 10,000 jobs available for people on income assistance. She also, I think, wants to return to the days where one in ten British Columbians was on welfare and six in ten single parents were on welfare — to those lofty days of the NDP.

What this government wants to do is help people to succeed and to work in this province. J. Kwan: This minister knows how many people are going to be kicked off of income assistance come the next fiscal year. According to the minister's own budget numbers, we calculated that approximately 27,000 people will lose income assistance.

7348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 Now we have the evidence to confirm our worst fears. According to confidential internal figures com- piled for the minister on October 9 — less than two weeks ago — 28,000 people will be kicked off of in- come assistance in the first fiscal year. It's not hard to see that the 10,000 jobs that this minister claims to have do not equal the 28,000 people who will lose income assistance. The minister doesn't like to confirm numbers. Will he stand in this House and deny the numbers in his own government document? Hon. M.

Coell: The province of British Columbia is moving ahead with job creation. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: The members of the NDP would love to return to the days where socialism on demand for welfare was always there. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: The members cannot stand to see people succeed in this province. Interjection. Hon. M. Coell: This member cannot stand to see people succeed in this province. The people on income assistance are succeeding in this province.

The people who are able to work in this province are going to find employment, and they're going to find success, and they're going to find prosperity in this province, be- cause they have a government that's concentrating on finding employment for people, not welfare. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. [1425] J. Kwan: There is no point for this minister to try a n d p l a y g a m e s w i t h n u m b e r s . W e h a v e t h e m . T h e minister knows exactly how many people will lose benefits, and it's more than the number of jobs he says are available.

Will the minister stop playing games and come clean and admit what everyone knows and what people are warning this minister? Thanks to his gov- ernment's policies, thousands of British Columbians will lose support, and many of those will end up on the streets. Hon. M. Coell: Since this government was elected, over 100,000 new jobs have been created. There are 10,000 jobs… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: …in our ministry for people on income assistance. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. We will con- tinue when we have order in the House. The minister has the floor. Hon. M.

Coell: I don't know what the two mem- bers of the opposition don't understand about success, about people finding employment, about people leav- ing income assistance and earning two to three times what they were on income assistance. The days of the NDP, where it was a better job to be on welfare, are over. The days of prosperity for people on income as- sistance are here, because we're actually looking for jobs and helping people find a better, more prosperous way of life in this province. J. MacPhail: I suspect this minister is going to spin himself right out of responsibility, right out of the cabi- net.

Perhaps this minister should have gone to New York or Washington or wherever it is that ministers or Premiers go to duck hard questions. The facts on the economy are clear: over 9 percent unemployment, the highest in almost a decade; over 200,000 people without work; the worst-performing economy in the country. Two weeks ago we came forward right into this chamber with a confidential briefing note on this issue. That minister dismissed the information as out of date. As he was doing that, these numbers were being pre- pared for this minister at the same time that we were asking questions in the House.

This is dated October 9, 2003. It's simply not credi- ble that this minister didn't have those numbers when he was standing up saying he didn't know, in this Leg- islature. Why did the minister hide these numbers from the House? More importantly, why did he hide them from the public? Why did he refuse to tell British Co- lumbians the truth? Hon. M. Coell: The truth is that people on income assistance are finding employment with this govern- ment. They're finding employment…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Listen to the answer, please. Hon. M. Coell: Under the NDP, income assistance was viewed as a life entitlement.

What we view for people on income assistance — opportunities — is enti- tlement for a job, and that's why we have programs that create and support people on income assistance to find employment. That's what we'll continue to do — to see people on income assistance actually have suc- cess in British Columbia, unlike a lifetime of welfare offered by the NDP.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7349 ACCESS TO TIMBER IN NORTH THOMPSON VALLEY K. Krueger: The people of Barriere and Louis Creek are still reeling from the announcement by Tolko In- dustries that they will not be rebuilding the mill at the Louis Creek site. The Minister of Forests and I have been working for some time to help the people of Vavenby-Clearwater, who suffered a similar loss of a major employer approximately one year ago.

I wonder if the Minister of Forests can update my constituents on the prospect of community forests, additional woodlots and additional allotments to the North Thompson In- dian band in order that my constituents can have better access to fibre in their efforts to diversify the economy of the North Thompson Valley. Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, that lies at the heart of what the forestry revitalization plan is all about. The tragic events that have befallen the North Thompson Valley add to the urgency in getting on with the full implementation of that program.

It's about creating those new opportunities for community forests for woodlot owners, and I'm pleased to advise the member that I met with some of the woodlot owners from the Barriere–Louis Creek area this weekend. [1430] We're going to ensure we're doing all we can to support them, and I'm happy to say to the member that in the days ahead, I'm looking forward to making a significant announcement as it relates to involvement of first nations in the area in the beginnings of the cleanup of the fire-damaged wood. INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS AND LOSS OF BENEFITS J. MacPhail: Mr.

Speaker, this government loves to duck responsibility. Health care cuts? Blame the health authorities. School closures? Blame the school boards. Worst economy in the country? Blame world markets and escape the Legislature. Now the Minister of Human Resources refused to admit what his own briefing documents say. When this new rule kicks in, his own documents say that 28,000 people will lose income assistance over the next fiscal year — his own documents. Again to the minister: we have the numbers. Why is he so ashamed to admit that they're true? Hon. M.

Coell: Well, I'll give the member a couple of numbers: 100,000 jobs created in this province. Tens of thousands of people from income assistance found employment with a government that looks for people on income assistance to succeed in this province. The people on income assistance for the first time actually have a government that's helping them find prosperity, helping them get off income assistance and create better lives for themselves. The members of the NDP dream of the lofty days of $2 billion budgets, six in ten single parents on income assistance, one in ten members of the public on income assistance.

This gov- ernment has been helping people find employment and will continue to do so. EXPORT OF CATTLE TO U.S. D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Agri- culture, Food and Fisheries. As the members of this House are aware, the ranching industry was hard-hit this summer after a BSE-infected cow was discovered in Alberta. Cattle ranchers are facing difficult times with the partial border closure to Canadian beef that continues to be in place. Can the minister tell ranchers what steps he is taking to get the U.S.–Canada border reopened and to help ranchers get their cattle to mar- ket? Hon.

J. van Dongen: I want to acknowledge that there are media reports that the U.S. is getting ready to open the border for live cattle under 30 months. We have not been able to get any confirmation of that, and neither has the federal government. I want to reassure the cattle industry in British Columbia that we remain completely focused on trying to get the border opened, and that's a high priority. The Premier has been very active on this file, start- ing with the Premiers' conference in Kelowna. He's had meetings with the U.S. Ambassador, Paul Cellucci.

He has been in the western Governors' meeting in the United States with BSE on the agenda as a high prior- ity, and he intends to raise it in the next couple of days in Washington, D.C. So we remain very focused on getting the border opened, and hopefully the media reports are correct. IMPACT OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ON LEARNING R. Nijjar: The Minister of Education is working hard to increase physical activity in our schools and cites examples of high cases of obesity with our youth. However, does the minister have evidence that physi- cal activity is positively correlated with positive aca- demic outcomes? Hon. C.

Clark: I n f ac t , t he re i s a g re at d e al o f e v i - dence that links physical activity and improved cogni- tive function for kids, and it makes sense too. If kids are moving and their blood is moving, it's making their brains work better. There is absolutely no question that that's true.

So what we're doing in British Columbia, for the first time, is saying that rather than just recommending the amount of time that kids should spend being active in schools, we are going to start requiring it so that we can make sure every child in every school, in every classroom, is physically active for a certain amount of time every week so that we know they will learn better when they're in their schools. We need more incentive programs. We should be linking physical activity to things like the Olympics.

7350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 We have an incredible opportunity in 2010 to showcase the physical prowess of our population, to inspire kids to move and inspire kids to do better and reach further. That's what we should be doing in all our schools. We're starting now, we're going to be working for the future, and by 2010 we will have… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Clark: …a culture of sport in British Co- lumbia. [1435] INTEGRATION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES E. Brenzinger: My question today is to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

Surrey has been wrestling with a number of drug issues. As a community, we are working hard to ensure that neighbourhoods remain safe and that the medical needs of people with addic- tions are being met. This year, during estimates, the minister spoke of merging mental health and addiction services. Will the Minister of State for Mental Health tell the House what progress is being made to unite treatment of addictions and mental health services? Hon. G. Cheema: Prior to restructuring, 70 percent of the clients in B.C.'s addiction system were also pa- tients of the mental health system.

In 2002, for the first time in B.C., we brought addiction services directly into the health care delivery system and also began to integrate these two services with the mental health services to better meet the needs of the clients who were frequently excluded from both systems. I can give a few examples of the service improve- ments in the Fraser health authority. The Fraser health authority's plan will result in more detoxification ser- vices and youth services.

Through the new mental health funding, the Fraser health authority has created a dual diagnosis position in each of the mental health centres in the Fraser health authority. There has been a significant amount of cross-training between the addic- tions staff and the mental health staff, and a collabora- tive model has been developed between the Surrey primary care clinic and the mental health centres. We will continue to make improvements in mental health in this province. FEES FOR SENIORS' RESIDENTIAL CARE V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

Fee adjustments have been made to residential care for seniors, and while the client is obviously the prime concern, families in Vancouver-Langara want to know that they will be able to grow old together. The couple must face distance and financial challenge. While one goes into a care facility, the other must live on the re- maining income, having paid for much of this care. Can the minister explain what has been done to ensure the base income of the person remaining at home? Hon. K.

Whittred: The member does indeed raise a very good question, and that is why the ministry has taken great care to ensure that the well spouse who remains at home will have sufficient income to live comfortably. The co-pay is actually calculated twice. It is calculated, first of all, using it as a marriage deduc- tion. Secondly, it is calculated as though the person was single, and the best to the client of those two sums is the one that determines the co-pay. If that still is a hardship to the couple, then there is an appeal process.

So there is, I think, really good care taken to ensure that the person has good income to live comfortably. [End of question period.] Ministerial Statements FLOODING IN SQUAMISH-WHISTLER-PEMBERTON AREA Hon. R. Coleman: As requested by the Premier, I attended the communities of Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton yesterday and over the weekend to look at the damage and devastation and to talk to the commu- nities with regard to the emergency protection act and how it applied to their communities.

On behalf of the Premier, I'd first of all like to offer my condolences and his, and the condolences of this House, to the families who have lost loved ones in this disaster and prayers for those missing loved ones that they be found safe. I had the opportunity to tour the area yesterday and stopped and briefly spoke in Pemberton, where I met with the mayor and emergency program officials. I spoke to the mayor of Whistler, and I had the opportu- nity to meet with law enforcement, fire and all our emergency program people and a number of volun- teers on the ground.

Once again, as we saw last sum- mer, we saw people coming together in a tragedy. The volunteer effort is incredible. The number of hours being logged by people, from volunteer fire depart- ments through to emergency personnel, is staggering. We are sending more people into the area to help this community as they deal with this incredible issue. We want to assure the people that the province will be there, as it was in any other disaster. It would be there for food and water and for accommodations. [1440] In addition to that, something else was pretty re- markable to watch yesterday.

We have some pretty good people working for us in this province, particu- larly in our department of transportation and high- ways, who were on the ground yesterday actually putting in material at the one portion of washed-out road — so they could open the road to Whistler yes- terday afternoon — and already moving bridging material up to Rutherford Creek, south of Pemberton,

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7351 to start to rebuild that bridge. Hopefully, they'll have it open in 26 to 48 hours. That in itself, when you've seen the disaster and the water that's moving, is an incredible feat. In addition, disaster financial assistance will be provided by the province and the federal government and will be made available to the people who are af- fected by this disaster. In a natural disaster such as a flood, for which people and businesses cannot readily obtain private insurance, the program provides some compensation.

Each case is considered individually, and I encourage people to contact their local govern- ment office or a provincial emergency program office, or go to the Internet to www.pep.bc.ca to obtain an application form and file their claim. Once again we as a province are sent challenges because of the type of weather and structure and ter- rain that we experience as a province. We are up to the task to deal with these incidents as members of our communities come together in a program that works.

Again, on behalf of the Premier and the government, I want to thank everyone for their assistance, dedication and commitment to the communities they live in and to those people around the province who are with these people today. J. Kwan: The opposition would like to begin by saying that we want to send our condolences to the families of the people who have lost lives — the two people who died as a result of this tragedy — and the two people still missing. Our hearts go out to the fami- lies. We hope the two that are missing will be found safe very soon.

The Sea-to-Sky corridor is faced with tremendous challenges. Even as we speak, as the rain continues, families are still under threat. I know that the emer- gency teams are working very hard trying to pull to- gether all the efforts to deal with the situation. The personal losses experienced by the families, by the people in and around that community, can only be felt by the people who have experienced it, not unlike the people in the Kelowna region who have recently faced the fires. We now have another region which is faced with the floods.

The damages, the aftermath, are yet to begin for this region, for people to come to grasp the losses they have experienced, the shock and of course the disbelief. There is much work to be done as we speak in this Legislature. I am glad to hear that disaster relief will be in place for the families or individuals faced with these losses.

I hope that process will be short for the families as they're dealing with these difficult chal- lenges, and I hope that as we in the Legislature work on different items, we will continue in all of our best efforts to put forward prevention strategies as well to ensure that such tragedies can be minimized as much as possible. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 48. Second Reading of Bills AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) B. Belsey: It's an honour and a privilege to be able to speak to the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act.

This is a very important bill for many parts of communities on the north coast. This bill en- sures that potential aquaculture sites, finfish and shell- f i s h , a r e c o v e r e d i n t h e s a m e w a y w e l o o k a t l a n d - based farm sites. [1445] I have some fine examples of aquaculture that go on in my riding. There's a community called the Ki- tasoo, or Klemtu. It has been involved with aquacul- ture for a number of years now and has been able to put many citizens of its community to work. The goal was to have one person working in aquaculture in every household.

They have been able to achieve that goal. They have created jobs throughout their commu- nity. When you go to that community today, you can see the benefits of aquaculture and understand why it's important that in a bill such as this we affirm exactly the rights to carry on fish farming, whether it's shellfish or finfish. The right to farm is a system that has worked very well for the province, local government and the farm- ing industry. These amendments will not affect those communities that accept the spirit and the objectives of the right-to-farm system.

The amendments will en- courage local governments to plan for farming. They will support government in the agriculture and aqua- culture sectors. They clarify the legislation to ensure that industry's development is not constrained by the unnecessary and unreasonable regulations at the local government level. There have been a lot of people in the province that have spoken out against aquaculture, some of them very notable people. But you know, at one time they supported it. I have a

section out of Hansard, when, at the time, the minister for the environment, the Hon. Rafe Mair, spoke out in support of aquaculture. I'd just like to share that with you. His words were: "I think that this is one of the most exciting things that's come on stream, not just shellfish but the whole question of aquaculture. I think we're going to find a difference in the people's taste now that the Third World has decided that they are tired of being starved to death by the rest of the world.

I think we're going to find that there's going to be a great future for all the aquaculture schemes that are coming on stream, including shellfish that they've been talking about. The only disagreement I would have with you is that I think the prospects are greater than you say." An Hon. Member: Who said that? B. Belsey: Rafe Mair. It has been studied to death. People like David Su- zuki have single-handedly done more to destroy the

7352 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 economy of British Columbia than anybody else with his position on aquaculture. The B.C. environmental assessment office salmon aquaculture review , SAR, was a panel of 12 scientists. They concluded that salmon aquaculture as practised today in B.C. at the current level of production presents low probability of risk of adverse effects to the province's environment. [1450] The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administra- tion, NOAA, came out in their report and confirmed that salmon aquaculture presents a low overall risk to the environment.

For instance, NOAA asserts that the potential for farm salmon to spread disease to wild salmon represents a low risk and that the potential for escaped Atlantic farmed salmon to colonize or compete with wild Pacific salmon represents a very low risk. I applaud the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for bringing, under the umbrella of farming, the concerns that many have to ensure that farm sites for finfish aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture do have protection, that this industry can develop, and that greater jobs and better opportunities exist for peo- ple in the coastal communities I represent.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportu- nity. K. Stewart: I, too, rise to support the right to farm. It's interesting that 100 years ago in Canada, when we had a population of just over five million people, 40 percent of those people lived on farms. That's ap- proximately two million people 100 years ago. Today we have 32 million people in Canada, and of that num- ber, less than 3 percent actually live on farms. That's one million people today that are providing food to a population of 32 million, as compared to two million 100 years ago. I think that says a lot about the state of farming in Canada.

It's become highly industrialized. In many cases on the prairies you'll see that where there used to be many a farm, there are just a few very large farms. In British Columbia we have a situation where we have the boundaries of traditional farms now very tight to that of suburbs and cities. Much of the land that was farms 100, 50, 20 or even 15 or ten years ago is now cities, towns, suburbs, factories and institutions. All this land was once farmed. We have to look at what the benefits are of agricul- ture.

The local farms support the start of a food supply chain that has employment in many areas: food process- ing, delivery and even retail. The green spaces that are provided by our farms add to the lifestyle of many people who live in the suburbs. Conservation areas. Many farms provide areas of their land base for con- servation. I know on our farm we provide 90 acres of conservation space. There are many traditional lands that were not used for farming that have, in the past, been considered marginal.

These lands are now being u s e d i n m y a r e a f o r t h i n g s s u c h a s b l u e b e r r i e s a n d cranberry farming. When we look at the world situation in the produc- tion of food and farming, we look at Europe, where a cow in Switzerland will be directly subsidized up to 2,000 euro dollars per year. Now, if that cow happens to live for ten years, that's 20,000 euro dollars of direct subsidies for one cow. No wonder they can put those fancy bells on them in Switzerland. We have to look at why they put on such a large subsidy. It's because they know the importance of protecting your food supply.

They know how important it is that they have the food available in their towns, in their communities, in their cantons to ensure that they have an active supply of food. High-quality agricultural services and production are important to any civilization. They offset natural disasters, droughts, floods and other calamities that may befall us. The right to farm ensures that those farms continue. It ensures that there will be proper planning between the communities that are growing and the farms that are providing them with food.

I just wanted to take a moment to say to the House how important I think the right to farm is. I fully sup- port the minister in this bill. M. Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill 48, the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act. [1455] Before I address the substance of the bill before us, I'm going to fly off on the same tangent that the Leader of the Opposition did on the last business day in this House, when she went on a tirade about various as- pects of aquaculture.

It's nothing short of laughable that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, as she did on that day, that our Broughton Archipelago action plan is a failure. I wonder who she consulted when she arrived at this remarkable conclusion, be- cause while she was eloquent that day, her eloquence on this matter is matched only by her substantial igno- rance of the facts. Judging by her intervention in this debate, she is spectacularly misinformed. Even some- one with the most elementary grasp of salmon would know that pink salmon have a two-year cycle.

Fish protected by our plan in the spring of 2003 in the out- migration will not return until 2004. What does she have to say about the spectacular abundance of pink salmon returning to the Fraser River this year, many of which travelled through the areas where sea lice are alleged to be problematic? Anyone with an elementary grasp of salmon science knows that pinks are famous for varying abundance — large buildups followed by stock crashes. We can ex- pect more of the same, because that's what history has taught us. The Leader of the Opposition ignores science that doesn't accord with her own view.

Oh yes, she can cite

chapter and verse from her NDP buddy Jim Fulton and his friends at the Suzuki Foundation. Why, she can even read from a columnist in my own local paper who trots out her views. But she chooses not to cite the in- formation from DFO's recent work, which imparts new information about the occurrence of sea lice and its potential impacts. She fails to cite the knowledge that

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7353 fishermen could tell her if she took the trouble and time to ask them. Fishermen would tell her that sea lice are an inevitable and constant fact of life in coastal Brit- ish Columbia. Fish populations survive and prosper despite them. The Leader of the Opposition said in this debate: "Municipal governments know best." I assume that no- tion did not lie behind the 1995 Right to Farm Act passed by the disastrous government of which she was such a prominent member. But now the minister needs to clar- ify the 1995 act.

Suddenly the Leader of the Opposition insists that city hall knows best. Now, let me say that I think our city and town halls across the province are populated by dedicated people who seek election, who are trying to do their best for their communities — no question about that. What they do not necessarily have and what we do not ask them to have is a vision of what is good for the provincial rather than the local interest. That is the job of people who sit in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, in her intervention, appears not to understand the concept of provincial interest.

But then why am I surprised when for ten years she helped put the interest groups who sup- ported her ahead of the public provincial interest? Was it not the NDP that introduced the agricultural land reserve 30 years ago? What was that if not the kind of intrusion into the jurisdiction of local governments which the Leader of the Opposition would now place as such a high priority? You know, it's too bad she's wrong in that, because Bill 48 is not intended to reduce the authority of local governments in land use plan- ning. It doesn't change this government's commitment to ensure local input on aquaculture siting.

In fact, we've committed to the Union of B.C. Municipalities that together we will develop a protocol to ensure in- put at the local level. The Leader of the Opposition in her remarks the other day criticized me for saying my community in Nanaimo is doing fine. She used the background of a writer who writes for the Nanaimo Daily News , who claimed the sky was falling, and here I am, day after day, saying how great my community is. Well, so it is — and no thanks to her government, I might add.

I have never, ever denied the social problems that Nanaimo faces, and my colleagues on this side of the House will surely attest to that. But I do share the view of thousands of Nanaimo residents who think they live in one of the province's most desirable places, and nothing the Leader of the Opposition says or does will change their opinions. In fact, just last week the Insti- tute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. issued a report which documented that there are 6,600 new jobs on Vancouver Island in 2003. The unemployment rate in Nanaimo is down from 12.7 percent in 2001 to 8.6 per- cent in 2002.

That is attesting to the right track that this government is on. I will never, as long as I'm a member in this House, say anything other than the fact that my community has its problems. But it's a great place to live, and we are starting to move forward and leading this province in economic redevelopment.

I'm proud of that. [1500] This boring and repetitive tirade from the Leader of the Opposition, her continuing accusations of malfea- sance against members of the executive council, her conspiracy theories — and I think the one the other day was about No. 9 — are not only tiresome, but they're increasingly irrelevant to the majority of people in this province who simply want to get on with their lives and their businesses. What she needs to know is that when I accept a campaign contribution, I don't move into the pocket of the contributor, as she would have people believe.

Let her say the same about her relationship with the unions that have contributed to her cause over the years. I want to move on to the substance of this very im- portant bill. The right-to-farm principle is not new, but it is extremely important, as other members have said. The system has worked well for this province since the Right to Farm Act was introduced in 1995. It has done local government and farmers quite well for a number of years. The right-to-farm legislation exists not only to pro- tect agriculture but also for the benefit of those who live adjacent to farming areas, including aquaculture areas.

The existing legislation ensures that farmers fol- low acceptable practices and provides avenues for dis- pute resolution. This bill clarifies the existing law by allowing the government to designate Crown lands suitable for aquaculture as a farming area. I think we need to be clear in our understanding of this bill. The existing law has always applied to aqua- culture. The last government made that decision. All this bill does is clarify how the law applies to aquacul- ture. The amendments, as I said earlier, have been dis- cussed with the UBCM. We are working on a protocol for how this system will work.

The government has assured the UBCM that we will work together to that end. These amendments will not affect communities that accept the basic principle of the right-to-farm sys- tem. They will support and allow growth of the aqua- culture and agriculture industries under current regu- latory systems. Members know that I support the development of the aquaculture industry. I think investors in that in- dustry need a clear policy environment and consis- tency of treatment by governments. I also know there are agencies that are opposed to aquaculture.

Islands Trust, for example, has registered its opposition to this bill. I'm afraid I must differ with their

interpretation of the impact that this bill will have. In my opinion, the right to farm and the production of food under provincial law and regulation are a mat- ter of provincial interest. This bill clarifies that interest at no cost to local government. In fact, the amendments to the Right to Farm Act introduced by this bill encour- age local governments to plan for the development of the agriculture and aquaculture industries. The focus in the future is going to be on the identification of Crown lands that are technically and socially suitable for aquaculture. The right-to-farm system will focus on planning for farming at the local level, followed and

7354 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 supported by actions consistent with plans. It does not focus or require designation of Crown land as farming areas. Designation will take place only if necessary or helpful to support the objectives of the right-to-farm system. The right-to-farm system and changes proposed under this bill do not extend the system to apply to aquaculture. The system has always applied to aqua- culture. It does not apply to all bylaws; it applies only to zoning bylaws and farm bylaws that apply in farm- ing areas.

Most importantly, perhaps, it does not in- validate existing bylaws. I am pleased to offer my support to this bill, and I look forward to the vote and continuing debate. R. Visser: I, too, want to take a moment and speak in favour of Bill 48 and the right-to-farm legislation and its slight adjustments to include some practical con- cepts around aquaculture. I've gone over Hansard — t h e d e b a t e s o f a r . I ' v e r e a d t h e l e g i s l a t i o n .

I ' v e b e e n through some of the correspondence and some of the rhetoric that exists out in the public domain over the last few months, and I offer these comments. In 1995 the government of the day decided it was time to insert a provincial interest around the produc- tion of food through farming. The opposition of the day supported that, and I think that is an appropriate action.

I think it's equally appropriate today that we have this discussion around aquaculture, because what was good for the province and the provincial interest in 1995 is certainly good for the province and the provin- cial interest today. [1505] Aquaculture, despite the Leader of the Opposition's tirade, isn't about big corporate interests. It's not about all of those things they deride and call evil; it's about people. Aquaculture is about jobs. It's about people that stand out there and cultivate oysters on a raft in a cove — frankly, more often than not, in the middle of nowhere.

They stand there on a day like today, where it's going to rain as much as 100 millimetres. It's a lot of rain in a day to be out there working. I t h i n k i t ' s o k a y t h a t w e a d d r e s s s o m e o f t h e s e i s - sues, that we focus on those folks who are out there earning that first dollar. I talked about it earlier — that first dollar, the first dollar that allows us to generate wealth in this province. It allows us to pay for services in this province. It gives us some of the opportunities that many, many other countries in this world just do not have — to provide for our citizens.

So we need a little understanding and protection around that first dollar, that job and this economy. What the opposition misses and the critics miss all the time is that all of these decisions about the right to farm, aquaculture…. They need to recognize the con- text in which they are made. We do land use planning. W e hav e p e o p l e e m p l o y e d i n t he M i ni s t ry o f S u s t ai n- able Resource Management like Joe Truscott, like John Bones. They go out there and do marine planning. Those guys do great work.

They consult with commu- nities; they consult with first nations; they consult with industry groups. They travel up and down the coast of this province in small, economically identifiable or geographically identifiable or even culturally identifi- able areas and seek input on what goes where and how it might happen. In the case of North Island straits — through Port Hardy, the Broughton and others around that area, and in places like Quatsino — much of that work's been done. It's been done on the North Island straits. We know where we can put farm sites. We know where aquaculture has potential.

We know it now, ahead of time, before development occurs. What's critical about that is that we've had community buy-in, and we've had the discussion about what can go where, when it can go there and how it can go there. It's not good enough to say: "Well, that's the end of it." It's important to provide some certainty to those folks that make those investments out in those places. It's a challenging business; there is no doubt. It's challenging to fight the rhetoric; it's challeng- ing to fight the elements.

It's challenging to fight the mar- kets, to find the markets and to develop the products to move your industry forward. Those folks are up to that challenge, and it's in the provincial interest that we provide them with the secu- rity and the certainty they need to make those invest- m e n t s . I t ' s i n t h e p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t t h a t w e p r o v i d e relief valves for local governments and those citizens — farmers and upland or adjacent owners — to have avenues for arbitration, mediation and discussion so that we can have balance on the landscape. We've done planning in Nootka.

We're now in the process of planning the Johnstone Strait, and we've done the Cortes Island plan. It's good work. It's long overdue. It makes sense to start with what we call the top or the coarse filter and let it work down. [1510] It makes sense to provide certainty, because at the end of this provincial interest that we're all talking about, there are folks. There are biologists. There are plant workers. There are feed suppliers. There are fork- lift operators. There are truck drivers. There are ship captains. There are shipbuilders. There are suppliers.

There are all of these folks that have jobs, all of these folks that contribute to the province, to all of our well- being. It's up to the provincial government to get it right. It's up to the provincial government to protect their interests. It's up to the provincial government to help them navigate those waters that seem to be so contentious sometimes. I'm proud of this legislation. I'm proud of that min- ister for putting it forward, and I support it completely. V. Roddick: I, too, rise today in support of Bill 48.

This bill does not affect communities that accept the spirit and objectives of the right-to-farm system. It is designed to broaden the right-to-farm legislation so that all bylaws of a local council affecting agriculture and aquaculture are covered, not just zoning bylaw deci- sions. It ensures that potential aquaculture sites are cov- ered in the same way as the existing licence sites, which have been included in the right-to-farm legislation since

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7355 1995 under the previous NDP government and also supported by the then–B.C. Liberal opposition. Only two local governments, of which Delta is one, have been placed under the legislation by cabinet di- rection. We have committed to UBCM that together we will develop a protocol to ensure input at the local level. Delta South is a perfect example of rural/urban conflict, having 22,000 acres of intensive farming under cultivation and a relatively new urban population of approximately 55,000 people in the two main centres of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

At stake here is the modernization of our agricul- tural sector. Our B.C. greenhouse industry, with its farm-gate sales of over $220 million last year, made it one of the leading engines in horticulture and in agri- culture. Delta is seen as one of the best places in North America for greenhouse production, a renewable re- source which generates $160 million annually into Delta — both north and south. A new, green, independent power group with the GVRD dump and Canagro greenhouse — which, I might add, grows the most superlative cucumbers, peppers and tomatoes….

Its by-product is now going to produce enough electricity for 5,000 homes via our publicly owned B.C. Hydro. The greenhouse industry is helping to build our province as well as offering the world high-quality vegetables. Vegetables under glass or soil-based have to be transported to market. All our local Delta farmers are now facing difficulty moving their equipment and their produce on our local roads — roads built, I might add, by the farmers in the first place — with chicanes being put in place to preclude access by large, modern equipment and "no truck" signs suddenly appearing on main farm access routes.

Bill 48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, is necessary to ensure that our growing agricultural industry for both local and export markets may thrive sustainably for the benefit of all. These amendments encourage local governments to actively plan for agriculture and to ensure that local government regulation of farming operation is consis- tent with provincial interests. We still have to eat to live. Thank you for the op- portunity to speak in support of this bill. [1515] J.

Kwan: Two weeks ago my colleague the Leader of the Opposition gave an unplanned speech about Bill 52 after listening to the insulting remarks of the mem- ber for Maple Ridge–Mission. Now I find myself hav- ing to do the same thing. Earlier this afternoon the member for North Coast, in a desperate attempt to give credibility to his government's disastrous handling of the fish farm file, tried to rip apart the credentials and values of one of B.C.'s most renowned citizens. The member for North Coast said that no single person has done more to harm the economy of British Columbia than David Suzuki.

This member should be absolutely ashamed of his statement. Mr. Suzuki has been working for decades to improve British Columbia and all that live here. The member for North Coast should think a little more carefully before he whips off insults like that to one of B.C.'s most decorated citizens. For his awareness, I would like to read the biogra- phy from The Sacred Balance website: "Dr. David Suzuki is the host and on-camera guide in The Sacred Balance, the four-part television series based on the book of the same title he co-authored with Amanda McConnell. "Dr.

Suzuki is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. His television appearances, explaining the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way, have consistently received high acclaim for over 30 years. He is the only network television science host who was actually a practising scientist. "He is familiar to television audiences as host of CBC-TV's long-running series The Nature of Things , currently in its forty-second season. His work on that series has won him three Gemini awards and an ACTRA award as best host.

He was also host of the eight-part Planet For The Taking also on CBC-TV. His TV series for BBC and PBC, The Secret of Life , was internationally praised, as was his five-part series The Brain on the U.S. Discovery Channel. "He originated the popular CBC radio series Quirks and Quarks in 1974 and hosted it until 1979. In 1989 he hosted the five-part radio series It's a Matter of Survival. His most recent radio endeavour was the eight-part series From Naked Ape to Superspecies , broadcast on CBC radio and released in book form by Stoddart. "Dr. Suzuki was born in Vancouver in 1936.

In 1942, at age six, he was interned in the B.C. interior, along with his Canadian-born parents, under the War Measures Act. This ignominious experience turned out to be a 'defining moment' for young David. There was no school the first year, and he spent his time in the mountains exploring nature. He had been encouraged by his father, an amateur nature enthusiast, who used to take David camping and fishing. After the war the Suzuki family — which had lost its dry-cleaning business in B.C. — moved to Leamington and later London, Ontario…." Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.

Could we please return to the principle of Bill 48. J. Kwan: Yes. I was putting on the record…. Mr. Speaker: I understand, but let us return to the principle of the bill, please. J. Kwan: I am just about done here in terms of put- ting on the record Dr. Suzuki's credentials. As it relates to Bill 48, it's about this individual, who has done tre- mendous work in advocating for the environment, in protecting our environment in every single form.

The validity in relating this individual's credentials to Bill 48 is the validity of an external scientist and the work that they've done relative to the protection of the envi- ronment — mainly, the fish farm protection item that we're talking about, relating to Bill 48. [1520] As I was saying about Mr. Suzuki — his back- ground:

7356 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 He had moved to Leamington and later to London, Ontario, where David spent many hours exploring the nature of Point Pelee and the swamps around London. "Suzuki graduated from Amherst College in 1958 with an honours B.A. in biology and took his doctorate in zoology from University of Chicago. He held a research associateship in the biology division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1961 to '62 and was assistant professor of genetics at the University of Alberta in 1962- 63.

He then moved on to the University of British Columbia in 1963 as an assistant professor in zoology. In 1969, at age 33, he became a full professor. For three of those years he held the E.W.R. Steacie Memorial Fellowship for the outstanding research scientist in Canada under the age of 35. Prior to joining The Nature of Things, he ran the biggest genetics lab in Canada at UBC. He was also a professor at UBC's Sustainable Development Research Institute and is now an emeritus professor there. “Dr.

Suzuki is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and the Order of Canada and is the author of over a hundred publications in scientific journals and of 34 books. He originated and co-wrote the text Introduction to Genetic Analysis, which is currently in its sixth edition and is the most widely used genetics text in the world. His best-selling autobiography Metamorphosis: Stages in a Life describes his childhood as well as career in science, broadcasting…. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I think we've heard plenty on that. Let us get back to the prin- ciple of Bill 48, please. J.

Kwan: On the principle of Bill 48, I would hope that the member for North Coast will apologize for his remarks at his earliest convenience. After all, he's lash- ing out in a desperate attempt to discredit this gov- ernment's critics. Before he complains about these hard-working British Columbians, he should take a look at his own government's credibility. This government has no credibility on this file.

From secret meetings with CEOs, spilling insider in- formation, interfering in investigations and ignoring the threat of sea lice, this government has no right — no right whatsoever — t o m a k e s u c h a r e m a r k a b o u t the reputation of a citizen who has a longstanding re- cord on his stance on environmental issues and his knowledge base on environmental issues, just because that individual does not share this government's view. Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading of Bill 48, and the minister closes debate. Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to close second reading debate on Bill 48.

Just a couple of comments, first of all, with respect to the relationship of this bill to the Community Charter. The Community Charter does seek to maximize decision-making at the local level but always within the framework of a provincial interest. The policy of the Community Charter does estab- lish a number of areas where the province establishes the framework — areas such as health care, education, forests, agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas, and min- ing. Those are examples of sectors where the province seeks to establish the provincial interest, and the Community Charter respects that.

The Community Charter contemplates the respectful working relation- ship with local government, where — as I said — we maximize decision-making at the local level but always within a provincial framework. A comment about consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We have in the past year, starting last fall, had a very active consultative process with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It involved representa- tives from my ministry, from the Ministry of Commu- nity, Aboriginal and Women's Services and from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The process included the selection of a chair that was acceptable to everyone. It included a five-person committee and a comprehensive process, including a written report. The original proposal that we had of extending the agricultural land reserve to include new aquaculture sites was abandoned through that process. We have committed to continuing to meet formally with the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

We had a formal meeting with them after the committee process, and we have committed to work with them to work out the implementation of this bill. [1525] The member opposite quoted from a letter from the Comox-Strathcona regional district. I did have a meet- ing with the directors of the regional district to assure them that the comments I had made originally were not in any reference to their regional district.

It was referring to another municipality — namely Delta — and the experience we've had there of the municipality deliberately taking decisions that the province felt were unreasonable towards agriculture. I might add that in the previous government, the minister then had the same view of Delta's actions. There were also comments about the planning role of local government, and certainly this amendment to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act in no way undermines local government planning authority.

The province will continue to support local planning and planning at the local level, including full public par- ticipation. Our government, through the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, has been involved in comprehensive regional land use planning processes, and these have continued through our government as well as the previous government. Any decisions by cabinet in designating areas for potential new aquaculture will be based on their bio- logical suitability for aquaculture.

Then the more de- tailed level of planning and zoning decisions and that sort of thing, which normally take place at the local level, will continue to take place at the local level. The ultimate test is simply that local government treats aquaculture and agriculture in a fair and reasonable manner, as contemplated in the provincial guidelines. So with that, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 48. [1530-1535] Second reading of Bill 48 approved on the follow- ing division:

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7357 YEAS — 62 Falcon Coell Halsey-Brandt Whittred Cheema Hansen Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Masi Lee Hagen Murray Plant Clark Bond de Jong Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Bell Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Hon.

J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Coell: I call committee stage on Bill 35. [1540] Committee of the Whole House ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 3:41 p.m. Hon. S. Bond: I want to take the opportunity to introduce to the House the staff with me today as we look at committee stage debate on Bill 35. I have, on my left, Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister for post- secondary education; and on my right, Tony Loughran, the manager of legislation.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. Kwan:

Section 2 of this legislation is being amended, we understand, to simplify the obligations of the minister. The legislation would no longer contain obligations to coordinate continuing education pro- grams or to require institutions to submit annual budg- ets. Instead of establishing post-secondary policies in consultation with institutions, the minister, as we un- derstand, will be at the table with the newly created board. Could the minister please advise the House what the specifics are of the mandate of the new board? Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps we need to have the ques- tion clarified slightly, because this particular

section deals with relationships with boards that govern insti- tutions — in particular, working directly with institu- tions and presidents. So unless I misunderstood the question, I'd be happy to have the member opposite clarify that for me. J. Kwan: I'm looking at the old act, and under sec- tion 2, "Powers and duties of minister," it reads: "The minister must do the following: (

a) establish, in consultation with the boards, policy or directives for post-secondary education and training in British Columbia; (

b) provide services the minister considers necessary to an institution, and the minister may require the institution to use the services provided; (

c) make an annual report for the fiscal year to the Legislature about the state of post-secondary education and training in British Columbia; (

d) coordinate continuing education programs; (

e) require institutions to submit to the minister annual budget proposals in a form satisfactory to the minister." [1545] The new act we're now dealing with amends this by substituting the following: "(

a) establish, in consulta- tion with institutions, policy or directives for post- secondary education and training in British Columbia." I take that to mean the duties and powers that were formerly described in the legislation are now being repealed and substituted with this one sentence in sub (a). I would take it that the board that would be estab- lished would then take on many of the responsibilities that the minister was to perform. I'm just wondering whether or not that is the case.

What role would the board be playing, and what is the mandate of the board if the minister is no longer going to be doing this work? Or will the minister con- tinue to do this work? Maybe I'm just misreading this altogether, and even though the language that was in the legislation is being repealed, the minister will carry on doing those duties. Hon. S. Bond: There will be no new board created. In essence, what we're doing is bringing into more cur- rency the legislation in which boards currently do these things in this way.

The boards we're talking about are actual governing boards of institutions, and we're sim- ply saying that they should continue to do the things

7358 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 that they do. We're bringing this legislation in line with current practice. There is no creation of a new structure of any sort. We're simply streamlining and clarifying roles of existing boards that govern institutions. J. Kwan: Am I right in reading the legislation, un- der

section 2 — the items (

a) to (

e) that I read out ear- lier — that the minister will no longer be performing those duties? Or is it implicit that the minister will be performing those duties, but it states that somewhere else in the legislation? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, practice would be that the minister isn't doing them now and hasn't for a number of years. Let me give you an example.

In existing legis- lation if you take sub-subsection 2(1)(d), it's: "coordi- nate continuing education programs." The Minister of Advanced Education does not do that, so what we're doing with the amendment is simply bringing this leg- islation — the bill — into line with current practice. J. Kwan: Does the minister review the annual budget proposals from the institutions? That's being taken out now too. Hon. S. Bond: The system doesn't work that way and hasn't for a number of years. There aren't proposals pre- sented to the minister.

In fact, our institutions work to- gether with the ministry, with an educational plan. A budget is created based on that, and it's dealt with by block funding. So in fact, we don't do that any longer. J. Kwan: For how long haven't we done that? Hon. S. Bond: We can certainly get the exact details around that. My staff is suggesting it's been at least a decade since that has not been done in that particular manner. We're simply trying to bring legislation into line with practice.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Kwan:

Section 3 is amended so that the minister will be allowed to require that an institution grant an applied master's degree. Could the minister please advise: what is an applied master's degree? Hon. S. Bond: An applied degree, either at the mas- ter's level or even an applied baccalaureate, is a degree that focuses very specifically on a work component, a work approach — a career-based degree. We're cur- rently working on the

definitions as we bring the De- gree Authorization Act into practice. In fact, it is not a typical arts and science degree. It is very much focused on career, a work-type focus. [1550] J. Kwan: The criteria that the minister will be con- sidering for this applied degree which the minister is working on right now…. Would that be made public once this is known? How would the process take place whereby a person is granted an applied degree?

Does a person apply to be granted an applied degree to the minister, or does the minister just wake up one day, and she has an idea or someone gives her an idea that so-and-so should receive an applied degree? How would that process work? Hon. S. Bond: The process for receiving a degree, whether it be applied or in essence a more traditional academic degree, would be similar. An institution would make a proposal to have the right to grant a degree. What's different is not the process. What's dif- ferent is the content and the focus of the degree. In terms of the criteria, yes, they will be made pub- lic.

In fact, the proposals will be made public, as the system will have proposals made on line actually. There will be an opportunity for people to look at new degree-granting proposals from various institutions as they post them and go through that process of ap- proval through the Degree Authorization Act. J. Kwan: I hate to say this. It's been a repeated pat- tern now that the Solicitor General has distracted me for part of the answer. I missed the part about how a person goes about receiving the degree. Sorry, I was…. Hon. S. Bond: Just to repeat that….

I can probably do a better job of it the second time around too. In essence, they'll receive a degree the same way they receive a traditional academic degree or any other type of degree. What's different is the content and fo- cus of the degree. It will be work- or career-related. An institution will come through the degree authorization process and say: "We would like to offer an applied master's degree." The criteria will be made public, as will the proposal. Once it's approved, students will sign up and receive a degree.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Kwan:

Section 4. I would assume, then, that the applied bachelor's degree, as well as the applied mas- ter's degree — well, we already dealt with the master's degree — would be the same process as the master's degree that the minister outlined. Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. D. Jarvis: I would just like to ask the minister if it was possible under this section. Would they be able to give degree-granting status to, say, Capilano College in my riding? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, Capilano already has the first applied degree in terms of this new process. This

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7359 would allow them to continue that process to add addi- tional applied degrees — absolutely. J. Kwan: That's just prompted a question. I would assume that this process is open for any institution, though. It's not specific to any one, but it's open to any institution that might want to go through the process. Hon. S. Bond: That's absolutely correct. Obviously, the rationale and logic behind a process like this is to increase opportunity and choice for students at colleges and institutes.

The ability for colleges to grant applied degrees is quite historic, actually, and something that we're very proud of, and it absolutely applies to all institutions.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. J. Kwan:

Section 6 amends

section 31 of the act it- self, which would mean that institutions will no longer be able to plan or incur deficits. Previously, this was allowable with the liability approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education. The money for expenditures and emergency funding pro- vided previously is being repealed. Likewise, the posi- tion of a bursar, a financial adviser to the board, is also being eliminated.

This, of course, is of concern to the opposition, considering this minister and this govern- ment's record on underfunding institutions while de- manding more seats — which puts, of course, the bur- den onto their students. [1555] Here are just some of the stats to put on the record from the Advanced Education service plan. Funding to institutions will be cut by $90 million by '05-06. The funding decrease does not address higher student numbers and increasing participation rates. The fund- ing levels will not even compensate for inflation.

In- creases in funding for student financial aid are occur- ring in tandem with unprecedented tuition increases. The allocated funds will not be able to keep pace with the growth in student numbers, much less the increase in costs. All the colleges, university colleges and institutes, except for Malaspina, will receive less in '06 than in '02- 03. At the same time they will be required to fund over 3,400 new spaces. As a result, funding per student will be reduced throughout the province.

The provincewide colleges are looking at a situation where less than a third of their spaces will be funded by government, and by '05 per-student funding will hit a 30-year low. Earlier this year the Okanagan University College received some extra funding after the minister an- nounced $12 million of savings had been found in the ministry. At the same time she announced the extra funding, she demanded more seats. The funding was not even enough to cover the imposed increases. The Okanagan University College ended up losing $122 per student, and again the burden has been transferred to the students.

As a result, OUC students are facing a 38 percent tuition increase on top of last year's 65 percent increase. The question I have for the minister is: why is the government eliminating this provision, in terms of in- curring a deficit? What's the rationale behind that? Hon. S. Bond: Well, we actually believe that institu- tions, even in challenging times, should manage budg- ets well. We think that starts at government, and it should be obvious to institutions that they should work to manage budgets within the budget they have. J.

Kwan: It's funny, coming from a government who actually incurred the highest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia — this Liberal government. Of course, what she calls challenging times is off- loading more demands onto the universities, onto the colleges, without actually funding them. As I had pointed out earlier, that simply translates to the stu- dents on the ground, and that's what we're seeing right now. Even the notion of money for expenditures for emergency funding, which was previously supplied or provided for, is now being repealed, and I find that shocking, actually.

In the case around emergencies and so on, why would the minister even eliminate that pro- vision in the case around emergencies? Obviously, emergencies arise when people don't anticipate such things occurring. What's the recourse, then, for these institutions? Hon. S. Bond: I guess I'm just surprised that one would suggest that a statement that says an institution must not plan for or incur a deficit does not make good, sound financial practice for the province of Brit- ish Columbia. In fact, that's how institutions should manage their budgets.

Obviously, it says that if a defi- cit should occur at any time during that year, the board must come to the minister quickly and say: "Here's what we think we need to be able to do to manage that deficit, should that occur." So from my perspective, that's very acceptable and appropriate accountability for the use of public dollars in this province. J. Kwan: The issue that I take with the minister on the notion around my concerns is that it's not only the concept that the minister is saying — that they should not plan for or incur deficits. It's taken out of the legis- lation

whereas, before, emergency funding would be provided in legislation. That's now being taken out; that's being repealed. So that's a stark difference. It's one thing to say: "Hey, you know what? You should try not to do a deficit." By the by, this government has condemned deficits ever since it was in opposition. You know what? Once they came into government, this Liberal government incurred the highest deficit ever in the history of B.C. The members behind me are saying, "Get off it," but you know what? Those are the facts. You don't like them? That's the reality.

7360 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 Interjection. [1600] J. Kwan: Excuse me? The member for Cariboo South is saying that it's a lie. It is not a lie. It is absolutely true that this Liberal government incurred the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia. That is a fact. I challenge any member in this House to dispute that. All they have to do is look at the budget books. The question to the minister is emergency funding. Why is she repealing that provision? Hon. S. Bond: Well, I just want to, first of all, clarify exactly what we're discussing here.

Certainly, in sec- tion 6 it says that 31(1) is repealed and the following is substituted. If I go back to the original bill, there is a

section that talks about if an emergency exists. "Despite subsection (1), if the minister considers that an emer- gency exists, the minister may authorize an institution to make an expenditure…." If that's the

section the member opposite is talking about, we're only repealing

section 1, which says that you cannot plan for a deficit. In essence, looking at certainly what I see in our bill in the amendments, only subsection (1) is repealed — not subsection (3), which talks about the emergency fund- ing you're concerned about.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. J. Kwan:

Section 7 repeals sections 32 and 39 of the old act. If you go to

section 32 of the act, it reads: "To cover a liability or expenditure approved under

section 31 (1), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may (

a) increase a grant for operating expenses, or (

b) direct the institution to include provision for the liabil- ity or expenditure in its budget for the next fiscal year." Then 39 goes on to say: "

(1) Each board must ap- point a bursar to exercise powers and perform duties assigned to the bursar by the board.

(2) The bursar must advise the board on all financial matters of the institution.

(3) Unless the board, by resolution, directs that the bursar be excluded from its meeting, the bur- sar or the bursar's designate must attend all meetings of the board." The question to the minister is…. This

section of the act explicitly takes out the notion of emergency fund- ing, yet previously the minister said the notion of emergency funding still exists. If that's the case, then why would this

section be repealed, especially as it relates to the emergency funding component? Hon. S. Bond: Leaving 31(3) in allows us to make s u r e t h a t i n t h e c a s e o f a n e m e r g e n c y , t h a t p o t e n t i a l still exists for the minister to deal with that. In fact, by leaving 31(3) in, we do have the ability to deal with the emergency provisions. J. Kwan: Is the minister then saying that in repeal- ing

section 7, which is sections 32 and 39, there are no ramifications whatsoever for institutions to get emer- gency funding from the minister? Hon. S. Bond: What the amendments mean is that an institution has to provide for us a deficit manage- ment plan, which has not been required previous to this. Certainly, subsection 31(3) allows for the provi- sion of emergency circumstances. It must be in the con- text of a deficit management plan. [1605] J.

Kwan: The minister says that previously institu- tions were not required to provide for a deficit man- agement plan, but previously, where the institution incurs a deficit, that deficit must be approved by the minister. Therefore, work must be done by the institu- tion. For the minister to suggest that is not required, I actually don't think is true. In my reading of the old act, it actually states that for a deficit to be incurred, the Minister of Finance — which used to be called Finance and Corporate Relations — a s w e l l a s t h e M i n i s t e r o f Advanced Education must approve it.

Therefore some planning must be done, I would assume, with the insti- tution. Hon. S. Bond: In previous practice, institutions had to demonstrate they had a debt and they had a deficit. What this does is strengthen our ability to actually deal with deficit circumstances. They now have to have a deficit management plan. J. Kwan: So the question to the minister about trig- gering the need for emergency funding from the minis- ter….

With this amendment, is the minister saying that there is no change whatsoever for institutions should the need for emergency funding be required, since the same process is in place as the legislation before it was amended? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, if an institution is going to incur a deficit for any reason, they must come to the ministry quickly. Interjection. Hon. S. Bond: I t i s t w o d i f f e r e n t c a s e s , a n d t h a t ' s what I'm going to talk about.

So if they're going to incur a deficit for any reason, they come to us in the context of a deficit management plan in terms of how they're going to manage that. Then, in the case of extraordinary circumstances, there exists the potential for the minister to deal with emer- gency circumstances because of 31(3). J. Kwan: So that means no changes at all, in terms of the process and the availability of emergency funding for institutions. I just need a simple answer — yes or no. Hon. S.

Bond: There is a change in the sense that in order to deal with deficits of any nature, they need to come to the ministry with a deficit management plan.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7361 J. Kwan: The minister keeps saying that if there's an emergency that triggers additional funding — which then would mean, if you follow that logic, that the in- stitution would end up running a deficit — it is only when those emergencies surface that that would have to have the approval of the minister, etc. For the minis- ter to deal with this issue, the institution must come forward with a deficit management plan, but there's no provision within which the minister actually touches on emergency funding.

When I talk about emergency funding, I don't mean to say the institution would be allowed to run a deficit. I mean to say: will the minister provide assistance, ad- ditional funding, to address the situation? That, to me, is what emergency funding is — not emergency fund- ing that says; "Okay, you have an emergency; too bad, so sad." We're not going to help you, but this year we'll allow to you run a deficit, which will only mean for the institution, at the end of the day, that they'll have to cut programs or off-load those costs onto their students. Hon. S.

Bond: Provision exists for the minister to deal with emergency circumstances. Having said that, the first and most important thing an institution would be asked to do would be to look within its own fiscal framework, come to the ministry and be prepared to deal with it through a deficit management plan. But the possibility still exists for the minister to deal with emergency circumstances because of 31(3). J. Kwan: What would the minister deem to be emergency situations that would actually allow for an institution to get additional funding from the minister? [1610] Hon. S.

Bond: Obviously, the word "emergency" denotes the fact that it can't be something that exists or is as a result of the day-to-day management of an insti- tution, so it would have to be unexpected and signifi- cant. From our perspective, the first place that institu- tions would need to look is within their own fiscal en- velopes, but obviously the word "emergency" denotes a certain set of circumstances that would not be consid- ered within the day-to-day management or operation of an institution. J.

Kwan: In the situation that's actually happening right now where, as an example, the government — this minister — is underfunding institutions but at the same time is demanding more seats from the institu- tion, that puts more of a burden onto the students. In that instance, the minister — I would assume — by demanding more seats, would deem that not to be an emergency in terms of pressures on the institution. When the minister says "emergency," what would she qualify as an emergency? Can the minister give me a concrete example of what would be deemed to be an emergency? Hon. S.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1020pm 02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1020pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	eb0f332eb8106b4a77e56a9d9167413d76c10b89

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